Tag: 2023

  • PRESS RELEASE : Temporary border measures to enhance Covid surveillance from China removed [March 2023]

    PRESS RELEASE : Temporary border measures to enhance Covid surveillance from China removed [March 2023]

    The press release issued by the Department of Health and Social Care on 17 March 2023.

    Precautionary and temporary measures introduced in January to improve the UK’s ability to detect potential new variants of Covid from China are being removed.

    • From today (Friday 17 March 2023) the UK Health Security Agency’s (UKHSA) voluntary, on-arrival testing programme of travellers arriving from China to London’s Heathrow airport is set to end
    • In addition, from 5 April 2023, people flying from mainland China to England will no longer require proof of a negative pre-departure test
    • The removal of these measures comes as China has increased information sharing regarding testing, vaccination and genomic sequencing results, providing greater transparency on their domestic disease levels
    • Latest data indicates that the Covid variants observed in China continue to be the same as those already circulating in the UK

    From today (Friday 17 March 2023), the Heathrow Covid testing surveillance programme delivered by the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) will end.

    The programme was first introduced as a temporary measure in January 2023 to improve Covid surveillance of travellers arriving from China to Heathrow. The aim was to help strengthen the UK’s ability to rapidly detect potential new variants circulating in China.

    Throughout the programme an average of 99 people per flight were tested, a total of 3,374 total to date. Over this time, 14 positive cases were identified, none of which were variants of concern.

    In addition, passengers flying directly or indirectly from mainland China to England or transiting through will no longer need to show proof of a negative pre-departure test after 5 April. The regulations were implemented under powers within the Public Health (Control of Diseases) Act 1984 but are set to expire.

    The removal of these measures comes as China has increased information sharing regarding testing, vaccination and genomic sequencing results, providing greater transparency on their domestic disease levels.

    Latest international genomics data indicates that the Covid variants observed in China continue to be the same as those already circulating in the UK. The Chinese Centre for Disease Control and Prevention also reports that all regions have passed their infection peak.

    The ending of this enhanced surveillance is in line with international partners such as the EU who are reducing border measures to monitor new variants from China. The UK continues to work closely with international partners on global security to detect and assess new Covid variants.

    The government will continue to maintain a range of contingency measures in reserve, which would enable detection and swift and proportionate action for potential new harmful variants of Covid entering the UK, should the need arise.

  • PRESS RELEASE : WTO TRIPS Council – UK statement [March 2023]

    PRESS RELEASE : WTO TRIPS Council – UK statement [March 2023]

    The press release issued by the Foreign Office on 17 March 2023.

    UK statement during the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Council on 16-17 March 2023.

    Thank you, Chair.

    The UK welcomes a return to substantive discussions on this issue in the TRIPS Council, which is the right venue for Members to consider the evidence relating to the potential extension of the MC12 TRIPS decision to COVID-19 therapeutics and diagnostics. We recognise this as an important issue, and Members should have the opportunity to seek clarification on the issues that have been raised and to work towards a decision which is underpinned by evidence-based policy-making. We would like to stress the importance of open, inclusive, and transparent processes going forward, as many members have called for previously.

    The UK has long maintained that the TRIPS Agreement strikes the correct balance between incentivising innovation and ensuring access through its flexibilities, including those enshrined in the Doha Declaration. We recognise the essential role of generic manufacturing and believe that, during the life of the patent, this should be enabled by voluntary licensing agreements which include technology and know-how transfer. This collaboration ensures that generic manufacturing adheres to regulatory practices that are internationally recognised so products meet the necessary quality and safety standards.

    We have noted before that there are approximately 130 voluntary licensing arrangements in place for COVID-19 treatments, which cover most low- and middle-income countries, including bilateral agreements with countries such as Brazil and India, which are important regional manufacturers of generic medicines. We would welcome being made aware of any evidence on how these arrangements fail to meet current international demand.

    We recognise extension proponents’ mutatis mutandis proposal from December 2022. The UK has considered this proposal carefully. Our view is we must first form consensus on whether extension is required, based on the evidence available. We have also noted that a number of questions have been raised by Members in relation to this proposal, including, but not limited to, the scope of products covered by the proposal and the risks of dual and multiple use. As has been discussed, COVID-19 therapeutics and diagnostics rely on pre-existing treatments and testing technology, used in different contexts to test and treat other diseases.

    In this regard, we consider the papers circulated last year, by Mexico and Switzerland and Chinese Taipei, as important contributions to address these unresolved issues. We understand that the questions raised by them are yet to be addressed. These relate, among other things, to concerns over the scope of the potential extension being excessively broad or unilaterally defined by individual Members, as well as to the current supply and demand dynamics for these products.

    As demonstrated by Chinese Taipei’s discussion paper, a key factor to increase production and to enhance access to therapeutics is closer industrial cooperation between originators and generic producers. The UK is ready to engage in conversations on ways to foster industrial cooperation with low- and middle-income countries to achieve this at the TRIPS Council and other relevant fora. The UK recognises that COVID-19 remains a serious challenge and that we need to promote equitable and effective distribution of COVID-19 products globally. A holistic response is needed to address the barriers to access, including better health infrastructure and health system readiness, harmonised regulatory mechanisms, as well as effective procurement and distribution strategies.

    We maintain that changes to the international IP framework, which are not substantiated by evidence, could weaken its ability to incentivise investment and innovation, thus risking our ability to tackle health and other emergencies both now and in the future. As ever, the UK stands ready to engage constructively in evidence-based conversation.

    Thank you, Chair.

     

  • PRESS RELEASE : Anti-slavery manuscript in ancient Greek by Coleridge at risk of leaving UK [March 2023]

    PRESS RELEASE : Anti-slavery manuscript in ancient Greek by Coleridge at risk of leaving UK [March 2023]

    The press release issued by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport on 17 March 2023.

    Export bar placed on autograph manuscript poem in ancient Greek signed and dated 16 June 1792 to allow time for a UK institution to acquire the work.

    An anti-slavery poem written by the poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge is at risk of leaving the UK unless a domestic buyer can be found.

    Coleridge (1772-1834), one of the leading figures of the Romantic movement in England, wrote the Greek verses while he was studying at the University of Cambridge and they are the only known draft of the work. He wrote the poem 15 years before the slave trade was abolished by Parliament.

    The poem, a Greek Sapphic ode in 24 quatrains, titled ‘Sors misera servorum in insulis Indiae occidentalis’ (Ode on The West-Indian Slave Trade), discusses the evils of slavery and laments the fate of slaves on the Middle Passage transportation route. It won Coleridge the Browne Medal for Classical composition at the University of Cambridge.

    The manuscript, which has been valued at £20,400, offers an insight into the early thinking of one of Britain’s most significant literary figures and is important for biographical studies of the poet, who wrote classic poems including The Rime of the Ancient Mariner and Kubla Khan.

    Arts & Heritage Minister Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay said:

    ‘’This fascinating manuscript offers an insight into the early thinking of one of Britain’s greatest poets, particularly on the heated debates on the abolition of slavery.

    “I sincerely hope that a UK buyer can be found to ensure it can remain here in the UK where it can be studied and enjoyed by future generations.”

    The Minister’s decision follows the advice of the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art and Objects of Cultural Interest.

    Committee Member Peter Barber said:

    “This insignificant-seeming, annotated draft of a poem in Greek is an emotive relic of one of this country’s greatest poets and sages. It dates back to the time when, as a Cambridge undergraduate in May-June 1792, Coleridge was hoping, by winning a university prize for the verse, to prove to his sceptical parents that he had the makings of a scholar. Its content reflects his heartfelt – and lifelong – commitment to one of the burning national issues of the time, the abolition of slavery, and he continued to refer to the poem throughout his life.

    “The draft also throws light on his close but hitherto little explored relationship with his revered eldest brother, George, to whom he sent it for comment. For all these reasons I fervently hope that a way can be found to keep the draft poem in this country.’’

    The committee made its recommendation on the basis the manuscript meets the first Waverley criterion for its outstanding connection with our history and national life. The poem’s subject, which focuses on the crucial movement campaigning for the abolition of slavery, adds to its outstanding significance to British history.

    The decision on the export licence application for the manuscript will be deferred for a period ending on 16 May 2023. At the end of the first deferral period owners will have a consideration period of 15 Business Days to consider any offer(s) to purchase the relief at the recommended price of £20,400 (plus VAT of £4,080 which can be reclaimed by an eligible institution). The second deferral period will commence following the signing of an Option Agreement and will last for three months.

  • PRESS RELEASE : New levy to make sure developers pay fair share for affordable housing and local infrastructure [March 2023]

    PRESS RELEASE : New levy to make sure developers pay fair share for affordable housing and local infrastructure [March 2023]

    The press release issued by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities on 17 March 2023.

    A consultation has been published today on the design of a new levy to be paid by developers to fund affordable housing and local infrastructure such as GP surgeries, transport links and schools.

    • Consultation on the design of a new infrastructure levy to be paid by developers published today
    • Councils to be given new powers to set levy rates on new development and spend on what they need locally
    • New ‘right to require’ aims to increase affordable housing delivery and stop developers negotiating down contributions

    A new levy will see developers pay a fairer share for affordable housing and local infrastructure such as roads, schools and GP surgeries the Government has announced today, Friday 17 March.

    The infrastructure levy, which will replace section 106 contributions for most developments, will prevent developers from negotiating down the amount they contribute to the community when they bring forward new projects.

    Under the proposals, the amount developers will have to pay will be calculated once a project is complete, instead of at the stage the site is given planning permission. This will make sure that councils benefit from increases in land value, which can be significant for large developments that take years to complete.

    Councils will also be given powers to set rates themselves, putting power in the hands of local leaders to deliver what their communities need.

    The levy will also give communities more control over how this money is spent. A portion of the money will be passed directly to communities as a ‘neighbourhood share’ to fund their infrastructure priorities, while councils will be required to engage with communities and create a infrastructure delivery strategy.

    Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, Michael Gove said:

    Central to our levelling up mission is ensuring local communities can take back control.

    The infrastructure levy will do just that – giving local leaders the tools to bring forward more affordable housing and the transport links, schools and GP surgeries  their communities need.

    It will also speed up delivery and put an end to lengthy negotiations with developers seeking to shirk their responsibility to provide for local people.

    The levy is designed to deliver at least as much affordable housing as the current system. Councils will be given a new ‘right to require’, so they can dictate how much of the levy is delivered through affordable housing on-site in new developments and how much is given in cash for other infrastructure, such as new schools, transport links or GP surgeries.

    The ‘right to require’ will also speed up the process and stop developers from negotiating down their affordable housing contributions as they will have a legal obligation to meet the amount set by the council.

    The levy will be introduced as part of the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill, and a consultation on the Government’s proposed system has today been published.

    The Government recognises that the levy will be a significant change so it will be introduced through ‘test and learn’ over a 10-year period. A small number of councils will implement the levy initially, testing how it operates in practice, before being rolled out more widely, to make sure the Levy can successfully deliver on its objectives.

    The consultation will run for 12 weeks and the Government anticipates that it will consult further on proposed regulations, when the responses to this consultation have been fully considered

    The announcement follows the publication last week of a new action plan to speed up delivery of Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects such as transport links and offshore wind farms.

    The Government has also today published a consultation on a new Environmental Outcomes Report. This new approach will allow us to replace over-complicated EU regulations with a new system of environmental assessment that is tailored to the country’s needs and supports our ambitious environmental targets.

    The new system will enshrine at least the same overall level of environmental protection in law. It will allow the Government to streamline processes and reduce the burden of bureaucracy, making sure environmental assessment is focused on what really matters.

  • PRESS RELEASE : Road rage and Revocation [March 2023]

    PRESS RELEASE : Road rage and Revocation [March 2023]

    The press release issued by the Department for Transport on 17 March 2023.

    In a recent public inquiry before Deputy Traffic Commissioner Nick Denton, Kevin Griggs had his operator’s licence revoked, and was prohibited from holding such a licence for at least twelve months and had his vocational driving licence suspended for the same amount of time.

    Mr Griggs was involved in a slight collision with another vehicle at the roundabout. He then forced that other vehicle off the road at the exit to the roundabout, jumped out of his cab swinging a table leg, threatened the other driver in an aggressive manner and at one point hit the other driver on the back with the table leg. He then drove off in a manner which was unsafe for other traffic. Griggs was subsequently convicted at Snaresbrook Crown Court of assault by beating, possession of an offensive weapon in a public place, using threatening behaviour and driving without due care and attention. He received 4 points on his licence for the motoring offence, one month’s imprisonment (suspended for 12 months) for possession of the weapon, one month’s imprisonment (also suspended for 12 months) for using threatening behaviour, and six months’ imprisonment (again suspended for 12 months) for the assault. He was also ordered to complete 100 hours of community service. Mr Griggs failed to notify any of these convictions to the traffic commissioner.

    During an adjournment, Mr. Denton was shown video from the police that contradicted statements the operator had made about his actions. This in turn led to the deputy commissioner finding Mr Griggs to be an unreliable witness.

    The deputy commissioner said “the incident was of an exceptionally serious and shocking nature. The public have a right to drive on the road without an operator using his skip lorry to force another vehicle to stop in a wholly inappropriate location causing danger to other road users. Other road users should not be subject to the abuse and violence dealt out by Mr Griggs, no matter what the excuse … The inescapable conclusion is that Kevin Roy Griggs is not fit to hold an operator’s licence.”

    The decision can be found here.

  • Rachel Reeves – 2023 Speech on the Budget

    Rachel Reeves – 2023 Speech on the Budget

    The speech made by Rachel Reeves, the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the House of Commons on 16 March 2023.

    The reality of yesterday’s Budget is clear: long-term growth downgraded, household incomes falling, public services on their knees. Families are facing the biggest hit to living standards since records began. The only surprise was a huge handout to the richest 1% of pension savers. Yet again, working people and businesses—the key to our economic success—have been put at the bottom of the pile.

    The questions people will be asking themselves after 13 years of Conservative Government are these. Am I and my family better off? Are our school, hospitals and transport systems working any better than 13 years ago? Frankly, is anything in Britain working better today than it did when the Conservatives came into office? The answer to those questions is a resounding no.

    Labour believes that the tax burden must be shared fairly. That is why I have announced today that Labour will reverse the changes to tax-free pension allowances. It is the wrong priority, at the wrong time, for the wrong people. Instead, we would create a targeted scheme to encourage doctors to work overtime and not to retire early. That could be done at a fraction of the cost, as the British Medical Association has said.

    The Government’s policy to give tax cuts to the wealthiest 1% is unravelling before our eyes. Paul Johnson, the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, says that even on the “optimistic” Office for Budget Responsibility costings, it will cost an eye-watering £100,000 per job retained. The Resolution Foundation said:

    “The beneficiaries from these reforms stand to gain large amounts, and they are heavily concentrated among the very rich”.

    It added that

    “this giveaway could lead to inheritance tax ‘abuse’”.

    Pensions expert John Ralfe has said that

    “this is not about supporting a hard-pressed NHS, it is really a tax giveaway…for the very highest earners.”

    Labour recognises the mess that the Government have got into with our NHS workforce planning, and we have called for changes to doctors’ pensions, but we will oppose this untargeted scheme for the wealthiest and we will put this measure to a vote in Parliament next week. I defy Conservative Members to vote in favour of a policy that they know will do absolutely nothing to lift the living standards of their constituents.

    Last autumn we saw the Chancellor of the day announce reckless tax cuts to help the richest, too. Why does this keep happening? The reason why the Tories get the wrong answers is that they have the wrong priorities for our country and the wrong analysis of the economy. Wealth does not just trickle down from the top; it comes from the efforts of millions of working people and thousands of businesses. That is Labour’s approach to growth.

    Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)

    The right hon. Lady denounces the abolition of the lifetime allowance, but it was actually something that never applied under Labour at all. If Labour is so concerned about its loss, why did it not introduce it in the first place?

    Rachel Reeves

    Gordon Brown introduced a lifetime allowance for pensions savings, as I am sure the right hon. Lady remembers. However, the point here is about priorities. For all our constituents, there is an average tax increase per household of £650, starting next month with the freezing of the tax thresholds and the increase in council tax. Yet yesterday, the only permanent tax cut provided in the Budget was for people who already have pensions savings of more than £1 million. I just do not believe that that is the priority for our constituents, and I think hon. Members right across the House, if they think about it, know that too.

    Mr Deputy Speaker—is that what I call you?

    Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)

    Yes.

    Rachel Reeves

    It is wonderful to see you in your place. We were told that this was a “Budget for growth”, but the documents published with this Budget confirm that the UK economy will shrink this year. The Chancellor expects us to cheer at the news that the economy will shrink a little bit less than he previously thought. Is that really what “good” looks like for the British economy?

    The Office for Budget Responsibility also confirmed that we will have the weakest growth in the G7 this year and next year, and it saw growth downgraded for each of the last three years of the forecast period. All the while, the UK is the only G7 economy that is still smaller than it was before the global pandemic.

    Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)

    This Budget will not do a great deal for my Slough constituents who are really struggling to make ends meet and pay their bills, apart from a big tax cut for the very richest in our society. My constituents will have the highest tax burden and the biggest drop in disposable income since the second world war inflicted on them. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this Budget will not actually help to solve the cost of living crisis?

    Rachel Reeves

    I have spent time in my hon. Friend’s Slough constituency talking to working people and businesses. On the most recent couple of visits there, I do not remember anyone saying, “The big priority for families and businesses in Slough is a tax cut for the 1%.” Instead, they were saying, “Let’s have a targeted scheme for the NHS, as Labour has called for, instead of this blanket approach for the top 1%.”

    The Government have, to be fair, given us some growth: growth in stealth taxes, growth in mortgage costs and growth in NHS waiting lists. There is no plan for the future, just a Tory legacy of pain. It will take a Labour Government to spark and sustain growth, lift people’s living standards in every part of the country, meet the challenges of the future and achieve the change that our country desperately needs.

    When I meet people in industry, I hear frustration from employers who cannot get and retain the staff that they need. It is a feeling the Tories know all too well, with three Prime Ministers in one year, and the current Chancellor the fourth in that role since just last summer. Yet somehow, it is the same Tory Government. It is a bit like Trigger’s broom in “Only Fools and Horses”, with its 17 new heads and 14 new handles, only much less useful.

    After his five months as Chancellor, the right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt) might feel that he should qualify for a Conservative party long-service award. In fact, of the past three Chancellors, he is the first to deliver a Budget, although the last Chancellor did last long enough to deliver a mini-Budget that crashed our economy—an extreme experiment in ultra-Tory ideology, using Britain’s economy and people’s livelihoods as their laboratory. It must never happen again.

    Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)

    Our country has some amazing assets and amazing opportunities to invest in the green industries of the future, but we see a lacklustre plan from the Tory Government to exploit them. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this Government of gimmicks have all but given up on leading the way and creating jobs and opportunities as we decarbonise our economy and, in reality, want to import everything from abroad? Surely it is time that they nicked our plan.

    Rachel Reeves

    I know that in my hon. Friend’s constituency, there are huge opportunities for the jobs and industries of the future—for example, in carbon capture and storage and in green hydrogen.

    I will not be churlish: I must admit that there were some good ideas in the Budget yesterday—the ones that my colleagues and I have announced in the last few months, which we are happy to support. There was a fairer deal for people on prepayment meters who are paying a premium—we called for this last August. There was also preventing a fuel duty increase, a plan to help the over-50s back into work and better childcare provision for working parents. They were all called for by Labour and are now backed by the Tories. The truth is, however, that after 13 years of Tory Government, people will rightly ask, “Is that it? Is that really all they think it takes to reverse 13 years of low growth, falling living standards and crumbling public services?”

    Of course, we welcome the freeze in energy prices—after all, we proposed it—but politics is about priorities. Labour first called for a windfall tax to help people with their bills 14 months ago. We were clear that keeping energy prices down was our top priority, and that it was wrong for oil and gas giants to profit from the windfalls of war at everyone else’s expense. Yet again, however, the Chancellor chose yesterday to leave billions of pounds of windfall profits on the table, which could be supporting families and businesses during this cost of living crisis. It is a question of who pays, and the Government are turning to the public and saying, “You.”

    There seems to be a disconnect between what I heard from the Chancellor yesterday and the experiences of my constituents and many people across the country. The Tories claim that their plan is working, but the Resolution Foundation says that the typical household will be £1,100 worse off as a result of the Government’s policies over the period of just this Parliament. Is that really what success looks like to them?

    The reality is that people are still weighed down by a prolonged cost of living crisis that is taking its toll. Debt advice organisations have faced a tidal wave of demand from people, but incredibly, the jobs of thousands of debt advisers are at risk. Let me be clear: more people are struggling not because they have forgotten how to budget, but because Tory Budgets are simply not working for them.

    One of the biggest costs people face is their monthly mortgage or rent. The Chancellor said yesterday that the impact of the mini-Budget had disappeared—seriously? He should tell that to the family facing a £2,000 hike in their mortgage payment, as confirmed by the Office for Budget Responsibility yesterday. That means less money to spend on the local high street, meals out with the family or an annual holiday. That is the lasting damage that the Conservatives have done to the living standards of working people. The last thing that the country needed in the middle of a cost of living crisis was a Tory mortgage penalty.

    Despite all the damage that the Tories have done, I am optimistic about the future for our country. I have had the privilege of seeing great innovation across Britain, from the development of battery operated trains at Hitachi in County Durham to hydrogen-powered engines at JCB in Staffordshire and pioneering research at Rolls-Royce into carbon neutral aviation. I know the potential that we have as a country. That is what Labour’s green prosperity plan is all about. It is a plan to decarbonise our economy, drive down bills and let British businesses and workers compete in the global race for the jobs and industries of the future.

    Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)

    The right hon. Lady rightly points to the great innovation, research and development that is happening in British companies. Does she not agree that the measures that the Chancellor announced to help to discount research and development will be a major boost to such industries?

    Rachel Reeves

    The problem is that last autumn, the Chancellor announced a scrapping of the R&D schemes, but then brought back something this week that we are supposed to cheer about. The plan that Labour has set out will rely on Government and business working and investing together.

    As President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act galvanises green energy in the United States and Governments from Europe to Asia and Australia respond, it is not enough here in Britain to cling to old ideas and old methods while other countries steal ahead in the global race. Our growth plans will be alongside a modern industrial strategy, reform of business rates, changes to the apprenticeship levy and measures to fix the broken Brexit deal in order to increase the order books for British industry. There is so much more that the Government could be doing to boost growth, create good jobs and get Britain’s economy firing on all cylinders, but I heard so little of that in the Chancellor’s Budget yesterday.

    The verdict is in. The Federation of Small Businesses says that the Budget leaves “many feeling short-changed” and that

    “the Government’s lack of support for small firms in critical areas is glaring.”

    It says that

    “trickledown economics here simply does not work.”

    The British Chambers of Commerce highlights that, yet again, the Government

    “failed to reform business rates”,

    and the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders says:

    “There is little that enables the UK to compete with massive packages of support to power a green transition that are available elsewhere.”

    The Institute for Fiscal Studies describes capital expensing as “temporary tweaks”, concluding that:

    “There’s no stability, no certainty, and no sense of a wider plan.”

    As for working people, the TUC points out that:

    “Real wages will not return to 2008 levels until 2026”

    and that

    “workers across the economy will have looked at this Budget and thought ‘was that it?’”.

    This is a Government who are struggling to paper over the cracks after their 13 years of neglect and shoddy workmanship. The roof is leaking, the windows are rotten and the foundations are suffering from subsidence. The Tories are totally incapable of building the country and economy that we need.

    Alex Cunningham

    I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way a second time, even though she would rather not. I wonder whether she has seen the comments from the Federation of Small Businesses, which said that, on investment in the labour market, the measures that small businesses were looking for are missing, and that the measures are well wide of the mark and irrelevant to the 5.5 million-strong small businesses in our communities.

    Rachel Reeves

    Small businesses are the backbone of our economy, and the words from the Federation of Small Businesses should have a chilling effect on those on the Government Front Bench.

    Beyond the economy, growth rates and living standards, if we want any further evidence of the Government’s failure, just look at our public services. Public services play a crucial role in achieving a strong economy and a good society. They adapted during the pandemic and were critical to our response in the fight against covid, with people taking personal risks to keep others safe and supported. Thirteen years of Conservative Government has weakened our public services and devalued the people working in them. Labour would make choices in the national interest.

    Yet again, the Budget failed to abolish non-dom tax status. As we know, non-doms have no bigger champion than in Downing Street, but Labour believes that those who make Britain their home should pay their taxes here. The non-dom rules are costing us £3 billion every year. Ending that tax exemption could fund the biggest expansion of the NHS workforce in a generation.

    It is not just our NHS that has suffered. We have lost all kinds of community assets over the last 13 years, from libraries to Sure Start centres and youth clubs. Let us take one example: since 2010, 382 swimming pools have closed in England under the Tories. Yesterday, the Chancellor announced a £63 million package to keep the remaining ones open, but, at the same time, the Prime Minister has upgraded the local electricity network to heat his own swimming pool. I wonder whether he will be inviting the local kids who have lost their swimming pools to come and use his facilities.

    This Government have no plan to clean up the mess they have made over 13 years. Each and every time they promise to solve a problem, they fail and the country pays the price. We need a Budget for growth, yet growth has been downgraded. We needed to raise living standards, yet household incomes are falling at their fastest rate since records began. We needed a proper windfall tax on the energy giants, but instead they continue to enjoy the windfalls of war. We needed a Budget for home ownership, yet mortgage costs have risen because of the Tories’ kamikaze mini-Budget last year. We needed a Budget with a plan to invest in our NHS workforce, but the Prime Minister and Chancellor chose to defend the non-doms instead.

    The Tories have had their chance and they have blown it; they are out of ideas and they are out of time. We need a general election and a Labour Government to give our country its future back.

  • Angela Rayner – 2023 Speech on Security of Government Devices and TikTok

    Angela Rayner – 2023 Speech on Security of Government Devices and TikTok

    The speech made by Angela Rayner, the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, in the House of Commons on 16 March 2023.

    I welcome the statement and thank the Minister for advance sight of it. But once again the Government are late to the game. In August last year, Parliament closed its TikTok account. As the Minister has just said, in December the US banned TikTok from official devices, and nearly a month ago the European Commission followed suit. On 28 February, however, the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology said that the app was a matter of “personal choice.” She said, “We have no evidence”, and that a ban would be “very forthright”.

    What has changed? Two weeks, two Ministers, two completely different policies later, and it is the same pattern over and over again: a Government behind the curve, with sticking-plaster solutions, forced to lurch into a U-turn at the last minute. We need a strong, clear- eyed and consistent approach—one that ensures that we can protect our national security and that puts us in a strong position to engage with states such as China where it is in our interest to do so, in areas such as climate change and trade.

    The Minister announced a restriction on official devices to a pre-approved list of third-party apps and a ban on TikTok. How does the ban on TikTok differ from it simply not being on that approved list? Why is the ban limited only to central Government Departments? How will it apply, for example, to devolved Governments or Parliaments? Can the Ministry of Defence, for example, keep its account?

    The Minister said that the TikTok ban is based on

    “a specific risk with Government devices”.

    Can he go a little further on that? What exactly is the specific risk and why does it apply only to official devices in central Government? Will the Minister tell us what advice has been issued to other Ministers, including those who already actively use TikTok? What criteria will be used for the list of pre-approved apps that he has announced today? Which apps will be included and which will not? On what grounds?

    Today’s announcement feels like closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. If the Minister was serious about overhauling security at the heart of Government, why was the review limited only to the use of third-party apps on Government devices? Why not carry out a root-and-branch review of the technology used by his colleagues? The reality is that this Government’s track record of upholding security at the heart of Government is appalling, from their chronic use of private emails to the hacking of the phone of the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss). Will the Minister say whether there were any discussions during this process about Ministers’ use of private messaging, such as WhatsApp, and email? Will he confirm that he will make it a priority to make good on promises to update the guidance on the use of private emails by Ministers, which is now a decade old?

    In the Procurement Bill’s Second Reading debate, the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), described the Government’s approach to tracking down security threats in our supply chain as “relentless whack-a-mole”. She said we needed a more systematic and proactive approach to identifying risks in the UK’s supply chain, especially when it comes to goods and services bought with taxpayers’ money. I agree with her; does the Minister?

    If the Minister is truly serious about national security at the heart of Government, why did he vote against Labour’s amendments to the Procurement Bill that would have mandated that suppliers that pose a risk to the UK’s national security must be excluded from being granted taxpayers’ money? The Government have a duty to uphold the highest standards of security at the heart of Government. Today’s announcement is nothing but a temporary fix—a sticking plaster—while gaping holes remain in our national security. We must fix this problem; is the Minister committed to doing so?

    Oliver Dowden

    The right hon. Lady raised a large number of issues; I will try to address as many as I can and am happy to write to her on any that I do not cover.

    First, the Government’s overall approach to national security is set out in the integrated review refresh that was published at the beginning of the week. In respect of China specifically, it sets out a three-pronged approach of protect, align and engage; this element of our activity clearly relates to protect.

    The right hon. Lady asked why the decision has taken some time. We have always taken an evidence-based approach. I thought it was appropriate that we gather sufficient evidence and understand the nature of the problem. I did that in November. It is an appropriate way to deal with national security challenges and I will continue to take it.

    The right hon. Lady asked about the limited list. We already have an approved list of apps but it does not apply to every Government Department. We are now ensuring that it applies across all Government Departments. I do not believe there is a risk extant at the moment; this is about ensuring that we continue to guard against risk on an ongoing basis.

    The ban applies not just to central Government Departments but to all Government agencies, including arm’s length bodies. On the devolved Administrations, I have written to the leaders in Scotland and Wales and the appropriate officials in Northern Ireland.

    In respect of Ministers, they receive extensive advice when they take office and are expected to follow that with all the devices they use. In respect of private messaging, we are updating the guidance on non-corporate communications to ensure that we have a consistent approach across Government, but, again, I do not believe that we have serious concerns on that.

    Finally, on the right hon. Lady’s slightly overblown rhetorical point about Government taking action, I say gently to her that I have always been willing to take decisive action to protect national security. It is exactly the approach that I took in respect of banning Huawei from our 5G network before many of our allies did so. It is exactly the approach that I took within weeks of taking office in respect of Government surveillance devices on sensitive sites with Chinese technology on them. However, we must proceed with an evidence-based and proportionate approach. That is what will command public confidence and that is the approach that I am taking today.

  • Oliver Dowden – 2023 Statement on Security of Government Devices and TikTok

    Oliver Dowden – 2023 Statement on Security of Government Devices and TikTok

    The statement made by Oliver Dowden, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, in the House of Commons on 16 March 2023.

    As this week’s integrated review refresh demonstrated, the Government are strongly committed to bolstering our national security to meet the challenges of both today and tomorrow. We take the security of Government devices very seriously, and we are constantly working to ensure that those devices remain as safe and secure as possible. As part of that effort, I recently commissioned a review by our cyber-security experts to assess the risks posed by certain third-party apps on Government devices and in particular the installation and use of TikTok. I know that there has been a lot of interest in this issue in the House, so I wanted to take this opportunity to update Members.

    The review has concluded and it is clear that there could be a risk around how sensitive Government data is accessed and used by certain platforms. As many colleagues will know, social media apps collect and store huge amounts of user data, including contacts, user content and geolocation data. On Government devices, that data can be sensitive, and so today we are strengthening the security of those devices in two key respects.

    First, we are moving to a system where Government devices will only be able to access third-party apps that are on a pre-approved list. This system is already in place across many Departments, and now it will be the rule across Government. Secondly, we are also going to ban the use of TikTok on Government devices. We will do so with immediate effect. This is a precautionary move—we know that there is already limited use of TikTok across Government—but it is also good cyber hygiene.

    Given the particular risk around Government devices that may contain sensitive information, it is both prudent and proportionate to restrict the use of certain apps, particularly when it comes to apps where a large amount of data can be stored and accessed. This ban applies to Government corporate devices within ministerial and non-ministerial departments, but it will not extend to personal devices for Government employees or Ministers or the general public. That is because, as I have outlined, this is a proportionate move based on a specific risk with Government devices. However, as is always the case, we advise individuals to practise caution online and to consider each social media platform’s data policies before downloading and using it. Of course, it is the case that Ministers receive regular security briefings and advice on protecting data on their personal devices and on mitigating cyber threats.

    We will also be putting in place specific, very limited exemptions for the use of TikTok on Government devices where it is required for operational reasons. Those exemptions will only be granted by security teams on a case-by-case basis, with ministerial clearance provided as appropriate. Overall, this approach aligns with action taken by allies, including the United States, Canada and the EU.

    Our security must always come first. Today we are strengthening that security in a prudent and proportionate way, and I commend this statement to the House.

  • Catherine West – 2023 Speech on Saudi Arabia’s Execution of Hussein Abo al-Kheir

    Catherine West – 2023 Speech on Saudi Arabia’s Execution of Hussein Abo al-Kheir

    The speech made by Catherine West, the Shadow Foreign Office Minister, in the House of Commons on 16 March 2023.

    I thank the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) for his characteristic defence of these principles in the House and for securing this urgent question.

    On behalf of the Labour party, I extend my condolence to the family of Hussein Abo al-Kheir, a Jordanian national who leaves behind eight children. Labour stands unequivocally against the death penalty wherever it is used in the world. The taking of human life as punishment, regardless of the crime, is a gross breach of a person’s human rights.

    Mr al-Kheir was arrested in 2014 for alleged drug smuggling; however, because there was no proper trial with a proper defence and he had no legal advice, it is very difficult to know the exact detail of the case. He consistently denied the charges. While he was in custody, he was allegedly so severely beaten and tortured that he lost his eyesight. Moreover, he was denied basic due process and was unable to instruct a lawyer throughout his time in custody. Despite interventions from the Government and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, his execution went ahead on Sunday.

    I reiterate the point made earlier: has the UK become less robust on the question of human rights in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia since 2015? Saudi Arabia is a founding member of the Arab League, which is bound by the Arab charter of human rights; what urgent actions are the Government taking to ensure that our partners comply with the Arab League and its human rights charter?

    In the run-up to Ramadan, what extra measures are the Government taking to open dialogue with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, so that we can avoid a repeat of last year’s execution of 100 people? In the strategic dialogue with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, will the Minister press for the value of the sanctity of human life, a principle that we in this House all agree on?

    Leo Docherty

    I join the hon. Lady in vocally opposing the death penalty. That is at the core of all our diplomatic work so we entirely share that view. As she said, we do not know the exact details of this case, so it is not useful to speculate, but we can be sure that we continue to engage through our mission in Riyadh and other multilateral channels.

    To answer the hon. Lady’s question directly, we are certainly no less robust than we were previously in our absolute determination to oppose the death penalty around the world, and at bilateral fora as well as multilateral fora. She mentioned the Arab League and the advent of Ramadan; that gives us even more urgency in the representations we make. We will continue to press and engage at the multilateral and bilateral level to oppose this practice.

  • David Davis – 2023 Speech on Saudi Arabia’s Execution of Hussein Abo al-Kheir

    David Davis – 2023 Speech on Saudi Arabia’s Execution of Hussein Abo al-Kheir

    The speech made by David Davis, the Conservative MP for Haltemprice and Howden, in the House of Commons on 16 March 2023.

    Hussein Abo al-Kheir had been on death row since 2015. He had been tortured into a false confession and always maintained his innocence. When I was told this weekend that his execution was imminent, I urgently wrote to the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, the junior Minister, Lord Ahmad, the British ambassador to Saudi Arabia and the Saudi ambassador to the UK, calling for intervention to prevent Hussein’s execution—I received no formal reply, although I understand that a letter has arrived in my office since I have been in the Chamber. Hussein was subsequently executed. A response given on Tuesday to questions from the Father of the House appeared to suggest that, despite my representations, only low-level attempts were made to talk to the Saudis over the weekend. In 2015, the Foreign Secretary’s predecessor, Philip Hammond, intervened himself, successfully, to prevent the execution of a Saudi youth activist, and he prevented many more executions by so doing; that intervention saved Ali’s life. I firmly believe that a stronger intervention over the weekend could have saved Hussein’s life and perhaps more to come.

    Saudi Arabia continues to be one of the most prolific users of the death penalty, killing more than 130 individuals in 2022. Since 1 March this year, the Kingdom has executed 11 people, including for non-violent drug offences. That goes against Saudi Arabia’s informal moratorium on the use of the death penalty for drug-related offences. Being soft with totalitarian states comes back to bite us, as we know from the Russian example. We must make it clear to our ally that it must abide by international standards of civilised behaviour; doing so might just save the lives of those who remain on death row.

    Leo Docherty

    I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for describing the number of letters he has sent and pointing out that a response has been had. I am pleased that that is the case. I assure him that a range of interventions were made, as I described, at the most senior level by Lord Ahmad. That describes the energy with which he has made these representations, so we can be confident that a great deal of energy was expended in that effort. Of course, we cannot speculate as to the particulars of the case. My right hon. Friend mentioned the apparent spike in cases. Again, it might not be useful to speculate, but it might be that a pre-Ramadan surge of cases is adding to the apparent uptick. I understand that the moratorium relates to drug use rather than drug smuggling, and this case pertained to an allegation of and conviction for smuggling rather than use, which I think is relevant. It is not useful to speculate further on the particulars of this case, but we do make clear our continued opposition to the use of the death penalty, and our close working relationship with the Saudi authorities allows us to do just that in a way that allows us to appeal for clemency.