Tag: 2022

PRESS RELEASE : Report by the Co-ordinator of OSCE Economic and Environmental Activities – UK response [November 2022]

The press release issued by the Foreign Office on 10 November 2022.

Deputy Ambassador Brown highlights the negative consequences of Russia’s illegal war in Ukraine on energy security, climate security, and food security.

Thank you, Ambassador Hasani, for your presentation on recent activities. It certainly makes clear the broad range of work, key to the OSCE’s comprehensive concept of security, which you and your team cover.

For eight months now, we have witnessed the humanitarian catastrophe stemming from Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine. From its effects on energy prices, to the increased risk of trafficking, the destabilising and degenerative effects of this war of choice are significant and numerous. Inflation in Ukraine is forecast to exceed 30% by the end of 2022, eroding real incomes and increasing poverty; and the Ukrainian Ministry of Finance has estimated a funding gap in its 2023 budget of 38 billion dollars. And as we have heard in this forum, the war has done 37 billion euros worth of damage to Ukraine’s natural environment, with pollution, forest fires, damage to nature reserves, and destruction of water resources. All are direct results of Russia’s aggression.

We therefore support your decision to continue to shift your office’s focus to remedy these effects; as well as your suite of projects in response, including assessing the environmental damage. Russia must be held to account for all their actions in Ukraine. Credible and thorough assessments are an essential part of this.

I would like to focus my remarks on three interlinked areas of security that have become increasingly important since the start of Russia’s war.

First, energy security.

We are pleased to see the Co-ordinator of OSCE Economic and Environmental Activities (OCEEA) address this important topic, through the protection of critical energy infrastructure from natural and man-made disasters; and supporting participating States to diversify their energy mix to include renewable energy, energy efficiency, and alternative fuels.

The dramatic rise in global energy prices, exacerbated by Russia’s weaponisation of energy, has highlighted the importance of reducing our reliance on fossil fuels. The UK’s 10 Point Plan for a Green Industrial Revolution and our Net Zero Strategy set out our vision; and at COP27, our Prime Minister announced a further 65 and a half million pounds for the Clean Energy Innovation Facility, providing grants to researchers and scientists in developing countries to accelerate the development of clean technology.

This shift can help us in addressing the second issue – climate security.

The UK sees an undeniable link between climate, nature, peace and security. The impacts of climate change multiply the threats faced by vulnerable populations. We were pleased to see the continuation of your office’s flagship climate project in South-Eastern Europe, Eastern Europe, the South Caucasus and Central Asia.

We are clear that we must accelerate climate action. Under the UK’s COP Presidency, almost all developed country climate finance providers made new, forward-looking climate finance commitments. The Glasgow Climate Pact means that ‘1.5 degrees’ remains in sight, but this goal will only be achieved through immediate, sustained global effort. As we hand over the Presidency to another member of the OSCE family – Egypt – we must maintain the momentum that parties built at COP26.

Climate change increases competition for water and land, adding to the risk of the third threat – food insecurity.

As you said at the Economic and Environmental Committee meeting in June, armed conflicts and climate change have direct consequences on food security in the OSCE region. Your office’s energy projects improve the sustainability and resilience of the food supply chain.

Today’s global food security crisis was exacerbated by Russia’s brutal war. Farmers are on the frontline – including in Ukraine where brave farmers continue to plant and harvest their crops. We must support them to export their grain and to rebuild their agriculture.

And finally, we share your assessment that the economic empowerment of women is a pre-requisite for their full and effective participation in society, and has a reinforcing effect on our common security. We welcome the integration of a gender perspective in your projects. Challenging destructive gender stereotypes is essential to combat the root cause of women’s disempowerment.

I would like to thank you again, Ambassador Hasani, for all your and your team’s work these past six months.

Thank you.

November 10, 2022
Kate Green – 2022 Statement on Leaving the House of Commons

The statement made by Kate Green, the Labour MP for Stretford and Urmston, on 9 November 2022.

Personal news:

Many apologies for the suddenness of this news, but it has been announced this morning that Andy Burnham intends to nominate me to become deputy mayor of Greater Manchester responsible for police, crime and fire, in succession to my great friend Beverley Hughes. There are some formal confirmatory steps to go through, but I hope to take up post by the new year. This means I will be standing down from parliament in the next few days, and a byelection will be held very shortly.

It has been an enormous privilege to represent my wonderful constituents in Stretford and Urmston over the past 12 years, and I am very sad that I will no longer be your MP. But we have a great candidate in Cllr Andrew Western, and I look forward to campaigning to get him elected to parliament. I am also very pleased that I will have the opportunity to continue to serve people in Stretford and Urmston, and across Greater Manchester, in my new role.

I want to pay tribute to all Bev has achieved in the role – she has always been a huge source of support to me. I am very much looking forward to working closely with her to secure a smooth transition in the coming weeks.

Meantime, may I thank you for all your support and friendship, and I very much look forward to staying in close touch.

Best wishes and speak soon

Kate

November 10, 2022
PRESS RELEASE : Manor of Northstead – Kate Green [November 2022]

The press release issued by the Treasury on 10 November 2022.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer has this day appointed Katherine Anne Green to be Steward and Bailiff of the Manor of Northstead.

November 10, 2022
Lee Anderson – 2022 Speech on Documents Relating to Suella Braverman

The speech made by Lee Anderson, the Conservative MP for Ashfield, in the House of Commons on 8 November 2022.

We all know in this House that it is not appropriate for the Government to publish information relating to confidential advice, so why are we here today, again wasting parliamentary time when we could be talking about real issues? I am just looking at the Labour Benches opposite, and seven Labour MPs have turned up for this debate that they asked for. They cannot even be bothered to turn up to a debate.

Why are we actually here? It is nothing to do with security. It is nothing to do with standards. It is nothing to do with wanting to do the right thing. This is a bullying campaign to get rid of the Home Secretary. That is all it is—it is a relentless bullying campaign to get rid of our brilliant Home Secretary. I can tell you now, she is going nowhere. In the real world where I live and where I represent, I have not had one single email. If you are talking about releasing documents, how about you lot over there—[Interruption.] Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. How about Opposition Members releasing their emails to show how many emails they have actually had on this subject? I suspect it is not very many at all. They do not live in the real world.

Like I say, it is a relentless horrible bullying campaign to get rid of the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary needs to have the backing of this place. She needs the backing of Parliament. She needs the backing of the whole country. She needs people to get behind her so that we can sort out the migrant problem, crime on the streets and these silly protests that we have outside, but that will not happen unless the Opposition get behind her and unless we all get behind her. They are just playing politics—that is all they are doing. I used the word “bullying”. That is all they are—a bunch of bullies. I have been bullied before by the Labour party. I was bullied out of the Labour party, but thanks to them, I am stood here now, sticking up for my residents in Ashfield and Eastwood.

The British people get it; they understand. Like I said, I have not had one single email on this subject. Why are we here today, wasting taxpayers’ money, when we could be talking about the boat crossings, crime on the streets or saving lives? We could be talking about the important stuff. You can sit there with glazed expressions on your faces again like you normally do, looking at me as though I have just landed from a different planet.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)

No, I am not looking at all glazed. Please follow proper parliamentary procedure.

Lee Anderson

I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. You may be aware that Opposition Members are looking at me like I have landed from a different planet, but I have not—I have landed from planet Ashfield, and this is where real people talk common sense. This lot on the Opposition Benches need to visit my constituency, if they ever get the chance. At the next election, I challenge them to come up, knock on some doors and speak to some real people in the real world of Ashfield, and they will go away knowing that that seat of Ashfield is going to stop blue for a long time. I cannot talk any more, because this is a very narrow debate, but what I will say is that they are nothing but a bunch of bullies, and they should be ashamed of themselves.

November 10, 2022
Ruth Cadbury – 2022 Speech on Documents Relating to Suella Braverman

The speech made by Ruth Cadbury, the Labour MP for Brentford and Isleworth, in the House of Commons on 8 November 2022.

This debate has as its core the issue of standards and integrity in our politics. When he was appointed as Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak) proclaimed that he would bring integrity back to Government. He certainly had a front-row seat to its disappearance, seeing that he served faithfully next to a previous Prime Minister with form on the issue. Yet one of his first acts as Prime Minister was to bring back a Home Secretary who just six days before had quit for not one, but two breaches of the ministerial code. They were not accidental breaches or a one-off mistake where an official forgot to tick a box; they were clear breaches of the ministerial rules.

The issue of standards relates not just to emails and the use of personal IT, but to the ethics of how the Home Office works as a Department. Like all of us, Ministers are public servants. We all sign up to the seven Nolan principles of public life: integrity, openness, selflessness, objectivity, accountability, honesty and leadership. Ministers also have a duty to this country on public safety, national security and human rights and a duty to the taxpayer. Have we seen that from the current Home Secretary? No—and that is what this debate is about.

I want to focus on the record and decisions of the Home Secretary and the Home Office in relation to their approach to the crisis in the UK response to asylum seekers. For instance, last week the Home Secretary played to the anti-immigration gallery by implying that asylum seekers had to be stopped from wandering our streets—hence the Government’s policy on Manston—yet her Department was responsible for two groups of destitute asylum seekers being found wandering the streets around Victoria and having to be picked up by a small charity to ensure that they had warm clothes, warm shoes and food.

I also remind the Conservative party that asylum seekers are seeking refuge. They are fleeing—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)

Order. I am afraid the hon. Lady is also going a little wider than the terms of the motion. If she could bring herself back to the motion, that would be very helpful to everybody.

Ruth Cadbury

I appreciate that, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I hope you will let me continue, because I will bring my speech back to the point about standards in public life, which is where I started and what I think this motion is fundamentally about.

Just to give some background, if you will indulge me, Madam Deputy Speaker, in Hounslow there are currently almost 3,000 asylum seekers in nine hotels, and more than 500 in dispersal accommodation, which are mainly rundown houses in multiple occupation with shared kitchens and bathrooms. There are 140 unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. The challenge locally is not asylum seekers roaming the streets causing problems for the community, because by definition asylum seekers want to play by the rules because they want to be given asylum. They do not want to cause trouble, and they are not going to cause trouble. The problem is the challenge for our public services in making sure that these vulnerable people have the right to education and social services to ensure that they are safe and comfortable while they are waiting in the ever-lengthening queue to get their status. The Home Office—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)

Order. The hon. Lady absolutely must come back to the terms of the motion, because she is roaming much wider, and I have pulled up other Members for that. She must come back to the motion itself.

Ruth Cadbury

The Home Office has contracts with organisations such as Clearsprings Ready Homes, which then has contracts with a network of other agencies that are providing a terrible service. One person who works with these services said that asylum seekers receive food not fit for a dog and accommodation not fit for animals.

The hotels—I am coming to my point, Madam Deputy Speaker—receive £40 a room, yet the agencies are receiving Home Office money and taxpayer money at £130 a room, and they are pocketing the difference. The agencies are getting £15 a meal, yet the caterers are receiving £5.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)

Order. I am sorry, but the hon. Lady is not talking about security, as set out in the motion. If the hon. Lady can tell the House how what she is saying relates to these issues of the release of papers, that would be very helpful.

Ruth Cadbury

All right, Madam Deputy Speaker. I take your point and I will keep my notes on that level of misuse of taxpayer money for another time.

I will conclude by saying that perhaps the Prime Minister could finally appoint an independent ethics adviser to ensure that when we see serious breaches of the ministerial code, they can be investigated impartially and a report can be published. I fear that we have returned to an outdated and old-fashioned approach to standards—an approach that simply says, “Trust us, don’t worry, we’ll look after it”, yet surely we and all those who we represent deserve so much better.

November 10, 2022
Danny Kruger – 2022 Speech on Documents Relating to Suella Braverman

The speech made by Danny Kruger, the Conservative MP for Devizes, in the House of Commons on 8 November 2022.

I am afraid that we just have to ignore the shameless politics of this motion. It is, of course, the job of the Opposition to bring this sort of motion before the House. There may come a day—a very distant day—when we sit on the Opposition Benches and make similar attacks on the Government. If the Labour party is the Government, we will have plenty of material to work with based on its last stint in office. There will be new names to add to the illustrious roster of Hinduja, Ecclestone, Mittal and so on, and perhaps even some old names will be coming back. I have the fortune of representing the noble Lord Mandelson as a constituent. I dare say that he will be back on the Front Bench of the Labour party if it is ever back in power and he, no doubt, will be resigning two or three times during his next stint in office. Our Home Secretary has only ever had to resign once, compared with him.

We should not complain, even if it is very thin stuff that Labour Members are bringing. What is going on here? Is it the context or the subtext of this motion? Labour is not attacking the Home Secretary because she shared a policy document with a fellow Privy Counsellor and a former security Minister. The document itself contained no security information. In fact, all the information in the document was already in the public domain. There was no national security breach and no private data involved. That is not the purpose of their attack. The attack is because of her approach to immigration, and I suggest that that is not a subject for this sort of political knockabout, because the topic matters to us all. Despite the knockabout, I think both sides have a legitimate concern and legitimate points to make in this debate, and deep down we all want the same thing.

It is easy to caricature one another’s positions: the Opposition say we are heartless; we say they are naive. They say we are against refugees altogether; we say they want open borders—I said that last week, and it is true of some of them, but let me be fair to the majority of our opponents and try to represent their view fairly. They want us to play our part as a country—a leading part, given our history—in the management of the great people movements of the world. They want our attitude as a country to those people huddled in boats in the English channel to be one of compassion. They want our responsibility—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)

Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying—

Danny Kruger

I am straying, Madam Deputy Speaker—

Madam Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman needs to sit down when I am standing. Thank you. He is straying away from the terms of the motion, and he should be quite careful what he says about other Members of the House.

Danny Kruger

That is a fair point, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank you for that guidance. I do not have much more to say, then, because the topic of the debate should have been the question of how we manage migration—that is the real purpose of the Opposition’s attacks on the Home Secretary.

It is right that we on the Government side represent citizens who believe strongly in the importance of protecting our borders against illegal migration. It is preposterous that the Opposition think the Government should reveal legal advice. They cannot attack the Home Secretary for her plans on migration, because those plans are popular and right, so they attack her. I wish they would recognise that we all want a humane asylum system and secure borders; they could even work with us to secure that.

November 10, 2022
Richard Thomson – 2022 Speech on Documents Relating to Suella Braverman

The speech made by Richard Thomson, the SNP MP for Gordon, in the House of Commons on 8 November 2022.

What a debate this is turning out to be on one side of the House. I cast my mind back to last week’s SNP Opposition day debate, and to other Opposition day debates. A single transferable speech seems to be rattling around about all the things that the Opposition could be talking about. The clue for Conservative Members is in the name. If they want to be in charge of choosing the topics for Opposition day debates, they should simply call a general election, which would be welcomed by the country.

Opposition day debates are about the things the Opposition want to talk about, which are very often the things that the Government desperately do not want to talk about. I do not blame the Government or the Paymaster General—the Paymaster General always seems to be the one sent out to defend the crease, even when the post holder changes—for not wanting to talk about the Home Secretary’s shockingly casual approach to security protocols, her apparent disregard for her officials’ legal advice or her extreme rhetoric, which is creating security risks and surely makes her completely unfit for any kind of public office.

We are often told that there are two things we should never see being made: laws and sausages. After the Paymaster General’s remarks today, we might need to add ministerial appointments to that list. It is astonishing that, six days after admitting she had broken the ministerial code and resigning, the Home Secretary was able to saunter back into her old job, off the back of her grubby deal to endorse the Prime Minister in the Conservative party’s leadership election.

It has been obvious in recent years that, whenever a Minister transgresses badly enough, even under this Government, to have to leave office, the time they have to spend in the ex-ministerial sin bin has diminished. I am not sure if that is always because standards have dropped, but the half-life of the radioactivity that results from political misdemeanours seems to have markedly reduced.

The Home Secretary’s reappointment to Government, never mind her reappointment as Home Secretary, raises some extremely serious questions, because there is not one but two emerging scandals surrounding her. Each one, in its own way, not only calls into question her competence and integrity in office but raises extremely serious questions about the judgment of the Prime Minister himself.

Members have spoken about the woeful situation at Manston and, with your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to move away slightly from the discussion of the unauthorised release of information and talk about the obstinate refusal to disclose relevant information—surely that is completely the wrong way round for how Ministers should be operating. We have heard the Home Secretary’s approach to defending the way she dealt with legal advice; she did not, apparently, ignore it, but simply chose to act in a contrary and potentially unlawful fashion having read it.

What cannot be in dispute is that a facility designed to hold up to 1,600 people for no more than 24 hours at a time as a short-term processing facility became, under this Home Secretary’s watch, severely overcrowded. The result has been what the Prison Officers Association assistant general secretary Andy Baxter described as a

“humanitarian crisis on British soil”,

with people sleeping on cardboard in tents amid outbreaks of covid, diphtheria, scabies and hepatitis. David Neal the chief inspector of borders and immigration told the Home Affairs Committee that we are now past the point where we can describe Manston as being a safe facility.

All of that coincided with the Home Secretary’s first period in office. Although she denies this, numerous sources, both inside and outside Government, have stated that one major factor for that overcrowding was that the new Home Secretary was refusing to sign off on hotel accommodation—or “alternative accommodation”, call it whatever you like—that would have allowed people to move on from Manston. I tabled a named day question last week asking how many people had been rehoused in that alternative accommodation and how many such alternative places had been approved by the Home Secretary. Remarkably, the answer that came back refused to divulge that information, because, apparently, it could be obtained only at “disproportionate cost”. I do not think that disproportionate cost is something that can be measured in financial terms, but I hazard a guess that this would have come at a greatly disproportionate cost to the remaining credibility of the Home Secretary.

I go down that byway because paragraph 1(c) of the motion calls for the “minutes”, “submissions” and “communications relating to” the Home Secretary’s appointment or

“advice relating to that appointment”

to be disclosed. It would be extraordinary if the advice that we have been told was being proffered to the Home Secretary was dealt with and treated by her, through her actions, in the manner that many of us believe it was.

This debate is, of course, concerned with security rather than Manston itself, and the reason for that is simple: we know that, by her own admission, the Home Secretary sent confidential information from a secure government IT environment to her own personal Gmail account. She also sent information to another Member of this House, who was not authorised to receive it in that form. Incredibly, she also tried to send it on to the Member’s spouse’s email account and the only reason they failed to receive it was that the Home Secretary accidentally sent it to a different unauthorised recipient, a member of staff of a different parliamentarian. So there were two unauthorised recipients, one of whom it was sent to deliberately and the other of whom was an accidental recipient, every bit as unauthorised as the other intended recipient.

In her resignation letter, the Home Secretary claims to have “rapidly reported” the breach when she realised it. However, a former chairman of the Conservative party has said:

“As I understand it, the evidence was put to her and she accepted the evidence, rather than the other way round.”

In a letter to the Home Affairs Committee on 31 October, the Home Secretary wrote that she realised her error at 10 am and that by 10.2 am had emailed the staff member involved asking them to delete the document—whoop-de-doo. Despite that, the Home Secretary apparently did not think to email or contact the Chief Whip—this further contradicts her claim of rapidly reporting the breach—or, perhaps more pertinently, the permanent secretary or the Cabinet Secretary. It was nearly lunchtime when the Home Secretary said that, by coincidence, she saw the Chief Whip, who by then was already aware of what had happened. It is impossible to square the Home Secretary’s explanation of her actions and motivations with the timeline and the information that we now know. What I think is perhaps hardest to accept is the complete and utter insouciance of the Home Secretary in this matter. Indeed, if we were to take both her resignation letter and her letter to the Home Affairs Committee at face value, we could be forgiven for imagining that this was the first Home Secretary who had ever been forced to resign for doing absolutely nothing wrong.

To take the two most high profile resignations from this Government of late, there is some quite remarkable language used in the letters. The Home Secretary said that she was

“choosing to tender her resignation”,

when she should not even have been given the luxury of that choice. That is almost as good, if not better than, the line in the letter of resignation from the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng). He said:

“You have asked me to stand aside as your Chancellor. I have accepted.”

My goodness, how gracious of him! Nevertheless, there are serious discrepancies in the Home Secretary’s version of events around this breach.

When it comes to that laxness in IT and informational security, we know, of course, that the Home Secretary has form. She herself has conceded that, on six separate occasions, between 15 September and 16 October, she sent documents from her UK Government email environment to her personal Gmail account. That gives rise to a much, much wider issue, which is that, as a result, the UK is now in the absurd position where the Minister responsible for national security has, by her own actions and admissions, proved that she cannot be trusted with the integrity of sensitive documents. That has very serious implications—whether Conservative Members wish to hear it or not—for what the security services can be confident in sharing with the Home Secretary and consequently, flowing from that, serious issues about the accountability that there can be of the security services to Ministers. International partners will also have taken note, and I suspect that the explanations that have been given will cut little ice. They will simply see a security risk.

If the Prime Minister wants to restore some level of confidence in national security and in the office of Home Secretary, he now needs to remove this Home Secretary from office and commit to a full investigation and to the release of all the relevant documentation to establish what exactly took place. If the Prime Minister was in the least bit serious when he talked of integrity and accountability in his Government, he needs to match those fine words with the reality of his actions: release that information and sack the Home Secretary.

As I have said, this matter raises very serious concerns about the Prime Minister’s judgment. That is why the information must be released. That is why the Government must release information also made available to the Prime Minister in deciding whether to reappoint the Home Secretary. That would allow us get to the bottom of it. It would allow us to reach an informed judgment and see whether it is justified that so many Members on the Opposition Benches take the view that the appointment of this Home Secretary was a very, very serious misjudgment indeed.

November 10, 2022
Chris Clarkson – 2022 Speech on Documents Relating to Suella Braverman

The speech made by Chris Clarkson, the Conservative MP for Heywood and Middleton, in the House of Commons on 8 November 2022.

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord). I was not planning to speak at length, because this all has an air of déjà vu about it, and apparently that is also true for official Opposition Members because there are so few of them here. I mean, this is an Opposition day motion and we are outnumbering them here by two to one. They are fed up with hearing about this too. It is not as if this topic has not been hashed and rehashed ad nauseam, but I suspect that Labour Members will continue to bang this particular drum for a while because, let’s face it, they have absolutely nothing else to talk about.

The right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) has taken on the demeanour of the witchfinder pursuivant lately: “I saw Goody Braverman talking to the ERG in the Aye Lobby—she must be hanged!” It is not like we are looking at the second coming of the Blair era here. We are not faced with bright, intelligent people bringing alternatives to this country; it is just more carping. They are a tired, lazy Opposition. I was going to call them beige but I think they are more of a Farrow and Ball crowd. I had a look through the range and the closest colour to beige I could find was called smoked trout, which I think is quite apt.

Mr Deputy Speaker, with your indulgence I am going to get to the motion via a slightly circuitous route. I am headed there and I am developing my argument en route. I think Labour Members might want to reflect on why they lost supposedly safe seats at the last general election, including mine in Heywood and Middleton. I know it is very easy to blame Brexit and that is of course their go-to: it must have been Brexit because everything was fantastic and they had such a good manifesto and everyone agreed with it; that is why people did not vote for them. We saw the first signs of that in 2017. There is a clear values dissonance between the Opposition’s increasingly metropolitan and louche outlook and what used to be their core vote.

When I knock on a door in my constituency I can guarantee that if I mention the Home Secretary, the first words out of someone’s mouth will not be, “Well, there was a data breach.” The first words out of their mouth will be “small boats”. Of course we are not talking about small boats today, but people want to know what we are doing to stop that influx of illegal migration. They want to make sure that our rightly generous and welcoming asylum system is not being abused by people coming here to take the mick. The fact that Labour Members care about what we are talking about today more than that issue should be extremely telling for the people who voted Conservative for the first time at the last election. My constituents want more coppers on the street and fewer boats in the channel, and I think we have the team in place to do that.

Turning to the motion, I would love to say that I was surprised by it, but yet again we have sixth-form politics. The official Opposition are asking to breach the confidentiality of advice regarding appointments. Officials should be able to rely on the advice that they give being done in a private and confidential way. Setting a precedent that their advice could be published as a matter of course would inevitably weaken the quality of the advice that they give to Prime Ministers of all parties.

We already know quite a lot of the salient details that the Opposition are asking for in this motion. The Home Secretary’s letter to the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee—the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) is unfortunately not in her place—said:

“The draft WMS did not contain any information relating to national security, the intelligence agencies, cyber security or law enforcement. It did not contain details of any particular case work.”

The letter also points to the fact that the data in question was already in the public domain.

I hate to labour the point, but I feel I must in the vain hope that the message starts to percolate through to the Opposition. My constituents want more police, like the 15,300 we have already put on to the streets. They want to stop illegal crossings, and they want to stop the evil traffickers who exploit and endanger the most desperate. They like the Rwanda plan and they like the tough measures in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 and the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, both of which the Labour party voted against.

Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Chris Clarkson

No, I will not.

My constituents think we should be banging up people who glue themselves to the roads and vandalise buildings and monuments. They want fair, controlled migration, not open borders. Any of those things would have been a worthwhile use of an Opposition day but, again, we are talking about a process issue—the same thing we have talked about half a dozen times. It is a waste of parliamentary time. Sadly, it is predictable, wearing and utterly ridiculous. Get a grip.

November 10, 2022
Richard Foord – 2022 Speech on Documents Relating to Suella Braverman

The speech made by Richard Foord, the Liberal Democrat MP for Tiverton and Honiton, in the House of Commons on 8 November 2022.

On 5 April 1982, three days after the invasion of the Falkland Islands, the then Foreign Secretary, Lord Carrington, resigned. He took full responsibility for a failure by the Foreign Office. The Foreign Office had not signalled in advance of the Argentine invasion that the UK would stand resolutely by the people of the Falkland Islands. The Franks inquiry, in the following months, had access to some of the relevant papers. We later learned that the Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, had asked Lord Carrington to stay on, but Carrington had decided to do the decent thing. He resigned.

Just imagine what would have happened if Lord Carrington had returned to office six days after his resignation. The Government would have barely had time to work out where South Georgia was, never mind give orders for its recapture—yet a Cabinet Minister’s return to office six days later is the situation that we see in this Government in 2022. This was just six days after she, by her own admission, deliberately emailed sensitive documents to a friend on the Back Benches without clearance. Since then, we have also heard about six further data breaches. What do they relate to? We do not know, so sensitive are they.

Lord Carrington understood a phrase that I was reminded of by a constituent from Axminster recently: noblesse oblige. One must act in a fashion that conforms to the position and privileges that have been bestowed upon one. This Government cannot seem to recognise that with privilege comes responsibility. We are in this place to act on behalf of our constituents and the country, not our own vested self-interest or party political interests. This exposes something about the Prime Minister. In spite of a myth crafted by a slick PR campaign, he is just as complicit as Conservative Prime Ministers before him.

It is clear that the Government have learned little from the past two years, including the by-election in Tiverton and Honiton this summer. Voters overwhelmingly said that they had had enough of sleaze and cover-up, yet to coin a phrase from one former Prime Minister, nothing has changed. This Home Secretary readily uses inflammatory language to exacerbate anxiety about inward migration. There is a real issue relating to inward migration that has developed while the Home Secretary has been in government, but instead of whipping up fear by speaking of an “invasion”, she should learn from Lord Carrington who, when faced with a real invasion—that of the Falkland Islands—did the right thing and resigned. So, too, should she.

November 10, 2022
PRESS RELEASE : Second ASEAN Economic Ministers-UK Consultation – Joint Statement [November 2022]
The press release issued by the Department for International Trade on 10 November 2022.
1. The Second ASEAN Economic Ministers (AEM) – United Kingdom Consultation was held on 10 November 2022. The Consultation was co-chaired by H.E. Pan Sorasak, Minister of Commerce of the Royal Government of Cambodia, and Greg Hands MP, Minister of State for the Department of International Trade of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UK).
2. The Meeting was pleased to note that the economies of ASEAN and the UK are on their path to post-COVID-19 recovery. According to statistics, total UK trade with ASEAN increased by 3.7 per cent from £36.6 billion in 2020 to £38.0 billion in 2021. The Meeting also noted that foreign direct investment (FDI) inflow from the UK to the ASEAN region had been growing prior to being impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. In this regard, the Meeting noted that in 2020, the FDI inflow from the UK into ASEAN was at least £32.8 billion, £19.0 billion lower than in 2019. In 2020, ASEAN accounted for at least 2.0 per cent of the total UK outward FDI stock.
3. The Meeting reiterated its commitment to forge a closer cooperation to enable the continued growth of the UK and ASEAN economies following the COVID-19 pandemic. The Meeting expressed appreciation to the UK’s support to the region’s COVID-19 pandemic responses, including through its contribution made to the COVID-19 ASEAN Response Fund and to the ASEAN Comprehensive Recovery Framework (ACRF) and its Implementation Plan.
4. The Meeting noted that the post-COVID-19 economic recovery remains vulnerable to adverse global economic developments. The Meeting expressed its deep concerns on geopolitical tension and continued risks to global food and energy security, and rising inflationary pressure.
5. The Meeting exchanged views on ASEAN’s and the UK’s approach in the Indo-Pacific. The Meeting reaffirmed its commitment to ASEAN Centrality and unity in the evolving regional architecture and reiterated the commitment to support an ASEAN-centred regional architecture that is open, transparent, inclusive and rules based, built upon ASEAN-led mechanisms to support the ASEAN Outlook on the Indo-Pacific (AOIP).
6. The Meeting noted paragraph 14 of the Chairman’s Statement of the ASEAN Post Ministerial Conference (PMC) 10+1 Sessions with the Dialogue Partners and Trilateral Meetings (Phnom Penh, Cambodia, 3-4 August 2022) and underscored the importance of multilateralism, adherence to international law, and respect for sovereignty in contributing to global and regional peace, stability, and prosperity.
7. The Meeting welcomed the growing economic cooperation between ASEAN and the UK following the establishment of the ASEAN-UK Dialogue Partnership last year. The Meeting reiterated its commitment to continue strengthening economic cooperation between ASEAN and the UK, as specified in the 2021 Joint Ministerial Declaration for Future Economic Cooperation between ASEAN and the UK (Joint Ministerial Declaration). To this end, the Meeting endorsed the Work Plan to Implement the Joint Ministerial Declaration for Future Economic Cooperation between ASEAN and the UK, and tasked ASEAN and UK Economic Officials to manage and update the Work Plan as necessary.
8. The Meeting highlighted that since the endorsement of the Joint Ministerial Declaration, the UK had provided support to ASEAN under each of the 11 priority areas. The UK has delivered 73 activities working across 23 ASEAN Sectoral Bodies. The Meeting acknowledged the importance of working together to address shared resilience, the need for free and open markets, diverse supply chains, and a deep trading relationship between the UK and ASEAN, in order to build greater supply chain resilience. The Meeting welcomed the findings of the deep dive study into the regional value chain for medical technologies, presented to the ASEAN Integration Monitoring Division in July 2022 and the Special Committee of the Whole Meeting in September 2022. Both of these activities are part of the effective implementation of Accelerated COVID-19 Economic Support (ACES) programme. The Meeting also thanked the UK for inviting the Chair of the G7 Economic Resilience Panel, Lord Mark Sedwill, to present the findings of the Panel to ASEAN Senior Economic Officials. The Meeting noted the recent publication of the UK’s Critical Minerals Strategy.
9. The Meeting noted the UK’s participation in the ASEAN Working Group on Intellectual Property Cooperation and the ASEAN Network of Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Experts to share expertise and technical assistance to progress ASEAN priorities in combating intellectual property infringements and counterfeits, especially in the area of e-commerce trade. The Meeting further noted the UK’s participation in the ASEAN Experts Group on Competition, encouraging continued engagement with the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority following their inclusion in the ASEAN Competition Conference in December 2021 and the delivery of capacity building regarding competition policy for digital markets in August 2022.
10. The Meeting recognised the critical role of the multilateral trading system centred on the World Trade Organisation (WTO). The Meeting welcomed the successful outcomes of the Twelfth WTO Ministerial Conference (MC12) held on 12-17 June 2022 in Geneva, Switzerland. The Meeting expressed its optimism that the series of decisions made at the MC12, namely the “Geneva Package”, laid the foundations for future initiatives and has shown there is widespread commitment from members to work to enhance the WTO’s effectiveness. There was agreement that there is now the momentum, the focus, and the foundations to build on these outcomes. The WTO’s members now need to capitalise on this moment and start laying the groundwork to ensure a fruitful MC13, which will help reinvigorate the WTO and improve the trust of the global community in the multilateral trading system. The Meeting also reiterated its support for a rules-based, non-discriminatory, open, free, inclusive, equitable, and transparent multilateral trading system, with the WTO at its core, whilst also highlighting the need to reform the WTO to ensure it remains effective in its operation, fit-for-purpose and forward looking. The UK and ASEAN will work together to encourage compromise and build consensus.
11. The Meeting reiterated its commitment to promote regulatory excellence in ASEAN. The Meeting welcomed the findings of the “Adoption of International Standards in ASEAN” report by the British Standards Institute, and thanked the UK for the workshop with the ASEAN Consultative Committee on Standards and Quality (ACCSQ) and encouraged the UK’s continued participation in the group’s regular meetings. The Meeting noted the UK’s longstanding support of the ASEAN-OECD Good Regulatory Practice Network and noted the special project exploring learning from the pandemic and future opportunities for regulatory reform in the region, including through new technology such as digital consultation to improve effectiveness and simplicity of regulation to enable business growth and trade.
12. The Meeting looked forward to harnessing the Digital Innovation Partnership to drive the growth of our digital economies under three thematic pillars: Digital Economy Business Partnerships; Digital Trade Policy, Regulation and Standards, and; Digital Government Transformation and Digital Inclusion. The Meeting welcomed the ASEAN-UK Digital Dialogue, held on 8 September 2022, which helped facilitate public and private sector collaboration on digital innovation and technology.
13. The Meeting noted the UK’s significant contribution to ASEAN in tackling climate change. The Meeting welcomed British International Investment (BII) investment of up to £500 million in the Indo-Pacific and noted that it will be reviewing investment opportunities in the Philippines and Indonesia amongst others, focussing on climate finance investments. The Meeting also noted that the UK has committed up to £107 million to the ASEAN Green Catalytic Finance Facility – fulfilling one of our flagship COP26 commitments. The Meeting welcomed the delivery of the ASEAN-UK Sustainable Leadership in Infrastructure Course and noted that the course was designed specifically with ASEAN’s priorities in mind, as set out in the Master Plan on ASEAN Connectivity 2025. The Meeting also highlighted other areas of cooperation that ASEAN and the UK will continue to build on, such as financial services, women’s economic empowerment, and support to Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs).
14. The Meeting exchanged views with the United Kingdom-ASEAN Business Council (UKABC) and noted the briefing by the UKABC on the recent economic activities between the private sectors from the UK and ASEAN including, the ASEAN Financial Literacy Conference and the UK-ASEAN Business Forum, among others. The Meeting expressed its appreciation to the invaluable efforts by the UKABC to further improve collaboration between the private sectors between ASEAN and the UK and looked forward to continued collaboration.
15. The Meeting expressed its support for Indonesia’s G20 Presidency under the theme “Recover Together, Recover Stronger” and Thailand as host of Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) under the theme “Open. Connect. Balance.”. The Meeting noted that these processes provide a unique opportunity for all participating countries/economies to jointly advance the collective global and regional agenda and efforts to bring peace, prosperity and sustainable and inclusive development to all our peoples.
16. The Meeting reflected on the success of the first full year of ASEAN-UK cooperation now that the UK is an ASEAN Dialogue Partner. The Meeting highlighted the UK’s commitment to deliver impactful, tangible results through our ASEAN-UK partnership, enabling economic growth in the ASEAN region and strengthening ASEAN-UK trade ties for the benefit of our business communities and people.
November 10, 2022