UKPOL.CO.UK

Blog

  • Boris Johnson – 2018 Easter Banquet Speech

    Below is the text of the speech made by Boris Johnson, the Foreign Secretary, at the Mansion House in London on 28 March 2018.

    My Lord Mayor, Your Excellencies, Ladies and gentlemen.

    I’m going to talk about Britain’s global role and our work with our allies around the world but I turn first to the events of this remarkable week because never before has there been a collective expulsion of Russian diplomats on the scale that we have seen over the last few days.

    As I speak there are now 27 countries that have themselves taken the risk of kicking out people whose presence they deem to be no longer conducive to the public good.

    Of course there are many more that have chosen to act in other ways, countries that have issued powerful statements or downgraded their representation at the World Cup.

    But by your leave my Lord Mayor and without wishing to be in any way invidious I want to remind you of the full roll of honour:

    Albania
    Australia
    Belgium
    Canada
    Croatia
    Czech Republic
    Denmark
    Estonia
    Finland
    France
    Germany
    Hungary
    Ireland
    Italy
    Latvia
    Lithuania
    Macedonia
    Moldova
    Montenegro
    Netherlands
    Norway
    Poland
    Romania
    Spain
    Sweden
    Ukraine
    United States

    And NATO has either expelled or denied accreditation to 10 Russian officials.

    And it seems clear that the Kremlin underestimated the strength of global feeling: if they thought that the world had become so hardened and cynical as not to care about the use of chemical weapons in a peaceful place like Salisbury, if they believed that no one would give a fig about the suffering of Sergei and Yulia Skripal or that we would be indifferent to the reckless and contemptuous disregard for public safety that saw 39 others seek medical treatment, if they believed that we had become so morally weakened, so dependent on hydrocarbons, so chronically risk averse and so fearful of Russia that we would not dare to respond, then this is their answer, because these countries know full well that they face the risk of retaliation and frankly there are countries that have taken action that are more vulnerable to Russia than we are, whether through geography or their energy needs, and I pay tribute to them because they know that their own Russia-based diplomats, and their families, must now deal with the possibility of their own lives being turned upside down.

    That is a huge commitment and sacrifice for one country to make – let alone 27 – and I thank them from the bottom of my heart.

    But of course I know that these thanks are in a sense impertinent because I do not for one moment believe that this global wave of revulsion has been prompted solely by Salisbury, let alone a sentimental love or affection for the UK, though I don’t exclude the possibility of such feelings somewhere in the mix.

    It wasn’t about us: it was about all of us and the kind of world we want to live in.

    Because I believe these expulsions represent a moment when a feeling has suddenly crystallised, when years of vexation and provocation have worn the collective patience to breaking point, and when across the world – across 3 continents – there are countries who are willing to say enough is enough.

    After the annexation of Crimea, the intervention in the Donbas, the downing of MH17, the cyberattacks, the attempted coup in Montenegro, the concealing of chemical weapon attacks in Syria, the hacking of the Bundestag, the interference in elections, there are now just too many countries who have felt the disruptive and malign behaviour of the Russian state.

    And Salisbury has spoken not just to Salisbury in South Australia and Salisbury in Pennsylvania, in North Carolina, in Maryland, but to all the tranquil cathedral cities across Europe that could have suffered a similar fate and where people deserve to live free from fear and after all these provocations, this week was the moment when the world decided to say enough to the wearying barrage of Russian lies, the torrent of obfuscation and intercontinental ballistic whoppers.

    First they told us that Novichok never existed, then they told us that it did exist but they had destroyed the stocks, then they claimed that the stocks had escaped to Sweden or the Czech Republic or Slovakia or the United States.

    And the other day they claimed that the true inventor of Novichok was Theresa May.

    In the last few days we have been told that Sergei Skripal took an overdose, that he attempted suicide and therefore presumably tried to take his daughter with him, that his attempted murder was revenge for Britain’s supposed poisoning of Ivan the Terrible, or that we did it to spoil the World Cup.

    In fact the Foreign Office has so far counted 24 such ludicrous fibs – and so I am glad that 27 countries have stood up to say that they are not swallowing that nonsense any more.

    It is rather like the beginning of ‘Crime and Punishment’ in the sense that we are all confident of the culprit – and the only question is whether he will confess or be caught.

    And in these last few days it is our values – and our belief in the rules based international order – that have proved their worth.

    Not only has there been a strong and speedy multilateral response from NATO and the EU Council but countries that are members of neither have come forward to show that this country is blessed to be part of a broader community of ideals.

    And I believe there are many British people who have found it immensely reassuring to learn we may be leaving the EU in exactly a year but we will never be alone, and in part that commitment to Britain reflects Britain’s reciprocal commitment to our friends, whether through the work of our peerless intelligence agencies or our armed forces or our development budgets.

    And that is what I mean by Global Britain, and so I repeat the prime minister’s unconditional and immoveable commitment: that we will stand by you as you have stood by us.

    We will continue to work with you – bringing as we do 20% of EU defence spending, 25% of the aid budget, 55% of the tonnage of the supply and replenishment vessels needed to keep warships at sea, 100% of the heavy lift capacity.

    We are with you in Estonia, we are with you in training the armed forces in Ukraine, we are there in Nigeria and in the Middle East, where the fight against Daesh goes on and where the UK has delivered the second biggest number of air strikes after the US.

    We are with you in the Sahel – or we will be with you shortly – and HMS Sutherland is now in the Pacific, exercising alongside our Australian friends, and the UK has forces deployed in more countries than any other European power.

    And I have last week announced that we are expanding our FCO network, with another 250 British diplomats overseas and another ten UK embassies or high commissions in another ten sovereign posts – with the Commonwealth as a priority especially as we will be hosting its summit next month – so that Britain will have more diplomatic missions than any other European country – exceeding the French by one, news that I am told was received with rapture in the Quai d’Orsay, since there is no more compelling case for more funding than news of expansion in King Charles Street.

    We believe in that expansion – and we will go further, especially in Africa, because we believe that a Global Britain is fundamentally in the interests of the British people because it is by being open to the world, and engaging with every country, that the British people will find the markets for their goods and services and ideas as we have done for centuries in that great free trade revolution that made this city the capital of the world and built the Mansion House in which we meet tonight.

    When we leave the EU next year, we will re-establish ourselves as an independent member of the WTO and we will be the world’s leading proselytiser for free trade.

    And it is symmetrically by being welcoming to talent from abroad – as we must and will be – that we have brought to our shores for generations people who want to live their lives without fear of judgment or persecution, to do as they choose provided they do no harm to others, and it is that ethos of generosity that has made this city not just the most diverse in the world but also the most productive region of Europe.

    And today the UK is the biggest destination for FDI after the US, our unemployment is at the lowest for 43 years (I seem to remember some people predicting that it would rise by 500,000), we have the biggest tech sector, the best universities.

    And Cambridge University alone has won more Nobel prizes than every university in Russia and China added together and multiplied by 2.

    We have the most vibrant and dynamic cultural scene, with one venue – the British Museum – attracting more visitors than ten whole European countries that it would not be tactful to name tonight.

    And out of this great minestrone, this bouillabaisse, this ratatouille, this seething and syncretic cauldron of culture, we export not just goods – though we certainly do – but ideas and attitudes and even patterns of behaviour.

    I am delighted to say that in both the Czech Republic and in Iceland they mark Jan 7 with silly walks day in honour of Monty Python.

    There are now 9 countries that have their own version of David Brent, and it is an astonishing fact that both of the two highest grossing movies in the world last year was either shot or produced in this country:

    Beauty and the Beast and Star Wars.

    And what is the principal utensil of violence in Star Wars?

    And where was the light sabre invented?

    In which part of London? In Uxbridge and South Ruislip.

    And that tells you all you need to know about the difference between modern Britain and the government of Vladimir Putin.

    They make Novichok, we make light sabres.

    One a hideous weapon that is specifically intended for assassination.

    The other an implausible theatrical prop with a mysterious buzz.

    But which of those two weapons is really more effective in the world of today?

    Which has done more for our respective economies?

    Which has delighted the imaginations of three generations of children and earned billions?

    Which one is loved and which one is loathed?

    I tell you that the arsenals of this country and of our friends are not stocked with poison but with something vastly more powerful: the power of imagination and creativity and innovation that comes with living in a free society, of a kind you see all around you today.

    And it is that power that will prevail and it is in that spirit of absolute confidence and security that it is our job now not just to beware the Russian state, but to reach out, in spite of all our present difficulties, to extend the hand of friendship to the Russian people.

    Because it cannot be said too often that the paranoid imaginings of their rulers have no basis in fact, they are not ringed by foes but by countries who see themselves as admirers and friends, who have taken this action this week because they want nothing so much as to have an end to this pattern of disruptive behaviour, and who want to live in peace and mutual respect and who hope one day that it will be possible to see ever greater commercial and cultural co-operation between us and the Russian people.

    And I believe that day can and will come.

    I hope it does.

    And if and when it does I believe it will be thanks to the resolution of all the countries that acted in their different ways this week.

    We will have to keep that resolve because there is no doubt that we will be tested again and I can assure you that in that test the resolve of the British government and people will be unflinching.

  • Matt Hancock – 2018 Speech at DCMS Diversity Forum

    Below is the text of the speech made by Matt Hancock, the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, on 28 March 2018.

    It’s brilliant to be here at this incredible venue.

    We look around at the great artists that are on the walls. I can just imagine the Fab Four right in front of me. It is electric to be here.

    Of course, it’s not just The Beatles. This place is associated with Elgar, Pink Floyd, Amy Winehouse, Elton John, Kanye West, Kate Bush, Stevie Wonder – anyone who’s anyone in music, from Adele to Zucchero.

    And the reason I mention all of these is because of the range. The range of genders, of ethnicities, of sexualities and people from all parts of Britain and all parts of the world.

    I just want to introduce this morning’s session and say why I care about this, and why I’m so glad that so many of you have given up your time to come here.

    You can be forgiven for being sceptical as to why a straight, white man in a suit cares so much about diversity. But this is a moral imperative for everyone, from whatever background.

    I have always thought that talent – in music, in sport, in tech, in the arts, in design – can be found anywhere.

    And we need to look for the thing that everyone can do as an achievement. Look into every human heart for what they can bring to the party. And unless we look for that everywhere, and open up opportunities to everyone in this country, then we all risk losing out.

    It’s not just that we miss out on amazing ideas and amazing work and that people miss the chance to shine. As well as a moral imperative it’s a business imperative too.

    I have never been in a room making a decision where a less diverse group could make a better decision.

    Diversity of thought improves the way things are done, and the way things are run, and creates the spark of creativity that makes for progress.

    Anything, whether it’s a TV script or a business plan for a sports team, can be improved by discussion with a diverse group.

    And then there’s the national debate – the mood music of our country – which is impoverished when we don’t have a wide range of voices contributing, reflecting the rich diversity of our nation.

    Some of our most exhilarating creative moments have been when diversity takes centre stage.

    Take the first lesbian kiss on Brookside or Channel 4’s groundbreaking, brilliant coverage of the Paralympics.

    One of my passions is grime and one the great strengths of it is that it’s produced by people demanding to be heard.

    I apologise for saying this in a Universal venue… But grime climbed its way up the outside of the music business, not through the traditional record labels. But demanded to be heard.

    Now, having said that, not everyone is Skepta and not everybody can make that climb. Some people need help and encouragement to make the most of their gifts. We’ve seen some great progress in the last few years years, but there’s much more to do. The Arts Council has announced millions of pounds to develop work by disabled and BAME talent and address the lack of diverse leadership in the arts. The Tech Talent Charter that Margot is championing has seen hundreds of tech firms sign a pledge to improve gender diversity. And there’s millions of pounds been allocated through Sport England’s investment funds, with a specific focus on under represented groups. I’ve just come from the Roundhouse, another legendary music space, and we launched a Creative Industries sector deal.

    And as part of this, announced 2 million pounds of support to encourage a more diverse intake of talent and more routes into the creative industries.

    But there is much, much more to do. Not just in the workplace, but in participation. It is a truth that participation in culture and sport is consistently below the national average for those with disabilities, those who are not white and those on lower incomes.

    And that needs to change. And the Diversity Forum is a crucial step in putting these concerns right.

    What we want to do today is bring together the leading organisations – like you in this room – to share best practice, to find new ways to make the industry more diverse.

    We’ve all got the same objective, and we all gain when we work at it together.

    So we are as much enthusiasts, as also in listening mode.

    We are saying, with a resounding voice, from the bully pulpit of Government that a lack of diversity will not stand. And everybody has a role to solving the problems that we face. And we want to do this working together, and listening, and making sure that we come forward with solutions that work.

    Our digital, our creative, our sporting industries are world leading and they showcase our country at its best.

    But they will be so much stronger, and better represent who we are as a nation, when they are open to all. When they are not just opening the door but inviting people in and actively recruiting from across our whole society.

    One our greatest authors wrote: “To thine own self be true. And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man.”

    And Shakespeare was right. Everyone has the right to be themselves and tell the world their story.

    And we need to do our part in supporting everyone to do that. Thank you very much.

  • Matt Hancock – 2018 Speech at Cultural Industries Sector Deal

    Below is the text of the speech made by Matt Hancock, the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, at the Roundhouse in Camden on 28 March 2018.

    It’s great to be here at this iconic venue, which has attracted the cream of creative talent for years – Bob Dylan, The Clash, The Rolling Stones.

    So it is the perfect venue to be celebrating the creative industries, which contribute over £90 billion to the UK economy every year.

    And it’s great that this is a combination of initiatives between Government and the industries as a whole.

    I was just on the Today programme, talking about this launch today and the first question I was asked was “Why do we need Government to help an industry to grow?”

    I said that at the core of our Industrial Strategy is the insight that if we in Government get alongside industry, in a sensible way, where we don’t get in the way but we help to underpin them, then we can all do better together.

    And it’s Greg Clark’s insight, in this modern Industrial Strategy, that the way to do that is through individual sector deals. Where we don’t say what we think ought to happen, and we don’t say “Here is the Government funding”, we say “What can we do together?”.

    And we challenge you. And we say “Between us, what rules do we need to change and what expert investment can we bring to bear?”

    I want to pay tribute, very directly, to Greg’s leadership on this. Because his insight that we must do this together, even though that’s not the traditional way of how Government operates, has been absolutely core to its success.

    So for instance we have Josh here from Warner Brothers, breaking ground on two new sound stages at Leavesden, just one example of the Government and the private sector making things better.

    This is about making sure our creative industries are successful right across the UK.

    Whether it’s making the agreement with Channel 4 to have a new National HQ outside London, or building on the success of the BBC’s move to Salford, we want to make sure that the benefits of our creative industries are shared right across the country.

    The new Cultural Development Fund will allow towns and cities to bid for a share of £20 million, specifically where we know that cultural investment and cultural institutions strengthen communities and strengthen local economies.

    We’ve seen the transformative impact this investment can have. For example, in the Bristol Temple Quarter, Government funding got it going but it has delivered thousands of jobs – far in excess of what Government funding could have done on its own.

    And in today’s Strategy, we’ve also announced that the British Business Bank is setting out a major commercial investment programme to unlock finance for IP-rich small businesses outside London and the South East.

    But this extra money is no use if it can’t be accessed. So we’re also announcing support for new business support for high-growth creative firms.

    And this will in turn create jobs. And we can’t do all this without a diverse mix of talented people to fill them.

    We don’t want organisations limiting themselves to a smaller pond of talent or input, because then they’re missing out and can’t possibly reflect, represent or serve the country as a whole.

    Now right after this event, I’m going to the DCMS Diversity Forum at Abbey Road Studios, which was set up to share best practice and find ways to solve some of the issues that exist around promoting diversity.

    So it seems a fitting moment to announce that two million pounds of support will be made available through the Deal, to encourage a more diverse intake of talent and a greater number of routes into the creative industries, which is something that we really care about and where more needs to be done.

    It’s also, of course, about us having the right environment for creative firms to show that the UK is a place where they can flourish and where they will get value for what they produce.

    Anybody who knows me knows that I care deeply about this. Property rights underpin a strong and healthy market economy, and in the twenty-first century intellectual property rights underpin a strong market economy. And that is more important in the creative industries than anywhere else.

    Because it’s making sure that the creativity can be paid for is, of course, really critical to making sure that you can produce more of it.

    So in the Deal we set out measures to strengthen further intellectual property rights. As technology advances, the property that really matters is the ideas, the designs, the art and the concepts.

    And so the Deal includes £2 million towards ‘Get it Right’ campaign to tackle online piracy and educate consumers on the value of copyright.

    And also a crackdown on copyright infringement. Last year, we brokered a code between main search engines and the industry to reduce the prominence of illegal sites. I want to pay tribute to everybody from both sides who worked on that.

    Now we want to work with rights holders and platforms, towards a similar approach to online advertising, social media, and online marketplaces.

    And the measures in this Sector Deal will strengthen our world-leading creative industries, to make sure that we can thrive both here and around the world.

    There is one final thing I want to say. This is not a document, it is a process.

    This is only the beginning. We want to build on it and the make the deal even more ambitious over time. Because our creative industries show our country at its best.

    And as the Minister not just for Culture but also for Digital, I know that ensuring we have the jobs of the future is really critical.

    You can’t get a machine to write a play, or to direct a film. And you can’t code empathy and creativity, and that’s what lies at the heart of everything you do.

    So this is the industry of the future, and that’s why we’re going to back it every step of the way.

  • Matt Western – 2018 Speech on Council Housing

    Below is the text of the speech made by Matt Western, the Labour MP for Warwick and Leamington, in the House of Commons on 27 March 2018.

    We are all agreed: the UK has a housing crisis. No matter which party is speaking, there is universal recognition of the desperate need to urgently increase the supply of housing. So there is no debate, then, is there? The global financial crash had a catastrophic impact on the house building industry in this country. Given that much of the credit crunch was down to bad debts, particularly those resulting from bad lending in the US domestic housing market, this was perhaps to be expected. In just two years, the number of homes built crashed by 30%, and with this the supply of housing just dried up. That economic shock forced the then Labour Government to drive for affordable house building as part of an economic stimulus programme to help the country through the deep recession.

    By 2009, the foundations for a new era of affordable house building were laid, with a £4 billion annual affordable housing programme, backing for councils to receive grant funding and build new council housing, full localisation of council housing finance agreed with the Treasury to boost building still further, and a programme of progressively higher standards agreed with industry to make all new build homes zero carbon by 2016. It was a comprehensive programme.

    Since the change of Government in 2010, public policy has been perceived as at best indifferent and at worst hostile to affordable housing. One of the first decisions made by Conservative Ministers after the 2010 election was to cut back new housing investment by more than 60%. As a result, the number of new Government-backed homes for social rent started each year has plummeted from almost 40,000 homes to fewer than 1,000 last year. The number of new low-cost ownership homes being built has halved. The plans that Labour left to get councils building 10,000 homes a year were undermined, dashing any hopes of councils being able to build at scale again.

    At the same time as the number of new homes being built has fallen, there has been a huge loss of existing social homes. In 2012, right-to-buy discounts were hiked to a massive £100,000.

    Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con) On a point of information, is the hon. Gentleman aware that since 2010 more than three times as many council houses have been delivered than in the previous 13 years —the golden era of Labour government that he talks about?

    Matt Western Yes, the figures do show that, but if one drills down into the number, one will find that they were provided by Labour authorities, and that is despite the borrowing cap that has been placed on them. Without that cap, to which I shall refer, far greater supply would be available.

    Despite a promise that there would be one-for-one replacements, in some areas only one in five homes sold under the right to buy has been replaced. A new kind of publicly funded housing was introduced. Ministers branded ​it “affordable rent”, with rent set at up to 80% of the market price and thereby directly linked to often unaffordable private market rents.

    Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab) I feel sure that my hon. Friend is likely to come to this point, but does he agree that the term “affordable rent” is an offence to the English language, because affordable clearly does not mean affordable if it is 80% of market rent?

    Matt Western I thank my hon. Friend for her informed intervention. My very next sentence was going to address that point. If something is already expensive, making it 80% of expensive is still expensive. That is where we find ourselves.

    Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab) My hon. Friend mentioned right to buy. Some of the right-to-buy houses that were originally bought by their renters have now been sold on, often to landlords. Some of those properties are not in the best of care and on many estates they are the ones that really stick out, often because rogue landlords are not looking after them.

    Matt Western I thank my hon. Friend for his timely intervention. He is of course absolutely correct. One issue we have had over recent decades is that so much of this property has fallen into the hands of landlords and others, the investment has not been made, and they are now charging extortionate rents. Had it been left to local authority provision, those renting would be able to afford the properties more readily.

    Organisations that bid for Government grants were told to re-let homes for low-cost social rent at the new so-called “affordable rent”. It is now estimated that 150,000 homes for social rent have been lost in the past five years. More recently, the Government proposed to add to the sell-off by extending the right to buy to housing association tenants, funded by an extraordinary forced sell-off of council housing to the highest bidder.

    Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab) I associate myself with my hon. Friend’s points and the genuine and deep concern that he shows for the needs of tenants throughout the country, many of whom are struggling with high housing costs, as indeed they are in my constituency. Does he agree that it was an outrageous mistake and serious error by the Conservative Government to stop many local authorities from building council houses when they had fully costed schemes that were ready to go and, indeed, shovel-ready? Reading had a plan for 1,000 new council houses, but unfortunately it was stopped by George Osborne in 2015.

    Matt Western My hon. Friend is, of course, absolutely correct. There is a suppression of building low-cost rental properties by local authorities. Those local authorities know that there is a need, and we must allow them to have that responsibility. Preventing them from supplying that housing has had a huge social and economic cost in our communities.

    Siobhain McDonagh Does my hon. Friend also agree that preventing councils from building housing means that it is unlikely that the Government will achieve their ​target of building 300,000 homes a year? The last time those figures were reached was in 1969 when both councils and housing associations were building, as was the private sector.

    Matt Western I thank my hon. Friend once again. Not only is she very well informed, but she is very experienced in this matter. She is absolutely right. The high levels of housing that we have needed over the decades have been delivered by a mix of providers. The crucial element that is now missing is the housing that is provided by local authorities. In its absence, we will never achieve the objective that has been set by the current Government. If we look through the decades, we can see how, in the post-war periods of the ‘20s and then the ‘50s and ‘60s, the local authorities were allowed to ensure a good supply of housing, which they recognised was needed because of the constraints in the private sector.

    It is worth looking at this matter in the round. Over the past 10 years, the overall supply of new homes has seen an under-delivery of at least 80,000 to 100,000 homes a year. The result is that the UK faces a desperate shortage of at least 1 million homes. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors now forecasts that we will reach a shortage of 1.8 million low-cost rental properties—that is just low-cost rental properties—by 2022.

    All areas of the UK need housing, both public and private, but there is particular and desperate need for low-cost housing for rent. In my constituency there are more than 2,400 people on the housing waiting list. Homes are being built, but not enough are under construction to satisfy this social need. Once again, it is the wrong mix of housing that is being delivered. So, what is the answer? Of course, opinions vary, and the solutions presented before the electorate in last year’s election showed clear blue water between the main parties.

    Recognising the critical importance of the housing shortage in its 2017 manifesto, Labour committed to the creation of a new department for housing. Importantly, on house building, we promised at least 1 million new homes over the next Parliament, which, as we now know, can be a very short time, and a new target of 250,000 new homes a year being built by 2022. Of those, at least 100,000 per year, or 40% minimum, would be genuinely affordable homes to rent and buy per year, including the biggest council house building programme in more than 30 years. If I am honest, I would personally like to see a lot more.

    Subsequently, at the autumn party conferences, much time and debate were given over to this challenge, and the Prime Minister announced that she was committed to delivering 300.000 new homes. Specifically, she stated that £2 billion would be committed to helping the delivery of affordable housing, but, of course, that equates to just 25,000 properties. Clearly, housing is rising up the political agenda, and it is now one of the biggest domestic issues that we face.

    My contention is that we now face a social crisis that is without precedent in the past 50 years. We have thousands of families without their own homes, waiting desperately for accommodation. We have record numbers of people rough sleeping. In my constituency of Warwick and Leamington, we have the highest number in terms of people per 1,000 of the population in the whole of ​the west midlands. Over the decades, the overall supply of housing has not delivered. Now must be the time to change that.

    I am convinced that council housing was, is and will be the answer to our housing crisis. The Government need to release local authorities from the bounds of their borrowing cap and allow them to use their pension funds to invest in their communities. The use of public land holds the key to unlocking the potential to deliver this. Simply selling public land to the highest bidder will not solve anything. Land is the fundamental denominator in the cost equation of UK housing, and the planning process surrounding it needs urgent, radical reform.

    Building more council housing solves at least two key problems: first, the lack of genuinely affordable housing for those who cannot afford market rents; and secondly, the chronic under-supply of housing that is the root cause of our housing crisis. As I said, there is a lack of genuinely affordable housing, with historically high waiting lists of 1.16 million households nationally. The easiest way to help those in need is to provide council housing. If we fail to do this, the result will be increasing homelessness, which we have witnessed more than doubling nationally since 2010. Another, less frequently made, argument is that building more council housing is the key to boosting overall supply, thereby addressing the root cause of the UK’s housing crisis.

    The Government’s own target is to build 300,000 new homes each year, but the number of additional homes delivered in 2016-17 was 217,000, falling well short of their target. Although last year was the first year since the financial crisis in which over 200,000 homes were added—and I do applaud that—it was not enough, and the wrong mix of homes is being built. It is now stated that 300,000 houses would just about keep up with demand. Even if the Government hit this target, it is unlikely to bring down house prices and rents significantly. Also, in order to deliver those 300,000 houses, we need all providers to be supplying into the process.

    History provides important lessons. It is no coincidence that house building rates reached their post-war peak during the 1950s and ’60s, when successive Governments were committed both to private sector and public sector house building. At the time, housing was plentiful and house prices stayed low, so that many on low to average incomes could afford to rent or buy their own homes. The success of the ’50s and ’60s shows that prioritising council housing need not be a partisan issue. Harold Macmillan, the Conservative Housing Minister from 1951 to 1954, initiated some of the greatest council house building programmes in order to meet his target of building 300,000 homes a year. During those Macmillan years, local authority housing made up 87%, 84%, 77% and 69% of completed dwellings per year respectively. This compares with just 1% in each of the past four years under this Government—or about 20% each year if we include housing associations as well as councils. Importantly, as I have illustrated elsewhere—I want to give credit where it is due—post-war Conservatives recognised that the public sector must build the homes that the private sector will not build during a housing crisis, which is where we find ourselves.

    So why will this Government not do that? I would like to believe that it is not simply ideology that says that the state is bad while the private sector is good and will solve all our problems, because this crisis is holding ​back our country socially and—I cannot stress this enough—economically. I believe that there is a duty on one-nation Conservatives to come forward and urge the Government to commit to a mass council house building programme if they are serious about solving our housing crisis. In this light, I have recently relaunched, with my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Drew), the parliamentary campaign for council housing. I invite all MPs to get involved with this cross-party initiative that aims to see more council houses being built.

    Central Government policy currently acts as a disincentive for councils to build more council homes: first, because, there is next to no funding from central Government for the provision of council housing; and secondly, because there has been just £5.9 billion gross investment in social housing in 2015-16 compared with £10 billion in 2009-10, and the vast majority of this will be directed to housing associations.

    This compares with the £22 billion forecast to be spent on housing benefit in the 2017-18 financial year, which is a direct result of not building the housing we need. Is that not ironic? Surely the Government would rather not line the pockets of landlords in the private sector, but prefer to invest long term in the council housing that we need. Is that not pragmatic? The additional £2 billion investment announced by the Prime Minister at the conference was welcome, but it will only provide a few thousand homes by 2021, including the affordable homes that can be anything up to 80% of the market rent. The money is not ring-fenced for genuinely affordable social rents.

    As I said earlier, the borrowing cap stifles a council’s ability to build where councils can currently only borrow up to a certain amount to invest in council housing. I welcome the announcement in the Budget that the Government will raise the cap by a total of £1 billion for areas under high affordability pressures, but more needs to be done. If the Government accept that the cap stifles building, why will they not lift it entirely for all areas, as has been done in Scotland?

    Matt Rodda Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a considerable need for greater house building in high-cost areas, and that there is actually a lot of available land in many of those areas? There certainly is in Reading. In our case, it is brownfield land from our light industrial past, and I assume that that may also be the case in Warwick and Leamington. Does he agree that urgent Government action is needed to free up that land in order to support the local economy in those areas and to support local public services? There is a particular pressure on local schools and the NHS in my constituency, as people move to lower-cost areas. Will he endorse my points?

    Matt Western I thank my hon. Friend for his informed and relevant intervention. He is of course absolutely right that this essentially leads to what may be described as social cleansing. We may actually be creating ghettoes of particular types of community, when we should be striving for sustainable, balanced communities for our economic and social good. I totally endorse my hon. Friend’s points.

    It is estimated that lifting the cap would allow £7 billion to be injected over five years, providing an additional 60,000 council homes. Even the Treasury Committee, ​chaired by the right hon. Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan), has called for this and stated:

    “raising the cap would have no material impact on the national debt, but could result in a substantial increase in the supply of housing.”

    The Local Government Association agrees. In my view, we should lift the cap entirely and take borrowing to invest in council housing off the country’s balance sheet, as is standard in other European countries. Why not?

    Returning to the use of land and its availability, there is clearly much land available, but it is questionable in terms of its efficient use. As my hon. Friend the Member for Reading East just alluded to, there is land—including public sector and brownfield land—but it is all about the planning process and how that land is brought into the equation in order to deliver affordable housing. The current planning policy framework makes it prohibitively expensive for this to happen. The whole process needs radical reform.

    Councils are currently incentivised to sell off the overpriced land that they own to highest bidder, rather than to use it for the common good. This needs to be reconsidered urgently. I am calling for us to recognise this national crisis in housing by legislating for all unused local authority and public sector land to be used exclusively for council housing. That is the nature of the crisis we face.

    The inflated land prices across the country are preventing local authorities from being able to assemble the land to build on. Land is currently priced at its potential future development value, rather than at its existing use value, as is done in other countries. This pushes up the cost of undeveloped land that would be suitable for housing development, making investment in council housing more expensive. Bizarrely, it also rewards landowners for housing and infrastructure developments to which they do not contribute.

    The homelessness charity Shelter has argued that a few small reforms to the Land Compensation Act 1961 and associated legislation on compulsory purchase orders would enable local authorities to purchase land at a fair market value—one that reflects both the current value of the land and reasonable compensation, and allows for the delivery of high-quality, affordable developments. This is not rocket science; it is not complicated. That is what they do in other countries in Europe and elsewhere. It is just about changing the planning approach so that it favours the local authorities.

    Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab) Does my hon. Friend agree that the current section 106 arrangements and the community investment levy have failed to deliver affordable housing for our local communities?

    Matt Western My hon. Friend is absolutely correct, as ever. This needs radical reform. The section 106 moneys are understood by few, and the provision of those moneys for housing is not being realised. This goes back to my point about how the planning process and the planning policy framework need urgently to be addressed.

    Councils currently retain only one third of receipts from homes sold through right to buy, while the rest goes to Treasury coffers. Why should that be? Surely it ​should be in the gift of the local authorities. They are ones that are adding the value to this process, not the Treasury and not the developer. That means that council housing is lost and never replaced, with 40% of that stock now in the hands of private landlords who, in some cases, are charging up to 50% more rent than is being charged for comparable local authority-owned housing.

    It also acts as a disincentive for councils to build. Why risk building new council homes when they could be bought three years later, and two thirds of the receipts will then go to the Treasury? Right to buy in its current form must be scrapped, or at the very least radically reformed, if we want to build the new homes we need. At the very least, councils must be allowed to retain 100% of the receipts from the homes that they lose.

    We urgently need to change the language around housing in this country. For 40 years, the sector has become dominated by talk of assets and investment, rather than provision for people’s essential needs for security, refuge and living. Housing also meets the needs of our society more widely and determines the communities in which we live. Housing is so simple, so fundamental and so basic. It provides a sense of place and connectedness in our communities. What is rarely discussed is the vital importance of low-rent council and social housing to the UK economy and how that has been ignored by recent Governments. High rents contribute to pressure on household budgets, lead to lower savings and lower consumption and may lead to poorer health.

    The time has come to address this failing and the urgent need to restore much needed balance to the UK housing sector by allowing local authorities to build council housing on a scale not seen since the 1970s. That would mean 120,000 new council homes being delivered per year across the UK. Council housing was and is the answer to our housing crisis—I have absolutely no doubt about that. It is about time the Government recognised that and got on with the job of building it.

    Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op) I am delighted to make a short contribution, which I am sure the Minister will be pleased to hear. I congratulate my close colleague on this issue, my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western), on securing the debate. What he said was well worth listening to. I wish to make a couple of observations that relate largely to my locality of Stroud. I come to help the Minister, not in any way to criticise, because we have to recognise that this is not about party politics. It is about the fact that we need to deal with the housing problem, and we need to deal with it now.

    I am making this plea following a letter that was sent by my local authority, Stroud District Council, on my behalf and that of the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown). He does not necessarily sign up to everything in the letter, but we felt it was important to send it to the Department so that it understands some of the issues we are facing. This is about the way in which the housing revenue account is now, bizarrely, almost acting against the very thing the Government want, which is to build more houses and make sure that they are fit for the people who desperately need rented accommodation.​

    The letter makes two pleas: first, as my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington has said, to adjust or possibly remove the current borrowing cap so that Stroud District Council can undertake further prudential borrowing consistent with its 30-year business plan; and, secondly, to enable the council to use 100% of its right to buy capital receipts to build those new council homes. Stroud District Council is not unique, but it is unusual in that it now owns its own stock. We bid £98 million for the self-financing regime that the Government kindly made available, so this is a question of the council wanting to use its own resources in the most appropriate ways.

    Stroud District Council has had a five-year capital programme to build some 236 council homes, which for a small area such as Stroud is a not insignificant commitment and contribution. That has not in any way crowded out the private sector, but has been in addition to it. These homes are of a high standard, and they are taking people out of fuel poverty, while lifetime arrangements mean that these quality homes are ones that people want to live in. It is a myth that people end up in council housing because they have no alternatives. These are very much sought-after homes, and ones that we want to see alongside other forms of affordable homes.

    Local business is very supportive, and it has highlighted the need for housing to be given a very high priority for the simple reason that that is how people can live and work in the Stroud district. We estimate locally that we need 425 new units per annum, which, at the moment, is in effect all the units being provided. However, of the 430 new homes built in 2015-16—the last year for which we have figures—only 120, or 28%, were affordable, which is well below our level of need. This is a question of our not meeting the current demand.

    There are 2,525 households on the housing register, with about 440 new lettings of social and affordable housing each year. Rent levels in the private sector are increasing much more quickly than we want, which leads people to look for alternatives to the private sector—one of those alternatives is council housing—and that is particularly true of younger people. In Stroud, the average wage to house price ratio is now 1:10, which is above the national average of 1:8. That means fewer people are becoming owner-occupiers, which is another reason why they are looking for alternative rented accommodation.

    Dare I say it, but the private rented sector in Stroud is not necessarily good, which again drives people to look at ways in which social housing, particularly council housing, can provide an answer. There are elements we always want to provide, such as extra care. That needs to be mentioned, because this is not just about younger people or younger families, but about providing a social care element. It is only really the council that can do so, because it recognises that it must supply such support. We have also had a 30% increase during the past year in homelessness applications, which is another driver.

    One thing for the Minister to address is the local housing allowance. In a previous debate, I argued that the simple fact that Stroud is included with Gloucester and the Forest of Dean causes us problems. We are an area with higher rents, which means that, because the local housing allowance is based on an average, people paying rent have to make good the difference between what they are allowed and what the benefit system permits them.​
    I appeal to the Government to work with us to allow us to carry on with our council housing programme. The local plan allocates over 5,000 homes, but sadly too few are coming forward. If the local authority could play a bigger part we would be able to bring forward those homes and ensure we deal with the housing shortage, which I am sure Members on all sides of the House agree is real and pertinent. We need a range of housing, including council housing. This is a cross-party agreement. We are a hung council. The local Conservatives support the programme and were instrumental in it, and they have been willing to stay with it over a long period of time. We need help to either remove or relax the housing revenue account, so we can get back on with the programme.

    Sadly, the cap means it is likely that we will have to pay back to the Government £1 million in unapplied right-to-buy receipts for 2016-17. The Minister looks a bit curious, but that is the reality. If we do not have the ability to match fund, we pay back the money from receipts. I do not expect the Minister to say he has a magic solution, but perhaps he could look at that to ensure we do not have such anomalies in the system which mean that the very people who want to build are being prevented from doing so. The 1% rent reduction makes matters worse, because of its impact on the flexibility that councils need for their business plans—in our case, a 30-year business plan. Overall, that has a negative impact of some £10 million, which is a huge influence on the number of houses—we reckon 100—that we want to build but have not been able to.

    I hope the Minister has listened. I do not expect him to come up with all the answers, but we will work with him. We are a good authority. We want to overcome the problems of the lack of affordable housing, particularly council housing. I hope he has heard us and will be able to say that the Government are at least willing to contemplate looking at the borrowing requirement and how right to buy affects authorities like Stroud.

  • Chris Grayling – 2018 Speech on West Coast Partnership

    Below is the text of the speech made by Chris Grayling, the Secretary of State for Transport, in the House of Commons on 27 March 2018.

    With your permission I would like to make a statement about the future of the West Coast Main Line, about our plans for the integration of track and train on our railways and our plans for the transition to the operation of HS2 as it opens up in 2026.

    I have already set out for the House our plans to bring the operation of track and train together on a day to day operational basis around the country, with the creation of new alliances between Network Rail and the train operators on South Eastern and Midland Mainline, and the strengthening of the existing alliance arrangements on South Western and Southern.

    I have also set out our plans for a new partnership between the public and private sectors to operate the East Coast mainline.

    Today I want to explain how this approach could start to inform the development of the West Coast Mainline and HS2. I am also today publishing the invitation to tender to be the new West Coast Partner which – subject to them delivering on their commitments – will operate the route until 2031 and which will work with HS2 to pave the way for the opening of HS2.

    The West Coast mainline is one of the busiest mixed rail routes, if not the busiest in Europe. It carries commuter traffic to 6 of our biggest cities, it carries express trains between them, it provides essential intermediate services to places like Milton Keynes, Coventry, Warrington and Preston. It is an essential link to North Wales, Scotland and Ireland. And it is also one of our busiest freight routes.

    It is this complex mix of traffic which is a key part of the case for building HS2 so that we have the capacity to meet these growing needs in the future.

    The West Coast franchise has been very successful in recent years, with high passenger satisfaction and substantial revenue growth for the taxpayer. It is my intention that the new contract will build on this up to and including 2026. There is already a close working relationship between Network Rail and the train operator, and I intend that this should be deepened under the new contract with the new operator.

    After that, though, Mr Speaker, the way we run this railway will change. After 2026 the express services will start to move off an increasingly congested part of the existing network and onto the new HS2. Brand new and more frequent trains will provide additional capacity on faster services. Space will be freed up on the existing routes for improved services to other destinations.

    This will require a carefully managed transition, as initial services begin to Birmingham and then gradually the HS2 network provides more and more of the intercity service.

    I want to explain today how this new contract will ensure that this smooth transition takes place and set out what we are working towards. I should emphasise that final decisions on the transition and the operational details are years away, but I do think it’s right that as we publish this new invitation to tender that we start to look towards what that end point could be.

    For example, one option could be an integrated railway operation, in charge of both its infrastructure and its services, akin to some Japanese high-speed lines, and in line with the government strategy of bringing together track and train. It could also be structured as a public-private partnership and there will also be other options that we should explore before any final decisions are made.

    While the exact shape and end-state of the organisation does not need to be decided now, I am very clear of one thing, I want HS2 to become a strong, British organisation, potentially capable of not just building but also operating a successful railway here. It should also become a strong international champion for the UK – in the way, for example, that the organisation that runs Manchester Airport has.

    Manchester Airports Group is a strong and effective public private partnership organisation that has expanded in the UK running first great operations in the UK, and is now doing so internationally. It has proved itself effective at managing major projects and delivering good customer service.

    Today’s announcement is not about creating a long term organisational model for HS2, though.

    As we get into the 2020s we will need to prepare for the introduction of services. So through this new arrangement my department is paving the way for that introduction.

    The winner of this new competition will help design the new HS2 services and develop a new customer offering to take advantage of 21st century technology to revolutionise the way we travel on high speed rail, and provide input to my department and to HS2 Limited.

    They will run the existing West Coast Mainline services until HS2 passenger services are introduced.

    After that they will continue to run successor services on the West Coast main line until 2031, albeit to a different set of timetables and priorities, with a refocused service aimed at those intermediate locations.

    During the period between now and the start of HS2 services they will also help plan the introduction of the express trains to the new line, the move from one line to the other, and put in place all of the customer facing resources needed to deliver an excellent service on day one.

    If they perform strongly, they will also operate on behalf of HS2 services for a limited period after 2026.

    During this period, my department will be closely involved with operations to ensure that the envisaged connectivity benefits of HS2 are realised.

    What the contract also includes a number of safeguards such as restrictions on branding, transfer of intellectual property and collaboration requirements with HS2, which mean that while we will harness the innovative thinking of the private sector no bidder will be able to create something that only they could run in the future.

    During this period, the operator will also work with the department and HS2 to consider the options for the end state, including what would be required for fully integrated operations to be undertaken by an eventual combined organisation.

    This short term arrangement will be very similar to the modus operandi that which will be operating on Crossrail next year after it formally begins services as the Elizabeth line for Transport for London.

    Throughout this period, the new operator will also deliver a high quality experience for passengers and continue to drive growth on the existing West Coast Mainline route.

    Passengers will benefit from enhanced compensation for delays of greater than 15 minutes, simpler to understand fares and ticketing. And also a more accessible railway, we are introducing an accessibility panel to advise on all aspects of how this railway is operated.

    I want to ensure that passengers are placed firmly at the heart of all planning decisions.

    So what I am setting in train today for the West Coast Partnership is our plans to:

    keep industry leading services on the West Coast until HS2 enters operation
    ensure that the first HS2 services are delivered by an experience operator that has been working hard to plan for their introduction and use this approach to help inform decisions on what the future shape of the organisation should be

    I believe that this is the best way of ensuring a smooth transition to what will be an exciting new future for our railways

    I commend this statement to the House.

  • Alun Cairns – 2018 Speech on Welsh Innovation

    Below is the text of the speech made by Alun Cairns, the Secretary of State for Wales, in Hong Kong on 23 March 2018.

    Thank you for that introduction and a very good morning to you all.

    It’s a pleasure to be here today and to be at this GREAT Festival showcasing the very best of British innovation.

    I may have only been here for 24 hours but in that short amount of time I have been truly inspired by the conversations I’ve heard about our shared ambitions, and energised by the opportunities we have to work together to shape the future of global trade.

    There is no denying that there is a real buzz about the place.

    At every turn I am seeing:

    British and Asian visionaries forging new links and strengthening existing relationships.

    Businesses enthusiastic to show that they are capable, cutting edge and confident to embrace global markets.

    And innovators making the connections that will put them in pole position to benefit from the opportunities this important market provides.

    It truly is a meeting of brilliant minds and I am very much looking forward to seeing businesses reap the benefits of the valuable relationships that they will forge here.

    And I’m delighted to have the opportunity to talk to you today about Britain’s trading future and how our global reputation for innovation excellence places us on a firm footing for the future.

    INNOVATION

    If your experience abroad has been anything like mine, you will know that British innovation is deeply valued around the world.

    In our distilleries and on our factory floors; in our tech hubs and our research facilities: ideas, goods, and services are being produced that are coveted right across the globe.

    Indeed, innovation in in the fabric of Britain’s DNA.

    Game changers invented by the Brits include items as diverse as penicillin and the pencil, the jet engine and bungee jumping.

    We invented the telephone and text messaging. We can claim evolution, gravity, longitude and the Higgs Boson particle. And, perhaps the most important breakthrough of all – a Brit invented the chocolate bar.

    And from a personal point of view, I am particularly proud to say that the world’s first ever wireless broadcast took place in my own constituency the Vale of Glamorgan. And the message was, ‘are you ready’?

    Ironically, a message which is equally relevant to today’s challenges.

    Yet there can be no denying that having the capability and capacity to innovate is still the way to prosper in the 21st century.

    And – as Welsh Secretary – I’m delighted that Wales is playing its part.

    How many people know, for example, that the wafer semiconductor technology for more than half the world’s smart phones is manufactured in south Wales in what is becoming a hub of hi-tech excellence and innovation?

    I’m delighted to see IQE – the company helping to drive this innovation forward – here at this festival this week.

    And Swansea University is already exploring how 5G technology can be used for smart bandages which can detect how a wound is healing and send a message back to doctors in real time.

    They – and the thousands of other Welsh companies breaking overseas markets – are making a huge contribution to the value of Welsh exports which totalled £16.4 billion last year – an increase of 12.3% on the previous year.

    So you know, as well as I, that we have world class innovations and services to offer to the world.

    But what is the UK Government doing to help British innovators to thrive abroad?

    Well, everything that the Department for International Trade does is designed to help you on every step of your exporting journeys.

    From financial backing, export advice, trade missions or access to the 1,200 advisers in 108 countries worldwide, there is a world class resource that you can tap into.

    EU EXIT

    I understand that every business here at this Festival will be hoping for a glimpse of what that trading potential with the rest of the world will look like once we leave the EU.

    I know that businesses value certainty and stability above all else.

    But what I also know is that this Festival shows that the connections that we have around the world can become more varied, become stronger and become more enticing as we leave the EU.

    We are living in a time of historic opportunity with great prizes at stake for our economy if we only have the courage to grasp them.

    But we must, as a country, set our sights on this future.

    And our future must be global.

    Because the pattern of our trade is changing.

    Dynamic trading has shown that over 50% of Britain’s exports are now to outside the EU, compared with only 46% in 2006.

    So in the wake of Brexit, we must become more not less international in our outlook.

    We need to make sure that Britain will always be open for business, will be open to collaborative partnerships with like-minded countries, institutions and firms right around the world.

    INDUSTRIAL STRATEGY

    But to encourage innovation, it is not enough to simply increase investment and to set challenges.

    We also need to provide the freedom that innovators and optimists need to thrive.

    And that is what our Industrial Strategy is all about.

    A strategy that has been developed in full partnership with the innovators, investors and job creators of the British economy.

    It is a strategy sets out how we are building a Britain fit for the future and how we will respond to the technological revolution taking place across the world.

    CONCLUSION

    It is another example of how we have set out a positive vision of an optimistic, open, outward looking, free trading, buccaneering Global Britain.

    It is a vision of a country back in charge of its trading destiny.

    But to realise that vision, we know that Government and businesses need to work hand in hand.

    The UK Government will continue to lay the foundations and develop the international relationships – opening doors and taking down barriers.

    But it is ultimately our enterprising businesspeople like you who will make the most of those new opportunities.

    I want you to know that the UK Government will be backing British business all the way – doing all we can to help you realise our vision of a prosperous, truly Global Britain.

    I look forward to experiencing what the rest of this Festival has to offer, and to continuing to celebrate with you the success of British innovation now and in the future.

    I’ll now hand over to the Permanent Secretary to the Department for International Trade, Antonia Romeo.

    Thank you.

  • Sajid Javid – 2018 Statement on Northamptonshire County Council

    Below is the text of the statement made by Sajid Javid, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, in the House of Commons on 27 March 2018.

    Mr Speaker, with permission, I wish to make a statement about the independent inspection report on Northamptonshire County Council.

    Everyone in this House, regardless of party, appreciates the crucial role that local government plays as the frontline of our democracy.

    Delivering vital services on which we all depend and helping to create great places to live.

    And, in doing so, making the most of every penny they receive from hard-pressed taxpayers to secure better outcomes.

    All of which builds confidence and trust between local authorities and those they serve.

    Which is why the situation in Northamptonshire is of such concern.

    Prior to my instigation of the report, there were signs that Northamptonshire’s situation was deteriorating.

    External auditors at Northamptonshire had lodged adverse value for money opinions in audit reports…

    …suggesting that the council was not managing its finances appropriately.

    The former leader resigning in May 2016, also signalled the need for change.

    As late as last year, the Local Government Association conducted a financial Peer Review…

    …which concluded there were issues with delivering the Next Generation reforms and, again, with the mismanagement of its finances.

    The then Chief Executive Paul Blantern resigned in October 2017.

    These reports, along with the concerns raised by district councils in Northamptonshire…

    …and by Hon Members of this House with local constituencies…

    …prompted me to act, as I was concerned that there were potentially fundamental issues within the authority.

    On 9 January 2018, I informed the House that I had concerns regarding the financial management and governance of the council.

    I therefore decided to exercise my powers under section 10 of the Local Government Act 1999 to initiate a Best Value inspection of the council.

    And I appointed Max Caller, an experienced former Chief Executive and Commissioner, to conduct this…

    …and report on whether the council was complying with its Best Value duty.

    Mr Caller submitted his report on 15 March.

    And I placed a copy in the library of this House so that everyone could see what he had found and see his recommendations.

    And before I go any further, I would like to thank Mr Caller, and his assistant inspector, Julie Parker…

    …for their dedication and focus in conducting such a thorough and prompt review.

    When I commissioned the Best Value inspection, I asked the Inspector to consider 4 things in particular:

    First, whether the council has the right culture, governance and processes to make robust decisions…

    …on resource allocation and to manage its finances effectively.

    Second, whether the council allowed adequate scrutiny by councillors.

    Third, whether there were strong processes and the right information available to managers and councillors…

    …to underpin service management and spending decisions.

    And fourth, whether the council was organised and structured appropriately to deliver value for money.

    Mr Speaker, I have reflected on the contents of the Caller report.

    It is balanced, it’s rooted in evidence and compelling.

    The Inspector has identified multiple apparent failures by Northamptonshire County Council in complying with its Best Value Duty.

    Failures on all counts.

    Whilst I recognise that councils across England have faced many challenges in recent years, the Inspector is clear that…

    … Northamptonshire’s failures are not down to a lack of funding or because it is being treated unfairly or is uniquely disadvantaged compared to other councils.

    In fact, his report says that:

    “for a number of years, NCC has failed to manage its budget and has not taken effective steps to introduce and maintain budgetary control”.

    Furthermore, the complex structure of financial support meant oversight was difficult and accountability blurred.

    This report says that Northamptonshire’s Next Generation approach – which envisaged outsourcing many of the council’s functions – had no:

    “hard edged business plan or justification to support these proposals”.

    This “…made it difficult to ensure a line of sight over costs and operational activity”…

    …and “made it impossible for the council, as a whole to have any clarity or understanding as to what was going on”.

    Similarly, the inspector found that Northamptonshire County Council used capital receipts to support revenue spend…

    …without documentary evidence demonstrating compliance with the Statutory Guidance and Direction.

    Furthermore, until this February, there was no report to full council on the proposed projects and their benefits.

    He says that “Savings targets were imposed without understanding of demand, need or deliverability…

    …and it is clear that some Chief Officers. did not consider that they were in any way accountable…

    …for the delivery of savings that they had promoted.”

    On the question of scrutiny, the report says that:

    “The council did not respond well, or in many cases even react, to external and internal criticism…

    …Individual councillors appear to have been denied answers to questions that were entirely legitimate to ask…

    …and scrutiny arrangements were constrained by what was felt the NCC executive would allow.”

    Mr Speaker, I want to emphasise that the report also indicates that the hardworking staff of Northamptonshire County Council…

    …are not at fault and have worked hard to provide quality services.

    With all of this mind, it is clear that I must consider whether further action is necessary to secure compliance with the Best Value duty.

    In doing so, I want to reassure the residents of Northamptonshire that essential services will continue to be delivered.

    The Inspector is clear that “the problems faced by NCC are now so deep and ingrained that it is not possible to promote a recovery plan…

    … that could bring the council back to stability and safety in a reasonable timescale.”

    He recommends that “a way forward, with a clean sheet, leaving all the history behind, is required”.

    I am therefore minded to appoint Commissioners to oversee the Authority…

    …using my powers under section 15 of the Local Government Act 1999.

    From day 1, I propose that they take direct control over the council’s financial management and overall governance.

    Getting these basics right must be the first step in stabilising this authority.

    I also propose giving them reserved powers to act as they see fit across the entirety of the authority’s functions…

    …if they consider that they must step in.

    My officials are writing to the council and district councils today to this effect and they can make representations on my proposal.

    I will consider any representations carefully before reaching a final decision.

    The Caller report makes a clear recommendation on restructuring, and notes there are a number of options available.

    So, in addition, I’m inviting Northamptonshire County Council and the district and borough councils in the area…

    …to submit proposals on restructuring local government.

    I would like those councils to think about what is right for their community and the people they serve…

    …and to come forward with proposals.

    This invitation and the letter to Northamptonshire that I mentioned earlier have been published today and copies placed in the Library.

    It is clear to me that any proposals from the councils should seek to meet the criteria for local government restructuring…

    …that I have previously shared with the House.

    Namely, that proposals should:

    improve local government

    be based on a credible geography

    and command a good deal of local support

    I will be particularly interested in hearing how the councils have consulted with their communities…

    …to ensure that Northamptonshire’s future is truly locally-led.

    Mr Speaker, the findings of Mr Caller’s inspection report on Northamptonshire County Council are extremely serious.

    Which is why this government is prepared to take decisive action…

    …to ensure that local people receive the high quality services they need and deserve.

    And to restore faith in local government in Northamptonshire.

    I commend this Statement to the House.

  • George Howarth – 2018 Speech on Cable Standards and Fires

    Below is the text of the speech made by George Howarth, the Labour MP for Knowsley, in the House of Commons on 26 March 2018.

    Mr Speaker I am about to call the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth). It seems to me quite inexplicable that significant numbers of Members are leaving the Chamber, but if they feel inclined to do so—[Interruption.] It is no good the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) chuntering that he has been here for several hours; he could stay here another half an hour and indulge the right hon. Member for Knowsley. If people wish to leave the Chamber, they should do so quickly and quietly, so that the rest of us can attend to the intellectual oratory of the right hon. Member for Knowsley.

    Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab) I will try to live up to your splendid introduction, Mr Speaker.

    Last year’s Grenfell Tower tragedy was, without doubt, one of the most shocking and disturbing building safety failures in living memory. As we know, the likely cause was a shocking failure of our building control regulations, and as a result, the Government established an independent review of building regulations led by Dame Judith Hackitt. A long-overdue national debate about buildings and safety has been taking place alongside the review. In her interim report, Dame Judith rightly stated that Britain’s building regulations are “not fit for purpose”.

    I would like to place on record my thanks to the Safer Structures campaign, Electrical Safety First, the Association of British Insurers, the Fire Brigades Union and the Merseyside fire and rescue service for providing me with a briefing for the debate.

    The focus for Grenfell Tower is on the specification and installation of the cladding used on the building. This debate concerns the need to eradicate substandard cabling from the market, because there is an overwhelming argument that our existing regulation is too weak and, as a consequence, exposes structures and those who live and work in them to unacceptable levels of risk.

    Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP) I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing this salient debate. Does he agree that, with electrical fires being the cause of 20,000 fires in United Kingdom homes per year, we have a duty to ensure that people are able to check their cabling and understand how to do so to ensure that it is safe, for not only the people themselves but the councils, which have responsibility?

    Mr Howarth I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I will be giving some statistics that exemplify what he just said.

    According to the Approved Cables Initiative, more than 27% of all electrical fires are attributable to faulty wire and cables, and there are serious concerns about the risks in our built environment that need to be urgently addressed.

    A related concern is that current regulation is not being sufficiently well enforced. For example, in October 2017 the BBC published evidence from an investigation it carried out which exposed the fact that a now-defunct Turkish cable manufacturer, Atlas Kablo, has sold ​11 million metres of cable to the UK that pose a deeply concerning fire risk. The Health and Safety Executive, which labours under severe resource restrictions, decided against a compulsory recall of all 11 million metres of that cable. Consequently, as far as I am able to ascertain, so far only 7 million metres has actually been recovered. That poses a real fire safety threat in cases where that cable is still being used.

    Interviewed by the BBC, Sam Gluck, the technical manager at the electrical fire consultants Tower Electrical Fire & Safety, said that this approach had

    “planted a bomb in the system”.

    Mr Gluck added that

    “if it overheats, it will ignite anything that touches it. If it’s against a plasterboard wall that will ignite”.

    Dr Maurizio Bragagni, chief executive of Tratos—it has a factory in my constituency—and a founder of the Safer Structures campaign, added that

    “it could be in any shopping centre, any venue, any building”.

    Even where cable regulation is properly enforced, the standards are too weak. By way of background—the Minister will be aware of this—on 1 July 2017, the European Union introduced the construction products regulation. As a result, all cables sold in the EU now have to adhere to common standards, which should result in safer, more consistent building regulations and much improved public safety. The EU, however, has not been prescriptive in specifying which classification of cable performance should be used for buildings and infrastructure in each country. Instead, it is the responsibility of each EU member state’s regulator to decide this, and in the UK, this is the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.

    At present, the Department has not specified which class of cable should be used for buildings, and instead requires all electrical installations in buildings to comply with British standard 7671—a minimum requirement equivalent to European class E. This means that flames can spread through a cable to 3 to 4 metres in under five minutes, and the fire will continue to propagate at the same rate, while at Euro class C, for example, the fire growth rate is limited to below 2 metres. On the range of Euro classes A to F, the A standard is virtually fireproof. Adoption of a higher standard at Euro class A, B1, B2 or C would lead to much greater resistance for permitted cables. In short, it would mean much improved levels of fire safety.

    The official statistics on domestic fires make for sober reading. In 2016-17, 14,821 primary fires were caused by electrical distribution, space heating appliances and other electrical appliances. These three categories resulted in 44 fatalities and 1,353 non-fatal casualties. Another cause for concern is the electrical safety of white goods such as dishwashers, tumble dryers and fridge freezers, which are a major cause of electrical fires. In 2016, 1,873 fires were caused by domestic electrical white goods.

    As you will recall, Mr Speaker, on 1 November 2017 there was an excellent Westminster Hall debate on the subject of product safety and fire risk in residential premises, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick). I will not go over that ground again, other than to say that this is a serious problem and it needs to be addressed urgently.​
    Analysis by the Fire Brigades Union indicates that the number of fires and fire deaths is increasing. In the year ending September 2017, there were 346 fire-related fatalities compared with 253 in the previous year, which is a 37% increase—and it was even up by 9% if the tragic deaths at Grenfell Tower are not included. An improvement in standards must, by definition, lead to reduced fire deaths, less property damage and lower demands on already overstretched fire and rescue services. We should bear in mind that, since 2010, more than 11,000 firefighter jobs have been cut across the UK, and that represents one in five frontline firefighter jobs.

    There are, as I have highlighted, genuine concerns about buildings such as Grenfell Tower and fire safety. I also have serious concerns about the growing private rented sector, which is far too lightly regulated. Electrical Safety First recommended that properties in the private rented sector should be subject to mandatory five-year checks and the fitting of residual current devices. This would enable substandard cabling to be identified, rather than, as at present, leaving it undetected until it causes serious property damage, injury or even death.

    The post-Brexit landscape for regulation and compliance must, at the minimum, maintain the current protections afforded to consumers. There should be no deregulation of the product safety standards currently implemented. Following our exit, the UK should continue working closely with European friends to ensure that products entering the UK market are safe, and dangerous products are intercepted and reported.

    One further point I want to make before I move to a conclusion concerns regional variations. Merseyside had 53% of its fires recorded as being electrical in origin, which is below the national average. During the same time, Manchester had 61%, and Norfolk, the Isle of Wight and Cornwall had in excess of 70%, of dwelling fires recorded as electrical. Of the 628 incidents defined as electrical fires on Merseyside, 133 were deemed to be “structural/fixtures/fittings”, and cables would fall into that category.

    To conclude, I ask the Minister to consider the following questions. First, Dame Judith Hackitt’s review of building regulations must inevitably go through all the evidence thoroughly, and I accept that that will take time. However, in the case of cabling, would the Minister consider introducing immediate measures to properly regulate cable standards along the lines I referred to? The evidence is already there.

    Secondly, will the Minister consider providing the resources to enable the Health and Safety Executive to identify the remaining 4 million metres of Atlas Kablo cable so that it can be recalled? Thirdly, will she undertake to see what further action can be taken on white goods to more fully identify the risks and any action that could be taken to eradicate those risks?

    Fourthly, will the Minister carry out a review of the regions most prone to electrical fires to identify the common characteristics and what more can be done to deal with the problem? Finally, following our exit from the EU, will she commit to ensuring that there is no deregulation of cable standards in the UK?

    I hope the Minister will accept that this is a very serious issue and that it is in need of urgent attention ​from her Department. I hope she will inject some energy into the work the Government need to do to combat it.

  • Theresa May – 2018 Statement on European Council

    Below is the text of the statement made by Theresa May, the Prime Minister, in the House of Commons on 26 March 2018.

    Introduction

    Mr Speaker, before I turn to the European Council, I am sure the whole House will join me in sending our deepest condolences to the families and friends of those killed in the appalling terrorist attack at Trèbes on Friday.

    The House will also want to pay tribute to the extraordinary actions of Lt-Col Arnaud Beltrame who, unarmed, took the place of a hostage and gave his own life to save the lives of others. Son sacrifice et son courage ne seront jamais oubliés.

    Mr Speaker, just last week we marked the first anniversary of the attack on Westminster and remembered the humbling bravery of PC Keith Palmer.

    It is through the actions of people like PC Palmer and Lt-Col Beltrame, that we confront the very worst of humanity with the very best.

    And through the actions of us all – together in this Parliament and in solidarity with our allies in France – we show that our democracy will never be silenced and our way of life will always prevail.

    European Council

    Mr Speaker, turning to the Council, we discussed confronting Russia’s threat to the rules-based order. We agreed our response to America’s import tariffs on steel and aluminium, and we also discussed Turkey and the Western Balkans, as well as economic issues including the appropriate means of taxing digital companies.

    All of these are issues on which the UK will continue to play a leading role in our future partnership with the EU after we have left. And this Council also took important steps towards building that future partnership.

    Russia

    First, on Russia, we are shortly to debate the threat that Russia poses to our national security – and I will set this out in detail then.

    But at this Council, I shared the basis for our assessment that Russia was responsible for the reckless and brazen attempted murder of Sergei and Yulia Skripal in Salisbury – and the exposure of many others to potential harm.

    All EU leaders agreed and as a result the Council conclusions were changed to state that the Council “…agrees with the United Kingdom government’s assessment that it is highly likely that the Russian Federation is responsible and that there is no alternative plausible explanation.”

    Mr Speaker, this was the first offensive use of a nerve agent on European soil since the foundation of the EU and NATO.

    It is a clear violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention and – as an unlawful use of force – a clear breach of the UN Charter.

    It is part of a pattern of increasingly aggressive Russian behaviour – but also represents a new and dangerous phase in Russia’s hostile activity against Europe and our shared values and interests.

    So I argued that there should be a reappraisal of how our collective efforts can best tackle the challenge that Russia poses following President Putin’s re-election.

    And in my discussions with President Macron and Chancellor Merkel, as well as other leaders, we agreed on the importance of sending a strong European message in response to Russia’s actions – not just out of solidarity with the UK but recognising the threat posed to the national security of all EU countries.

    So the Council agreed immediate actions including withdrawing the EU’s ambassador from Moscow.

    And today 18 countries have announced their intention to expel more than 100 Russian intelligence officers from their countries.

    This includes 15 EU Member States as well as the US, Canada, and the Ukraine.

    And this is the largest collective expulsion of Russian intelligence officers in history.

    I have found great solidarity from our friends and partners in the EU, North America, NATO and beyond over the past three weeks as we have confronted the aftermath of the Salisbury incident.

    And together we have sent a message that we will not tolerate Russia’s continued attempts to flout international law and undermine our values.

    European nations will also act to strengthen their resilience to chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear-related risks as well as bolstering their capabilities to deal with hybrid threats.

    We also agreed that we would review progress in June, with Foreign Ministers being tasked to report back ahead of the next Council.

    Mr Speaker, the challenge of Russia is one that will endure for years to come.

    As I have made clear before, we have no disagreement with the Russian people who have achieved so much through their country’s great history.

    Indeed, our thoughts are with them today in the aftermath of the awful shopping centre fire in Kemerovo in Siberia.

    But President Putin’s regime is carrying out acts of aggression against our shared values and interests within our continent and beyond.

    And as a sovereign European democracy, the United Kingdom will stand shoulder to shoulder with the EU and with NATO to face down these threats together.

    US steel tariffs

    Turning to the United States’ decision to impose import tariffs on steel and aluminium, the Council was clear that these measures cannot be justified on national security grounds, and that sector-wide protection in the US is an inappropriate remedy for the real problems of overcapacity.

    My Rt Hon Friend the Secretary of State for International Trade travelled to Washington last week to argue for an EU-wide exemption.

    So we welcome the temporary exemption that has now been given to the European Union, but we must work hard to ensure this becomes permanent.

    At the same time we will continue to support preparations in the EU to defend our industry in a proportionate manner, in compliance with WTO rules.

    Brexit

    Turning to Brexit, last week the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union reached agreement with the European Commission negotiating team on large parts of the draft Withdrawal Agreement.

    This includes the reciprocal agreement on citizens’ rights, the financial settlement, aspects of issues relating to Northern Ireland such as the Common Travel Area, and crucially the detailed terms of a time-limited Implementation Period running to the end of December 2020.

    I am today placing copies of the draft agreement in the House libraries and I want to thank the Secretary of State and our negotiating team for all their work in getting us to this point.

    The Council welcomed the agreement reached – including the time that the Implementation Period will provide for governments, businesses and citizens on both sides to prepare for the new relationship we want to build.

    As I set out in my speech in Florence, it is not in our national interest to ask businesses to undertake two sets of changes.

    So it follows that during the Implementation Period they should continue to trade on current terms.

    Whilst I recognise that not everyone will welcome continuation of current trading terms for another 21 months, such an Implementation Period has been widely welcomed by British business because it is necessary if we are to minimise uncertainty and deliver a smooth and successful Brexit.

    For all of us, the most important issue must be focussing on negotiating the right future relationship that will endure for years to come.

    And we are determined to use the Implementation Period to prepare properly for that future relationship – which is why it is essential that we have clarity about the terms of that relationship when we ask the House to agree the Implementation Period and the rest of the Withdrawal Agreement in the autumn.

    Mr Speaker, there are of course some key questions that remain to be resolved on the Withdrawal Agreement – including the governance of the Agreement, and how our commitments to avoid a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland should be turned into legal text.

    As I have made clear, we remain committed to the agreement we reached in December in its entirety.

    This includes a commitment to agree operational legal text for the “backstop option” set out in the Joint Report – although it remains my firm belief that we can and will find the best solutions for Northern Ireland as part of the overall future relationship between the UK and the EU.

    I have explained that the specific European Commission proposals for that backstop were unacceptable because they were not in line with Belfast Agreement and threatened the break-up of the UK’s internal market. And as such they were not a fair reflection of the Joint Report.

    But there are many issues on which we can agree with the Commission and we are committed to working intensively to resolve those which remain outstanding.

    So I welcome that we are beginning a dedicated set of talks today with the European Commission – and where appropriate the Irish Government – so that we can work together to agree the best way to fulfil the commitments we have made.

    We have also been working closely with the Government of Gibraltar to ensure that Gibraltar is covered by our EU negotiations on withdrawal, the Implementation Period and future relationship.

    I am pleased that the draft Agreement published jointly last week correctly applies to Gibraltar, but we will continue to engage closely with the Government of Gibraltar and our European partners to resolve the particular challenges our EU withdrawal poses for Gibraltar and for Spain.

    Mr Speaker, following my speeches in Munich and at the Mansion House setting out the future security and economic partnerships we want to develop, the Council also agreed guidelines for the next stage of the negotiations on this future relationship which must rightly now be our focus.

    While there are of course some clear differences between our initial positions, the guidelines are a useful starting point for the negotiations that will now get underway.

    And I welcome the Council restating the EU’s determination to “have as close as possible a partnership with the UK” and its desire for a “balanced, ambitious and wide-ranging” free trade agreement.

    For I believe there is now an opportunity to create a new dynamic in these negotiations.

    The agreements our negotiators have reached on the Withdrawal Agreement and the Implementation Period are proof that with political will – and with a spirit of co-operation and a spirit of opportunity for the future – we can find answers to difficult issues together.

    And we must continue to do so.

    For whether people voted leave or remain, many are frankly tired of the old arguments and the attempts to refight the referendum over the past year.

    With a year to go, people are coming back together and looking forward.

    They want us to get on with it. And that is what we are going to do.

    And I commend this Statement to the House.

  • Theresa May – 2018 Statement on National Security and Russia

    Below is the text of the statement made by Theresa May, the Prime Minister, in the House of Commons on 26 March 2018.

    Mr Speaker, I beg to move the motion on the order paper standing in my name.

    Three weeks ago, the Russian Federation was responsible for an attempted murder here in our country.

    This was not only a crime against Sergei and Yulia Skripal.

    It was an indiscriminate and reckless act against the United Kingdom, putting the lives of innocent civilians at risk.

    It was an assault on our fundamental values and the rules based international system that upholds them.

    And it was part of a pattern of increasingly aggressive Russian behaviour, but which – with the first offensive use of a nerve agent on European soil since the foundation of NATO – also represents a new and dangerous phase in Russia’s hostile activity within our continent and beyond.

    So this debate is taking place, Mr Speaker, because there is no greater responsibility for this House – for this government and for me as Prime Minister – than recognising threats to our national security and acting to meet them.

    So let me set out for the House what we now know about the recklessness of this act and its exposure of innocent people to potential harm, the evidence that Russia was indeed responsible, the wider pattern of Russia’s illegal and destabilising actions within our continent and beyond, the extensive actions this government has already been taking, and our determination to work with our international partners to confront the evolving nature of this threat, to defend the rules based international system and to keep our people safe.

    Mr Speaker, let me start by updating the House on the situation in Salisbury.

    Sergei and Yulia Skripal remain critically ill in hospital.

    Sadly, late last week doctors indicated that their condition is unlikely to change in the near future and they may never recover fully.

    This shows the utterly barbaric nature of this act – and the dangers that hundreds of innocent citizens in Salisbury could have faced.

    An investigation continues into all the locations where the Skripals had been present on Sunday 4th March.

    As a result, we now have a fuller picture of the recklessness of this act against our country.

    While Public Health England have made clear that the risk to public health is low – and this remains the case – we assess that more than 130 people in Salisbury could have been potentially exposed to this nerve agent.

    More than 50 people were assessed in hospital, with Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey taken seriously ill.

    I know everyone in the House will welcome the news that he has been discharged and continue to hold him and his family in our thoughts as he makes his recovery.

    Mr Speaker, we are quite clear that Russia was responsible for this act.

    As I set out for the House in my statements earlier this month, our world-leading experts at the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory at Porton Down positively identified the chemical used for this act as a Novichok – a military-grade nerve agent of a type developed by the Soviet Union.

    We know that Russia has a record of conducting state-sponsored assassinations – and that it views some former intelligence officers as legitimate targets for these assassinations.

    And we have information indicating that within the last decade, Russia has investigated ways of delivering nerve agents probably for assassination – and as part of this programme has produced and stockpiled small quantities of Novichoks.

    Clearly that is in contravention of the Chemical Weapons Convention and so it is right that we have been working closely with the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons whose team arrived in the UK last week and collected samples.

    This is a normal part of us discharging our obligations under the Convention, although we are clear as to what the evidence is.

    As a Permanent Member of the UN Security Council, upholding these non-proliferation regimes with our partners is central to our international security, while Russia has recklessly undermined and violated them.

    In conclusion, as I have set out, no other country has a combination of the capability, the intent and the motive to carry out such an act.

    There is no other plausible explanation.

    And that is not just the view of the UK government.

    It was the unanimous view of every single leader at last week’s European Council.

    And the view of our Allies in NATO and around the world.

    Mr Speaker, I know there are some who question whether there could be alternative explanations.

    So let me be absolutely clear.

    We have been led by evidence not by speculation.

    And when faced with the evidence we gave the Russian government the opportunity to provide an explanation.

    But they did not do so.

    They provided no explanation as to why Russia has an undeclared chemical weapons programme in contravention of international law.

    No explanation that could suggest they had lost control of their nerve agent.

    And no explanation as to how this agent came to be used in the United Kingdom.

    Instead they have treated the use of a military grade nerve agent in Europe with sarcasm, contempt and defiance.

    Incredibly, they have deployed at least twenty-one different arguments about it.

    They have suggested that they never produced Novichoks; or that they produced them but then destroyed them.

    They have tried to claim that their agents are not covered by the Chemical Weapons Convention.

    They have pointed the finger at other countries – including Slovakia, Sweden and the Czech Republic – and even tried to claim that the United Kingdom was responsible for a chemical attack on our own citizens.

    For a nation state like Russia to resort again to peddling such preposterous and contradictory theories is unworthy of their people and their great history.

    It is merely an effort to distract from the truth of Russia’s violation of international law.

    And this unlawful use of force by the Russian state against the United Kingdom, is a clear violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention and a breach of the UN Charter.

    This act against our country is the latest in a pattern of increasingly aggressive Russian behaviour attacking the international rules based system across our continent and beyond.

    Russia’s illegal actions in Crimea were the first time since the Second World War that one sovereign nation has forcibly annexed territory from another in Europe.

    Since then Russia has fomented conflict in the Donbass, repeatedly violated the national airspace of several European countries, and mounted a sustained campaign of cyber espionage and disruption.

    It has meddled in elections and hacked the Danish Ministry of Defence and the Bundestag among many others.

    It is seeking to weaponise information, deploying its state-run media organisations to plant fake stories and photo-shopped images in an attempt to sow discord in the West and undermine our institutions.

    During his recent State of the Union address, President Putin showed video graphics of missile launches, flight trajectories and explosions, including the modelling of attacks on the United States with a series of warheads impacting in Florida.

    And of course Russia used radiological substances in its despicable assault here in London on Mr Litvinenko.

    Russia is also failing to honour its responsibilities in the international community as a permanent member of the UN Security Council.

    In particular, Russia has covered up for the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons in Syria – especially in its attempts to impede the OPCW’s Joint Investigative Mechanism. This has allowed the Syrian Regime to continue to perpetrate atrocities against the Syrian people.

    For the last month, in contravention of UNSCR 2401, Russian airpower and military coordination has enabled the Regime offensive in Eastern Ghouta, causing more appalling suffering and impeding the heroic efforts of the humanitarian relief agencies.

    Indeed, over the course of many years of civil war, hundreds of thousands of Syrians have died and many times that number have been displaced. Yet Russia has repeatedly failed to use its influence over the Syrian Regime to bring an end to this terrible suffering.

    Mr Speaker, from the outset, the UK has been at the forefront of the European and transatlantic response to these actions.

    In response to the annexation of Crimea, we led the work with our EU and G7 partners in constructing the first sanctions regime against Russia.

    We have stepped up our military and economic support to Ukraine, including directly training almost 7,000 Ukrainian Armed Forces personnel.

    We are the second largest contributor of monitors to the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission.

    We are driving reform of NATO to better deter and counter hostile Russian activity and our commitment to collective defence and security through NATO remains as strong as ever.

    Indeed, our armed forces have a leading role in NATO’s Enhanced Forward Presence with British troops leading a multinational battlegroup in Estonia.

    In the Western Balkans, we stepped up our support to our newest ally, Montenegro, when it suffered an attempt by Russia to stage a coup.

    While our Western Balkans Summit in July will enhance our security co-operation with all our Western Balkans partners, including on serious and organised crime, anti-corruption and cyber security.

    We are building up our defences against Russia’s cyber threat more broadly – investing almost £2 billion in our National Cyber Security Strategy and have opened a new National Cyber Security Centre which is actively working with international partners, industry and civil society to tackle this threat.

    We are also working with our European partners to support the Centre of Excellence for Countering Hybrid Threats in Helsinki.

    We are calling out Russia’s malign behaviour in cyber space – as we did last month when together with the US and other allies we attributed the NotPetya cyber-attack to the Russian military.

    And we are investing millions in countering Russian disinformation efforts – including more investment in public service and independent media operating in the Russian language, both through projects in the Baltic States, Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia. And through reinvigorating the BBC Russia Service as an independent source of news for Russian speakers.

    As the House knows, we already have the largest Defence budget in Europe and second largest in NATO, meeting the 2% standard and set to increase every year of this Parliament.

    We have also commissioned the National Security Capability Review, which will report shortly, and the Modernising Defence Programme to ensure that our Defence and Security capabilities are optimised to address the threats we face, including those from Russia.

    Following the incident in Salisbury we have of course taken further measures.

    We are dismantling the Russian espionage network in our country and we will not allow it to be rebuilt.

    We are urgently developing proposals for new legislative powers to harden our defences against all forms of Hostile State Activity.

    This will include the addition of a targeted power to detain those suspected of such activity at the UK border; and considering whether there is a need for new counter-espionage powers to clamp down on the full spectrum of hostile activities of foreign agents in our country.

    We are making full use of existing powers to enhance our efforts to monitor and track the intentions of those travelling to the UK who could be engaged in activity that threatens the security of the UK and our allies.

    This includes increasing checks on private flights, customs and freight and freezing Russian state assets wherever we have the evidence that they may be used to threaten the life or property of UK nationals or residents.

    We are also cracking down on illicit and corrupt finance, bringing all the capabilities of UK law enforcement to bear against serious criminals and corrupt elites – neither of whom have any place in our country.

    We have given our law enforcement agencies new powers in the Criminal Finance Act and we will table an amendment to the Sanctions Bill to ensure that the UK cannot be a home for those who trade illicit finance or commit human rights abuses.

    And crucially, Madam Deputy Speaker, because this threat from Russia is an attack on the whole international rules based system and the collective security of the UK and its allies, so we must continue to work closely with all our international partners.

    That includes through the new security partnership we want to build with the European Union as part of our new relationship after we have left.

    And as I said in my speech in Munich, when we leave the EU it is right that the UK will pursue an independent foreign policy. But around the world the interests that we will seek to project and defend will continue to be rooted in our shared values.

    And nowhere is this more true than in standing up to Russia’s hostile actions and refuting its attempts to undermine the international rules based order.

    As President Macron said on Friday, Russia’s actions in Salisbury were “…an act of aggression against the sovereignty of an ally, which demands a reaction.”

    And as I set out in my statement earlier, the EU and its Member States have already taken some immediate actions, including withdrawing the EU’s ambassador from Moscow.

    And as I announced today, 18 countries have announced their intention to expel more than 100 Russian intelligence officers, including 15 EU member states as well as the US, Canada and the Ukraine.

    And this is the largest collective expulsion of Russian intelligence officers in history.

    Madam Deputy Speaker, if the Kremlin’s goal is to divide and intimidate the Western Alliance then their efforts have spectacularly back-fired.

    Today’s actions by our allies clearly demonstrate that we all stand shoulder to shoulder in sending the strongest signal to the Kremlin that Russia cannot continue to flout international law and threaten our security.

    As I argued at last week’s European Council, we must reappraise how our collective efforts can best tackle the challenge that Russia poses.

    But we must and will proceed on a rigorous and legally sound basis, which is why the Council mandated Foreign Ministers to consider how best to proceed and to report back ahead of the next Council.

    Madam Deputy Speaker, as I have made clear before, we have no disagreement with the Russian people who have achieved so much through their country’s great history.

    Indeed, our thoughts are with them today – and especially the friends and families of those who died in that awful shopping centre fire in Kemerovo in Siberia.

    Neither should we wish to be in a permanent state of perpetual confrontation with Russia.

    Many of us looked at a post-Soviet Russia with hope.

    We would much rather have in Russia a constructive partner ready to play by the rules.

    But while we should continue to keep open this possibility, we must also face the facts. President Putin’s regime is carrying out acts of aggression against our values and interests within Europe and beyond.

    The challenge of Russia is one that will endure for years to come.

    As a European democracy, the United Kingdom will stand shoulder to shoulder with our allies in the European Union and NATO to face down these threats together.

    We will defend our infrastructure, our institutions and our values against attempts to undermine them.

    And we will act to protect our national security and to keep our people safe.

    And I commend this motion to the House.