Category: Speeches

  • Nigel Adams – 2021 Statement on Electoral Reforms in Hong Kong

    Nigel Adams – 2021 Statement on Electoral Reforms in Hong Kong

    The statement made by Nigel Adams, the Minister for Asia, in the House of Commons on 10 March 2021.

    The United Kingdom is deeply concerned about the situation in Hong Kong and the erosion of rights enshrined under the Sino-British joint declaration. In response to these worrying developments, the United Kingdom has already taken decisive action. This includes offering a bespoke immigration path for British nationals overseas, suspending our extradition treaty with Hong Kong indefinitely and extending our arms embargo on mainland China to Hong Kong. The United Kingdom has led international action to hold China to account. As recently as 22 February, the Foreign Secretary addressed the UN Human Rights Council to call out the systematic violation of the rights of the people of Hong Kong, making it clear that free and fair legislative elections must take place with a range of opposition voices allowed to take part.

    On the question raised by the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), this week meetings of China’s National People’s Congress are taking place behind closed doors. We understand that the agenda includes proposals for changes to Hong Kong’s election processes. Although the detail is yet to be revealed, these measures might include changes to the election of the Chief Executive, the removal of district councillors from the Chief Executive election committee and the possible introduction of vetting for those standing for public office to ensure that they are described as patriots who govern Hong Kong. Such measures, if introduced, would be a further attack on Hong Kong’s rights and freedoms.

    Ahead of possible developments this week, the United Kingdom has raised our concerns, including with the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Hong Kong Government and the Chinese embassy in London, as have many of our international partners. The Chinese and Hong Kong authorities can be in no doubt about the seriousness of our concerns. Given recent developments, including the imposition of the national security law last year, the imposition of new rules to disqualify elected legislators in November and the mass arrests of activists in January, we are right to be deeply concerned. We are seeing concerted action to stifle democracy and the voices of those who are fighting for it.

    There is still time for the Chinese and Hong Kong authorities to step back from further action to restrict the rights and freedoms of Hongkongers, and to respect Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy. We will continue working with our partners to stand up for the people of Hong Kong and hold China to its international obligations, freely assumed under international law, including through the legally binding Sino-British joint declaration.

  • Daniel Kawczynski – 2021 Speech on the Nord Stream 2 Pipeline

    Daniel Kawczynski – 2021 Speech on the Nord Stream 2 Pipeline

    The speech made by Daniel Kawczynski, the Conservative MP for Shrewsbury and Atcham, in the House of Commons on 10 March 2021.

    The Nord Stream 2 pipeline is a gas pipeline being constructed on the bottom of the Baltic sea between Russia and Germany. It is bypassing all of our allies in central and eastern Europe, fellow NATO partners that have in the past been put under the most extraordinary pressure by the Russians over energy supplies. That is why I am so concerned about this project for the security of NATO and our responsibilities to our allies in central and eastern Europe.

    Although it is not possible for many Members of Parliament to be in the Chamber this evening, we have written to the Prime Minister in the past. Over 35 Conservative Members of Parliament have co-signed a letter on this issue to the Prime Minister, and there are many more in other parties who also have grave concerns about this project.

    I can understand why, during the Brexit negotiations and indeed when we were negotiating a trade agreement with the European Union, this Government may have expressed a certain amount of caution on this issue. Taking into consideration the extraordinary power of Germany within the European Union and the extraordinary power that Germany has over the European Commission, it may not have been wise for the United Kingdom at that juncture to follow our American partners and others in agitating on this issue.

    Nevertheless, that time has now passed, and we are now an independent sovereign nation state. We are also a permanent member of the UN Security Council—a privilege peculiar to only five countries in the world—as well as the fifth largest economy in the world and arguably the strongest military power on our continent. With those extraordinary privileges and attributes for Britain come extraordinary responsibility, and that is why I believe this Government must now take a lead on our continent in having this project stopped.

    The project is a threat to NATO security and cohesion. Now, with North Macedonia joining our alliance, we have 30 members of this most successful military alliance. I think it is like being a member of a special club with a gold American Express card. This is one of the most successful military alliances in the world, but we do not just have responsibility in protecting our fellow NATO members from invasion; we also have a duty of care, in the letter and the spirit of our obligations under NATO, to ensure that our NATO partners in central and eastern Europe are not blackmailed and intimidated by the Russians over energy supplies. The Americans understand this. They understand the great threat to NATO, but also to the continent of Europe, in allowing this project to come to fruition. It is very close to completion, but it still can be stopped.

    I know there are many here who do not particularly respect former President Trump, but he said the wisest thing that I have heard so far when he sat at a table with the Secretary-General of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg, and said to them, “You expect us to send troops to Poland and the Baltic states, and to protect you. You expect us to spend hundreds of billions of pounds every decade in protecting your continent, yet you—the Secretary-General of NATO—are allowing one NATO partner,” namely Germany, “to, for its own reasons, create this direct link with Russia, giving the Russians an umbilical cord for the export of their gas.” We have all heard about the terrible trouble the Russian economy is in already. This is an umbilical cord from the heart of Europe to Russia, giving it the extraordinary opportunity of not only exporting to Europe, but putting our NATO allies under threat.

    Several hon. Members rose—

    Daniel Kawczynski

    I will just make a couple of extra points, and then I will give way.

    Following President Trump, we now have President Biden, who has appointed as his deputy Secretary of State —one of the most powerful positions in Washington—a lady called Wendy Sherman. In the Senate nomination hearings, when she was being assessed by the other Senators, she said that the Biden Administration would do

    “whatever is lawful to stop the pipeline”.

    The Americans are our closest security and military partners, and as a fellow permanent member of the UN Security Council, if they are prepared to take the lead on our continent on this hugely strategically important issue, we must join them. I have written to Senator Ted Cruz from Texas this week, who is the leading proponent in the American Senate of stopping this project. He and 40 other Republican Senators have written to the President, calling for the Americans to implement sanctions against any company and any individual involved in this project. The chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee in the Senate, Bob Menendez, a Democrat, has also spoken against this project.

    I just want to say one thing before I take interventions. As an independent sovereign nation with an ability to influence our continent now in an unprecedented way, unfettered by the communal constraints of the European Union, if we now join the Americans as two permanent members of the UN Security Council, I think we could possibly stop this project. So many companies involved in the construction of this pipeline, whether Swiss companies or others, are so frightened of the prospect of sanctions against them that they are likely to pull out of the project, and this project will be stopped. Britain is at the forefront in this see-saw between Germany and Russia, and many of our NATO partners in central and eastern Europe and the Americans. It will be Britain that ultimately decides which side of this extraordinary debate wins out and guarantees the security of our NATO partners.

    Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

    I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on having brought this issue forward: this is the place for these decisions to be debated. The foreign policy issues surrounding Nord Stream are deep and complex, as he has referred to. I fully agree that we must be wary of reliance on unreliable states. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the recent reports of state-sponsored attacks on protesters in Russia are a sobering reminder, if one is needed, that there is more of a cost to be paid from being in thrall to Russia than money?

    Daniel Kawczynski

    I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman, and will talk about some of the extraordinary behaviour of Russia in its own neighbourhood and domestically within its own jurisdiction, and how it is undermining and subverting democracy in its own country.

    When I was on the Foreign Affairs Committee I called for dialogue with the Russians. I still stand by that. I think we have to talk to these people, but we have to do so from a position of strength. Giving them this umbilical cord to the heart of Europe undermines that negotiating position. One thing we know about the Russians was taught to us by Reagan and Thatcher—Thatcher invited Gorbachev to Chequers in December 1984, the first western leader to invite him for discussions. They taught us that we can only negotiate with those people from a position of strength. Divided among us, they will eat us for breakfast.

    Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)

    I agree with every word the hon. Gentleman has said in the debate and I congratulate him on securing it. It is a geostrategic mistake for Germany to encourage this, and we need to get the French on board. If we have three out of the five Security Council members, that is an even stronger position. I am anxious that the UK Government seem to be going a bit quiet on this issue, as they have on the imprisonment of Alexei Navalny, which is yet another flagrant abuse of human rights in Russia.

    Daniel Kawczynski

    I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention and agree with every word that he has said. Later in my speech, I will chide my own Government. They have been almost mute on this issue, and that position does not reflect the urgency of the situation and the responsibility that our country has.

    Countries in central and eastern Europe are not just leaving this all to us to deal with. They have created the Three Seas initiative; 12 countries, all of whom are members of the European Union, and all of whom are members of NATO—apart from Austria. It is a regional, relatively homogeneous bloc. The 12 member countries are on the frontline with Russia. My office and I have spent the past few weeks interviewing all the ambassadors from these 12 countries. We have interviewed 10 out of 12 so far, and we will be writing a report for Members of Parliament about the initiative. These countries are trying to create strategic investments across the whole bloc to safeguard individual members from undue Russian pressure.

    Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)

    The strategic problem is this, is it not? By putting the Nord Stream 2 pipeline straight into Germany, Germany can guarantee its gas supplies from Russia. On the other hand, these countries in eastern Europe—the Three Seas, as it were—could be blackmailed by Russia and picked off from the rest of NATO. That is the strategic problem with Nord Stream 2.

    Daniel Kawczynski

    My hon. Friend, who is such an excellent speaker with so much experience in military matters, has managed in a few words to sum up the whole situation more succinctly than I could in half an hour. I am grateful to him.

    Poland and Croatia have been the instigators of the Three Seas initiative. Both countries have built liquified gas terminals on their coastlines. The whole thing about the Three Seas initiative is that the investments seek to create additional pipelines so that more of this liquified gas can be sent inland to landlocked neighbours and NATO partners. Poland is also buying a huge amount of liquified gas from America and from Norway, and has invested billions of dollars in its liquified gas terminal at Świnoujście on the Baltic coast—I would like to see Hansard deal with the spelling of that. I shall help them with the spelling of Świnoujście. Is that not an amazing example, Mr Deputy Speaker? If a country is a member of NATO, that exclusive club or organisation that has not lost a square inch of territory since its inception 70 years ago, surely the next step should be to do as Poland is doing, which is to buy gas from America or Norway, even if it costs a little bit more, so that it is not dependent on Russian gas supplies.

    I would like the Minister to give me an assurance that the Foreign Office is working hand in glove with the Department for International Trade to assess what opportunities there are for British companies to participate in the construction of these pipelines within the Three Seas jurisdiction, and to assist and invest in these liquified gas terminals on the coastlines of the Adriatic sea, the Black Sea and the Baltic sea so that we have some of the greatest energy companies in the world. That is important not only for British strategic and financial interests, but in helping our fellow NATO partners in central and eastern Europe.

    Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con) rose—

    Daniel Kawczynski

    I give way to the Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee.

    Dr Lewis

    I wonder what reasons Germany has given, at least publicly, for its behaviour, given the overwhelming case against Nord Stream 2 outlined by my hon. Friend. I cannot help being put in mind of that famous quotation, which may or may not have correctly been attributed to Lenin, that the west and the capitalists

    “will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.”

    Daniel Kawczynski

    I could not have put the situation better. Germany, in a rather peculiar statement the other day, did not really explain why it is building this pipeline. Clearly, it is a stitch-up between the Russians and the Germans. They do not want to rely on the transportation of gas through Belarus, Ukraine or Poland—countries that the Russians have problems with. Russia does not want to rely on exporting its main commodity through those countries; it wants to have a direct link under the sea, so that Germany, irrespective of its obligations to NATO, can have that direct access to Russian gas.

    Bob Stewart

    Will my hon. Friend give way?

    Daniel Kawczynski

    I will not give way for the moment.

    It is a very selfish act on Germany’s part and inconsistent with NATO membership. The Germans have also said that it is something to do with their obligations to Russia in terms of reparations from the second world war. They need to help the Russians with the construction of this pipeline out of some sense of duty over war reparations. If that is the case, Poland is still waiting for its war reparations 80 years on.

    I am very grateful to have secured this Adjournment debate, but it should not be for me, a Back-Bench Tory MP, to raise this issue. It should be the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary explaining the threat of this project to our electorate. I suspect that, if most of us went back to our constituencies and started talking about the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, not many people would be cognisant of it. It should be the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary who are leading the way in explaining to our citizens the threat that this project poses to our allies and, ultimately, to us. One thing that we have learned from history is that if there is instability in central and eastern Europe—if these countries are threatened, blackmailed or invaded—which country always get sucked into it? It is the United Kingdom. We have seen too much instability on our continent to allow Britain to be sucked into that. We need a statement from the British Government that we will implement sanctions on every company and individual involved in this project and it must start with the former German Chancellor, Gerhard Schröder, who was earning an eye-watering salary at the very pinnacle of this organisation—

    Dr Lewis

    Gazprom.

    Daniel Kawczynski

    Yes, Gazprom, as my right hon. Friend says.

    Germany is behaving in a selfish and dangerous way and in a way that is incompatible with its responsibilities to NATO. As I have also said, let us talk to the Russians, but let us do it from a position of strength.

    We have all seen—the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) has been one of the most vocal on this—the outrageous behaviour of the Russians within the neighbourhood, whether in Georgia, the butchery that took place in South Ossetia, in Ukraine, or the ongoing deliberate violation of the Baltic states’ maritime and airspace. I went to Ukraine when I was on the Foreign Affairs Committee. We went to Donetsk and Luhansk in eastern Ukraine. I have never seen anything like it in my 15 years as a Member of Parliament. It was like being on the face of the moon. Everything was destroyed. Nothing was left standing. It was a wasteland. We on the Foreign Affairs Committee saw what the Russians are capable of in Ukraine.

    The two countries that this pipeline will violate most are indeed Ukraine and Belarus. The Government are trumpeting their agreement with the Ukrainians on the Government website, saying just this month,

    “UK and Ukraine sign Political, Free Trade and Strategic Partnership”.

    “A strategic partnership” with Ukraine—there is a photograph of the Prime Minister with the President of Ukraine signing the agreement, and it says:

    “UK cooperation in political, security and foreign matters with Ukraine”.

    How can we sign a strategic partnership with the Ukrainians while at the same time kicking the chair from underneath them, by allowing the one last power that they have over the Russians—the fact that they have to export their gas from Ukraine—not to happen? This agreement it is not going to be worth the paper it is written on, if this project is allowed to come to a conclusion.

    Bob Stewart

    Will my hon. Friend give way?

    Daniel Kawczynski

    In a second.

    Let me turn to Belarus. We have all seen on our television screens the brave young men and women fighting against the brutal dictator in Minsk. A few years ago, I went on a parliamentary delegation to Minsk, where I saw at first hand how this brutal authoritarian regime suppresses its own people. But one day, Lukashenko will be gone and this will be a new, independent, sovereign fledgling state. Can hon. Members imagine in two, three, four or five years’ time—whenever it is—when the democratic Government of Belarus are seeking finally to join the rest of Europe as a sovereign state, what position they will be in if this gas does not have to go through their country and just goes straight to Germany under the sea? It will be the greatest impediment to the democratisation of Belarus, and we have a duty and responsibility to that country as a fellow European partner.

    I must now conclude. By allowing this pipeline, we not only betray our NATO allies; we empower Russia in an unprecedented way to manipulate Belarus and Ukraine. I look forward to the Minister’s response to my genuine fears and the fears of many colleagues from across the House.

  • Chloe Smith – 2021 Statement on Tackling Intimidation in Public Life

    Chloe Smith – 2021 Statement on Tackling Intimidation in Public Life

    The statement made by Chloe Smith, the Minister for the Constitution and Devolution, in the House of Commons on 9 March 2021.

    I wish to update hon. Members on the steps that the Government are taking to tackle intimidation in public life.

    In July 2017, the then Prime Minister commissioned the Committee on Standards in Public Life to undertake a review into abuse and intimidation in elections. This followed concerning evidence from many parliamentary candidates across the political spectrum on their experiences during the 2017 general election. The Government’s response to that report in March 2018 outlined the Government’s planned programme of work in the area, and the Committee has published its own follow-up to its report in December 2020.

    Tackling intimidation in public life also forms an important part of the defending democracy programme, a cross-Government initiative led by the Cabinet Office.

    Protecting free speech within the law

    It is important to distinguish between strongly felt political debate on the one hand, and unacceptable acts of abuse, intimidation and violence on the other. British democracy has always been robust and oppositional.

    Free speech within the law can sometimes involve the expression of political views that some may find offensive: a point that the Government have recognised in the Department for Education’s policy paper, “Higher education: free speech and academic freedom”, published last month. But a line is crossed when disagreement mutates into intimidation, which refuses to tolerate other opinions and seeks to deprive others from exercising their free speech and freedom of association.

    Tackling threats to MPs

    The Home Office is responding today, on behalf of Government, to the Joint Committee on Human Rights report, “Democracy, freedom of expression and freedom of association: Threats to MPs”.

    This outlines how the Government are addressing the concerns raised in the report on:

    The need for collaboration to tackle the issue of threats to MPs;

    The national approach to prosecuting offences against MPs;

    The online abuse and harassment faced by MPs; and

    Policing around Parliament and beyond.

    Ensuring safety of journalists

    Also today, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is publishing the first National Action Plan for the Safety of Journalists.

    The Government’s aim is to ensure that journalists operating in the UK are as safe as possible; reduce the number of attacks on and threats issued to journalists; and ensure those that are responsible for such are brought to justice. In order to support this goal, it outlines how the Government are taking steps to:

    Increase our understanding of the problem;

    Enhance the criminal justice system response in tackling crimes against journalists;

    Support journalists and their employers to build the resources they need to protect personal safety;

    Help online platforms to tackle the wider issue of abuse online; and

    Improve public recognition of the value of journalists.

    Preventing intimidation in elections

    In due course, the Government will legislate to introduce a new electoral sanction of intimidation against those who participate in elections and contribute to the political debate, including candidates and campaigners. This new sanction complements the existing offence of undue influence against electors.

    Under this new electoral sanction, someone convicted of intimidating a candidate, future candidate, campaigner or elected representative will face a ban on standing for and holding elective office for five years. This five-year disqualification is in addition to the substantive punishment for the underlying existing criminal offences of an intimidatory nature. It is simply not right that those who seek to damage free, fair and vibrant political participation should then be allowed to participate in the very same process they sought to undermine.

    We have already updated electoral law to ensure local candidates can choose for their home address to not be made public; the local authority area in which they live can appear on the ballot paper instead.

    The Government will also be legislating to require imprints on digital campaigning material. While this will increase transparency in modern campaigning, it will also ensure greater scrutiny and accountability of those who promote material, including third party campaigners. The Cabinet Office has undertaken two separate consultations on this area, as it is complex. We need to be mindful not to impose excessive regulation of free speech by individuals, nor force campaigners to publish their home addresses as part of the imprint requirement.

    The Government will also legislate to clarify and improve the offence of undue influence of a voter. We want to ensure that the offence offers adequate protection for electors to be free from undue influence and that the offence is effective for enforcement agencies. This reflects recommendations made by the Pickles review into electoral fraud, following the 2015 election court relating to elections in Tower Hamlets.

    Parties leading on codes of conduct and support

    The Government response to the Committee on Standards in Public Life report asserted that all political parties should put in place their own individual, tailored, code of conduct which sets out the standards of behaviour expected of their party members and representatives. All of the political parties represented in the House of Commons now have in place their own code of conduct.

    The Government did not, and does not, support a joint code. This is impractical given there are over 300 registered political parties, and since joint codes may fuel and encourage the issuing of politically vexatious and unfounded complaints.

    Many parties have significantly increased their support for elected representatives who face abuse.

    Providing guidance for MPs

    The Government have worked with the Law Officers to publish new guidance from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) on the laws on intimidation, and the wide range of areas in which intimidation can be prosecuted under existing laws. This has been complemented by police guidance from the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC).

    For hon. Members who have not previously read the CPS guidance, it can be found at:

    Responding to intimidating behaviour: Information for Parliamentarians:

    https://www.cps.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/publications/responding-to-intimidating-behaviour-04-2019.

    The NPCC, CPS, College of Policing and Electoral Commission have also issued Joint Guidance for Candidates in Elections, which is distributed by the Electoral Commission:

    https://www.electoraslcommission.org.uk/sites/default/files/pdf_file/Joint-Guidance-for-Candidates-in-Elections.

    Action on online communications

    The Government have published their full response to the Online Harms White Paper consultation. The response confirms that Ofcom will be named as the independent regulator, who will oversee the regulatory framework, setting clear safety standards, backed up by mandatory reporting requirements and strong enforcement powers to deal with non-compliance. Legislation will follow in due course.

    We expect companies to take action now, ahead of the regulatory framework coming into force. We have set out steps that we expect companies to take across a range of harms on a voluntary basis ahead of legislation being finalised. These include ensuring products and services are safe by design and that users who have experienced harm are directed to, and are able to receive, adequate support. While it is not for the Government to dictate how companies allocate resources internally, we have been clear that platforms need to do significantly more to address online abuse.

    We are also ensuring that the criminal law is fit for purpose to deal with online abuse. The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and the Ministry of Justice engaged the Law Commission on a second phase of its review of abusive and offensive online communications. This included considering whether co-ordinated harassment by groups of people online could be more effectively dealt with by the criminal law. The Law Commission has now consulted on proposed recommendations for reform. It will provide final recommendations in 2021, which we will carefully consider.

    The Government are engaging with international partners to promote international consensus on what constitutes hate crime and intimidation online. The Government are currently working with international partners on this issue in the Council of Europe.

    I hope this outlines how the Government are continuing to work to deliver their commitments to tackle intimidation in public life. The Government are open and receptive to ideas from hon. Members and other elected representatives on what further steps can be taken to protect the exercise of free speech and democratic representation across the United Kingdom.

  • Keir Starmer – 2021 Keynote Speech Launching Election Campaign

    Keir Starmer – 2021 Keynote Speech Launching Election Campaign

    The statement made by Keir Starmer, the Leader of the Opposition, on 11 March 2021.

    Thank you so much Aneela for that introduction.

    I want to start by expressing my deepest sympathies to Sarah Everard’s family and friends, who will be experiencing unspeakable grief this morning.

    This awful news has shaken us all.

    I’d like to say these incidents are rare, but the truth is that violence against women and girls is far too common.

    No woman should walk home with fear or threat.

    And we have to be clear:

    It’s only by recognising the scale of violence, intimidation and misogyny that women and girls suffer on a daily basis that we can ever start to confront this.

    Let me now turn to the upcoming elections.

    After 11 months behind a camera lens and behind a Zoom screen, I can’t tell you how pleased I am finally to be launching this campaign!

    To have the opportunity to get out across the country and to make our case for a better future under Labour.

    I want to thank our great Deputy Leader, Angela Rayner, and all our speakers this morning.

    From Tracey Brabin – who will be an amazing mayor for West Yorkshire – from Sadiq, Mark, Anas, Simon, David and Kim.

    This is just a glimpse of the Labour team that you’ll be hearing a more lot from in the weeks to come.

    And despite the frustration of not being able to get out around the country in the last few months, I’m proud to have worked with our great Labour mayors, councillors and candidates.

    I’ve seen the difference Labour makes in power.

    In the way Mark Drakeford’s team led Wales through the pandemic.

    The way that Andy Burnham, Steve Rotherham, Sadiq Khan, Dan Jarvis and Jamie Driscoll stood up for their local communities.

    And how our amazing Labour councils and councillors have gone above and beyond.

    Whether that’s councils like Bradford who pioneered local contact tracing, Knowsley, Newcastle and many others who secured protective equipment for our frontline workers.

    And we’ll never forget the Labour councils across the country, from Durham to Plymouth, who stepped up when the Conservatives refused to provide free school meals.

    I want to thank all of you – for everything you’ve done to make a very real difference.

    This has been a year like none other.

    When I look back, I think of our NHS staff who’ve worked under the most unimaginable pressure day in, day out.

    I think about our care workers who have brought hope and compassion to the most vulnerable.

    How our local communities have come together: a knock on the door, delivering food and medicines, keeping each other safe.

    I think of our businesses, who’ve gone to lengths they never thought possible just to keep their heads above water.

    And I think about the families who haven’t been able to see each other, or hug their loved ones for almost a year.

    But I also think of the missed opportunities and mistakes the Conservatives made.

    Because we mustn’t let the extraordinary achievement of the NHS in rolling out the vaccine blind us to what happened before.

    The Conservatives were too slow to lockdown.

    Too slow to protect care homes.

    Too slow to get protective equipment to the frontline.

    And too stubborn to sack Dominic Cummings when he broke the rules.

    A decade of Conservative government left Britain unprepared going into the pandemic.

    And they’ve now they’ve left us with the highest death toll in Europe – and the worst economic crisis of any major economy.

    After everything we’ve been through, we can’t go back to business as usual.

    We have to build a better future.

    A more secure economy that works for everyone.

    And a more prosperous and outward looking country.

    That’s why these elections are so important.

    Because they’re about how Britain recovers, how our communities and public services are run and how we reward our frontline.

    There’s a simple choice ahead of us: to change; or to go back to more of the same.

    There’s one thing we know about the Conservatives: Don’t listen to what they say, watch what they do.

    A pay cut for nurses – and tax rises for families.

    Nothing for social care.

    No plan to cut NHS waiting lists.

    And no idea how to tackle the single biggest threat Britain faces: the climate emergency.

    Their masks are slipping, and we’re seeing the real face of this Conservative Party: out of touch, and out of ideas.

    A Party that gives a 40 per cent pay rise to Dominic Cummings, but a pay cut for our nurses.

    A party that gives billions to Serco, but nothing to our NHS.

    A Party that spent a decade weakening the foundations – and now has no answers for the future.

    Under my leadership, and with our great candidates across the country, Labour offers a very different route to recovery.

    Labour’s changing.

    And our priorities are your priorities:

    Securing the economy.

    Protecting the NHS.

    Rebuilding Britain.

    In these elections: A vote for Labour is a vote to support our nurses.

    Our doctors.

    Our NHS staff.

    And to reward our key workers.

    My mum was a nurse. My sister was a nurse. My wife works for the NHS. I know what it means to work in the NHS.

    When I clapped for our carers, I meant it.

    The Prime Minister clapped for carers, then he slammed the door on them.

    Every vote in this election is a chance to show the Conservatives that the British people value our NHS and our key workers so much more than this government does.

    It’s also the chance to show that we can’t wait any longer for the Conservatives to fix social care.

    For 10 years they’ve been promising to fix this and for 10 years they’ve failed.

    That’s why it’s so unforgivable that our care homes were left unprotected during this pandemic.

    We simply can’t let them make the same mistakes again.

    This election is also a chance to vote against the Conservatives’ tax rises on families – which will take money out of people’s pockets at the worst possible time.

    The Conservatives fought the last election with a tax guarantee: the only guarantee now is that families will pay more tax.

    And it’s a chance to say that after a decade of Conservative mistakes, we need a build a better future.

    To rebuild the foundations of our economy.

    To tackle the regional imbalance and unfairness that’s holding so many people back.

    To breathe new life into our towns and our high streets.

    To make sure our children can seize the opportunities of the future.

    And to back British businesses to create the jobs of the future.

    It’s also a chance to build safer communities.

    I was Director of Public Prosecutions for five years.

    That meant working with the police across the country day in, day out.

    So I know first-hand that it’s only by tackling the causes of crime that we can have safer neighbourhoods and fewer victims.

    Labour’s Police and Crime Commissioners will have one central focus: the safety of all our local communities.

    That’s what will make a real difference.

    These elections are also a chance to unite our country.

    After everything we’ve been through, the last thing we need now is more division.

    Yet in Scotland, the SNP are fighting among themselves rather than fighting for the Scottish people.

    Their 13 years in power has seen child poverty rise and educational standards fall.

    Scotland now has the lowest life expectancy in Western Europe and the highest number of drug deaths.

    That’s a record of shame.

    And what’s the SNP’s priority? Another divisive referendum.

    Under our brilliant new leader – Anas Sarwar – Labour will focus on what unites Scotland, not what divides us.

    A COVID recovery plan to protect our NHS.

    A catch-up programme to tackle the SNP’s appalling failure on education.

    A jobs programme to get Scotland back to work and to build the economy of the future.

    That’s what Labour offers in Scotland: Social justice in a modern United Kingdom.

    In Wales, it’s been Mark Drakeford’s Labour Government that’s taken the tough decisions that were needed, and that now has a plan to take Wales forward.

    Mark’s shown the leadership that’s been sorely lacking from Boris Johnson.

    And he’s shown the difference that Labour can make in power.

    This election is the chance to give Welsh Labour the tools to finish the job and to deliver a recovery that puts jobs and the NHS first.

    Since Angela and I were elected 11 months ago, Labour has changed.

    We’re reconnecting with the British people – in every region and every nation of the United Kingdom.

    We’re working hard to rebuild trust.

    We know there’s a long way to go but I’m incredibly proud of what we’ve achieved.

    Whether that’s rooting out anti-Semitism in our Party.

    Or rebuilding our relationship with British business.

    This is a different Labour Party.

    Under new leadership.

    And we’re making a different offer to the British people.

    Above all, these elections are our chance for Labour to give something back.

    To offer the British people a better, more secure future for this country.

    To reward those who’ve given so much in the last year.

    And to put Labour values into action.

    There’s 57 days to Election Day.

    Let’s make every day count. Let’s get out there. Let’s fight for every vote.

    And let’s bring about the change we so desperately need.

    Thank you.

  • Jonathan Ashworth – 2021 Comments on NHS Waiting Lists

    Jonathan Ashworth – 2021 Comments on NHS Waiting Lists

    The comments made by Jonathan Ashworth, the Shadow Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, on 11 March 2021.

    These shocking figures show thousands of additional patients are now waiting over a year in pain and distress for treatment and the figure keeps going up.

    Rishi Sunak could have used last week’s budget to give the NHS the funding it needs to bring waiting lists down and address the growing backlog for treatment. Instead, he failed patients by cutting NHS budgets and nurses’ pay.

  • Edward Argar – 2021 Statement on Government’s Publication of Covid Contracts

    Edward Argar – 2021 Statement on Government’s Publication of Covid Contracts

    The statement made by Edward Argar, the Minister for Health, in the House of Commons on 9 March 2021.

    Although I am not the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, I hope the hon. Lady will none the less allow me to respond to her urgent question.

    The first duty of any Government in a crisis is protecting their citizens, so our work to provide personal protective equipment was a critical part of our response. It was a herculean effort that involved setting up a new logistics network from scratch and expanding our PPE supply chain from 226 NHS trusts in England to more than 58,000 different settings. Our team has been working night and day on this vital national effort, and I can update the House that we have now delivered more than 8.8 billion items of PPE to those who need it. That work was taking place at a time when global demand was greater than ever before and rapid action was required, so we had to work at an unprecedented pace to get supplies to our frontline and the public.

    Two weeks ago, in response to an urgent question from the hon. Lady, I updated the House on the initial High Court ruling. I will not set out that judgment at length once again, save to say that the case looked not at the awarding of the contracts, but rather at the delays in publishing the details of them as we responded to one of the greatest threats to public health that this country has ever seen. The hon. Lady’s question refers to a short declaratory judgment handed down subsequent to the original judgment in this matter, which makes a formal order as to the Government’s compliance with the relevant regulatory rules.

    As before, I reiterate that we of course take the judgment of the Court very seriously and respect it. We have always been clear that transparency is vital, and the Court itself has found that there was no deliberate policy to delay publication. The fight against covid-19 is ongoing. As would be expected, we are agreeing new contracts as part of that fight all the time, and we will keep publishing details of them as we move forward.

    I care passionately about transparency, and so does everyone in my Department. We will of course continue to look at how we can improve our response while we tackle one of the greatest threats to our public health that this nation has ever seen.

    Rachel Reeves

    This question and the answers to it really matter because our frontline workers were not adequately protected with the high-quality PPE that they needed during the pandemic. They matter because it is essential that taxpayers’ money is spent effectively and fairly, not handed out to those who happen to have close links with the party of government.

    The Government ran down the PPE stockpile ahead of the pandemic, and that came back to haunt us when we needed it most. Contracts were handed out—many to friends of and donors linked to the Conservative party —without any transparency. The Good Law Project took the Government to court, and on 19 February the High Court ruled that the Government had acted unlawfully, saying:

    “The public were entitled to see who this money was going to, what it was being spent on and how the…contracts were awarded.”

    Three days later, in this House, the Prime Minister said that

    “the contracts are there on the record for everybody to see”—[Official Report, 22 February 2021; Vol. 689, c. 638.]

    But they are not. A judge confirmed through a court order last Friday that 100 contracts are still to be published. Will the Minister now take this opportunity to apologise for that statement and to put the record straight? Will the Government now finally agree to publish all 100 outstanding contracts by the end of this week?

    For contracts that have failed, will the Minister tell us how much money has been and will be clawed back for taxpayers? Can he tell us which businesses were in the VIP fast lane for getting Government contracts and how they got there? Finally, can he honestly tell our brilliant NHS nurses, now facing a pay cut, that the Government have not wasted a single penny of their money on this curious incident of the missing contracts?

    Edward Argar

    It is a pleasure to be opposite the hon. Lady once again at the Dispatch Box—two weeks after we were last here. I will do my best to answer the questions she raised, not just for my own Department, but more broadly across Government.

    The hon. Lady raised a number of points. She is absolutely right to say that transparency matters, because transparency of procurement and transparency in Government is one of the foundations of the trust that is so vital to our democracy. That is why we are working flat out to ensure that, as new contracts are awarded, the contract award notices and other relevant pieces of information are published in line with the requirements of regulations.

    What is most important, though, is to recognise the situation that we faced last year, with rising infection rates, rising hospitalisation rates and the need to do everything we could—to “strain every sinew”, to quote one of the hon. Lady’s letters to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster at the time—to make sure we got those working flat out on the frontline what they needed to keep them safe. I pay tribute to the officials in my Department, who did exactly that: they focused on getting what was needed in bulk in an incredibly challenging global market, to make sure that PPE did not run out.

    The hon. Lady quite rightly quoted the judgment, and I will quote paragraph 149 of the judgment—the original judgment, not the supplementary judgment. The judge, Mr Justice Chamberlain, stated that

    “the overall picture shows the Secretary of State moving close to complete compliance. The evidence as a whole suggests that the backlog arose largely in the first few months of the pandemic and that officials began to bear down on it during the autumn of 2020.”

    I think that recognises the efforts that have been put in place to ensure that we meet our transparency requirements. One hundred per cent. of the Department’s CANs—contract aware notices—have been published.

    The hon. Member asked a particular question in referring to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s comments on 22 February—I hope I am correct in surmising that. My right hon. Friend was responding to a question around the failure to publish the details of specific contracts that are subject to judicial reviews. I am advised that, at the time of his statement, the details for all the contracts under scrutiny were published.

  • Rachel Maclean – 2021 Statement on Commercial Spaceflights

    Rachel Maclean – 2021 Statement on Commercial Spaceflights

    The statement made by Rachel Maclean, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, in the House of Commons on 8 March 2021.

    On Friday 5 March 2021, I published the Government’s response to the consultations which were held in the summer and autumn of 2020 on the secondary legislation which will implement the Space Industry Act 2018. We sought views on the operability and effectiveness of the draft space industry regulations and associated guidance and supporting documents (July); as well as the Government’s approach to liabilities, insurance and charging (October). We also asked respondents to provide evidence and test the assumptions in the consultation-stage impact assessment.

    This Government are committed to growing the space industry in the UK and cementing our leading role in this sector by unlocking a new era in commercial spaceflight across the UK. The draft space industry regulations, together with draft instruments covering accident investigation and appeals, will pave the way for a new commercial licensing regime for spaceflight activities from the UK. It will support safe and sustainable activities that will drive research, innovation and entrepreneurship, exploiting the unique environment of space. This will feed into our emerging national space strategy as we develop our priorities for levelling up the UK and promote the growth of this thriving sector in the long term.

    We also recognise the importance of ensuring that the environment is protected from the adverse effects of spaceflight activities. This is why the Space Industry Act 2018 requires applicants for a launch or spaceport licence to submit an assessment of environmental effects as part of their application. We also published a consultation on 10 February, setting specific environmental objectives for the spaceflight regulator to take account of when considering these assessments, reinforcing Government’s wider policies towards the environment and sustainability.

    Our spaceflight legislation has been designed from the outset to support commercial operations. This, together with the technology safeguards agreement signed with the US in June 2020, means that the UK is well placed to attract new commercial opportunities in this rapidly growing sector. Together with industry we set a target to grow the UK’s share of the global space market to 10% by 2030. Today we are a step closer to reaching this goal.

    The Government welcome the thoughtful and detailed responses received from across the four nations of the UK. Invaluable insights were provided by those who responded to the consultation and included enthusiastic responses from schoolchildren. We are pleased to report that our modern regulatory framework was supported by the vast majority of respondents, with many applauding the flexibility of our proposed approach, which fosters adaptability through an outcomes-based focus.

    The response I am sharing today sets out the ways we have adjusted the draft space industry regulations and associated guidance material to reflect, and where possible accommodate, the suggestions and recommendations made through the consultation process. We believe that this collaborative approach will not only strengthen the licensing regime we are implementing, but demonstrates the Government’s ongoing commitment to growing this exciting sector.

    My Department has worked closely with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the UK Space Agency and Civil Aviation Authority to legislate for a wide range of new commercial spaceflight technologies, including traditional vertically launched vehicles, air-launched vehicles and sub-orbital spaceplanes and balloons. It is our intention to bring this legislation before the House later this year.

    Next steps

    Following the publication of the Government’s response I will update the House once we are ready to submit the secondary legislation for parliamentary scrutiny.

  • Robert Jenrick – 2021 Statement on the Covid-19 Road Map on Planning and Hospitality

    Robert Jenrick – 2021 Statement on the Covid-19 Road Map on Planning and Hospitality

    The statement made by Robert Jenrick, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, in the House of Commons on 8 March 2021.

    As set out in the Government’s road map for easing the lockdown restrictions, in step two, which will be no earlier than 12 April, hospitality venues will be allowed to serve people outdoors. I have written to local authority leaders to make clear the Government’s expectation that local authorities support hospitality businesses to safely reopen, once they are permitted to do so.

    Last summer the Government introduced a series of measures to support hospitality businesses to open safely when lockdown restrictions were eased. These measures were a lifeline to many businesses, enabling them to continue to serve their local communities under the challenging circumstances.

    I have confirmed to local authorities that these measures will remain in place to support businesses as they reopen this year. I am also pleased to confirm that we intend to extend pavement licences for a further 12 months, making it easier and cheaper for pubs, restaurants and cafes to continue to make al fresco dining a reality with outside seating, tables and street stalls to serve food and drinks.

    Providing these flexibilities will support hospitality businesses to trade in these challenging times, helping to protect jobs and livelihoods. The measures that we introduced and will remain in place are:

    Al fresco dining

    As part of the Business and Planning Act 2020 the Government introduced a simplified process for businesses to obtain a licence to serve food and drinks from seating, tables and street stalls outside their premises. The process was previously long, costly and inconsistent across areas. We addressed this through a capped application fee of £100 and quicker consultation and determination periods (10 days with automatic deemed consent if the authority does not make a decision on the application before the end of the determination period). This enabled business to serve more customers safely outdoors last year and support them to do so again when they are permitted to reopen.

    The Government have made clear in the pavement licence guidance that we expect local authorities to grant licences for 12 months or more unless there are good reasons for granting a licence for a shorter period, such as plans for future changes in use of road space. Therefore, unless there are very good reasons, the Government expect that licences granted under these provisions continue to apply into this summer so that businesses do not have to reapply for another licence or be charged a further application fee when they are able to reopen to serve customers outdoors. These temporary legislative provisions are currently due to expire on 30 September 2021, but to give further certainty to businesses I will introduce secondary legislation to extend these provisions for a further 12 months, subject to parliamentary approval.

    Freedom to use land for community events and outdoor hospitality

    Last year the Government provided greater flexibility for individuals and businesses to use their land for temporary events, such as markets and motorsports. We increased the number of days allowed for such events from 28 to 56 without needing to apply for planning permission. In November we extended this provision until 31 December 2021 so individuals and businesses, such as pubs, can set up moveable structures like marquees and hold outdoor events without making an application for planning permission. This will help businesses take forward outdoor activities such as markets, car boot sales, summer fairs and sporting events. We expect local authorities to support businesses using these additional freedoms as they reopen.

    Outdoor markets

    We have also introduced a new temporary right, extended to March 2022, that allows local authorities, either by themselves or by others on their behalf, to use land to hold a market and erect moveable structures on it.

    Takeaways

    Finally, we also introduced measures to support restaurants, pubs and cafes to serve takeaway food when they were otherwise closed due to coronavirus restrictions. These measures will continue to apply until March 2022.

    We introduced these changes to support hard hit hospitality businesses to reopen last year. I have encouraged all local authorities to use these measures pragmatically to help support the high street, businesses and jobs, once restrictions allow them to do so.

  • Robert Buckland – 2021 Statement on Judicial Mandatory Retirement

    Robert Buckland – 2021 Statement on Judicial Mandatory Retirement

    The statement made by Robert Buckland, the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, in the House of Commons on 8 March 2021.

    Following my recent announcement of the Government responses on reforms to the judicial pension scheme and on proposals to address the unlawful age discrimination identified in the McCloud litigation, I am today publishing the Government response to the Judicial Mandatory Retirement Age consultation.

    Running from 16 July to 16 October 2020, the consultation sought views on proposals to increase the mandatory retirement age for judicial office holders to 72 or 75, alongside a proposal to allow public interest-based extension of magistrates’ appointments beyond their existing mandatory retirement age of 70, as is currently available to other parts of the judiciary. The consultation attracted considerable interest with over one thousand responses received from across of the magistracy, the judiciary, the legal profession, and other key stakeholder groups.

    It has been over 25 years since the mandatory retirement age for most judges was set at 70. A mandatory retirement age remains an important requirement of judicial office which protects judicial independence, preserves public confidence in the judiciary, and promotes opportunities within the judiciary for those who wish to apply and to progress. I believe, however, along with the majority of respondents, that it is now time the MRA is amended to reflect improvements in life expectancy and the changing demands on our courts and tribunals.

    Following careful consideration, I have therefore decided to raise the mandatory retirement age to 75 to enable us to retain for longer the valuable expertise of experienced judicial office holders and to attract a wider range of applicants. I believe the new retirement age could also have a positive impact on diversity by attracting and promoting opportunities for individuals considering a judicial career later in life, such as those who may have had non-linear careers or taken career breaks to balance professional and family responsibilities. I will legislate for this change as soon as parliamentary time allows.

    Magistrates currently are unable to sit beyond the existing mandatory retirement age unlike many judges who can apply to have their appointments extended or to sit in retirement on an ad hoc basis. To further boost capacity in the magistrates courts, I will include a transitional provision as part of the legislative change to allow recently retired magistrates who are below the age of 75 when the new MRA comes into force to be able to apply to return to the bench, where there is a business need.

    As Lord Chancellor, it is my duty to ensure the courts and tribunals have the required resources to continue dispensing justice. I am grateful for the commitment and resilience of judges, magistrates and coroners across the country who have worked tirelessly throughout this challenging period. I know the changes I am announcing today will not immediately alleviate pressure on our justice system. However, this once in a generation change to the mandatory retirement age, alongside the important reforms we are making to the judicial pension scheme, will help to support and promote judicial recruitment and retention, ensuring we are able to continue resourcing our world-class judiciary for the future.

  • Priti Patel – 2021 Statement on Unauthorised Encampments

    Priti Patel – 2021 Statement on Unauthorised Encampments

    The statement made by Priti Patel, the Home Secretary, on 8 March 2021.

    Today, I am announcing the Government’s response to the November 2019 consultation entitled, “Strengthening Police Powers to Tackle Unauthorised Encampments”. The consultation sought views on how to address and prevent the harm and distress caused by some unauthorised encampments and followed a public consultation in 2018 which demonstrated support for more police action.

    The vast majority of travellers are law-abiding citizens. As of January 2020, the number of lawful traveller sites increased by 41% from January 2010. However, there continue to be unauthorised encampments that can create significant challenges for local authorities and cause distress and misery to many. Harmful or disruptive encampments can also perpetuate a negative image of travelling communities.

    I will therefore introduce legislation to increase the powers available to the police in England and Wales. As we pledged in our manifesto, we will create a new criminal offence to tackle unauthorised encampments. In addition, we will give the police the power to seize vehicles, and we will strengthen existing powers.

    The measures complement the ongoing work by MHCLG to strengthen councils’ powers to tackle unauthorised developments—building on land that an occupier owns without planning permission.

    Introduce a criminal offence of residing on land with a vehicle, causing damage, disruption or distress

    A person will commit an offence if they:

    Are aged 18 or over and reside or intend to reside on land without the consent of the occupier of the land;

    Have or intend to have at least one vehicle with them on the land;

    Have caused or are likely to cause significant damage, disruption or distress; and

    They:

    Fail, without a reasonable excuse, to leave the land with their vehicle and/or property once asked to do so by the occupier, representatives of the occupier or a constable; or

    They, without reasonable excuse, enter, or re-enter the land with an intention of residing there without the consent of the occupier, and they have or intend to have a vehicle with them, within 12 months of a request to leave and remove their property from an occupier, their representative or a constable.

    Give police the power to seize any property including vehicles from those committing the new offence

    The police will be empowered to seize any property including vehicles owned or in the possession of the individual on the land if they reasonably suspect that the person has committed the above offence.

    Strengthen existing powers

    Section 61(1)(a) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (“CJPOA”) sets out the power of the police to direct trespassers away from land. We will amend this section to enable the police to direct trespassers away in a broader range of circumstances, including if there is damage to the environment, such as excessive noise, litter or deposits of waste, and if there is disruption to supplies of water, energy or fuel.

    We also intend to increase the period in which persons directed away from the land under section 61 and 62A of the CJPOA must not return—without reasonable excuse—without committing an offence or being subject to powers of seizure from three months to 12 by amending section 61(4)(b) 62B(2) and section 62C(2)of the CJPOA.

    We will in addition strengthen measures to tackle unauthorised encampments on roads by amending section 61(9)(b) to allow police to direct trespassers to leave land that forms part of a highway.

    I am grateful to everyone who took the time to respond to the two consultations carried out by the Government on this issue. The views expressed in response have all been considered and have informed the decisions we have made.

    The measures I intend to introduce are a proportionate increase in powers for the police. I hope they will deter unauthorised encampments from being set up in the first instance but, where that is not the case, they will allow the police to take more effective action in response to an encampment causing damage, disruption or distress, in support of those communities living with or near them.

    I am confident that we have taken steps to ensure those wishing to exercise their rights to enjoy the countryside are not inadvertently impacted by these measures.

    The response to the consultation will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and will also be available at:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/strengthening-police-powers-to-tackle-unauthorised-encampments.