Blog

  • Julia Lopez – 2021 Statement on the National Data Strategy Mission 1 Policy Framework

    Julia Lopez – 2021 Statement on the National Data Strategy Mission 1 Policy Framework

    The statement made by Julia Lopez, the Minister for Media, Data and Digital Infrastructure, in the House of Commons on 24 November 2021.

    I am pleased to inform the House that the Government are today publishing the “National Data Strategy Mission 1 Policy Framework: Unlocking the value of data across the economy”, which sets out the Government interventions needed to make private and third sector data more usable, accessible and available across the economy, while protecting people’s data rights and private enterprises’ intellectual property.

    A commitment to developing this framework was set out in the “National Data Strategy”. Published in 2020, the strategy outlined for the first time in a single publication our ambitions to unlock the power of data. Since then, we have launched a monitoring and evaluation framework against which we will check our progress in delivering these ambitions. We have also begun a public consultation on reforms to the UK’s regime for the protection of personal data.

    The publication of this framework underlines our commitment to a thriving and responsible data economy where the power of data from the private and third sectors is unlocked. The Government now have a set of levers for intervention and principles for when to apply them, as well as seven priority areas for action to take forward. These include making sure we have good data standards, encouraging the use of privacy enhancing technologies and data intermediaries and developing international co-operation to support the UK’s data agenda on the world stage.

    We will continue to engage widely to implement the national data strategy, including working through the National Data Strategy Forum.

    A copy of this update will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  • Damian Hinds – 2021 Speech on Captain David Mockett

    Damian Hinds – 2021 Speech on Captain David Mockett

    The speech made by Damian Hinds, the Minister for Security and Borders, in the House of Commons on 24 November 2021.

    It was with great sadness that we heard yesterday of a body being found in the search for 18-year-old Bobbi-Anne McLeod. Our thoughts and prayers, and those of the whole House, are with her family. I join my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Sir Gary Streeter) in his praise and thanks of the emergency services.

    I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate on the tragic case of the late Captain David Mockett. My hon. Friend has long campaigned on the case and has shown great determination in seeking justice on behalf of his constituents, the family of Captain Mockett. I hear what my hon. Friend says about his continuing commitment in that regard. I also express my sympathies to the Mockett family for the tragic loss of their husband and father, and of a professional who was clearly highly respected in his field. Their determination and perseverance in seeking justice is entirely understandable and right, and of course we must do what we can to deliver on that.

    As my hon. Friend said, the Metropolitan police counter-terrorism command, known as SO15, supported the Yemeni authorities and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, as it was then known. That command has unique expertise in assisting with complex cases in other countries. In 2011, a senior SO15 officer conducted a scoping exercise on the circumstances around Mr Mockett’s death to assist the UK coroner, and he subsequently gave evidence at the inquest. The coroner concluded that the murder was most likely criminally motivated. I understand that SO15 has worked closely with the City of London police, which carried out a fraud investigation linked to the case, as my hon. Friend mentioned. The Metropolitan police assured us that, over the last 10 years, SO15 has sought to assist other agencies with the appropriate jurisdiction and will continue to do so.

    It is the case that Yemeni authorities have overall responsibility for the homicide investigation and there are very limited circumstances where UK police can take primacy on an investigation into a murder overseas. The Metropolitan police is of the view that the circumstances in this case are such that UK police do not have legal authority.

    My late predecessor, our friend James Brokenshire, wrote to my hon. Friend in 2020 in response to his correspondence, as he will recall. As noted in that letter, the police and the National Crime Agency are operationally independent, as he noted in his closing remarks. Ministers do not have the powers to make a request or direction to them to open an investigation. In our system, that would not be appropriate.

    I am entirely sympathetic to my hon. Friend’s determination to seek justice for his constituents. I am also sure that he will appreciate the principle of the operational independence of the police and of how operational decisions and, ultimately, prosecution decisions are made. Indeed, the police must be able to operate free of political influence or interference, even in cases as tragic, emotive and difficult as this one. Where there is a case for further action, we would of course expect them to take appropriate action.

    While I regret that I am not in a position to agree to the requests my hon. Friend set out in his speech, I will do—and want to do—what I can to help support David’s family. First, I can confirm that the case has been drawn to the attention of Her Majesty’s ambassador to Yemen, who can make representations about the matter to the Government of Yemen. I am also, of course, very happy to meet my hon. Friend away from the Floor of the House to discuss the case more fully, and we should be in touch on that immediately.

    I would like to thank my hon. Friend for seeking this important debate.

    Sir Gary Streeter

    I appreciate all that the Minister has said, but is he satisfied, or could he make further inquiries, on the point I have raised repeatedly about looking at the Aviation and Marine Security Act to see whether some other kind of investigation might be pursued by the British authorities into the act of piracy, which could then have the right result in securing some kind of justice? Could he please go back to his office and look at that point for me? I would be most grateful.

    Damian Hinds

    Of course, I am not going to say no to my hon. Friend on that question. I do not know what the prospects might be, but, yes, of course I can do that, and specifically, when he and I meet, we can discuss it.

    I was just coming to the end of my remarks, but I wish to finish by once again extending my own deepest sympathies and, on their behalf, those of colleagues in the Home Office and the Home Secretary to the family and friends of Captain Mockett.

  • Gary Streeter – 2021 Speech on Captain David Mockett

    Gary Streeter – 2021 Speech on Captain David Mockett

    The speech made by Gary Streeter, the Conservative MP for South West Devon, in the House of Commons on 24 November 2021.

    Before I turn to the important case of misjustice that I wish to raise with the Minister, may I place on record my deep sadness at the news of the tragic killing in Plymouth of Bobbi-Anne McLeod, whose body was discovered last night? As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, Plymouth is a city in shock over the Keyham killings earlier this year, and the news last night of another senseless murder, of a defenceless young lady, has shaken us to the core. Our thoughts and prayers are with her family and loved ones. We thank very much the police and emergency services for all that they are doing to bring to justice the perpetrators of this appalling murder in Plymouth.

    While I am speaking about Plymouth, I should thank the Government for their support of the people of Keyham, with more funding announced today for schoolchildren in Plymouth, many of whom have seen things on the streets of our city that children of primary school age should never see.

    I am delighted to turn now to the subject matter of the debate, which I am introducing to bring to the attention of the House an injustice suffered by my constituents, the Mockett family, who have never been able to achieve closure on the brutal murder of a much-loved husband, father and grandfather, Captain David Mockett, who was killed in Yemen in 2011—a death that has never been properly investigated by British authorities.

    I will put my arguments in three sections. First, I will set out the background to the matter, and the link between the murder of Captain Mockett and the commercial court case of the Brillante Virtuoso. Secondly, I will set out the many attempts that the family have made to seek justice, and the failings of our prosecuting authorities. Finally, I will spell out the steps that we wish the Minister to take to achieve justice for my constituents.

    Let me turn first to the background. David Mockett was a marine surveyor who divided his time between Yemen, where he worked on many insurance claims, and Plymouth, where his wife and daughters lived. He had a reputation as the finest marine surveyor in the region. In July 2011, an oil tanker with a cargo worth around $100 million—the Brillante Virtuoso—was apparently boarded by pirates in the Gulf of Aden. The Minister will remember that at that time the threat from Somali pirates in that stretch of water was very real. The ship was boarded at midnight by seven masked men armed with automatic weapons. Shots were fired and the crew held hostage. For reasons not then known, the capture of the vessel by pirates resulted in an explosion and the ship being set on fire. The crew were evacuated, but the cargo and the ship were substantially lost.

    In the immediate aftermath of the incident, Talbot Underwriting, with which the ship was insured, sent a surveyor to find out what had happened and to assess the claim, as was standard practice. David Mockett, who was working for Noble Denton in Yemen, was the surveyor chosen for the task. He was immediately suspicious that this had been not a straightforward act of piracy, but a clumsy insurance fraud. Through email correspondence with colleagues and his wife, David reported that he was unable to

    “find any evidence of bullet holes or exposures to grenades”,

    and that the incident on the Brillante Virtuoso was not simply an attack by Somali pirates, as claimed by the ship owner.

    On 20 July 2011, David Mockett took his laptop and climbed into his Lexus car. After he had driven a short distance, the bomb carefully placed under his seat exploded, killing him instantly. In the days that followed, some attempts were made by British authorities to investigate the murder, but no real progress was made. However, substantial legal action followed in relation to claims made by the owner of the vessel, who was a Greek ship owner called Marios Iliopoulos. That legal action continued until a judgment was handed down in a British court by Mr Justice Teare late last year. In that trial—brought in the commercial court at the Royal Courts of Justice by Suez Fortune Investments Ltd and others against Talbot Underwriting Ltd—the learned judge concluded the following in his comprehensive judgment, in which he found for the insurers:

    “The constructive total loss of Brillante Virtuoso was caused by the wilful misconduct of the Owner, Mr. Iliopoulos… the motives of the armed men were not to steal or ransom the vessel or to steal from the crew, but to assist the Owner to commit a fraud upon Underwriters… Iliopoulos had a motive to want the vessel to be damaged by fire, namely, the making of a fraudulent claim for the total loss of the vessel in the sum of some US$77 million which, if successful, would solve the serious financial difficulties in which he and his companies were at the time.”

    I think the Minister will agree that that finding is as clear a statement from a High Court judge as we could ever wish to hear.

    That commercial case was not about the killing of Mr Mockett, but it goes a long way to explaining the motive for killing him, as he was about to uncover the truth about the taking of the Brillante Virtuoso, and it also provides a clear indication as to who was almost certainly behind his murder.

    Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

    I commend the hon. Member for bringing the matter forward. I hail from a nation where too many lives have been lost in similar devastating manner. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that integrity such as that shown by Captain David Mockett is feared internationally, and that it is only right and proper that his death be recognised as the work of evil men with an evil purpose whose acts of darkness will never succeed in getting rid of the light?

    Sir Gary Streeter

    I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Certainly, Captain Mockett was a man of the highest integrity, and for him to be killed for doing his job, and doing his job well, is an absolute outrage.

    During the 12-week trial in the High Court, it was established that the hijackers were Yemeni coastguard officers disguised as Somali pirates, and that the automatic weapons they used had been supplied to them in advance by one of the Greek salvors who was on standby to salvage the burning vessel, as part of the plan. It was all a massive fraud that Captain Mockett was in the process of uncovering—for that, he was killed.

    Let me turn to my next question: what have the family tried to do to obtain justice for their murdered husband and father? At the inquest in Plymouth in June 2012, the coroner found that Captain Mockett was unlawfully killed. Evidence was given ruling out al-Qaeda terrorists and suggesting strongly that the killing was linked to an insurance fraud. In the past 10 years, Mrs Mockett, supported by two close friends who each have relevant expertise, has sought to persuade the British investigative authorities to carry out a detailed and forensic investigation of the case and to go after the people responsible. That has never happened.

    The family have been shunted from pillar to post within the Metropolitan police, receiving only vague assurances that the matter was being looked into. Although terrorism was quickly ruled out, none the less the case went to the counter-terrorism command rather than a team used to investigating organised crime. No progress was made. As the commercial court case unfolded, much information was passed to that team within the Met that clearly demonstrated the link to the commercial shipping case, and that Captain Mockett was murdered owing to insurance fraud, but no obvious action was taken.

    In 2018, Mrs Mockett sought my help. I wrote to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner and received a reply confirming that the counter-terrorism command—SO15—had been involved in the investigation of Captain Mockett’s murder, but pointing out that the Yemeni authorities had the lead responsibility, and that it was all very difficult. We were no further forward. In March 2019 I wrote to the then Home Secretary, raising my concerns about the lack of investigation and making the crucial point that the way forward in this case was to open a piracy investigation in international waters, for which our investigators do have jurisdiction. That would enable them to bring proceedings against the perpetrators of this act of piracy, enabling the family to obtain justice.

    I set out this argument clearly in my letter to the then Home Secretary, but, although his office spoke to the Metropolitan Police, they did not proceed as requested. The fact that the killing took place in Yemen, a failing state, is not the obstacle it might at first appear, because most of the evidence in this case sits in London and in Athens. The judgement of Mr Justice Teare provides a clear indication that serious criminal acts under the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990 have taken place, and our authorities most certainly have jurisdiction to investigate them. I wrote again to the next Home Secretary in March 2020, making a similar case, and received a response from a Home Office Minister, again pointing out the difficulty of bringing proceedings in relation to a crime committed in Yemen, but once again not gripping the argument about investigating the act of piracy and bringing to court those responsible.

    In frustration, I then organised a meeting with the officers of the Metropolitan Police on whose desk this file sat, gathering dust, with Mrs Mockett present. Sadly, that proved to be equally frustrating. The only real point of encouragement was that they promised to keep a close eye on the commercial case involving the Brillante Virtuoso and, if any useful evidence emerged therefrom, to take matters forward. As far as we know, they did not once attend court during a very long hearing and, despite the crystal-clear judgment from the learned judge on the identity of the people behind the whole criminal enterprise, they have not taken a single step since the judgment to investigate the people responsible.

    The Metropolitan police have been provided with a very clear way forward, which they have so far refused to pursue. I am sure the Minister would agree that when a British citizen is murdered in cold blood overseas, our authorities should move heaven and earth to bring those responsible to justice, using every legal means of action available to them. That has not happened, and the years are slipping by. There has been more than enough information to progress this investigation, yet the Metropolitan police appear to show an alarming reluctance to move forward. Any confidence that the Mockett family had in the police force has now been completely eroded.

    Even now, however, it is not too late. The fresh wave of evidence raised in the insurance fraud trial provides a real opportunity and is more than a starting point for further investigation. While it may be difficult to obtain sufficient evidence surrounding the planting of the bomb, there is ample evidence to prosecute the mastermind behind all this for the international crimes of hijacking and destruction of the vessel. In the investigation of those offences, the murder of Captain Mockett would also automatically be investigated as part of the cover-up, leading to a measure of justice for those responsible.

    The injustice in this case, and the inaction by our prosecuting authorities, has attracted the attention of third parties. Next year a book is to be published into this whole sorry mess, including an in-depth look at why nobody has been held to account, despite the evidence now uncovered. There will also be a Radio 4 programme highlighting this case as a miscarriage of justice. I am sure the whole House would agree that when a British citizen is murdered in any part of this world just for doing his job, there must be justice.

    What do we want the Minister to do? The family will not let this drop, and nor will I. We recognise that the Home Office is not directly responsible for decisions on prosecution, nor should it be, but Ministers have influence and are there to ensure that our independent police forces are working correctly. I ask the Minister, for whom I have a great deal of respect, to call into his office the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police and ask her to properly investigate this case. She should be asked to remove this file from the desk of the current team, where it still sits gathering dust, and give it to a new team of people experienced in investigating serious international fraud. They should be instructed to draw on the rich seam of evidence that the commercial court case has brought to light and to engage with the seasoned professionals who have advised Mrs Mockett throughout and who have real life and relevant experience. If that were to happen, I am confident that a way would be found under existing law to investigate and bring to book those responsible for this appalling crime and to deliver to Mrs Cynthia Mockett—one of the loveliest women anyone could wish to meet—her daughters and grand-daughters the justice that they so richly deserve.

  • Andrew Stephenson – 2021 Statement on Cutting Transport for the North Responsibilities

    Andrew Stephenson – 2021 Statement on Cutting Transport for the North Responsibilities

    The statement made by Andrew Stephenson, the Minister of State at the Department for Transport, in the House of Commons on 24 November 2021.

    Transport for the North is a sub-national transport body. Its statutory role, as set out in legislation, is to provide a strategic transport plan for the region and to provide advice to the Secretary of State.

    Since 2016, in addition to these statutory responsibilities, Transport for the North has co-cliented the development of Northern Powerhouse Rail alongside the Department for Transport. As this important programme moves into its next, more complex, delivery stage, it is right that we have a single, clear line of accountability to the Secretary of State. This has been an important lesson learned from the delivery of other major infrastructure projects. Therefore, Transport for the North will transition from co-client to co-sponsor, continuing to provide statutory advice and to input on the strategic direction of the programme. The details of this arrangement are currently being worked out between my Department and Transport for the North.

    Transport for the North’s advice was carefully considered, alongside a range of other evidence, when developing the integrated rail plan. Any changes to Northern Powerhouse Rail’s delivery does not impact Transport for the North’s statutory function, nor the level of core funding it will receive this financial year to carry out those functions. Nor does it alter the Government’s commitment to levelling up the north or the fact that the integrated rail plan commits £96 billion to improving rail infrastructure across the midlands and the north—the largest single Government investment in the history of British railways.

  • Kwasi Kwarteng – 2021 Statement on Bulb Energy Going into Administration

    Kwasi Kwarteng – 2021 Statement on Bulb Energy Going into Administration

    The statement made by Kwasi Kwarteng, the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, in the House of Commons on 24 November 2021.

    As many people in the House will know, when energy suppliers leave the market, the regulator, Ofgem, runs a competitive supplier-of-last-resort process. Last week, Bulb informed the Government and Ofgem that it would be leaving the market. Ofgem has advised that the supplier-of-last-resort process is not viable for Bulb because of the size of its customer book. Ofgem has, with my consent, applied to the court to appoint energy administrators. If appointed by the court, the administrators will continue to operate Bulb under what is called the special administration regime, which is set out clearly in legislation.

    We will update the House once the court has made its determination, but I wish to clarify a couple of points. First, a special administration regime is a temporary arrangement that provides an ultimate safety net to protect consumers and ensure continued supply. The special administration regime will keep bills at the lowest cost that it is reasonably practical to incur while ensuring that the market remains stable. The House should understand that we do not want the company to be in this temporary state for longer than is absolutely necessary. Supplies remain secure and credit balances will be protected. Finally, all domestic customers in Great Britain are, of course, protected by the energy price cap, which remains firmly in place.

  • Lindsay Hoyle – 2021 Statement on Babies in Parliament

    Lindsay Hoyle – 2021 Statement on Babies in Parliament

    The statement made by Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker of the House of Commons, on 24 November 2021.

    Before we start today’s business, I want to say something about the presence of babies and very young children in this Chamber and the parallel Chamber, Westminster Hall.

    It is extremely important that parents of babies and young children are able to participate fully in the work of this House. That is why, to give one example, we have a nursery. The advice given yesterday to the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) on the authority of the Chairman of Ways and Means, of which I was not aware until last night, correctly reflects the current rules. However, rules have to be seen in context and they change with the times.

    This House has to be able to function professionally and without disturbance. However, sometimes there may be occasions when the Chair can exercise discretion, assuming that the business is not being disturbed. I accept that there are differing views on this matter. Indeed, hon. Members who have babies have contacted me with a range of views.

    There are also likely to be some consequential matters. Therefore, I have asked the Chair of the Procedure Committee, the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), if she and her Committee will look into this matter and bring forward recommendations, which will ultimately be for the House to take a view on.

    Thank you. I am taking no points of order on this.

  • Grant Shapps – 2021 Statement on Draft Legislation on Driving Licences

    Grant Shapps – 2021 Statement on Draft Legislation on Driving Licences

    The statement made by Grant Shapps, the Secretary of State for Transport, in the House of Commons on 23 November 2021.

    A statutory instrument was laid on 16 September 2021 titled the Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2021 (the “No. 2 regulations”) and was due to come into force on 15 November 2021. The substantive legislative changes proposed in the No. 2 regulations would have removed the need for a person to pass the “B+E” car and trailer test before they could pull a heavy trailer behind their car. This would have meant people with licences awarded after 1997 also no longer needed to pass a separate test to tow a heavy trailer.

    This statutory instrument was not approved in time for the No. 2 regulations to come into force on 15 November 2021. Since such affirmative statutory instruments cannot be amended once laid in draft, we have taken action to lay the regulations afresh as the draft Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) (Amendment) (No. 5) Regulations 2021 (the “No. 5 regulations”).

    To make rapid progress on this, we are seeking to make use of the urgency procedure under paragraph 14(6) of schedule 8 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. I am of the opinion that, by reason of urgency, the requirements for this affirmative statutory instrument (by virtue of paragraph 13(1) of schedule 8 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018) to be made after being published in draft for 28 days, together with a scrutiny statement, should not apply.

    Forgoing the 28-day publication period will allow earlier laying of the No. 5 regulations than would have otherwise been possible and strengthen the steps we have already taken to increase HGV testing capacity and ease supply chain issues as quickly as possible. Arrangements will be in place to ensure that the changes made by the No. 5 regulations are operationally effective as soon as they come into force.

  • Priti Patel – 2021 Statement on Derwentside Immigration Removal Centre for Women

    Priti Patel – 2021 Statement on Derwentside Immigration Removal Centre for Women

    The statement made by Priti Patel, the Home Secretary, in the House of Commons on 23 November 2021.

    I am today announcing the opening of Derwentside immigration removal centre for women in County Durham. Detention plays a limited, but crucial role in maintaining effective immigration control and securing our borders. It is right that those with no right to remain in the UK are removed if they do not leave voluntarily.

    This new, smaller immigration removal centre will replace Yarl’s Wood as the only dedicated immigration removal centre for women. In order to maintain operational flexibility, we will continue to maintain some limited detention capacity for women at Colnbrook, Dungavel and Yarl’s Wood. These changes will significantly reduce the overall immigration detention capacity for women.

    Derwentside will be operated in line with the statutory framework established by the Immigration Act 1971 and the Detention Centre Rules 2001. The centre will provide safe, secure and fit for purpose accommodation for up to 84 women, with a full range of recreational and healthcare facilities tailored to women.

    We are committed to ensuring the proper protection and treatment of vulnerable people in detention. Safeguarding and promoting the welfare of women is at the forefront of the new facility, and builds on the learning and experience of Yarl’s Wood. The new contract to operate the centre takes into account Stephen Shaw’s reviews of vulnerability in detention, with increased staffing levels and major improvements in the frequency, diversity and accessibility of educational and recreational activities.

  • Sajid Javid – 2021 Statement on NHS Workforce and Technology Centralisation

    Sajid Javid – 2021 Statement on NHS Workforce and Technology Centralisation

    The statement made by Sajid Javid, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, in the House of Commons on 23 November 2021.

    Yesterday we announced to the House of Commons our intention to centralise NHS workforce and technology to prioritise better care for patients. Health Education England (HEE), NHS Digital (NHSD) and NHSX will become part of NHS England and Improvement (NHSE/I), putting workforce and technology at the heart of long-term planning. The plans will aim to see more patients benefit from the best possible care, with the right staff in place to meet patients’ needs.

    Subject to parliamentary passage of the requisite powers within the Health and Care Bill, these changes will help ensure that service, workforce and finance planning are integrated in one place at a national and local level. They will simplify the national system for leading the NHS, ensuring a common purpose and strategic direction.

    I have accepted the recommendations of Laura Wade-Gery, non-executive director at NHS England and chair of NHSD, including to merge NHSX and NHS Digital into NHSE/I. A copy of the summary report is being placed in the Library of the House. The recommendations build on the huge progress made on digital transformation during the pandemic and will improve co-operation between the key digital bodies of the NHS by bringing them under one roof for the first time.

    NHSX has more than fulfilled the mandate it was given when it was set up, putting digital transformation right at the centre of the NHS’s future vision and driving effective delivery of key programmes such as the covid pass. NHS Digital has kept the NHS’s live services going, producing the shielded patients list, and run the technology that supported our vaccine deployment.

    I would like to offer reassurance that in this new configuration the responsibilities for digitisation of the social care sector, and for ensuring the very highest standards of information governance and data privacy, will be retained.

    Merging HEE with NHSE/I will put long-term planning and strategy for healthcare staff recruitment and retention at the forefront of the national NHS agenda. Combining HEE’s strengths with those of NHSE/I will help ensure that:

    service, workforce and finance planning are properly integrated in one place, together with the work of the NHS People Plan, at national and local levels;

    the changes to education and training that we need—to enable employers to recruit the health professionals they need to provide the right care to patients in future—are driven further and faster;

    the record investment the Government are making in the NHS delivers for both frontline NHS organisations and patients through one national organisation, making it easier to ensure a single national strategy for the service; and

    there is a simplified national system for leading the NHS, providing a single line of accountability for the whole of NHS performance.

    This reform will build on the progress HEE has made and the vital role it has played during the pandemic, with record numbers of doctors and nurses currently working in the NHS.

    I would like to pay tribute to colleagues at HEE, NHS Digital, and NHSX for the progress they have made, which we will continue to drive forward.

  • Liz Truss – 2021 Statement on BA Flight 149 in Kuwait

    Liz Truss – 2021 Statement on BA Flight 149 in Kuwait

    The statement made by Liz Truss, the Foreign Secretary, in the House of Commons on 23 November 2021.

    Today the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) will release files covering the events surrounding British Airways flight 149 (BA149) to the National Archives. BA149 landed at Kuwait City on 2 August 1990 as the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was beginning. The passengers and crew from the flight were subsequently held hostage by Iraq and mistreated. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) provided consular and diplomatic support to those involved from the outset, but there have long been questions about how much the Government knew of the situation at the time.

    We now know that Iraq was beginning a full invasion of Kuwait on the night of 1 to 2 August. The files being released today describe how things looked to those involved at the time.

    On 1 August the British Embassy in Kuwait told the local British Airways office that while flights on 1 August should be safe, subsequent flights were inadvisable. BA149 took off from London at 18:04 GMT on 1 August, almost two hours later than scheduled because of technical problems. Its ultimate destination was Kuala Lumpur with a short stopover in Kuwait. At about 22:15 GMT, during its flight towards Kuwait, the captain spoke to the captain of another flight which had left Kuwait for London that evening. The pilot of that flight reported nothing unusual in Kuwait and no reason for BA149 to depart from its planned route.

    The files show that the British ambassador in Kuwait informed the Resident Clerk—the officer on overnight duty to deal with emergencies—at the FCO in London about reports of an Iraqi incursion into Kuwait around 00:00 GMT on 2 August 1990, while the British Airways flight was en route. The information was passed by the Resident Clerk to the Head of the FCO’s Middle East Department and also to No. 10, the Ministry of Defence, the Cabinet Office and the Secret Intelligence Service, but not to British Airways.

    BA149 landed at Kuwait City at 01:13 GMT. Around 45 minutes later Kuwait City airport was closed and BA149 was unable to leave. Its passengers and crew were subsequently held hostage by the Iraqis, with the last hostages released in December 1990.

    The Government have always condemned the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the suffering that followed and the mistreatment of those aboard BA149. The responsibility for these events and the mistreatment of those passengers and crew lies entirely with the Government of Iraq at the time.

    The files show that in the call to the Resident Clerk, the British ambassador in Kuwait was unclear whether the Iraqi move across the border was a limited or larger incursion. At that point, the evidence in the files suggests that it was not possible to say with certainty what was happening. Similarly, the Resident Clerk in the FCO would have had no knowledge of the timing of flights into Kuwait. At the time there appeared to have been no formal arrangements by which information about such events could be passed from the FCO to airlines or the Department of Transport. A procedure to deal with situations like this now exists involving Government and the airline industry.

    There was also speculation at the time and since that the flight was used to carry members of UK Special Forces. The files are consistent with the then Minister for Europe’s statement in April 2007 that

    “the Government at the time did not attempt in any way to exploit the flight by any means whatever.”—[Official Report, 27 April 2007; Vol. 459, c. 1217.]

    The call made by Her Majesty’s ambassador to Kuwait has never been publicly disclosed or acknowledged until today. These files show that the existence of the call was not revealed to Parliament and the public. This failure was unacceptable. As the current Secretary of State, I apologise to the House for this, and I express my deepest sympathy to those who were detained and mistreated.