UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Hilary Benn

  • Hilary Benn – 2024 Speech on the United Kingdom Internal Market

    Hilary Benn – 2024 Speech on the United Kingdom Internal Market

    The speech made by Hilary Benn, the Shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, in the House of Commons on 1 February 2024.

    I begin by agreeing with the Minister that businesses in Northern Ireland want to make the current and future arrangements work, that they want them to work well and that there is huge potential for the people of Northern Ireland in the economic benefits that its current and future circumstances provide it.

    I have some specific points about the regulations— I see the Minister clearly relishes responding to those. Paragraph 81 of the Command Paper states:

    “We are now changing arrangements…to ensure…that checks are eliminated save for those conducted by UK authorities needed for the protection of the UK’s internal market on a risk and intelligence basis.

    Will the Minister clarify which checks on goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland will be got rid of? Is he referring to identity checks, checks on paperwork or something else? At the moment, about 10% of goods using what is called the green lane—which will become the UK internal market lane—are subject to some checks on paperwork. Will he clarify what will happen to them?

    I welcome the amendments to the UK Internal Market Act 2020 provided for in regulation 2. Proposed new section 45A would reaffirm Northern Ireland’s unfettered access to the rest of the internal market and ensure that no new NI-GB checks can be introduced. The regulation also makes provision for the Secretary of State to issue guidance to Departments on how they should carry out their duties under section 46 of the 2020 Act—namely, ensuring that they have special regard to, among other things, Northern Ireland’s status in the UK internal market when they formulate policy. Will the Minister confirm that guidance will soon be forthcoming and share any further details he can at this stage about what that will contain?

    I note the changes to the Definition of Qualifying Northern Ireland Goods (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 made by regulation 3, which are intended to prevent Northern Ireland from being used as a back door for EU goods moving into GB and to protect Northern Ireland’s agricultural sector. Ensuring that NI-registered agrifood operators fully benefit from unfettered access is a very positive step and I welcome it. Will the Minister tell the House whether the Government envisage any further changes to the definition of qualifying Northern Ireland goods? I also note the Government’s confirmation in the Command Paper that

    “there will be no Border Control Post at Cairnryan.”

    That is greatly to be welcomed, but can the Minister say anything further about how checks and formalities on non-qualifying goods that enter GB from Northern Ireland through Cairnryan will work in practice?

    Let me turn to some of the other commitments set out in the Command Paper. Will the Minister confirm when he expects the new body announced to promote trade within the UK, InterTrade UK, to become operational, and how it will be overseen?

    I welcome the Government’s determination, which has been brought up by a number of Members, to ensure the continued supply of veterinary medicines into Northern Ireland beyond the end of 2025, when the current grace period expires. We all hope that an agreement can be reached with our European partners as soon as possible. I share the view expressed by others in the debate that we had the same problem with human medicines and, in the end, the EU recognised that something had to be done about that. I hope very much that the EU will show the same spirit in approaching this question. The Command Paper, however, says:

    “we will if necessary deploy all available flexibilities to safeguard and sustain the supply of veterinary medicines”.

    Will the Minister tell the House what those flexibilities are and how they will be applied if we get to that point?

    In approving the regulations—which I hope we will do unanimously as we just did with the constitutional set—we will be taking another step closer, in this really important week, to the restoration of power sharing. The people of Northern Ireland, who have been without a Government for so long, may not, in all fairness, be studying the regulations in the way that we are doing today, but they very clearly understand why they are essential to getting their Government back. Once we have done our bit today, it will be over to the politicians of Northern Ireland, and I am sure that every single Member of the House wishes them the very best in the task that lies ahead of them.

  • Hilary Benn – 2023 Speech on the Security and Data Protection Breach in PSNI

    Hilary Benn – 2023 Speech on the Security and Data Protection Breach in PSNI

    The speech made by Hilary Benn, the Shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, in the House of Commons on 4 September 2023.

    May I say that I look forward to working with the Secretary of State in the interests of peace, prosperity and progress in Northern Ireland?

    The release of the names and workplaces of thousands of PSNI officers and staff was doubtless inadvertent, but its consequences could not be more serious. That has now been recognised by the chief constable, Simon Byrne, who is resigning—I join the Secretary of State in thanking him for his service. Those who serve in the PSNI confront great risks every day in their job to keep the public safe, and we thank them. But they already knew that dissident republicans were targeting them and their families, and now they know that those who would do them harm have this list. The damage to morale and confidence should not be underestimated. They are asking urgently, “What will be done to reassure and protect us?”

    Does the Secretary of State agree that the inquiry needs to be completed as quickly as possible? Can he confirm that he will approve the appointment of the new chief constable in the absence of a Justice Minister in Northern Ireland? Does he intend to review the operation of the Northern Ireland Policing Board and how it functions? Does he recognise that there will be additional costs in protecting staff, as well as responding to potential civil claims? There were already great pressures on the Northern Ireland policing budget, and the cuts it now faces will, in the words of the PSNI, leave the service “smaller…less visible, less accessible and less responsive”.

    Finally, the whole House wants to ensure that the staff get the support, protection and reassurance they need, but to succeed in doing that we need leadership from the Government and the political parties in Northern Ireland, to get the Assembly and the Executive up and running again as quickly as possible.

    Chris Heaton-Harris

    I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his place and look forward to working with him. As I mentioned outside the Chamber, I will happily brief him on any aspects and will arrange technical briefings from my officials so that he can be brought up to speed quickly. I would like to put on record my thanks to the former shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle), who is present, for the way he went about his business and for the very co-operative way we dealt with business. I appreciate it and wish him well as we move forward.

    The right hon. Gentleman asked about the inquiry. Yes, it needs to be expedited. A timetable has been set up by the Policing Board, which is independent, and I believe that it reports in three months’ time. It is quite a fundamental inquiry, and I hope in that time it will be able to bring all the answers required to the table. He asked about the appointment of a future chief constable; if the institutions of the Executive and the Minister for Justice are not present, we will have to pass secondary legislation in this place to allow that to happen. All that depends on the Policing Board going about its business and recruitment—I believe that is very much a rubber stamp of its work.

    The right hon. Gentleman asked about the Policing Board and reform. I spoke to a number of board members before the resignation of the chief constable, and they all know that the spotlight is on them and how they deal with this. I would like to wait and see how they discharge their duties over the course of the next few weeks before I commit to reform, because there are good people there who have the ability to do the job.

    Finally, on the budget, which I mentioned in my answer, the right hon. Gentleman forgot to mention that the Information Commissioner will come out with a decent fine for the data breach. We will have to take a whole host of things into account. As and when they materialise, we will look at them.

  • Hilary Benn – 2023 Speech on Brain Tumour Research Funding

    Hilary Benn – 2023 Speech on Brain Tumour Research Funding

    The speech made by Hilary Benn, the Labour MP for Leeds Central, in the House of Commons on 9 March 2023.

    The reason that I rise to participate in this debate is that just under two years ago a constituent wrote to me. He revealed that he had a brain tumour and asked me to go along to an APPG meeting to discuss ways in which we could try to find a cure. I went along and I must confess that little did I know then that I would end up taking part in the inquiry. We had, I think, six evidence sessions and we heard from a lot of people. The report, which the hon. Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) referred to, distils into its recommendations what we heard from those who contributed and who were very patient in answering the many questions that we put to them.

    I pay tribute to the hon. Member, who chairs the APPG and who chaired the inquiry. He has done so brilliantly, cheerfully and in a way that has brought out the best from all of the people who appeared before us, who came along to let us draw on their expertise, to share their frustrations and to offer their ideas and suggestions. It has been an honour and a privilege to work with him and all the other hon. Members here who took part. I also thank the wonderful secretariat from Brain Tumour Research for supporting us in our work and for pulling the report together so skilfully.

    A cancer diagnosis is a terrible thing, although statistics tell us that one in two of us will receive such a diagnosis during our lifetime. I think most of us, if we are honest, would say that we wince when we hear the word “cancer”, because all too often it conjures the idea of a downward path to the end of our lives. Any of us who has been through that experience, either ourselves or, in my case, with those we love, knows exactly how that feels, but death is not always the outcome. Our lives are not preordained, and we have seen real advances in the treatment of certain types of cancer in recent years—breast cancer is a good example—and, overall, I am advised that cancer survival rates in the UK have doubled in the last 40 years.

    But when it comes to brain tumours, the blunt truth is that there has been almost no progress at all. The five-year survival rate for glioblastoma, the most aggressive form, is 6.8%, and the average length of survival is between 12 and 18 months.

    Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)

    My right hon. Friend refers to the average length of survival as being 18 months. Actually, it is nine months. His figure suggests that everybody completes treatment. Nine months is the life expectancy of somebody diagnosed with glioblastoma.

    Hilary Benn

    I absolutely take my hon. Friend’s point, which reinforces, in all of us, our awareness of just how awful this diagnosis is, and it is the answer to the question that every person who receives such a diagnosis asks their doctor: “How long have I got?” Eight or nine months is no time at all.

    Dr Matt Williams, a clinical oncologist, is quoted in the report:

    “Every week I have to tell patients that there is nothing more we can offer. I have now been a consultant for 10 years and these conversations are the same now as when I started.”

    That is why a brain tumour is a devastating diagnosis. A patient quoted in the report says:

    “It’s devastating and living with a time bomb in your head.”

    That is a very good description of what it must feel like. In those circumstances, what do patients and loved ones want? What we would all want is to make sure that we are doing everything we possibly can to try to change that.

    Mr Carmichael

    I speak about this publicly from time to time, and I am always struck by the number of people who say to me, “Thank you for doing that, because this took my father”—or their brother, their neighbour, their friend or whoever—“and I had no idea that this had been their life experience.” When I was growing up, 40 or 50 years ago, a cancer diagnosis really was not talked about—it was almost taboo—and I think we are in the same place with brain cancers. If we are to make the progress we need, we all have to start talking about this much more. The experience has to be shared.

    Hilary Benn

    I agree completely with what the right hon. Gentleman has said. To borrow a phrase, it’s good to talk about brain cancer. That is why we are here in this Chamber today. We are here to raise awareness, because loved ones dying remains, among some people, a great taboo, about which we are fearful of saying anything. When my late first wife died of cancer at the age of 26, I was struck by the fact that my colleagues at work, though wonderful people, found it almost impossible to mention what had happened when I went back to work. I understand why, because before it happened to me I would have been like them. I would have thought I would say the wrong thing or cause someone to break down in tears. When it happens to you, you come to realise that there is nothing special to say; you just have to go up to the person and say, “How are you?” and listen. Yes, they will cry and you will cry, but that is so much better than people hiding it inside, with the suffering that it brings.

    That is what this report is trying to do—it is trying to make sure that we are doing everything we can. There are good reasons why brain cancer is proving so difficult to treat. I learnt about that, as did the other members of the inquiry panel. The brain is a complex organ. I had never heard of the blood-brain barrier before. I am not sure I still understand it, but I heard a lot about it in the evidence we received. We learnt about treatments that had been tried and had failed, and about the desperation of those with brain tumours to get on to trials that might just offer some hope, not of a cure, but of a few more months. For someone who has received a diagnosis of a brain tumour, every second—let alone every minute, week or month—is extremely precious. We heard of the despair of people who are unable to get this for themselves or their loved ones, and it is so particularly poignant when it is children who have a brain tumour.

    So we are calling for a renewed and determined focus on doing every single thing we can to change the situation, not because we are naive about the difficulties, which are many, but because it is the very least we can do for the people who find themselves in this position. So, of course, we have called for greater investment. I thought the hon. Member for St Ives explained well why the funds that have been made available and set aside for brain tumour research—I welcome them enormously—have not all been allocated and spent. It is not for want of willingness; it relates to the point he made about the lack of suitable research proposals coming forward and the frustration, which came across so clearly in that one evidence session in particular, of those who have put their research proposals to the research bodies, have been knocked back and feel, “They did not really understand what we are trying to do.” That is because those who sit on those panels may not have expertise in the field of brain tumour research, which is why we strongly encourage the research councils to look more widely at, and more favourably upon, proposals for brain tumour research.

    We have a funding system that has been built in silos. It needs to be better joined up, from basic science through to clinical trials. At this point, I wish to pay tribute, as we all would, to the clinicians, scientists, doctors and others who work their socks off to try to crack this problem and find a treatment. That is why we have made some very specific recommendations. The example of biobanking and tissue samples seemed so simple when people talked about it. When we are dealing with any disease, but particularly this one, does it not make sense to pool all of the information that we have available about what we have learnt, what we still do not know, what may work and what may not? Clearly, that is not happening, even though it is a simple thing to do so that anyone undertaking research can draw upon all the available material as they apply their mind, scientific skill and determination to finding a cure.

    We are also calling for patients with brain tumours to have equity of access to trials of new anti-cancer drugs that currently may be available only to patients with other types of malignant cancers. There can be a fear that if other people are brought into the trial, it will somehow skew the result. However, if a person is dying, that is not their concern. Their concern is: “Might this possibly work to save my life or the life of the person I love?”

    I hope that this report and the views of all those people who so generously gave their time—we thank all of them—will have an impact as, collectively, we roll up our sleeves, redouble our efforts, and express an even greater determination to find treatments and cures for this cruel disease that shortens the lives of so many people whom we have come to know or know already and love. What keeps us going in difficult times is hope, and I think these recommendations offer exactly that. As one patient said, “If you have hope, you have life.”

  • Hilary Benn – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Hilary Benn – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Hilary Benn on 2015-11-05.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what support the Government is providing to the Women’s League of Burma.

    Mr Philip Hammond

    Officials at the British Embassy in Rangoon regularly meet representatives of the Women’s League of Burma and its member groups of civil society organisations. The UK has also provided occasional funding support to the Women’s League of Burma, including towards the publication of some of their research. Representatives from the Women’s League of Burma attended the Global Summit to End Sexual Violence in Conflict in June 2014 at our invitation, and the UK assisted with the cost of that visit.

  • Hilary Benn – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    Hilary Benn – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Hilary Benn on 2015-11-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, with reference to her Department’s summary of its work in Indonesia 2011-15, published in June 2013, how many hectares of natural forest have been saved since the programme to protect forests in that country started.

    Mr Desmond Swayne

    Our programme with Indonesia helps it to achieve low carbon growth and reduce poverty by managing its forests, land and natural resources in a sustainable way, and assists the country to meet its emissions targets. As part of this the UK supported the development of a Provincial Spatial Plan in Papua which was agreed in 2013. The spatial plan commits to preserving 90% of forest cover by 2100. The UK is providing support to the Papua Provincial Government to ensure effective implementation and monitoring of the Spatial Plan. If this target of 90% is realised, the spatial plan will preserve around 28 million hectares of natural forest. As with all projects, performance against indicators is published on an annual basis. Multilateral forest programmes, which the UK supports through the World Bank, and a centrally-managed programme, which assists the Indonesian government to tackleillegal logging, also contribute towards efforts to halt deforestation in Indonesia.

  • Hilary Benn – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Hilary Benn – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Hilary Benn on 2016-01-12.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, whether there have been any changes to the Government’s policy on arms export licences since the Written Ministerial Statement of 25 March 2014, 9WS.

    Anna Soubry

    The framework for arms export licensing remains as set out in the Consolidated EU and National Arms Export Licensing Criteria, known as the Consolidated Criteria. This was last updated by the Written Ministerial Statement of 25 March 2014.

  • Hilary Benn – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Hilary Benn – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Hilary Benn on 2016-01-27.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what recent assessment he has made of whether (a) cluster munitions have been used in the Yemen conflict and (b) there is a clear risk that such munitions were dropped from British-made aircraft.

    Mr Philip Hammond

    We are aware of reports of the alleged use of Cluster Munitions by the Coalition in Yemen and we have raised this with the Saudi Arabian authorities. The UK does not supply cluster munitions to any members of the coalition in Yemen. In line with our obligations under the Convention on Cluster Munitions we continue to encourage Saudi Arabia, as a non-party to the Convention, to accede to it.

  • Hilary Benn – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Hilary Benn – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Hilary Benn on 2016-02-01.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the Answer of 29 January 2016 to Question 24122, what damage to cultural property in Yemen he remains most concerned about.

    Mr Philip Hammond

    We remain concerned about any damage to cultural property in Yemen and are aware of reports of alleged damage by actors in the conflict. Yemen and many members of the Saudi-led coalition are parties to the 1954 Hague Convention on the Protection of Cultural Property in the event of Armed Conflict and to the 1972 World Heritage Convention. We have raised our concerns regarding protection of cultural property with both the government of Yemen and the Saudi Arabian government.

  • Hilary Benn – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Hilary Benn – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Hilary Benn on 2016-02-22.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what assessment he has made of whether Russian airstrikes in Syria have breached international humanitarian law.

    Mr Philip Hammond

    We are aware of reports of alleged violations of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) in Syria. The UK supports the UN Commission of Inquiry on Syria, which is mandated by the Human Rights Council to investigate all alleged violations of international human rights law including those that may constitute crimes against humanity in Syria with a view to ensuring perpetrators are held to account. In addition, the UK co-sponsored a UN Security Council resolution to refer all those who are alleged to be responsible for war-crimes and crimes against humanity in Syria, regardless of affiliation, to the International Criminal Court. Russia and China chose to veto this resolution.

  • Hilary Benn – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Hilary Benn – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Hilary Benn on 2016-03-08.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what the current average waiting time is for a decision on a naturalisation application in (a) the UK and (b) Leeds.

    James Brokenshire

    The average length of time taken to consider naturalisation applications in the UK is 135.12 days. In Leeds postal code area the average length of time is 167 days. Both of these figures relate to the period 1 January 2015 to 31 December 2015, which is the most recent period for which statistics on the number of applications considered have been published.

    For straightforward applications where the customer has met all their obligations, the service standard is that 98.5% of cases will be processed within 6 months (183 calendar days).