UKPOL.CO.UK

Blog

  • Sir John Major – 2022 Speech at Institute for Government

    Sir John Major – 2022 Speech at Institute for Government

    The speech made by Sir John Major, the former Prime Minister, on 10 February 2022.

    We are living through a time of uncertainty and political turbulence – at home and overseas.

    At home, we take democracy for granted: we should not. It is far more complex than simply having the right to vote.

    In many countries, there is a widespread discontent of the governed, and democracy is in retreat. Nor is it in a state of grace in the UK.

    In the last decades of the 20th Century, the number of democratic countries grew dramatically: the arbiter of civil liberties, Freedom House, classified 110 nations as democratic.

    Democrats were so confident that their way of Government was the wave of the future that they stopped arguing for it.

    Their confidence was premature.

    In each of the last fifteen years, democracy has shrunk a little, as political and civil liberties have been diminished.

    In many countries, democracy has never taken root. Where it has, it risks being weakened by populism – often with added xenophobia, or muzzled by elected autocracy.

    It is challenged by protest groups or new – and more extreme – political movements. Even our great allies in the United States are facing populist attacks on their democracy.

    We should beware: when America sneezes, we often catch their cold.

    Good government has a duty to deliver unwelcome messages to electors.

    This is not easy in a world in which politicians are under continuous scrutiny from an uncontrolled internet, a 24 hour media, and an increasing number of impatient special interest groups.

    Under this spotlight, unwise promises are made to placate critics or win votes and – when these are not met – the public loses a little more faith.

    The hard truth is that, while government can do much, it cannot do everything. All problems cannot be swiftly and painlessly resolved on demand: it is an impossible task. If politicians admit that, it earns trust and respect.

    Discontent grows when inequality widens, or incomes stagnate, or problems seem unsolvable. The benefit of the doubt – that most precious of political commodities – is lost when Governments are seen to be “failing”.

    In the last 20 years a financial crash, unpopular wars, faltering globalisation, and an unfair distribution of the benefits of growth have all contributed to the present sour resentment of government.

    Our democracy has always been among the strongest and most settled in the world. It rests on the conviction that the UK Government acts for the wellbeing of all four of our nations.

    With nationalism growing – in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland – not everyone shares that conviction.

    It relies also upon respect for the laws made in Parliament; upon an independent judiciary; upon acceptance of the conventions of public life; and on self-restraint by the powerful.

    If any of that delicate balance goes astray – as it has – as it is – our democracy is undermined. Our Government is culpable, in small but important ways, of failing to honour these conventions.

    Where Governments fall short, candour is the best means of binding up support.

    But that candour must be freely offered – not dragged out under the searchlight of Inquiries. If it is not whole-hearted and convincing, the loss of public trust can be swift and unforgiving.

    We have seen that playing out in recent weeks. Trust in politics is at a low ebb, eroded by foolish behaviour, leaving a sense of unease about how our politics is being conducted.

    Too often, Ministers have been evasive, and the truth has been optional.

    When Ministers respond to legitimate questions with pre-prepared soundbites, or half-truths, or misdirection, or wild exaggeration, then respect for government and politics dies a little more.

    Misleading replies to questions invite disillusion. Outright lies breed contempt.

    In our democracy, we are able to speak truth to power. But, if democracy is to be respected, power must also speak truth to the people.

    And yet, in recent years, they have not been doing so.

    There has been cynicism about politics from the dawn of time. We are told that politicians are “all the same”, and this untruth conditions electors to condone lies as though they were the accepted currency of public life.

    But politicians are not “all the same”. And lies are just not acceptable.

    To imply otherwise is to cheapen public life, and slander the vast majority of elected politicians who do not knowingly mislead.

    But some do – and their behaviour is corrosive. This tarnishes both politics and the reputation of Parliament. It is a dangerous trend.

    If lies become commonplace, truth ceases to exist. What and who, then, can we believe? The risk is …. nothing and no-one. And where are we then?

    Parliament is an echo chamber. Lies can become accepted as fact, which – as The Speaker has pointed out – has consequences for policy and for reputation.

    That is why deliberate lies to Parliament have been fatal to political careers – and must always be so.

    If trust in the word of our leaders in Parliament is lost – then trust in Government will be lost too.

    At No10, the Prime Minister and officials broke lockdown laws.

    Brazen excuses were dreamed up. Day after day the public was asked to believe the unbelievable. Ministers were sent out to defend the indefensible – making themselves look gullible or foolish.

    Collectively, this has made the Government look distinctly shifty, which has consequences that go far beyond political unpopularity.

    No Government can function properly if its every word is treated with suspicion. A report by the Constitution Unit of UCL tells us that the public trust the Courts more than the Civil Service; the Civil Service more than Parliament; and Parliament more than the Prime Minister.

    The lack of trust in the elected portion of our democracy cannot be brushed aside. Parliament has a duty to correct this.

    If it does not, and trust is lost at home, our politics is broken.

    If trust in our word is lost overseas, we may no longer be able to work effectively with friends and partners for mutual benefit – or even security.

    Unfortunately, that trust is being lost, and our reputation overseas has fallen because of our conduct. We are weakening our influence in the world.

    We should be wary. Even a casual glance at overseas comment shows our reputation is being shredded. A nation that loses friends and allies becomes a weaker nation.

    And when Ministers attack or blame foreign governments, to gain populist support at home, we are not taken seriously. Megaphone diplomacy merely increases hostility overseas. International trust may not be easy to regain.

    * * * * * *

    Our way of life is built around the maintenance of Law. The public expects our Government to work within the Law and the accepted rules of public life.

    It was unprecedented when this Government broke the Law by proroguing Parliament, to avoid debates on Brexit that might not have gone as they wished.

    I had promised, in a BBC interview, that if the Government attempted to muzzle Parliament I would challenge their action in Court.

    So I did – though not as swiftly as the civil rights campaigner, Gina Miller. Lawyers presented our cases separately but they were, in essence, identical.

    Both our challenges were upheld unanimously by the Supreme Court, who ruled that the Government’s actions were un-lawful.

    “It was,” the Court said, “impossible to conclude there was any reason, let alone a good reason” for proroguing Parliament for five weeks in the run up to Brexit.

    The Prime Minister said he “disagreed” with the Court, and the then Leader of the House accused the Supreme Court Judges of “a constitutional coup”. The Government accepted the verdict, but in bad faith. It did not apologise – nor mend its ways.

    It went on to introduce legislation, giving the Government the power to break International Law, albeit – as one Minister conceded – “in a limited but specific way”. Fortunately, the issue fell away, but it was a proposal that should never have been put forward.

    It cut overseas aid – which Parliament had set at 0.7% GDP – without the prior approval of Parliament (although this was obtained retrospectively).

    And this is the Government that fought a referendum to “protect the Sovereignty of Parliament” and the sanctity of domestic law.

    All of this is against the backdrop of the Prime Minister being investigated for several apparent breaches of the Ministerial Code.

    He chose to ignore critical reports on his Ministers; rejected advice from his independent Adviser on Ministerial Standards – who resigned; and attempted – but failed – to overturn a unanimous Standards Select Committee Report that condemned the behaviour of a Parliamentary colleague and friend.

    It may be possible to find excuses for each of these lapses – and others – but all of them, taken together, tell a different tale.

    The Prime Minister and our present Government not only challenge the Law, but also seem to believe that they – and they alone – need not obey the rules, traditions, conventions – call them what you will – of public life.

    The charge that there is one law for the Government, and one for everyone else is politically deadly – and it has struck home.

    Our democracy requires that the truth and the Law should be respected and obeyed – above all, by the Government. But, sometimes, it seems that – even if it is obeyed – it is not always respected.

    When a leading tabloid labelled Judges “enemies of the people” the Justice Secretary did not leap to their defence. Other Cabinet Ministers publicly disparaged “leftie lawyers”, “activist lawyers”, and attacked Judges for “exceeding their authority”.

    Public denunciation of Judges and lawyers gives credence to the belief that the Government wishes to usher in a compliant Judiciary.

    It should back off.

    The late Lord Bingham, one of our greatest Judges, once remarked that there “are countries where the Judges always agree with the Government – but they are not countries in which any of us would like to live”. That was true then – and is true today.

    There have also been attempted assaults on civil rights – not all of them successful. The Government briefed, but rowed back from, a serious attack on Judicial Review: but the intent was there and may return.

    It proposed legislation to allow the Police to “stop and search” anyone at a protest meeting “without any cause for suspicion”.

    It attempted to legislate to allow the Police to impose conditions on protest marches likely to be “noisy”. These are not the only examples.

    Apart from being unworkable, such proposals would have alienated the public from the Police. I recall anti-Poll Tax marches, anti-war marches and anti-Brexit marches which attracted huge numbers – and were certainly noisy. Would these have been banned?

    The intent of these protestors was not to prevent the public from going about their normal lives. These protestors were the public, expressing deeply-felt opposition to Government policy.

    But – although they may be uncomfortable for any government – protest marches are a safety valve for free speech. Democracy should treat them with care.

    The Government was lucky that the House of Lords rejected these proposals, but there is no certainty they will not return in another Bill.

    Such a denial of civil rights is wrong in principle, and in practice.

    If the power of the State grows, and the protections of the Law diminish, then the liberties of the individual fall.

    The Mother of Parliaments should not permit this.

    * * * * * * *

    We British are a kindly people. When appeals are made for those in distress – at home or abroad – the good heart of our nation responds with compassion and generosity.

    But, increasingly, across the Western world, populist pressure leads Governments to be less generous to refugees, asylum seekers and migrants.

    At present, an estimated 70 million people are displaced – three times as many as at the end of the Second World War. In the next 30 years, climate change may force a further 143 million people to leave their homes.

    To this, we must add unknown numbers of families fleeing from intolerable hardship and repression.

    The problem is huge and growing. It needs a collaborative and international solution to help refugees, and protect the target communities that now bear the burden. Without such an approach, the next generation will inherit an insoluble problem.

    In America, they build walls to keep migrants out. In Europe, they build camps to keep them in.

    Here, in the UK, the Government wishes to remove British citizenship from dual nationals, without any notice or right of appeal.

    It proposes serious action against criminal gangs that traffic migrants – and rightly so. But it also proposes to criminalise the migrants themselves.

    We should search our souls before doing this.

    Can it really be a crime to be frightened; homeless; desperate; destitute; fleeing from persecution, or war, or famine, or hardship; and to cross half the world on foot and dangerous waters in an unsafe boat, in the hope of finding a better life?

    Of course, if the numbers are too large, this creates an appalling problem for local communities. But surely, to seek sanctuary from an unbearable life cannot – morally – be treated as a crime?

    Yet, the Government’s Border Bill proposes to punish asylum seekers who take an unsanctioned route, with a jail sentence of up to four years.

    There must be a better way to protect areas such as Kent, than filling our prisons with miserable unfortunates, whose only real crime is to seek a better life.

    Prison – for these refugees – is punishment without compassion.

    I do sympathise with the awful problem facing the Government. But these proposals are not natural justice, and are decidedly un-British.

    I hope the Government will reconsider.

    * * * * * * *

    The UK has long been admired for having the highest standards in public life. We are not perfect. There is no golden age. But, for generations, we have been seen to set an example for others to follow.

    Many years ago, in the wake of a scandal that became known as “Cash for Questions”, I set up the Nolan Committee on Standards in Public Life.

    Nolan set out guidelines to guard against poor behaviour.

    Recently, in a comprehensive Report, the Committee – now under the Chairmanship of Lord Evans of Weardale – reported that we need more rigorous enforcement of ethical standards.

    It would be reassuring if the appointment of the guardians of ethics was fully independent and – where appropriate – new powers to initiate, investigate and report were put on a statutory basis.

    In a Foreword to this Report, I endorsed the Committee’s commendations in full, and I hope the Prime Minister will accept them without delay.

    If the Prime Minister were to agree to this, it would help to regain the UK’s reputation as the standard for democracy; for fairness; for honesty; and for pragmatic commonsense in protecting our national interests.

    That reputation, built up by our predecessors, is invaluable to our national interests: it should be protected, not demolished.

    * * * * * * *

    The style of the Government creates its own problems. It looks for enemies where there are none. Moreover, it then chooses the wrong enemies.

    Most recently, it has been waging campaigns against the Civil Service and the BBC. In neither case is this wise – or justified – or even in the Government’s own interests.

    The Civil Service is the support structure to government: treating it as a hostile “blob” which seeks to undermine the Government is both foolish and wrong.

    As for the BBC, it is a crucial part of our overseas “soft power”, and a policy of undermining it and starving it of funds is self-defeating for UK interests.

    Ministers should remember that both these institutions are more trusted than the Government itself. They should focus their attention on reforms to improve public life.

    * * * * * * *

    Finally ……

    There is rarely a good time for a bad idea, but sometimes – when faced with the alternatives – a bad idea can appeal. So it is with the funding of politics.

    The present funding of our democratic system leaves it prey to special interests. The Conservative Party is too dependent upon business and a small number of very wealthy donors.

    The Labour Party is in hock to trades unions, and a different cadre of donors. Minor Parties are also obligated to funders.

    This carries risks that besmirch politics. Many believe – sometimes, but not always, wrongly – that Honours are offered as a reward for funding our democratic system: that donors are given access to Ministers, and are able to influence policy.

    It is a perception that corrupts our system. The Honours system is cheapened. And the political system is made to look corrupt. This damages democracy.

    It is time to re-focus on how our politics is funded. The system needs cleansing. It must never be the plaything of the rich, nor of pressure groups, yet no-one wants our politics fully funded by the State. Certainly, I don’t.

    Legislation should limit funding by individuals, by companies, by trades unions, to sums that no-one can reasonably claim would entitle the donor to favours, rewards, or undesirable access.

    Donors must not be seen to sway policy through an open cheque book.

    If a restriction on donations means an increased level of public funding of political Parties, of elections, of referendums, then so be it.

    I don’t like this outcome, but it is the lesser of the evils and – despite my distaste – it is a price worth paying if it removes any suggestion of corrupt advantage, and restores the reputation of representative democracy.

    “One man, one vote” is a sound principle: and this essential fairness should not risk being undermined by any one man and his money.

    * * * * * * *

    Our democracy is a fragile structure: it is not an impenetrable fortress. It can fall if no-one challenges what is wrong, or does not fight for what is right.

    The protection of democracy depends upon Parliament and the Government upholding the values we have as individuals, and the trust we inspire as a nation.

    But these values cannot be partial; cannot be occasional; cannot be taken out and paraded for political convenience. They are eternal.

    Democracy is a life-long companion, not a passing fancy.

    Trust, integrity and values are the structure upon which our democracy is founded.

    If they are rooted in our politics and our way of life, they provide a pathway to take any child from the backstreets of their youth, to the pinnacle of their ambition.

    We must protect this way of life. It is more precious than any Government, any political party, or any individual.

    * * * * * * *

    For many years, travelling the world, I have been received as the lucky representative of the most stable democracy of them all.

    The UK was seen as the democracy, tested by time, whose virtues had built the Mother of Parliaments and a free, independent – and fair – legal system that was widely copied. All held together by a language that united the world.

    We were seen as the free-est of nations, safe in our island, with allies and partners in every corner of our world. It was a position of influence, built up over centuries – envied, praised and copied.

    All of this gave the UK a unique position in the world. It was not simply the influence of military or political power – but of example, which is as important as trust.

    And trust matters.

    It matters for self-respect. It matters for gentle persuasion. It matters for hard, uncomfortable decision-making.

    It matters to our Parliament. It matters to our country. It matters to our United Kingdom. It matters in how we are perceived by others near and far.

    And it matters for the long-term protection and wellbeing of democracy.

  • Greg Hands – 2022 Statement on North Sea Oil and Gas

    Greg Hands – 2022 Statement on North Sea Oil and Gas

    The statement made by Greg Hands, the Minister for Energy, Clean Growth and Climate Change, in the House of Commons on 9 February 2022.

    There will continue to be ongoing demand for oil and gas over the coming years. It is a clear choice between a transition that secures our energy, protects jobs and leads to innovation in new technologies like carbon capture and hydrogen, and an extinction for our energy sector, as I think the hon. Lady proposes. Flicking a switch and turning off our domestic source of gas overnight would put energy security, British jobs and industries at risk, and we would be even more dependent on foreign imports. The way we produce oil and gas is cleaner than in many jurisdictions, so it would be illogical to import them at further expense to Britain and our planet.

    The fields referred to in these reports are already licensed, some dating back to as early as 1970, and are now going through the usual regulatory processes. All proposals are subject to a rigorous scrutiny process prior to consent, as opposed to licensing, by our expert regulators, including an environmental impact assessment and a public consultation. No decisions have been taken by the regulators, so it would be inappropriate to comment further on that process. However, to be clear, continued support for Britain’s oil and gas sector is not just compatible with our net zero goals; it is essential if we are to meet the ambitious targets we set for ourselves while protecting jobs and livelihoods.

    As announced last year, and forming part of the North sea transition deal, we will introduce a climate compatibility checkpoint for any new licences to ensure that any future licensing rounds remain consistent with our goals. Meanwhile, we continue to make progress on developing new nuclear, which I think the hon. Lady also opposes, and renewables that will power our future. Today, we have announced that we are ramping up our options for our flagship renewable scheme, contracts for difference, establishing new industries, boosting investment and creating jobs in our former industrial heartlands.

  • Tracey Crouch – 2022 Speech on the Protection of Seals

    Tracey Crouch – 2022 Speech on the Protection of Seals

    The speech made by Tracey Crouch, the Conservative MP for Chatham and Aylesford, in the House of Commons on 9 February 2022.

    I beg to move,

    That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to make the intentional or reckless disturbance or harassment of seals an offence; to make further provision about the protection of seals; and for connected purposes.

    We are very lucky in this country to be home to more than a third of the world’s grey seal population. A globally rare species resident in the UK, grey seals are the equivalent of an African elephant. In addition, the UK is home to 30% of European common seals, which are, sadly, in alarming decline. Seals are present around the UK coastline, with some areas being more visible breeding grounds than others.

    I was thrilled to hear from the Zoological Society of London, which conducts surveys on the number of seals in the Greater Thames estuary, that the latest population survey estimated that 700 harbour seals and 3,000 grey seals live in the Thames estuary. As a Medway MP, I was pleased to discover how many seals are drawn to the Medway and Swale estuaries to rest and pup on the excellent mud flats and salt marsh habitat, due to the abundance of prey, including smelt and sea bass. I am pleased to see some Essex colleagues on the Benches, for I know they will be just as interested in the estuary population.

    In fact, the Medway houses the largest no-take fish zone in the UK, making it the perfect restaurant for seals. The essential top predator role performed by seals recycles nutrients, helping to keep a balanced marine ecosystem. Notwithstanding the obvious environmental benefits of seals, it is important to recognise, in some parts of the UK, the economic boost that wildlife assets such as seals provide, through tourism, to communities on the coast. But that brings with it dangers—ones that can be overcome but none the less are still there.

    Seals are not without challenges but, sadly, they come from us humans. Like many people, I was horrified by the dog attack on Freddie the seal near Hammersmith bridge last year. I know through my work with Mary Tester, a British Divers Marine Life Rescue medic who was in charge of Freddie, how he brought joy to the local community and visitors alike, especially during lockdown. The injuries that Freddie suffered, sadly, resulted in the decision being made to put him down. Unfortunately, that is not the only example of the devastating effects that disturbance, whether intentional or reckless, has on seals. Last month, a runner in the north-east of England caused a stampede of more than 100 seals after he ignored the advice of seal stewards and approached the group that were resting on the rocks. The distressed seals fled back towards the water; the Yorkshire Seal Group confirms that the reckless behaviour would have undoubtedly caused numerous injuries to the fleeing seals and may have led to loss of life for some of the pups.

    Seals face a range of issues and pressures, such as habitat loss and chemical and plastic pollutants, that require global solutions. However, preventing disturbance is something we in this Parliament can do with a minor tweak to existing legislation. Doing so would also result in greater awareness.

    Disturbance has serious and potentially life-threatening effects, but it can easily be avoided. It is defined as any action that disrupts a seal from a settled state in response to a perceived threat. Disturbance causes stress and wastes vital energy reserves, often resulting in injury, while broken ribs or jaws can prove fatal. Conserving energy is vital for survival in the wild, and seals can quickly enter a fatal energy deficit spiral through chronic disturbance.

    Actions resulting in serious disturbance can be intentional, reckless or negligent. Serious disturbance is caused when people are too close, too visible or too noisy. The harm done to disturbed seals may not be immediate or obvious, but minimising serious or chronic disturbance will greatly improve any seal’s chances of survival. I am pleased that the Government, together with the Seal Alliance, launched a new awareness campaign in spring last year. The “Give Seals Space” campaign asks for the public to be aware of the impact their behaviour can have on vulnerable wildlife. That includes keeping well away from seals so that the seals cannot smell, hear or see them, keeping dogs on a lead, never feeding seals and taking all litter home. However, there is still more to be done and there is a call for action from across the country.

    In a response to the parliamentary petition “Strengthen laws protecting seals”, which gained more 26,000 signatures—one from every constituency in Parliament—the Government confirmed that they would be providing funding for signs to be put on the banks of the Thames to help to raise awareness of the impact of disturbance on seals and the importance of keeping dogs under close control. I assure the House that I will be contacting colleagues at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Seal Alliance to ensure that we can have some of these fantastic “Give Seals Space” signs on the River Medway, and I encourage other hon. Members to look at the material provided by the Seal Alliance.

    Sadly, we cannot rely solely on goodwill and human behaviour. We need the legislative back-up to make intentional and reckless disturbance illegal. Seals are currently afforded a number of protections. They are covered by the 1979 Bern Convention, and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee recognises that the UK has a special responsibility to protect seals on behalf of the rest of the world. Thankfully, numerous pieces of legislation have made it an offence to “take, injure or kill” a seal within 12 nautical miles of the British coast.

    However, as I have made clear, disturbing a seal, whether intentionally or not, can have fatal consequences. Therefore, my Bill calls on the Government to make a simple yet crucial amendment to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, whereby someone who intentionally or recklessly disturbs or harasses a seal shall be guilty of an offence. That would ensure that seals are treated the same as whales and dolphins in British legislation. The Joint Nature Conservation Committee’s quinquennial review suggested such amendments be made to the Act to help address the issue of disturbance. It is crucial that existing legislation is reviewed to avoid legal loopholes that prevent prosecution for disturbance caused by a third party: a dog, vessel or drone under human control.

    I know that colleagues at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs recognise the issue, and I applaud and thank them, especially the Minister, for the work that has been carried out so far to raise public awareness. I believe the cross-party support for my ten-minute rule Bill and for my early-day motion, and the outpouring of public emotion following Freddie’s death, shows that there is the political and public will to make a positive change.

    Finally, I would like to say a special thank you to everyone who has helped to get us to where we are today: the public, commercial operators, conservation groups including the Marine Conservation Society, Whale and Dolphin Conservation, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Wild Justice, and individuals such as Chris Packham and Dr Ben Garrod. I thank leading seal charities the Seal Alliance, Seal Protection Action Group and the Seal Research Trust, the numerous local wild seal organisations and rescue and rehab centres in the UK and Europe, and British Divers Marine Life Rescue. I also want to say a special thank you to Mary Tester of Marine Life Rescue, Sue Sayer of Cornwall Seal Group Research Trust, and Anna Cucknell, project manager at the Zoological Society of London.

    I hope that we can work together to ensure that we enjoy our coastal habitats, fully appreciate them, and share our seas successfully with wildlife now and for future generations.

    Question put and agreed to.

    Ordered,

    That Tracey Crouch, Duncan Baker, Andrew Rosindell, Ben Lake, John McDonnell, Henry Smith, John Nicolson, Sammy Wilson, Sarah Olney, Jim Shannon, Dr Neil Hudson and Dame Caroline Dinenage present the Bill.

    Tracey Crouch accordingly presented the Bill.

  • Paul Scully – 2022 Speech on Neonatal Leave and Pay

    Paul Scully – 2022 Speech on Neonatal Leave and Pay

    The speech made by Paul Scully, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, in the House of Commons on 9 February 2022.

    I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall) wholeheartedly on securing today’s debate. This is an important issue, and I am very grateful to him for bringing it to the attention of Parliament in the way he did, baring his soul. I know Roisin will be proud of him today.

    We have heard his personal account that the impact of having a young baby in neonatal care has on parents, and the additional pressure that having to balance employment with caring for their child places on them. My hon. Friend has spoken with such depth of personal experience and it brings home that what we do here, when we are looking to bring forward the Employment Bill, and all the work the officials do matters. This really matters on a human scale to people on a day-to-day basis, as we have just heard. I am grateful to him for his candour, and for raising awareness of this issue. It is a shame that the rhythm of this House means that that speech has not had the audience in the Chamber, but I know people will be watching it and reading the account in the Official Report. Bringing this matter to our attention is amazing.

    In the UK, an estimated 100,000 babies are admitted to neonatal care every year following their birth. Many of those babies spend prolonged periods of time on a neonatal care unit in a hospital as a result of having been born prematurely, or for other health conditions. It is, as we have heard, an incredibly worrying and stressful time for parents. They will naturally want to be able to focus their attention on getting through that period, supporting each other and their baby. However, some may have concerns about their ability to do that and keep their jobs. I sympathise with anyone who has found themselves in that position.

    Currently, parents in those circumstances tend to rely on their statutory leave entitlements, for example maternity or paternity leave. In practice, that means a considerable proportion of their leave may be used while the baby in still neonatal care or that they do not have sufficient leave to remain with their baby for the necessary period.

    A survey conducted by the charity Bliss in 2019 found that 66% of fathers had to return to work while their baby was still receiving specialist neonatal care, and that 36% of fathers resorted to being signed off sick in order to spend time with their baby in a neonatal unit. That can, in some cases, have a negative impact on their employment record. Fathers and partners may also experience negative effects on their physical and mental health from trying to combine work with caring for the child and the mother. Other parents of babies in neonatal care have reported that they had to return to work earlier than they had planned due to suffering financial hardship from being away from work.

    Considering those different scenarios, it is clear that the current leave and pay entitlements do not adequately support parents of babies in neonatal care. In March 2020, following a Government consultation on the issue, we committed to introducing the new entitlement to neonatal leave and pay, and I can assure my hon. Friend that we remain very much committed to that. Our planned neonatal leave and pay entitlement will allow parents to take additional time off work in circumstances where their child is admitted to neonatal care, ensuring that they are no longer in the incredibly difficult position of having to choose between risking their job and spending much-needed time with their baby.

    Neonatal leave and pay will apply to parents of babies who are admitted into hospital up to the age of 28 days and who have a continuous stay in hospital of seven full days or more. Eligible parents will be able to take up to 12 weeks of paid leave on top of their other parental entitlements such as maternity and paid paternity leave. Neonatal leave will be a day-one right, meaning that it will be available to an employee from their first day in a new job. Statutory neonatal pay, like other family-related pay rights, will be available to those employees who meet continuity of service and minimum earnings tests.

    While we understand that the introduction of neonatal leave and pay will create a small burden on businesses, we believe that the benefit to business will outweigh any costs. Policies such as neonatal leave and pay that enable parents to participate in the labour market and to succeed and progress in work not only benefit individual employees but give employers access to a bigger pool of talent. Such reforms will also help businesses, because employers who embrace family-friendly policies are so much more likely to see greater employee loyalty, commitment and motivation.

    In addition to our plans to introduce neonatal leave and pay, the UK has a range of policies in place that support employees to balance work with family life and other personal commitments and responsibilities. They include: a right to request flexible working; generous family-related leave and pay entitlements; and protections from detriment for parents who take or seek to take family-related time off work. The UK’s maternity leave system is one of the most generous in the world. Pregnant women and new mothers are entitled to take up to 52 weeks of leave—that is a day-one right with no qualifying period of service—and up to 39 weeks of statutory maternity pay if they are eligible. Maternity leave can be started up to 11 weeks before the expected week of childbirth.

    Fathers of premature babies have the flexibility to take their one or two weeks of paternity leave and pay within eight weeks of the expected date of birth rather than having to take the leave within eight weeks of the baby’s actual birth, if they wish. We also have a manifesto commitment to make paternity leave more flexible and will set out our response on that in due course.

    The right to emergency leave—time off for dependants —allows all employees a reasonable amount of unpaid time off work to deal with an unexpected or sudden emergency involving a child or dependant and to put care arrangements in place. Additionally, all employed parents have a right to up to 18 weeks of unpaid parental leave for each child up to a child’s 18th birthday.

    The Government are committed to introducing new employment measures as we seek to build a high-skilled, high-productivity, high-wage economy that delivers on our ambition to make the UK the best place in the world to work and grow a business. I reassure my hon. Friend that further detail on reforms to our employment framework will be published in due course. Naturally, covid-19 has affected our progress in introducing the new entitlement to Parliament, but we remain committed to doing so as soon as parliamentary time allows. In the meantime, we are moving forward with the work. That includes working with lawyers on our legislative approach, which is likely to include both primary and extensive secondary legislation, as well as considering how the entitlement will be implemented. It will also, in due course, require accessible and thorough guidance for both employers and employees.

    As I mentioned, delivery of the new entitlement will need primary legislation as well as changes to the HMRC IT payment system to allow employers to administer statutory neonatal pay on behalf of the Government. Officials are in discussion with HMRC colleagues about the establishment of that IT system. It is a large-scale project, and we are ensuring that the relevant teams in HMRC are as prepared as possible, that they fully understand what is required and how much resource will be needed. We are doing the necessary groundwork so that we are in the best position to implement neonatal leave and pay once legislation is in place.

    I recognise my hon. Friend’s points about whether the entitlement could be delivered through a stand-alone Bill or alternative measures. Due to pressures on parliamentary time, it might be challenging to introduce a stand-alone Bill, but we remain committed to introducing neonatal leave and pay and will do so as soon as parliamentary time allows. We understand and sympathise with the position of parents with children in neonatal care and remain fully committed to the introduction of neonatal leave and pay. In the meantime, we have other parental leave entitlements that are available to new parents and we encourage employers to continue to respond with flexibility and compassion to parents in that very difficult position. I have spoken to a number of businesses that have great schemes in place to deal with such life events, such as ASOS. I try to showcase that good work, because they do not need to wait for a legislative framework.

    I close by thanking my hon. Friend for his incredible contributions to the debate and I thank everyone who has worked hard to raise awareness of the difficult situation of parents remaining in employment when their children are in neonatal care. As always, I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend and other Members of the House to discuss the issues further as we move towards getting these provisions on the statute book.

  • Luke Hall – 2022 Speech on Neonatal Leave and Pay

    Luke Hall – 2022 Speech on Neonatal Leave and Pay

    The speech made by Luke Hall, the Conservative MP for Thornbury and Yate, in the House of Commons on 9 February 2022.

    Every year in the UK, tens of thousands of babies receive neonatal care. For the families of these children, the experience can be life changing. Neonatal care is the type of care that a baby receives in hospital if they are born premature, full-term but with a condition or illness that needs medical attention, or with a low birth weight. Rather than families bringing their child home shortly after birth, the child is admitted to a specialist neonatal care unit to receive the support that ensures they receive the best possible chances of survival and quality of life.

    A wealth of evidence already exists that shows that, for children in neonatal care to have the best possible outcomes, they need their parents to be as involved in their care as much as possible and as early as possible. The Government already agree with this, and that the current leave and pay entitlements do not adequately support parents when their child is born sick or premature and requires neonatal care.

    Many parents and campaigners have welcomed the proposals wholeheartedly to deliver neonatal leave and pay that will allow parents to take additional time off work when their child is in neonatal care, ensuring that they are no longer in the impossible position of having to choose between keeping their job and spending time with their baby. I am grateful to have secured this Adjournment debate to highlight the importance of delivering the Government’s commitment to delivering neonatal leave and pay by a set target date of 2023, and to make the case for how those in all parts of the House can work together to overcome the challenges and provide this vital support for families at the earliest possible opportunity.

    Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

    First, I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this Adjournment debate. I welcome this discussion as an essential part of employment reform, and I support him fully in his wish to expedite legislation so that both parents can take this leave together as a shared benefit. For that reason, I understand he will have lots of support right across the Chamber to achieve his goal.

    Luke Hall

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support because for me, like for so many parents, this is personal.

    In my own family’s case, my wife was admitted to hospital 22 weeks into her pregnancy following a number of complications, and we were completely unprepared to be told at that point—22 weeks in—that she could give birth at any time and that she would have to stay in hospital for the duration of the pregnancy, as well as that if she did go into labour, our baby might not survive long after childbirth, and if they did, the overwhelming likelihood was that they would live with significant disabilities or challenges.

    Even with the incredible and compassionate support that you receive from neonatal intensive care unit consultants, taking you through every step and answering every question, there really is nothing that can prepare you for that type of conversation or for the choices that you are asked to make. I know that all parents deal with that in their own different way, but for me it left a mark that I know will never really leave me.

    In our case, like so many others, this meant staying in hospital and praying every single day that the pregnancy lasted as long as possible. Every day feels like a month, but also like an incredible accomplishment, and I was in complete awe of my wife and so many other women who handled everything so magnificently. Six weeks later, our son, William, was born on 6 January last year, weighing just 2.4 lbs.

    We did not know that our son was not breathing when he was born—we found that out a lot later; I cannot remember exactly when—but I do remember being told that he was going to be okay, and my wife was able to hold him for a few moments before he was taken to neonatal intensive care, where he stayed for 72 very long days before coming home. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the incredible team at Southmead Hospital and our midwife, Bev Alden, who was genuinely superb in going above and beyond the call of duty to support us.

    The reason why I have highlighted this point about the journey before birth to the Minister at the start of this debate is to make the serious point that, for so many people, having a premature child is a very long journey. It does not start the day the child is born; it can start weeks or months beforehand. Delivering neonatal leave and pay supports families in one part of that journey, but not for the whole journey. There is more that Government, businesses, organisations and individuals can do to support them, but neonatal leave and pay is one thing the Government can do quickly.

    Currently, the parents of a child in neonatal care rely on their existing statutory leave entitlements so they can be off work while their child is in hospital. That means that parents spend a proportion of their maternity or paternity leave with the baby in hospital. Babies who have spent a long time in hospital after birth are usually at an earlier stage in their development when their mother or parents go back to work, in comparison with their peers. That can be particularly challenging for mothers, many of whom would have liked to have additional time with their child but cannot afford to take any more time off. That leads only in one direction—less parental involvement in care, causing immense stress and leaving parents unsupported. It reduces the opportunity for bonding time with their child.

    The current system is also a massive barrier for fathers and non-childbearing parents in particular. Earlier this week, 75% of parents who responded to a survey from Bliss, the incredible charity, said that they or their partner went back to work before their baby was home from hospital. Some of those children will still have been on ventilation and receiving critical care. Previous research suggests that the most common reason for that is they simply cannot afford to take more time off work. That is happening every single day, right around the country, to families of premature and sick children.

    Paid leave for parents of babies in neonatal care already exists in different countries around the world. In Ireland, paid maternity leave is extended by the amount of time between birth and the original expected birth date, and there is a similar system in Germany. In Sweden, maternity leave begins at the point the baby is discharged from hospital, rather than the birth date. Here in the UK, the Government and we, generally, have a record of supporting parents to be proud of. We have a generous and flexible system for many parents. The Government and the Minister are committed to making the UK the best place possible to live and work, and that includes the ability to grow and raise a family. That is why so many people were delighted by the Government’s commitment to finally deliver on neonatal leave and pay and to put it in the last manifesto.

    I want to make the point of the significant mental and emotional toll on parents in the situation of having a child in neonatal intensive care. Research by Bliss back in 2018 shows that 80% of parents who have a child admitted to neonatal intensive care felt that their mental health suffered, and a huge 35% of parents report that their mental health was significantly worse after time on the neonatal unit. Regardless of the circumstances, parents want to be with their children. That is obvious; all parents will say that. But when your child is so small and vulnerable, it is painfully difficult to be apart from them. You just want to be there.

    Even when they are in the best possible hands, a NICU can be a really worrying and scary place to be. They take some getting used to, because you are with lots of new people, there are children in very difficult circumstances and just because of the noise—the constant beeping from equipment around the unit takes getting used to. The mental pressure on parents is huge. I would say to anyone trying to understand the experience, imagine having to sit with your child in an incubator or having to learn how to feed your child through a tube, while worrying whether you can afford to pay your bus fare home. For too many people, that is the case.

    Imagine going through this journey while feeling guilty about not spending time with the children you have at home, because you are in the NICU every spare minute of the day. You feel guilty, because you are unsure how to hold and support your child. When you do have time at home, I promise every spare minute is spent in a permanent state of worry about receiving unscheduled telephone calls from the hospital bearing bad news, which, for too many, do come. You worry about the pressures that it puts on you as a family, and about how you would cope as a family unit if the worst were to happen. I distinctly remember our darkest day when we were told that our son was going downhill quickly and he was going to be treated for necrotising enterocolitis, and that one potential outcome for which we would have to be prepared was for him to be transferred to a hospice.

    Let me make this point to the Minister: we cannot expect parents to be worrying about whether they will have a job to go back to while dealing with these situations. The Government agree with this—there is no disagreement—so it is time for us to work together to deliver it. The Government want to do it, and I know that the Minister does as well. He has been hugely supportive to me and to colleagues on both sides of the House who have talked to him about this issue on a number of occasions. I thank him for his help, and I also thank the Government for the work that they have done on the issue since the general election.

    In the March 2020 Budget, the Chancellor reaffirmed the Government’s ambition to deliver this important reform, and earmarked the necessary funding to deliver the policy in 2023-24. In the same month, the response to the consultation was published. It confirmed a number of further details about the delivery of neonatal leave and pay, including the intention to legislate through the Employment Bill. I was pleased to hear the Prime Minister, during Prime Minister’s questions in November last year, repeat the commitment to deliver legislation “one way or another”.

    So we all want to do this. The question is how are we going to do it, when, and through what vehicle in Parliament? Ministers have made clear that they want to do it through the Employment Bill. The argument I would advance to this Minister is that the Employment Bill is significant and substantial legislation that will take time to pass through Parliament. While neonatal leave and pay enjoys widespread cross-party support, many wider aspects of the proposed Bill are likely to face far greater opposition. Despite the uncontroversial nature of the proposal, tying its successful delivery to the more controversial Employment Bill is not the fastest way in which to secure its introduction.

    Generally when we are introducing reforms of this type, they take effect from April, at the start of the financial year. In order to meet the 2023 target for which the Government have set aside funds and to which they have committed themselves, neonatal leave and pay legislation will need to have passed through Parliament before that date, in enough time to ensure that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and employers are given sufficient notice. If we are to meet the commitment to deliver this on time, we need to start now.

    I wrote to the Minister about the issue in October, and he kindly wrote back to me, informing me of the progress that his Department was making. He also made it clear that significant work was required for the policy to be delivered, including the extra work that would have to be done by HMRC to ensure that staff were ready to upgrade the necessary IT systems. The policy will take time to implement, and that is why I think there are legitimate questions to be asked about the delivery vehicle for this reform. I should be grateful if the Minister could confirm that the Government still intend to deliver it from April 2023.

    I think that one clear way in which this can be delivered on time is through a stand-alone Bill. The policy development and the consultation have already taken place, and there is a precedent for passing reforms of this type through Parliament quickly. The Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Act 2018 provides a clear model for us to pass this legislation. It is uncontroversial, and it has cross-party and cross-sector support. In the past, the Minister has made a point that I completely appreciate—that this will have to be delivered alongside other measures in the Employment Bill—but I should be grateful if he could explain exactly what those measures are, and also explain why they cannot be delivered as part of stand-alone legislation. I also ask him whether he will meet me, the new Leader of the House—assuming that my right hon. Friend is willing—and other Members to discuss how this can be delivered on time, which is what we all want to see.

    I do not want to give too long a list, but I should be grateful if the Minister could update the House on the work that he and his Department have already done in anticipation of delivering this policy, to ensure that it will be ready on time and ready to go once we can find a legislative vehicle to deliver it. I should like to know whether, for example, the guidance is ready for the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and HMRC, and how much work has been done. Finally, I should like to know whether the Department is starting to explore alternatives to deliver support for families if it proves difficult to legislate. I hope I have managed to convey at least a sense, on behalf of many families around the country, of how important this commitment is and how grateful we are to the Minister and the Government for making it. We all want to see it delivered and rolled out as quickly as possible. It is down to us to find the right vehicle for that, because delivering neonatal leave and pay will enable the thousands of babies born into neonatal care every year to benefit from their parents’ being where they should be, by their side, providing that vital care. It will also deliver support and reassurance to all those new mothers, fathers and carers who need it the most in the most vulnerable and stressful days of their lives. I say to the Minister, “The solution is clear, it commands widespread support and it is within our grasp—please help us to make it happen.”

  • Priti Patel – 2022 Statement on the UK Terrorism Threat Level

    Priti Patel – 2022 Statement on the UK Terrorism Threat Level

    The statement made by Priti Patel, the Home Secretary, in the House of Commons on 9 February 2022.

    The Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre (JTAC) has reduced the UK national terrorism threat level from severe to substantial. This means that a terrorist attack in the UK is likely.

    JTAC previously raised the UK national threat level from substantial to severe following two terrorist attacks in the UK in quick succession, in October and November 2021. When the threat level is at severe it means an attack is highly likely.

    JTAC judges that, despite these two attacks, the current nature and scale of the UK terrorist threat is consistent with the level of threat seen prior to the attacks. The attacks in October and November 2021 reflect the complex, volatile, and unpredictable nature of the terrorist threat in the UK.

    The decision to change the UK terrorism threat level is taken by JTAC independently of Ministers. JTAC keep the threat level under constant review based on the very latest intelligence and analysis of internal and external factors which drive the threat.

    Any reduction in the threat level is positive but it must never make us complacent. Terrorism remains one of the most direct and immediate risks to our national security. The public should remain alert, but not alarmed, and report any concerns they may have to the police.

  • Julia Lopez – 2022 Statement on Project Gigabit Update

    Julia Lopez – 2022 Statement on Project Gigabit Update

    The statement made by Julia Lopez, the Minister for Media, Data and Digital Infrastructure, in the House of Commons on 9 February 2022.

    Today we have published the fourth Project Gigabit quarterly update. Thanks to the work of industry and our record investment, we are making phenomenal progress delivering the biggest broadband rollout in UK history.

    In this Project Gigabit delivery plan winter update, we share the news that over 65% of UK premises now have a gigabit-capable connection—a huge leap forwards from just over one in twenty in January 2019.

    This delivery plan update also reports on:

    newly launched regional supplier procurements in Cambridgeshire and the north-east of England, as well as local supplier procurements in rural Dorset, north Northumberland and Teesdale;

    16 local and devolved authorities which currently have live schemes to top up our voucher projects worth £10.5 million;

    details of upcoming procurements in Cornwall, Norfolk, Suffolk, Hampshire and Shropshire; and updates on how we are working closely with the devolved Governments to develop and deliver Project Gigabit plans in some of the hardest-to-reach areas in the UK.

    Since the launch of Project Gigabit in April 2021, we have connected over 3,500 public sector building hubs: places like Borrowdale Primary School in Cumbria, which is now able to take full advantage of online learning while also speeding up connections to surrounding homes and businesses. We expect to connect a further 100 hubs over the next quarter.

    To support this phenomenal progress, Building Digital UK (BDUK) will become an Executive agency of DCMS. BDUK will be based at a new head office in central Manchester, boosting the city’s credentials as a fast-growing digital tech hub.

    This Government are supporting access to the internet of the future—building broadband that is fast, reliable and future-proof, that supports 5G, and that paves the way for new and unexpected developments in commerce, trade and technology.

    I will place a copy of the Project Gigabit delivery plan winter update in the Libraries of both Houses.

  • Kwasi Kwarteng – 2022 Statement on the Contracts for Difference Scheme

    Kwasi Kwarteng – 2022 Statement on the Contracts for Difference Scheme

    The statement made by Kwasi Kwarteng, the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, in the House of Commons on 9 February 2022.

    Since 2014 the contracts for difference scheme has been at the heart of our efforts to diversify and decarbonise our power system. Since 2010 we have increased the percentage of power generated from renewables from 7% to 43%, creating thousands of high-skilled jobs and bringing new industries to our former industrial heartlands.

    To date contracts for difference has awarded contracts totalling almost 16GW of new renewable electricity capacity across multiple technologies. Since the first competitive allocation round (AR1), it has contributed to a more than 60% reduction in the per unit price of offshore wind, with substantial benefits for consumers. We opened our latest allocation round (AR4) on 13 December 2021. It is our largest yet, with an ambition to procure more new generating capacity than the last three rounds combined.

    We want to further accelerate our low carbon power generation, making the UK less reliant on volatile fossil fuels and creating more home-grown power. This will help us to deliver a fully decarbonised electricity system by 2035.

    To do this we set out an ambition to accelerate the deployment of low-cost renewable generation by undertaking a review of the frequency of the contracts for difference allocation rounds. The review of allocation round frequency has now concluded.

    I have decided to increase the frequency of the allocation rounds to every year, from around every two years as it is currently. The next allocation round, AR5, will be brought forward to March 2023 and it is our intention that the subsequent allocation rounds will be held every 12 months in the following years.

    In parallel, we have recently opened a consultation on changes to make AR5 more effective and forward-looking, particularly on the application process for supply chain plans.

    Our review suggests that the move to more frequent contracts for difference allocation rounds is overwhelmingly supported by industry. Increasing the frequency of allocation rounds will help to encourage low carbon electricity generation, which may also encourage investment in supply chains, and benefit the UK in the longer term not least by protecting consumers from potentially volatile global markets.

    These more frequent rounds will also support the delivery of those renewable technologies, such as onshore wind, offshore wind, and solar PV, which are key to decarbonising the power sector, creating jobs and bringing even more investment to our former industrial heartlands. This will sit alongside the Government’s commitment to bring forward another large-scale nuclear power plant this Parliament.

    The contracts for difference scheme has been successful in deploying low-carbon generation and reducing the cost of capital for renewable technologies. As more renewables are added to the system, we will continue to consider how the scheme could evolve over the longer term to ensure it reflects the impact of renewables on the wider system, including total system costs.

  • Suella Braverman – 2022 Statement on the Serious Fraud Office and the Unaoil Case

    Suella Braverman – 2022 Statement on the Serious Fraud Office and the Unaoil Case

    The statement made by Suella Braverman, the Attorney General, in the House of Commons on 9 February 2022.

    I wish to provide details of an independent review I have commissioned into the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) failings identified by the Court of Appeal in the case of R. v. Akle and Anor [2021].

    This case, investigated and prosecuted by the SFO between 2016 and 2021, resulted in criticism by the Court of the way in which the SFO engaged with third parties and handled disclosure. On receiving the judgment, it was clear to me that swift action was needed to identify how these issues arose and what changes are needed to ensure they are not repeated.

    I have appointed Sir David Calvert-Smith to lead this review. Sir David is a former Director of Public Prosecutions and High Court judge who has led several independent reviews and has significant experience relevant to the issues raised.

    Sir David will consider and provide recommendations in relation to the following matters:

    What happened in this case and why. In particular, the review should assess the two key failings identified in the judgment:

    what occurred as regards SFO contact with third-parties and why; and

    why did the SFO disclosure failures identified in the Court of Appeal judgment occur?

    What implications, if any, do the failings highlighted by this case have for the policies, practices, procedures and related culture of the SFO?

    What changes are necessary to address the failings highlighted by the judgment and any wider issues of SFO policies, practices, procedures or related culture identified by the reviewer?

    Sir David will have the support of a small team including the Deputy Chief Inspector of Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate, Anthony Rogers. Sir David will aim to report to me by the end of May 2022 and I will then provide a further update to Parliament on his findings and my response to them.

    The Government are determined to make the UK a hostile environment for all forms of economic crime. It is a priority for me to ensure effective sponsorship of the SFO, which includes supporting and holding the Director to account, as well as safeguarding the SFO’s independence to investigate and prosecute crime.

  • Boris Johnson – 2022 Comments on NATO

    Boris Johnson – 2022 Comments on NATO

    The comments made by Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister, on 10 February 2022.

    When NATO was founded, allies made an historic undertaking to safeguard the freedom of every member state. The UK remains unwavering in our commitment to European security.

    What we need to see is real diplomacy, not coercive diplomacy. As an alliance we must draw lines in the snow and be clear there are principles upon which we will not compromise. That includes the security of every NATO ally and the right of every European democracy to aspire to NATO membership.