UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Speeches

  • Ian Lucas – 2019 Speech on Police Complaints and Accountability

    Below is the text of the speech made by Ian Lucas, the Labour MP for Wrexham, in the House of Commons on 11 April 2019.

    It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker.

    My constituent Nicholas Churton was murdered in his own home, in the heart of Wrexham, on 23 March 2017 by Jordan Davidson. Davidson is responsible for this horrific crime and for other attacks, for which he is now serving a 30-year prison sentence. However, the events leading to these crimes revealed grave errors by the police and by the probation services in Wrexham and north Wales.

    I have secured knowledge of the detail of those errors only with the assistance of Jez Hemming of the Daily Post newspaper in north Wales. For the bulk of this case, I have secured no co-operation whatever from North Wales police. Indeed, I now believe that I, along with the public, was misled deliberately about the facts of the case to conceal those errors, and that there has been a systematic cover-up involving North Wales police, the probation service, the community rehabilitation company, the Independent Police Complaints Commission and the Independent Office for Police Conduct.

    The facts are that Davidson was released from prison in December 2016. He was under the supervision of the community rehabilitation company. A number of errors were made in his supervision, as was conceded by the probation service in an internal inquiry report on which I have been briefed, although I have not seen it. However, this evening I want to focus on the police.

    On 19 March, while on licence, Davidson was arrested by North Wales police and taken into custody for possession of a knife. It appears that he was charged, but in any event he was released by the police and given bail, despite being on licence. The CRC was not notified by the police of his arrest until 24 March, the day after he had murdered Nicholas Churton.

    After murdering Mr Churton, Davidson threatened others in central Wrexham. One of my constituents gave me this account:

    “I came across Jordan Davidson and he was trying to commit robbery on an elderly gentleman, he was threatening him; this elder man was begging me to tell Jordan not to kill him. As Jordan was distracted by me the man left swiftly. He then turned on me he pulled a machete out, (the one used in the murder) demanded I told him where I lived and where my family were, of which I did not do. He told me at this time he had already killed two people, which I unfortunately found out later had some truth as he did murder one man. I managed to get away and phone the police as soon as I could.”

    After Davidson’s arrest, which involved commendable bravery on the part of individual North Wales police officers, the Independent Police Complaints Commission, as it then was—now the Independent Office for Police Conduct—commenced an inquiry into contact between Mr Churton and North Wales police before Mr Churton’s death. That inquiry, which I will call IOPC 1, has now concluded. Contrary to IPCC policy, I, as the local MP, was not informed about the inquiry or its terms of reference.

    In December 2017, following Davidson’s trial, I saw a summary of the prosecution case used at the trial. That was the first communication that I received about the ​case, and I was shocked by its contents. I immediately wanted to know why Davidson had been released from police custody on 19 March, four days before killing Mr Churton. I emailed the then chief constable, Mark Polin, and asked him why that had happened. He replied that because the matter was subject to an IPCC inquiry, he could not respond to my question. I now know that that was untrue. In fact, the IPCC inquiry related only to communications between Mr Churton and the police prior to Mr Churton‘s murder. There was no inquiry into the circumstances of Davidson’s release from custody on 19 March. In April 2018, following my own questions and inquiries, the IOPC commenced an inquiry into his release which has still not concluded.

    Let me ask the Minister a number of questions. First, why did North Wales police and the IPCC fail to tell me of a police conduct inquiry involving a murder and additional serious assaults in the middle of my constituency? Secondly, who decided to exclude the police decision to release Davidson on bail after his arrest for possession of an offensive weapon from the terms of reference of the IPCC inquiry, and why was that done? Thirdly, why did the then chief constable of North Wales, Mark Polin, tell me that there was an inquiry into Davidson’s release when there was not?

    Fourthly, was the North Wales police and crime commissioner notified of the inquiry by the IPCC in 2017, and of its terms of reference? Is there an obligation to notify PCCs of such inquiries? If a notification was made in this case, when was it made? Fifthly, was the family of Nicholas Churton notified of the inquiry, and the fact of the release of Davidson four days before his murder? Sixthly, why did the probation service and the CRC fail to highlight the fact that the release of Davidson was not included in the IPCC inquiry? Should they have done so?

    To my mind, we have a cover-up in this case. I was not told, as I should have been, of the inquiry into the death of my constituent. The release of Davidson on bail by the police was, I believe, concealed from Mr Churton’s family, from me, and from the public who were endangered by him. I was misled by the then chief constable of North Wales police, who told me that the release was the subject of an inquiry when it was not. At the suggestion of the IOPC in a letter that I received yesterday, I have now made a formal complaint to North Wales police and crime commissioner about this, although I am very disappointed that it required action by me for them even to investigate the matter.

    My concern is that the present system permitted all this to happen and allowed the police and the IPCC to cover up serious misconduct which, in this case, led to a murder in the heart of my constituency a few days later. This misconduct was not notified, to my knowledge, to anyone outside North Wales police, including the IOPC and the family of the deceased, until I raised it myself. I had to tell the family of the deceased of the release of Jordan Davidson.

    It is now over two years since Nicholas Churton was brutally murdered. We need an independent investigation into how this happened. I have no confidence in the various bodies and organisations that I have referred to because none of them and none of the systems worked to reveal the errors in this case, which had catastrophic consequences. What we need above all is some transparency ​and honesty from the organisations involved. The family of Nicholas Churton, with whom I have been working, deserve that honesty.

    I have a great deal of respect for the Minister, and I hope that he will assist me in sorting out a system that can deliver transparency and openness to enable us to have confidence in the organisations that operate on our behalf in our communities.

  • Diane Abbott – 2019 Speech on Julian Assange

    Below is the text of the speech made by Diane Abbott, the Shadow Home Secretary, in the House of Commons on 11 April 2019.

    I thank the Home Secretary for his account of events. On the Labour Benches, we are glad that Julian Assange will be able to access medical care, treatment and facilities, because there have been worrying reports about his ill health. Of course, at this point that is all a matter for the courts.

    We in the Opposition want to make the point that, even though the only charge that Julian Assange may face in this country is in relation to his bail hearings, the reason we are debating this this afternoon is entirely to do with his and WikiLeaks’ whistleblowing activities. These whistleblowing activities about illegal wars, mass murder, murder of civilians and corruption on a grand scale have put Julian Assange in the crosshairs of the US Administration. For this reason, they have once more issued an extradition warrant against Mr Assange.

    The Home Secretary will know that Mr Assange complained to the UN that he was being unlawfully detained as he could not leave the Ecuadorian embassy without being arrested. In February 2016, the UN panel ruled in his favour, stating that he had been arbitrarily detained and that he should be allowed to walk free and compensated for his “deprivation of liberty”. Mr Assange hailed that as a significant victory and called the decision binding, but the Foreign Office responded by saying that this ruling “changes nothing”. I note that the Foreign Office responded then, not the Home Office or the Ministry of Justice. The Foreign Office has no responsibility for imprisonment and extradition in this country, but it is interested, of course, in relations with allies and others.

    We have precedent in this country in relation to requests for extradition to the US, when the US authorities raise issues of hacking and national security. I remind the House of the case of Gary McKinnon. In October 2012, when the current Prime Minister was Home Secretary, an extradition request very similar to this one was refused. We should recall what WikiLeaks disclosed. Who can forget the Pentagon video footage of a missile attack in 2007 in Iraq that killed 18 civilians and two Reuters journalists? The monumental number of such leaks lifted the veil on US-led military operations in a variety of theatres, none of which has produced a favourable outcome for the people of those countries. Julian Assange is being pursued not to protect US national security, but because he has exposed wrongdoing by US Administrations and their military forces.

    We only have to look at the treatment of Chelsea Manning to see what awaits Julian Assange if he is extradited to the US. Ms Manning has already been incarcerated, between 2010 and 2017. She was originally sentenced to 35 years. Her indefinite detention now is because she refuses to participate in partial disclosure, which would allow whistleblowers to be pursued and not the perpetrators. Her human rights and protections as a transgender woman have been completely ignored—[Interruption.] Her human rights as a transgender woman have been completely ignored, and I hope that Government Members will take that seriously.​

    What this has to do with Julian Assange’s case is that this could be the type of treatment he could expect if he is extradited to the US. In this country, we have protections for whistleblowers, including the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 and others—even if some of us feel that these protections should be more robust. Underpinning this legislation is the correct premise, not that anyone can leak anything they like but that protection should be afforded to those who take a personal risk to disclose wrongdoing where that disclosure serves the public interest. Julian Assange is at risk of extradition to the US precisely because, as we in the Opposition believe, he has exposed material that is in the utmost public interest.

    This is now in the hands of the British law courts. We have the utmost confidence in the British legal system, but we in the Opposition would be very concerned, on the basis of what we know, about Julian Assange being extradited to the US.

  • Sajid Javid – 2019 Statement on Arrest of Julian Assange

    Below is the text of the statement made by Sajid Javid, the Home Secretary, in the House of Commons on 11 April 2019.

    With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the arrest of Julian Assange.

    This morning, after nearly seven years inside the Ecuadorean embassy, Mr Assange was arrested for failing to surrender in relation to his extradition proceedings. He was later also served with a warrant for provisional arrest, pending receipt of a request for extradition to stand trial in the United States on charges relating to computer offences. His arrest follows a decision by the Ecuadorean Government to bring to an end his presence inside its embassy in London. I am pleased that President Moreno has taken this decision and I extend the UK’s thanks to him for resolving the situation. Ecuador’s actions recognise that the UK’s criminal justice system is one in which rights are protected and in which, contrary to what Mr. Assange and his supporters may claim, he and his legitimate interests will be protected. This also reflects the improvements to the UK’s relationship with Ecuador under the Government of President Moreno. These are a credit to the leadership of the Minister for Europe and the Americas, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Sir Alan Duncan), and to the ongoing hard work of Foreign Office officials in London and Quito.

    Mr Assange was informed of the decision to bring his presence in the embassy to an end by the Ecuadorean ambassador this morning shortly before 10 am. The Metropolitan police entered the embassy for the purpose of arresting and removing him. All the police’s activities were carried out pursuant to a formal written invitation signed by the Ecuadorean ambassador and in accordance with the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Metropolitan police for the professionalism they have shown in their management of the immediate situation, and during the past seven years.

    Both the UK Government and the Ecuadorean Government have become increasingly concerned about the state of Mr Assange’s health. The first action of the police following his arrest was to have him medically assessed and deemed fit to detain. The Ecuadoreans have made their best efforts to ensure that doctors, chosen by him, have had access inside the embassy. While he remains in custody in the UK, we are now in a position to ensure access to all necessary medical care and facilities.

    Proceedings will now begin according to the courts’ timetable. Under UK law, following a provisional arrest, the full extradition papers must be received by the judge within 65 days. A full extradition request would have to be certified by the Home Office before being submitted to the court, after which extradition proceedings would begin. At that point, the decision as to whether any statutory bars to extradition apply would be for the UK’s courts to determine.

    I will go no further in discussing the details of the accusations against Mr. Assange either in the UK’s criminal justice system or in the US, but I am pleased that the situation in the Ecuadorean embassy has finally been brought to an end. Mr Assange will now have the opportunity to contest the charge against him in open court and to have any extradition request considered by ​the judiciary. It is right that we implement the judicial process fairly and consistently, with due respect for equality before the law. I commend this statement to the House.

  • Andrew Jones – 2019 Statement on East Midlands Rail Franchise

    Below is the text of the statement made by Andrew Jones, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, in the House of Commons on 11 April 2019.

    On Wednesday 10 April, it was announced that Abellio is the successful bidder to operate the east midlands rail franchise and will be responsible for delivering new trains, smart ticketing and more frequent services for passengers. Passengers in the east midlands are to get new trains, more peak-time services, reduced journey times and over £17 million of station improvements as Abellio takes over the franchise from August 2019.

    Abellio will invest £600 million in trains and stations between August 2019 and 2027, while the Government continue with their £1.5 billion upgrade to the midland main line—the biggest upgrade to the line since it was completed in 1870. This is part of the Government’s £48 billion investment to modernise our railways over the next five years.

    As we informed the House in yesterday’s written statement, Abellio was awarded the contract “following rigorous competition.” It was a fair, open competition and Abellio provided the best bid, in which it demonstrated that it will not only meet but exceed the Department’s specifications.

    Stagecoach chose to put in a non-compliant bid, which resulted in its disqualification, in line with the terms of the published invitation to tender. That said, Stagecoach has played an important role in our railways, and we hope it will continue to do so after the conclusion of the rail review. However, it is entirely for Stagecoach and its bidding partners to explain why it decided to ignore established rules by rejecting the commercial terms on offer.

  • Robert Jenrick – 2019 Speech at Charity Tax Group Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Robert Jenrick, the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, on 4 April 2019.

    Good morning everyone, and thanks for inviting me back.

    I am delighted to be here once again at the Charity Tax Group conference, and have the opportunity to talk to you all again.

    Such is the transience of modern government, that I think that I am the first Exchequer Secretary for some time to still be in position a year on and able to return and report back to you.

    Treasury ministers don’t often quote Marx – well not this government’s ministers – but he said that “there are decades when nothing happens. And then there are weeks in which decades happen.”

    It seems we are living in times like that today (4 April 2019), at least in Westminster. In such a climate, the continuous creativity and contribution, including science and research, of charities, often low key, without fanfare or media attention, binding communities together and making society stronger, seems more important than ever. On behalf of government, thank you for all that you do.

    I’ve been a charity trustee. I’m President of one myself, the Friends of my local hospital in Newark, and through that I am proud to play a small part in helping the hospital provide wonderful care for the people that need it.

    As an MP, I’m constantly inspired and uplifted by charities and their donors and volunteers.

    From the smallest charities in our communities…

    …to the giants of medical research – Cancer Research UK, British Heart Foundation and the Wellcome Trust, where we meet today.

    Governments have long recognised the vital role that charities play in all corners of the UK.

    And this government is no different. We are firmly committed to supporting charities, and their donors who continue to donate generously to support the causes they care about.

    In 2017-18, tax reliefs were worth over £5 billion to charities altogether, including £1.3 billion from Gift Aid, £2 billion in business rates relief, and over £800 million on inheritance tax exemptions and reductions. Gift Aid is the most successful charity tax relief in the world.

    When I spoke at last year’s conference, and also met with the Charity Tax Group, you asked me to take a number of steps to improve government’s support for charities. I’m happy to say we have achieved much of it.

    Firstly, we have protected and enhanced Gift Aid, which I know is vitally important to you all. In total over £15 billion of Gift Aid relief has been paid to charities since 1990.

    After a visit to the British Paralympic Association, I was persuaded to clarify the guidance around bake sales, to make clear that charities could claim Gift Aid from the proceeds. I was very happy to promote the idea around the Macmillan Coffee Morning.

    Some of you may even have seen me in my kitchen on Twitter – the Mary Berry of the Treasury. I didn’t manage to persuade Philip Hammond to be my Paul Hollywood!

    We also announced at Budget that we would change the Retail Gift Aid Scheme so that charities will only have to issue letters once every three years – rather than every year – where a donor’s total donations in a tax year are less than £20.

    This will reduce the administration burden upon those operating charity shops and increase profit for good causes.

    We also increased the limit on Gift Aid Small Donation Scheme donations from £20 to £30, so that more Gift Aid-like ‘top-ups’ can be claimed on things like tin collections, where it is impractical to collect a Gift Aid declaration.

    We have continued to encourage charities to make use of Gift Aid and donors to ‘tick the box’, including writing to 50,000 charities last year to explain the scheme and urge them to ensure they benefit from it.

    Our final Budget measure specifically on charities taxation was to increase the Small Trading Tax Exemption, which allows charities to carry out limited amounts of trading not related to their primary charitable objectives, without incurring a tax liability. We have increased the upper limit from £50,000 to £80,000.

    These changes to Retail Gift Aid, the Small Donations Scheme and the Small Trading Tax Exemption were all suggestions from the Charity Tax Group, and I am delighted that we were able to take them forward at the Budget.

    When I spoke here last year, you raised Making Tax Digital, and I understand the concerns that charities have.

    On 1 April, the Making Tax Digital programme became law for over one million VAT-registered businesses earning more than £85,000.

    We appreciate that you will require time to become familiar with the new requirements. That was the feedback I received when I came here a year ago.

    As such, my colleague Mel Stride, the Financial Secretary, has announced that during the first year of VAT mandation, HMRC will take a light touch approach to penalties by not issuing filing or record keeping penalties where organisations are doing their best to comply with Making Tax Digital, and that may well be the case for many charities, especially small ones.

    And to be clear, the 1 April is not a cliff edge for signing up. The first returns under the new system for the majority of organisations, which file VAT quarterly, won’t be due until August at the earliest.

    We believe that our Making Tax Digital programme will make everything much easier for charities that are VAT registered in the long term, and ultimately save you time and energy that could be better spent elsewhere and achieving your goals and charitable objectives.

    We also recognise the value of charity shops on high streets up and down the country. At Budget, we created a £670 million Future High Streets Fund to create transformative packages of investments and I encourage charities with a particular presence on the high street to take part in that.

    There are already numerous business rates reliefs which benefit charity shops. At Budget we cut business rates by one third for all retailers in England with a rateable value below £51,000, which will help sustain our nation’s high streets as they evolve to meet changing consumer habits.

    Finally, at this event last year and in a later meeting at the Treasury, I was asked by ACRE – Action with Communities in Rural England – about funding for Village Halls, many of which were built a hundred years ago to commemorate the end of the First World War.

    The charity told me that they had been campaigning for an intervention akin to a time limited VAT rebate since they met with Gillian Shephard – I presume in the 1980s when I was still in short trousers!

    I was persuaded by their case and spoke to the Chancellor who was very supportive and as such we responded at the most recent Budget, providing £3 million pilot funding for grants equivalent to the VAT chargeable on such refurbishment projects. I am pleased to be launching that with ACRE on Friday (5 April 2019).

    It’s another example that shows we are listening to your needs.

    We have achieved a lot, but we know there is always more to do.

    One area we know we can work together on in the future is tax transparency, which is vital to maintain public trust in the extensive reliefs I have described today.

    As a start, I want all charities, led by the largest, to publicly report the amount of Gift Aid they receive.

    I have asked the Charity Commission to consider how this could be done, and there is also significant Parliamentary interest in this which expects action.

    That interest, like my own, is both to allow the public to understand the degree of support provided and to spur charities to make better use of the reliefs provided.

    We also want to look at the fees charged by donation sites. I acknowledge the important roles these platforms play in terms of crowding in donations, simplifying the process for charities and bringing them into the tech era.

    However, I was concerned by the lack of transparency, the lack of choice and, in some small cases, the scale of the fees.

    Again, there is clear Parliamentary interest here, for example from my colleague Neil Coyle MP, responding to disaster appeals like Grenfell and London Bridge – where significant fees were initially incurred when the public made generous donations.

    I am pleased Just Giving have announced they are taking action, and I hope we see further progress.

    In particular, it should be a clear choice for charities using such sites whether they wish to pay a fee for the site to administer the Gift Aid and that fee should be a reasonable one – so taxpayers money does not get diverted from the purpose to which we intended – charitable activities.

    I would also like to thank the Charity Tax Group for their advice and input on this matter.

    As I am speaking at the headquarters of the Wellcome Trust, I wanted to say something about the many medical research charities are driving scientific development and leading cutting-edge research.

    Over the last five years, the research they have funded has contributed to the development of 300 medicinal products including drugs, medical devices and diagnostic tools.

    Thousands of patients have benefited.

    But without the input of medical research charities, these new technologies would never have seen the light of day.

    Many of these research areas are simply too high risk or long term in development to attract conventional investment.

    In government, we know how important this is.

    Last year, the British Business Bank launched ‘British Patient Capital’ – a £2.5 billion fund to invest in innovative firms.

    And we invested £1.6 billion into our research and development base to strengthen the UK’s global leadership in science and innovation.

    But there’s a limit to what government can do.

    Which is why we need to work together with the private sector, and with charities to achieve our shared goals – in particular, unlocking the potential of our pensions to invest more than they do today, in patient capital, including that focused on medicines, life sciences, bio sciences and so on.

    We are taking action to encourage pension fund trustees to increase their focus in this area and working with the regulators to break down barriers which might inhibit action today.

    We want the charitable sector engaged in such projects or in social investment to be part of that.

    As we look to the future, I know that the NCVO Charity Tax Commission is reviewing the impact of the tax system on charities.

    It is due to be published in the early summer, and I look forward to reading its findings.

    We also recently launched a consultation on off-payroll working, commonly known as IR35.

    In the main, this is for businesses that employ workers through an intermediary, but that may well apply to some of your charities as well.

    It is right we do in the private sector and in charities what we have done in the public sector and ensure a fair tax system for all.

    Finally, in the coming months, the government will publish call for evidence documents on VAT partial exemption and capital goods scheme, the Social Investment Tax Relief (SITR), and the insurance premium tax operational review.

    All of which, I’m sure, you’ll be keen to read and digest.

    In closing, I want to thank the Charity Tax Group once again for inviting me back today.

    And thank them also for all their hard work in representing the charity sector.

    The focus and direction they bring is vital to the way we work together, and all that we have secured in the past year.

    And I hope that today I have shown that we as Government have a record of action in this area.

  • Matt Hancock – 2019 Speech at Royal Society of Medicine

    Below is the text of the speech made by Matt Hancock, the Secretary of State for Health, at the Royal Society of Medicine on 4 April 2019.

    It’s fantastic to be here to talk about apps and innovation because, as you know, this is a subject close to my heart.

    I’m pleased to say that together with Netflix, Spotify and Citymapper, the Matt Hancock app now has a combined user base of over 300 million people. And it remains the most popular app by a Member of Parliament on the App Store… as well as the only one. It’s not easy being a tech pioneer.

    Sir Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the World Wide Web, said that 30 years on from his world-changing creation, he still believes it can be improved because: “The future is still so much bigger than the past.”

    I share Sir Tim’s optimism about the potential of technology because I believe in the potential of people.

    Since I’ve been Health Secretary, I’ve made it my mission to get the best technology available into the NHS for one simple reason: the right tech saves lives, and makes life easier for staff.

    And I’ve tried to eliminate outdated, old tech like fax machines, pagers, and dial-up because the wrong tech can make life more difficult for our NHS staff.

    Tech is merely a tool though, it’s people, who are, and will always be, our priority.

    Because it isn’t just frustrating to be asked for the umpteenth time: “Why are you here?” because medical records don’t follow people around the system. It isn’t just inconvenient for a doctor to be stuck trying to remember multiple logins so they can type up their notes, when they should be with a patient. It’s dangerous.

    And I was reminded of that this week by a lady called Dawn Wilson.

    Her daughter Tamara was diagnosed with asthma as a baby. Tamara was in and out of hospital with acute asthma as she grew up. She was seen 47 times in 4 years by medical staff.

    Almost every time, Dawn would have to tell the doctors and nurses Tamara’s medical history from the beginning because Dawn said: “Every time they were treating her like a new patient”. They didn’t know Tamara’s condition, what medication she was on, what her treatment plan was. Staff at 3 hospitals, 30 minutes apart, with no way of accessing the same records.

    Dawn told me she felt staff thought she was being an “overprotective mother”, but she was the only link they had with the previous clinician.

    On 10 April 2014 Tamara started experiencing breathing difficulties. An appointment was made to see her GP the following day but her condition deteriorated during the night. Paramedics were called, but sadly Tamara died. She was just 13 years old.

    Interoperability: a word we often use when we talk about healthtech. For most people that word means very little.

    The coroner said one of the factors in Tamara’s death was the lack of a “coordinating record”. Dawn told me that she believes it would have made a difference. That if our systems could speak to each other, and if Tamara’s records could have been safely accessed by all the clinicians treating her, it would have made a difference.

    So when I talk about interoperability, I’m not really talking about IT. I’m talking about saving the lives of people like Tamara. I mean “clinical memory”, a clear and comprehensive record of each individual’s health history and medical needs that can be shared, in absolute confidence, between medical teams across the NHS.

    It’s why getting the right tech, getting systems that can talk to each other in the NHS, matters so much. Because the only question when it comes to tech is this: does this tech save lives and improve lives?

    We must drive innovation and improvement across the NHS. Combining the best of the healthcare culture with the best of the tech culture. Seeking continuous improvement to save and improve lives.

    Better tech to give doctors and nurses the gift of time so they can focus on what really matters: caring for patients. Better tech to give faster and more accurate diagnosis and treatment so we can nurse people back to health sooner.

    Ensuring promising prototypes don’t get stuck in endless pilots. Ensuring successful ideas spread from one hospital to another, from one trust to the entire NHS. Building systems that can talk to each other and new developers can build on. And making sure we get the basics right like data infrastructure and patient records.

    So this is how we’re going to do it: NHSX.

    A new specialist unit that brings together all of our tech leadership from the Department of Health and Social Care, NHS England and NHSI into one place. Setting national policy for NHS tech, digital and data. Setting standards that work across the whole of health and care.

    It will be led by the government’s digital policy chief, Matthew Gould, who has a unique breadth of experience and a deep understanding of how to make digital transformation happen.

    Like so many people in the NHS, we’re lucky to have him, and I want more brilliant people like Matthew to come and be a part of NHSX and its exciting, bold mission.

    NHSX will have 3 early priorities:

    First: ensuring tech saves time for staff so they can focus on patients.

    Second: giving patients the tools to access information and services directly.

    And third: creating a system that means patient information can be accessed, safely and reliably, wherever it is needed.

    I want us to create a culture at NHSX that’s aspirational, hopeful, optimistic, and realistic. Full of people who respect one another and every single member of the NHS family. Fair, open, honest.

    With the door always open to new ideas and new people, creating a diversity of thought, constantly welcoming innovators with an outward-looking approach: a microcosm of what excellence looks like. Radically simplifying the system for developers and NHS decision-makers.

    Consistent language for all computers so patient records can be shared easily, time spent transcribing notes is cut, and human error is reduced.

    Unique barcodes for every piece of clinical equipment so essential kit can be tracked in real-time, cutting waste and saving hospitals up to £3 million a year.

    To test a new way of working, tech experts from NHSX will be embedded in national cancer, mental health and urgent care teams to bring the benefits of modern technology to every patient, clinician, and carer.

    We will empower the best digital minds in the NHS, and create an ecosystem where healthtech entrepreneurs are actually excited about working with this innovative, creative, forward-thinking organisation called the NHS.

    And the needs of our users will be at the heart of everything we do because the ‘X’ in NHSX stands for user experience.

    It’s why all of our standards will be designed and developed together. That means involving everybody that uses the NHS: patients, clinicians, our tech workforce, healthtech suppliers and wider civil society.

    All of our standards will be published on the web, so that anyone who wants to write code for the NHS can see what our needs are before they begin. Our regulatory approach will be designed for speed so apps can be improved quickly or removed quickly.

    There’s now more than 70 apps on the NHS Apps Library helping people with a range of conditions from diabetes to breast cancer, to mental health and pregnancy.

    There’s over a 100 new apps currently being assessed, including apps to help people with autism, to giving patients live information on A&E waiting times.

    And we’re continually learning and improving as we roll out the NHS App across England. Working with patients and frontline staff as we connect up the app with GP practices across the country.

    More than a million GP appointments a month are now booked through apps. More than 3 million repeat prescriptions are booked online now.

    And that’s only with a quarter of the population currently using online medical services. So the potential is huge.

    Just take diabetes: there’s 13 different apps available on the Apps Library, offering support on everything from blood glucose levels to diet, weight loss, and self-management for people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Living with diabetes can be incredibly tough, but the right technology can make a huge difference.

    This week we announced an expansion of wearable monitors for tens of thousands of people with type 1 diabetes, helping them to monitor their own condition, and save them unnecessary and stressful trips to hospital or their GP.

    So working with developers, to give people more choice over the apps and digital tools they can use, is crucial. Because ultimately this is all about people.

    We care about tech because we care about people. That’s the mindset we all need to have in the NHS.

    Well, imagine a future where the NHS App invites you to a cancer screening. You’ve been identified at risk because of medical information and lifestyle data you’ve chosen to share.

    You arrive at hospital and an algorithm takes seconds to compare your scan against millions of images. You get the results there and then. No waiting days for the post or checking your inbox nervously. You know exactly what the next steps is: working with medical experts to develop a personalised care plan. And this could happen years before you may have gone to the GP with your first symptoms.

    That’s the future I want to see in the NHS. And to get there we need something bigger than just a technological change: we need a culture change.

    For too many staff, outdated NHS tech is a hindrance rather than a help. It takes up time rather than saves time. And I understand the frustration. I know the systems of the past haven’t been good enough.

    If you’re a nurse, at the end of a long and taxing shift, and the thing that’s preventing you from getting home to your family is a computer that keeps on saying ‘no’, an IT system that won’t play ball, then of course, you’re going to feel like the tech is a hindrance rather than a help.

    But the right tech, working in the right way, can and does release time. Because good tech is seamless. It’s something staff shouldn’t even have to think about. The only thing staff should be thinking about is their patients.

    So it’s vital we get this right and I’m confident that with NHSX bringing together, driving forward, this tech transformation, we’ll start to create the culture change we need to see in the NHS: innovative, open to change, forward looking. Tech-focused only because we’re people-focused.

    Believing in the power of technology because we believe in the power of people.

  • Mark Field – 2019 Speech on UK and Bangladesh Partnership

    Below is the text of the speech made by Mark Field, the Minister of State at the Foreign Office, in Dhaka on 7 April 2019.

    I’m delighted to be back in Dhaka for the third time as Minister for Asia, and so soon after my colleague the Secretary of State for International Development. It’s a level of engagement that clearly demonstrates the UK’s strong commitment to our relationship with Bangladesh.

    This is a time of change for both our countries. For our part, the UK is leaving the EU and seeking new opportunities around the world, building on our strong historic, commercial, and cultural links.

    There are few places in the world where those links are stronger than here in South Asia, thanks to the thousands of personal connections between us. There are now some 600,000 British citizens of Bangladeshi heritage, many of them in my own constituency in London. We greatly value their contribution to all walks of British life.

    Here in Bangladesh I know you are looking forward to your 50th anniversary in two years’ time, and to celebrating your many achievements, from bringing over 50 million people out of extreme poverty since 1990, to increasing life expectancy and reducing infant mortality, to boosting your economy to one of the fastest growing in the world.

    We will be celebrating with you, remembering the part our country played in your liberation struggle.

    I myself remember the momentous days of the “Stop Genocide, Recognise Bangladesh” rally in Trafalgar Square; George Harrison’s benefit concert in New York; and reports in the British papers about Bangabandhu’s return via London to a newly independent Bangladesh.

    Today, Bangladesh can be proud of the huge progress it has made against the Sustainable Development Goals.

    With the pioneering work of Grameen Bank and BRAC, Bangladesh has shown how development best practice can be applied effectively for the benefit of your citizens. Your country has been able to make such huge strides thanks to a combination of good development policy, international partnership – including with DFID – and a resourceful private sector.

    Your just reward – of reaching Middle Income Status – is within your grasp. That is an exciting prospect, as are the growing opportunities for collaboration.

    We are already working together on climate change – a defining challenge for our times. As a challenge that particularly affects Bangladesh, you have valuable lessons on resilience to share with the rest of the world.

    We are also working together as fellow members of the Commonwealth. Her Majesty the Queen was delighted to welcome Prime Minister Hasina at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting last year in London.

    Our nations are working together to tackle the evils of human trafficking, which is a particular priority for both our governments, and in which we are investing substantially.

    On a practical level, we have been pleased to help improve aviation security standards in Bangladesh, to the point where air cargo can once more travel directly from here to the UK.

    Something else we share is our diversity – in both Bangladesh and the UK, people of different backgrounds – Muslims and non-Muslims – live side by side. In our increasingly divided world, we must continue to promote this model of co-existence and inclusion.

    I should like to take this opportunity to offer my personal condolences, and those of the British government, to the families of those Bangladeshis killed in the appalling attack in Christchurch. Their deaths, and the narrow escape of your cricket team, were yet another tragic reminder of the dangers of hatred and extremism.

    But the response to the attacks – both from the local Muslim community, and wider society – has also been a reminder that people overwhelmingly reject this hatred, and instead want to bridge divides, heal divisions and promote understanding.

    We shall be discussing all these issues and more during the third UK-Bangladesh Strategic Dialogue later this month, along with our shared ambitions for our future partnership. I am confident that we can achieve those ambitions, if we stay true to our democratic values.

    It is often said that democracy was the worst form of government – apart from all the others; and events continue to prove him right.

    You will be well aware that the British Parliament is currently wrestling with the complexities of implementing the British people’s decision to leave the EU. Some have suggested that this lengthy process means democracy has somehow failed. As an elected parliamentarian, I can confidently say that the opposite is true: it is democracy in action, with all its imperfections.

    And as a friend of Bangladesh I profoundly hope that, as Bangladesh graduates to Middle Income Status, it will remain true to its democratic values.

    That means holding elections that are fair, and that present voters with a free choice. Again, as a friend of Bangladesh it gives me no pleasure to say this, but I fear the Parliamentary elections which took place here in December did not meet this standard – as I said at the time. I also pressed for a full, credible and transparent resolution of all complaints.

    I think we all recognise that the notion of choice is crucial in any healthy democracy. Without it, there is a risk that voters might seek other ways of achieving the changes they want. Ultimately, that could pose a much greater threat to stability than allowing them to express their views through democratic channels.

    That is why it is so important to have a political opposition in place, one that is able and willing to hold the government to account and offer an alternate view.

    And it is also why it is so vital to allow space for a vibrant civil society, through which the people – and especially young people – can channel their energies, and indeed their frustrations, within the law.

    That means upholding Bangladesh’s fine tradition of allowing people to voice dissent and express themselves freely.

    It also means allowing the media to do its job of holding the powerful to account, which as we all know is so crucial in upholding the transparency and credibility of our institutions, and bearing down on corruption. This really matters, because the strength and accountability of our institutions, and the confidence that they inspire in investors, are also crucial to our democracies – and to our economies.

    The UK stands ready to help invest in those young people I mentioned just now, as another crucial element in the future success of this country.

    Every time I come here, I am struck by the energy and talent of the people. I would very much like more of them to have the opportunity to benefit from the UK’s world class educational institutions. That is why one of the things I shall be discussing with my counterparts on this visit is the possibility of opening the local education market to greater competition. I am sure that this will be a win-win for Bangladesh – good for your talented young people, and good for the country.

    To conclude ladies and gentlemen, the bonds of history and kinship between our countries make our relationship particularly strong and deep.

    As a long standing friend, the UK welcomes the great strides that Bangladesh has made over the last half century, and recognises the great potential it has to achieve still more in the next. And as a close friend I can speak frankly and say that what we want to see is a confident Bangladesh, with strong, transparent and accountable democratic institutions.

    We want to see lively debate, a vibrant civil society, and competitive elections. And we want to see this flourishing democratic landscape carefully scrutinised and held to account by a free and vibrant media. That would be a wonderful vision for Bangladesh in its second half century, and it would also be the best way for it to realise its undoubted potential. The UK stands ready to help Bangladesh achieve that potential, in whatever way we can.

  • Jeremy Wright – 2019 Speech on Online Harms

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jeremy Wright, the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, at the British Library in London on 8 April 2019.

    Thank you all for joining us and thanks to the British Library.

    And for those of you who are wondering why we have come to the British Library to talk about the internet, let me offer an explanation.

    Until the internet arrived, this was the world’s great collection of human knowledge.

    In this collection are the products of the greatest innovations and innovators in our history – from some of the earliest works created by the printing press to letters from Ada Lovelace, often known as the first computer programmer.

    Elsewhere there are elements of our legal history, like one of the few remaining copies of the Magna Carta.

    And it is on the interaction between the technological progress that drives our economy and the rules that protect our society that the White Paper we have published this morning is based.

    Just as the invention of the printing press required new ways of thinking about copyright and the ownership of ideas, so the online world has produced its own challenges.

    The internet is a part of our lives – nearly 90% of adults in the UK are online and 99% of 12-15 year olds.

    In many ways it is a powerful force for good. It can forge connections, share knowledge and spread opportunity across the world.

    But it can also be used to promote terrorism, undermine civil discourse, spread disinformation, and abuse or bully.

    For the most vulnerable in our society, the effects are more acute and sometimes they are tragic.

    And the truth is that the more we do online, the less acceptable it is that behaviour which would be controlled in any other environment is not controlled online.

    How to preserve a dynamic and innovative internet, while keeping its users safe from serious harm, is one of the great policy challenges of our age.

    This White Paper is our response.

    So what does it say?

    We could have decided to continue as we are – to urge online companies, in louder and louder voices, to do more to tackle the damaging content on their platforms but leave it to them to decide what should be done and when.

    Or we could pursue a prescriptive system of rules-based regulations that would struggle to keep up with a fast-changing threat landscape.

    We have concluded that neither of these approaches would deliver the better, safer internet which is in the interests of both those who provide online services and those use them.

    So we have set out in this White Paper a different approach.

    We propose a duty of care for those online companies which allow users to share or discover user-generated content, or that allow users to interact with each other online.

    A duty to do all that is reasonable to keep their users safe online.

    That duty will be enforced by an independent regulator.

    The White Paper sets out in greater detail our expectations of online companies as to how they should meet that duty of care and we expect the regulator to reflect those expectations in new codes of practice it will develop.

    The regulator will also take account of the need to promote innovation and freedom of speech.

    It will adopt a risk-based approach, prioritising action where there is the greatest evidence of threat or harm to individuals or to wider society.

    It will also adopt a proportionate approach – taking account of a company’s size and resources.

    It will be regulation designed to be intelligent, but most of all designed to be effective.

    The regulator will have powers to demand transparency from online companies about the harms found on their platforms and what they are doing about them.

    And the regulator will have powers to impose meaningful sanctions.

    We are consulting in the White Paper not just on remedial notices and substantial fines, but also on senior management liability and the blocking of websites.

    But this will be a regulatory approach designed to encourage good behaviour as well as to punish bad behaviour.

    Just as technology has created the challenges we are addressing here, technology will provide many of the solutions and the regulator will have broader responsibilities to promote the development and adoption of the these technologies and to encourage safety by design.

    It is also important to recognise that we all need the skills to keep ourselves safe online and we will task the regulator with promoting those skills too.

    So we are proposing some significant changes and we believe they are necessary.

    I want to take the opportunity to thank the team of civil servants from my Department and the Home Office, and others across Government for the huge amount of hard work that has gone into producing this White Paper today.

    And I want to thank those of you here this morning who have campaigned for a safer internet, who already do so much to keep people safe online and who have added so much to our thinking on this subject.

    We hope you will continue to add to that thinking.

    We want you to tell us what you think of what you read in this White Paper, so we can get it right.

    CONCLUSION

    The last thing I want to say is this.

    There are those who say, and will say when they read this White Paper, that because the internet is global, no nation can act to regulate it unless every nation acts to regulate it.

    I don’t agree.

    I believe the United Kingdom can and should lead the world on this. Because the world knows we believe in innovation and we believe in the rule of law too. We are well placed to act first and to develop a system of regulation the world will want to emulate.

    This White Paper begins that process, and I am grateful for the strong support in its development of my friend and colleague the Home Secretary, to whom it is my pleasure to hand over to now.

  • Penny Mordaunt – 2019 Speech on Sexual Health Rights

    Below is the text of the speech made by Penny Mordaunt, the Secretary of State for International Development, at Canada House in London on 8 April 2019.

    Thank you everyone for being here and thank you to Canada for hosting us.

    A lot of people have thanked me for coming along today because they know the turmoil that Parliament is in, all the stresses and strains that are going on and it is difficult times that is for sure. And quite a lot of people say to me how do you keep going, why have you stuck with it, why have you stayed there. I say something like it is my duty, the country needs us to find a way through, we need to hold Remainers and Brexiteers together. But the real reason is that I want to stay in post to attend Women Deliver.

    It is fantastic today to be able to celebrate our partnership on gender equality, announced by our Prime Ministers in 2017.

    It is wonderful to be amongst so many amazing women who it is my privilege to know a few of you and the amazing work you do. And also some amazing men as well. Dom McVey, a CDC supported entrepreneur who has done fantastic work on women’s economic empowerment and now is launching some new initiatives to help end period poverty worldwide. Thank you to all the fellas who are also doing their bit too.

    And there is a lot to celebrate. In the UK the female employment rate is at a record high and the gender pay gap is at a record low. We’ve introduced new laws to protect women from domestic abuse, FGM, stalking, and forced marriage.

    My department, the Government Equalities Office, this month moved into the Cabinet Office, the hub and the heart of Whitehall to really ensure that we are delivering. And the only female mouser the Cabinet Office cat, has received a promotion too.

    Meanwhile, in Canada you have created a Department for Women and Gender Equality. You have made gender budgeting a mandatory part of the federal budget-making process, and delivering your strategy to prevent gender-based violence, and have recently passed into law protections for pay equality, based on the UK’s gender pay gap reporting, I am delighted at that.

    But all too often, in too much of the world, women’s rights are actually being rolled back. Britain and Canada has shown real leadership together on this issue and that leadership is needed now more than ever.

    Millions of girls and women are living in poverty, denied an education, have inadequate healthcare, are routinely assaulted, unable to live full and happy lives. And no country has yet achieved gender equality.

    The Sustainable Development Goals are a vital way to drive and measure change. This year, the UK will be reporting on our progress towards implementing them, as part of our Voluntary National Review.

    Global Goal 5, on gender equality, is critical in and of itself, but without it we will never be able to deliver on the other goals. Everyone, whatever their gender, has a stake in gender equality.

    Domestically and overseas, the UK is championing efforts to better understand the situation of the poorest and most marginalised women. Just last month, I announced vital new work to end period poverty and shame in the UK and overseas. I also announced our upcoming strategy to ensure that every woman in the UK has freedom, choice, capacity, resilience, support, and protection to do whatever she wants to do.

    Freedom and choice are guiding principles for all our gender equality work. There are people around the world who want to control women, who want to restrict their choices and deny them their rights.

    That’s why it is so important that we use platforms like Women Deliver continually to renew our commitment to women’s rights and specifically to comprehensive sexual and reproductive rights for all women.

    Leadership means not shying away from the issues of access to safe abortion, when the evidence shows us that these services save women’s lives.

    Comprehensive Sexual Reproductive Health Rights (SRHR) is an area where the UK and Canada are continuing to deepen our partnership as likeminded leaders in this field.

    In January this year, we co-hosted a multi sector Safe Abortion dialogue here in London to drive progress and momentum in this absolutely critical area.

    And at the Commission on the Status of Women last month we held a strong line together, resisting the “pushback” as the Secretary General called it.

    We are united in our efforts to work with the most complex and challenging issues that threaten women’s health and lives when others are shying away from them and I thank Canada for their leadership in this area.

    Everyone should have control over their own bodies and their own futures. That means every girl and every woman having access to the information they need, the freedom to choose what’s right for them, and the services and support they need to make their own decisions.

    I am proud that thanks to UK aid, millions of women in the world’s poorest countries are able access the desperately-needed sexual and reproductive health services they need and want to use. The UK has been a world leader in this area and will proudly continue to be one.

    My Department is also supporting the deepening of civil society partnerships through our UK aid Connect programme.

    A new £42 million programme looking at SRHR will support two consortia of NGO partners on this theme, and I am pleased to announce that these will be led by Marie Stopes International and the International Planned Parenthood Federation.

    This programme will drive innovation and learning by bringing diverse partners together to work on complex and neglected issues such as increasing access to safe abortion and improving the provision of SRHR in crisis settings.

    Some of the most marginalised women and girls in the world are those living in conflict and crisis areas. Together we are pushing for a humanitarian system that responds to women and girls’ specific needs, but also sees them as active agents of change.

    We worked closely with Canada to develop the landmark G7 Whistler Declaration on Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women and Girls in Humanitarian Action.

    We are now teaming up to implement these commitments, including through the Call to Action on Protection from Gender Based Violence in Emergencies.

    Successful societies are those where women have control over their own bodies, are places where every mother can enjoy a wanted and healthy pregnancy, where every child can live beyond their fifth birthday, where no woman or girl is forced to marry before she is ready.

    Together with our partners, including Canada, we are supporting the UNICEF and UNFPA global programme, working to end child marriage, reaching millions of adolescent girls across 12 countries, and have co-sponsored every UN resolution on ending child marriage.

    We will continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with Canada on the international stage to realise the rights of all the world’s women and girls.

    This was demonstrated recently at a joint side event at the Commission on the Status of Women on LGBT rights. I look forwards to deepening our collaboration through Women Deliver and beyond.

    We must empower women to make their own decisions. We must give women the freedom to choose what is right for them.

    We must invest in them so that they can complete their education and fulfil their full potential.

    And we should recognise gender equality as one of the great human rights issues of our time.

    Thank you.

  • Graham Stuart – 2019 Speech on Exiting the European Union (Customs)

    Below is the text of the speech made by Graham Stuart, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade, in the House of Commons on 8 April 2019.

    I beg to move,

    That the draft Trade in Torture etc. Goods (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 15 March, be approved.

    I am pleased to be able to open this debate on the regulations. These regulations amend provisions of regulation (EU) No. 2019/125 of 16 January 2019 concerning trade in certain goods that could be used for capital punishment, torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

    The EU regulation divides these goods into three distinct categories. First, I will begin by explaining to the House that the regulation prohibits the import and export of goods that have no practical use other than capital punishment or torture. These goods include, among other things: gallows; guillotines; electric chairs; airtight vaults; electric shock devices intended to be worn on the body; cuffs for restraining human beings that are designed to be anchored to a wall; batons and shields with metal spikes; and whips with barbs, hooks and spikes. These are appalling instruments of torture, and the Government have a clear position that the trade in such goods from the United Kingdom is absolutely unacceptable. Their export and import are prohibited, and the only exception to this rule is if the items are to be displayed publicly in a museum.

    Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)

    What discussions has the Minister had with his EU counterparts, for example, about how we will enforce these regulations when we leave?

    Graham Stuart

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. The aim of these regulations is to transpose the existing system, which is reliant on EU law, into purely UK law. However, he rightly identifies the issue of co-operation with other countries in the EU. We will have our own discrete regime. We have no intention of making changes to it. We will be looking to co-operate with our colleagues in the EU—and beyond—in making sure that these appalling goods are not trafficked around the world.

    Secondly, the regulation imposes controls on the trade in specified goods that have legitimate uses—for example, in law enforcement—but that also carry a risk of being used for torture. These goods with potential torture application include oversized handcuffs, shackles, gang chains, spit hoods, electric shock dart guns and pepper sprays.

    The third category involves those goods listed in annexe IV of the EU regulation. The annexe lists several short-acting and intermediate-acting barbiturate anaesthetic agents such as amobarbital, pentobarbital and secobarbital. These goods have a legitimate use in medicine, in research laboratories and in university chemistry departments, but they have also been approved for use—and, in some countries, actually used—either on their own or as part of a cocktail of drugs for execution by lethal injection. We will not help any country with capital punishment, and we will continue to lobby against and seek to influence countries that continue the practice, with a ​view to ending capital punishment. We do not license the export of these barbiturate products to countries that have not abolished the death penalty without an end-user assurance that they will not be used for capital punishment, and we will not do so after EU exit.

    All of us will have the immediate reaction that it is terrible that the UK should ever be involved in the trade of any goods that could be used for capital punishment or torture. I am confident that we can all agree that the United Kingdom does not want to be a country that makes its living trading in such possible tools of torture. These goods have been controlled by European Union regulations for well over a decade, and the United Kingdom intends to carry on with those controls in a similar way. Let me reassure the House that exports from this country of such goods have been minimal over the past decade, averaging 10 licences per year, and we do not expect that to change. The types of goods exported under licence include handcuffs for prison service use and pepper sprays for use by the police in places such as the Crown dependencies, Australia and New Zealand. We have also licensed barbiturate anaesthetic agents for medicinal use and laboratory testing. The quantities are low, and the export value is small. We do not envisage any growth in exports of those goods after EU exit.

    Let me be clear about the purpose of these amending regulations. In their absence, existing European Union law would not be effective in UK domestic law on the day we exit the European Union, and our ability to control these goods would be undermined. After EU exit, this legislation will enable the Secretary of State to control the export from the UK of the listed goods that could be used for capital punishment, torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. As far as is possible, the legislation will operate as it does now, but controls on the goods will apply when they are exported from the UK rather than from the EU.

    I do not believe that UK exporters want to be involved in a trade in torture goods, and I do not believe that these are the sorts of goods that UK businesses want to make, sell or export. Nevertheless, our export controls have an important part to play in promoting and ensuring global security, by controlling the goods that leave our shores. The Government have a responsibility to be prepared for any exit-day scenario, and we need to ensure that these controls continue to function properly. These exit-related regulations are just a part of the necessary legislative building blocks to ensure readiness on exit day.

    The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 enables a functioning statute book on exit day by providing Ministers with the tools to deal with deficiencies in domestic law arising as a result of our exit from the European Union. These regulations thus take another step towards completing the legislative part of controlling the export of strategic goods in preparation for a no-deal exit scenario. The Department for International Trade will continue to work to provide detailed advice and guidance about export controls and trade sanctions through EU exit and beyond. If these regulations are no longer required on exit day, we expect to revoke or amend them. Alternatively, commencement could be deferred to the end of an implementation period.

    I want to take this opportunity to remind the House that these regulations are solely about preparing for European Union exit and ensuring that we have a ​functioning statute book in any scenario. These amendments must happen because of EU exit, but EU exit is not happening because of these amendments. Parliament needs to ensure that the existing controls remain in place. Negotiations about the future relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union or the wider world are a separate matter. They play no part in this debate today. Broadly, all the provisions applying to exports from the EU customs territory today will instead apply to exports from the UK. For this reason, the Government have made every effort to provide certainty for businesses and the public wherever possible. There is no new marketing opportunity for the export of the tools of torture.

    In August last year, we published a technical notice on export controls that explained our plans for post-EU exit export control licences. We will use our “Notices to Exporters”, which has 20,000 subscribers, to advise and communicate with UK businesses. We have also included EU exit advice in the export control training programme and at the annual export control symposium, as well as giving extensive advice to key sector trade associations.

    I hope that the House will work in the interests of the nation to ensure the passage of this legislation, which is essential to ensuring we are prepared for EU exit and that we continue the ban on the trade in torture goods and the control over the trade in goods with the potential for torture application. I commend the motion to the House.