UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: 2022

  • PRESS RELEASE : UK to provide 1,000 more surface to air missiles to Ukraine [November 2022]

    PRESS RELEASE : UK to provide 1,000 more surface to air missiles to Ukraine [November 2022]

    The press release issued by the Ministry of Defence on 9 November 2022.

    • UK has provided approximately 1,000 additional surface to air missiles to help counter the Russian threat to Ukrainian infrastructure
    • The Defence Secretary made the announcement while visiting training sites alongside the Secretary General of NATO and JEF Defence Ministers
    • The UK has now trained over 7,400 recruits from the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU), and over 60 AFU Junior leaders

    The Defence Secretary Ben Wallace has announced that the UK will shortly complete the delivery of approximately 1,000 additional surface to air missiles to the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU). This comes in response to Ukrainian requests for more air defence capabilities, and the missiles will play a vital role in the provision of air defence for Ukraine and the protection of its critical infrastructure which is being continually targeted by Russia.

    The missiles can be used in conjunction with existing Armed Forces of Ukraine capabilities. The equipment consists of launchers and missiles and is capable of shooting down air targets, including Russian drones and cruise missiles.

    Defence Secretary Ben Wallace said:

    This commitment of hundreds more surface to air missiles continues our defensive support for Ukraine against Russian aggression – and will help Ukraine counter the threat from illegal targeting of critical national infrastructure.

    The announcement comes as Defence Secretary has today visited two training sites where over 7,400 Ukrainian recruits have been trained by UK forces alongside eight partner nations.

    At the sites being used for training, the Defence Secretary welcomed the NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg in the morning, and his counterparts from the Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF) nations this afternoon, some of whom were able to see their own military personnel conducting the training.

    Currently 1,900 Ukrainian recruits are in the UK taking part in the training programme and will soon return to their home country. When they complete the training, they are provided with items including combat clothing, body armour and ear defence, waterproofs and sleeping bags.

    Recruits are also issued with a fully stocked individual First Aid Kit after learning how to use tourniquets, field dressings and chest seals during training. Recruits leaving the UK will now be provided with extreme cold weather kits, announced by the Prime Minister today, including 25,000 set of extreme cold weather clothing, 20,000 sleeping bags and 150 insulated tents.

    The announcement comes in response to Ukrainian requests for more cold weather equipment. Ukraine’s troops continue to battle to liberate their country from Russian forces as winter rapidly approaches, when temperatures can sink to minus 20°C and below in parts of the country.

    Heavy duty sleeping bags and roll mats, combined with heated accommodation and personal winter clothing, will help to prevent cold-related injuries and ensure troops can operate effectively and efficiently.

    Brigadier Justin Stenhouse, Commander of the UK’s basic training for Ukrainian recruits said:

    We have equipped more than 9,000 Ukrainian recruits to ensure they have the necessary personal protective equipment, including helmet, body armour and webbing, to aid them in fighting against Russian aggression. The effort to support this from across the entire logistic community has been hugely impressive and no small undertaking.

    The Ukrainian recruits, many of whom have little to no military experience, have shown exemplary courage, resilience, and a desire to learn which is deeply humbling to observe. Our instructors have done an excellent job in training these recruits to live and fight using their new equipment and transforming them from civilians to soldiers in just five weeks.

  • PRESS RELEASE : Statement over Cyclists and Pedestrians on Exchange Street in Norwich

    PRESS RELEASE : Statement over Cyclists and Pedestrians on Exchange Street in Norwich

    The press release issued by Norfolk Police on 8 November 2022.

    We know there’s been a lot of discussion about driver’s continuing to use Exchange Street in Norwich.

    This road was turned into pedestrianised zone by Norfolk County Council in 2020 and the current order was put in place in June 2022 and is closed to motorised traffic between 10am and 4pm, seven days a week.

    While we’ve carried out some enforcement, due to the numbers of drivers continuing to use the route, the current signage is not adequate.

    We have raised our concerns with the highways team at Norfolk County Council who have reassured us they will be making improvements to signage to make it clear to motorists.

    In the meantime, we are in discussions around further alternatives to help to ensure a higher level of compliance.

    On Saturday officers dealt with a woman causing an obstruction of the highway which is an offence – and while cars shouldn’t be driving on the route – there are exceptions such as emergency vehicles on 999 calls.

    We will seek to remove people from the highway for their own safety. We are aware some officers waved through vehicles already committed to the route and these officers will be given suitable guidance.

  • Mel Stride – 2022 Speech on the State Pension Triple Lock

    Mel Stride – 2022 Speech on the State Pension Triple Lock

    The speech made by Mel Stride, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, in the House of Commons on 8 November 2022.

    Can I open by saying that it is a pleasure to at last stand opposite the right hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) in debate at the Dispatch Box? We have heard a lot of sound and fury from the Opposition Benches, but not much illumination and light. Indeed, the entire speech was predicated on a perceived answer to the question that he has put in the motion—namely, that we will short-change pensioners in some way—and that is far from necessarily the outcome we will see.

    The right hon. Gentleman’s speech started pretty well—he read out the motion and so far so good—but it was on the intervention of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), who claimed him as a close friend, that he started to go down hill and lose his politics bearings. I should just correct my right hon. Friend, who I think was being over-harsh on Gordon Brown by suggesting that, in 1999, Labour put up pensions by 50p. It was, of course, 75p—a full 50% more than he suggested.

    Sir John Hayes

    I am immensely grateful to my right hon. Friend for correcting the record. I did say we were friends and I was trying to be generous to the right hon. Member for Leicester South, but adding the extra 25p would have come as cold comfort to the pensioners who suffered under Labour. We should remember that the triple lock was a Conservative policy, which is why we must stand by it.

    Mel Stride

    I thank my right hon. Friend, and given the impact his intervention had on a speech that deteriorated very rapidly thereafter, he will now be my secret weapon in every debate now; he will be there, poised.

    Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)

    I am actually quite offended by the idea that this is theatre and knockabout because my constituents do not see that way. Can I bring some facts to this debate? The Labour Government took 1 million pensioners out of poverty. This Government have put half a million into poverty. Does the Secretary of State not feel that this is just outrageous, and that he needs to make it clear today that the promises of his manifesto will be fulfilled?

    Mel Stride

    I will of course come on to the issue of the impact of the Government’s huge commitment to pensioners over the years on issues such as poverty that the hon. Lady has raised. However, may I begin by saying that I am slightly surprised the right hon. Member for Leicester South should have come forward with this motion at all? He was present at departmental questions just a few days ago, when the question about what the Government would do in respect of the triple lock, and indeed the uprating of benefits, was put on many occasions to me and my fellow Ministers, and we gave a very clear, rational and sound response. It is that a fiscal event will take place soon—on the 17th of this month—and, as he will know, it is completely out of order for Ministers under those circumstances to start giving a running commentary on what is expected to be included in that fiscal event. Indeed, in the event that he was in my position, stood up and pre-announced measures that were coming forward in the Budget, he would rightly be required to resign from his position. No doubt that is something that, in my case, would please him no end, but I am afraid I am not going to give him that pleasure.

    Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con)

    On the autumn statement coming on 17 November, which is next week, it is accompanied by a full forecast from the Office for Budget Responsibility. Is that not the responsible time to talk about the uprating of pensions and benefits? It is irresponsible of the Opposition to bring this forward ahead of the full OBR forecast.

    Mel Stride

    My hon. Friend is entirely right. That is precisely the point I am making. It would be entirely irresponsible for any member of the Government to prejudge or give a running commentary on anything that may appear in that statement.

    Alan Brown

    Can the Secretary of State outline why it would be irresponsible to confirm that the Government are keeping a manifesto commitment and promise?

    Mel Stride

    As I have set out, we are facing what is being called a Budget. It is a major fiscal event and many decisions will be taken within it. It would not be right for a member of the Government at the Dispatch Box to prejudge what may be included in it.

    Sir Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)

    I welcome the Secretary of State to his first Department for Work and Pensions debate. Surely he is not suggesting that the current Prime Minister was irresponsible when he said last May that the triple lock would be honoured for next April. Will he confirm that, if the triple lock is not honoured for next April, it will be almost without precedent, going back 50 years or more, for the state pension not to be uprated at least in line with inflation?

    Mel Stride

    I welcome the question from the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee. As a former Pensions Minister, he will know that, in the situation we are in at the moment, right hard up against a major fiscal event that is about to set out major tax and spending decisions, it would simply not be right, as I have said on countless occasions, for any member of the Government to prejudge and pre-empt the measures that the Chancellor will be coming forward with.

    David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)

    The Secretary of State talks about prejudging, pre-empting and following due process, but he knows that, if the Department was intending to suspend the triple lock, his officials would already be preparing the relevant legislation, as was brought forward by then Pensions Minister, the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), when the triple lock was last suspended. In the interests of being transparent and following process, can the Secretary of State see whether those officials have been instructed to draft that legislation?

    Mel Stride

    That is simply an ingenious way—I congratulate the hon. Member—of asking precisely the same question. I have noticed that Members do that in this House from time to time, sometimes quite effectively.

    The process is extremely clear. I have a duty under legislation to assess the triple lock and the uprating of benefits and, taking into account the September CPI figures and the average wage increases in the preceding period, and in conjunction with the Chancellor—because these decisions have a major impact on the Department’s annual managed expenditure—to come to a decision. That process is ongoing and will be concluded by the 17th, when the hon. Member will have the answers to all the questions he asks.

    Let me focus on part of the central charge from the shadow Secretary of State regarding what this Government have or have not done for pensioners over a long period. As has been pointed out by Conservative Members, the triple lock was brought in under a Conservative-led Government in 2011. As to what has happened to the pension in that intervening period, the basic state pension has increased by £2,300, outperforming inflation by £720. We spend £110 billion a year supporting pensioners through the pension and £134 billion if we take wider measures into account. That is more than 5% of the entire output of the economy dedicated to supporting our pensioners.

    Gary Sambrook

    Talking of wider measures, pension credit can be worth up to £3,300 for individual pensioners, and it can open the door to many other benefits such as free NHS dental treatment and other cost of living measures. There are 800,000 people in the UK, many of whom will be in Birmingham, Northfield, who could claim pension credit but do not. Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to encourage as many people as possible to claim pension credit?

    Mel Stride

    That is a truly constructive intervention because, as my hon. Friend points out, not everybody who would be qualified for that benefit has applied. About 70% of those who we believe are eligible receive pension credit, but 30% do not. My hon. Friend the Minister for Employment did an extraordinarily good job in June in encouraging people to sign up to pension credit, through the campaign that the Department launched, and I believe there was an increase in take-up of 275% due to his efforts. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Gary Sambrook) is right: this is important not just for the benefits that we think of, and the credit itself, worth £3,300, but in terms of recent measures that the Government have announced, the £650 of support, which is available to pensioners only if it is unlocked by access to pension credit. It is an important credit to apply for.

    Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)

    The £650 cost of living grant to those on pension credit is great, and would have been a great incentive to get that other 30% to 40% to sign up for pension credit. We know that some people feel that they should not do it, and we need to persuade them. Unfortunately, however, unless someone applied successfully by 19 August, they can no longer get that £650. My campaign to extend that deadline to 31 March has been running for a couple of months, and I have had some positive responses. Will the Minister consider meeting me to talk about the possibility of extending the deadline to the official end of winter, so that we can convince people to take it?

    Mel Stride

    I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention and I recognise the solid and important work that she has done in this area. I can correct her, and hopefully please her, by saying that the deadline is 18 December, because pensions credit can be applied for three months retrospectively, which would bring it into the reference period for the £650 payment.

    Anne McLaughlin

    The 19 December deadline only allows people to get £324. I will be getting my constituents to sign up for that on the basis of the £324, but I am asking whether somebody who applies until the end of March can get the whole amount of £650, which is a bigger incentive than £324.

    Mel Stride

    I thank the hon. Lady for that clarification and I accept the point she makes. I would be happy for the Minister for Pensions to meet her to discuss the issue she has raised.

    Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)

    The key point my right hon. Friend is stressing is that a huge amount has been done consistently by this Government to help pensioners since 2011—innovations that the Opposition opposed at the time or certainly did not come up with, including benefits for women who can claim pension years when they were bringing up children, and auto-enrolment with 20 million new people. I hope that the one-off payment my right hon. Friend just alluded to will be valid for a bit longer, and there is the increase of £3,200 per pensioner on the state pension alone. Does my right hon. Friend agree that today’s debate is largely designed for the Opposition, and about the shadow Minister who was behind the 1999 75p increase—[Interruption.]—trying to park his tanks—

    Mr Speaker

    Order. Mr Graham, when I stand up I expect you to sit down and not carry on your speech. Do we understand each other about the rules of this House?

    Richard Graham

    We do.

    Mr Speaker

    Right. So in future please sit down.

    Mel Stride

    Thank you, Mr Speaker. The points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) are well made. This Government have done a huge amount over many years to do what we can.

    Ms Lyn Brown

    So why is poverty going up?

    Mel Stride

    The hon. Lady asks from a sedentary position why poverty is going up, and I will come to poverty in a moment. There is no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester is right: for a long time the Government have stood up for the interest of pensioners as one of our prime priorities, and we know why. Many pensioners are particularly vulnerable. When economic conditions are difficult—as they are at the moment—it is hard for them to adjust their economic circumstances, to re-engage with the workforce and so on, so it is important that we have that duty.

    I turn to poverty. Since 2009-10, 400,000 fewer pensioners are in absolute poverty—before or after housing costs—and the proportion of pensioners in material deprivation has fallen from 10% in 2009-10 to 6% in 2019-20. Over the much longer sweep since 1990, relative poverty has halved, but there is still more to be done.

    Alan Brown

    Does the Secretary of State accept that poverty analysis figures lag real time and that poverty figures are going up? We only have to look at how an estimated 6.7 million households are in fuel poverty. Will he remember that when he stands at the Dispatch Box and talks about figures coming down?

    Mel Stride

    Those figures are simple facts about what has happened to absolute poverty across the period that I quoted.

    I turn to an important issue: the economic circumstances in which the country finds itself.

    Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)

    Will the Secretary of State give way?

    Mel Stride

    In a moment. That is a difficult situation, largely visited upon us through a major pandemic that shut down a substantial proportion of the economy, followed by a war between Ukraine and Russia. That, of course, has had a huge impact in terms of inflation, the cost of energy and people’s bills. It is only right that we are honest with the public and honest in the House about the ramifications of that situation. On 17 November, we will see some difficult choices brought forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on both tax and spending. We have to understand why that is. They will be brought forward because the country must demonstrate that it will live within its means and act fiscally responsibly. As a consequence, we see bond yields and interest rates softening, which will be good for mortgage holders, good for businesses who are borrowing and good for the servicing costs of the Government and their national debt.

    Those hard choices must be made, but within them the Government have a core mission to look after the most vulnerable. Those who say that we do not do that are simply wrong. The evidence bears out my statement. The £650 cost of living payment that we have discussed is there for pensioners through pension credit and is there more widely for 8 million low-income households up and down the country. There is the £300 payment to all pensioner households. There is the £400 reduction in fuel bills, which comes through the bills themselves. There is a £150 reduction for those living in houses in council tax bands A to D—many of them will be pensioners—and a £150 payment to those who are disabled. That is on top of the household support fund administered by local authorities, who perhaps have a better grip of local need than those at the centre, which was recently expanded by £500 million to over £1 billion. Of course, there is also the energy price guarantee holding average fuel bills for the average family at £2,500, saving £700 across the winter. All those measures and more are clearly indicative that the Government care about those who have the least and are there to protect them at every turn.

    David Linden

    Going back to what the Secretary of State said earlier, one would think that before covid and the war in Ukraine everything was hunky-dory and there were no problems at all. The reality is that the cost of living crisis is not recent but a result of 12 years of Conservative austerity. [Interruption.] If only Conservative Members got so outraged about pensioner poverty. When he talks about the hard fiscal decisions that will have to be made on 17 November, does he understand that my pensioners in Belvidere are shocked that the Government are not doing enough while lifting the cap on bankers’ bonuses?

    Mel Stride

    I am surprised by the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. When a pandemic comes along and contracts the economy by a greater level than at any time since about 1709—the year of the great frost—and a war breaks out that has a huge impact on energy costs in electricity, oil and gas, very few of our constituents up and down the country would not accept that those have been major contributors to the inflation and other challenges that we face. Only yesterday, the International Monetary Fund stated that about a third of economies in the world will be going into recession. We are not an outlier; we are right in the middle of the pack of nations who are suffering the consequences of the events that I described.

    Margaret Greenwood

    The Secretary of State has been telling us that the Government are committed to protecting the most vulnerable and looking after pensioners, but that will ring hollow to pensioners in my constituency who are devastated at the squeeze on public services. They see libraries closing—places they rely on as social hubs where they can go and interact with people—and the local authority having problems providing the social care that they need. Those issues really affect them. I know that they do not come under his Department, but will he commit to speaking to the Cabinet about them?

    Mel Stride

    The hon. Lady raises a perfectly legitimate concern. We are all concerned about public services, and certainly those of us on the Government side care deeply about public services, but we must be honest with the British public in saying that times are extremely difficult and there will be some tough decisions.

    Margaret Greenwood indicated dissent.

    Mel Stride

    The hon. Lady shakes her head, but economically there are really three choices: we can either raise taxes, cut spending or borrow more money. The Labour way, we know, is to borrow, borrow, borrow. Unfortunately, we all know where that leads. [Interruption.] The shadow Secretary of State needs to calm down. He is getting a bit excited. What we need—

    Mr Speaker

    Order. Mr Ashworth, you need to calm down. [Interruption.] No, no. I will make the decision on who needs to be calm, and it is you who is going to be calm.

    Mel Stride

    Mr Speaker, you are a man after my own heart. We are on the same page and I could not agree with you more. Thank you very much indeed for that timely intervention.

    That brings me to my closing remarks.

    Alan Brown

    Will the Secretary of State give way?

    Mel Stride

    I will not.

    I respect the fact that the right hon. Member for Leicester South brought forward the motion and, to the extent that it underlines the absolute importance of standing up for our pensioners, I welcome it. Government Members will always be there to support pensioners. We always have been in the past, we are now and we always will be.

  • Suella Braverman – 2022 Speech at the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners and National Police Chiefs’ Council Partnership Summit

    Suella Braverman – 2022 Speech at the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners and National Police Chiefs’ Council Partnership Summit

    The speech made by Suella Braverman, the Home Secretary, on 9 November 2022.

    Introduction

    Thank you.

    I want to start by congratulating you on the theme you’ve chosen for this summit. Cutting crime and building confidence is exactly what’s needed.

    The way to ensure public confidence in the police is to focus on getting the basics right. What I call ‘common sense policing’. The kind of policing the law-abiding patriotic majority deserves and expects.

    No politically correct distractions, just good old-fashioned policing – with a relentless focus on making our streets, homes, and transport networks safer…

    …responding to all burglaries; tackling antisocial behaviour and the horrendous trade in illegal drugs; and supporting victims.

    I know that if police officers are properly empowered to do the job for which they signed up, they can really drive down crime. The government wants to see reductions in homicide, other serious violence, and neighbourhood crime – and I know it’s possible.

    Our best police officers are simply put, the finest in the world. In my time in office, I’ve witnessed excellence from the policing of Her Majesty the Queen’s funeral to the response to disorder in Leicester. I want that excellence to come as standard.

    Achievements

    I know what good policing looks like because I’ve seen it in action.

    The County Lines and Project ADDER programmes are making huge inroads into defeating the scourge of illegal drugs – tackling supply and disrupting gangs.

    Almost three thousand county lines have been closed down since 2019, putting dealers out of business and helping huge numbers escape the clutches of drug addiction and exploitation.

    That’s work that you achieved and you led.

    The work of the Milton Keynes and Thames Valley Police is another great example. There, police are ensuring that those caught carrying knives face swift and certain consequences. That they are arrested, charged, and remanded in custody. More forces should follow this example to send the clear message that carrying weapons on our streets will not be tolerated.

    PCCs have played a major role by helping to co-ordinate local, multi-agency work in support of all these objectives.

    Performance and standards

    Things can be turned around for the better in a comparatively short period of time. Superb leadership from Chief Constable Stephen Watson has made a big difference to Greater Manchester Police.

    They are responding there far faster to emergency calls and the number of open investigations has halved since 2021.

    How did he do it? He put more bobbies on the beat, pursued every crime, made excellent use of stop and search, and insisted that officers were smartly turned out with polished boots. He rejects woke policing and embraced a back to basics approach. For me, that is excellence in policing.

    If we are to maintain a world-class reputation for policing, we need to be willing to learn from others, share best practice, and continuously look to improve.

    I am really grateful that Chief Constable Watson has offered to share what he has learned from turning Greater Manchester Police around. Everyone should pay close attention.

    Six police forces remain in “engage” – and I expect to see them make the necessary improvements quickly, working constructively with HMICFRS. They have my full support and I want to see them succeed.

    I am very concerned that more than half of the forces inspected by HMICFRS in their recent inspection cycle have received poor grades for how they respond to the public and nearly half for how well they investigate crime.

    This is fundamental – policing is a public service above all else.

    Just last week, HMICFRS released their sobering report into vetting and corruption.

    Far too often, standards have not been high enough and despicable people have been able to enter and remain in the police.

    Policing is a job that attracts the very best of us. The vast majority of Police officers are exemplary citizens. But anyone who might want to hurt others simply must not be able to join – and those who are otherwise ill-suited need to be weeded out, and quickly.

    The report finds that previous warnings have not been acted upon. That is unacceptable. I therefore welcome the fact that the NPCC has promised that Chiefs will do everything necessary to deliver on the recommendations of the report.

    It is essential that we get both vetting and recruitment right, which means chief officers must draw from the best and widest pool of talent possible, as well as ensuring consistent and high standards in the vetting processes.

    I also welcome the College of Policing’s proposals for change, which follow a full, independent review of progression and development to chief officer ranks. These measures, once implemented, will increase transparency, and open-up access to senior level development.

    The government has provided significant investment to the College of Policing to create a National Leadership Centre. It will develop standards and a leadership development framework for all ranks.

    The interim findings of Baroness Casey’s review set out unequivocal failures by the Metropolitan Police Service, who did not act effectively on allegations of serious misconduct, in particular instances of sexual misconduct and discrimination.

    I know that Sir Mark Rowley shares my view that this is utterly appalling and intolerable. That’s why he has created a new Anti-Corruption and Abuse Command, recognising that change must come from within the Metropolitan Police Service.

    But I will not hesitate to act either. I recently announced an internal review into the effectiveness of the police officer dismissals process, for example. And I’m very keen to get your views as we go through that process.

    Cutting crime

    We have some big challenges when it comes to fighting crime.

    I am deeply concerned about the levels of homicide. While the number of murders that took place in the first six months of 2022 suggests the numbers are falling, a reduction will only be possible if the whole policing system works closely together.

    The College of Policing’s Homicide Prevention Framework, which launched last month, was developed with the NPCC and HMICFRS, and is a great example of collaborative working and the sharing of expertise.

    Meanwhile, I am making £130 million available this financial year to tackle serious violence, including £64 million for our network of 20 Violence Reduction Units.

    From January, the Serious Violence Duty will place a duty on local partners to work together to tackle the root causes of violence.

    As I said at the Conservative Party conference, broken windows matter. There is no such thing as petty crime. Any tolerance of low-level disorder and crime will only beget more serious crime. You all know this, I am sure of it.

    It is absolutely correct that all forces have agreed to send an officer to the scene of every residential burglary. I thank you for that commitment. Every kind of neighbourhood crime needs to be tackled robustly if we are to ensure public confidence and trust.

    The Safer Streets Fund has supported interventions addressing local needs across England and Wales, which is why the government announced a further £50 million earlier this year to support 111 projects.

    I also want to see a major improvement in the way the whole of the criminal justice system deals with rape. It is promising that more victims of sexual offences are coming forward to report crimes to the police and that more suspects are being charged.

    But we still have a very long way to go. As a society, too often, we have failed the victims of sexual violence. That cannot continue.

    Operation Soteria is an innovative and ambitious programme, supported by the Home Office, which is bringing together frontline policing, the CPS, and academic expertise to transform the response to rape.

    The new national operating models being developed by the programme will, from June 2023, support your police forces in delivering a sustainable shift in the way rape is investigated.

    Officers need to be and will be better equipped to build strong cases and to focus on the behaviour of the suspect, rather than subjective assessments of a victim’s credibility.

    Avon and Somerset, the pioneering force in Operation Soteria, have reported that charge rates have tripled since they began the pilot, and arrests are twice as high.

    Policing must seize the opportunities presented by Operation Soteria to further improve your response to rape.

    The final report by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse published last month shows how endemic these unspeakable crimes are.

    The first-hand accounts of the terrible abuse endured by children and how badly they were let down by those who should have protected them are truly shocking. This report has redoubled my determination to do all in my power to end the scourge of child sexual abuse.

    Along with the overwhelming majority of the public, I am disgusted that misplaced cultural and political sensitives in places like Manchester, Rotherham, and Telford got in the way of tackling wicked grooming gangs preying on vulnerable children.

    We will drive radical change.

    The Home Office will take whatever action is available to us to make our communities safer. In Rochdale, the two foreign nationals who were members of that terrible grooming gang were deported. Other members of the group were deprived of their British nationality and the Home Office remains absolutely committed to deporting these individuals where the law allows it.

    This is not just a matter for the police – it is a matter for all of us – the law-abiding majority, but it is right that HMICFRS is inspecting the police response to grooming gangs.

    As Home Secretary, I’ll ensure that here are no safe spaces for rapists, paedophiles, domestic abusers, grooming gangs, burglars, or criminals of any kind. Those convicted – particularly repeat and sexual offenders – should expect longer sentences. And I will talk honestly and unapologetically about crime – which is never justified and which needs to be investigated and rooted out fearlessly.

    Our police officers’ time is precious, and the public want the police to be tackling crime, not debating genders on Twitter. I have asked my officials to revisit the issue of non-crime hate incidents as a first step, as I want to be sure that we are allowing you to prioritise your time to deal with threats to people and their property.

    Underpinning all of this is transparency and accountability – we must not shy away from being open and honest with the public about performance.

    Strip search is one of the most intrusive powers you have at your disposal. There is a grim reality that many of you in this room will recognise. Many criminals will stop at nothing to evade detection. Sometimes, people may carry items that pose a danger to themselves, or others, concealed on them. Strip search is therefore a necessary and essential power and one that this government supports the police to use to protect the public and fight crime.

    However, any strip search must be carried out professionally, respectfully, and lawfully, with full consideration for the welfare and dignity of the person being searched, particularly when they are a child.

    What the government is doing to support policing

    I am on your side.

    I want us all to pull in the same direction. And I will do everything in my power to support you and to back you.

    Officers and staff show remarkable commitment to keeping the public safe in the face of danger.

    Detectives do extraordinary work to ensure we can put criminals behind bars.

    So I cannot help but feel a deep sense of gratitude and pride when officers and staff have their bravery and commitment formally recognised through medals, honours, and awards.

    However, I recognise that this only represents a fraction of the outstanding actions taken every day by our police across the country. I want to ensure that the amazing job you do is recognised in full, and we are committed, through the Police Covenant, to ensuring that this is done correctly.

    I am committed to supporting you in using your powers without fear or favour to keep our streets, and keep our people safe. Under my watch you have my full backing to use stop and search, which is a vital tool in the fight against crime.

    Since 2019, the government has been making it easier for you to use stop and search, by relaxing restrictions on Section 60 powers, used in anticipation of violence, and empowering you to stop and challenge known knife carriers through Serious Violence Reduction Orders.

    Every knife seized through stop and search is a potential life saved. In the 12 months to March this year, you removed around 14,900 weapons and firearms from our streets through stop and search and made almost 67,000 arrests following a stop.

    To those who try to undermine your use of stop and search, or question your legitimate use of investigatory powers, or the use of force which leads to the prevention of crime, I say this: our police are working to keep you safe. To keep your children safe. To save lives. Let them do their work.

    It is only right that you can stand firm against criminals, rather than listening to those who would denigrate your work or use data selectively to undermine your credibility.

    On a daily basis, our police officers put themselves in harm’s way to protect us.

    Taser is a vital tactical option. I saw how vital a tool this can be when I visited Thames Valley police to observe firearms training.

    In March 2020, the government gave more than £6 million to forces to purchase over 7,000 devices, increasing the number of officers who are trained in and have a Taser.

    In August 2020, we approved the use of the Taser 7, a more accurate and effective device, for policing.

    In March we approved the use of Taser by specially trained special constables.

    I am committed to ensuring that the police have access to Tasers wherever appropriate.

    Of course it’s not just violent criminals on our streets that we are determined to stop. I also want to see more fraudsters caught and brought to justice. I am sure that is an ambition we all share.

    The government is allocating a further £400 million over the next three years for tackling economic crime including fraud.

    By March 2025, over 330 new officers dedicated to this work will have been recruited into City of London Police, Regional Organised Crime Units and the National Crime Agency. We will replace the current Action Fraud system with a new and improved service, and we will increase intelligence capabilities in the NCA and the national security community to identify and disrupt the most harmful criminals and serious organised criminal gangs.

    And we are making sure that the biggest tech companies are doing everything they can to prevent online fraud through our world-leading Online Safety Bill.

    The latest figures from the Police Uplift Programme show we have recruited more than 15,000 additional officers – so we are well on the way to 20,000. I have met some of these new officers, and it is great to see their enthusiasm for their new careers; some not far from here, in a Safer Neighbourhood Team within the Met.

    The College of Policing has been working hard to raise the standards of initial entry and ensure officers are equipped to meet the challenges of policing today. And we know that to build public confidence, we must draw from the widest possible pool of talent across all sections of society.

    To deliver this, forces must increase efforts to implement the new entry routes successfully. Whilst I have heard some good things about the new entry routes, such as better retention of officers who feel better equipped to do the job, I have also heard from many of you that there is a need for more flexibility to ensure broad access to a policing career.

    So, I have asked the College to build on their work by considering options for a new non-degree entry route, to deliver officers of the highest calibre, which will complement the existing framework. In the meantime, the current transitional non degree entry route will be kept open.

    Our police force must be open to those who do not have a degree or want one.

    And I will take the scissors to any red tape that gets in your way. Sir Stephen House’s Operational Productivity Review will be particularly useful in this endeavour.

    I am concerned that crime recording requirements can be seen as too complex and burdensome. I am committed to working with the police to see how recording can be simplified without compromising on putting victims first.

    I also want to see policing and the National Health Service work better together to support individuals experiencing acute mental health distress so that people in need of medical help get the right care at the right time, while also reducing inappropriate demand on policing.

    New public order legislation will improve your ability to pre-emptively tackle unlawful protests and tackle repeat offenders, and new criminal offences will allow for punitive outcomes that reflect the harm caused by the selfish, criminal minority.

    Past decisions by the courts have made your job more challenging. My reference to the Court of Appeal has proven that the Ziegler ruling has been misinterpreted and has only a limited scope.

    Although most police officers do an excellent job, sadly, in recent months and years we have seen an erosion of confidence in the police to take action against the radicals, the road-blockers, the vandals, the militants and the extremists.

    But we have also seen the police appear to lose confidence in themselves; in yourselves. In your authority, in your power. An institutional reluctance. This has to change.

    Criminal damage, obstructing the highway, public nuisance – none of it should be humoured. It is not a human right to vandalise a work of art. It is not a civil liberty to stop ambulances getting to the sick and injured.

    Such disruption is a threat to our way of life. It does not ‘further a cause’. It is not ‘freedom of expression’ and I want to reassure you that you have my – and this government’s – full backing in taking a firmer line to safeguard public order. Indeed, that is your duty.

    Scenes of members of the public taking the law into their own hands are a sign of a loss of confidence and I urge you all to step up to your public duties in policing protests. The law-abiding patriotic majority is on your side. This is what common-sense policing means.

    Too often, a restricted interpretation of legislation is taken. A lack of certainty on the meaning of serious disruption to the life of the community and how the cumulative impact of repeated protests should be considered has led to a limited use of existing powers. I hope to see improved guidance on these matters so that public order commanders and officers can make full use of the powers available to them with confidence.

    The public order act will give you more tools but too often, the rights of protesters are placed above the rights of others. Criminal activists cannot be allowed to bring misery and chaos to the law-abiding majority. Free speech and the right to protest do not entitle people in a democracy like ours to break the law. And importantly, the legitimate use of your force safeguards freedoms for all of us to enjoy.

    My thoughts and wishes go to the Essex Police officer who was injured this morning on the M25 while responding to the guerrilla tactics of Just Stop Oil protesters.

    Building confidence

    Policing is a very difficult job with a simple mission: to keep the law-abiding majority safe. And to keep the criminals off our streets.

    That means that the public have a set of basic expectations of policing. They expect to be able to contact their local police, they expect to see police in their neighbourhood confronting crime and making their streets safer. They expect the police to get the basics right.

    It has been almost 10 years since the introduction of Police and Crime Commissioners – elected by the public to be their voice and to hold chief constables to account.

    I am very grateful for the work you have done since 2012, bringing the system together to deliver local priorities and advocating for victims across the criminal justice system.

    In Devon and Cornwall, for example, the PCC has commissioned a strategic delivery partnership with Victim Support to put victim’s needs at the centre of service commissioning. And in Northumbria they have developed and championed the Multi-Agency Tasking and Coordination approach for improving partnership working in domestic abuse, providing a model that others have since adopted.

    But I want you to go further. I am committed to delivering the recommendations from the PCC Review so that you have the tools you need to be strong and visible leaders in the fight against crime.

    It will give you a more defined role in relation to offender management and local partnerships, including strengthening the arrangements of Local Criminal Justice Boards.

    I also want to see better and more consistent data, which underpins a joined-up approach to local crime fighting activity.

    I am overseeing new central guidance on data-sharing, as well as bringing together local level examples of good practice, to help build a more data-confident culture. I also want to see more data transparency to drive up standards across policing.

    And I want to say how much I admire Chief Constables – and indeed officers of all ranks. It is precisely because I believe in the police that I have such high expectations – expectations which I know the best among you desperately want all officers to meet.

    I want to hear from you, I want to have a meaningful dialogue with all of you. I want our senior police officers to understand better what is happening on the ground, and how you are making innovative operational decisions to stop crime and apprehend perpetrators – I will be asking for regular correspondence from all of you on your crucially important efforts.

    Conclusion

    British policing is respected throughout the world.

    I feel very optimistic about the years ahead. Brilliant people keep coming forward to serve. Inspired and inspiring leaders are driving change in their force and their community.

    And we already have a template that works.

    It dates back to the days of Robert Peel.

    Technology may change and new challenges will come along – yet the basics remain the same.

    If we all stay true to that tradition of public service, we will succeed and we will succeed together.

    Thank you.

  • PRESS RELEASE : Sharing intelligence and expertise with U.S. [November 2022]

    PRESS RELEASE : Sharing intelligence and expertise with U.S. [November 2022]

    The press release issued by the Ministry of Defence on 9 November 2022.

    Strategic Command, which leads on cyber activity for Defence, plays a key role in sustaining and advancing this relationship.

    Recently UKStratCom hosted Honorable Ron Moultrie, U.S. Under Secretary for Intelligence and Security, during his visit to the UK for a series of engagements with Defence personnel.

    Defence Intelligence facilitated a series of discussions between Hon Ron Moultrie and UK officials on the operational use of intelligence, including with newly appointed Chief of Defence Intelligence Adrian Bird CB.

    Hon Moultrie also visited several Strategic Command sites to understand more about how the organisation uses digital capabilities and intelligence to benefit operations and military effectiveness.

    Speaking on the visit, Commander Strategic Command General Sir Jim Hockenhull said

    At Strategic Command our aims of accelerating the digitisation of Defence go hand in hand with the effective use of intelligence and data.

    The U.S. is our foremost ally and partner in this area, and our working relationship in various domains, including cyber, helps to protect us from an array of threats.

  • PRESS RELEASE : Putin’s failures are becoming apparent to the Russian people – UK statement to the OSCE [November 2022]

    PRESS RELEASE : Putin’s failures are becoming apparent to the Russian people – UK statement to the OSCE [November 2022]

    The press release issued by the Foreign Office on 9 November 2022.

    Ian Stubbs (UK delegation to the OSCE) says that Russia’s illegal and brutal war against Ukraine has had a devastating impact on the people of Russia too.

    Thank you, Mr Chair. It is now over 250 days since we, along with the rest of the world, witnessed the start of President Putin’s unprovoked, premeditated and barbaric attack on Ukraine. Throughout this time, we have highlighted the truth in the face of Russia’s disinformation and propaganda.  In addition to the horrendous violence Russia has and continues inflict on the Ukrainian people, there has been an enormous cost to the people of Russia too.  Thousands of young Russian lives have been lost on land, at sea and in the air; fighting in an illegal war of choice based on contrived rationales, confused narratives and shifting goals. This is not conjecture, this is not opinion, it is fact.

    The failures of Putin’s horrendous adventurism are becoming increasingly apparent to the Russian people.  They are becoming increasingly aware that their recently mobilised family members, neighbours and friends are being badly trained, badly equipped and then sent to the battlefield to reinforce poorly equipped, poorly led and demoralised professional soldiers.  It is perhaps no wonder then that so many Russians have chosen to flee their own country to avoid mobilisation.

    Meanwhile, on the battlefield, Russian military leaders continue to commit more and more Russian troops to the war in an attempt to overcome their failures.  Due to low morale and a reluctance to fight, Russian forces have now reportedly started to deploy “barrier troops” or “block units”.  These units threaten to shoot their own retreating soldiers in order to compel offensives.

    Low morale, indiscipline and dysfunction continues to reach the highest levels of Russia’s military leadership too.  On 3 November, Major General Alexander Linkov was reportedly appointed acting commander of Russia’s Central Military District.  Linkov replaces Colonel General Alexander Lapin who was purportedly removed from office at the end of October.  If confirmed, this is just the latest in a series of dismissals of senior Russian military commanders since the onset of the invasion last February, including the Commanders of the Eastern, Southern, and Western Military Districts.  A pattern of blame against senior Russian military commanders for failures to achieve President Putin’s objectives on the battlefield.

    It is worth noting that Colonel General Lapin had been widely criticised for poor performance on the battlefield in Ukraine by both Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov and Wagner head Yevgeny Prigozhin.  The latter appears to be gaining increasing influence in the Kremlin, with his private military company being increasingly relied upon to provide fundamental security tasks normally expected of the Russian State.

    For example, on 6 November, Prigozhin announced the creation of centres for the training and management of “people’s militias” in Belgorod and Kursk oblasts in

    Russia. These “people’s militias” probably function outside the Russian MOD’s structure and chain of command. Their stated intent is to establish units to help defend Russia’s borders.

    Meanwhile, as Russia scrambles to fortify its defensive lines throughout eastern Ukraine, Prigozhin announced the construction of a fortified ‘Wagner Line’ of defences in Luhansk oblast. The construction represents a significant effort to prepare defences in depth behind the current Russian front line and protect a key logistics line of communication.

    However, as we noted last week, Wagner’s recruitment of Russian convicts including individuals suffering from serious diseases and medical conditions, is a sign of desperation to recruit numbers not fighters.  According to the Ukrainian Centre for Researching and Combating Hybrid Threats, 500 Wagner recruited convicts had died fighting in Ukraine by mid-October. In total, the centre assesses 800-1000 Wagner recruits have likely died in Ukraine. Wagner numbers have been further depleted by substantial non-fatal casualties.

    That Wagner, a private military company linked to human rights abuses, is being increasingly relied upon to conduct roles normally expected of a government’s security and military apparatus is itself a telling indicator of the parlous state of Putin’s war machine: more defeats; more Generals sacked; more demoralised troops; more discontent amongst the Russian population; and more critique from Russia’s elites.

    Mr Chair, Putin and the Russian military leadership have consistently underestimated the will, determination and courage of the Ukrainian military and civilians to defend their homeland from a brutal and barbaric invader.  They continue to fail to understand that every horrendous attack strengthens the Ukrainian resolve and that of its friends, like the UK, who remain steadfast in our support – for however long it takes – to ensure that the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and the independence of Ukraine is fully restored.  Thank you.

  • PRESS RELEASE : The UK stands with the people of Iran as they demand fundamental freedoms [November 2022]

    PRESS RELEASE : The UK stands with the people of Iran as they demand fundamental freedoms [November 2022]

    The press release issued by the Foreign Office on 9 November 2022.

    UK statement at the UN General Assembly Third Committee Interactive Dialogue on human rights in Iran.

    Thank you, Mr Chair.

    The death of Mahsa Amini was a shocking reminder of the repression to which women and girls in Iran face. Ordinary Iranians are now bravely risking their lives to demand accountability from their government and to insist their rights are respected. Iran must now listen: its suppression and barbarism cannot continue.

    It can be no surprise that so many Iranian people have had enough. 2022 has seen a sharp increase in the use of the death penalty, tightening restrictions on women, intensified persecution of the Baha’i and greater repression of freedom of expression and speech online.

    The UK stands with the people of Iran as they demand fundamental freedoms. We condemn violence, including live ammunition usage. We urge Iran to respect the right to peaceful protest, to lift internet restrictions, and to release those unfairly detained. Iran’s leaders can – and must – choose another path.

  • Jonathan Ashworth – 2022 Speech on the State Pension Triple Lock

    Jonathan Ashworth – 2022 Speech on the State Pension Triple Lock

    The speech made by Jonathan Ashworth, the Labour MP for Leicester South, in the House of Commons on 8 November 2022.

    I beg to move,

    That this House calls on the Government to commit to maintaining the state pension triple lock in financial year 2023-24 as promised in the Conservative and Unionist Party manifesto 2019.

    I hope not to detain the House long, because the proposition before it this afternoon is very simple: we are asking the House to stand firm in instructing the Chancellor and the Prime Minister to honour the triple lock promise and uprate the state pension in line with inflation for the next financial year. The motion should not be controversial; indeed, every Member should be able to endorse it in the Division Lobby this evening.

    The reason we have tabled this motion is that pensioners deserve certainty that the promise of protection offered by inflation-proofing the state pension will be honoured. Let us remind ourselves of the facts. Pensioner poverty is up by 450,000 since 2010. Prices in the shops are up. Energy bills are up. The Office for National Statistics found that between June and September this year 3.5 million pensioners had already been forced to spend less on food and essentials because of the soaring cost of living. Over half of pensioners are cutting back on gas and electricity in their homes, and Age UK has projected that 2.8 million older households are set to be in fuel poverty this winter—1.8 million more than in previous years.

    Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)

    Did my right hon. Friend read the reports in The Times that the Government are in fact going to follow our example and to confirm that they will increase the state pension in line with inflation? Does he agree that the Minister could intervene now and save us several hours debating these issues by just confirming that the Government do in fact intend to do that?

    Jonathan Ashworth

    I have read not only The Times but the 2019 Conservative manifesto, which committed Conservative Members to maintaining the triple lock, so I look forward to their joining us in the Division Lobby this evening—[Interruption.] I look forward to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Gary Sambrook) joining us in the Division Lobby.

    Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Con)

    Did the Institute for Fiscal Studies not say that the 2019 Labour party manifesto would benefit high earners rather than low earners on pensions, so is the biggest threat to UK pensioners not the Labour party?

    Jonathan Ashworth

    On the topic of manifestos, the new Prime Minister tells us that we do not need a general election because the 2019 manifesto gives the Conservative party a mandate. If that is the case, Conservative Members should not break their promise on the triple lock, and the hon. Member should join us in the Lobby this afternoon. Indeed, those in his marginal constituency will be watching carefully to see which way he votes later.

    Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)

    I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman, who by the way—and I do not want to lower his reputation on his own Benches—is a friend of mine, has given way. He knows very well that today is not about a lasting decision by Government but about political theatre. When we vote this afternoon, we will not be voting for what happens in practice; we will be voting because Labour has chosen to try to make political capital out of a difficult issue. I simply say to him that if the Government were to propose breaking that promise, they would not have my support, and they know that, by the way. I would stand by the triple lock. But will the right hon. Gentleman just answer this: was he not the adviser to the former Labour Chancellor Gordon Brown, who awarded pensioners a 50p increase?

    Jonathan Ashworth

    On the latter point, the right hon. Gentleman will recall that the state pension rose by over 50% under the last Labour Government and has risen by around 40% under this Government. I do not want to make an enemy of the right hon. Gentleman, because I know that he agrees with me; I read his comments in the Daily Express yesterday. Indeed, I suspect that he will agree with probably 90% of my speech—so much so that I was tempted to email it to him in advance of this debate, but I did not want to be removed from the Front Bench.

    Let me make a bit of progress. The real-world impact in our constituencies of cutting the state pension again means more and more pensioners turning to food banks and more pensioners shivering under blankets in cold, damp homes, putting themselves at risk of hypothermia. It means more pensioners cutting back, at a time when they have already had to swallow a real-terms cut in the state pension of around £480. Breaking the promise on inflation uprating for next year amounts to a further real-terms cut in the value of the full state pension of £440. We are talking about a £900 cut, around £37 a month in the fixed incomes of Britain’s retirees; a cut in the fixed incomes of groups of the population who cannot easily earn a wage; a cut in fixed income when one in three relies solely on the state pension; and a cut that is punishing at the best of times, but is more devastating when prices are rising and energy bills are increasing.

    Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)

    Does the shadow Minister agree that we are talking not only about a cut, but about the uncertainty that the Government have created over the weeks, with their U-turns upon U-turns? Pensioners do not know whether to trust this Government and they have no certainty, even despite what has been reported this morning.

    Jonathan Ashworth

    We have had continued mixed messaging from the Government, which is why today is an opportunity for Conservative Members to send a clear message to their constituents about their position on the triple lock.

    Kim Leadbeater (Batley and Spen) (Lab)

    Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a broader point here? A couple in their 70s in my constituency have contacted me to say that they are concerned about their pensions for themselves, but that they also care for members of their extended family who have physical ailments, autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. As the costs of that care are increasing, the impact of reducing their pensions becomes a massive factor. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the Government abandon their triple lock promise and inflict this real-terms pensions cut, that will have a knock-on effect on some of the most vulnerable people in our society?

    Jonathan Ashworth

    My hon. Friend has described with great eloquence the real-life impact that this cut will have on our constituents. Although I do not know the particular circumstances of the family she refers to, they may well be reliant on other social security payments, and we have no clarity from the Government about whether they will also be cut in real terms.

    Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)

    Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that those other social security payments also need to be uprated in line with inflation? If so, should Labour not have made the motion wider to include that?

    Jonathan Ashworth

    Today’s debate is about the triple lock, but we do agree that payments such as universal credit should be uprated in line with inflation and not suffer a real-terms cut.

    Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP) rose—

    Jonathan Ashworth

    I give way to my fellow Leicester City fan.

    Jim Shannon

    We are on a roll: three games we have won in a row.

    Some people believe that retired people live a wonderful life, but the reality is often much bleaker: less heat, less food and making the most out of a meagre income. Does the shadow Minister agree that the Government must honour those who have paid tax and national insurance contributions over their lifetimes? Now is the time to support them, when they need us.

    Jonathan Ashworth

    My friend and fellow Leicester City fan makes his point with the same force and precision as Youri Tielemans putting one in the back of the net against Everton at the weekend. He is absolutely right.

    Let me make a bit of progress. A cut in the pension will also disproportionately hit retired women, who rely on the state pension and other benefits such as pension credits for more than 60% of their income. This £900 cut in income is for those who have worked hard all their lives, who have paid their dues and who, as my mum would say, have paid their stamps.

    Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab) rose—

    David Johnston (Wantage) (Con) rose—

    Jonathan Ashworth

    I will give way to my hon. Friend from Leicester, given that I am a Leicester MP, and then let the hon. Gentleman in.

    Liz Kendall

    I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. I am sure he knows that half of all Leicester pensioners live in the most deprived 20% of the country, and one in five live in the most deprived 5% of the country. They are frightened for their future and will feel betrayed by Conservative Members if they do not walk through the Lobby with us tonight.

    Jonathan Ashworth

    My hon. Friend is absolutely spot on, as she always is. May I also say what a pleasure it is to see her back defending the people of Leicester West after her maternity leave.

    David Johnston

    Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, given that the Government are making their announcement about the triple lock next week and that it takes effect in April, it is therefore irresponsible to suggest that pensioners will face the sort of cuts that he is talking about? We should just wait for the announcement.

    Jonathan Ashworth

    I do not know if the hon. Gentleman was in the House about three weeks ago, but that was when the then Conservative Prime Minister committed from the Dispatch Box to maintain the triple lock. If the hon. Gentleman wants to stand up for the 21,000 pensioners in the Wantage area who are set to lose £425 from a real-terms cut, he should vote with us in the Lobby this afternoon.

    Let me make a bit of progress. A £900 cut in income, around £37 per month, is punishing at the best of times, and it is a cut for people who feel they have paid their dues—people who, like my mum, feel they have paid their stamps. It is a cut for those who have worked all their lives and who often live now with a disability or in ill health because of their hard work. Whether because of the hard, unyielding occupations that they may have worked in, they might live with chapped hands, sore backs and sore knees. They deserve a retirement of security, dignity and respect. It would be a betrayal of Britain’s almost 13 million pensioners to cut the pension a second year in a row, and this House should not stand for it.

    Why has the triple lock been in the Chancellor’s crosshairs? It is because Conservative Members presented, cheered and welcomed the most disastrous Budget in living memory. It was a Budget so reckless and so cavalier with the public finances that it crashed the economy with unfunded tax cuts, sent borrowing costs soaring, gave us a run on pension funds, and forced mortgage rates to ricochet round the money markets, costing homeowners hundreds of pounds extra a month, and now they want us all to think it was just an aberration—that it was all just a bad dream; that Bobby Ewing was in the shower all along. But for the British people it remains a real nightmare, and now the Government are expecting pensioners to pay the price. Well, we will not stop reminding them of the Budget that they imposed on the British people.

    In recent days, ahead of this debate, I have been inundated with messages from Britain’s retirees saying that that price is far too high. This was what Hilda wrote:

    “We believed that with the triple lock in place, our state pension would keep pace with wages and inflation…This government cynically dismantled the triple lock and threw state pensioners under the bus”.

    This was what Mary wrote to me:

    “I am in tears of frustration and anger…Not all pensioners are well off. I for one am really struggling”.

    This was from Patrick, who is aged 73:

    “How can a responsible government minister welch on a promise?”

    That is the crux of the matter, because every Government Member stood on a manifesto in 2019 that made a clear promise to the triple lock.

    Six months ago, the Prime Minister, when he was the Chancellor, told us from that Dispatch Box that the promise of inflation-proofing the state pension would be honoured for the next financial year:

    “I can reassure the House that next year…benefits will be uprated by this September’s consumer prices index”.

    He went on:

    “the triple lock will apply to the state pension.”—[Official Report, 26 May 2022; Vol. 715, c. 452.]

    Those were the Prime Minister’s words six months ago. He tells us that we should not have a general election because that 2019 manifesto gives him a mandate, but he will not give us a straight answer to a very simple question: will he honour the promise he made from the Dispatch Box six months ago? So much for his promise to restore “integrity and professionalism” to Downing Street.

    A year ago, the House debated breaking the triple lock. The then Pensions Minister, now promoted to Minister for Employment as Minister of State—I congratulate him of course, and I am pleased that he is back in the Department after a brief period away—last year justified cutting the state pension, telling us it was only for one year. Just a year ago, on 15 November 2021, he said:

    “The triple lock will, I confirm, be applied in the usual way for the rest of the Parliament.”—[Official Report, 15 November 2021; Vol. 703, c. 372.]

    So what has changed?

    Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)

    I repeat that this is political theatre and, for those in doubt, whatever the vote is today, it will have absolutely no impact on the legislation whatever. I just want to know if the right hon. Member is aware of the very good House of Commons briefing on the triple lock, which compares the basic state pension with average earnings over the last 30 years. The low point of it was between 2000 and 2008, when it went down to 16%. That is the lowest the basic state pension has ever been compared with average earnings, and who was in power at that time? It was the last Labour Government. In fact, the previous Conservative Government and successive Conservative Governments have been more generous on the basic state pension compared with average earnings than the last Labour Government.

    Jonathan Ashworth

    If we want to go down memory lane, a previous Conservative Government broke the earnings link and that is why we need to keep the triple lock, so it builds up its value. The reason those inflation upratings were so low is that we had inflation under control under that Labour Government; we had not lost control of it. We introduced the minimum income guarantee, which the Conservative party voted against, and we introduced pension credit, which the Conservative party opposed at the time, in order to improve the incomes of the poorest pensioners. We brought pensioner poverty down and it is increasing again under this Tory Government.

    As I have said, the then Pensions Minister said that the triple lock would

    “be applied…for the rest of the Parliament”.

    I was sceptical about that. We have these debates across the Dispatch Box and he will recall my scepticism. He is always very noisy on the Front Bench and, when I was asking questions, he was shouting at me and said, “No, we’ve committed to the triple lock. You shouldn’t have to worry.” I asked the then Work and Pensions Secretary, the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), and she told me at the time:

    “I am again happy to put on record that the triple lock will be honoured in the future.”—[Official Report, 21 March 2022; Vol. 711, c. 99.]

    That was in March 2022 from that Dispatch Box, yet here we are with the prospect of another real-terms cut in the pension on the table again. Breaking such a promise two years in a row in a cost of living crisis is surely unacceptable.

    That brings me to the new Work and Pensions Secretary, who of course prior to his elevation just a month ago, when real-terms cuts to the pension and other benefits were raised, led the charge at the Tory party conference. He undermined the position of the then Prime Minister and the then Chancellor, telling Sky News it was

    “one of those areas where the Government is going to have to think again.”

    But of course this morning, he did not repeat his line that the Government should think again, because now he is saying we have to wait until next week’s emergency Budget. So we have a U-turn on the U-turn. In fact, the Conservative Twitter account is still saying:

    “We will protect the Triple Lock”.

    The Conservative Twitter account is still repeating what the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), told us from the Dispatch Box three or four weeks ago. So it is a U-turn on a U-turn on a U-turn, and it makes us all dizzy just watching it.

    After all this Conservative party triple lock hokey-cokey, today is a clear opportunity for Conservative Members to finally tell us where they stand. Today is an opportunity for Conservative Members to finally end the uncertainty, finally end the mixed messages and finally end the worry for millions of pensioners who have seen their state pension cut while their cost of living soars, and confirm that the pension will not be cut next year. The uprating of the state pension is crucial to millions of today’s pensioners, but it is also about protecting the incomes of tomorrow’s pensioners. It is about ensuring that the state pension recovers its value relative to wages. Given the move away from final salary schemes, it means certainty for tomorrow’s pensioners as well.

    In the name of today’s pensioners and tomorrow’s pensioners, Conservative MPs should offer us certainty. Our retired constituents have worked hard all their lives, contributed to national insurance and served our communities. They deserve security and dignity. As the former Conservative Pensions Minister Baroness Altmann warned this week:

    “Short-changing pensioners during a cost of living crisis should be unthinkable…Snatching protection away this year could be the biggest betrayal pensioners have ever known.”

    I could not put it better myself. Ministers should stop dithering. They should reject the cut in the state pension and support our motion in the Lobby tonight.

  • George Howarth – 2022 Speech on Employee Share Ownership

    George Howarth – 2022 Speech on Employee Share Ownership

    The speech made by George Howarth, the Labour MP for Knowsley, in the House of Commons on 8 November 2022.

    I beg to move,

    That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for a new employee share ownership scheme allowing preferential access for lower income workers; to reduce the Share Incentive Plan holding period from five to three years; to require companies to include declarations in annual reports about the type of employee share ownership plans that are operated and the level of employee take up; and for connected purposes.

    This Bill has broad support across the House, as the list of sponsors will demonstrate. Politically, it fits neatly with most ideological traditions. From a Conservative viewpoint, it chimes with the ambition for the UK to become a property-owning, share-owning democracy. From Labour’s perspective, it resonates with the historical commitment to co-operation, although by different means from the traditional par value model, and it provides a means by which the relationship between capital and labour can be modestly realigned.

    As I will demonstrate, the Bill has the support of nationalists and Unionists and Liberal Democrats, who see the benefits to employers and employees as being consistent with their respective political outlooks. Employee share ownership has been supported by a diverse range of organisations, including the CBI, the Social Market Foundation, the TUC and the Co-operative party. The CBI, for example, has stated:

    “The moral case for financial inclusion is a compelling one—people have a right to their dignity and financial exclusion denies them that right.”

    Similarly, the Social Market Foundation pointed out:

    “As the UK economy emerges from the Coronavirus pandemic, now is a good time for government to push for higher rates of employee share ownership.”

    The TUC has said that, subject to certain conditions—for example, a preference for collective schemes and them not being used as a substitute for collective bargaining and trade union involvement—it supports employee share ownership.

    This Bill aims to update two of the current share ownership schemes—the share incentive plan, known as SIP, and the save-as-you-earn system, known as SAYE or Sharesave—and proposes a third scheme. The reason the two existing schemes need to be updated is that, over recent years, the number of such plans has been plateauing and, in some cases, falling. The Treasury’s own data acknowledge that trend. The number of firms that granted a new SAYE option in 2021 was 260, a fall from 340 in 2007. Overall, employees were awarded or purchased shares in 400 companies, compared with 570 in 2011-12.

    There are several reasons for that decline. First, SIP and SAYE were introduced 22 and 42 years ago respectively. In the intervening years, employment practices have undergone significant changes, and the schemes no longer reflect those changes. For example, the length of time an employee spends at a company has markedly reduced. Indeed, young people are often encouraged to move jobs more frequently to secure career advancement. The Social Market Foundation has said:

    “Among the poorest half of people aged 25 to 34, typical net financial wealth among those who are not employee shareholders was just £77. But among employee shareholders, wealth stood at £750.”

    That being the case, the five-year minimum investment commitment for SIP schemes, to ensure maximum tax efficiency, is no longer realistic.

    The fact that the Government offer tax advantages to employee share ownership is, of course, welcome. The risk, however, is that without updating them, they could become increasingly obsolete. For that reason, the Bill would reduce the commitment from five years to three, to achieve maximum tax efficiency, as advocated by ProShare, the industry representative body. Moreover, many employers believe that such a change would make them more likely to offer SIP schemes.

    Another problem is that current plans apply only to those on pay-as-you-earn. There are now, however, some 4 million people who work in the so-called gig economy. A further provision in the Bill would create a new plan that does not depend on regular monthly contributions and is accessible to those in less regular forms of work. It would enable employers to give a free share award to their employees, to be held for a year, after which it could be realised at a discount value, as in SAYE schemes currently. That would be attractive to younger staff, who may not envisage staying at a company for three years, let alone five.

    The other provision in the Bill is to require the Treasury to carry out a consultation with all the relevant bodies, including those I have referred to, with the aim of modernising employee share ownership to reflect the changes that have taken place since the existing schemes were introduced. One new idea that could be consulted on is allowing employees to access the holding built up in their share incentive plan in a tax-efficient and advantageous manner that, under the current scheme, is only available after five years, with regular contributions made over the last one year, without a penalty being applied.

    Before concluding, I would like to say a few words about the benefits that such schemes bring to employees and employers. Two examples illustrate the benefits to employees. First, Pets at Home staff—mainly shop floor staff working in retail—who participated in the company’s SAYE scheme have made an average gain of £21,000. That is a healthy return on their investment and an increase in their financial resilience. Secondly, as ProShare’s annual survey shows, the average value of a participant’s shareholding at the end of 2021 was £10,295—again, a significant sum.

    Employers gain too. As the CBI and the Social Market Foundation pointed out, employees having a stake in the company they work for provides important productivity gains, as well as boosting innovation and corporate long-termism. I hope this Bill will be a good starting point in encouraging and expanding employee share ownership and enabling the potential benefits to all concerned to be realised.

    Question put and agreed to.

    Ordered,

    That Sir George Howarth, Margaret Beckett, Kirsty Blackman, Sir Graham Brady, Philip Davies, Mr Jonathan Djanogly, Dame Margaret Hodge, John McDonnell, Esther McVey, Sarah Olney, Jim Shannon and Gareth Thomas present the Bill.

    Sir George Howarth accordingly presented the Bill.

  • Julia Lopez – 2022 Speech on Cyber Essentials

    Julia Lopez – 2022 Speech on Cyber Essentials

    The speech made by Julia Lopez, the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sports, at DCMS in London on 7 November 2022.

    Introduction

    Good afternoon everyone, and thank you for joining us at this Cyber Essentials showcase event. I’m very excited to be here today, and it is great to see so many people here from a range of organisations including large and small businesses, government departments, trade bodies and charities. I would like to thank everyone for taking the time to attend and celebrate this fantastic event with all of us here at DCMS.

    It has been great to hear about the Cyber Essentials journey from Chris [Pinder, IASME] and Lindy [Cameron, CEO, National Cyber Security Centre], and some of the noteworthy milestones of the scheme over the past 8 years. It is amazing to be able to say that the 100,000th certificate was awarded a few months ago, and I know that many of you here today are Cyber Essentials certified and are counted in that number.

    The UK government is working to make the UK the safest place to live and work online. DCMS plays a critical role in strengthening the UK’s cyber ecosystem and building a resilient and thriving digital UK, in line with our £2.6 billion National Cyber Strategy. As part of that strategy, we are committed to increasing the uptake of standards such as Cyber Essentials. To date, Cyber Essentials has had a profound impact in driving improved cyber security across a wide range of organisations. It is becoming increasingly embedded within our economy and it is playing a vital role in driving a more resilient and prosperous UK.

    We regularly hear from organisations that are benefitting from the scheme – from large blue chip companies to small organisations and local charities, helping the most vulnerable in society – a small managed service provider in Northern Ireland, a nursing home in Liverpool, a domestic abuse charity in the Midlands and a charity supporting those with visual or hearing loss in Scotland – are just a few organisations that have gone through the Cyber Essentials scheme recently.

    We have heard a lot about growth today, not just of the Cyber Essentials scheme itself but of the entire ecosystem that surrounds it. It is also helping improve all organisations’ productivity and growth as they securely embrace digital technologies. The government’s vision is for this growth to continue, especially in the face of economic adversity. We want to raise awareness of the scheme, to see an exponential increase in the number of Cyber Essentials certifications and to raise the baseline of cyber resilience across the economy. We want all organisations in the UK to be working towards Cyber Essentials. To do this, we need organisations to be asking their suppliers, partners and other third parties they engage with to have it. Most suppliers to government need to have Cyber Essentials and we believe that organisations across the wider economy should be asking their own suppliers to do likewise and that is our ask of you today – to promote and use Cyber Essentials as a key tool when assessing the security of your suppliers.

    Supply chains

    I know a lot of you are grappling with cyber security challenges in your supply chains. Worrying incidents have shown us that exploiting supply chain vulnerabilities can have severe, far reaching consequences. In the supply chain call for views we published last year, 46% of organisations said a lack of tools is a severe barrier to managing their supplier risk.

    I believe Cyber Essentials has an important role to play here. It is not a silver bullet and does not guarantee organisations won’t  fall victim to a cyber attack, but it does provide protection and resilience for so many. In our engagements with industry, including many of you, we are seeing an increasing number of organisations use Cyber Essentials as a tool to assure themselves that third parties, including suppliers, have implemented minimum cyber security controls.

    For example, the NHS recently introduced a requirement for IT suppliers to have Cyber Essentials, thus raising the bar for those organisations that wish to do business with the NHS.  Other organisations have seen reduced costs and increased efficiency in their due diligence processes by requiring suppliers to have Cyber Essentials. A well known property website recently told us that asking for Cyber Essentials from suppliers has reduced their due diligence process from days to hours. For them, Cyber Essentials has a commercial benefit and is saving them money.

    In a similar vein, we are delighted to announce that DCMS is now working in partnership with St James’s Place, a large financial services firm, who have recently required all of their partners to become Cyber Essentials Plus certified. We will hear more from them in our panel discussion in just a few minutes, but this is a great example of an organisation proactively driving improved security practices in those organisations they work so closely with.

    Cyber Essentials Pathways

    Now, it would be remiss of me to not recognise the fact that for some organisations, especially those with large and complex IT infrastructures, it is a struggle to comply with all aspects of Cyber Essentials. As Lindy mentioned, we are looking forward to seeing the results of the Cyber Essentials Pathways pilot and anticipate this will provide a further opportunity for organisations to attain Cyber Essentials. We want to ensure that being Cyber Essentials certified is accessible for all organisations. To this end, we are also in the process of launching an evaluation of the scheme, to help us identify and address any barriers that organisations face when going through the Cyber Essentials process.

    Conclusion

    On that note, I wanted to close by saying that my officials and I would love to hear from you, to better understand how DCMS and industry can work together to ensure Cyber Essentials is an effective certification scheme. I invite you to collaborate with us, to join us on the journey to improve Cyber Essentials and ensure it continues to raise the baseline level of cyber security across our supply chains.

    The new government remains intent on improving cyber security across our economy. Our Product Security and Telecoms Infrastructure Bill is close to completing its passage through Parliament and when it becomes law, this will ensure much better security in consumer IoT products. We are also working to improve our cyber resilience legislation and expand the number of skilled people working in cyber security. We’re continuing to build our digital identity framework, which will help the public and businesses verify identities in an easy, secure and trustworthy manner.

    Together we can reduce the social and economic harm that we continue to see from cyber security attacks and drive a more resilient and prosperous UK. Thank you once again for working with us on this amazing scheme.