UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: 2020

  • Chloe Smith – 2020 Speech on Electoral Reform

    Chloe Smith – 2020 Speech on Electoral Reform

    Below is the text of the speech made by Chloe Smith, the Minister of State at the Cabinet Office, in the House of Commons on 8 June 2020.

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to welcome the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) to her place as her party’s spokesperson on these issues. I look forward to working with her in that role, and as such, I thank her for raising these important issues in this Adjournment debate. I will take the time available to me to address as many of the issues she raised as I can. She clearly spent most of her time focusing on the method of counting votes in the first-past-the-post system, so that is what I will focus on in my remarks.

    If I may, I will just set the scene with a few additional things that we are also focusing on in this Parliament that we think are important in stewarding our electoral system and our democracy. I certainly think that how people cast their vote goes to the heart of our democracy, and it is from that that the Government made an absolute priority in our manifesto, and through much of the action I take when I have the privilege to speak from this Dispatch Box, of protecting and upholding our democracy and our elections by means of electoral integrity. We are taking forward a programme of work that seeks to make our elections secure but also fit for the modern age. Importantly, one of those points is the need to bring our electoral laws up to date for the digital age, which I think the hon. Lady and I both agree is a necessary move. I want to help citizens to make informed decisions by increasing transparency in online political campaigning, and with that I also seek to make sure that rules on campaign donations and spending are effective.

    I really look forward to working with the hon. Lady on the forthcoming policy of putting imprints on digital electoral material, which I think will help to strengthen trust and will help people to be informed about who is behind a campaign, so that they can choose and decide. She will be aware of my intention to introduce further measures to reduce fraud in elections, including by introducing identification requirements to vote and by tackling postal vote harvesting and potential proxy fraud.

    The hon. Lady already mentioned updated and equal parliamentary boundaries, so I will not dwell on that—we will have plenty of time to do that in Committee sessions in the next while—but it is linked to tonight’s subject matter. It is important, because every voter needs to know that their vote carries equal weight, no matter where it is cast in the UK. I start at this point, because it came up in the debate last week on Second Reading. There is simply a difference of view here. She would say that, for example, an STV system or a PR system would be better than a fixed-term—[Interruption.] I have too many acronyms with F, T and P in them; I meant to say first past the post. She will support one; I will support the other. However, that said, it is possible for us both to agree that, whichever system is used, voters’ voices ought to have the greatest possible equality within that ​system. From the perspective of first past the post I argue that, within that system, we should ensure that every vote has a chance for its voice to carry equal weight wherever it is cast.

    Let me turn more specifically to the first-past-the-post electoral system. I understand the points raised by the hon. Member for North East Fife. She gave a good run down of the principal arguments that are often given against the first-past-the-post system, and I suspect that underlines the point for other hon. Members—we are kept company tonight by a few, including, no less, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) who attends every Adjournment debate. As he, and others, will know, this debate is not perhaps new, so I will run through some of the principal arguments in favour of first past the post, to balance the discussion.

    For me, the first point is always the constituency link. There is something important to be said about the politics of place, and it is harder to achieve that in some designs for a proportional representation system. The politics of place are important. For example, the hon. Member for North East Fife speaks for Fife; I speak for Norwich. The hon. Member for Strangford speaks for Strangford, and my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes) speaks for parts of Walsall. All those places have different needs that can be well represented by a Member who speaks when grounded in those communities.

    Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)

    As a Scottish MP, like the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), I have experience of both systems. We both share constituencies with MSPs who are connected to the constituency. We have a separate top-up list. I do not think it fair always to depict proportional representation as removing the connection with the constituency. Sometimes, it is just as strong.

    Chloe Smith

    The hon. Lady is right. From the facts I cannot argue with that point, and I would not seek to. My point about the politics of place is part of a set of points that, in my view, fit together. My second point, which I think gives voters a better result than the one just described is—

    Wera Hobhouse

    Will the Minister give way?

    Chloe Smith

    If the hon. Lady will allow me to make my second point, I will be happy to give way. The second important feature is accountability, which with first past the post is linked to place. It can be achieved in other ways, but with first past the post we all get the kind of accountability that comes when an MP walks down the street and looks into the eyes of their constituents. It is important to seek a system that has that in its design, so that there is not some relatively difficult to understand method of apportioning the number of votes, but instead a clear method of who came first—the clue is in the name. That gives citizens, voters, a clear method of holding somebody to account. MPs can be thrown out as easily as they were voted in, and they are given the accountability to conduct that job, and to do so strictly by reporting to a place, and to people who use the same public services as they do in their constituencies. All of that links the politics of place with accountability.

    ​Wera Hobhouse

    There are, of course, proportional systems that do both—they are proportional and they have clear links between a particular Member of Parliament and a place. Is the Minister not defending the indefensible simply because it delivers electoral success to a particular party, or the two big parties, rather than creating a better democracy? Are we not in this place to create a better democracy?

    Chloe Smith

    We are indeed in this place to improve our democracy. That is why I took the time when opening my remarks to set out some of the ways I am doing that. I am sorry to make a partisan point, but when the hon. Lady’s party was in government—it got there under a version of this system—it tried to improve the voting system, and the British people said no. That was to be my third point against making the move from the first-past-the-post system to what, in that case, was the alternative vote system. That was put fairly and squarely to people in a referendum and they declined it; they said, no, they did not want to make that change. It would not be fair to ask people that again in such short order, because it is rather an important principle that when you have a referendum you respect its results.

    Jim Shannon rose—

    Chloe Smith

    I give way to the hon. Gentleman, having named him several times.

    Jim Shannon

    I thank the Minister. We were elected as the Members of Parliament for our constituencies in this House under first past the post. I know I have said this, I am sure the Minister has said it, and probably every other Member here has said it. As a member of the Democratic Unionist party, the fact of the matter is that I am everybody’s MP. Does she agree that everybody is the MP for their constituency, as everybody else is here, whether people agree with our political views or not?

    Chloe Smith

    Yes, that is a very wise summary to put into this debate. It puts me back in mind of some important principles that the hon. Member for North East Fife struck in her remarks. She was keen to see that people should not be left feeling disenfranchised in a certain constituency. She was keen to see a reduction in the adversarial nature that sometimes can creep into—dare I say?—all sorts of politics, but she identified it in our politics in this country. She was keen to explore how a Member of Parliament could represent everyone in their constituency, which I think connects to the point that the hon. Member for Strangford just made.

    I feel very strongly on these matters as well. It has always been a point of some passion for me, actually, that I think we can do those things within the first-past-the-post system. That goes back to my point about the politics of place and the fact that we are accountable to that particular community and that particular group of people—a relatively small group of people, in fact, on some international comparisons. We have to strive to represent all of them. It is our duty to do so, however difficult that may sometimes seem when there are opposing views, naturally, within a body of people, and only one of us. We have to do that and we have to use our judgment to do it. That is, in my view, the very rewarding job that we seek to do. If we can do it right, that can, I hope, deliver some satisfaction to our constituents as well, with the ability to say no to us if they would rather it was not us in our place.

    ​Christine Jardine

    One of the acknowledged problems we have in modern democracy is the lack of engagement, particularly of young people. One of the things many of us hear on the doorstep is, “Why would I bother? My vote doesn’t count.” The beauty of proportional representation is that every vote counts, in the sense that people sometimes feel in a seat where there is a large majority for one party that there is no point in them voting as it will not count and they will not be represented. Would the hon. Lady accept that point—that PR gives everyone’s vote some weight?

    Chloe Smith

    I do understand that point. I personally would use a similar argument to apply to one’s vote getting rather lost in a national system that did not give accountability directly to a representative.

    Allow me to pause in responding to the arguments about the voting system and turn to a couple of the other points that the hon. Member for North East Fife made. I will cover three manifesto commitments. First, in the Conservative manifesto, which was chosen and has been given the privilege of being turned into action, we committed to retain the first-past-the-post system. That concludes that section of my remarks.

    Turning to votes at 16, and if I may, combining this with the points made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) about how very many young people want to be involved in politics, I am passionately in favour of young people being involved in politics. However, I do think there are many ways to do that—there is not only the question of the voting age; there are lots of ways to engage people in politics. As I have mentioned, the manifesto commitment from this Government was to retain the franchise at 18 years old. That is because of an argument of consistency within the other services and aspects of public citizenship. A person below the age of 18 is treated as a minor, for example, in both the foster care system and the criminal justice system. They cannot attend jury service, buy alcohol or be sent into action in the armed forces, and they cannot own property, gamble and so on. There is a wide range of life decisions for which Parliament has judged that 18 is the right age across the nation.

    Layla Moran

    Surely there is an inconsistency, however, in the way that 16-year-olds are treated across the four nations. Can the Minister not see the inconsistency in that position?

    Chloe Smith

    I understand and recognise the argument, but this Parliament represents the UK parliamentary voting franchise, and it is that that I am speaking about. As it happens, I also fully support the ability of the devolved Administrations to make decisions within their remits for themselves.

    I have one moment to finish off on the commission on the constitution, democracy and rights. As the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) mentioned, it is there in the Queen’s Speech, it was there in our manifesto and we think it is very important to do so. I will be pleased to bring forward further details for the hon. Lady and for you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but at this point I think we adjourn.

  • Wendy Chamberlain – 2020 Speech on Electoral Reform

    Wendy Chamberlain – 2020 Speech on Electoral Reform

    Below is the text of the speech made by Wendy Chamberlain, the Liberal Democrat MP for North East Fife, in the House of Commons on 8 June 2020.

    It seems that debates on potential electoral reform are a bit like buses: wait a long time for a chance to discuss it, and then, with the Parliamentary Constituencies Bill last week, two opportunities come along at once. I welcome the opportunity to engage with the Minister on this topic, as I indicated on Second Reading of the Bill last week. I believe that this is the first debate on positive reform to our electoral system in this Chamber since 2016. As we reflect on last year’s general election and the challenges that the UK faces in relation to the covid-19 pandemic, I believe that revisiting this topic and the impact that the current first-past-the-post system has on democracy is valid.

    During that Second Reading debate last week, I mentioned a statistic: for every one vote it took to elect an SNP MP at the last election, it took 33 votes to elect a Green one. The Green party polled over 800,000 votes and ended up with only one Member of Parliament: the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). The Brexit Party, polling over 600,000 votes, got no MP at all. Its biggest impact as a party was in standing down in seats, effectively preventing those who wish to vote for it in those seats from being able to do so.

    I do not want to drown Members in statistics—I know that the Government have been in trouble with the Office for National Statistics recently—but I do want to highlight the following. The Government have an 80-seat majority in this House, but they did not receive the majority of votes—far from it, in fact. They got 43.6% of the votes, but due to first past the post, they now hold 56% of the seats. I do not know what is more remarkable: the fact that the Government have a majority in Parliament, despite not having a majority of votes from this country, or the fact that we have grown so used to this disproportionality that we rarely comment on how remarkable it is.

    If Government Members—were they here—to say, “Well, at least the largest party in the Commons is the one with the most votes,” I would agree. After all, in 1951 and 1974, the party with the most votes did not end up with the most seats. The electoral maths is very clear. First past the post does not do a good job at all of representing voters’ preferences or the will of the people, as some like to call it.

    One of the arguments in support of first past the post is—to quote a previous Conservative general election slogan—that it provides strong and stable governance. The last 10 years have demonstrated that this is far from the case. We have a broken system. It is unfair, unrepresentative, and undermines the legitimacy of our democracy and, indeed, the UK itself. We often take pride in the fact that this Parliament is the mother of Parliaments, but we should not let our pride in our heritage blind us to the areas in which it needs improvements. We should not uphold tradition at all costs, particularly when it prevents us from making the progressive changes that will have a positive impact on people’s lives, or prevents Members from properly representing their constituents. Every election that we ​hold under first past the post runs the risk that we end up with a Government who did not win a majority of votes, impacting on the legitimacy of our whole democratic process. This is a scenario that should worry anyone and which we should be acting pre-emptively to avoid.

    Although I take pride in our heritage, the reality is that the vast majority of democratic countries have chosen not to follow our system. Exactly the scenario that I have been talking about—the party with the most votes not becoming the Government—happened in New Zealand in 1978 and again in 1981, and it set that country on the road to changing first past the post in 1997. It was abandoned in Ireland, Australia, Malta, South Africa and Cyprus. Across Europe, 40 out of 43 countries carry out elections using some form of proportional representation.

    The Scottish and Welsh Parliaments, and the Northern Ireland Assembly, use forms of proportional representation in their elections to those bodies. When we have the chance to start from scratch, first past the post is never anyone’s first choice. Surely now, following two divisive referendums in the past decade—again resulting in winner takes all—and with the challenges facing us going forward, we require a different kind of politics from the adversarial two-party politics that is the natural result of first past the post. Last week, the Prime Minister criticised the Leader of the Opposition for not working in a constructive way, but this is exactly the way in which our system forces politicians to operate—across the Dispatch Box, two sword lengths apart.

    As the Scottish National party’s vote is concentrated in the 59 Scottish seats, the situation that first past the post creates there is even more serious. In December, 45% of the vote for the SNP equated to 80% of the seats. The adversarial nature of things becomes even more stark when two parties each claim to be the voice of their people, and I am pleased that the SNP is in agreement with me that we need a more proportional system and we need it to be found soon.

    As we seek to recover from the impact of covid-19, other challenges—most crucially, our response to the climate emergency—remain. Such challenges will not be solved by one side or way of thinking. They require co-operation, mutual trust, welcoming a diversity of thinking, and an ability to set aside our differences and work together for the common good.

    Some commentators have observed that states with the perceived best response to coronavirus so far are those with women leaders. The underlying factor is that these are countries with proportional systems and a focus on pluralistic decision making, such as New Zealand and Germany. Every single country with more than 40% of female representatives in its legislature has a proportional system. The current system is inhibiting the progress that both the Government and the official Opposition say they want to make.

    It is not only our governance that is weakened by first past the post. Our voting system results in the permanent disenfranchisement of millions of voters, creating persistent minorities, and a real and legitimate sense of anger alongside the harm to the regions and the devolved nations. How depressing is it that, for a great number of people in this country, being represented here in this place by someone they actually voted for feels like a treat?​
    In last week’s debate, many MPs spoke about how much they love their constituencies and the pride that they take in representing them. I have personally enjoyed the tradition of the maiden speech, referring to my constituency and its attractions as well as acknowledging the work of my predecessor. But as Members of Parliament, we do not actually represent our constituencies; we represent the people in it. In my constituency of North East Fife, the majority of people did not vote for me in December. Tactical voting probably played a part in the result, but my job now is to represent everyone in my constituency, and we must acknowledge that many feel unrepresented as a result of our system.

    Surely we should all like to be elected on the basis of a positive voter choice, as opposed to being the least worst option on the ballot paper, as is often the case. Surely the proliferation of tactical voting websites and electoral pacts at the last general election suggests there is something fundamentally wrong with the way we elect people to this place. We talk about the collapse of Labour’s red wall without critically asking whether it is right for any party to believe it has the right to any seat or its electorate. We do however comment on the extra attention that these seats and their new Conservative representatives expect to get from the Government. That suggests that, as previously safe Labour seats, where the same party had won every election, people’s votes there were worth very little and the parties could therefore ignore them. Only when a seat becomes marginal does it seem to matter.

    As I pointed out last week, it is strange that the Conservative manifesto recognised that votes mattering equally is a “cornerstone of democracy”, yet is blind to the huge disparities in our current system. It was pointed out to me by the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) that she has more than 20,000 more electors in her constituency than I have in mine, but this unfairness is because our system is based on defining boundaries and areas for a single Member to represent under first past the post. Some of the criteria being set out in relation to boundary changes undermine the arguments for single-Member constituencies by diluting the identified community links that many argue are the main benefit of first past the post and risking further disenfranchisement in an already broken system.

    One other promise in the Conservative manifesto was to have a constitution, democracy and rights commission in the first year of the Government. Will the Minister update us on the plans for that commission, including its scope and potential membership? Fair votes are just one spoke on the wheel of reforming our broken politics and there is lots more to be done; I have not touched on the House of Lords or the fact that England needs to follow the reforms of the other devolved nations, including Wales, where, from last week, 16 and 17-year-olds are now eligible to vote. I find it strange that only in England are 16 and 17-year-olds felt to be incapable of exercising their democratic rights.

    Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)

    My hon. Friend is giving an incredibly powerful speech, at an important time in our democracy. I used to be a teacher and I can say from experience that 16 and 17-year-olds are just as capable of understanding the complexities of the political landscape as anyone else and quite often ask very insightful questions. From her ​experience as a Scottish MP, does she agree that it is time England followed suit and gave 16 and 17-year-olds the vote?

    Wendy Chamberlain

    I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention and entirely agree with her. As I say, only one of our four nations seems to feel that its young people do not have that insight, and we should absolutely be giving them that opportunity.

    Countries around the world are moving forward beyond fair votes, with democratic innovations such as citizens’ assemblies or participatory budgeting programmes. We need to look at participatory democracy better empowering local communities and groups. We have seen multiple marches and demonstrations in the past few years, including, most recently, this weekend. People protest when they feel they have no other option in terms of making their voices heard to demand change. It is tempting to be comfortable with the current system—after all, every Member here has benefited from first past the post—and I understand the reverence in which Members hold this place, but we best revere it when we acknowledge that its practices are letting down the very people who elected us to represent them. We should not let warm feelings get in the way of cold, hard reality.

    Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)

    Does my hon. Friend agree that we are creating a very divisive politics in this country, where we are persistently looking for argument, rather than consensus, and that that completely overshadows our political culture and we need to change it?

    Wendy Chamberlain

    Again, I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend says; this has created our two-party politics and divisiveness, and, as a result, there is not the opportunity to work in consensus.

    Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

    In my political career, I have been a councillor on Ards Borough Council, elected under a proportional representation system; I was also in the Northern Ireland Assembly, to which I was again elected under a PR system; and I was fortunate to have the opportunity to come here in 2010, under a straight first-past-the-post system. I understand the benefits of both systems, and why in Northern Ireland we needed an Assembly that could bring the parties together. There is a reason for using the proportional system where it is used, but does the hon. Lady agree that the first-past-the-post system sits here as well?

    Wendy Chamberlain

    I cannot agree that first past the post has a place, because I believe that we can use other ways and methodologies to represent constituencies, such as the single transferrable vote, which would give us the same result but would be more representative of the way people voted. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention.

    We should not let warm feelings get in the way of cold hard reality. I urge Members and the Government to reflect on whether there is an unfairness here. Will a change benefit people’s lives across the UK and the devolved nations? Indeed, would what we are talking about actually work better across the four nations, when three of our four nations, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, actually have some ​form of proportional representation in how they elect Members to their Parliaments and Assemblies? I believe there is only one answer. Now really is time that we should consider electoral reform.

  • Priti Patel – 2020 Statement on Public Order

    Priti Patel – 2020 Statement on Public Order

    Below is the text of the speech made by Priti Patel, the Home Secretary, in the House of Commons on 8 June 2020.

    With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on public order. Like all Members of this House, I was sickened at George Floyd’s tragic death. His treatment at the hands of the United States police was appalling and speaks to the sense of injustice experienced by minority communities around the world. I fully appreciate the strength of feeling over his senseless killing, the inequality that black people can sadly still face, and the deep-seated desire for change. I know that it is that sense of injustice that has driven people to take to the UK streets to protest.

    This Government are clear that racism and discrimination in any form have no place in our society, and we will do whatever is required to eradicate it. Of course there is more we can do. There is more that we should all do to combat inequalities across society, to support those seeking social justice and better life chances and to offer hope, but all too often, too many are confronted by despair. It is right in any democracy, in an open and free society, that we advance these issues in a constructive, sensitive and responsible way.

    The Government understand the importance of the right to protest. In normal circumstances, a large and peaceful protest would not be of concern to the authorities, because we live in a great country where our right to protest and to have our voice heard is integral to our fundamental democratic freedoms. The right to come together and express our views peacefully remains one of the cornerstones of our great democracy. Members across the House share an enduring commitment to uphold liberty and freedom of expression, on the basis of respecting the rule of law. As our nation battles coronavirus, however, these are not normal circumstances, so to protect us all and to stop the spread of this deadly disease, any large gatherings of people are currently unlawful. We cannot afford to forget that we are still in the grip of an unprecedented national health emergency that has tragically claimed more than 40,000 lives, so the severe public health risk forces me to continue to urge the public not to attend future protests. The Government’s scientific and medically led advice remains clear and consistent. No matter how important the cause, protesting in large numbers at this exceptional time is illegal, and doing so puts everyone’s lives at risk.

    Let me turn to an operational update. Around 200 protests took place across the country over the weekend, attended by over 100,000 people. As many as 137,500 people have now attended Black Lives Matter protests across the UK. While the majority were peaceful, a lawless minority of protesters have regrettably turned to violence. The worst violence flared in London on Saturday evening, with missiles and flares being thrown at police officers outside Downing Street. Officers in ​protective equipment were deployed to arrest the culprits and to clear the area. At least 35 officers have now been injured during the protests in the capital. I salute their bravery and wish them a swift recovery. The thugs and criminals responsible are already being brought to justice. This is a fluid situation, but as of this morning the total number of arrests stood at 135.

    As the ugly tally of officer assaults shows, some protestors, regrettably, turned to violence and abusive behaviour at the weekend. This hooliganism is utterly indefensible; there is no justification for it. There is no excuse for pelting flares at brave officers, throwing bikes at police horses, attempting to disrespect the Cenotaph or vandalising the statue of Winston Churchill, one of the greatest protectors of our freedoms who has ever lived. It is not for mobs to tear down statues and cause criminal damage in our streets, and it is not acceptable for thugs to racially abuse black police officers for doing their jobs. The criminals responsible for these unlawful and reckless acts are betraying the very cause they purport to serve. These protests are about injustice, but by attacking our courageous police they are acting in a wholly unjust way.

    When I became Home Secretary, I vowed to back the police. I said that I would stand with the brave men and women of our police and security services, and against the criminals. I stand by that today, proudly and without apology, because, as we saw at the weekend, we ask our frontline police officers to do the most difficult of jobs: to run towards danger to ensure that we are not in danger; to put their own lives on the line to protect the public; and to uphold the rule of law and the rights of individuals against the disorder that we have seen in recent days. By doing that, the police in our country give us all the very security we need to live our lives as we choose.

    That is an essential part of our freedom, because violence, disorder and crime blight communities and society as a whole. So the police need to know that they have a Prime Minister, a Home Secretary and a Government who stand with them and will give them the tools, powers and resources they need to keep us safe—and they do. Police funding has had its biggest uplift in a decade, increasing by more than £1 billion, and we are recruiting an additional 20,000 police officers to keep our streets and our country safe. They will have my full support in upholding the rule of law, and in tackling violence, vandalism and disorderly criminal behaviour. I could not be clearer: I want to see the violent minority responsible arrested and brought to justice.

    I agree with the many peaceful protestors that racism has absolutely no place in our society. Black lives matter, but police brutality in the United States is no excuse for the violence against our brave police officers at home. So to the quiet law-abiding majority who are appalled by this violence and who have continued to live their lives within the rules, I say: “I hear you.” To the police, who have been subject to the most dreadful abuse, I say: “You have my full backing as you act proportionately, fairly and courageously to maintain law and order.” And to the criminal minority who have subverted this cause with their thuggery, I simply say this: “Your behaviour is shameful and you will face justice.” I commend this statement to the House.​

    Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)

    I thank the Home Secretary for her statement and for advance sight of it. Like everyone in the House, I was appalled by the killing of George Floyd. His fateful words, “I can’t breathe” not only haunt us, but have become a catalyst for people across America and the world to say that the racism that continues to shame everyday life must stop. People in our communities with lived experiences and family legacies of the prejudice that black people in the United Kingdom face have bravely stepped forward. I want to be absolutely clear: I hear you and, not that it should need saying, black lives matter.

    Words are important, but we cannot allow this moment of global demand for justice to pass without action: we on the Labour Benches will be at the forefront of calls for change. What is never a solution, though, is violence or vandalism. The vast majority of protestors are peaceful, but some of the actions we have seen from a minority are unacceptable. I condemn those who have attacked the police, and I pay tribute to the police officers who put themselves in harm’s way over the weekend. I hope the Home Secretary will update us on the condition of the 27 injured officers, including one in hospital, and the injured protester. When it comes to the statue of Edward Colston, I do not condone an act of criminal damage to remove it, but I will not miss a public statue of a slave trader. It should have been taken down many years ago.

    At a time when politicians and public health experts are rightly stressing the need for caution around protests given the risk of coronavirus—I stress that again today—and the importance of social distancing, the imperative on those in power is all the greater to show that they have listened and that they understand the scale of the anger and the desire for meaningful action. At moments like this, it is for our leaders to unite communities, heal divisions and confront the injustices in our society.

    Public Health England recently published its report on the disparities in the risk and outcomes of covid-19, showing that black males are four times more likely than expected to die with covid-19. The recommendations of that report need to be made public now. Coronavirus has shone a light on inequalities that have long existed. The damning findings of the Wendy Williams Windrush review need to be heeded and its recommendations acted upon. The Home Secretary said earlier that she was looking at them, but she urgently needs to come to the House and tell us the action she is taking.

    My right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) produced a report in September 2017 on the treatment of and outcomes for black, Asian and minority ethnic people from first point of contact with the police and then throughout the criminal justice system. It showed that black people make up around 3% of the general population but accounted for 12% of adult prisoners and more than 20% of children in custody. Those shameful statistics matter, and the Government should implement the report’s recommendations in full. In recent days, we have heard powerful testimonies from so many people on how racism continues to have an impact on daily lives in our country. Does the Home Secretary agree that now is not the moment for divisive rhetoric? Instead, this is a time for the Government to listen, to learn and to act.

    ​Priti Patel

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for his thoughtful comments and his considered response not only to my statement but to the appalling events that we have seen, and the violence in particular. He is absolutely right about the processes around the removal of the statue and the violence that was associated with it. We live in an open society and in a democracy. We have the means and mechanisms to bring statues down and to change society in the way we wish.

    The hon. Gentleman is right about peaceful protest, which remains an important part of society and the way in which we have our voices heard—the way in which we come together to combat the inequalities across society, to give service to those communities who sometimes feel that they have no voice and to find ways to bring together the aspects that can help to change lives and bring social justice together, rather than causing divisiveness in the way that was alluded to.

    The hon. Gentleman referred to a number of points, some of which were aired during oral questions. When it comes to the Windrush review, I could not have been clearer: I will return to this House to talk about the recommendations within the context of inequality and many of the criticisms that were levelled at the Home Office over a substantial period. It is right that we do that.

    The hon. Gentleman spoke about health inequalities, life chances and the lack of opportunities—particularly for the black community—as well as violence and the criminal justice system. These are issues that we have to tackle together to understand the root causes and societal causes but also, importantly, to provide the right solutions and the right support to the community across the country.

    I echo the hon. Gentleman’s words about our police officers, in particular the injured officers, who have sustained the most appalling injuries. I spoke to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner this morning and heard from her that the officers are recovering. They have sustained some awful, horrendous injuries, including a punctured lung and, where the bike was thrown at the horse, a broken collarbone. I wish all the officers a swift and good recovery. That type of behaviour is thoroughly unacceptable and is exactly what we never want to see again on our streets.

    When it comes to coronavirus, our police continue to operate by consent and ensuring community engagement, which is at the heart of policing by consent in the United Kingdom. They have the support of the communities within which they operate and work with the organisers. However, the police and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner have been absolutely clear that, with the protests that we saw over the weekend, there were no community organisers to engage with. I made a plea on Saturday and urged all the community organisers behind the protests to engage with the police, so that people could protest safely and prevent the spread of the virus, and also violence and disorder could be prevented from taking place. Sadly, that did not happen. Going forward, we must work together collectively to prevent acts of violence and thuggery of the kind that we saw at the weekend and ensure that people who want their voices heard can find the right ways of doing that without necessarily coming on to the streets and protesting.

    Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)

    Does the Home Secretary agree that the best way to ensure that black lives matter is peaceful protest and working ​to improve social justice and economic opportunities for black people and other ethnic minorities, not the lawless, senseless violence of a small minority or defacing war memorials and public monuments, which can undermine the whole message and, indeed, the Black Lives Matter movement as a whole?

    Priti Patel

    My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When it comes to inequalities and the injustice that has been shown and felt throughout the black community in particular, there is no doubt that racism and discrimination in any shape or form have no place at all in our country and society. That is why it is important that we work collectively to address injustice, secure social justice for the communities in question and combat inequalities across all of society, and also, importantly, improve people’s life chances, opportunity and hope, which we should all be united on.

    Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)

    May I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement? I extend my best wishes for a full recovery to all the police officers who suffered injury during the trouble in London and pay tribute to their brave service. I also unreservedly condemn the violence and disorder that took place. However, it is important that we do not let a minority distract us from the legitimate concerns of the Black Lives Matter movement.

    The desire to take to the streets to protest is understandable, and one thing that I hope we share across the House is a cherishing of our freedom of speech, freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. The right to protest peacefully is a fundamental part of those rights. However, we are in the midst of a public health crisis. Having regard to that, the Justice Secretary in Scotland, Humza Yousaf, joined prominent anti-racism activists to urge people in Scotland to plan protests against racial injustice in a way that safeguards them and the wider public from the ongoing threat from covid-19. Protests went ahead in Glasgow and Edinburgh, but I am pleased to say that they were peaceful, and I know that the organisers and participants tried hard to maintain social distancing.

    Does the Home Secretary agree that it is important that we do not let the minority who engaged in violent disorder detract from the legitimacy of the concerns of the protesters and the Black Lives Matter movement?

    Does she also agree it is important that all those in public life are careful not to do or say anything that might polarise the situation, as Trump has done in America? Finally, will she use this opportunity to make a clear commitment to review all Government policies where there is evidence that they impact adversely on BAME communities? For instance, evidence shows that the no recourse to public funds policy, to which I referred earlier, clearly discriminates against black, Asian and minority ethnic communities. Will she commit not just to bringing back the Windrush report to this House, but to implementing the recommendations in that lessons learned review?

    Priti Patel

    I thank the hon. and learned Lady for her remarks and her support for police officers, while also respecting the right to protest in a safe, sensible, and proportionate way, as we are in this public health emergency. It is important to labour the point that these protests are about injustice. It is right that we come together to ​find the right way, collectively, to tackle those injustices, fight for social justice, and deliver social justice for black, Asian and minority ethnic communities. As we have seen on our streets, however, by attacking our courageous police a small minority of individuals have acted in a wholly unjust way. The hon. and learned Lady mentioned the events in America, and it is dreadful, utterly heart-wrenching, and sad to see the level of protests there as well. As we saw over the weekend, a small minority of people are subverting the cause that people are protesting about.

    We will continue to fight to solve inequalities and injustices. Earlier the hon. and learned Lady mentioned the policy of no recourse to public funds, as well as the Wendy Williams review and report. She also mentioned health inequalities, particularly for black and minority ethnic communities, and it was right for the Government to address that issue in the House last week. We must collectively come together. The Minister for Equalities is looking at this issue right now, and we must find an integral, overall approach across Government, with combined policies, not just one, to look at how we can serve those communities better, and address many of the inequalities that have been brought to light over recent weeks.

    Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con) [V]

    We all agree there is injustice in the world, but does the Home Secretary agree with many of my constituents that images of demonstrators throwing bikes at police officers, aiming fireworks at horses, and racially abusing other people, are simply unacceptable? The irony is that public sector workers have recently been applauded, yet now those same people are being put at risk of physical harm through both violence and a pandemic. Will she take every possible step, including with the co-operation and agreement of the Mayor of London, to prevent any further demonstrations during the period of pandemic?

    Priti Patel

    My hon. Friend has made important points. I have already made my view abundantly clear about how unacceptable the violence was that we witnessed on the streets, and the assaults on police officers. Hon. Members will understand that operational decisions on policing come under the operational independence of chief constables, and the Commissioner of Police in London. Police and crime commissioners also have responsibility for the totality of policing in their force area.

    For future protests, it is the responsibility of the Mayor of London to ensure that when it comes to policing, protests in particular do not manifest in the way they have done. He has a duty to communicate to Londoners that they should express their own views in a right and proportionate way, by sticking to the regulations that have been outlined by the Government. I made my views clear over the weekend, as did the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care: we do not want to see these protests take place. We are in the midst of a health pandemic, and by gathering in such a way, people’s lives are being put at risk. That does not help anybody; that will not stop the spread of the virus or protect the NHS. The Mayor of London has an important role to play right now, and I urge him to step up and do exactly that.

    Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)

    I join all the Front Benchers in sending support and best wishes to all the police officers who have been ​injured, and in their strong sense that violence by a minority is always unacceptable and helps no one. There is a responsibility on us all to ensure that this does not prevent us from coming together to respond to the strong demands for action against racism and injustice across the country.

    In that spirit, the Home Secretary will know that the Home Affairs Committee is conducting an inquiry into policing, two decades on from the Macpherson report. Next week, we will look at reports that covid-19 enforcement fines may have been disproportionately applied to BME communities. Has she looked at that, and what has she found? Will she provide for the Committee a list of all the practical steps that she and the Home Office are now taking to tackle injustice and racism?

    Priti Patel

    I thank the right hon. Lady for her questions and for her work on this matter with the Home Affairs Committee. I will absolutely provide the Committee with the information she asks for. I look forward to working with her to outline the practical steps and measures, particularly around fixed penalty notices and enforcement issues throughout the coronavirus crisis, and to address many policing issues 20 years on since the Macpherson report. I know from all the conversations I have had with the Met police commissioner —not only over recent days but over several months now—that when it comes to diversifying London’s police force and all our police forces, we must make sure that we do everything within our power to address cultural issues, improve training and do more when it comes to recruitment. We must also ensure that all officers, across the country and in London, understand that they serve the communities in which they police and understand the communities of which they are members.

    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)

    The House is grateful to the Home Secretary for taking the trouble to answer in great detail all the questions that have so far have been asked, but now that quite a few questions have been asked, we will have to speed up a bit, to try to get everyone in. I make no criticism—these are sensitive matters and need to be dealt with in full—but perhaps now we can go rather faster.

    Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)

    I am pleased to say that in north Wales the protests passed off peacefully over the weekend. Does the Home Secretary agree that we have a tradition of effective, peaceful protest in this country, and can she reassure us that those who perpetrated acts of violence or criminal damage over the weekend will be brought to justice?

    Priti Patel

    My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I give my thanks to his local police force and the officers that policed the protest at the weekend. He is absolutely right: we want to ensure that swift justice occurs, sending a clear message to the perpetrators of serious violence that we do not want to see a repeat of it.

    Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)

    Vandalism and violence should never be accepted. I too pay tribute to the hard-working officers who have been on the frontline, including officers from my borough of Lambeth, who are often the first to be called whenever there is a protest because of our proximity to central London. Does the Home Secretary actually understand the anger ​and frustration felt by so many people? Does the Home Secretary recognise that this protest is being led by young people? Does the Home Secretary recognise that there is structural inequality, discrimination and racism in our country? Does the Home Secretary recognise that people want to see action from the Government?

    My son turned three yesterday. I do not want to have to wait until he is a teenager before we see changes in this country. Will the Home Secretary and the Government act now? Black lives matter, and we need to see the Government doing something about that.

    Priti Patel

    I would make a number of points to the hon. Lady. I have been very clear in my remarks about the level of injustice that is felt across the country, and that has been illustrated in what we have seen over the weekend and the very peaceful protests that have taken place, but I am really saddened that she has effectively said that this Government do not understand racial inequality. [Interruption.] On that basis, it must have been a very different Home Secretary who as a child was frequently called a Paki in the playground; a very different Home Secretary who was racially abused in the streets or even advised to drop her surname and use her husband’s in order to advance her career; and a different Home Secretary who was recently characterised in The Guardian—if I may say so, Madam Deputy Speaker—as a fat cow with a ring through its nose, something that was not only racist but offensive, both culturally and religiously. This is hardly an example of respect, equality, tolerance or fairness, so when it comes to racism, sexism, tolerance or social justice, I will not take lectures from the those other side of the House.

    I have already said repeatedly that there is no place for racism in our country or in society and, sadly, too many people are too willing to casually dismiss the contributions of those who do not necessarily conform to preconceived views or ideas about how ethnic minorities should behave or think. This in my view is racist in itself. As I said earlier, both in my statement and in my answers to other colleagues in the House, to combat the real inequalities in society and to end the gross disservice to many communities across our nation who are subject to real and pressing inequalities, we must address these sensitive issues in an accurate and responsible way and by addressing prejudice rather than inciting and inflaming tensions.

    Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)

    I was going to say how good it is to hear this House so united—in the main, it is united in its support for peaceful protest, particularly one that is tackling prejudice and unfairness, and also in its support for the police. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to support the police is to deter future violent crime by making sure that everybody who is guilty of things such as throwing missiles at police—we have all seen those videos, and that video footage should be studied—is arrested, charged and prosecuted?

    Priti Patel

    My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and those people should be in no doubt whatever that swift justice will follow, and that is exactly what the British public want to see. They want to see the rule of law ​applied, but also for people to express their views in a peaceful way that is in line with the democratic values of our country.

    Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)

    I want to add my voice to those who have condemned the minority of people at the weekend who were acting in a violent way towards the police, and I wish those injured officers a speedy recovery, but Secretary of State, does it not just fuel the suspicion of people from the BAME community when the recommendations of something like the Public Health England report are withheld? Are they not bound to suspect that that is the establishment feeling that it is likely to be embarrassed and made to feel awkward by those recommendations? Should they not be published?

    Priti Patel

    I say to the hon. Gentleman, first, that he is speaking to a Home Secretary who is from the BAME community, so there is no withholding of the data or information that he is referring to. The Government have been fully committed, and the Equalities Minister is working to not just look at the data but, importantly, work across Government—I think the House needs to fully recognise this—through all Government Departments from a policy perspective to understand the causes, whether they are health issues or housing issues, and the range of issues that basically dominate many inequalities. It is important that the Government have the time and space to do that, to actually deliver the right solutions to provide the right levels of social justice.

    Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP) [V]

    In Midlothian and Edinburgh, there are streets, a statue and other local references to Henry Dundas, but there is no mention in any of those locations of his shameful role in delaying the abolition of slavery, which forced some 630,000 slaves to wait for more than a decade for their freedom. Does the Home Secretary agree with the leading human rights activist Professor Sir Geoff Palmer that we cannot erase parts of history, and that a more honest narrative is needed about memorialised figures in the slave trade as a crucial step in our journey to becoming a fair and inclusive society?

    Priti Patel

    The approach for becoming and being a fair and inclusive society also applies to the democratic ways in which we can express our views around cultural monuments, statues and street names. Whether we are talking about a statue or any other type of memorial, people should work through the correct democratic processes, with local authorities and the right individuals, to achieve the change that they want to see.

    Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)

    Fortunately, my constituency has had a low infection rate from covid, but in recent weeks people have been anxious about an influx of visitors to the resort. You can imagine, Home Secretary, that they are doubly anxious this coming week—

    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)

    Order. I am trying not to interrupt people, because we do not have much time, but we must adhere to the standards of this place. The hon. Gentleman knows—a previous hon. Gentleman got this wrong too—that you cannot address the Home Secretary as “Home Secretary”; you must address the Chair. There are still new Members ​who do not quite know how to do this. There are good reasons for it that we do not have time to go into now, but the hon. Gentleman must address the Chair.

    Martin Vickers

    My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker.

    My right hon. Friend will be aware that my residents are doubly anxious because a Black Lives Matters protest meeting is planned for this Saturday. Could she assure my constituents that not only will property and people be defended but social distancing will be enforced to maintain the low infection rate?

    Priti Patel

    My hon. Friend makes a very important point. I reiterate the point I made earlier: we have asked protest organisers to engage with the police. That way, anybody who wishes to express their views or opinions in the right way—in a socially distanced and legitimate way—can do so. We do not want the type of scenes we saw at the weekend, with mass protests and crowds of more than six people coming together and obviously not social distancing. We are in the midst of a pandemic and it is right that we all behave responsibly and communicate the message across all our communities that social distancing matters and can and will save lives and importantly that we continue to control this virus at this very delicate time.

    Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)

    My hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) quoted Martin Luther King on social media this morning when she said:

    “in spite of temporary victories, violence never brings permanent peace”.

    Does my right hon. Friend agree that the violence over the weekend undermines the essential message of Black Lives Matters, which must be heard?

    Priti Patel

    My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have made the point repeatedly that the violence dominated what was for the majority a peaceful protest and subverted its very clear message. People were making their voices heard and articulating the injustices they see. There is no place for violence and it should not be tolerated.

    Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)

    Does my right hon. Friend agree that nobody reasonable could ever conclude that accidents of thuggery by police officers on the streets of Minneapolis could ever justify acts of thuggery against police officers on the streets of London, and will she do everything in her power to ensure that there is no repetition of the events of last weekend?

    Priti Patel

    My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have spoken about the violence, disorder and criminality witnessed on the streets of London this weekend. I will continue to work with chief constables and police and crime commissioners across the country, as will my hon. Friend the Minister for Crime and Policing, to make that point again and again. While we support the right to protest, we are in a health emergency. It is right that we protect the public, but it is also right that our police forces uphold the rule of law.

    John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)

    The violence at the weekend was simply wrong—that is straightforward —but would the Home Secretary agree that we should ​look at what President Trump is doing in America and do the exact opposite, and instead of encouraging bitterness, anger and even violence, which is what he is doing daily, we should be showing leadership, bringing people together and opposing racism everywhere?

    Priti Patel

    These protests are about injustice. What we have seen in America is dreadful—it is absolutely awful to see America tear itself apart—but, as I have said repeatedly, we can come together to address issues across all BAME communities and to address inequalities, the issue of young people’s life chances and the fact that they want more hope and opportunity. That is the type of leadership that the United Kingdom can show.

    Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)

    Residents in Stoke-on-Trent, Kidsgrove and Talke were rightly outraged when they saw the Cenotaph graffitied and attempts to burn our Union Jack, desecrating the memories of those who paid the ultimate sacrifice for the freedoms we have today. Will my right hon. Friend back me in supporting Lewis Feilder and Conservative Friends of the Armed Forces by introducing a desecration of war memorials Bill to enable our police and courts to more easily prosecute those who damage our sacred memorials?

    Priti Patel

    I completely support that sentiment and the point that my hon. Friend just made.

    Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)

    None of us in this place or, I believe, anywhere in the country wants to see violence and vandalism on the street. None of us wanted to see a large gathering of people at a time when social distancing is so vital for public health. More than that, none of us wanted to see the mindless violence against our police officers. But does the Home Secretary not agree that the answer to that is not to ramp up the rhetoric and throw more police officers into the fray? It is to look at the systemic injustice that there is in this country and invest in social programmes and in tackling that injustice. I would not suggest for a minute that the Home Secretary does not understand racism, but I ask her to rethink the Government’s strategy for dealing with the injustice that we have in society today.

    Priti Patel

    First, when it comes to policing, our police continue to operate by consent. They command the respect and co-operation of the British people by acting with integrity and accountability, and they do that in an outstanding way. When it comes to addressing social injustices and inequalities, as I have said repeatedly this afternoon, it is right that we come together as a Government and, in fact, as a House, because all right hon. and hon. Members have a duty to their own communities to be part of the solution in addressing the injustices. That is something that we can all collectively work to achieve.

    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)

    I must implore Members: a lot of people have bothered to come here this afternoon and they are not all going to get to ask a question because most Members have not asked questions but have made statements and told stories. From now on we will have to have short questions, and that means one question. The Home Secretary will then be able to give short answers to single questions.

    ​Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)

    I will very much try to do that, Madam Deputy Speaker.

    We are lucky to live in this country under the protection of the rule of law, not least because of the actions of Winston Churchill, who defended the rule of law and defended this country against industrialised racism. Does the Home Secretary agree that under the rule of law, violence and vandalism have no place?

    Priti Patel

    My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

    Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)

    Black Lives Matter protests have been held throughout Wales and I, too, stand against the injustice and violence faced by black people here and elsewhere. The vast majority of protesters respected social distancing or made innovative use of communications technology. Will the Home Secretary give due credit to the peaceful majority? For example, school student—

    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)

    Order. We do not need examples. The question has been asked. [Interruption.] Order. The question has been asked.

    Priti Patel

    The right hon. Lady is right that we should absolutely reflect on the majority who have protested peacefully, and I commend the young people in particular. Online protests are much safer when it comes to the health epidemic that we are enduring right now. Importantly, the voices of those who protested peacefully have in effect been subverted through the violence that we saw this weekend.

    Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)

    I wish to say how appalled I was by the damage to the Winston Churchill monument on the 76th anniversary of D-day. My constituents and I are absolutely appalled. The people who did that are ignorant fools and should be properly held to account. The big job is to get the balance right between respectful, peaceful protest and preventing criminal damage and mass destruction. Does my right hon. Friend think we have the right balance at the moment? Do the police have the powers that they need to get that balance right?

    Priti Patel

    The important point to note is that for those who participated in violence and thuggery, justice will follow, and the police have all the powers and tools necessary to ensure that that happens.

    Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP) [V]

    I share the Home Secretary’s condemnation of anyone who engages in acts of violence, yet there remain valid concerns about the exporting of riot gear, tear gas and rubber bullets to the US, where some police forces have engaged in brutal crackdowns against peaceful protesters. Will she join the calls to her colleagues in the Department for International Trade to immediately suspend export licences for this equipment to the US?

    Priti Patel

    The hon. Lady will know that the Government as a whole consider all export applications thoroughly against a strict risk assessment. All exports to the United States are conducted in line with strict guidance, and the United Kingdom operates one of the most robust licensing regimes in the world.

    ​Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)

    I thank my right hon. Friend for reassuring the country that the individuals who desecrated the Cenotaph, Winston Churchill’s statue and the statue of Abraham Lincoln will be held to account. Does she agree that vandalising monuments to the heroes who defeated fascism, defended our freedoms and ended slavery in the United States does absolutely nothing to further the cause of equality?

    Priti Patel

    My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Those acts of violence were wholly counterproductive and that is why it is important that justice follows and the police pursue the individuals who are responsible for those crimes.

    Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP) [V]

    It is important to recognise that the majority of the weekend’s protests, including those in Glasgow and Edinburgh, were peaceful, but to show that black lives really matter, we must examine the deeds of the past, so will the Home Secretary now commit to removing statues of slave traders from public places of honour?

    Priti Patel

    The hon. Lady is right to point to peaceful protests, which are a vital part of a democratic society, and she asks about the removal of statues of particular individuals. She will know that there are democratic processes that should be followed and respected by everybody to bring about that change, including working with councils of all colours across the country—Labour, Conservative and Lib Dem councils—with due process followed. That is absolutely the right approach to take, including following the rule of law.

    Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)

    Throughout the pandemic, our police officers have put themselves in danger to uphold the rule of law, save lives and serve our communities. Does my right hon. Friend join me in condemning the actions of violent agitators over the weekend? Not only have they put our brave police officers at risk, but their actions have taken away from the reasonable, careful and important voice of lawful demonstrators.

    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)

    Order. Just before the Home Secretary answers that question, could everyone who is still to speak please just take their pen through their introductory remarks and ask a question? It is not really very difficult—just cut out the first bit.

    Priti Patel

    My hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden) is absolutely right.

    Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)

    We will try again. Does the Home Secretary agree that the Government should remove statues of British figures involved in the slave trade? Further, does she agree that the lives of black people who have died following contact with police, such as Sarah Reed and Rashan Charles, are worth more than any statue?

    Priti Patel

    The hon. Lady will be well aware—perhaps she would like to lobby local authorities across the country to bring about the changes to statues. I notice that she celebrated the violence and criminal scenes that we saw across the weekend. I thought that the politics of ​protest and placards had left the Labour party with the departure of the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn).

    Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)

    I am proud that it was a Conservative Government who introduced Finn’s law to protect our service animals. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that she will not rest until the minority of thugs involved in attacking the police horse, as well as, of course, our brave officers, are brought to justice?

    Priti Patel

    My hon. Friend is absolutely right. What we witnessed at the weekend was utterly despicable. I look forward to visiting the mounted police section quite soon. I have had it with authority from the Metropolitan Police Commissioner that the injuries to the horse were mild, but importantly, she highlighted yet again how the acts of thuggery are disproportionate to not just police officers, but the animals.

    Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)

    Edward Colston made his fortune by violently transporting 84,000 Africans to the Caribbean. At least 19,000 died en route. Statues of racist murderers like Colston can be found in cities across Britain, so I ask the Home Secretary a simple question: does she believe that it is right that black Britons have to walk in the shadows of statues glorifying people who enslaved and murdered their ancestors—yes or no?

    Priti Patel

    I hope that the hon. Lady will join me in lobbying councils across the country where Labour has been in charge for many years to bring about the change that black, Asian and minority ethnic people would like to see.

    Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)

    Does my right hon. Friend agree that we must not let the violence of a minority this weekend overshadow the majority who were peacefully protesting, and that we must bring forward practical steps to address the remaining racial inequality in our society?

    Priti Patel

    My hon. Friend is absolutely right, which is why the Equalities Minister is working across Government to address many of the issues around social injustice that need to be tackled.

    Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP) [V]

    Many Elizabethan British heroes used violence to enhance their wealth. Does the Home Secretary agree that violence is never part of the solution, but if we can educate our citizens in where we have been, what we have done and to whom, that will provide the basis for an equal and humane society?

    Priti Patel

    The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. Violent activity can never be regarded as a legitimate form of protest. I do not just expect those who engage in violent activity to face the full force of the law; importantly, we should ensure that those who have a legitimate voice are heard through the right means.

    Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)

    With regard to public order, may I ask my right hon. Friend to continue the policy of stop and search, and get knives off the street so it is not just black lives matter, but all lives matter?

    ​Priti Patel

    My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the most extraordinary—

    Nadia Whittome

    All lives can’t matter until black lives matter.

    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)

    Order.

    Priti Patel

    One of the important facts about stop and search, which I have experienced myself when meeting the parents of young black men who have been murdered on the streets of London, is its significance in taking weaponry off our streets. That is important for all Members of this House to recognise. When I have seen those parents, sat with them and heard their stories, they have called for more stop and search in order to stop more young black lives being killed, and to prevent more criminal and violent activities on the streets of our cities.

    Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)

    There is no place for racism or discrimination in our society, but it is there; it is everywhere, and it is crushing the hopes and lives of millions in this country. I condemn the violence and vandalism, but the vast majority of the protests were peaceful. I want to hear from the Home Secretary what she is actually going to do to eradicate the racism that she condemns so that we do not need to have more protests in five, 10 and 15 years.

    Priti Patel

    The important point is that this is not down to one individual. We all have a responsibility—[Interruption.] Yes, and we all have a responsibility—across Government, across this House and across society—to understand the inequalities and the extent of the injustices. From a Government perspective, that means coming together and finding the right policy solutions, which this Government are committed to doing.

    Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)

    Will my right hon. Friend join me in thanking County Durham residents for maintaining both peace and social distancing at the protests in Durham this weekend? Will she also join me in calling for all those who acted lawlessly and violently against our police to face the full weight of the law as quickly as possible?

    Priti Patel

    My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I congratulate her constabulary for the work that it has done, and the chief constable, who I have spoken to recently. Those acts of violence are not acceptable and it is right that those people face the full force of the law.

    Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP) [V]

    No recourse to public funds is a policy that is in place at the Home Office that disproportionately affects my black constituents, as is the refusal rate of visitor visas. Will the Home Secretary commit to looking at these structurally racist policies within the Home Office, and to reforming them so that they do not disproportionately affect my black constituents?

    Priti Patel

    I refer the hon. Lady to my comments on this issue earlier on.

    Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)

    My right hon. Friend has offered her full support to our police in tackling violence, vandalism and disorderly behaviour. Will she encourage the Mayor of London to follow her lead?

    ​Priti Patel

    My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is the responsibility of the elected Mayor of London, the police and crime commissioner for London, to do exactly that.

    Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)

    Many people in Bath, Bristol and the surrounding areas have said that the statue of Edward Colston should have been removed many years ago. Does the Home Secretary agree?

    Priti Patel

    The question is, why wasn’t it and why did the Labour Mayor not do that sooner?

    James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)

    Will the Home Secretary join me in paying tribute to the fortitude, professionalism and patience of our police forces in the face of yet more unnecessary aggression and violence?

    Priti Patel

    Our police officers and police forces have shown great courage over the weekend and throughout the protests. I absolutely stand with them and support them as they have faced a criminal minority with the dreadful approach that they have taken and shown.

    Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)

    My inbox, like many, is full of emails from constituents demanding that we decry racism and police brutality, and I absolutely applaud that. One such constituent, Zohra, a second-generation British Indian chartered accountant and mum of three children, tells me that according to INQUEST, the proportion of BAME deaths in custody where restraint is a feature is twice as many as other deaths in custody. To build trust with communities, what can the Home Secretary tell us that the Government are doing to end that injustice?

    Priti Patel

    It is important to understand the facts and figures around deaths in police custody. In 2018-19, there were 16 deaths in custody of whom 15 individuals were from a white background and one was black. It is important that the Independent Office for Police Conduct looks at all investigations in the right way and holds to account police forces when deaths in police custody take place, and that is exactly what happens.

    Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)

    It is the dehumanising of the other that makes it okay to violently attack a stranger, whether that stranger be black or white. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should listen to the peaceful voices of the BAME communities, celebrate our civilian unarmed police who look after us all, and celebrate our common humanity?

    Priti Patel

    My hon. Friend is absolutely right about celebrating our common humanity, the diversity of our great country, and the people who have taken to the streets and expressed their views in a balanced, proportionate and peaceful way. When it comes to our police, I absolutely stand with them. They showed great courage and determination over the weekend.

    Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)

    We will overlook the irony of the Home Secretary saying that mass gatherings are unlawful, while hundreds of us are required to gather here in Westminster. I wonder if she believes that the hostile immigration environment, indefinite detention, no recourse to public funds, destitution and no family reunion for unaccompanied minors sends a message that black lives matter to this Government?

    ​Priti Patel

    I have been very clear about the protests over the weekend, and about how the Government and all Members of Parliament should look to work together to address issues of social injustice.

    Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)

    My right hon. Friend has quite properly said that residents should lobby local authorities to raise principled objections to offensive statues, but Bristolians have lamented the inconsistent response of their local authority. Will my right hon. Friend consider publishing guidance not to determine outcomes but to create uniform principles, so that law-abiding citizens who object to statues can feel sure that their complaints are heard?

    Priti Patel

    My hon. Friend makes a valid and important point. If people want change when it comes to their local authorities and police and crime commissioners, they can do that the democratic way, which is through the ballot box.

    Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)

    Will the right hon. Lady congratulate both Nottinghamshire police and the Nottingham protest organisers on their efforts to ensure that yesterday’s event was peaceful and safe? In particular, will she congratulate the young protesters who stopped and set about cleaning up graffiti that they witnessed on the Council House in Nottingham? Will she tell us whether the Government have raised their concerns through official channels about the shocking and divisive reaction from the President and the United States authorities to peaceful protest there?

    Priti Patel

    Peaceful protest remains a vital part of our democratic society, as the hon. Lady has said, but what we witnessed over the weekend was terrible. We talk about community spirit and communities coming together when it comes to understanding the strength of feeling and people expressing their views in the right kind of way. I have already spoken about the United States of America, and what we are seeing over there is a tragedy.

    Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)

    Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should push for the harshest possible sentences on the perpetrators of the violence not only for causing the violence but for undermining the key message of equality and for helping to spread the coronavirus?

    Priti Patel

    As we saw post the 2010 and 2011 riots, it is important that we see swift justice. We have a process of swift justice in place to ensure that justice is served for the appalling acts that we have seen over the weekend.

    Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)

    Watching on the television, I thought the police seemed to be holding back. They will have been holding back for good operational reasons such as that they did not want too many people hurt. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that the police have every power they need to cope with future riots such as the one that they had to go through on Saturday?

    Priti Patel

    My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He will know of the operational independence of our police forces. Obviously, police and crime commissioners have ​responsibility for the totality of policing within their force areas. When it comes to resource and support of our police officers, I am unequivocal: we have given the police the highest funding uplift in more than a decade; we are equipping and training them so that they are equipped at the highest level and to the highest standard, and that, of course, will continue.

    Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP) [V]

    The use of rubber bullets in the UK is, thankfully, rare, but not so in the US. It has been identified that the bullets have a 15% rate of permanent disability and a 3% fatality rate. Can the right hon. Lady assure me that they will not be used here, and, if they will not be used here, will she end their export to the US?

    Priti Patel

    I have just been reliably told by the Policing Minister that rubber bullets are not authorised for use on the mainland.

    Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)

    As a Bristol MP, I want to commend the police for how they handled things yesterday; it was a very difficult situation for them. Does the Home Secretary agree that we need to look at the underlying reasons for people going out on the streets to protest yesterday, and accept that austerity, covid-19 and many other issues are factors behind that?

    Priti Patel

    The hon. Lady raised a number of issues. First, I have spoken to the chief constable of Avon and Somerset and the Policing Minister and I have had a considerable debrief on what happened yesterday. With regard to the protests, I have already spoken about the right to protest in a peaceful, lawful and respectful manner. What we witnessed yesterday was mob rule, which is completely out of kilter with the rule of law and unacceptable.

    Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Con)

    The protests in Birmingham last week were very peaceful, but unfortunately the same cannot be said for the weekend’s protests in London. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is never any excuse for thuggish and violent behaviour against our police officers?

    Priti Patel

    My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

    Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)

    I congratulate many of the peaceful protesters and the police and authorities that have helped to facilitate those protests, while acknowledging that the UK is still a racist country for many people. The Home Secretary is eager to comment on operational matters, but stays quiet, of course, when the Prime Minister encouraged lots of sunbathers, predominantly white, to mass-gather on the beaches of Brighton. Is it only black protesters who are the problem and not white sunbathers? Will she ensure that messages are coherent on this issue, and will she speak out—

    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)

    I call the Home Secretary.

    Priti Patel

    The Government’s position on coronavirus could not be any clearer—

    Lloyd Russell-Moyle

    Incoherent!

    Madam Deputy Speaker

    Stop shouting.

    ​Priti Patel

    It is coherent. The hon. Gentleman should understand the message of saving lives, staying alert and not participating in mass gatherings of six or more people. To do so is dangerous to public health. I have made that point today. In fact, the Health Secretary, who was in the Chamber before this statement, echoed those points as well. I say to the hon. Gentleman that we are in a public health emergency. It is down to all of us—whether as local MPs, councillors or citizens in our community—to make sure that we all uphold those standards, as the majority of the public have done, so that we can save lives and protect the NHS.

    Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)

    Everyone has the right to peaceful, lawful protest, but in a pandemic they do not, whatever the cause, have the right to act in a way that could impact on others who choose not to hit the streets in a mass gathering. Does the Home Secretary take the view that as well as Ministers pleading with the public to stay away on health grounds, police forces should warn those who organise such events that they are organising what are currently illegal gatherings?

    Priti Patel

    My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This comes back to the point that I made earlier. Many of the organisers behind these protests are not engaging with the police. Police forces around the country have worked incredibly hard over the last 10 or 11 weeks to get the message out there by engaging with their communities, and they will continue to do so.

    Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)

    Given the risk that the protests may cause a second wave of this virus, and given the disgraceful violence and destruction that we have seen, does the Home Secretary agree that it is time to give the police greater powers to control demonstrations and marches where police commanders believe there is serious risk to public health, public order and property?

    Priti Patel

    This weekend has shown that these protests are a threat to public health. On those grounds alone, our police officers are working night and day across the country to reiterate that point and communicate that message. My final comment is that the operational independence of chief constables is recognised in law, and the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 gives police and crime commissioners responsibility for policing within their forces. It is important that they reiterate many of these essential messages.

  • Matt Hancock – 2020 Statement on the R-Rate

    Matt Hancock – 2020 Statement on the R-Rate

    Below is the text of the statement made by Matt Hancock, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, in the House of Commons on 8 June 2020.

    Thank you, Mr Speaker, for this opportunity to update the House on progress on our plans for controlling coronavirus.

    Thanks to the immense national effort on social distancing, as a country we have made real progress in reducing the number of new infections. As we move out of lockdown, we look at all indicators to assess progress in tackling the virus. Last week’s Office for National Statistics infection survey estimated that the number of people who have had coronavirus in England fell from 139,000 between 3 and 16 May to 53,000 between 17 and 30 May—a drop of over half. In terms of new cases, an ONS estimate released on Friday shows that there are now around 5,600 new cases each day within the community in England: a huge drop since the peak.

    The number of new fatalities each day is, thankfully, falling too. Today’s figures record 55 fatalities, the lowest number since 21 March, before lockdown began. They also show that there were no deaths recorded in London hospitals. That is a real milestone for the capital, which, of course, in the early stages of the pandemic, faced the biggest peak. Yesterday, we saw no recorded deaths in Scotland, which is very positive news for us all. Sadly, we expect more fatalities in the future, not least because the figures recorded at the weekend are typically lower. What is more, Mr Speaker, 55 deaths is still 55 too many and hundreds of people are still fighting for their lives. Each death brings just as much sadness as when the figure was much higher in the peak. I know that the thoughts of the whole House are with those families and communities who are grieving for their loved ones.

    We, of course, also look at the R rate. The Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies confirmed on Friday that its estimates, taking into account 10 different models, are that R remains between 0.7 to 0.9, and that it is below 1 in every region of the country. That means the number of new infections is expected to continue to fall. So there are encouraging trends on all critical measures. Coronavirus is in retreat across the land. Our plan is working and those downward trends mean that we can proceed with our plans, but we do so putting caution and safety first.

    Even at the peak of the pandemic, we protected the NHS and ensured that it was not overwhelmed. We will not allow a second peak that overwhelms the NHS. We are bearing down on the virus in our communities, aided by our new NHS test and trace system, which is growing every day. We are bearing down on the virus in our communities, aided by our new NHS test and trace system, which is growing every day. We are bearing down on infections in our hospitals, including through the new measures to tackle nosocomial infection, such as face masks for visitors, patients and staff. Finally, we are strengthening protections for our care homes, including by getting tests to all elderly care home residents and staff.​

    I am glad to be able to tell the House that David Pearson, the eminent social care expert who has previously led the social care body ADASS—the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services—and has decades of experience of leadership in both social care and public health, will be chairing our new social care taskforce to drive our covid action plan yet further. David has an impressive track record and I am delighted that he will be supporting us in leading this important work. Together, we are getting this virus under control and now more than ever we must not lose our resolve.

  • Thangam Debbonaire – 2020 Letter on Homelessness

    Thangam Debbonaire – 2020 Letter on Homelessness

    Below is the text of the letter written by Thangam Debbonaire to Robert Jenrick on 8 June 2020.

    Dear Robert,

    Re: the end of the ban on evictions proceedings and the end of ‘Everybody In’

    As you know, Labour called for a six-month ban on evictions during the Coronavirus crisis and we welcomed your introduction of a three-month ban as a good start to protect people from becoming homeless as a result of sudden loss of income. I am also pleased that you have now decided to extend the ban for a further two months.

    We also welcomed your call of ‘Everybody In’ to help protect rough sleepers from being left in really dangerous situations during the crisis.

    We recently called on you to ensure that there is a proper plan for the end of this scheme and we want to work with you and our colleagues in Local Authorities and homelessness organisations to ensure that your welcome announcement of planning 6,000 new homes to help end rough sleeping and make sure people do not end up back on the streets is a reality.

    I’m writing to you today to press you on specific points which remain unaddressed as we come towards the end of June which I fear will create a further increase in homelessness and rough sleeping if they are not dealt with urgently.

    Preventing evictions by protecting income

    You will know that Labour called for the government to put in place various improvements to social security to help ensure that most private tenants can pay their rent in these difficult times. This includes:

    i. Converting Universal Credit advances into grants instead of loans, ending the five-week wait;
    ii. Removing the £16,000 savings limit which disqualifies individuals from accessing Universal Credit;
    iii. Scrapping the benefit cap;
    iv. Abolishing the two-child limit in Universal Credit and tax credits; and
    v. Uprating legacy benefits to match the increase in Universal Credit, providing an immediate increase in Jobseeker’s Allowance and Employment Support Allowance.
    vi. Raising the Local Housing Allowance to the 50th percentile point of commercial residential rents.

    Unfortunately, your colleagues in the Department of Work and Pensions have not yet taken these up. As a result, Shelter and Citizen’s Advice both confirm that there is a growing number of people living in the private rented sector who are struggling to pay rent.

    1. Will you now urgently consider every possible route to ensure people in rented accommodation have sufficient income to prevent them from falling into arrears during this crisis?

    The government announced in the Queen’s Speech that there would be a Renters’ Rights Bill in this Parliament which would abolish Section 21 of the Housing Act 1985. We welcome this. We asked you to bring forward at least that part of the proposed legislation urgently during the Covid crisis as it would help protect tenants from evictions during a public health crisis. We also asked you to bring forward emergency legislation to remove for the life of the crisis some of the grounds for eviction in Section 8 of the Housing Act 1988 so that there would be no mandatory eviction of tenants who fell into two months of arrears as that Act provides.

    You recently extended the temporary option for owner-occupiers to defer mortgage payments if they need to because of a sudden drop of income due to the Covid crisis. This is a welcome move. The social security system must be sufficiently generous to prevent private renters accumulating large arrears, but renters deserve parity with owner-occupiers with an equivalent facility to be able to defer residual arrears accrued as a result of the crisis and repay over the life of the tenancy or at least two years, with courts able to confirm a repayment agreement between landlord and tenant.

    We have draft legislation ready to achieve these which I have attached to this letter. We would work with you closely to achieve the aim we are sure you want to achieve, which is to prevent the undoing of all the good work tackling rough sleepers by adding to their numbers through a preventable increase in evictions in July and following months.

    2. Will you now work with us to urgently bring forward such legislation, in order to prevent a spike in evictions as a result of tenants getting into arrears due to sudden drops in income during the crisis?

    Everybody In

    We welcomed your acknowledgement that the excellent work done by central and local government and by homelessness and housing charities working with the private sector to bring rough sleepers into accommodation during the crisis provides a real chance to bring forward the ambition of ending rough sleeping for good. Whilst your appointment of Dame Louise Casey and your commitment to increasing funding is welcome we are concerned that local authorities are already facing significant funding gaps between what was promised by central government and what the accommodation has already cost and that after ten years of cuts to local authority budgets there is insufficient support available to help people to sustain living in permanent accommodation.

    3. Will you work with Her Majesty’s Opposition, with local authorities, the Local Government Association, Housing Associations, specialist mental health and addiction service providers and others to ensure that there is a full and proper assessment of the resources needed for achieving the ambition we all share which is to prevent people from ending up back on the streets?

    4. Will you also identify how many people have become homeless, including street homeless, since the start of the crisis, and work with the stakeholders to ensure that these people are also helped into secure long-term accommodation and support?

    Parliamentary scrutiny and cross-party working

    As the government has now ended the hybrid parliament and states that there is a need for this to happen in order to ensure greater Parliamentary scrutiny of government and for government to be able to pursue its legislative agenda, it would be a good idea for the government to allow time in the House for debate and discussion about the coming evictions crisis. This could be in the form of a debate in government time, or if the government would allow other opportunities such as back bench debates, Opposition Day or Westminster Hall debates.

    5. Will you ensure there is sufficient time to debate the current crisis in housing which has come about as a result of the Covid crisis?

    Her Majesty’s Opposition shares your ambition to end rough sleeping for good and we are sure you share our view that adding unnecessarily to the totals of homeless people should be avoided at all costs. We want to work with you to achieve this. It’s in all our interests, for public health as well as for the good of the country and the individuals concerned, that we do so. I hope you will take us up on this offer.

    Yours

    Thangam Debbonaire

  • Boris Johnson – 2020 Statement on Black Lives Matter

    Boris Johnson – 2020 Statement on Black Lives Matter

    Below is the text of the statement made by Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister, on 8 June 2020.

    The death of George Floyd took place thousands of miles away – in another country, under another jurisdiction – and yet we simply cannot ignore the depth of emotion that has been triggered by that spectacle, of a black man losing his life at the hands of the police.

    In this country and around the world his dying words – I can’t breathe – have awakened an anger and a widespread and incontrovertible, undeniable feeling of injustice, a feeling that people from black and minority ethnic groups do face discrimination: in education, in employment, in the application of the criminal law.

    And we who lead and who govern simply can’t ignore those feelings because in too many cases, I am afraid, they will be founded on a cold reality.

    Yes, I am proud to lead the most ethnically diverse government in the history of this country, with two of the four great offices of state held by a man and a woman of Indian origin; and yes, I am proud of the work I began to lead more than ten years ago to recruit and promote more young black people, in the police and other walks of life.

    This country has made huge strides. I remember the 1970s, and the horror of the National Front. I truly believe that we are a much, much less racist society than we were, in many ways far happier and better.

    But we must also frankly acknowledge that there is so much more to do – in eradicating prejudice, and creating opportunity, and the government I lead is committed to that effort.

    And so I say yes, you are right, we are all right, to say Black Lives Matter; and to all those who have chosen to protest peacefully and who have insisted on social distancing – I say, yes of course I hear you, and I understand.

    But I must also say that we are in a time of national trial, when for months this whole country has come together to fight a deadly plague.

    After such sacrifice, we cannot now let it get out of control.

    It is BAME communities who have been at the forefront of the struggle against coronavirus – whether in health care or transport or social care or any of the other essential services that have kept our country going.

    And it is BAME communities, tragically, that have paid a disproportionate price.

    So no, I will not support those who flout the rules on social distancing, for the obvious reason that we risk a new infection at a critical time and just as we have made huge progress.

    And no, I will not support or indulge those who break the law, or attack the police, or desecrate public monuments.

    We have a democracy in this country. If you want to change the urban landscape, you can stand for election, or vote for someone who will.

    And so I must say clearly that those who attack public property or the police –who injure the police officers who are trying to keep us all safe – those people will face the full force of the law; not just because of the hurt and damage they are causing, but because of the damage they are doing to the cause they claim to represent.

    They are hijacking a peaceful protest and undermining it in the eyes of many who might otherwise be sympathetic.

    And as a society, we can and must do better.

    This month, on the 22nd of June, we celebrate the arrival of the Empire Windrush in 1948, and we remember the contribution of the Afro-Caribbean workers – in the NHS and across all public services – who helped to rebuild this country after the war.

    And today, once again, we face a great task: to relaunch this country after Coronavirus. So let’s work peacefully, lawfully, to defeat racism and discrimination wherever we find it, and let us continue to work together across all the communities of this country, as we put Britain back on its feet.

  • Caroline Dinenage – 2020 Speech at the CogX Createch Stage

    Caroline Dinenage – 2020 Speech at the CogX Createch Stage

    Below is the text of the speech made by Caroline Dineage, the Creative Industries Minister, on 8 June 2020.

    Thank you Tim for that introduction, and many thanks to Janet for inviting me to speak here today. I’m delighted to be participating in Createch 2020 at CogX. Also I’d like to congratulate Tim for his recent appointment as Director General of the BBC, it’s well deserved, and I look forward to continuing our work together in the future.

    Let me start by saying two things: First, that the importance of the creative industries cannot be overstated.

    And second, that many of those creative industries have been knocked off their feet by COVID. That’s going to make the relationship between tech and the creative industries more meaningful than ever.

    In economic terms, the creative industries punch far above their weight. Before coronavirus, they were worth £112bn to our economy in 2018, and their contribution has grown twice as fast as the rest of the economy since 2010. In total, the Creative Industries are now bigger than UK Life Sciences, Aerospace and Automotive sectors combined.

    And these are exporting businesses too: they contribute 12% of all UK services sold overseas, which is twice their share of the economy.

    They are also enablers of the wider economy. Creative skills and services such as software, architecture, design, and advertising allow businesses – from aerospace to construction – to improve their products, boosting long-term productivity in the UK; which, as many people here will know, is something government and industry both care deeply about.

    Around two-thirds of UK firms use design in some form. The architecture sector is critical to construction and how people live their lives; while the advertising sector underpins the whole economy and ensures creative content can reach consumers in the UK and abroad.

    But it’s really important to remember that the creative industries aren’t just important economically. They make an incredible social and cultural contribution to this country, and help level-up growth and opportunity across our nations and regions. There are almost 50 clusters of creative businesses around the country – from Dundee’s games hub right the way through to Silicon Beach in Brighton.

    Which gives me the opportunity to make an unapologetic plug for the DCMS-funded Creative Scale Up Programme, this is a pilot project designed to help creative business grow and raise finance in the West Midlands, Manchester and the West of England regions.

    Culturally, sub-sectors such as film, music, fashion, games, publishing and architecture enrich all of our lives. Critically, they provide content that reflects the experiences of people and communities across the entire UK; content that otherwise would be undersupplied by overseas providers. They allow us to highlight the prestigious UK brand, and our values around the world, and is one of the reasons why we ranked second globally in the Portland Soft Power Index.

    Given that importance, the government is investing more than £150m in supporting the Creative Industries Sector Deal and that launched in 2018.

    I’d like to emphasise this expenditure comes alongside investment from industry itself, as a result of dialogue with the Creative Industries Council, that Tim co-chairs along with the Secretary of States for DCMS and BEIS. This council has representatives from 30 trade bodies and companies across the sectors, and Tim knows that the government places incredible value on this forum and the close working relationship that it has with industry.

    I’ve already mentioned the Creative Scale-Up Programme, but another part of the Sector Deal is the Creative Industries Clusters programme, which runs until 2023 and will create at least 900 business-led collaborations, 360 jobs and 65 new businesses. And then there’s a very exciting project that I am especially keen on: Audiences of the Future programme, which is harnessing the power of immersive tech to help double the UK’s share of the global creative immersive content market by 2025.

    The COVID pandemic has given Audiences of the Future added urgency. It’s now a central part of a major new coronavirus-linked campaign by the Arts and Humanities Research Council called Boundless Creativity, and it is looking for new ways for culture to thrive in a digital age.

    Boundless Creativity involves all sorts of talented thinkers and creatives, from Mary Beard to Bernardine Evaristo, who together with the UK’s leading arts organisations and creative businesses will experiment with Augmented Reality, Virtual Reality and other technologies in a series of special projects.

    One of those projects which I love the sound of is called “Dinosaurs and Robots”, led by London-based factory42, in collaboration with Sky, the Science Museum Group and the Natural History Museum. This project enables people to tour their buildings and enjoy the exhibitions from their own homes this summer, through a mixed reality experience that combines storytelling and cutting-edge technology.

    That’s exactly the kind of collaboration the government wants to see between technology and the creative industries: finding new and unusual ways to get round the obstacles that coronavirus has presented.

    I should also emphasise that although major elements of the Sector Deal are funded for a number of years to come, DCMS is looking to deliver new help and incentives to the Creative Industries – such as through the launch of 5G Create earlier this year.

    Up to £30 million of government funding is available in this 5G Testbeds and Trials programme, which is designed to encourage the exploration and development of new use-cases and 5G technical capabilities.

    In particular we want to encourage partnerships between creative and infrastructure companies, so that for example, specialist content companies can look at innovative ways of distributing that content over 5G.

    In terms of future prospects, the Creative Industries are critical to the UK’s recovery from COVID-19, given their role as key enablers of the wider economy and significant contributions to the UK’s culture and society.

    While we know that some sub-sectors such as gaming and Video on Demand have thrived during the COVID crisis, others have been hit hard. Theatres and music venues are shuttered; Film and TV production has been halted or at least radically changed; and the advertising industry is facing some really widespread disruption. Sectors dependent on advertising like press and commercial broadcasting have been really struggling, even as demand for their services has spiked. The creative workforce, many of whom are freelance, have seen demand fall sharply.

    As Tim has said, the existing challenges faced by the Creative Industries are being compounded by COVID, so during this global crisis, Government has provided an unprecedented level of financial support across the economy. Our Creative Industries can benefit from grants and loans for small businesses, the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme, the Self-Employed Income Support Scheme, tax deferrals and the £1.25 billion fund to protect the UK’s most innovative companies. That includes the Future Fund which is now open for applications until September 2020.

    But as we emerge from lockdown, we need to think about the future of the Creative Industries, and how they can not only survive, but regain the very strong growth path they previously had. We need to think about how over the next decade they will become a cornerstone of our country, accounting for an even greater proportion of the economy and employment, and cementing the UK’s soft power around the globe.

    That to me is why Createch is so vital to the future of the Creative Industries. We clearly need every tool available, from government policy to innovation and technology, to recover from the current situation and re-start a path of strong growth.

    Technology will be central to our recovery, just as it has been a central part of the lockdown – allowing us to work, exercise, socialise and school our kids from the safety of our homes over the last few weeks and months.

    The take-up of tech has been staggering over the last few months. Just look at the number of Zoom users, which rose from 10 million in December to 300m in March.

    That’s just as true for the creative industries. Through necessity, designers, architects and a whole host of creatives are now collaborating digitally throughout the UK and across borders as never before. I’m sure that not all of this digital work will return to face-to-face working practices in the future.

    There is perhaps a new norm going on here, and remote working, or at least spending a greater percentage of the working week at home, may become standard practice in many companies across the economy and the creative industries specifically. In fact, Mark Zuckerberg is already planning for half of all Facebook staff to work from home forever.

    But there are other significant changes in terms of technology usage in the Creative Industries. For example, online streaming and delivery of content ‘over-the-top’ is now penetrating from millennials into all age categories you will be pleased to know. Apparently the UK’s so-called peak “hour” for internet use now stretches from noon to 9pm.

    Will advertising revenues that have shifted online from traditional media return to their former outlets? That is a question that we are all asking ourselves. Possibly, but it’s probable that companies that rely on traditional advertising will have to adapt business models quicker and rely more on digital revenue streams.

    Overall, the application of technology to the Creative Industries is providing and will provide both opportunities and challenges. The Government wants to encourage and incentivise the growth of Createch wherever we can.

    It has already produced some incredibly innovative collaborations – like the Future Fashion Factory in Leeds, which is part of our Creative Industries Clusters Programme.

    Led by the School of Design at the University of Leeds and partnered with fashion houses like Burberry, it uses digital and advanced textile technologies and applies them to the world of fashion.

    For example, there is an amazing piece of tech currently being tested that translates the feel of fabrics into code. This code can then be sent digitally, and used to recreate the feel of the fabric by other designers anywhere in the world.

    In layperson terms that’s done by a piece of kit that, from the code of the original fabric, creates and blows a column of air that combines smaller individual ones. You pass your hand over the column and you can literally feel what appears to be the original fabric, whether rough or smooth.

    Digitally conveying the tactile properties of a fabric is a truly groundbreaking application of technology to the Creative Industries. Tech here is directly helping the creativity of our fantastic UK fashion designers, and also reduces the economic and environmental impact of the sampling process.

    Another fascinating Cluster Programme is the Bristol and Bath Creative R&D project, which brings together the region’s four universities, the Watershed and many industry partners to explore user engagement in new platforms.

    The cluster is working at several sites to combine 5G connectivity, Extended Reality technologies and live arts, in order to imagine and develop the future of the Creative Industries.

    We need to build on these examples and the success of the Creative Industries Clusters Programme in general. As Tim has mentioned, DCMS is currently talking with industry through the Creative Industries Council – some of whose members are in the audience today – about how the Government can continue to help the adoption of new technologies into all the creative sub-sectors.

    Of course achieving this has to come from a joint and ongoing effort from all of us. From government, universities, entrepreneurs and innovators, and from companies within non-tech native sub-sectors themselves. We need the continued contribution of partners such as Digital Catapult, which is leading the early adoption of advanced digital technologies, and companies such as Improbable, which is pioneering groundbreaking tech applications in the games sector.

    Government will continue to do its part – and yes I know, we need to do more – but we also need trade bodies, companies and individuals to do their part too as I know you know.

    As we slowly start making moves towards recovery, together we’ll continue to drive Createch so that the creative industries can maintain their rightful place at the heart of our economy and society.

    Thank you.

  • Rebecca Pow – 2020 Speech on the Restoration of Canals

    Rebecca Pow – 2020 Speech on the Restoration of Canals

    Below is the text of the speech made by Rebecca Pow, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, in the House of Commons on 4 June 2020.

    It is a pleasure to be here this afternoon talking about canals—a lovely subject on which to end the day. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Craig Williams) on securing this important debate on the restoration of Montgomery canal. He brings personal experience, because I believe he was brought up in the area, and it is one he knows very well. The canal is affectionately known locally as “Monty”, which shows how much people love that canal and the idea of the canal.

    I have my own experience with canals, because I grew up near the Kennet and Avon canal. Large parts of that have been restored during my lifetime, and it does indeed bring an enormous benefit to places such as Bath, Bradford on Avon and into Wiltshire. That is not to mention the canal locks. I do not know whether my hon. Friend has been to the section of the canal in Devizes, but there are 32 lock gates, if one wants to keep fit.

    Over 50% of canals are now restored. A chunk of Montgomery canal has been restored, and there are well developed plans for the next phase of the restoration, with four phases over 19 years. My hon. Friend is talking in particular about a 35-mile stretch that still needs to be restored. I had a look at a map, and it goes up to Ellesmere in Shropshire and then connects with Newtown in mid-Wales. It is a very beautiful part of the countryside. This stretch of the canal goes through a site of special scientific interest, nature reserves and heritage sites, one being Llanymynech lime kiln works. There are some very interesting things to look at all along the way. With my horticultural background, I was especially interested to learn that Monty is home to the largest UK population of floating water plantain, which is a rare aquatic plant. If I ever do get there, I hope my hon. Friend will take me to see that plant, because I would very much like to see it.

    The restoration of our disused canals is proving very valuable, enabling an increasing number of people to enjoy the outdoors and get close to water. Being close to water and being outside has much value for health and wellbeing. The Canal and River Trust did a survey recently, and it discovered that life satisfaction and happiness is 10% higher if you live near water, so we can see the benefits of restoring canals.​

    The responsibility for the management and maintenance of canals in England and Wales rests with the owner and the navigation authority. For the majority of canals, that is the Canal and River Trust, which is the case with Montgomery canal. The Canal and River Trust was set up in 2012, and as part of the transfer of ownership, the Government agreed a grant of around £50 million per year over 15 years to support the trust to develop income- generating strategies and revenues to invest in canal maintenance and regeneration programmes, which have been incredibly effective.

    My hon. Friend spoke eloquently about Montgomery canal, which is a great example of a restoration project that is off the ground. The Canal and River Trust is working with the Montgomery Waterway Restoration Trust to manage the project and raise additional funds. With the cost of the first three phases estimated at £34 million, there is clearly much more fundraising work to be done, but if the success of the project so far is anything to go by, I am confident that this will be achieved. It is clear that a broad range of partners have already been found, which is heartening.

    The Canal and River Trust, along with other smaller navigation authorities, is reporting increasing numbers of visitors along their canals. Those visitors are both walking and cycling—it not just about being on the water, but using the towpaths, as we have heard—as well as boaters using the waterways. During this pandemic, canal towpaths have reportedly been used even more, as people get out for their daily exercise. We have noticed this in Taunton Deane, where we have a section of canal, and a lot of people have really enjoyed being able to get out there.

    Not only do canals bring a great health benefit; they can also make a really important contribution to the economy locally, especially where they go through urban areas and areas that have traditionally been in decline. They have generated money through tourists coming in, and through starting to get freight back on to the waterways. With the move to net zero and to cleaner air, this is actually a huge asset, and we are starting to realise that canals can have a rebirth as transport links.

    My hon. Friend mentioned the impacts of coronavirus and its effects on people using the sides of the canals. There has been a knock-on effect on small waterways businesses, which I would like to touch on quickly. I would like to assure these businesses—many of them have contacted me—that I am aware of the challenges ​they are facing, because a lot of them have not been able to operate their businesses on the canals. I have asked my team in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to work very closely with the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, because it is working up a potential tourism offer for those businesses.

    I am very pleased to see that there has been some easing of lockdown restrictions on some of the small businesses on our waterways, and we are looking at more opportunities coming up in future weeks and months. While still keeping to the social distancing guidance, people are now able to hire canoes, kayaks or paddleboards—I do not know whether we have any paddle- boarders here, but one can take out a paddleboard—and to go fishing and enjoy a day trip on a small boat, as well as continuing to use the towpaths. We are working on guidance to enable more of the waterways sector to open, I hope, in the coming weeks; we are working on that as we speak. I hope that that gives a little bit of confidence to the industry. I very much hope that the waterways will play their own part in the recovery as we start to get going again, with people taking holidays on the waterways and canals, day trips and all the things that my hon. Friend suggested that waterways can bring to an area.

    In closing, I very much thank my hon. Friend for being persistent in relation to this debate, because it has been postponed previously, and for giving us a little bit of colour about his canal and the restoration scheme. The Government recognise the very considerable benefits our canal network brings in myriad ways, such as providing greater access to the outdoors, enhancing wellbeing, bringing us closer to water, engaging with nature—those water plantains—increasing leisure and recreation, increasing regeneration and bringing value to the economy.

    I think we are singing from the same hymn sheet in that I am a convert to canal restoration. I very much forward to walking down that stretch of restored canal— I will not say hand in hand with my hon. Friend, but I would certainly like to walk down it with him—and to enjoying the wider benefits of Montgomeryshire.

  • Craig Williams – 2020 Speech on the Restoration of Canals

    Craig Williams – 2020 Speech on the Restoration of Canals

    Below is the text of the speech made by Craig Williams, the Conservative MP for Montgomeryshire, in the House of Commons on 4 June 2020.

    I have to confess to the House, or to what is left of the House, that I secured this debate in what feels like a very different world. Although the restoration of the canal is, of course, hugely important, the covid-19 crisis has slightly changed the tone in which I will speak on it. I see the Minister is in her place. I very much look forward to hearing her thoughts on how we can restore the rest of the UK’s canal network.

    This afternoon, I joined my constituents and interested parties over Zoom to talk about the Montgomery canal—it is very important that it is the Montgomery, not Montgomeryshire, canal, as I keep getting reminded—with Michael Haig from the Inland Waterways Association and Michael Limbrey, who heads the Montgomery restoration efforts. I can report to the House and the Minister that the efforts to restore Montgomery canal are alive and well, and going at great speed thanks to a recent national lottery heritage fund grant of up to £4 million, which is being spent as we speak, and thanks to the volunteers.

    I know that my hon. Friends the Members for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) and for Clwyd South (Simon Baynes) would have liked to have been present to intervene away, but sadly they cannot be. My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield is the chair of the all-party parliamentary waterways group, and he particularly wants to refocus this effort as the House gets back fully. I warn the Minister that I see today’s debate as a prelude on this subject, as I am sure that there will be debates coming thick and fast.

    Before I go on to the wider benefits to the canal network, I will touch directly on the Montgomery canal, and give a bit of its history. The Montgomery canal was built through an Act of Parliament in 1794, and by 1796 a lot of it was in operation, running from Llangollen to Newtown. Sadly, in 1944, after a breach, it was rendered inoperable. Luckily, most of the land around the canal was kept intact, and now the Canal and River Trust owns most of it, which has helped with the restoration.

    The Prince of Wales gave tremendous support and enthusiasm at the start, through the Prince of Wales Committee and the Variety Club of Great Britain, and in 1969, through the hard work of 180 volunteers and nine gallons of beer, the efforts started in earnest to restore the canal. The restoration of Montgomery canal would be a huge benefit to my constituency, especially as we look to support the tourism sector as we come out of covid-19. Although the effort is there, it would benefit massively from the Minister’s personal attention. I hope very much to walk down a stretch of the canal as we return to normal in our political operations, and I know the trust would welcome that too.

    Canals are incredibly important to tourism, benefiting our sector to the tune of £1 billion in England, supporting 30,000 jobs. Through this crisis, a lot of businesses are of course suffering, as well as a lot of charities. I welcome the Government’s support to date, and I welcome the work of the Canal and River Trust. I pay particular tribute to the work of its chief executive, Richard Parry, ​who is donating an element of his salary to the charitable appeal that it is organising to support the Canal and River Trust and businesses affected at this time. A support package is really needed, and I know my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield has written not to the Minister in her place but to Treasury Ministers about that. I support the majority of the calls that have been made.

    To return to the tourism impact, it is terrific to see developments happening right now down the canal, I think in anticipation of its eventual restoration. Montgomeryshire and rural parts of Wales suffer from a lack of scaled accommodation to host anything, but recent developments, such as new hotel provision, mean we can build at pace for the inevitable arrival of tourists after covid-19—not now. They are always welcome in Montgomeryshire, but at the moment we are closed for business. I ask them in due course to come and enjoy the canal network.

    The canal touches lives, as we have seen throughout this crisis. Our towpaths and canal network give support to local residents, as I am sure they will in due course give support to constituents from across the UK. There are mental health benefits just from being able to walk those 35 miles. Huge provision is being made to increase the cycle network in this country, and the towpaths already cater for walkers, canal enthusiasts and cyclists. I hope that will generate more money into the sector. This is about providing a safe opportunity for people to enjoy the countryside and our canal networks, and I hope very much that the Minister and the Government will put more money into that.

    Let us consider the environmental benefits alone. We have seen the creation of the special wildlife areas around the canal, as the volunteers and the trust have restored our canal locally in Montgomeryshire. Restorations across the UK have put in place two new reservoirs that would not otherwise exist at the moment. I could argue until the cows come home as to whether there is a huge negative effect of the restoration, but the mitigation goes above and beyond, and I pay tribute to those involved for that. I particularly wish to draw a response from the Minister on the environmental benefits both of the mitigations put in place and of the canal network of the UK.

    Obviously, the restoration makes an economic contribution in terms of tourism, but the environmental benefits cannot be overstated. There are many projects along the Montgomery canal, and of particular fascination is the fact that there are 127 significant buildings, from the bridges to the warehouses of the canal age, that we seek to protect. The restoration is proving to be a way to build on that together. The Inland Waterways Association has helped to restore more than 500 miles of canals and rivers, and although there is much more to do, that local heritage on the Montgomery canal would be struggling without that work now. I am talking about many projects, such as the Schoolhouse bridge project, where we have recently been raising £300,000; we have secured local buy-in, but with Government support we could really deliver on a lot of these projects.

    I have mentioned tourism and the environment, and I will start to draw my remarks to a close. I implore the Minister to consider that there are restoration projects in constituencies across the UK, and if we look at the ​gross value added effect of restoring canals, we see that there is a huge positive return to the Exchequer and the public purse. It is excellent value for money to invest in restoring our canal networks. I have alluded to the mental health benefits and the tourism effects, but if we work with the IWA and the Canal and River Trust, we can set out an excellent stall. The Government could invest in cycleways across the UK, not just in the cities and market towns, and could level up the canal network. People sometimes think that restoring the canals and turning the UK economy round on the basis of canals is a joke. I am not saying that it will completely restore the effects of the current crisis, but it will help. It will help draw together local businesses to build a plan for tourism and development. It will help drive domestic tourism, and it will have environmental benefits. I will leave that thought as a preamble to further debates on this subject, but I look forward to the Minister’s response.

  • Lee Rowley – 2020 Speech on EU Negotiations

    Lee Rowley – 2020 Speech on EU Negotiations

    Below is the text of the speech made by Lee Rowley, the Conservative MP for North East Derbyshire, in the House of Commons on 4 June 2020.

    I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), who has been throughout my time in this place a doughty and courageous advocate for the opportunities of leaving the European Union. I also want to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), whose work on the European Scrutiny Committee is much appreciated: the work in its previous guise, displaying the massive amounts of legislation that came from the European Union over so many years and doing so much to create the view in the United Kingdom that we were losing control of our sovereignty; and now in terms of the overview mechanism, which it does so well.

    Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)

    The hon. Gentleman praises the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), whose analysis of this I thought was fairly sound. What part of that analysis would the hon. Gentleman disagree with?

    Lee Rowley

    The right hon. Member for East Antrim has a particular view around Northern Ireland, and we have debated that extensively in this place for a number of months, even years. Where I agree with him is that we needed to leave the European Union, and we have done that. Where I disagree with the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) is that he never wanted to leave the European Union in the first place, whereas we delivered on the decision of the British people in 2016.

    Like so many others, I voted to leave the European Union in 2016. Leaving it in a way that works for our country—both the opportunities that it can provide and the responsibilities that it creates for us as an internationalist, outward-looking country—is incredibly important. My constituents in North East Derbyshire remain extremely committed both to having left the European Union in January—some of us at some points in the previous Parliament were not actually sure we would quite get there—and to taking the opportunities that will come as a result of that.

    I would just gently say to the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), for whom I have a great deal of time and respect, that as someone who represents one of those red wall seats that she was so keen to reference in her speech, I can give her absolute assurances that the hard-working people in that red wall seat who wanted to leave the European Union still want to leave, still wish to get the clarity that is required by the end of December and do not want the double whammy of the Opposition parties, who wanted to frustrate this in the first place and continue to want an extension that would serve no purpose.

    My constituents feel so strongly about this because democracy matters. After we made the decision in 2016, it took this place three years to ensure that it would occur. Now we have a great opportunity to build a future partnership, to build something that works both for us and for the European Union over the long term, but it has to be done on the basis of mutual respect, obligation and responsibilities. We cannot fall into the same inane and asinine discussion that we did in Parliament in 2019, where we said, “How can it be possible? We are ​not able to do it. We cannot possibly expect to be able to do it in the time.” Let us let the negotiation go through, let us allow the space and the opportunity for that to happen and then see what comes from it. I am certainly confident that it is possible. The residents of North East Derbyshire and many of the red wall seats want to ensure that it happens and I know, with confidence in the Government, that it will.