UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: 2019

  • Michael Ellis – 2019 Speech at the Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership Annual Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Michael Ellis, the Minister of State for Transport, at the Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership Annual Conference on 8 July 2019.

    Good afternoon everyone. It’s a real pleasure to speak to you today (8 July 2019) about the role that low carbon fuels will play in our journey to zero emission road transport.

    Last month the Prime Minister announced the UK’s pledge to achieve a net zero greenhouse gas target by 2050.

    It’s an ambitious, but entirely achievable target. But also one that requires a focused and co-ordinated response from all of us. To speed up innovation. To support new and emerging technologies like greener fuels. And to ensure that industry and government are working in partnership towards shared goals.

    The Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership is clearly integral to that process. Helping me and my colleagues in government understand the opportunities – and how to grasp them. In particular, how we can overcome barriers to low carbon fuels, and create the infrastructure that will transform demand. And how we can harness diverse interests across industry to advise and influence policy.

    The partnership is also tasked with pushing forward the low emission transport debate, including through the Road Transport Emissions Advice Group and the Electric Vehicle Energy Taskforce, and bringing together stakeholders from government, energy and automotive industries to meet challenges facing the energy system.

    For example, how we can meet demand for energy in an efficient and sustainable way as we move to electrified transport and smart charging, while keeping consumers at the heart of the transition.

    And of course, its expertise covers a wide range of applications. The partnership has – for instance – helped DfT to develop the Ultra-Low Emission Bus Scheme. Which has funded 263 zero emission buses, and supporting infrastructure across the country. And that’s helped establish a strong foothold.

    In 2018 the UK was the second largest market for ultra low emission vehicles in the EU, behind Germany – and 1 in 5 electric cars sold in Europe were made in the UK. So now we have to use that foothold to propel us forward.

    We want the UK to bolster its position as a global leader in ultra low emission vehicle production, and in the design and manufacture of zero emission vehicles, as we plan ahead for all new cars and vans to be effectively zero emission by 2040.

    This is why the government is providing £1.5 billion to support the further uptake of ultra-low emission vehicles, and develop a world-class electric vehicle infrastructure network. But the transformation from fossil fuels to a zero carbon road transport system is complex.

    How do we reduce emissions while combustion engine-powered vehicles are still running on UK roads? The environmental impact of road vehicles today is under intense scrutiny. The range of powertrain technologies and fuels available to consumers is greater than ever.

    Although our Road to Zero Strategy set a clear pathway to zero emissions, with a strong emphasis on ultra low emissions vehicles, the transition to ultra low emissions vehicles does not mean that we can afford to simply ignore measures to reduce emissions from conventional road vehicles, or hybrids for that matter.

    Nor does it mean we should ignore the potential for low carbon fuels to de-carbonise those transport modes harder to reach through electrification. Low carbon fuels will therefore continue to play a vital role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions for decades to come.

    That’s why we established a Transport Energy Task Force with the Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership, and published a strategy for renewable transport fuels in 2017. This built on the success of the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation (RTFO) scheme, which saw the average greenhouse gas savings of biofuels increase from 46% in 2008 to 2009 to 76% in 2017 to 2018. And last year alone reduced CO2 emissions by 2.7 million tonnes – equivalent to the emissions pumped out by around 1.2 million combustion engine-powered cars. Thanks in no small part to suppliers and producers here today.

    Last year we amended the RTFO scheme increasing the supply, and sustainability, of low carbon fuels. Doubling their use between 2018 and 2020. And setting targets through to 2032. We also extended the RTFO so that renewable aviation fuels are eligible for reward. And set new development targets to encourage the supply of strategically important fuels for the UK, including renewable hydrogen, renewable aviation fuel and bio substitute natural gas.

    All helping to drive the market for advanced low carbon fuels and de-carbonise conventional road vehicles for decades to come. But there is still much more to do.

    It is vital that we realise the potential for the UK to become a global leader in developing and producing advanced transport fuels. Developing a thriving domestic advanced fuels industry won’t just create jobs at home. It will also help us export our products and skills. To complement the demand for advanced fuels generated by the RTFO.

    The Future Fuels for Flight and Freight Competition, known as the ‘F4C’, is also making up to £20 million of matched capital funding available. Funding that will promote the development of an advanced fuels industry within the UK.

    This extends to projects that can produce low carbon waste-based fuels for use in the aviation and heavy goods vehicle sectors. Modes that are particularly difficult to de-carbonise. Later this year we will be announcing those companies who will receive capital funding from the F4C.

    We are also considering what more can be achieved through the RTFO scheme to support other fuels capable of reducing emissions. We are looking at how to incentivise fuels made from non-biogenic and non-recyclable plastic derived waste, and we hope to publish a research report on this topic later in the summer. We are aiming to publish soon our response to last summer’s call for evidence on whether and how E10, petrol with 10% bioethanol, may be introduced in the UK.

    So, to sum up, there’s a huge amount of activity going on to drive forward fuel technology, and the market for ultra-low and zero emission vehicles.

    I am confident the UK will seize the economic opportunities presented by both our Road to Zero Strategy, and our 15 year strategy for renewable transport fuels.

    Clearly, government can’t deliver either of these in isolation. We need established, and advanced fuel technologies capable of producing genuine reductions in emissions. We need the support of small technology providers and large automotive manufacturers. We need local authorities and fleets. We need environmental bodies.

    And we need the Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership. With the unique contribution you all can make. Not just in the short term. But right through our journey to zero emissions. It’s a journey of historic proportions and importance. And we are hugely grateful to have you all on board.

    I wish you a successful conference. Thank you.

  • Theresa May – 2019 Speech at Northwood

    Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May, the Prime Minister, on 8 July 2019.

    After I became Prime Minister almost exactly three years ago, one of my very first acts – the first time I spoke in the House of Commons, in fact – was to open the debate on renewing our continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent.

    As I said in that debate, “There is no greater responsibility as Prime Minister than ensuring the safety and security of our people.”

    And doing so is not something any Prime Minister can achieve without you – the brave men and women of our armed forces.

    You are not just a part of British life – you are the guarantors of British life.

    The foundation of our freedom.

    The protectors of our democracy.

    And for that, we owe you a debt of gratitude.

    It is a debt that stretches back through the generations – as we were reminded last month when the wonderful veterans of D-Day returned to the beaches of Normandy 75 years after they liberated a continent.

    And it is a debt that continues to this day, as I have seen every day throughout my time in Government.

    I saw it in Salisbury, where specialists from the joint CBRN task force worked around the clock to decontaminate the city in the aftermath of Russia’s despicable and deadly nerve agent attack.

    I saw it in Iraq, where I met some of the British troops who have trained almost 90,000 local forces in weapons maintenance, counter IED, medical and engineering skills.

    I saw it in Kenya, where I witnessed British troops training their local counterparts in mine detection and bomb disposal

    I saw it in Akrotiri, where I met the brave men and women of Operation Shader – who have helped destroy the territorial caliphate of Daesh, and who continue the fight against the evil it stands for.

    In South Sudan, where British peacekeepers are bringing safety and stability to the world’s youngest nation.

    In civil emergencies across the UK, where the military have saved lives and property from rising water, raging fire and falling snow.

    In Gibraltar, where just last week the Royal Marines boarded and seized an oil tanker suspected of illegally supplying the Syrian regime.

    In Somalia, where more than 500 local soldiers have now graduated from the British Security Training Centre.

    In the skies above Europe, where our Typhoons scramble to see off Russian transgressors.

    In the Mediterranean, where our sailors rescued migrants sent to sea in the rickety boats of people traffickers.

    And on the streets of cities across the United Kingdom when, under Operation Temperer, troops from all three services kept us safe in the wake of the horrific terror attack in Manchester.

    At home and abroad, by day and by night, at sea, on land, in the air and even in cyberspace…

    You are always there, always ready, always serving – and all so that we in the UK might sleep safely in our beds.

    In doing so you face many threats, but you do not face them alone.

    It was Sir Winston Churchill who said that “There is at least one thing worse than fighting with allies – and that is to fight without them.”

    And at few places is that spirit of co-operation stronger than here at Northwood, home of the NATO Allied Maritime Command.

    In an age of increasing polarisation and division on the global stage, the hand-in-glove co-operation of NATO’s militaries provides a model for multinational organisations everywhere.

    We saw what that looks like just last month in the 47th annual Baltops exercise.

    One operation saw Royal Marines fast-roping onto a Lithuanian beach, joined by Spanish amphibious vehicles launched from an American landing ship and Romanian ground forces carried in a Polish assault craft.

    Across Baltops 50 surface ships, two submarines, almost 40 aircraft and well over 8,000 personnel from 18 nations came together to show the world that, while NATO may be in its 70th year, the alliance is as strong and united as it has ever been.

    While the threats we face may vary and evolve, the founding principles of NATO – that we are mightier together than alone and that an attack on one is an attack on all – remain every bit as important and relevant today as they were in 1945.

    Because the military and security challenges we face in 2019 are not confined to any one nation or continent.

    Terrorists, people traffickers, international criminals and state and non-state aggressors do not respect national boundaries, and nor should our response to the threats they pose.

    NATO has a crucial role to play in that response – and I am immensely proud of the role the UK plays in NATO.

    Proud that the UK continues to be a significant and active member of the alliance, including hosting the Maritime Command here at Northwood.

    Proud that, later this year, the UK will have the honour of hosting the special summit to mark NATO’s 70th anniversary.

    And proud that the UK continues to meet the NATO target of spending two per cent of GDP on defence – a pledge I fully expect the next Prime Minister to maintain, and one I would like to see many more member states meeting in the years ahead.

    Vital though NATO is, it is not our sole vehicle for international military co-operation.

    While the operational headquarters of the EU Naval Force may have recently left Northwood, our departure from the European Union will not mean the end of security and defence co-operation with our neighbours.

    For example, RAF Chinooks from 18(B) squadron have been supporting French operations in Mali for some time now.

    The mission-critical airlift capacity they provide allows French ground troops to conduct anti-terror operations that make the Sahel more stable and, ultimately, make both our nations safer.

    And this morning I am pleased to announce that the operation will be extended, so this vital partnership can continue.

    But of course, other militaries are not the only partners involved in the success of our armed forces.

    In fact the most important partners are not in uniform at all – rather, they are the children, friends and families of the wider forces community, who do so much to support their loved ones who serve.

    It is not easy being part of the forces family.

    Not easy for children to move from school to school.

    Not easy for partners to build new careers and new friendships every time their loved one is redeployed.

    I cannot imagine how it must feel to wave goodbye to someone you care deeply about, knowing you won’t see them again for many months – or even hear from them, if they are serving out of reach beneath the waves as part of our continuous at-sea deterrent.

    And none of us would wish to imagine how it feels to lose a loved one in the service of their country.

    Indeed, one of the hardest tasks of my premiership was finding the words to write to a young girl who would never know her father, after he was tragically killed in Iraq.

    So I want to take this opportunity to recognise the contribution that you make, and to thank each and every one of you for helping to make our armed forces the very best in the world.

    And because our armed forces are the best, they deserve the best.

    That is why I increased defence spending by £1.8 billion, continuing our investment in the future of warfare.

    By year’s end both Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers will be at sea.

    The first of the Dreadnought-class submarines is already under construction in Barrow-in-Furness.

    Cutting-edge Ajax armoured fighting vehicles are rolling off the production line in Merthyr Tydfil, with the first of almost 600 entering service later this year.

    RAF pilots are already patrolling the skies in state-of-the-art F-35 jets, with a total of 48 due to join the fleet by 2025.

    And we are funding research into military robotics on land and at sea.

    Because the United Kingdom is a top tier military nation, and a top tier military nation we will remain.

    But we are not only investing in equipment.

    We are also taking better care of our most important military assets – the men and women on the front line – increasing the amount we spend on specialist mental health care for armed forces personnel to £220 million over the next decade.

    Because any nation’s military can acquire expensive kit.

    What makes ours so special is its people – and it is people that are the reason for my visit here today.

    Sadly there is only room for 100 or so of you in this hall.

    But across the country and around the world, almost 200,000 men and women are serving their country in any number of ways.

    Royal Navy, Army, and Royal Air Force.

    Regular and Reserve.

    Long-serving soldiers, sailors and airmen coming to the end of their forces careers…

    …and the rawest of recruits still finding their bunks at Catterick, Halton and HMS Raleigh.

    Then there are the veterans who have served their country with distinction and deserve our lasting respect.

    The civilian staff around the world who provide so much support for today’s men and women in uniform.

    And of course the friends and families who make this all possible.

    First as Home Secretary and now as Prime Minister, I have had the privilege of working with and getting to know a great many men and women from every branch of our armed forces.

    The toughest decisions I have had to make were the ones that would put you in harm’s way.

    But it has been an honour to work alongside you, and to do all I can to support you.

    And as I come to the end of my time in office, I am proud to finish the way I started three years ago– by standing up and thanking our fantastic armed forces for all that they do.

    You are the best in the world, and I wish you all the very best for the future.

    Thank you.

  • Ivan Lewis – 2019 Speech on NHS Procurement

    Below is the text of the speech made by Ivan Lewis, the Independent MP for Bury South, in the House of Commons on 4 July 2019.

    I requested this debate this afternoon not only to put right a wrong that has been done to a long-established business in my constituency, but to highlight wider issues about Government procurement policy, particularly in relation to the national health service. The Government rightly talk about delivering a Brexit that supports UK businesses, jobs and our standard of living. However, this sorry story illustrates how, even before Brexit, we are unable to create a level playing field for our companies, let alone back them up. In this case, the EU cannot be blamed for a lack of transparency or fair competition, or for the exclusion of a UK company from an NHS preferred supplier list.

    Under NHS ProCure22, the Department of Health and Social Care appointed Kier as a tier 1 provider to decide who should be the preferred providers for floor covering in NHS facilities. In May 2018, without any competitive tendering or other transparent process, it was announced that three overseas companies would be on the preferred supplier list—two French companies, Tarkett and Gerflor, and a Swiss company, Forbo. James Halstead, a UK plc from my constituency with a 50-year track record of supplying NHS institutions was not on the list or even given the opportunity to tender or participate in dialogue with Kier.

    Halstead is highly successful global business that we are proud of in Radcliffe, with a global turnover of £250 million and a UK turnover of £83 million. The NHS currently accounts for approximately 15% of that UK turnover. A significant proportion of that is now at risk, and there is the also potential reputational damage of being excluded from the list for unstated reasons. Many NHS organisations are understandably asking Halstead why it is not on the list. That would be bad enough in any circumstances, but things have been made worse by the recent track record of the three overseas companies.

    In October 2017, the three companies were found guilty of price fixing over a 23-year period in France, and the French competition authority fined them a total of £302 million. They were found to have discussed minimum prices, price increases, sales policy and other sensitive information, such as their trading volumes. The French regulators discovered that the companies had also exchanged confidential, recent and detailed information on their sales volumes and commercial forecasts. That information was exchanged through the SFEC, a sectoral trade union in France, which was in charge of collecting the information and sharing it with manufacturers. It is surprising—some would stay staggering —that seven months later these same companies were given a monopoly as preferred suppliers for the NHS. In addition, it is worth noting that Tarkett pays no UK taxes whatsoever. To be clear, it is not breaking any laws in doing so, but that does not mean that there are no ethical and fairness issues.

    I have several questions for the Minister, and if he is unable to answer them today, I would be grateful if he would write to me in detail. What criteria did Kier use ​to draw up the preferred supplier list? In the absence of competitive tendering, what process did it use? Why were Halstead and other suppliers not included on the list or given the opportunity to put their case? What consideration was given to the probity of the three overseas companies in view of the sanctions imposed on them in France?

    Will the Minister assure me—this is incredibly important—that Kier will be instructed to add Halstead, and any other appropriate company, to the list as a matter of urgency? Will the Minister initiate a review of all such NHS contractor lists with a view to identifying how many are drawn up without a competitive tendering or transparent process? Finally, will the Minister issue an instruction in due course that NHS staff and third parties, such as tier 1 providers, appointed on the NHS’s behalf to commission goods and services should have a duty to be proactive in encouraging UK companies to apply or bid, depending on the relevant process?

    I believe that this case has wider implications for UK Government and NHS procurement policy than simply the effects on the business in my constituency. I want to make it clear that this is not about saying that, in an unlawful manner, the NHS or the Government should favour UK companies over foreign companies. That is not the case whatsoever, so officials should not try to deflect us away from the substantive issues here. The issue is that a UK company with a good track record, a history of financial probity, and quality goods and services should be on this list. It has never been sanctioned by any regulatory authority. In contrast, these three overseas companies were significantly sanctioned, less than a year before the NHS’s decision, for price fixing—basically operating a cartel in France—over a 23-year period.

    Clearly this is not a matter of direct ministerial responsibility and, having been a Health Minister, I do not hold the Minister personally responsible for individual procurement and tendering decisions, but Ministers are responsible for policy and oversight in this area. There has either been incompetence by those charged with these responsibilities or, frankly, something stinks in Kier’s decision-making process in this case.

    I would be incredibly grateful if the Minister responded to my substantive points, considered the wider implications for UK Government and NHS procurement and put right, as a matter of urgency, the wrong done to Halstead plc in my constituency.

  • Lilian Greenwood – 2019 Speech on Funding and Maintenance of Local Roads

    Below is the text of the speech made by Lilian Greenwood, the Labour MP for Nottingham South, in the House of Commons on 4 July 2019.

    Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for the opportunity to make a statement to the House on the 10th report of the Transport Committee, “Local roads funding and maintenance: filling the gap”, which we published on Monday. The successful preparation of all our reports depends on the hard work of the Committee’s Clerks and staff, the diligence of the Members who make up our Committee—I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) in the Chamber—and the generosity of our witnesses, who give up their time to prepare for and take part in our sessions.

    I particularly thank Paula Claytonsmith, Lynne Stinson, Lynne Wait and Anne Shaw for ensuring that we heard expert female voices in a male-dominated sector. I am sorry that the Roads Minister, the hon. Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis), cannot be here today, but he has conveyed his sincere apologies, and I am sure he will pay close attention to Hansard tomorrow.

    There is a plague of potholes blighting our local roads and pavements. This is not a new phenomenon, but one that successive Governments and councils across the land have failed to tackle. The consequences of this failure are all around us—we see them every day. I want to talk about the impacts of poor road and pavement conditions, why Government and local authority actions to date have been ineffectual and our report’s recommendations for tackling the problem.

    On my journey to work, here in Westminster and out and about in my constituency, I see many examples of cracked and crumbling roads. Just today, a constituent emailed me about Green Lane in Clifton. Last week, Westminster City Council filled a pothole just around the corner from the Department for Transport that I had ridden into on my way home—I confess that it caused me to use some very unparliamentary language.

    Our witnesses told us about the serious impacts that potholes have on the lives of pedestrians, cyclists, motorists and other road users. For example, poor pavements can strand older, frail and vulnerable people in their homes. Living Streets has found that nearly a third of adults over 65 felt reluctant to leave the house on foot due to the volume of cracks and uneven surfaces on surrounding streets, and almost two thirds of older people were ​worried about the state of street surfaces. Nearly half said that well-maintained pavements would make them more likely to go for a walk. Poorly maintained roads create real risks for vulnerable road users. DFT data shows that the number of cyclists killed or seriously injured due to defective road surfaces more than tripled between 2005 and 2017.

    Local authorities must compensate motorists for damage to vehicles resulting from poor road conditions, and the cost of doing so has risen dramatically in recent years. Kwik Fit has estimated that the damage caused to vehicles from potholes in 2017 cost £915 million to repair, an increase of more than a third on the repair bill in 2016. Based on its share of Britain’s car insurance market, the AA has estimated that 3,500 claims had been made for pothole damage in 2017. The cost of this compensation ultimately falls on taxpayers, and it diverts money away from funding vital public services.

    One of the most frustrating things about poor road conditions—this came through very clearly in our evidence—is the lack of any consistent reporting tool that drivers, cyclists, pedestrians and other road users can use to report problem potholes. Some councils have their own online tools, and there are nationwide sites such as FixMyStreet, but there is a lack of transparency around the whole reporting process, little clarity about what will be done and no guarantee that people will get a reply. Mark Morrell—“Mr Pothole”—for years a doughty campaigner against the pothole scourge, made a powerful case to us to fix this.

    Why, year after year, do these problems persist? Why have successive Governments and local councils not done anything about them? In truth, they have tried, but their efforts have been inconsistent, and as a result the outcomes have been sub-optimal. They are constrained by three key things: funding, information and collaboration.

    The key issue is funding. For decades, councils have complained that they do not have the funding to undertake a preventive—and, ultimately, cheaper and more effective—approach to maintaining their local roads and pavements. Successive Governments have responded to this by providing short-term, stop-start capital pots, such as the pothole action fund. Any extra funding is of course welcome, but the wrong funding in the wrong place at the wrong time means that councils simply mitigate the most obvious damage. It does not encourage the more effective, proactive maintenance that is the key to the long-term renewal of our local roads, as we heard from council after council.

    The second issue is that councils sometimes do not have a full picture of the state of their road networks. If they do not know what they are dealing with, how can they plan and price maintenance properly? This lack of knowledge can be improved by innovating in data collection methods. There has been good work in this area in recent years, and there is a real desire on the part of Government and industry to work together to find solutions.

    We heard about a similar willingness to innovate in the third area—good practice and collaboration. There is a real opportunity for initiatives such as the use of recycled plastic, self-repairing technology, graphene and even drones to bring down the cost of road repairs. We heard about the innovation and good practice going on across the country, but it was not always easy for this to be shared beyond individual councils and regions.​

    Our report makes a series of detailed recommendations to the Government to tackle these problems, and I want to highlight four of them. First and foremost, funding: there is not enough of it, and what there is is not allocated efficiently or effectively. Local government revenue funding has fallen by about 25% since 2010. The allocation within it for local roads is not ring-fenced, and it is often used by councils to plug gaps in other budgets. Capital funding, through the pothole action fund and other pots, is sporadic and time-limited.

    To tackle this problem we recommend a front-loaded, long-term funding settlement for local councils in England. The DFT should champion it, and the Treasury should seriously consider it as part of the forthcoming spending review. This would enable local authorities to address the historical road maintenance backlog and plan confidently for the future. The settlement should not only include capital pots managed by the DFT, but roll up into a five-year settlement the revenue support elements of roads funding administered by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. This critical funding reform must not be an excuse for a budget cut.

    Secondly, innovation is essential if the efficiency and effectiveness of local road maintenance is to continue to improve, which it must in the face of limited funding. It is right that the Government stimulate and encourage innovation, but the value for money of any investment is properly repaid only when new technologies, ideas and ways of working are scaled up and made available to all. In the light of this, we have recommended that the DFT work across government to collate all innovation funding for local roads in one place, establish as far as possible common rules for bidding and properly assess the benefits of innovation initiatives.

    Thirdly, local authorities will be able to make better use of available funds for road maintenance only if they can target such funding well, and this requires good data. The DFT needs to be clear about whether the data it receives from local authorities on road conditions is consistent and allows valid comparisons to be made. It needs to be clear what it does with such data, how it is analysed and what action is taken on the back of the conclusions it draws. The DFT should also make it easier for the public to report road condition concerns and access local authority road condition data. We recommend that it does this by running an innovation competition to develop a platform the public can use to make online reports about road conditions directly to their council and to access real-time local road condition data.

    Fourthly, making the best use of the available funding requires the sharing and adoption of good practice in road maintenance. This is a key role for central Government. The DFT should commit to monitoring and reviewing the current approach and reporting within two years on its effects and impacts. Local councils and industry are developing good practice in highway survey and maintenance. However, from the evidence we have received, it is not always clear that this is being widely shared. Regional highway alliances should be sharing good practice and benchmarking it against one another. The DFT could do more to facilitate this—for example, by providing a virtual good practice toolkit and repository, so that councils across England can find examples of good practice.

    In conclusion, local roads are the arteries of prosperous and vibrant villages, towns and cities. They are critical to the movement of goods, as well as helping people to ​get around. The consequences of a deteriorating local road network are significant. It undermines local economic performance and results in direct costs to taxpayers. The safety of other road users is seriously compromised. This plague of potholes is a major headache for everyone. It is time for the Government to be bold, to take up our recommendations and to give councils the funding and the wider system of support that they need if they are to deliver for our constituents the roads and pavements they deserve.

  • Sajid Javid – 2019 Statement on the Windrush Compensation Scheme

    Below is the text of the statement made by Sajid Javid, the Home Secretary, in the House of Commons on 4 July 2019.

    The Government deeply regret what has happened to some members of the Windrush generation and when I became Home Secretary I made clear that responding to this was a priority. The compensation scheme I launched in April is a key part of this response.

    The compensation scheme has been open to receive claims since April 2019 and the Home Office is now in a position to start making payments.

    Specific legislation to give direct financial authority for payments made under the scheme will be brought forward to Parliament when parliamentary time allows. In the meantime, it is lawful for the Home Office to make payments for compensation scheme claims, without specific legislative authority for this new expenditure. As Home Secretary I am able to consider other factors, including the sound policy objectives behind the scheme and the importance of righting the wrongs suffered by the Windrush generation.

    I have therefore written to the permanent secretary today formally directing him, as accounting officer for the Home Office, to implement the compensation scheme for the Windrush generation and to ensure that compensation payments can be made pending the passage of the legislation. The exchange of letters relating to this direction can be found at https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/correspondence-on-the-work-of-the-home-office-windrush. This direction has been issued on the basis of regularity.

    I am committed to providing members of the Windrush generation with assurance that they will be appropriately and promptly compensated where it is shown that they have been disadvantaged by historical Government policy. A direction to proceed is therefore optimal to ensure the Government are acting in the best interests of affected members of the Windrush generation.

  • Dan Carden – 2019 Speech on the Counter-Daesh Update

    Below is the text of the speech made by Dan Carden, the Shadow Secretary of State for International Development, in the House of Commons on 3 July 2019.

    I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. However, while the update is welcome, may I point out ​that it is only the second statement to be made in the House in the 365 days since 4 July last year, although the Government promised quarterly reports to keep the House updated?

    We welcome the destruction of Daesh’s final enclaves in Syria. We know that Daesh is a threat to us all and that it must be defeated wherever it emerges. Just today, news reports have revealed the uncovering of another mass grave in Raqqa; 200 corpses have been found, and it is feared that more will follow. The dead, thought to be victims of Daesh, include bodies found in orange jumpsuits, the kind typically worn by their hostages.

    Let me pay tribute to the UK forces who have put their lives on the line and show gratitude—as the Secretary of State did—to the Kurdish forces who have taken such huge risks in leading the fight against Daesh. Will the Secretary of State now reassure the House that the Kurdish community will not be abandoned or left vulnerable to attacks by Syria or Turkey? He mentions Yazidis, Christians, Shi’as and Sunnis in his statement, so will he tell us what he is doing to support the protection of all communities in the region?

    There is also the question of the ongoing role of our forces. The 2015 motion that set down the terms for our engagement in Syria to eradicate Daesh’s safe haven in Syria and Iraq was worded in such a way as to avoid an ongoing military conflict in the region. Will the Secretary of State now set out the purpose of our forces, given that their original purpose of defeating Daesh’s safe haven has been achieved? Does he believe that the original mandate has now expired and that therefore a renewed mandate for military action—and clarity on the role of special forces—is required for continued UK engagement in the region?

    Let me say a few words about the ongoing conflict in Syria. There remain serious concerns for civilians in Idlib. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that there are safe corridors for civilians to leave, given that the United Nations has warned that up to 700,000 people could flee Idlib as refugees? Given that dozens of health facilities have been damaged and destroyed in recent months and more than half a million civilians have been unable to access vital medical care, what steps are the Government taking to encourage parties to the conflict to adhere to international humanitarian law and protect civilians?

    Last month, I was lucky enough to meet members of a delegation from the Syrian Women’s Political Movement. They spoke about their experiences of being denied their rights to employment, education and medical care and facing sexual and gender-based violence and exploitation. They called for increased women’s representation in peace negotiations and decision-making positions. Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to respond to their calls?

    As for Iraq, does the Secretary of State share the growing international concern about the arbitrary, draconian and legally unsound way in which the Iraqi authorities are conducting trials of alleged jihadist collaborators and the resentment caused among the Sunni community in the country?

    What discussions are taking place about the huge number of detained suspected Daesh fighters? More than 55,000 suspected fighters and their families have been detained in Syria and Iraq. Most of them are citizens of those ​two countries, but overall they come from at least 50 countries. More than 11,000 relatives are being held at the al-Hol camp in north-eastern Syria. Michelle Bachelet, the UN human rights chief, has said that the relatives of suspected fighters should be taken back to their countries of origin. Does the Secretary of State agree with her call?

    Let me finally raise the issue of Daesh’s ongoing influence beyond the physical battlefield. The Secretary of State has spoken today about Daesh’s physical territory, but its influence online is an ongoing threat and deeply worrying. What are the Government doing to work with our allies to ensure that action is taken by social media companies so that Daesh cannot find new safe havens online to spread its hatred?

  • Rory Stewart – 2019 Statement on the Counter-Daesh Update

    Rory Stewart

    Below is the text of the statement made by Rory Stewart, the Secretary of State for International Development, in the House of Commons on 3 July 2019.

    With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will update the House on the campaign against Daesh, which recently controlled a third of Iraq and Syria—an area the size of the UK—but which has now lost its final piece of territory in Baghuz, Syria. Its sudden rise and fall—morally troubling, profoundly threatening and almost unprecedented—carries deep lessons and warnings for Britain and indeed the nations of the world.

    As recently as 2003, the borders of Syria and Iraq were stable. Secular Arab nationalism appeared to have triumphed over the older forces of tribe and religion. Different religious communities—Yazidi, Shabak, Kakai, Christian, Shi’a and Sunni— continued to live alongside one another as they had for more than a millennium. Iraqis and Syrians had better incomes, education, health systems and infrastructure than most citizens of the developing world.

    By 2014, all this had changed, partly because of the Iraq war, partly because of the Arab Spring in Syria, but in great part because of the astonishing rise of Daesh. Just three years after the withdrawal of the coalition in 2011, a movement initially founded by a tattooed, drug-taking video store assistant from Jordan had, following his death, captured Raqqa, Fallujah, Ramadi, Mosul and Palmyra, torn off a third of the territory of Syria and Iraq and created an independent Islamic state of eight million people. It was a state with endemic poverty and struggling public services defined not just by suicide bombs but by a vicious campaign against religious minorities. Well-established borders between nations were obliterated. A few hundred men routed three divisions of the Iraqi army. Secular nationalism was swept aside by a bizarre religious ideology.

    No one in 2005, and very few in 2010, would have predicted the success of that movement. There were, of course, many reasons to fear an insurgency in north-east Syria or Iraq. People felt little loyalty to the lamentable Governments in Damascus and Baghdad, with their anti-Sunni discrimination, corruption and poor provision of services, but there was initially very little reason to believe that people would support Daesh rather than other insurgency groups.

    Indeed, Daesh’s imposition of early medieval social codes and horrifying videos of slaughter of fellow Arabs seemed to most Iraqis and Syrians profoundly irrational, culturally inappropriate and deeply unappealing. Its military tactics seemed almost insane. It deliberately picked fights not only with the Syrian and Iraqi regimes, but with Jabhat al-Nusra, the Free Syrian Army, Shi’a communities as a whole, the Iranian Quds Force and the Kurds, who initially tried to stay out of the fight. It finished 2014 by mounting a suicidal attack on Kobane in Syria in the face of over 600 US air strikes, losing many thousands of fighters and gaining almost no ground.

    All of this, which should have been Daesh’s undoing, seemed at times simply to encourage tens of thousands of foreign fighters to join it, and they came not only from very poor countries but from some of the wealthiest countries in the world—from the social democracies of Scandinavia as much as from monarchies, military states, ​authoritarian regimes and liberal democracies. Part of its success was notoriously connected to social media. It was the first terrorist movement that really flourished on short, often home-made, video clips, on Twitter rants and on Facebook posts from the frontline. It grew far more quickly, and survived far longer, than any diplomat, politician or expert analyst predicted.

    The options that seemed available to defeat this kind of movement in 2008 were no longer available in 2016. Eight years earlier—or, in our case, six years earlier—there had been a full-spectrum international counter-insurgency campaign that relied on overwhelming force, huge investments in economic development, 100,000 coalition troops, eight years of coalition training packages and almost $100 billion a year of US expenditure. But that approach ultimately failed to create stability in Iraq and there was no appetite to repeat it in 2016. The US and its allies did not want to deploy troops on the ground in Syria and very few near the frontlines in Iraq, and no one was advocating nation building in the middle of another war.

    Instead, the counter-attack on Daesh in Mosul was led by the Iraqi Government. Initially, this did not seem very promising. The Government appeared to lack the capacity and will to restore even the most basic services to communities in Fallujah or Ramadi. They were backed by unreliable Sunni tribal leaders and by Iranian-supported Shi’a popular mobilisation forces, which alienated and terrified the local populations. Kurdish Iraqi forces also seemed unwilling to fight Daesh in Mosul. The coalition provided training to Iraqi forces but on a much smaller scale than during the surge. Daesh had laid mines throughout the urban areas and was fighting for every inch of ground.

    It is remarkable, therefore, that Daesh was ultimately defeated. This was largely due, on the Syrian side of the border, to the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces and, on the Iraqi side, to the counter-terrorism force, which at times was enduring casualty rates of almost 40% of its combatants. Iraqi forces regrouped and retook Fallujah, Ramadi and Mosul by early 2017, while the forces in Syria had retaken Raqqa and Deir ez-Zor by 2018.

    Whereas during the surge the UK and its allies had been intimately involved in trying to reshape the Iraqi Government and security on the ground, our recent involvement has been less extensive. Rather than on nation building, since 2014 it has focused on £350 million of humanitarian aid in Iraq to provide healthcare, food and shelter. We have provided almost £1 billion to Syria over the last four years, including £40 million in aid to north-east Syria in 2018, which is going towards mine clearance, the immunisation of children, clean water, food and shelter.

    This assistance continues. In Syria alone, there are 1.65 million people in need, while over half a million have been forced to flee their homes. Unexploded munitions and mines remain a major issue. In Iraq, 4 million people are returning home having been forced out. Nevertheless, this aid is on a much smaller scale than that which was provided by civilian officials from 2003 to 2011, our embassy and associated staff are much smaller, there are no longer coalition civilian outposts in every province, and the coalition and indeed the Iraqi ​Government are a long way from being able to take on the task of reconstructing the shattered remains of Mosul.

    What lessons can we draw? First, the hundreds of billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of troops committed by the coalition in Iraq from 2003, and more intensely from 2008, were not sufficient to create a stable civil service, a flourishing and sustainable economy, strong institutions, security, or any of the ingredients of a well- functioning state. This suggests that even the best-resourced foreign intervention may not be able to reconstruct a nation in the context of an insurgency. Secondly, local forces with a light foreign support may be able to achieve far more than people anticipate. Paradoxically, the Iraqi operations may have been effective not despite the lack of support from the west, but because of the lack of support. Operating with much less foreign assistance may have given the Iraqi and Syrian forces far more legitimacy, flexibility, control and sense of responsibility.

    Thirdly, the sudden rise and sudden fall of Daesh illustrate the extreme fragility of many contemporary societies. The entire political-economic context was and remains so fluid and so open to exploitation, with so little deep institutional loyalty or resistance, that it was terrifyingly easy for an insurgency group to establish themselves on both sides of the border. They may have lost their territory for now, but the underlying conditions remain and could allow insurgents to establish themselves again. Even without holding territory, Daesh remains a significant terrorist threat.

    Finally, in a context so inherently unpredictable and unexpected, Britain and its allies need to stand in a state of grace, preparing for the unexpected. We need to keep a close eye on countries that may seem temporarily at peace, continue to invest in the development of countries that may seem no longer to need development and continue to deepen our knowledge of countries that may not seem to be a priority today, while retaining our linguistic expertise and, above all, nurturing our relationships with people in those countries and with potential coalition partners such as the US and France and, in a different context, Germany.

    Whether in north-east Nigeria, in Somalia or Libya, in Afghanistan or Mali, the key to our response will never be the amount of money that we invest or the number of troops that we deploy. It will be the depth of our understanding and the care and subtlety with which we respond: our ability to deploy development, defence, intelligence and economic levers, diplomacy and a dozen other tools, rapidly and precisely, not overruling other Governments, but supporting them in the right way at the right time with prudence and economy.

    That is why I must close this Daesh statement with deep respect for the courage of our military forces, the skill of our diplomats and the generosity of our development programmes, but above all with deep respect for the people of Syria and Iraq who were in the heart of this fight, who gave their lives, who led this response and who provide us with an example of how we can act as partners with energy, but above all with humility. I commend my statement to the House.

  • Norman Lamb – 2019 Speech on Whistleblowing

    Below is the text of the speech made by Norman Lamb, the Liberal Democrat MP for North Norfolk, in the House of Commons on 3 July 2019.

    I beg to move,

    That this House calls for a fundamental review of whistleblowing regulation to provide proper protection for a broader range of people.

    I thank the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) for his support in making the application to the Backbench Business Committee and all the other MPs who supported the application. I also thank the Backbench Business Committee, the Chair of which is sitting in front of me, for enabling this incredibly important debate to take place. I want to start by telling four brief stories to illustrate why facilitating whistleblowing is so important.

    I was the Minister in the then Department of Health who initiated the review led by James Jones, the former Bishop of Liverpool, of the horror of what happened at Gosport War Memorial Hospital. In his report from June last year, the very first chapter deals with the nurses who tried to speak up in 1991 about what was happening in that hospital. However, the report refers to the silencing of those nurses’ concerns and to a patronising attitude towards them, although they were trying to do the right thing. The consequence of not listening to those nurses is the extraordinary and horrifying conclusion of the report, which is that over 450 older people died following the inappropriate prescribing of opioids. These old people had gone in for rehabilitation but came out dead.

    In this context, we can often be talking about life and death situations, so enabling and empowering people to speak up can literally save lives. That, at its most clear and stark, is why this matter is so important. The horrific scandal at Gosport hospital could have been stopped if those nurses have been listened to, but they were not, and that is an outrage in itself.

    Scrolling forward to 2013, Dr Chris Day, a brave junior doctor working in a south London hospital, raised safety concerns about night staffing levels in an intensive care unit. It is in all our interests that brave people should speak out about safety concerns in any part of our health service, but perhaps particularly in intensive care units.

    What happened to Dr Day, because he spoke out, is wholly unacceptable. He suffered a significant detriment. His whole career has been pushed off track, and his young family have been massively affected. Junior doctors in that unit were put in the invidious position of being responsible for far too many people compared with national standards, so he pursued a claim against both the trust and Health Education England. The NHS spent £700,000 of public money on defending the claim and, in large part, on attempting to deny protection to junior doctors who blow the whistle against Health Education England. Lawyers, disgustingly, were enriched.

    Late last year, the tribunal that eventually heard Dr Day’s case ended early after he was threatened with a claim for substantial costs. He and his wife could not face the prospect of losing their young family’s home, so he caved in. That is surely scandalous treatment of a junior doctor. He was defeated by superior firepower. ​We have the grotesque spectacle of the NHS, of all organisations, deploying expensive QCs to defeat a junior doctor who raised serious and legitimate patient safety issues.

    Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)

    I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman’s work on Dr Chris Day’s case to get the answers we deserve on how he has been treated. Many whistleblowers face an inequality of arms at tribunals. They have often lost their job by that point, and they face a very difficult situation, with highly paid QCs running rings around them, which is often the result of employers trying to find loopholes in the law to avoid liability.

    Norman Lamb

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support in pursuing the Dr Day case, and I completely agree with the points he makes.

    Sir Robert Francis, in his 2015 “Freedom to Speak Up” report, spoke about how NHS whistleblowers who had given evidence to him overwhelmingly experienced negative outcomes, and he talked of a hostile culture of fear, blame, isolation, reprisals and victimisation—in our NHS, for goodness’ sake.

    Those stories continue. The impact on individuals can be devastating and profound. They can be ostracised, abused and disadvantaged in their career, with dire consequences for their mental health. One nurse who tried to expose wrongdoing said, “I would never put myself in that position again. I would rather leave.” What a damning indictment of how we treat people in our treasured and cherished public service.

    Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)

    The right hon. Gentleman and I have both worked on the general issue of whistleblowing. I pay tribute to his leadership on the matter, along with that of my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr), who I hope will catch your eye later, Mr Deputy Speaker.

    The right hon. Gentleman is making some very good points, and we know two things. First, we know there is strong concern across the country about how whistleblowers are being treated. We see it in the west midlands, and he is articulating the point. Secondly, we know whistleblowers help to ensure proper accountability and transparency. In my view, the work that he and others are doing on whistleblowing has not received anything like the amplification it requires.

    Norman Lamb

    I totally agree with the points the right hon. Gentleman makes, and he makes them well. I will come on to discuss them in a moment.

    Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con) rose—

    Norman Lamb

    I will give way briefly, but I am nervous about the Deputy Speaker and overstaying my welcome.

    Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)

    Let me just reassure you on that. I hope I do not make anybody nervous.

    Dr Johnson

    I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, as he is being most generous with his time. He said that the doctor was feeling under pressure from the overwhelming firepower and the potential to incur ​the NHS’s substantial costs. What support did his union, perhaps the British Medical Association or defence unions such as the Medical Defence Union or Medical Protection Society, offer him on legal costs?

    Norman Lamb

    Shockingly, the BMA abandoned him, and that is a story in itself, which needs exploring further. Not just in the NHS but across the economy, people are often literally on their own, faced by expensive lawyers. I speak as a former employment lawyer and I know what happens in employment tribunals. They were intended as a layman’s court, but they are anything but that these days.

    The third story I want to mention is that of my constituent Mark Wright, a successful financial planner at RBS. Things started to go wrong after he raised concerns about unacceptable practices in the bank—this was before the crash. On 17 September 2008, immediately after the collapse of Lehman Brothers, an intranet statement was put up in RBS saying that the group was “well capitalised”. That was clearly an attempt to reassure staff, including staff shareholders, customers and investors that the bank was secure. Of course when the bank crashed, those staff shareholders lost a fortune, and many, including my constituent, believe that they were badly misled by that intranet statement.

    Mr Wright’s mental health was destroyed as a result of trying to challenge the bank, as was his career. He made a complaint to the Financial Conduct Authority, which reported his name back to the bank, for goodness’ sake. The FCA was later criticised by the Complaints Commissioner. I pursued his complaint with the FCA and it denied knowledge of the intranet statement repeatedly to me, yet an internal FCA email has emerged, after a subject access request to the Complaints Commissioner. It was dated 14 March 2014 and it said

    “the intranet notice that Mr Wright refers to was online between 17 September 2008 and January 2009… as staff used it to take reassurance that all was well which would tend to support Mr Wright’s allegations”.

    That was an email within the FCA, yet we were never informed of that email or of that finding in that explosive document.

    Clearly, the FCA has a copy of that intranet statement, yet it will not or cannot disclose it to us. The FCA says that the law does not allow it to do so. RBS, which is part state-owned, will not disclose it, yet clearly it is in the public interest that it should be disclosed. I believe I was misled by Andrew Bailey, the chief executive of the FCA, who told me, in effect, that Mark Wright’s allegations offered nothing that was not already in the public domain and he referred to an intranet statement by Fred Goodwin, which he said had been

    “in the public domain for nearly 10 years”.

    Yet the intranet statement has not ever been in the public domain. The Treasury Committee, which had looked into this, had never received a copy of it. So I was misled, and we have a regulator that is too close to the banks; that failed to protect Mr Wright’s disclosure or his identity; that, crucially appeared to fail to take the allegations about the misconduct of that bank seriously; and that cannot or will not put a crucial statement into the public domain. Let us just think about the damage caused by bankers in the run-up to ​the crash. Had we empowered people like Mark Wright to do the right thing, rather than destroyed them and ignored them, we might just have prevented the disgusting behaviour and greed of bankers, and we might now have seen some of those responsible for destroying our economy behind bars. As it happens, they have got away with it.

    The fourth and final story is of foster carers throughout the country who are frightened to raise concerns about any behaviour from the council that they deal with. Of course, the council refers children into their care, so if a foster carer is concerned about the behaviour of a social worker and expresses concerns, that council can just stop the flow of children to them, and so their income stream—their ability to earn a living—disappears. This has a chilling effect on the willingness of any foster carer to speak out about child protection concerns, because they fear losing their livelihood.

    Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)

    Does that not highlight how, whether in finance, the NHS or anywhere else, this happens in situations with a power differential and a hierarchy? Someone has power over someone else and can make them lose their job or lose what they love doing, so there is a constant threat.

    Norman Lamb

    The hon. Lady is absolutely right. We need effective legislation to redress that imbalance of power.

    All the cases I have outlined highlight the value and importance of enabling people to expose wrongdoing. Effective protection for brave people who decide to speak out is first of all vital for that individual—they should be celebrated, not denigrated—but it also benefits us all if we give them protection. As the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) said earlier, this is actually an issue of good governance. It is about keeping organisations honest; protecting businesses from fraud, crime and other wrongdoing; and maintaining the highest possible standards. Good protection for those who speak out acts as a deterrent against bad behaviour; closed, secret cultures, which cover up wrongdoing and destroy those who try to speak up, deliver poor public services or cheat customers in the private sector, particularly in financial services, or lead to the toleration of bullying, sexual harassment and so on. So often, non-disclosure agreements are the final step that keeps the wrongdoing secret, slamming shut the door on proper scrutiny. Things need to change.

    The question is: does the current law work? Palpably, from the examples I have given, it is clear that it does not. First, it leaves out key groups—not only foster carers—that simply are not covered by the legislation. It leaves out job applicants, volunteers and priests. Just think about the abuse of children by so many priests over the past few decades. Had priests been given the protection to speak out, perhaps we would have prevented some of that dreadful abuse. The legislation leaves out non-executive directors and trustees. It leaves out relatives and friends of the whistleblower when they are victimised because of what the whistleblower has done. It leaves out someone who is victimised by being presumed to be a whistleblower—if a company thinks that someone has spoken out, even if they have not, and does something like dismissing them, that person has no rights under the legislation because they are not actually the whistleblower. That is a ludicrous situation.​

    Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)

    I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way and am sorry that I was not here at the start of the debate. Some time ago—I think when the right hon. Gentleman was at the Department of Health—I was the co-author of a review of the NHS hospitals complaints system. One reason why we were not more forceful on the point he is making was that we thought legislation was in the pipeline, or that there was an attempt to put things right for potential whistleblowers.

    I am still concerned. In my own local authority area, Rhondda Cynon Taf, the Cwm Taf health authority has just been heavily criticised for maternity deaths. One of the people involved got in touch with me anonymously. I did not know what to do with the letter—I did not want to pass it to the authorities—so I passed it to the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, which was at that time completing a report on the Cwm Taf health authority. It is still a major problem and people are afraid. Even when they think there is greater understanding and leeway, people are afraid. We have to put that right.

    Norman Lamb

    I totally agree with the right hon. Lady. Sir Robert Francis, who did the report in 2015, recommended the introduction of “freedom to speak up champions” in the NHS, and that has happened. However, this is an administrative process within trusts that, I am afraid, simply has not worked—that is the brutal lesson that we have to learn.

    For those who are covered by the legislation, the law does nothing to enable a concerned person to speak up in the first place. For example, the law is silent on standards expected from employers, and it offers only inadequate protection after the event—after the person has been destroyed by a cruel organisation. The individual who then tries to pursue their rights under the legislation is too often faced by highly paid lawyers and is pressured into non-disclosure agreements, which, as I indicated, can result in wrongdoing never being exposed. Indeed, we know that the terms of some non-disclosure agreements are unlawful because they seek to shut up the individual and to stop them speaking out, even when a crime is involved.

    Only a tiny percentage of cases that are pursued to the tribunal actually end up with a decision of the tribunal. To succeed, someone must show that the reason—or, if there is more than one reason, that the principal reason—for a dismissal is that the employee made a protected disclosure. They therefore open themselves up to false claims that other reasons existed. If the tribunal decides that there were other reasons, either the person’s claim is dismissed or their compensation is reduced.

    There is no full definition of the range of disclosures that are covered by the legislation, so the protection is completely uncertain. Disclosure has to be to a prescribed person, but what happens if someone does not know who to report their concerns to? They could easily find themselves entirely unprotected—for trying to do the right thing.

    Mr Mitchell

    Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

    Norman Lamb

    I am conscious that I am trying the patience of the Deputy Speaker, and I need to get to the conclusion of my remarks.​

    The brilliant organisation Protect highlights the fact that a number of laws, such as in the utility sector, make it an offence to disclose certain information and include no public interest defence exceptions for whistleblowing. Even if there is awful wrongdoing, the person is prevented from speaking out, because they would commit a criminal offence. That surely has to change.

    The brutal truth is that brave people who do society a service by exposing wrongdoing are not adequately protected, and many have no protection at all. After Gosport, I met the Prime Minister and made the case for reform. I explained to her that these are life or death situations in many cases. I have heard nothing from the Prime Minister at all since then, and that was last summer. It is time for a fundamental review by the Government and for new legislation. Such a review needs to listen to all the interested parties—to the all-party group on whistleblowing, to Protect and to Compassion in Care, which has set out proposals as part of what it calls Edna’s law. All must be involved, and we must look at international best practice.

    The all-party group has a report due out soon. It follows a comprehensive survey, which included getting the views of very many people who have tried to whistleblow, and it will offer vital evidence to the Government. It will propose an office for the whistleblower, which could be of extremely powerful value in supporting people and would be a centre of excellence, providing guidelines to employers, monitoring activities and providing support, advice and training to members of the public, public institutions, private sector bodies and so on. It is a very important proposal.

    I want a commitment from the Minister to undertake a thorough review, because it is long overdue. I also want a commitment to ensure that if the UK leaves the EU, it will at least meet the standards of the proposed new EU directive and preferably go much further. The UK was a pioneer, but the legislation is flawed and inadequate. New legislation to deliver high standards of governance in the public and private sectors is long overdue. We need safe space for brave people to do the right thing; effective mechanisms to hold people to account for wrongdoing that is uncovered, including potential criminal sanctions; and effective compensation and support for those who suffer as a result of speaking out.

  • Theresa May – 2019 Speech on the Union

    Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May, the Prime Minister, in Stirling, Scotland on 4 July 2019.

    Twenty years on from the creation of a new devolved Parliament for Scotland and devolved assemblies for Wales and Northern Ireland…

    …institutions which have strengthened our democracy and enriched our public life…

    …the question of how we can secure our Union for the future is being asked with ever more urgency.

    It is not hard to see why.

    Here in Scotland, the independence referendum in 2014, followed in quick succession by the SNP’s success in the general election a year later, sent political shockwaves across the United Kingdom.

    In Northern Ireland, after the longest sustained period of devolved government since the 1970s, the power-sharing institutions set up under the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement and its successors have now sadly not functioned for over two years.

    In Wales, the party which campaigns for Welsh separation from the United Kingdom this year scored its best result in a national election this century.

    And the leader of the party that topped the poll in those elections in England speaks casually of the potential break-up of our Union.

    All of this against the backdrop of Brexit – a profound constitutional change that is putting political and administrative strains on the Union.

    When Gordon Brown recently said that he fears the Union is ‘more imperilled now than it has ever been’ he voiced the fears of many.

    I care passionately about our Union. I certainly do not underestimate the scale of the challenge it faces. But I am optimistic about its future.

    The Union has proved a remarkably durable and flexible relationship over the centuries – evolving to meet the needs and aspirations of the peoples of these islands.

    Its strengths are substantial.

    The benefits it brings to each of its constituent parts significant.

    And I believe if those of us who care for it act wisely, if we draw on its great strengths and think creatively about how to build on them in the years ahead, its future can and will be a bright and prosperous one.

    Now the first step is to appreciate the historical complexity and intricacy of our United Kingdom.

    When we talk about ‘the Union’ we mean the modern, 21st century relationship that exists today between the historic nations of Great Britain – England, Wales and Scotland – and Northern Ireland.

    But ‘the Union’ is not the result of a single event.

    It has evolved over many centuries.

    Legal union between England and Wales was implemented by the Tudors – a royal house with Welsh roots.

    England and Wales were united in personal union with Scotland in 1603 by a Scottish royal house, the Stuarts.

    Political Union was achieved under the last Stuart monarch, Queen Anne, with the creation of the Kingdom of Great Britain.

    A century later, another Act of Union created the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

    And following the creation of Northern Ireland in 1921, the United Kingdom took on the form we know today.

    It is clear from that potted history that when we talk about ‘the Union’ we are in fact talking about a complex network of connections stretching back over the centuries.

    The economic architecture of the Union has been remarkably stable and a huge source of strength.

    So much so that we can sometimes take it for granted.

    We can forget that the UK’s Customs Union created the first modern industrial marketplace.

    That the pound sterling has served the four nations of the Union for centuries.

    And that our fully integrated internal market – with no barriers to doing business – remains the most important market for businesses across the UK. It is sometimes said that to celebrate these economic benefits of the Union while at the same time arguing that we should deliver Brexit is contradictory.

    But that is to mistake the nature of the United Kingdom.

    Because historical milestones and economic hardwiring are important – but they are not the true essence of our Union.

    It is not just a constitutional artefact, not just a marketplace for goods.

    It is a family of nations and a union of people. And the evidence of that social union is all around us.

    As Prime Minister, I have seen it first-hand.

    In our armed forces, where national and local identities are celebrated, but where every soldier, sailor, airman and marine shares a common loyalty.

    In our diplomats, drawn from every corner of the UK, representing our shared liberal values of democracy and the rule of law internationally.

    You see it in the good that UK Aid does, helping the poorest people around the world, much of it directed from the DFID HQ in East Kilbride.

    In our Security Services, amongst the world’s best, working every day to keep everyone in the UK safe.

    All of these public servants come together from different backgrounds to serve a common purpose – achieving more as one Team UK than they ever could separately. You see that social Union in our shared institutions – the glue that holds our Union together.

    The BBC, providing bespoke services in every part of the UK, broadcasting in the different languages of the UK nations, but also sustaining a common, UK-wide conversation.

    The NHS, whose core principles of high quality healthcare, free at the point of use, according to clinical need, are the definition of our solidarity as a union of people.

    These are the institutional examples of the diversity and harmony of our Union.

    But the most tangible demonstrations of that Union of people are the personal stories being written every day within families and friendships across the country.

    At every level, there is an alchemy inherent in our Union – the achievement of something greater because our four nations worked together.

    It can sometimes be hard to articulate the core tenets that underwrite that success – to transcend specific examples and get to the coherence of the whole.

    Today I want to identify three core strengths which for me define our Union – and which will be its surest safeguards in the years ahead.

    Its reliance on the support of its people; its respect for different identities; and the pooling and sharing of risks and rewards.

    First, our Union rests on and is defined by the support of its people.

    It is not held together by a rigid constitution or by trying to stifle criticisms of it.

    It will endure as long as people want it to – for as long as it enjoys the popular support of the people of Scotland and Wales, England and Northern Ireland.

    We showed that in 2014.

    The UK and Scottish Governments came together to agree the terms of a referendum on independence.

    Both sides committed to respect the result.

    The then First Minister and his then deputy both asserted that it was a ‘once in a generation’ or ‘once in a lifetime’ event.

    And if a majority had supported independence, the UK Government would have accepted that result – no question.

    But the people of Scotland did not vote for independence.

    A clear and decisive majority of ten percentage points gave the Union their backing and their decision should be respected.

    So when Nicola Sturgeon requested of the UK Government in 2017 the power to legislate for a second independence referendum, just three years after that historic vote, I had no hesitation in firmly saying ‘no’. In the future, it will be for others to decide based on the prevailing circumstances how to respond to separatism.

    But the principle is clear – the Union can and will only prosper if it enjoys the support of its people.

    The second core strength is the respect we give within our Union for different identities.

    Being together in a Union does not mean we lose our local and national identities.

    We can support a football team representing one of the UK nations, and cheer on Team GB at the Olympics and feel that there is nothing incoherent about it.

    Our nationalities, along with our religions, our racial heritages, our sexualities and many other factors are part of the tapestry of each individual.

    You can be Welsh and Muslim and British.

    You can be Glaswegian and gay and British.

    You might feel more English than British. Or vice versa.

    You do not have to choose. You can be both, or either, or neither.

    The Union has never been about uniformity.

    Scotland, as a proud and historic nation, retained its separate legal, religious and educational systems within the Union.

    The Belfast Agreement guarantees the ‘birth right of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose.’

    The Welsh language enjoys an equal legal status with English – fel y dylai fod “as it should be”.

    Diversity is part of the deal.

    That respect for multiple identities also includes respect for those who do not identify as British.

    It is legitimate in a democracy for anyone to seek to change the constitutional settlement through legal means.

    Ours is a Union that seeks to work for everyone – where everyone committed to democracy and the rule of law can feel at home and part of the whole.

    But we must also nurture the things that bring us together – and celebrate the shared bonds and interests that unite us.

    This accommodation of multiple, layered identities within a common system of values is one of the UK’s greatest assets.

    It is a hallmark of what it is to be British and it is a defining strength of our Union.

    The third core strength is about how we interact as a Union of people.

    That we face challenges together and freely pool the resources at our disposal in order to overcome them.

    We see that most clearly and movingly in the darkest times.

    This year I had the honour to represent the United Kingdom at the D-Day commemorations.

    What better example of success achieved by pooling our national resources to overcome a shared risk could you find?

    It was a success born of shared sacrifice which ensured our very survival – and the survival of freedom and democracy for the whole world.

    And it was only possible because we were a United Kingdom of four nations but one people.

    But it is not just in times of war that we see that principle in action.

    The broad shoulders of the world’s fifth-largest economy allowed the whole of the UK to weather the storm of the global financial crisis a decade ago.

    Banks headquartered in Edinburgh and London were rescued by the Treasury – action that was only possible because of the size and strength of the whole UK economy.

    The UK Government has been able to take unprecedented action to support the oil and gas sector following the decline in the international oil price – with public spending here in Scotland protected, even as North Sea tax receipts dwindled.

    The UK and Welsh Governments worked in partnership to support the steel sector, ensuring the sustainability of steel production in South Wales, and keeping the iconic blast furnaces at Port Talbot open.

    And it is not just about the benefits that the Union gives to its parts, but about what those parts contribute to the whole.

    The great Scottish universities – some of the best in the world – which help make the UK an education powerhouse.

    The engineering innovation in Cardiff, where the world’s first compound semiconductor cluster is pioneering a crucial technology of the future.

    Northern Ireland’s emerging status as the world’s biggest and most beautiful TV studio – renowned for the highest quality programming, from ‘Line of Duty’ to ‘Game of Thrones.’

    These are some of the brightest jewels in the United Kingdom’s crown.

    Every business, every community, every family in each nation of the UK is part of that bigger whole and makes their contribution to it.

    Time and again the benefits of sharing challenges and opportunities together and pooling our resources to meet them are clear.

    It is baked into how our Union is governed. The Barnett formula delivers spending per head significantly higher in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales than the UK average, to reflect particular needs.

    At its heart is the principle of solidarity – that we are one people. That we have a common stake in each other’s success.

    That the happiness of someone in Belfast is the care and concern of someone in Bolton or Brecon or Bridge of Allan.

    These core strengths provide an emotional and intellectual framework through which to understand the benefits our Union brings to all its people.

    They are noble principles that define us and which we can take pride in.

    And as we look to the future, and the questions it will ask of us, we can take confidence that our Union is built on rock-solid foundations.

    Safeguarding our Union for the long-term will take work.

    Right now, it means doing two things urgently.

    First, delivering a Brexit that works for the whole United Kingdom – for its individual parts and for the whole.

    And second, being much more creative and energetic in strengthening the ties that bind us and reinforcing the glue that holds our Union together.

    On Brexit, the challenge is serious. Majorities of voters in England and Wales voted to leave, while majorities in Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to remain.

    That fact places an important responsibility on a Unionist government committed to delivering on the referendum result.

    Ensuring that we leave the EU in a way that protects the interests of all parts of the UK has been one of my central priorities over the last three years – and I regret that I will soon be stepping down with that ambition as yet unfulfilled.

    Leaving with a good deal, one that works for the whole UK, is the very best possible outcome and the right one to be working towards.

    It means we can get on and build a good new relationship with our European friends and partners.

    And it is far better than leaving without a deal – which would have undoubted consequences for our economy and for the Union.

    Clearly a major barrier to my success in getting a deal agreed was the challenge posed by the UK’s land border with another EU member state.

    A border which weaves its way through farms and villages, bisects hundreds of roads and lanes, and which is crossed and re-crossed by thousands of people every day.

    And a border which is bound up with the complexities of an often troubled past.

    At the heart of the Belfast Agreement, which enabled the people of Northern Ireland to move beyond that past into a shared future, was a compromise.

    That people who identify as Irish can live in Northern Ireland but, to all intents and purposes, operate across the whole of Ireland in their day to day lives and in their business activities without any semblance of a border.

    That compromise was enabled by having a seamless border.

    The backstop insurance policy we agreed with the EU, which would have been activated only if we were unable to agree our new relationship within the implementation period, respected that compromise.

    And the future relationship will need to respect it.

    It will be for my successor to resolve that issue and I will not today seek to provide any advice on the matter.

    I will simply say this.

    There can and must be no false choice between honouring the solemn commitments of the Belfast Agreement and delivering on the decision of the British people in the EU referendum.

    We must do both.

    Brexit certainly poses a challenge for the Union – but it is one which can be met by working with the grain of the United Kingdom’s core strengths.

    And in forcing us politicians to pay more attention to the dynamics of our Union, it is a challenge we can and should use as the opportunity to strengthen that Union for the long term.

    The need to do so long pre-dates Brexit.

    One of the lessons of the independence referendum in 2014 was that those of us who believe in our United Kingdom need to do much more to make and demonstrate the emotional case for it – and to strengthen the ties that bind it together.

    As we do so, we can take confidence in our Union’s adaptability. And there is no better example of that adaptability than devolution.

    Twenty years since the creation of the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly it is clear that devolution is a source of strength for the UK – not a sign of its weakness.

    It is the form of government best suited to our geography, our history and our future.

    Stormont, Holyrood and Cardiff Bay are democratic expressions of the multiple identities that define the Union.

    And devolved legislatures working alongside a United Kingdom Parliament elected by every citizen of the Union, containing representatives of every community in the Union, means the best of both worlds.

    The benefit of more responsive and representative government for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, without sacrificing the strength and security that pooling and sharing risks and rewards provides.

    Northern Ireland had a devolved Parliament from its inception up until the beginning of the Troubles, after which it always remained UK Government policy to see devolved government there restored.

    And when devolved government in Northern Ireland was finally restored, it was after an historic agreement to end a long and painful period of conflict.

    The devolution settlement brought about by the Belfast Agreement was an example for the world in uniting people behind a shared future.

    And as the parties in Northern Ireland continue in talks to restore that devolution, the hope and history surrounding it should be a powerful reminder of the imperative of not letting that progress slip away.

    In Great Britain, successive Governments of both parties pursued policies of administrative devolution – the creation of separate Whitehall departments for Scotland and Wales, led by cabinet Ministers – but resisted calls for legislative devolution.

    There were objections to it from across the political spectrum.

    Many on the left feared it would weaken the ability of a socialist government to effect economic and social change.

    And, despite first making a Scottish Assembly our policy as early as 1968, many Conservatives worried that it might loosen the bonds that tie us together.

    Both left and right are now fully united behind devolution.

    A Labour Government created the devolved institutions in Scotland and Wales.

    And Conservatives have embraced them.

    Successive Conservative and Conservative-led governments since 2010 have strengthened the devolution settlements.

    Holyrood has new powers over tax, welfare and more.

    Cardiff Bay has tax powers and law-making powers.

    In Northern Ireland we have legislated to enable Stormont to take on powers over corporation tax.

    Today, the only threat to devolution comes from those parties who want to end it by breaking up the United Kingdom.

    For those of us who believe in the Union, devolution is the accepted and permanent constitutional expression of the unique multinational character of our Union.

    It was ironic that the UK Government’s sincere efforts to ensure that Brexit had no unintended consequences for the UK’s internal market was dismissed as a ‘power-grab’ by the SNP.

    A UK Government which had enthusiastically launched and implemented the Smith and Silk Commissions – transferring sweeping powers over tax and welfare, stood accused of using Brexit as the cloak behind which to claw-back powers over food labelling and fertiliser regulations.

    On one level the allegation is simply absurd.

    On another, it highlights a challenge which faces the UK Government as it seeks to act in the best interests of the whole UK.

    Whereas the UK Government is invested in the success of devolution, it would suit the political aspirations of the present Scottish Government for devolution to fail, or to be seen to fail.

    The criticisms of the present First Minister about how our two governments interact need to be viewed in that context.

    It is telling that during the discussions over legislative consent for the EU Withdrawal Bill, after intense discussions and give and take on both sides, the Welsh Government was willing to making a compromise, whereas the Scottish Government was not.

    Over the last three years I have learned that while other parties can be relied on to work with the UK Government in good faith to make devolution a success, an SNP Scottish Government will only ever seek to further the agenda of separation.

    That, I am afraid, is simply a fact of political life in the UK at the moment.

    That fact puts an additional responsibility on the UK Government.

    If we do not do all we can to realise the full benefits of the Union – no one else will.

    If we do not use every policy lever within our reach to strengthen that Union – no one else will.

    And if we do not make realising the full benefits of being a United Kingdom of four proud nations and one united people our priority now, then in the future it may be too late.

    The answer does not lie in further constitutional change – or in reimagining what the Union is or should be.

    Well intentioned suggestions that we should, for example, seek to agree a new Act of Union for the 21st century ignore the political reality.

    With good will on all sides such a thing might be possible – but we do not have good will on all sides.

    Many of those who advocate a federal UK are equally well-intentioned, but I believe are also in the wrong track.

    England makes up over 80% of the UK population. There is no example of a federal state anywhere in the world where one of the units of the federation is so large.

    The UK simply does not lend itself to federation as a sustainable constitutional model.

    The only way it could realistically be achieved would be by breaking England up into artificial regional units – something I would never support and for which I detect no appetite.

    Of course that is not to say that there is no appetite for devolution in England.

    The UK Government has passed considerable power down to the great cities and metro-areas of England.

    From Greater Manchester and the West Midlands to the Tees Valley and Bristol, there is now a new cast of powerful, directly elected local voices speaking up for their areas – voices which great cities like Glasgow and Cardiff lack.

    So the answer to strengthening the Union does not lie in schemes of sweeping constitutional change, but in making better and more creative use of the powers and potential of the constitutional settlement we have.

    The City and Growth Deals which the UK Government has pioneered across the United Kingdom – from Aberdeen to Swansea, Derry/Londonderry to the Borderlands – are examples of that creative thinking.

    Working with the devolved administrations and local authorities as partners, they provide a vehicle for UK-wide engagement – each layer of government working together to drive better outcome for citizens.

    The leadership election in my own party has encouraged a raft of suggestions for how the UK Government can play a more constructive role in realising the full benefits of the Union for all its people.

    It has been a striking change at Westminster since the 2017 election that we now have a range of passionate and articulate Scottish voices across the House of Commons making constructive arguments about how to make the UK a better place. But we will need to keep up this debate and for it to be informed by creative thinking and new ideas.

    Tweaking the constitution is not the answer.

    The UK Government already invests significant amounts across the nations of the UK, and the Barnett Formula rightly delivers higher public spending per head in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland – so spending alone is not the answer either.

    Instead we need to look afresh at how we use the levers and the resources that are to hand through a Unionist lens.

    We need to work more cleverly, more creatively and more coherently as a UK Government fully committed to a modern, 21st century Union in the context of a stable and permanent devolution settlement to strengthen the glue that holds our Union together.

    There have been several reviews into how devolution works. But we have never thought deeply about how we make the Union work – how we ensure that as we fully respect devolution, we do not forget the UK Government’s fundamental duty to be a government for the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

    That is why I have asked Andrew Dunlop to lead an independent review into the structures of the UK Government to ensure that they are set up to realise fully all the benefits of being a United Kingdom.

    Lord Dunlop has a wealth of experience from his time in Government as an advisor and Minister and I look forward to reading his report.

    Of course it will be for my successor to respond to his recommendations, and I am delighted that both candidates are supportive of the review.

    I am confident that whoever succeeds me in 10 Downing Street will make the Union a priority.

    He will build on the work of a UK Government that has made strengthening the Union an explicit priority.

    The job of Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland brings with it privileges and responsibilities which you only really feel once the black door closes behind you.

    One of the first and greatest is the duty you owe to strengthen the Union.

    To govern with the popular support on which that Union is based.

    To respect the identities of every citizen of the UK – Scottish or Welsh, Northern Irish or English, British or Irish.

    And to ensure that we go on facing the future together, overcoming obstacles together, and achieving more together than we ever could apart – as a Union of nations and people.

  • Jeremy Corbyn – 2019 Speech on the G20 and Leadership of EU Institutions

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jeremy Corbyn, the Leader of the Opposition, in the House of Commons on 3 July 2019.

    I want to say thank you to my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) for the fantastic campaign she has mounted and the comfort that she has brought to those who have been through the unimaginable strain of losing a child. Those who, sadly, will lose a child in future will at least know that, because of her work, one part of the commemoration of that child’s life will be made a little bit easier. On behalf of so many families, may we just say thank you very much for everything you have done?

    I thank the Prime Minister for an advance copy of her statement. While this year marks the 20th anniversary of the G20, there is little progress to commemorate in tackling the urgent challenges that we face. Where the ​leaders of the world’s most powerful countries fail, we look instead to civil society, trade unions and community groups, and to an inspirational generation of young people, for the transformative change that is required.

    This summit’s communiqué did not make the necessary commitments on climate change. Does the Prime Minister agree that President Trump’s failure to accept the reality of man-made climate change, his refusal to back the Paris accords and his attempts to water down the communiqué’s commitments are a threat to the security of us all, all over this planet? Is the Prime Minister concerned that he could soon be joined by one of her possible successors, who has described global warming as a “primitive fear … without foundation”? It is the responsibility of the G20 to lead efforts to combat climate change, as the Prime Minister herself acknowledged. These nations account for four fifths of global greenhouse gas emissions. As I confirmed last week, we back the UK’s bid to host COP 26 next year. In 2017, the Government agreed to:

    “Making finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions”

    in developing countries. So can the Prime Minister explain why 97% of the UK’s export finance support for energy in developing countries goes to fossil fuels, and less than 1% is for renewable energy? The Government’s pledge to cut carbon emissions by 2050 is an empty one. They have no serious plan to invest and continue to dismantle our renewable energy sector while supporting fracking.

    The Prime Minister says that the international community must stand against Iran’s destabilising activity in the region. The Iran nuclear deal agreement was a multilateral agreement signed up to by President Obama, and a number of other Governments, but reneged on by President Obama’s successor. Beyond just saying that we need to protect the deal, what action has the Prime Minister taken to ensure this? What conversation did she have with President Trump on this issue?

    Is it not about time that the Prime Minister’s Government stood up to our supposed ally, Saudi Arabia? She says that she met Crown Prince bin Salman but gives no details. So can I ask her: did she raise the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, did she raise the killing of thousands of Yemenis, and did she pledge to stop arms sales to Saudi Arabia? Did she raise with him the Saudis’ financing and arming of Libyan warlord Khalifa Haftar, who is fighting the UN-recognised Government of Libya, and who, only last night, has been held responsible for an airstrike on a migrant centre in Tripoli that killed 40 people and injured dozens more? The Prime Minister rightly points to the need to protect people from terrorist propaganda, so before she leaves office, will she finally release, in full, the report she suppressed on the Saudi Government’s funding of extremist groups?

    The Prime Minister talks of confronting countries that interfere in the democracy of other nations, including Russia. I remind her that it was Labour that delivered amendments to the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill, which introduced the Magnitsky powers. The truth is that the Conservatives have questions to answer about the almost £1 million-worth of donations from wealthy Russians to their party under her watch. If we stand up to corruption and condemn human rights-abusing regimes, then politicians should not be trading cash for access.​

    The Prime Minister mentioned the worrying outbreak of Ebola in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Could she outline what assistance the Department for International Development is providing in that terrible situation? I welcome the Government’s £1.4 billion for the Global Fund to fight Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria. However, the main conclusion from the G20 is that the world deserves better leadership for the urgent challenges facing humanity.

    Moving on to the EU summit in Brussels, it has taken leaders three days to come up with a decision on who should take the EU’s top jobs. But a three-day summit pales into insignificance next to the three years of failure that this Government have inflicted on us all over Brexit. I would like to congratulate those who have been appointed or nominated to new roles within in the EU, especially Josep Borrell as High Representative for foreign affairs and security. For as long as we remain in the EU, we should seek reform. That includes increasing our efforts to tackle tax evasion and avoidance; stepping up our co-operation over the climate emergency that faces us all, all over this continent and this planet; and challenging migration policies that have left thousands to drown in the Mediterranean while sometimes subcontracting migration policies to Libyan militias.

    Can the Prime Minister explain her decision for the Conservative party to join a political group that includes far-right, Islamophobic parties such as Vox of Spain? It claims that Muslims will impose Sharia law on Spain, turn cathedrals into mosques, and force all women to cover up. It is a party that campaigned to repeal gender violence laws and threatened to shut down feminist organisations. Does the Prime Minister understand the worry that this will cause many people in this country who will rightly be asking why her party has aligned itself with this far-right organisation whose policies are built on division, discrimination and hate?

    Finally, does the Prime Minister agree that whoever succeeds her should have the courage to go back to the people with their preferred Brexit option to end the uncertainty and get Brexit resolved?