UKPOL.CO.UK

Blog

  • John Healey – 2022 Comments on Medal for Troops at Kabul Airlift

    John Healey – 2022 Comments on Medal for Troops at Kabul Airlift

    The comments made by John Healey, the Shadow Secretary of State for Defence, on 19 January 2022.

    Troops involved in the Kabul airlift totally deserve a medal, and Labour has argued this since early September.

    This was a crisis mission in a conflict zone and our UK forces were exceptional evacuating over 15,000 people facing Taliban threats.

    The military medal is a fitting recognition of their bravery and professionalism, as well as expressing the pride and respect the nation feels in their service.

  • Jonathan Reynolds – 2022 Comments on Government’s Help to Grow Scheme

    Jonathan Reynolds – 2022 Comments on Government’s Help to Grow Scheme

    The comments made by Jonathan Reynolds, the Shadow Secretary of State for Business and Industrial Strategy, on 19 January 2022.

    The Conservatives have become a high tax party because they are a low growth Government.

    The Prime Minister is too mired in scandal to lead. Energy bills are going up, inflation is up and wages are stalling because the Government are asleep at the wheel.

    Labour would save most households £200 or more on their energy bills and get our economy firing on all cylinders with our plan to buy, make and sell more in Britain.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    We are a country with so much going for us.

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

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

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

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

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

    Their failure to plan ahead.

    Their failure to work together with business and industry.

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

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

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

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

    Britain has been through its own lost decade.

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

    We have a choice.

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

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

    A plan to give people the respect they deserve.

    A plan for real economic security.

    A plan for prosperity in every part of Britain.

    That is the plan that I will set out today.

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

    People rightly expect leadership from government.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    This is the British economy according to Rishi Sunak.

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

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

    Another Lost Decade isn’t inevitable.

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

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

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

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

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

    It won’t work.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    And what’s left?

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

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

    That is what underpins Labour’s plan.

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

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

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

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

    Let me set these out.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    It’s what I call the everyday economy.

    Millions work in it. We all rely on it.

    The state of our everyday economy really matters.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Second: we need a learning Britain.

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

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

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

    We need to expand opportunities for school leavers too.

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

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

    Third: an investing Britain.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The choice ahead of our country is this:

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

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

    That means real economic and energy security.

    It means good jobs and thriving businesses in every town.

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

    It means Britain’s best days lie ahead.

    Thank you.

  • Boris Johnson – 2022 Statement on Omicron

    Boris Johnson – 2022 Statement on Omicron

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

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

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

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

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

    So that we could double the speed of booster programme.

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

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

    Many nations across Europe have endured further winter lockdowns.

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

    But this government took a different path.

    We kept England open.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    washing hands,

    letting fresh air in,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    And Mr Speaker, this is no accident of history.

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

    And I commend this Statement to the House.

  • James Cartlidge – 2022 Speech on the European Court of Human Rights

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    John Howell

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

    James Cartlidge

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

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

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

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

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

  • John Howell – 2022 Speech on the European Court of Human Rights

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

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

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

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

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

    Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

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

    John Howell

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

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

    According to the European convention on human rights, judges must

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    “deep and abiding commitment to the Convention”

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

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

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

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

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

  • Julia Lopez – 2022 Statement on Public Consultations to Improve UK Cyber Resilience

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Leo Docherty – 2022 Statement on the UK Armed Forces Families Strategy 2022-2032

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Steve Barclay – 2022 Statement on the Veterans Strategy Action Plan 2022-2024

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Keir Starmer – 2022 Comments on the Defection of Christian Wakeford to the Labour Party

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

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

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