Tag: 2021

  • Paul Scully – 2021 Statement on the Post Office Court of Appeal Judgment

    Paul Scully – 2021 Statement on the Post Office Court of Appeal Judgment

    The statement made by Paul Scully, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, in the House of Commons on 26 April 2021.

    This House is well aware of the issues with the Post Office Horizon IT System and the hugely negative impact it has had on the lives of affected postmasters. The Government welcomes the Court of Appeal’s decision last Friday, 23 April, to quash the convictions of 39 postmasters. This is in addition to six convictions quashed by the Crown Court in December 2020.

    The Court’s decision is also another important step towards bringing resolution for these postmasters. The impact this ordeal has had on affected postmasters, their lives and livelihoods cannot be overstated. The Government will come back with a fuller oral statement tomorrow, 27 April, to update the House in more detail on these cases, owing to the scale of the miscarriage of justice we have seen here.

  • Nigel Huddleston – 2021 Speech on British Wrestling

    Nigel Huddleston – 2021 Speech on British Wrestling

    The speech made by Nigel Huddleston, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, in the House of Commons on 22 April 2021.

    I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher) on securing this debate and for raising both the issues and opportunities of wrestling. He and his colleague, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), the co-chairs of the all-party group on wrestling, have done a fantastic job of raising the profile of wrestling in this place and outside. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his comments as well. Perhaps, Mr Deputy Speaker, with your leave, we could make an exception and allow a physical demonstration in the Chamber today between the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover. I think that could be quite an entertaining end to the day, but perhaps we have to wait for another day for that. However, now that we know your personal interest, Mr Deputy Speaker, maybe we can find some way to do so.

    Professional wrestling brings incredible joy, as my hon. Friend said, to people right across the country. It has a proud and rich history in this country. If we ask anybody who grew up in the UK between the 1960s and 1980s, as a few of us did, what they think of when somebody mentions wrestling, they will probably talk about Big Daddy and Giant Haystacks and watching “World of Sport” on ITV—those fantastic Saturday afternoons watching wrestling. “World of Sport” finished in the 1980s and the WWF, now WWE, took over. We saw an Americanisation of wrestling for quite a long period, but despite the American dominance, British wrestlers did manage to infiltrate the very top echelons of wrestling, including Davey Boy Smith, better known as The British Bulldog. He was there, as my hon. Friend mentioned, at Wembley Stadium in 1992 when 80,000 people attended the SummerSlam.

    In the last few years, British wrestling has seen a resurgence, with high-calibre talent and impressive promotions. This has allowed the UK scene to rival the larger promotions across the world. Not only has there been an increase in the number of shows booked, but over the last few years we have seen a steady rise in attendances, with many shows now selling to record numbers. We have seen British promotions such as PROGRESS, Insane Championship Wrestling and Revolution Pro Wrestling hosting major shows attracting international audiences and adding to our international tourism offer. Recently, there has also been the creation of the UK’s own specific WWE brand in NXT UK.

    Across the country, training facilities have also become more important for the British pro wrestling scene. They are being run by some of the biggest names in the industry. This includes the creation of the first WWE performance centre outside the United States, in London, in 2019. We have seen some of this British-trained talent cross the Atlantic and become successful in major established promotions, such as WWE and All Elite Wrestling. Drew McIntyre became the first ever British WWE world champion in 2020, and Scottish-born Kay Lee Ray is currently the NXT UK women’s champion.

    With the current pandemic impacting on the sport and entertainment industries so severely over the last year, I really do appreciate the efforts of the APPG on wrestling to ensure that the last few years of hard work raising the profile of UK pro wrestling does not go to waste. I particularly applaud my hon. Friend because, as he said, without a governing body, the sector faces some challenges. I warmly welcome the work of the APPG and its recent inquiry into the future of professional wrestling in Britain, which we heard about this afternoon. The inquiry’s report makes many recommendations across a broad range of issues relating to the sector. I am not in a position to answer every single one of his questions at the moment, but I will carefully consider the report and happily engage with him and the APPG as we consider it more thoroughly.

    My hon. Friend covered a very wide range of areas, including health and safety standards, safeguarding, the promotion of wrestling and addressing the gender pay gap, which are all important issues. A lot of these areas are in the gift of the wrestling industry itself to address, and I urge those in the sector, as he did, to consider the APPG’s report very carefully and what actions the sector can take, including coming together more clearly.

    I agree with the need for wrestling to place safety and wellbeing at the forefront of its priorities. There is no need for the industry to start with a blank sheet of paper here; as the report sets out, there is a wealth of information from other sectors that can be used as a starting point. That includes safeguarding standards in sport and in the arts. In sport, the Child Protection in Sport Unit provides a clear framework of standards that organisations working with children and young people should meet, along with supporting resources. In the arts and entertainment sector the NSPCC has produced guidance, including advice on creating clear safeguarding and child protection policies and procedures. The Department for Education has provided advice for local authorities and individuals working with children in all types of professional or amateur performances, paid sport and paid modelling. All those resources are available for wrestling right now, and I urge those in the industry to make use of them.

    The report also addresses how wrestling should be categorised. We have spoken about that on several occasions; it is a challenge. The report recommends that training should be considered a sport and the performance element an entertainment. Personally I can see the logic in that distinction, but that is a matter for Sport England. I understand that there is engagement with Sport England, and I suggest that that continues.

    Mark Fletcher

    My hon. Friend is doing a brilliant job. I asked whether he would write to Sport England in support of our recommendation; would he be willing to do so?

    Nigel Huddleston

    I thank my hon. Friend. I will definitely write to Sport England and ask it to seriously consider it. He will understand that, because the matter is at the discretion of Sport England, if I were to get involved and strongly suggest that it should decide one way or the other it might be considered inappropriate, but what I will do is consider the application very seriously and get back to him. Look, personally I understand it, but this is not for me to decide, and I need to respect the appropriate decision-making bodies.

    As the report made out, this is a complex area; it is not clear, but it is a perfectly valid point to raise. The report highlighted the fact that support from the two most relevant Government arm’s length bodies, Sport England and Arts Council England, has been provided to many projects in the past, where the projects have met the relevant funding criteria. Where that is clearly sport or clearly entertainment, that has been straightforward. Where that is not the case, there are obviously challenges, but the door is open for discussions about what support can be provided to wrestling, and I would urge the industry, as well as the APPG—but it is the industry that would benefit here—to be very clear about the exact nature of the support they are looking for and therefore pursue that help. It is for wrestling itself to make the case for support and how it fits with those organisations’ strategic aims, just as it is for any other organisation looking for publicly funded support. We all want to see wrestling prosper, but the industry needs to be clear about what it wants to achieve.

    The report and this afternoon’s debate have highlighted the effect that the current pandemic has had on the industry. I appreciate that the sector has been hit particularly hard by the pandemic. We have been working with sectors throughout the economy to make it possible for entertainment such as pro wrestling to restart in a safe manner, and rightly our focus remains on public safety. With falling infection rates and the vaccination of more than 33 million people, we have cause for optimism. As my hon. Friend knows, in February the Prime Minister set out a road map out of the current lockdown for England. We also announced the events research programme, an integral part of the road map, which will help to explore how larger events across the cultural and entertainment sectors can reopen safely. Currently, participants have been able to resume training.

    Again, I would like to thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. As I have promised, we will happily continue with the conversations, and I will endeavour to give him answers to the many other questions he raised today. I would like to reiterate my thanks to the APPG for wrestling for its work on looking at the future of wrestling in this country. We will carefully consider the report and what factors are relevant to the Government and, potentially, to Departments other than the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, and I urge the wrestling community itself to look at the recommendations that it should take forward. We all want to see a successful wrestling industry, both for participants and for the many fans right across the country. I hope that the report will help it to grow and continue to prosper.

    Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)

    What a wonderful way to finish the parliamentary week, debating British wrestling. Well done! I would also like to thank all the technicians and the backroom people in broadcasting who have allowed those Members participating remotely to be able to do so. We are incredibly grateful for everything that you have done.

  • Mark Fletcher – 2021 Speech on British Wrestling

    Mark Fletcher – 2021 Speech on British Wrestling

    The speech made by Mark Fletcher, the Conservative MP for Bolsover, in the House of Commons on 22 April 2021.

    I thank Mr Speaker for granting this Adjournment debate. It is an honour to lead a debate on the future of British wrestling. Much to the disappointment of several of the Doorkeepers and the Whip on duty, but to the relief of the Deputy Serjeant Arms, who is sanitising at the moment, there will be no practical demonstrations during the debate. It follows a report released by the all-party parliamentary group on wrestling less than a month ago. I must say that I am tremendously sad to be doing the debate without my tag-team partner, my friend the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), who is unfortunately detained with her other duties. I hope that I can do her justice in my remarks.

    I think that, with some exceptions, I am the first MP to be addressing professional wrestling in the House—at least in a significant way—for some eight decades. That is slightly surprising, given that wrestling is perhaps the only industry that can rival politics for bravado, faux indignation and partisan crowds. However, wrestling may have the edge on physiques and fake tans, where only an episode of “TOWIE” may rival it.

    This is an opportunity for me to marry my duty as a Member of Parliament and my joy as a wrestling fan. My love of professional wrestling started when, as a very young man, I got a DVD, and it had the Undertaker on it. He captured my imagination. Then I got a VHS of the 1992 Royal Rumble, with the amazing commentary of Bobby “The Brain” Heenan and Ric Flair’s historic victory. In that same year, some 80,000 people went to Wembley stadium for that year’s SummerSlam in which the British Bulldog won the Intercontinental championship. Around that time, my dad and my step-mum took me to a wrestling show at Adwick leisure centre in Doncaster, which was an amazing occasion for me, I was hooked.

    A few years ago, I spent the day after my birthday—it was a birthday present—at Wembley arena for a progress show among 5,000 wrestling fans, seeing some of the very best wrestlers in the world in our capital. Many of them were British. Nowadays, to switch off from the day job, I often go home and watch a New Japan show or an All Elite Wrestling show. Wrestling is booming. The work of the all-party parliamentary group on wrestling has unleashed several closet wrestling fans. Among MPs, many of the staff of the House and indeed many journalists we find many closeted wrestling fans.

    As Jim Smallman wrote in his book about British wrestling, modern wrestling has its origins in the carnival. In the 1800s, travelling carnivals went around attracting the public, often using wrestling. Indeed, to give some political crossover, I am told that Abraham Lincoln was renowned for his wrestling prowess. Although it was originally a sport, it became predetermined in its outcome largely because—some Members could learn from this—actual fighting is quite dull. The crowds preferred a prolonged and entertaining contest.

    Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP) rose—

    Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)

    I always knew that Jim Shannon harboured a secret passion for wrestling. We are going to hear about it now.

    Jim Shannon

    I congratulate the hon. Gentleman, who I spoke to beforehand. My three boys were all keen on wrestling and used to try to imitate the wrestling shows that he referred to. I am afraid that their dad was not quite as keen. Does the hon. Gentleman share my disappointment that World Wrestling Entertainment, the one major wrestling body in the UK, did not engage in the tremendous piece of work carried out by the APPG and him in particular? I commend that work. Does he agree that it is not too late for engagement and that the aim of the report to provide a safe, enjoyable and successful sport is more than worthy of their time, as it was for my young boys when they were small?

    Mark Fletcher

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. This is my second Adjournment debate and I am delighted that on both occasions I have been intervened on by him. I absolutely share his sentiments, because the WWE is the most well-known name in global wrestling. It has a UK base, which I was just about to talk about, a UK performance centre and a UK brand. The WWE shares many of the requirements we have identified in our report and it is an important stakeholder in the future of the industry. There are some issues to address relating to WWE working practices, but that is part of the wider engagement we need to have as an industry.

    Let me return to where I was. I was about to say, and I am sure this will pique your interest, Mr Speaker, that for many people in this country wrestling is synonymous with “World of Sport” and the likes of Big Daddy and Giant Haystacks on a Saturday afternoon—I have been amazed at how many people have made reference to that. But those fans may have missed some of the developments, to which I have just alluded, in recent years, including a thriving British independent wrestling scene that has developed some of the best talents in the world. Indeed, in the month the all-party group released its report, a British wrestler became the New Japan IWGP champion, a British wrestler was in the opening match at Wrestlemania for the WWE title, a show headlined by two brilliant female wrestlers, which is an incredibly important part of the report and what we examined, and the British Bulldog was honoured, following his death, by being inducted into the WWE hall of fame.

    Wrestling is a wonderful bubble. We can escape the real world and see the contest of people in front of us as purely good or bad, a luxury we are rarely afforded in real life. It is escapism, and a brilliant art form. Unfortunately, that bubble that the industry operates in has been burst somewhat, and that is the focus of my following remarks. Last year, two separate forces happened to British wrestling that will have a profound and long-lasting impact. The first was, of course, covid-19 and the inability to put on shows. The second was the SpeakingOut movement, whereby many in the industry spoke of allegations of abuses of power, including sexual abuse. We started the all-party group inquiry in September 2020, and I do not think any of us involved realised what an undertaking it would be. We struggled to pull together simple facts and statistics. We discovered a largely unregulated industry operating outside the rules that most businesses operate in. In our numerous evidence sessions and written evidence, we found an industry in which leadership, unity and collaboration were sorely lacking. We put to many of these individuals and organisations incredibly difficult allegations, and in turn we heard of some extremely harrowing experiences. But we also heard of the brilliant things that British wrestling does, from fundraising for charities to turning people’s lives around. I am thinking, in particular, of Aspire Wrestling in Derby, which is working with young kids and giving them transformational skills. As well as entertaining hundreds of thousands of people, wrestling does an awful lot of good.

    The report that we produced was a labour of love, an unprecedented pulling together of the background of the industry, alongside the modern challenges that it faces. I wish to place on record, on behalf of the hon. Member for Pontypridd and myself, our thanks to the hon. Members for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), for Newport West (Ruth Jones) and for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), and my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow). In addition, I wish to mention the brilliant Danny Stone, the wonderful Robert Rams and Freddie Cook, who is a staffer in the office of the hon. Member for Pontypridd and who somehow managed to keep us all on track. I thank all those who submitted evidence and came to the oral evidence sessions.

    We found, on the whole, two major issues. One is a culture within British wrestling that has become toxic and requires tremendous improvement, and the second is a total lack of governance. In my remaining time, I would like to cover some of our key conclusions and ask the Minister—who has been incredibly helpful in his engagement over the last few months, along with his officials—to give the Government’s response on some of these issues.

    Wrestling falls between two different worlds. Is it an art, or is it a sport? We think we have answered that question, and we have separated it out in the report. Our idea is that those who are training to be wrestlers and are in wrestling schools are undertaking a sporting exercise—those foundations are largely physical and require teaching, so that is the sporting aspect. When someone attends a wrestling show, they are watching a performance. We think that that is a helpful distinction, because it gives a clear pathway for the different aspects of the industry to move forward. Has the Minister considered our recommendation that schools be considered sporting and shows be considered theatrical? Does he agree that this is the first step to unlocking the industry’s potential? Will he write, as we recommended, to Sport England and Arts Council England and work with devolved counterparts to do the same, so that we can get things moving?

    With regard to wrestling schools, there is a particularly serious issue, because we are often talking about children and minors. Those who go to wrestling schools are often not of an age at which they are fully aware of their surroundings, and they are not in adulthood yet. As I outlined, we have recommended that we separate them out from promotions. There are issues around whether those who teach wrestling are in positions of trust—an issue that we have discussed when considering legislation in the House. They are certainly in positions of power, but we need to know whether they are in positions of trust legally, for the purposes of child sexual offences.

    With regard to health and safety, we found an industry that is sorely lacking. We found everything from unfit rings in which people operate to basic first aid requirements lacking. Some of our wrestlers are being let down, and in turn, our fans are being let down. I would like to thank Dr David Bevan for his expert input into the report and praise www.wrestlingsafely.co.uk, which outlines an excellent way forward. Will the Minister raise with ministerial colleagues the recommendation that rings produced in the UK and used here be required to have a designated standard adopted by the British Standards Institution?

    The report also references the online safety Bill. Can the Minister outline the Government’s plans for pre-legislative scrutiny? In the absence of any standard, will he encourage promoters to read and follow the recommendations on health and safety, specifically with regard to concussion protocols, in the APPG’s report? Unfortunately, wrestling is a long way behind other sports in which people suffer from concussions—particularly rugby—and there is a serious need to make progress, so that some wrestlers are not left in a terrible state in later life. Will the Minister raise with Home Office colleagues the recommendation on strengthened licensing requirements for the temporary event notice scheme and work with the devolved Administrations on equal standards across the regions?

    We spoke to many wrestling promoters during our inquiry. Unfortunately we did not speak to all of them, but it was not for lack of trying. We encourage any wrestling promoters who feel that they did not get to have their say to come forward and have a discussion, because they will be central to the future of the wrestling industry. There is a clear requirement to make sure that they are brought on board and understand the rationale behind what we set out in the report.

    Specific problems arise from the current situation in regard to Brexit and the ability of talents to come into this country for wrestling shows, so will the Minister raise with colleagues at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Department for International Trade the points in the report about ensuring a point of contact for UK talent overseas? Will he raise the point about visiting talent with the Home Office?

    I alluded to the SpeakingOut movement earlier, and I thank everybody who gave testimony in regard to that. It was the inspiration for the passion of the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) to get involved in the APPG. Undoubtedly it was a low mark in British wrestling’s history. We have tried to give a voice to those who may have felt that they have not had one in this House before. We hope that we did justice to those victims in a meaningful way. The toxic culture around wrestling will have to end if it is to rise again. In our report, we highlighted a pledge that we hope promotions will abide by. Does the Minister have any comments on that pledge?

    Finally, in regard to governance, one of the strange things about writing this report was the discovery that we knew so little about British wrestling’s history or the modern context. The Minister will almost certainly say that one of the difficulties he has in engaging with British wrestling is that there is no governing body. There is nobody to put forward the industry’s arguments at a Government level. Indeed, there is nobody to disseminate advice back down through the pyramid. There was a clear consensus that a governing body is needed to help bring about some of the things and to help professionalise the industry and put it on a sustainable footing.

    The APPG is not well placed to bring in a governing body. We can be part of that conversation, but all that we can do is make recommendations. I very much hope that the industry saw the arguments that we set out in our report, because there are so many ways in which wrestling organisations are treated poorly because they are not properly represented, whether that is to do with venue hiring rules, Arts Council grants, obtaining visas or getting insurance.

    The economies of scale from co-operation through a governing body would pay back tenfold what it would cost to these groups and promotions, but it would also give legitimacy to the industry and help raise the standards that performers and fans need to see. Does the Minister agree with the argument that industries with governing bodies have been better placed to weather the covid storm that we have seen over the past few months? Does he have any additional comments about our recommendations on a governing body?

    In conclusion, in our report, we said that we wanted to begin a conversation. That conversation has to take in many stakeholders, from fans and those in the industry through to those in government, but it has to be industry-led. As two Back Benchers, the hon. Member for Pontypridd and I are not in a position to take that forward, but we hope that this report has started the conversation, and this Adjournment debate is part of that. I fear that British wrestling will bury its head in the sand again. Unfortunately, wrestling usually makes the front page on two occasions: one is when we have a nostalgic moment when somebody who used to be famous has passed away, and the second is when there is a tragedy, and I think of something like Chris Benoit and the actions he took—and that is not something I want to happen. I am desperate to try to help British wrestling overcome those barriers and become better.

    It does not have to be this way. It is an industry with hundreds of thousands of fans. It has some of the most creative minds around. It can be better, but British wrestling needs to respect itself if others are to respect it, too. The industry needs to rise together, to work together and to be better.

    Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)

    I am thrilled that the hon. Member mentioned Robert Rams. As the hon. Gentleman may or may not know, Robert was my chief of staff for several years. If I let him, he would turn the conversation to wrestling, and there were no limits to what he would not do to go and see a wrestling match. I know he will be thrilled by that reference today.

  • John Healey – 2021 Speech on the Commonwealth War Graves Commission

    John Healey – 2021 Speech on the Commonwealth War Graves Commission

    The speech made by John Healey, the Shadow Secretary of State for Defence, in the House of Commons on 22 April 2021.

    I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for the advance copy of it. I thank the commission for its advance briefing, which a number of hon. Members received before today.

    Above all, I thank the Secretary of State for his apology on behalf of both the Government of the time and the commission. This is an important moment for the commission and the country in coming to terms with past injustices and dedicating ourselves to future action.

    None of this would have happened without my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy). His documentary “Unremembered” laid bare the early history of the Imperial War Graves Commission and exposed its failure to live up to its founding aim of equality of treatment for all war dead. I pay tribute to Channel 4 and David Olusoga for producing the documentary and to Professor Michèle Barrett, whose research underpinned that work.

    Perhaps in another era, we would have been tempted to leave it there, but rightly the commission did not. Indeed, my right hon. Friend would not have let the commission leave it there. The report is a credit to the commission of today, but its content is a great discredit to the commission and the Britain of a century ago. An estimated 45,000 to 54,000 casualties—predominantly Indian, east African, west African, Egyptian and Somali personnel—were commemorated unequally. A further 116,000 casualties, and potentially as many as 350,000, were not commemorated by name or not commemorated at all. In the words of the special committee that produced the report, the commission failed to do what it was set up to do:

    “the IWGC was responsible for or complicit in decisions outside of Europe that compromised its principles and treated war dead differently and often unequally…This history needs to be corrected and shared, and the unfinished work of the 1920s needs to be put right where possible.”

    This issue has been part of Britain’s blind spot to our colonial past, and we have been too slow as a country to recognise and honour fully the regiments and troops drawn from Africa, Asia and the Caribbean. Today is a reminder of the great contribution and sacrifice that so many from these countries have made to forging modern, multicultural Britain.

    What matters now is what happens next. The follow-up to the report’s recommendations cannot be part of business-as-before for the commission. What role will the Secretary of State play as chair of the commission? Is he satisfied that the commission has sufficient resources to do this additional work and, if not, will he make more available? What role will Britain’s embassy staff, including our defence attachés, play in communicating this public apology, researching new names and telling the wider story of the sacrifice that communities in these countries made during world war one? When can we expect the completion of the investigation into the way the commission commemorated the dead from these countries during the second world war, and what commitment will he make today to report to Parliament on the commission’s progress on those goals?

    Additionally, we welcome the Secretary of State’s pre-announcement of the consultation on a scheme to end the injustice of Commonwealth and Nepalese soldiers paying twice for their British citizenship. It is something we and the British Legion have campaigned for, and in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), who is not on the call list today, has led and championed that cause. Can the Secretary of State say exactly when the consultation will be launched?

    In conclusion, no apology can atone for the injustice, the indignity and the suffering set out in this report. The Secretary of State spoke today as a soldier. It was a soldier, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough West, who, speaking about the commission in this Chamber more than 100 years ago, said:

    “We served in a common cause, we suffered equal hardships, we took equal risks, and we desired that if we fell we should be buried together under one general system and in one comradeship of death.”—[Official Report, 17 December 1919; Vol. 123, c. 500.]

    Today, belatedly, we aim to commemorate in full the sacrifice of many thousands who died for our country in the first world war and who have not yet been fully honoured. We will remember them.

  • Ben Wallace – 2021 Statement on the Commonwealth War Graves Commission

    Ben Wallace – 2021 Statement on the Commonwealth War Graves Commission

    The statement made by Ben Wallace, the Secretary of State for Defence, on 22 April 2021.

    With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the special committee review into the historical actions of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, when it was the Imperial War Graves Commission and subsequently.

    I start by placing on the record my thanks and gratitude to the committee that compiled this comprehensive report, especially its chair, Sir Tim Hitchens, and contributing academics Dr George Hay, Dr John Burke and Professor Michèle Barrett. I am also grateful to the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) who, alongside the makers of the Channel 4 documentary on this subject, provided the impetus for the establishment of the independent committee.

    Today the committee’s findings are published. They make for sober reading. The first world war was a horrendous loss of life. People of all class and race from all nations suffered a great tragedy, which we rightly remember every year on Remembrance Sunday. Just over 100 years ago, what emerged from that atrocity was a belief by the survivors that all those who lost their lives deserved to be commemorated.

    When the Imperial War Graves Commission was established, its founding principle was the equality of treatment in death. Whatever an individual’s rank in social or military life and whatever their religion, they would be commemorated identically. Unfortunately, the work of this report shows that it fell short in delivering on that principle. The IWGC relied on others to seek out the bodies of the dead, and where it could not find them, it worked with the offices of state to produce lists of those who did not return and remained unaccounted for.

    Given the pressures and confusion spun by such a war, in many ways it is hardly surprising that mistakes were made at both stages. What is surprising and disappointing, however, is the number of mistakes—the number of casualties commemorated unequally, the number commemorated without names, and the number otherwise entirely unaccounted for. That is not excusable. In some circumstances, there was little the IWGC could do. With neither bodies nor names, general memorials were the only way in which some groups might be commemorated at the time.

    None the less, there are examples where the organisation also deliberately overlooked the evidence that might have allowed it to find those names. In others, commission officials in the 1920s were happy to work with local administrations on projects across the empire that ran contrary to the principles of equality in death. Elsewhere, it is clear that commission officials pursued agendas and sought evidence or support locally to endorse 67 courses of action that jeopardised those same principles. In the small number of cases where commission officials had greater say in the recovery and marking of graves, overarching imperial ideology connected to racial and religious differences was used to divide the dead and treat them unequally in ways that were impossible in Europe.

    The report concludes that post World War One, in parts of Africa, the Middle East and India, the commission often compromised its principles and failed to commemorate the war dead equally. Unlike their European counterparts, the graves of up to 54,000 mostly Indian, east African, west African, Egyptian and Somali casualties were not marked by individual headstones. Some were remembered through inscriptions on memorials. The names of others were only recorded in registers, rather than memorialised in stone. A further 116,000 personnel, mostly east African and Egyptian, were not named or possibly not commemorated at all.

    There can be no doubt that prejudice played a part in some of the commission’s decisions. In some cases, the IWGC assumed that the communities of forgotten personnel would not recognise or value individual forms of commemoration. In other cases, it was simply not provided with the names or burial locations.

    On behalf of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and the Government of the time and today, I want to apologise for the failures to live up to the founding principles all those years ago and express deep regret that it has taken so long to rectify the situation. While we cannot change the past, we can make amends and take action.

    As part of that, the commission has accepted all the recommendations of the special committee. In the interests of time I will group these into three themes. First, the commission will geographically and chronologically extend the search in the historical record for inequalities in commemoration and act on what is found. Secondly, the commission will renew its commitment to equality in commemoration through the building of physical or digital commemorative structures. Finally, the commission will use its own online presence and wider education activities to reach out to all the communities of the former British empire touched by the two world wars to make sure that their hidden history is brought to life. Over the coming six months, the commission will be assembling a global and diverse community of external experts who can help make that happen.

    There is also more the Government specifically can do. The Ministry of Defence I lead will be determinedly proactive in standing for the values of equality, supporting diversity and investing in all our people. There is always more to be done, and that is why I welcome the Wigston review into inappropriate behaviours and recently took the rare decision to let service personnel give evidence as part of the inquiry into women in the armed forces led by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton) through the Defence Committee.

    Furthermore, to honour the contribution to our armed forces by our friends from the Commonwealth and Nepal, the Home Secretary and I will shortly be launching a public consultation on proposals to remove the visa settlement fees for non-UK service personnel who choose to settle in the UK.

    The historical failings identified in the report must be acknowledged and acted upon, and they will be. However, recognising the mistakes of the past should not diminish the Commonwealth War Graves Commission’s groundbreaking achievements today. The recommendations of the special committee should be welcomed by us all. They are not just an opportunity for the commission to complete its task and right historical wrongs; they point out what an amazing thing it is to serve our country and our allies.

    The amazing thing I know from being a soldier is the relationships that are forged on operations. True soldiers are agnostic to class, race and gender, because the bond that holds us together is a bond forged in war. When on operations, we share the risk, share the sorrow and rely on each other to get through the toughest of times. The friendships I made in my service are still strong.

    It was those common bonds that lay behind the Imperial War Graves Commission’s principles, and it is truly sad that on the occasions identified by the report those principles were not followed. I feel it is my duty as a former soldier to do right by those who gave their lives in the First World War across the Commonwealth and to take what necessary steps we can to rectify the situation. The publication of this report is the beginning, not the end, and I look forward to working with my colleagues across the House to ensure that the CWGC receives the support and resources it needs to take forward this important piece of work.

  • Anna McMorrin – 2021 Comments on the Total LNG Gas Pipeline in Mozambique

    Anna McMorrin – 2021 Comments on the Total LNG Gas Pipeline in Mozambique

    The comments made by Anna McMorrin, the Shadow Minister for International Development, on 26 April 2021.

    The risks with this project were clear from day one. The decision to invest was short-sighted, contradicted environmental, humanitarian and security warnings in the government’s own impact assessment, and has risked UK taxpayers money.

    The Conservative Government have serious questions to answer over how much and what protections are in place around the public money already committed.

    The government must use this indefinite pause wisely – instead of continuing to lock low-income and climate vulnerable countries into a new generation of fossil fuel reliance, the UK must seize the opportunity to fully withdraw support from the project, align with new fossil fuel policy, and invest in green and sustainable development and transition.

  • Jonathan Ashworth – 2021 Comments on Lengthening Waiting Lists

    Jonathan Ashworth – 2021 Comments on Lengthening Waiting Lists

    The comments made by Jonathan Ashworth, the Shadow Secretary of State for Health and Social Care,on 26 April 2021.

    Years of underfunding and cutbacks meant we entered the crisis with waiting lists growing and targets for cancer treatment missed.

    But there shouldn’t have to be a choice between Covid care and cancer care.

    It is now crucial that ministers provide hospitals, our NHS staff and patients with a fully resourced rescue plan to bring waiting lists down.

    That starts with giving our NHS staff a fair pay rise and recruiting the extra doctors and nurses we need for the future. And we need the very best cutting edge technology and equipment to deliver the standards of care people deserve.

    Leaving patients in limbo waiting for surgery risks their condition worsening leading to permanent disability, loss of livelihood and tragically for some loss of life.

    Labour will be using our voice and vote in parliament to demand action to bring waiting lists down and deliver the very best cancer and mental health care.

  • Liz Truss – 2021 Comments on Joint Economic and Trade Committee Between UK and Indonesia

    Liz Truss – 2021 Comments on Joint Economic and Trade Committee Between UK and Indonesia

    The comments made by Liz Truss, the Secretary of State for International Trade, on 26 April 2021.

    By 2050 Indonesia is predicted to be one of the top five economies globally. Today’s agreement sets out our ambitions to strengthen our trade and investment ties, deepen our collaboration across a range of sectors, from financial services and technology to renewables and open new markets for UK businesses.

    We want to strengthen trade links with like-minded countries like Indonesia who share our belief in democracy and the international rules-based system and help strengthen Global Britain’s dynamic partnerships with ASEAN and Southeast Asia.

  • Dominic Raab – 2021 Statement on Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe

    Dominic Raab – 2021 Statement on Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe

    The statement made by Dominic Raab, the Foreign Secretary, on 26 April 2021.

    This is a totally inhumane and wholly unjustified decision.

    We continue to call on Iran to release Nazanin immediately so she can return to her family in the UK. We continue to do all we can to support her.

  • Jesse Norman – 2021 Speech to HMRC Virtual Stakeholder Conference

    Jesse Norman – 2021 Speech to HMRC Virtual Stakeholder Conference

    The speech made by Jesse Norman, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, on 21 April 2021.

    Thank you everyone for coming along and joining us today. My name is Jesse Norman, I’m the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and I’m responsible for tax policy at the Treasury and also for HMRC.

    And what an astonishing organisation that is.

    Tax is absolutely at the centre of economic activity and behaviour. You may know I wrote a book a few years ago about Adam Smith, who was a commissioner of customs in Scotland and wrote memorably and incredibly thoughtfully about the basic principles of taxation. And it’s a complete delight to be able to embed myself not just in the policy, but also in understanding of the operations of HMRC as well.

    My job has been around, as I have discovered, for over 300 years. In fact, the first Financial Secretary, then known as the Junior Secretary of the Treasury, was Thomas Harley MP. He was from Herefordshire and, as you will know, I’m the Member of Parliament for Hereford and South Herefordshire. So there’s a point of continuity there.

    He got that job in summer 1711, I’m sure owing to his astonishing personal merit and hard work, but also possibly not unconnected to the fact that he was the cousin of the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time. Anyway, one of the things he famously had to do in his life was to crack down on smuggling and on embezzlement. There was one occasion when he was tackling a brewery owner from Deal, who had been accused of engaging in fraud and abuse – failing to provide the right amount of beer that was expected by the thirsty sailors of the naval fleet. How little things have changed, these days, in terms of the willingness of a few people to conduct fraud and abuse! So, we have that precedent to rely on.

    Let me just say, if I may, a couple of things about this event. You, as stakeholders, play an extraordinarily important part in the wide picture of taxation. I hope you have noticed that, since I have become FST, we have really bent over backwards collectively, on the political side and also on the HMRC side, to try to engage and work with stakeholders. The feedback that you have given and continue to give to officials at HMRC, to the senior leadership team there and to me and my colleagues, ministers and other MPs, is absolutely essential to the effective working of the overall system.

    So I want to start by saying thank you for that. Thank you for saying when it goes wrong and, even more, thank you for saying when we got things right, because of course it’s also really important to know when we’re on the right track with policy or with operational changes.

    I want to talk if I may today about three specific areas. The first is what you might call the wider collaboration, the policy and the schemes that HMRC has put in place, and the work they have done with stakeholders through the whole Covid-19 pandemic. The second is what the future looks like for the organisation and for taxpayers more generally; and then thirdly, what our experience has been and how that experience might in turn shape how we as a government, through the tax system and through Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, think about how we respond to future crises of this kind, or indeed other major economic and epidemiological or health events.

    So, let’s start where we should, with what we’ve been through in the past 12 months. I will never get tired of saying what an astonishing job HMRC and Treasury officials have done in their response to the Covid pandemic. I think when people come to write the history books, they will see it as exemplary.

    And of course, that in itself has relied on the extraordinary difference that you, our stakeholders, have given in helping HMRC to test and improve the support schemes they put in place. This includes consulting with them, helping to tip them off when something is going wrong, helping them to manage demand, or the vital element of making sure that taxpayers know what they should be doing, when they should be doing it and know of the schemes that we have put in place to help them through this incredibly difficult period.

    I am under no illusions about the importance of your involvement as stakeholders in administering the support schemes. I’m extremely grateful and I thank you for it.

    You probably know that the Job Retention Scheme alone has paid out more than £53 billion over the period; that’s protected 11.2 million jobs, an astonishing intervention. If someone said at the beginning of last year, “Great news Jesse, in three months’ time, you’ll be responsible for an organisation that’ll be protecting 11 million jobs and spending the eye-watering sum of £53 billion”, I would never have even remotely imagined it. None of us would. None of us did and that is something that I’ll come to later on.

    But these extraordinary measures are testimony to the amazing energy and the very rapid, ingenious imaginative response that’s been put in place by both the Treasury and HM Revenue & Customs. And that’s not even to mention the Self-employed Income Support Scheme, which has issued almost £20 billion to a further 2.7 million people. And of course, there’s been a host of other tax easements and deferrals, grant schemes, and all the rest sitting alongside that, and that’s made an incredible difference.

    All these things have helped to keep the fabric of what Adam Smith called our commercial society in place. I think we’ve learned hugely as a country about how to deal with pandemic crises, and if we now can get through what is going to be the greatest economic crisis that this country has faced outside wartime in our recorded history, going back to Thomas Harley in the beginning of the 18th century, then that will be an amazing achievement.

    So massive thanks. Thank you for all you’ve done and thank you for all that I know you will continue to do in supporting the work that we are doing.

    Now, I talked about the people who we’ve been able to help through schemes, through the furlough scheme to the self-employed scheme and all the other tax easements and other schemes that we put in place. The vast majority we have been able to help, I am thrilled to say. But it’s also true, and I am acutely conscious, that we have not been able to help everyone in the way that they might have wanted. As you know, I have talked to many Members of Parliament and I’ve talked to many of the wider stakeholder groups. I’ve really tried to lean forward into this issue, to think of ways to understand the concerns that they have, to understand the issues as they might present themselves and then to try to push officials and systems to work as hard and effectively as we can on how to solve them.

    You have helped us think our way through how we can improve the schemes, how we can include as many people as possible – and also how we can do so while protecting taxpayers—that is, all of us who pay taxes up and down this country—from the risk of fraud, error and abuse that the schemes might be vulnerable to, if they were not properly managed.

    So, if we take the changes we announced at the Budget, the Self-employed scheme has been extended to those who filed their 2019 to 2020 tax return; that’s 600,000 people. Indeed, many of those had become self-employed in that year, and therefore could be eligible for the fourth and fifth grants. That was a significant and important change, but I think it’s all forgotten that actually we made a number of additional other important changes to schemes before that.

    We’ve tried to develop them, and to allow them to evolve to become more inclusive over a period of time, and that’s been a very important thing too.

    I’m delighted we’ve been able to make those changes, and where we have been presented with other proposals for how to include more people, we have taken them with great seriousness. I and my officials have really tried to work through all the angles and all the kinks, to try to see if there’s a way we can accommodate them, and in some cases we haven’t been able to. That is because we have not been able to overcome the concerns that we’ve had about issues of protecting public money and safeguarding against fraud and error and abuse. It is a matter of profound regret, but it is the counterpart to the very rapid work that we have done to put in place these extraordinary, wide ranging measures on behalf of the vast majority of people who have been affected.

    Now if you look overall, we’ve got something like a £407 billion package of support, part of the overall response to the COVID pandemic, and so there is a very wide range of help for people who may not have been able to be helped by those schemes, and many have been able to avail themselves of that as well.

    Now if we turn from the existing response to the future and ask ourselves what might the future look like for HMRC in four years for taxpayers, I think it’s important to note a few things. The first is that these schemes are continuing as we emerge from the current period of crisis. They are in place, they are being phased out in a stepped and carefully calibrated way, precisely so we can have as orderly and measured transition as we possibly can to a future robust economic and public health recovery.

    But of course, we’re also trying to think about the future as well and to learn and to reflect on the experience of the past few months. HMRC’s fundamental role is going to remain the same, that is to say, it is still going to collect the taxes and support public services, it is still going to provide financial help to those that need it most. But how they do that and how they interact with how people are increasingly choosing to live and work – of course those have massively changed as well in the last few months – are really important questions. And we need to change, and we need to change the tax system, to make sure that we recognise those facts.

    That is why I have placed so much emphasis and HMRC has been so engaged in the work we’ve done on our 10-year tax administration strategy. That’s a really important thing. I think it’s an absolutely foundational project: I try to take, wherever I possibly can, a strategic view of matters and that is what we have tried do here. Improving the resilience and the effectiveness of the tax system over the next decade – that’s the core goal for us.

    At the same time, we want to try to track and anticipate some of the rapid changes—social changes, economic changes, technological changes—that we’re seeing in our society and in our economy. We also want to do that while reducing the cost to taxpayers, helping them to meet their obligations more easily, simplifying if we possibly can, accommodating and including other easements that may help people as they go about their lives.

    We don’t want people’s lives to be structured by ‘You need to pay tax’. We want their lives to be rewarding, successful and happy; and if they’re running businesses, then we want the proper payment of tax to be something that comes naturally and effectively through a well-functioning tax administration system. So that is the overall package of benefits that we want to offer.

    Now, how are we doing this? The first is we’re focusing on extending our Making Tax Digital programme. And I’ll talk a bit more about that later, but I think you know that by April of next year, smaller VAT registered businesses will be required to join the larger organisations that already signed up to MTD. And from the following year we’re going to be extending MTD to income tax self-assessment for business and landlords with income over £10,000.

    You’ve heard today about how the strategy is going to involve using more real time information so that taxpayers gather a more up-to-date understanding of what’s going on, and I hope greater certainty over their tax position and potentially the greater capacity to assess risks in their own lives or in their own businesses.

    Well, of course, tax reporting will become increasingly real-time. It may well make sense, although this is a complex and tricky area, to bring tax payments further into line with that, so that taxpayers have a single and, as far as possible, a complete financial picture of their tax situation. Of course, there may also be end-of-year adjustments – I’m not downplaying the seriousness, in accordance with that issue – but that’s the goal. But it’s not just about systems, it’s about the everyday business of making tax easier to calculate and easier to understand. And of course there will remain a very wide range of people with an infinitely different array of circumstances. Those circumstances are going to shape how they react, and we can’t proceed on the basis that one size will fit everyone.

    So the strategy has got to set out, alongside this, how HMRC is going to build an easily accessible and secure system of single digital accounts. We want taxpayers to have the information they need to enable them to manage their tax affairs in one place. We want them to be able to understand their tax obligations more easily. We want them to be able to pull in more tailored support so that they can make better judgments. And, of course, we want HMRC – and ultimately us all as taxpayers – to benefit from greater efficiency across the system.

    The document focuses, not just on some of the nitty gritty issues that I’ve already described, but also on plans to improve standards in the tax advice market – another indicator of how we try to see this in as inclusive and as systemic a way as possible – and also of course services for agents and representatives. Then, of course, undergirding this will be work to simplify and modify the tax administration legislative framework, so that HMRC and its taxpayers and customers can benefit from the technological and data advances that are being made.

    So that’s the overall picture. I think it’s fair to say, and I hope you would agree, that there’s been a fair bit of progress already. The Government committed £500 million pounds last summer to expanding Making Tax Digital. In the Budget we announced a further £68 million to take forward work on developing the single digital account and the customer record as I just mentioned.

    And of course the Tax, Policies and Consultations update that we did at the end of March was a way to give more prominence and transparency to tax consultations. It was a small but I think important measure designed to reform the process of making policy itself within the tax system.

    If you haven’t yet shared your views with HMRC, please do so because, as I said earlier, we really need to move forward collectively on this. We need your stakeholder input if we’re going to get things right.

    All this in turn brings out the wider and even more fundamental issue, which is that we tax with people’s consent. Public trust is a basic aspect of all taxation and if we’re going to make these kinds of changes that I’ve described, we need to ensure that the public’s faith in the tax system remains undiminished. And that means building and maintaining and sustaining that relationship of trust and consent.

    That’s why HMRC has upgraded and updated its charter recently, in order to be clear about what the standards of behaviour should be both for them and for their customers. And it’s why we’re trying to make sure that those who might need more help when they deal with HMRC, are going to get the right support at the right level, available through the extra support service.

    It’s not just that how HMRC interacts with taxpayers is important, it’s also important that the language in which they do so is as open and accessible as possible. There’s been a lot of feedback in this area from taxpayers and tax agents on behalf of customers. There’s been a lot of work done on guidance, making sure guidance is accessible, clear and authoritative as possible. And that’s all to the good.

    Let me just say a couple of other things, and then I’ll wind up. I do think we need to reflect on the experience of the past 12 months. I have tried to take a lead within the Treasury and with HMRC, setting challenges on how they think about the response – not just this pandemic, reflecting on what we’ve learned – but also how to go forward. We can’t take for granted that future events are going to bear a fixed or known relationship to the past. No one can predict the precise nature of future events.

    So what we’re going to need is optionality; we’re going to need resilience; we’re going to need preparation, and all these things are going to be core elements.

    To make this happen, we’re going to need data and technology. Digitisation and real time information are going to be the two pillars, so that HMRC as an organisation, and indeed the system as a whole, has greater flexibility and bandwidth. Now that does mean real time data of course, it also potentially could mean a more improved pandemic response. That’s a further step to how policy response might reflect what further information might be required – and this is a topic we’re doing a lot of thinking about at the moment.

    So we’re thinking hard about MTD. We’re thinking hard about the wider pandemic response—and those things have to come together. Now, you’ve already heard, as MTD is developed, it does have the potential to provide other benefits for businesses in normal times. That might be better record keeping, it might be greater support for productivity improvements, it might be lower error rates, it might be prompts to their own business management practices. We know that businesses that embrace IT tend to have significant productivity increments and improvements and that would be a very important goal.

    And of course, once you as a business have made those changes they’re with you, potentially for a very long time. So there may be some transitional processes, there may be some transitional costs. Speaking to stakeholders myself, I know that there have been concerns about what those burdens may be and whether they are too large, and I just want to be clear with you that I am very much still in listening mode on this issue.

    We want this tax system that we are developing to be as user-friendly as possible, and we want the transition to be as smooth as possible. MTD is a fundamental part – but it’s just part of a wider vision for restoring and renewing our tax administration system. If we want to achieve the full potential, even with MTD, we need to think of the wider picture, and that’s what I am focused on.

    So let me wind up: amazing achievements by HMRC and the Treasury; astonishing support from their partners and stakeholders around the country, and support that underlines all we’re doing on the tax admin strategy. I couldn’t be more proud of that.

    I think we’re in an important moment in the evolution of the whole system. I am going to be giving this as much energy as I possibly can. I will be pressing this in all parts of government. I know the Chancellor is fully committed and behind us and I know that if we really engage with it and we continue to work as hard, collectively and constructively as possible – then we can achieve something quite extraordinary.

    It’s going to take some time, but I am incredibly excited about the potential outcomes, and I think we can do some really powerful long term good, not just for ourselves, our own businesses, own institutions but for the country as a whole. Thank you very much indeed.