Tag: Keir Starmer

  • Keir Starmer – 2021 Speech to Labour Party Conference

    Keir Starmer – 2021 Speech to Labour Party Conference

    The speech made by Keir Starmer, the Leader of the Opposition, in Brighton on 29 September 2021.

    Thank you Conference.

    Thank you Doreen. Thank you for your words, thank you for everything you have done for criminal justice, and thank you for everything you have done for the Labour Party. I am proud to call you my friend.

    So, here we are at last and I can’t tell you how good it feels. It’s been a long time coming! Too long.

    I’ve waited 17 months, 23 days and two hours for this moment. It’s fantastic!

    And let me take this first opportunity to thank my brilliant shadow cabinet and fantastic team in the Lords for all their hard work over all those long months.

    And Louise Ellman, welcome home.

    This hasn’t always been an easy conference.

    Sunday was particularly nerve racking, but then the results came through. Arsenal 3 – 1 Tottenham.

    Conference, before I start let me tackle the issue of the day head on.

    If you go outside and walk along the seafront, it won’t be long before you come to a petrol station which has no fuel. Level up? You can’t even fill up.

    Doesn’t that just tell you everything about this government? Ignoring the problem, blaming someone else, then coming up with a half-baked solution.

    Why do we suddenly have a shortage of HGV drivers? Why is there no plan in place?

    A tank of fuel already costs £10 more than it did at the start of the year. Gas and electricity bills up. Gaps on the supermarket shelves.

    Rent up, especially for those on the lowest incomes. Yet at this very moment, the government is putting up tax on working people. Putting up tax on small businesses and slashing Universal Credit.

    We have a fuel crisis, a pay crisis, a goods crisis and a cost of living crisis – all at the same time.

    Let me quote what the Prime Minister said to the United Nations last week: “We believe that someone else will clear up the mess we make because that is what someone else has always done”.

    Well Prime Minister, either get a grip or get out of the way and let us clear up this mess.

    This is our first full conference since the 2019 General Election in which we suffered our worst defeat since 1935.

    To our devoted activists and loyal voters I want to say loud and clear. You saved this party from obliteration and we will never forget it. Thank you.

    But my job as leader is not just to say thank you to the voters who stayed with us. It is to understand and persuade the voters who rejected us.

    To those Labour voters who said their grandparents would turn in their graves, that they couldn’t trust us with high office, to those who reluctantly chose the Tories because they didn’t believe our promises were credible.

    To the voters who thought we were unpatriotic or irresponsible or that we looked down on them, I say these simple but powerful words. We will never under my leadership go into an election with a manifesto that is not a serious plan for government.

    It will not take another election defeat for the Labour party to become an alternative government in which you can trust. That’s why it has been so important to get our own house in order this week and we have done that.

    This is a big moment in our country’s history. We will look back at this moment and ask: How did the nation rebuild after the pandemic? Did we learn? Did we use the crisis to make the future?

    I see a government lost in the woods with two paths beckoning. One path leads back where we came from.

    None of the lessons of Covid are heeded. The flaws that were brutally exposed by the pandemic all worsen. Childhood poverty increases. The crisis in social care gets worse. The housing market is still broken. Slow and steady decline.

    But there is another path down which we address the chronic problems revealed by Covid, with the kindness and the togetherness that got us through.

    That path leads to a future in which a smart government enlists the brilliance of scientific invention to create a prosperous economy and a contribution society in which everyone has their role to play.

    It will be a future in which we make an opportunity out of tackling the climate crisis and in which Britain is once again a confident actor in the world.

    I believe in this country and I believe we will go forward.

    Today I want to tell you how. Today I want to tell you where my passions were born and why I am in politics.

    The two rocks of my life – the two sources of what I believe to be right and good – are family and work.

    I am not from a privileged background. My dad was a tool maker in a factory. He gave me a deep respect for the dignity of work.

    There are some lines from Auden that capture the beauty of skilled work.

    “You need not see what someone is doing to know if it is his vocation, you have only to watch his eyes. How beautiful it is, that eye-on-the-object look”.

    I saw that eye-on-the-object look in my dad. The pride that good work brings. It puts food on the table and it provides a sense of dignity.

    So, when I hear that this country is creating so many low-paid jobs and when I tell you that good work and fair growth will be the priority for a Labour government, I haven’t learnt this in some political seminar.

    I learnt it round the kitchen table.I learnt it at home, from my dad.How pride derives from work. How work is the bedrock of a good economy. And how a good economy is an essential partner of a good society.

    That’s why I am so proud to lead a party whose name is Labour.

    Don’t forget it. Labour. The party of working people.

    My mum worked incredibly hard too. She was a nurse in the NHS and a very proud nurse too.

    I got from my mum an ethic of service. But my mum was also, unfortunately, a long-term patient of the NHS.

    When she was young, she was diagnosed with Still’s disease. It’s a rare form of inflammatory arthritis which severely restricts mobility. This disease, along with the drugs she had to take to control it, took a heavy toll.

    The NHS that had been her livelihood became her lifeline. There were times, many times, when mum was so ill that she had to go into hospital.

    I remember going into the intensive care unit one day, as I often did. Mum’s bed was a riot of tubes and temperature devices.

    I could sense the urgency in the conversation of the four nurses on my mum’s bed. I knew without being told that they were keeping her alive. I can hardly convey to you the emotion of seeing your mum in that condition.

    And there was a sort of horrible irony in the moment. I had just picked up an award for work on the death penalty I’d been doing which in my own small way was about trying to save people’s lives.

    I’d gone to the hospital hoping to tell my mum about it. And there in front of me, those four nurses were working to save her life.

    When that long day was over, I thanked them for what they had done. And they said to me “we are just doing our job”. And they were.

    They were doing their job for my mum that night, someone else’s mum the night before, someone else’s mum the night after.

    But that’s not just a job. It’s a calling.

    So, when I think of the extraordinary dedication of doctors and nurses, working to keep people alive as the Covid virus took hold, I know what that looks like.

    I understand what that means and so just as we stood on our doorsteps and applauded.

    Let this conference ring out its approval to the NHS staff, truly the very best of us.

    So, you see, family life taught me about the dignity of work and the nobility of care.

    But, even with a name like Keir, I was never one of those people reared for politics. I became the first person in my family to go to university, the first to go into the law.

    Every day as a lawyer, if you are a young radical as I was, you think of yourself as working for justice.

    You see people getting a raw deal and you want to help.

    Justice, for me, wasn’t a complicated idea. Justice, to me, was a practical achievement. It was about seeing a wrong and putting it right.

    That is my approach in politics too. Down to earth. Working out what’s wrong. Fixing it.

    I had the great honour of becoming this country’s chief prosecutor, leading a large organisation; the Crown Prosecution Service.

    Three very important words.

    Crown brings home the responsibility of leading part of the nation’s legal system. Prosecution tells you that crime hurts and victims need justice to be done. Service is a reminder that the job is bigger than your own career advancement.

    I will always remember the day that John and Penny Clough contacted my office. Their daughter Jane was a nurse who had been the victim of terrible domestic abuse. After repeated assaults, Jane had summoned the great courage to report her partner. He was arrested and remanded in custody.

    But then, very much against the wishes of the Clough family, he was let out on bail. Jane lived in constant fear that he would return to harm her. She tried to ensure she never travelled to work alone.

    The one morning that Jane arrived at work unaccompanied, he was waiting for her in the hospital car park where he stabbed her 71 times.

    When Jane’s parents got in touch, my office advised me not to see them. “You can’t get emotionally involved in cases” they said. I replied: “If I haven’t got time to see the parents of a young woman who has just been murdered, then what am I doing in this job?”

    On the day that John and Penny were supposed to come and see me, to tell me about the cruel murder of their daughter and how the criminal justice system had let them down, my own daughter was born. We had to push the meeting back.

    It was an incredibly emotional day for all of us. As I listened to John and Penny tell me Jane’s story, I knew that a great injustice had been done. I made a promise to John and Penny at the end of that first meeting.

    That I would work with them to make sure that no other family went through what they had been forced to endure. And we rolled up our sleeves and we changed the law.

    I am delighted to say that John and Penny have become good friends of mine. And I am honoured that they have joined us here today. Conference, John and Penny Clough.

    John and Penny taught me how to keep your dignity under severe pressure. Doreen Lawrence taught me the same lesson. Hers was a long battle for justice for Stephen.

    Against the odds. Confronting racism. But never giving up. Her courage and resilience over 28 years is impossible to describe in words.

    I honestly don’t know how I would cope if anything happened to one of my children. But I do know I am humbled by John, by Penny and by Doreen.

    And that’s why, under my leadership, the fight against crime will always be a Labour issue.

    Labour will strengthen legal protections for victims of crime. We won’t walk around the problem. We’ll fix it.

    When I learned that 98% of reported rape cases don’t end in a criminal charge. I couldn’t believe it. I asked my team to check the figures.

    “That can’t be right”, I said. But it was. Shocking.

    So, we will fast-track rape and serious sexual assault cases and we will toughen sentences for rapists, stalkers and domestic abusers.

    This is part of who we are because this is part of who I am.

    Today I’m here to tell you what I stand for. But I also want to tell you what I won’t stand for. I won’t stand for the 2 million incidents of anti-social behaviour this year. I won’t stand for the record levels of knife crime that we have in this country today. And I won’t stand 9 out of 10 crimes going unsolved.

    Under the Tories the criminal justice system is close to collapse. There has never been a bigger backlog in the Crown Courts.

    Over 11 years of Tory government, we have lost more than 8,000 police officers. They pretend that it hasn’t made any difference. But it has.

    Ask the workers on the day shift at Tata Steel in Wolverhampton who told me about repeated incidents in their neighbourhood.

    Or the young women I met recently in Stoke who told me they dare not go to their high street alone. They see more violence and fewer police. It’s just common sense to put the two together.

    The Tories are letting you down. And I can promise you that will never happen under my leadership.

    There’s something else I took from a career in the law. That there’s one law and it applies to everyone.

    I try to remain calm in the bear pit of Parliamentary politics. I am not a career politician. I came to politics late in life and I don’t much like point-scoring.

    But the one thing about Boris Johnson that offends everything I stand for is his assumption that the rules don’t apply to him.

    When Dominic Cummings took a trip to Barnard Castle to test his eyesight, Boris Johnson turned a blind eye.

    When Matt Hancock breached his own lockdown rules, Boris Johnson declared the matter closed.

    When I got pinged, I isolated. When Boris Johnson got pinged, he tried to ignore it. That’s not how I do business.

    When I was the Chief Prosecutor and MPs fell short of the highest standards on their expenses, I prosecuted those who had broken the law.

    Politics has to be clean; wrongdoing has to be punished. There are times in this Parliament when I feel as if I have my old job back.

    Contracts handed out to friends and donors. The former Prime Minister lobbying the Chancellor by text. Refurbishing No 10 with a loan from an anonymous donor.

    On behalf of a public that cares about cleaning up politics, I put this government on notice.

    I’ve spent my entire working life trying to get justice done.

    In 2003, when I was working with the Policing Board of Northern Ireland, while I was learning up close how hard it is to make split-second life-and-death decisions in a riot. As I worked with the police to create a lasting institution in accordance with the Good Friday Agreement. Boris Johnson was a guest on Top Gear where, in reference to himself, he said to Jeremy Clarkson: “you can’t rule out the possibility that beneath the elaborately constructed veneer of a blithering idiot, lurks a blithering idiot”.

    When, in the autumn of 2010, I was the Chief Prosecutor working with Doreen Lawrence to finally get a prosecution of two of the men who murdered Stephen, Boris Johnson was writing an article in The Telegraph declaring a war on traffic cones.

    And when this country was threatened by terrorists who were trying to bring down planes with liquid bombs, I spent the summer of 2010 helping to put those terrorists behind bars where they could no longer pose a danger to British citizens.

    While I was doing that, what were you doing Mr Johnson? You were writing a piece defending your right not to wear a cycle helmet.

    Conference, it’s easy to comfort yourself that your opponents are bad people. But I don’t think Boris Johnson is a bad man. I think he is a trivial man. I think he’s a showman with nothing left to show. I think he’s a trickster who has performed his one trick.

    Once he had said the words “Get Brexit Done” his plan ran out. He has no plan.

    The questions we face in Britain today are big ones. How we emerge from the biggest pandemic in a century. How we make our living in a competitive world.

    The climate crisis. Our relationship with Europe. The future of our union.

    These are big issues. But our politics is so small.

    These times demand a responsible leader with clear values.

    From my dad, I understand the dignity of work. From my mum, I appreciate the nobility of care. From my work, the principle that we are all equal before the law.

    And from the victims of crime, that the law is there to make us secure. Work. Care. Equality. Security.

    That’s what I mean by justice. That’s what I have been aiming at all my working life. That’s why I’m in politics.

    And those are the values this country needs now as we first seek to recover from the pandemic and then to look, with excitement and anticipation down the path that beckons us.

    To retool Britain for the future. To make this nation anew.

    I want to start with the importance of care.

    Covid-19 exposed the state of Britain 2020. After a decade of cuts and neglect, the health service wasn’t ready.

    Just when the nation needed four nurses on its bed, sadly, they couldn’t always be there.

    1.6 million older people were going without the care they needed. GP numbers had tumbled. Waiting lists for treatment had spiralled.

    Then – on top of that – the government was fatally slow to respond.

    The Prime Minister’s inability to make up his mind really mattered. Britain has the worst death toll in Europe.

    We have now lost 133,000 people to Covid. Every one of them somebody’s mum, dad, brother, sister, friend.

    I know it was difficult, but the situation is worse than it needed to be.

    And this wasn’t just a government failure over 18 months. It was a failure of the government’s duty of care over 11 years.

    There are cracks in British society and Covid seeped into them.

    Lower earners were at greater risk. So were black and ethnic minority communities.

    Covid forensically found those who already had health problems and it has left in its wake a significant backlog.

    NHS waiting lists are at the highest level on record. Five and a half million people are waiting for treatment.

    The great scandal of the pandemic was what happened in care homes.

    And let me tell you this conference, an unfair tax hike that doesn’t fix social care and doesn’t clear the NHS backlog, is not a plan.

    We know that people will still be forced to sell their homes to pay for care.

    Working people will have to pay more. But there is still no plan.

    A plan would prevent problems before they bite. A plan would provide care at home, where people are. A plan would ensure the work force was properly valued.

    And a serious plan wouldn’t be funded by hammering working people.

    There is no doubt that the NHS needs more money.

    And a Labour government will always fund the NHS properly.

    But the future of the NHS can’t just be about chasing extra demand with more money.

    And neither can it be about re-shuffling the furniture in yet another pointless re-organisation.

    We have to understand the big moment the NHS faces.

    In 1900 the average British person expected to live to the age of 48.

    Today, average life expectancy is 80.

    The number of people aged 65 and over in this country is growing three times faster than the number aged under 65.

    This is both a wonderful achievement and the biggest test in the history of the NHS.

    No society in human history has been as old as our modern nations.

    Small politics will no longer do.

    I want Britain to be the healthiest nation on earth.

    So let me tell you what Labour would do.

    We would shift the priority in the NHS away from emergency care, towards prevention.

    We can catch problems early.

    And, at the same time, we can use the resources of the NHS better.

    And I don’t just mean physical illness, either.

    With every pound spent on your behalf we would expect the Treasury to weigh not just its effect on national income but also, its effect on well-being.

    Let me give you an example.

    One of the urgent needs of our time is mental health.

    Labour will guarantee that support will be available in less than a month.

    We’ll recruit the mental health staff that we need.

    Over 8,500 more mental health professionals supporting a million more people every year.

    Under Labour, spending on mental health will never be allowed to fall.

    And we’ll make sure children and young people get early help by ensuring every school has specialist support and every community has an open access mental health hub.

    This is prevention in action.

    Helping young people, looking after their well-being.

    It’s the principle my mum taught me.

    The principle of care.

    Let me give you a flavour of what care will look like in the future.

    When I was at University College Hospital in London recently an orthopaedic surgeon told me about a robot. This robot sits in the operating theatre making sure every incision is just right.

    The surgeon can’t go wrong because the robot works an override system.

    A bit like a driving instructor in a car. The doctor and the robot working together are so efficient that patients can be discharged a whole day early.

    Over time, that means thousands of hospital beds are freed up.

    The range of possibilities is bewildering.

    Precision editing of the genome will help us wipe out pathogens.

    The science of robotics and exoskeletons helps patients who are struggling to move.

    Virtual reality is being used to alleviate the suffering of post-surgical pain.

    I could talk about this all day long, although I promise I won’t.

    I don’t pretend to understand all the medical science.

    But as politicians we have to recognise the scale of what is happening and put the power of smart government behind it.

    This is what care will mean in the future.

    This is how health will be remade.

    Then we need to give our young people the tools of the future.

    Education is so important I am tempted to say it three times.

    When you don’t invest in young people the whole nation suffers and the less fortunate are left behind.

    By the time they finish their GCSEs, pupils from poorer families are 18 months behind their wealthier peers.

    That’s right. 18 months.

    The pandemic showed you can’t trust the Tories with the education of our children.

    Children on free school meals went hungry.

    There was U-turn after U-turn on school closures. The attainment gap between rich and poor grew.

    The government asked Kevan Collins, a recognised expert in the field to be their “recovery Tsar”.

    He told them what to do but they said no.

    When he saw the government’s plans, which he described as “feeble” Mr Collins had no option but to resign.

    If you can’t level up our children. You’re not serious about levelling up at all.

    And even before the pandemic 200,000 children grew up in areas with not a single primary school rated as good or outstanding.

    Just think about that. Not a single primary school rated as good or outstanding.

    I want every parent in the country to be able to send their child to a great state school.

    On top of that forty per cent of young people leave compulsory education without essential qualifications.

    What does that say about their future?

    We will not put up with that.

    That is why Labour will launch the most ambitious school improvement plan in a generation.

    Not walking round the problem but fixing it.

    Under Labour education will recover. But education needs to do more than just recover.

    It needs to be pointed in the direction I took from my dad. Towards skills. Towards work.

    Employers in all sectors tell me that they need well-rounded young people.

    Young people skilled in life. Ready for work.

    Young people who can communicate and work in a team.

    That’s why it’s stupid to allow theatre, drama and music to collapse in state schools.

    We want every child to get the chance to play competitive sport and play an instrument

    When I was at school, I had music lessons with Fat Boy Slim I can’t promise that for everyone.

    Not even in Brighton.

    But I can promise that Labour, as the name tells you will make a priority of getting this country ready for work.

    That’s why we will focus on practical life skills.

    We will reinstate two weeks of compulsory work experience and we will guarantee that every young person gets to see a careers advisor.

    But young people won’t be ready for work or ready for life unless they are literate in the technology of the day.

    Fewer than half of British employers believe young people have the right digital skills.

    We do much worse in computer skills than most of our economic rivals.

    That is why Labour will write a curriculum for tomorrow.

    Reading, writing and arithmetic are the three pillars of any education.

    We would add a fourth which, sadly, does not begin with r.

    Digital skills.

    We need to ensure that every child emerges from school ready for work. And ready for life.

    And as in health so too in education we can work by the light of new technology.

    Machine learning can cater for individual work styles.

    Artificial intelligence can help tuition, especially for students with special needs.

    Cloud computing has brought the archive of the best that has been said and done to the handset of every student.

    There is so much possibility and all we have to do is to learn to adapt.

    I think my dad might appreciate the technical term that is used for this change.

    It is known in the trade as re-tooling.

    And what is the small Tory idea to respond to this change?

    They want to reintroduce Latin in state schools.

    So let me put this crisis in the only language that Boris Johnson will understand.

    Carpe Diem.

    Seize the day.

    Finally, it is time to act, to educate our young citizens in the skills they need for work and the skills they need for life.

    A society that cares.

    An education system that fosters the skills.

    That’s the foundation of an economy that works.

    In his great study The Wealth and Poverty of Nations David Landis explains why Britain was home to the first Industrial Revolution.

    The perfect home for growth, said Landis, had responsive, honest government.

    I make no further comment about that.

    It tended to favour the new over the old, enterprise over conservatism and it spread rewards evenly, to make the most of the talents of all the people.

    But the most important factor of all the lessons we need to re-learn was that Britain led the world in the technology of the day.

    The flying shuttle, the spinning jenny, the power loom.

    These inventions were once the wave of the future.

    In textiles, iron, energy and power, Britain was a pioneer.

    I know that with Labour we can do it again.

    But every day we waste, with a government with no industrial strategy we are falling further behind.

    A scientific revolution is happening around us but if we don’t have a government ready to remake the nation the opportunity will pass us by.

    Already too many people are shut out of economic reward.

    We once took it for granted that our children would enjoy more than their parents.

    This idea drove my mum and dad.

    It comforted them, that whatever the ups and downs of life they were living in and contributing to a better society.

    But after ten years of the Tories we have lost this.

    We have 5.7 million people in low-paid and insecure work.

    Workers in transport, care, education and the utilities.

    These were the people who kept the show on the road during the pandemic and their reward is continued low pay and job insecurity.

    The millennial generation, clustered in low-paying sectors will be the first generation to have lower lifetime earnings than the one which went before.

    After a decade of the Conservatives, we have an economy with historically low rates of investment. Since 2010, in the investment league table out of 170 nations, Britain comes in a miserable 150th.

    Labour will work with sectors in which we are strong. Pharmaceuticals, materials, defence, chemical engineering, consumer goods environmental technology, transport and biotechnology.

    Under Labour’s Buy, Make, Sell in Britain programme there will be more local procurement.

    The towns that were the crucibles of the original industrial revolution need to be revived in the next.

    The coal and cotton towns of Lancashire, the wool towns of Yorkshire, the great maritime and fishing economies of our seaports. These places made Britain the envy of the world.

    We cannot make the nation we want without them.

    The lesson is that a secure well-paid work force of skilled people in high-class work protected by good trade unions is not separate from good business.

    It’s the definition of good business. And good business and good government are partners.

    I have no doubt that the small businesses of this country are the next generation wealth creators.

    I want to see enterprising creative companies. I want to see them make a profit and employ more people.

    I want to create the conditions in which inventive small businesses can grow into inventive big businesses.

    But we don’t give ourselves the best chance.

    I have lost count of how many business leaders have told me that they wish their time horizon could be longer.

    So, when I say that Labour pledges to change the priority duty of directors to make the long-term success of the company the main priority we will do so with the blessing of British business.

    A focus on the long-term will allow for better investments.

    Labour will make Britain a world leader in science and research and development.

    We will set a target to invest a minimum of 3% of GDP.

    This nation will not grow with the low-wages, low-standards and low-productivity of the Tories.

    I’m determined to change this by investing in our businesses, by unleashing our creativity.

    By bringing forward the new deal for working people launched by Angela.

    This is how we remake our nation.

    The good society and the strong economy as partners without a good society we waste the talents of too many people.

    And without a strong economy we cannot pay for the good society.

    Talk is cheap but progress isn’t.

    And if we want the permission to create the good society we have to win trust that we will create a strong economy.

    The economic inheritance from the Tories will be appalling.

    A botched Brexit followed by Covid has left a big hole.

    The government is learning that it is not enough to Get Brexit Done.

    You need a plan to Make Brexit Work.

    I do see a way forward after Brexit if we invest in our people and our places, if we deploy our technology cleverly and if we build the affordable homes we so desperately need.

    But the public finances we will inherit will need serious repair work.

    I take the responsibility of spending your money very seriously.

    That’s why our approach to taxation will be governed by three principles.

    The greater part of the burden should not fall on working people.

    The balance between smaller and larger businesses should be fair.

    And we will chase down every penny to ensure that people working people, paying their taxes always get value for money.

    As Rachel said on Monday all spending will be scrutinised by an Office for Value for Money.

    There will be no promises we can’t keep or commitments we can’t pay for.

    Too often in the history of this party our dream of the good society falls foul of the belief that we will not run a strong economy.

    But you don’t get one without the other and under my leadership we are committed to both.

    I can promise you now Labour will be back in business.

    Let me give you an example of how this template can work.

    Let’s take the hardest question and the biggest issue of our time.

    Climate change.

    This is a question of security. It is a test of justice at a global scale.

    Climate change poses an existential threat.

    It will turn fertile terrain into desert land.

    Conflicts will break out over scarce resources like water.

    Millions will be displaced by flooding, forest fires and violent storms.

    Time is short and we have a duty to act.

    But the obligation shouldn’t daunt us. It should embolden us.

    Shifting the economy onto a sustainable path is full of promise for Britain.

    Every time I enter a high-tech factory, I wonder what my dad would make of it.

    Not so long ago we shaped metal by drilling it, milling it and turning it. I remember my dad working with a spark eroder submerging metal in liquid and using an electrical charge to shape it.

    We thought it was revolutionary at the time.

    But at Airbus recently, where they are developing the world’s first hydrogen wing I saw them working with 3D engineering, literally shaping components by bringing together particles and matter in a way unimaginable in the factory my dad used to work in.

    I saw young apprentices, in a fully unionised factory proud of the skilled work they were doing. Their pride came from knowing they were at the heart of a revolution, building the next generation of hydrogen and battery planes.

    They felt like the pioneers of flight, perched on the edge of the cliff taking the risk, knowing that success for one of them would change the world.

    In Scotland, I saw the great potential of wind power at Whitelee Windfarm. Yet, of the 250 wind turbines at Whitelee, not one was made in Britain.

    From their manufacturing base in Fife the workforce can see the turbines literally being towed in from places such as Indonesia.

    The next generation of deep-sea wind turbines could be our opportunity. Skilled engineering, off-shore work, sectors where we could lead the world, if only we had a government willing to lead.

    Public funding was an important component of so many inventions – the personal computer, the internet, the iPhone.

    If only we funded science seriously we could make a historic contribution to the battle against climate change.

    Action is needed. Not in the future, but now.

    If we delay action by a decade the costs of climate transition will double.

    This urgency is why Labour will bring forward a Green New Deal, our Green New Deal will include a Climate Investment Pledge to put us back on track to cut the substantial majority of emissions this decade.

    If we are serious about climate change we will need to upgrade our homes. The Tories inherited plans from Labour to make every new home zero carbon.

    They scrapped them and now we have a crisis in energy prices emissions from homes have increased and we have the least energy-efficient housing in Europe.

    So it will be Labour’s national mission over the next decade, to fit out every home that needs it, to make sure it is warm, well-insulated and costs less to heat and we will create thousands of jobs in the process.

    I can also pledge that we will also introduce a Clean Air Act and everything we do in government will have to meet a “net zero” test to ensure that the prosperity we enjoy does not come at the cost of the climate.

    And that’s why on Monday Rachel set out her ambition to become Britain’s first green chancellor, committing the next Labour Government to an additional £28 billion of capital investment in our country’s green transition for each and every year of this decade.

    Like those pioneers in flight and like those young engineers working on the next generation plane, we have it within our grasp to make a historic difference, we have it within our grasp to be the change we need in the world.

    After a decade of Tory government, how we need that change. Under the Tories, wages have fallen in every English region.

    Local government has been cut to the bone, more than half a million more children live in poverty and so do half a million more pensioners. For the first time in decades, life expectancy has stalled.

    And, after all that, the Tories expect us to believe that levelling up is more than a slogan. Well, let me offer the Conservative party a lesson in levelling up.

    If they want to know how to do it, I suggest they take a look at our record the last time we were in government – hospital waits down, GCSE results up, 44,000 more doctors, 89,000 new nurses, child poverty down 1 million, pensioner poverty down 1 million, rough sleepers down 75%, a National Minimum Wage and the OECD said that no nation had a bigger rise in social mobility than Britain.

    You want levelling up? That’s levelling up.

    You can see the benefit of Labour in power today too. Look at what our fantastic metro mayors, mayors and local authority leaders are doing and let’s hear it for the difference Mark Drakeford and his team are making in Wales.

    I believe in the union of the nations on these islands but we have a cavalier government that is placing it in peril.

    Scotland is in the unfortunate position of having two bad governments – the Tories at Westminster and the SNP at Holyrood.

    When Nicola Sturgeon took office she said she wanted to be judged on her record. These days, with the poorest in society less well-educated and less healthy and the tragedy of so many drug-related deaths we hear rather less about the SNP’s record.

    The SNP and the Tories walk in lock step. They both exploit the constitutional divide for their own ends.

    Labour is the party that wants to bring our nations together.

    Under the fantastic leadership of Anas Sarwar, Labour is the party of the union. Because it’s not just that divorce would be a costly disruption, though that is true. And it’s not just that our union is in all our economic interests though that is also true.

    It’s that we are more progressive together. We are more secure together. We are a bigger presence in the world together. We are greater as Britain than we would be apart.

    As Gordon Brown said recently “when a Welsh or a Scottish woman gives blood…she doesn’t demand an assurance it must not go to an English patient”.

    I am delighted that Gordon will lead our commission to settle the future of the union.

    And I know Gordon believes that if you look past the Tories’ pathetic attempts to divide us in a culture war you can glimpse a tolerant, progressive nation of which we can be proud.

    I believe that our diversity is one of the things that makes this country great.

    As this country continues to change, as we slowly liberate the talents of more people, as we name and tackle discrimination, as we make a better place for people with disabilities I believe we grow as a country.

    When the government ignored Marcus Rashford’s campaign on school meals I was shocked.

    But I couldn’t believe it when Rashford and the England team took the knee to highlight and condemn the racism they have had to endure, the Home Secretary encouraged people to boo.

    Well, here in this conference hall we are patriots. When we discuss the fine young men and women who represent all our nations we don’t boo. We get to our feet and cheer.

    Let me say a word too about another band of great British men and women.

    Our military put themselves in harm’s way to protect our security. I am proud of them and proud of the work they did for us in Afghanistan.

    It grieves me to see Britain isolated and irrelevant. Labour is the party of NATO, the party of international alliances.

    Under Labour we will rebuild our alliances, we will mend broken relationships and we will do right by the great Britons who serve in our armed forces.

    I can see the ways in which we can remake this nation and that’s what we get to do when we win.

    Yet, in a way the more we expose the inadequacy of this government the more it presses the question back on us. If they are so bad, what does it say about us? Because after all in 2019 we lost to them, and we lost badly. I know that hurts each and every one of you.

    So, let’s get totally serious about this – we can win the next election.

    This government can’t keep the fuel flowing, it can’t keep the shelves stocked and you’ve seen what happens when Boris Johnson wants more money – he goes straight for the wallets of working people.

    Labour is the party that is on the side of working people.

    So imagine waking up the morning after the next election in the knowledge that you could start to write the next chapter in our nation’s history, bending it towards the values that bring us, year after year to this conference hall to seek a better way.

    Proud in the knowledge that you were part of it.

    I have loved my first full conference as leader but I don’t want to go through the same routine every year.

    In a few short years from now I want to be here with you talking about the difference we are making, the problems we are fixing as a Labour government.

    That is what this party is for. That’s the object of the exercise and as the leader of this party I will always have that eye-on-the-object look. How beautiful it is, that eye-on-the-object look.

    This is a big moment, a time of rapid change. The first pandemic in a century, the aftermath of Brexit to sort out, the urgent claim of the climate.

    Then our own domestic questions: providing a secure job that pays a decent wage, a good school nearby, health and social care you can rely on, a home you can afford.

    This is a big moment that demands leadership. Leadership founded on the principles that have informed my life and with which I honour where I have come from.

    Work.

    Care.

    Equality.

    Security.

    I think of these values as British values. I think of them as the values that take you right to the heart of the British public. That is where this party must always be.

    And I think of these values as my heirloom. The word loom, from which that idea comes, is another word for tool.

    Work.

    Care.

    Equality,

    Security.

    These are the tools of my trade.

    And with them I will go to work.

  • Keir Starmer – 2021 Comments on a Contribution Society

    Keir Starmer – 2021 Comments on a Contribution Society

    The comments made by Keir Starmer, the Leader of the Labour Party, on 22 September 2021.

    People want to emerge from lockdown into something better. Our country is now at a crossroads: down one path is the same inequality of opportunity and insecurity. The Labour path is about building a better future for working people.

    Labour will build a society that prizes the contributions people make, providing security and opportunity across Britain.

  • Keir Starmer – 2021 Comments on the Government Taxing Working People

    Keir Starmer – 2021 Comments on the Government Taxing Working People

    The comments made by Keir Starmer, the Leader of the Opposition, on 15 September 2021.

    This country’s success is built by working people. But the tax system is loaded against them.

    The Prime Minister may not understand the pressures facing families across the country. But we do.

    It’s time this Prime Minister got in the real world and understood the terrible impact his decisions will have on the finances of families right across the country.

  • Keir Starmer – 2021 Speech on Afghanistan

    Keir Starmer – 2021 Speech on Afghanistan

    The statement made by Keir Starmer, the Leader of the Opposition, in the House of Commons on 6 September 2021.

    Keir Starmer

    I thank the Prime Minister for the advance copy of his statement.

    The heroes on the ground in Operation Pitting are the best of us: the ambassador stayed to process every case that he could, paratroopers lifted people from the crush, Afghan soldiers continued to serve alongside us to the end, and thousands of others risked their lives to help others to escape. They faced deadly violence and deliberately-engineered chaos with courage, calm and determination. Thanks to their remarkable efforts, thousands were evacuated, British nationals have returned safely to their families and Afghan friends are starting a new life here in Britain. Speaking directly to those who served in Operation Pitting, I say thank you: your service deserves recognition and honour and I hope that the Prime Minister will accept Labour’s proposal to scrap the 30-day continuous service rule so that medals can be awarded for your bravery.

    The entire Army, our armed forces and veterans deserve proper support for mental health. The new funding announced today is welcome, but it is unlikely to be enough. Previous funding was described as “scandalous” by the Select Committee, and the Office for Veterans’ Affairs is still being cut. All those involved deserved political leadership equal to their service, but they were let down. They were let down on strategy. The Prime Minister underestimated the strength of the Taliban. Despite intelligence warnings that “rapid Taliban advances” could lead to the collapse of the Afghan security forces, a return to power of the Taliban and our embassy shutting down amid reduced security, the Government continued to act on the assumption that there was no path to military victory for the Taliban. Complacent and wrong.

    Those involved were also let down by a lack of planning. Eighteen months passed between the Doha agreement and the fall of Kabul, yet as the Prime Minister now concedes, only 2,000 of the 8,000 people eligible for the Afghan relocations and assistance policy—ARAP—scheme have been brought to Britain. A strategic review was published to much fanfare, but it did not mention the Taliban, NATO withdrawal or the Doha agreement. And the Prime Minister convened a G7 meeting on Afghanistan only after Kabul was lost.

    Because of this lack of leadership, the Government have left behind many to whom we owe so much. In the last few weeks, MPs have had thousands of desperate calls from people trying to get to safety. Many remain in danger, including the Afghan guards who protected the British embassy. In my constituency—I am not alone; Members across the House will have had this—cases involve Afghans who applied for the ARAP scheme weeks and sometimes months ago and who were clearly eligible but were not processed quickly enough by this Government and did not make it to the planes. The stress levels for them and their families, and for all our teams and caseworkers, has been palpable in the last few weeks and months. A familiar and desperate story to many on both sides of the House.

    The Government do not even know how many UK nationals and Afghans eligible under the ARAP scheme have been left behind to the cruelty of the Taliban. A national disgrace. Even if they could identify who they had left behind, the Government do not have a plan to get everybody out. Kabul airport remains closed to international flights, safe passage has not been created to Afghanistan’s neighbours and, whatever the Prime Minister says today, there is no international agreement on the resettlement of Afghan refugees. We have a Prime Minister incapable of international leadership, just when we need it most. [Interruption.] I know that that is uncomfortable. The terrible attacks from ISIS-K highlight the new security threat, and the Government must act quickly to co-ordinate international partners to ensure that the Afghan Government’s collapse does not lead to a vacuum for terrorists to fill. There is also a desperate need for humanitarian support. A return to 2019 levels of aid spending is necessary, and where is the plan to ensure that it does not fall into the wrong hands?

    To those who have managed to escape Afghanistan and have arrived here in the UK, we say welcome: I know that you will give much to this country as you make it your new home. All you need is help and support. I am pleased that indefinite leave to remain will now be granted to all those who arrive by safe and legal routes. Local authorities across the country are trying to play their part, but they have been in the dark as to how many people they will be asked to support and what resources they will have to do so. We will look at the letter to which the Prime Minister referred and examine the details.

    History will tell the tale of Operation Pitting as one of immense bravery. We are proud of all those who contributed. Their story is made even more remarkable by the fact that, while they were saving lives, our political leadership was missing in action.

  • Keir Starmer – 2021 Statement on Afghanistan

    Keir Starmer – 2021 Statement on Afghanistan

    The statement made by Keir Starmer, the Leader of the Opposition, on 27 August 2021.

    After the despicable acts of violence we witnessed on Thursday, the end of the evacuation from Kabul Airport marks a sad and dark day for many people in Afghanistan.

    Amid the chaos, there have been many acts of courage. The Ambassador staying at his post to process every case he could. Paratroopers lifting people from the crush. Afghan soldiers who continue to serve alongside us to the end.

    Soldiers and airmen, diplomats and embassy staff, working side by side with many Afghans have struggled tirelessly and bravely under immense pressure to get as many people to safety as possible. Their efforts must be widely recognised and honoured.

    It has been a remarkable effort in unimaginably difficult circumstances with many acts of courage and heroism.

    However, with the withdrawal we face the heart-breaking reality that people have been left behind, including many to whom we owe so much. The British Government must take its fair share of the responsibility and has serious questions to answer about how, despite having 18 months to prepare, their failure to plan and inability to influence others has contributed to this tragic political failure.

    But first, although we no longer have a military presence in Afghanistan, we cannot and will not walk away from our obligations to the Afghan people. We must urgently help the thousands who we have left behind, some of whom are eligible for relocation under the ARAP scheme. There are MPs all over the UK who have constituents still pleading for their help. The Government must work quickly to deliver a strategy to get those people out and work with the UN and partners to quickly deliver essential aid directly to those in need.

    We must then confront the new reality and challenges of Taliban control. Britain and our allies must use every lever we have to try and hold the Taliban to account. Before Parliament returns, the Prime Minister should set out in detail the G7 roadmap he has promised, including a plan to control Afghan financial assets, and a strategy to ensure Afghanistan does not become a haven for terror and a threat to our security once again.

  • Keir Starmer – 2021 Statement on Death of Austin Mitchell

    Keir Starmer – 2021 Statement on Death of Austin Mitchell

    The statement made by Keir Starmer, the Leader of the Opposition, on 18 August 2021.

    Austin served his constituency of Great Grimsby with remarkable commitment for 38 years. There are few MPs whose dedication to their constituents would translate into changing their surname to ‘Haddock’ to promote local industry.

    His big sense of humour was matched by his deep Labour values. My thoughts are with his wife Linda and his children.

  • Keir Starmer – 2021 Speech on Afghanistan

    Keir Starmer – 2021 Speech on Afghanistan

    The speech made by Keir Starmer, the Leader of the Opposition, in the House of Commons on 18 August 2021.

    I thank you, Mr Speaker, and the staff for recalling Parliament for today’s debate.

    Before I come to the urgent issue at hand, let me join you, Mr Speaker, and the Prime Minister in condemning the appalling shootings in Plymouth last week. We all send our condolences to the bereaved families. We must resolve to ensure that firearms do not get into the hands of dangerous people, and finally get to grips with the way that hate thrives on the internet.

    Turning to Afghanistan, it has been a disastrous week—an unfolding tragedy. Twenty years ago, the Taliban were largely in control of Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda were using the country as a training ground and a base for terror, including plotting the horrific 9/11 attack. There were widespread human rights abuses, girls were denied an education, women could not work and being gay was punishable by death—all imposed without democracy.

    Since then, a fragile democracy emerged. It was by no means perfect, but no international terrorist attacks have been mounted from Afghanistan in that period. Women have gained liberty and won office, schools and clinics have been built, and Afghans have allowed themselves to dream of a better future. Those achievements were born of sacrifice—sacrifice by the Afghan people who bravely fought alongside their NATO allies, and British sacrifice.

    More than 150,000 UK personnel have served in Afghanistan. They include Members from across this House, including the hon. and gallant Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), the hon. and gallant Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer), my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis), and the hon. and gallant Members for Aldershot (Leo Docherty), for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely), for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) and for Wells (James Heappey). They and the tens of thousands of others deployed in Afghanistan served in difficult and challenging circumstances, and the Labour party and—I am sure—everybody across this House thanks each and every one of them and of the 150,000. Many returned with life-changing injuries and, tragically, 457 did not return at all.

    James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)

    Later today, I will attend the service at RAF Lyneham, outside Royal Wootton Bassett, to commemorate the 10th anniversary, which falls today, of the last repatriation through Bassett. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the message to the people I will see today must be that those young lives were not wasted but played an absolutely essential role in deterring and destroying terrorism and carrying out so many other good works in Afghanistan?

    Keir Starmer

    I wholeheartedly agree with that point and will address it in one moment.

    For many of those who returned from Afghanistan and other places around the world, mental health has been an all-too-familiar issue. It is raised by veterans time and again. The events of the past few days and weeks will have exacerbated the situation and reopened old wounds—everybody across this House will know of examples—so we must improve mental health services for our veterans.

    On the point that the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray) just made, I wish to address directly all those who served in Afghanistan and their families—especially the families of those who were lost. Your sacrifice was not in vain—it was not in vain. You brought stability, reduced the terrorist threat and enabled progress. We are all proud of what you did. Your sacrifice deserves better than this, and so do the Afghan people.

    There has been a major miscalculation of the resilience of the Afghan forces and staggering complacency from our Government about the Taliban threat. The result is that the Taliban are now back in control of Afghanistan. The gains made through 20 years of sacrifice hang precariously. Women and girls fear for their liberty. Afghan civilians are holding on to the undercarriage of NATO aircraft—literally clinging to departing hope. We face new threats to our security and an appalling humanitarian crisis.

    Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)

    For all the reasons that the right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned, does he not agree that President Biden is actually wrong when he talks about American sacrifices in a civil war? The Taliban are not at war with a regime; they are at war with the civilised values of justice, equality and tolerance, which all of us hold dear, and against which it respects no international boundaries.

    Keir Starmer

    I agree with the hon. Member and thank him for that intervention.

    Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)

    Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

    Keir Starmer

    Let me make some progress and then I will give way.

    The desperate situation requires leadership and for the Prime Minister to snap out of his complacency. The most urgent task is the protection of our diplomatic staff still working heroically in Kabul, and the evacuation of British nationals and Afghans who have risked their lives. Let me be clear: the Labour party fully supports the deployment of troops to that end. We want it to succeed just as quickly and safely as possible.

    The Defence Secretary has said that some people who have worked with us will not get back—unconscionable. The Government must outline a plan: to work with our allies to do everything possible to ensure that that does not happen; to guarantee that our troops have the resources they need to carry out their mission as effectively and safely as possible; and to work to provide stable security at the airport in Kabul so that flights can depart and visas can be processed. We all know how difficult that is. We all know how hard everybody is working on the ground and we fully support them.

    I raise an issue not by way of criticism, but just to get some reassurance: there are reports from non-governmental organisations that an evacuation plane left almost empty this morning because evacuees could not get to the airport to board that plane. As I say, we are not challenging the work on the ground—we know how difficult it is—but, if that is true, we would like to see that matter addressed at an appropriate moment.

    Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)

    May I take the right hon. and learned Gentleman back to the statement that the President of the United States made the other day? Does he not agree that that took on the terms of a sort of shameful excuse? Given that the President had blamed the Afghan armed forces, who have lost nearly 70,000 troops in trying to defend Afghanistan, and given that corruption had stripped away much of the pay, money and support of those forces, the American decision to withdraw aircraft cover was almost certainly going to lead us to this situation. Does he not think that that is shameful?

    Keir Starmer

    The US is, of course, an important ally, but to overlook the fighting of the Afghan troops and forces, and the fact that they have been at the forefront of that fighting in recent years, is wrong. It is wrong for any of us to overlook that or the situation in which they now find themselves.

    The urgent task is, of course, the evacuation. Equally urgent is the immediate refugee crisis.

    John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)

    Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

    Keir Starmer

    I will make some progress and then I will give way.

    Many Afghans have bravely sought to rebuild their country and they did so on a promise of democratic freedoms, the rule of law and liberty for the oppressed, including women and girls. They are our friends and that was our promise. They are now fearing for their lives. We do not turn our backs on friends at their time of need. We owe an obligation to the people of Afghanistan. There should be a resettlement scheme for people to rebuild their lives here, with safe and legal routes. It must be a resettlement scheme that meets the scale of the enormous challenge, but what the Government have announced this morning does not do that. It is vague and will support just 5,000 in the first year—a number without rationale. Was that based on a risk assessment of those most at need, or was it plucked out of the air? The offer to others is in the long term, but for those desperately needing our help now, there is no long term, just day-to-day survival.

    Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)

    Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that as well as marking the need for a much bolder and more ambitious resettlement programme, this disaster must mark a turning point for our failed asylum system, in particular by getting rid of the so-called hostile environment and the Nationality and Borders Bill, under which a women fleeing the Taliban with her children on a boat across the channel would be criminalised? Does he agree that that Bill must now be revised?

    Keir Starmer

    I will come on to the specifics of the system. Yet again, the Government seem ill-prepared and unwilling, just as they have been too slow to provide sanctuary to Afghans who have served alongside Britain. There have been too many reports of eligible Afghans facing bureaucratic hurdles, and too many are being unfairly excluded. Having known for months that the date of withdrawal was coming, the Home Office is not close to completing the process that it has already got up and running. The process was designed to help 7,000 people, yet Home Office figures this week showed that only 2,000 have been helped so far.

    Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)

    The point that I wanted to make to the Prime Minister was about the situation facing Afghan Sikhs. I know from my constituency casework that there are Afghan Sikhs in the system who are waiting for clearance from the Home Office; I call on the Government to process them as quickly as possible and not leave all those people in the system waiting any longer than they have to at the moment. They are terrified by the idea of being sent back home, and despite the reassurance given to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), I do not see any movement from the Home Office to give them the legal status that they need.

    Keir Starmer

    I am grateful for that intervention. Members on both sides of the House have given examples of individuals and groups who are very obviously at risk in Afghanistan and need to come out as quickly as possible. That is why the question arises as to what is behind the 5,000 number, and why others are having to wait so long.

    The scale of the refugee crisis requires an international response, but we must lead it, and lead with a resettlement programme that meets the scale of the challenge. The scheme must be generous and welcoming. If it is not, we know the consequences now: violent reprisals in Afghanistan; people tragically fleeing into the arms of human traffickers—we know that that is what will happen—and more people risking and losing their lives on unsafe journeys, including across the English channel. We cannot betray our friends. We must lead.

    Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)

    The right hon. and learned Gentleman speaks of people fleeing, but we have yet to assess whether anyone outside Kabul is able to get to a place of safety. Does he agree that a safe corridor needs to be opened to an international border so that those who are not near Kabul can also get to safety via third countries?

    Keir Starmer

    There is huge concern, as all hon. Members will know, about our line of sight beyond Kabul at the moment. Again, that calls into question where the 5,000 number comes from, because at the moment we are not even in a position to assess the position outside Kabul. We cannot betray our friends. We must lead.

    Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)

    Were the Government of this kingdom to be overthrown by a wicked and brutal regime, I venture that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would want a leading role in the resistance. He would not be queuing at the airport, would he?

    Keir Starmer

    When I was Director of Public Prosecutions, some of my prosecutors in Afghanistan were at huge risk, working on counter-terrorism with other brave souls there, so I will not take that from the right hon. Gentleman or from anybody else.

    Once the immediate challenges are addressed, we face an uncertain and difficult future. The Taliban are back in control and we cannot be naive about the consequences. We have lost our primary source of leverage in political discussions, and everything that we have achieved in the past 20 years is now under threat.

    Several hon. Members rose—

    Keir Starmer

    I will make some progress and then give way.

    The Prime Minister is right to say that we cannot allow Afghanistan to become a training ground for violent hate and terrorism, but that will be more difficult now that Afghanistan has descended into chaos. If preventing al-Qaeda camps is now the limit of our ambition, we are betraying 20 years of sacrifice by our armed forces and we are betraying the Afghan people, who cannot be left to the cruelty of the Taliban.

    Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)

    My right hon. and learned Friend speaks about the lack of ambition and urgency, and that summarises everything about the Government’s approach to this crisis and many others. Is it not telling that when we had an Afghan Government whom we wanted to support, the UK Government cut the amount of overseas aid that we sent, but now that the Taliban are in charge, the Government are talking about increasing the amount of overseas aid?

    Keir Starmer

    I am grateful for that intervention. I will come to the question of aid in just a minute, because it is a very important point in the context of what has happened in recent weeks and months.

    John Redwood

    Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

    Keir Starmer

    I am going to make some progress and then I will give way.

    We have to use every tool that remains at our disposal to protect human rights in Afghanistan. The Government are right not to recognise the Taliban as the official Government—the Prime Minister has made that clear—but that must be part of a wider strategy, developed with our UN security partners and our NATO allies, to apply pressure on the Taliban not only to stamp out a resurgence of terror groups, but to retain the liberties and human rights of Afghans. We must work with Afghans and neighbours to ensure that there is consistent pressure, and there must be a UN-backed plan to ensure that our aid budget is used to support humanitarian causes in Afghanistan, not to fund the Taliban.

    This is a difficult task with no guarantee of success, so it should concern us all that the Prime Minister’s judgment on Afghanistan has been appalling. Nobody believes that Britain and our allies could have remained in Afghanistan indefinitely, or that Britain could have fought alone. NATO leaders were put in a difficult position after President Trump agreed with the Taliban that all US forces would withdraw by May 2021. But that agreement was made in February 2020—18 months ago. We have had 18 months to prepare and plan for the consequences of what followed—to plan and to prepare for the resettlement of refugees and those who have supported us; for supporting the Afghan Government in managing the withdrawal; and for securing international and regional pressure on the Taliban and support for the Afghan Government. The very problems we are confronting today have been known problems for the last 18 months, and there has been a failure of preparation.

    The lack of planning is unforgivable, and the Prime Minister bears a heavy responsibility. He mutters today, but he was in a position to lead and he did not. Britain holds a seat at the United Nations Security Council. We are a key player in NATO. We are chair of the G7. Every one of those platforms could and should have been used to prepare for the withdrawal of forces, and to rally international support behind a plan to stabilise Afghanistan through the process and keep us safe.

    Several hon. Members rose—

    Keir Starmer

    I will give way in a minute.

    Did the Prime Minister use those platforms in those 18 months to prepare? No, he did not. What did he do instead? We debated this: he cut the development budget, which was key to the strength and resilience of democracy in Afghanistan. He makes a great deal today of the money he is putting in, but £292 million was spent in Afghanistan in 2019, and £155 million in 2021. That is short-sighted, small-minded and a threat to security.

    Several hon. Members rose—

    Keir Starmer

    I will give way in a moment, but I am going to go through this list. The right hon. Gentleman failed to visit Afghanistan as Prime Minister, meaning that his last trip—as Foreign Secretary, in 2018—was not to learn or to push British interests, but to avoid a vote on Heathrow. Hundreds of thousands of British people have flown to Afghanistan to serve; the Prime Minister flew to avoid public service.

    The list goes on. In March this year the Prime Minister published an integrated review of security, defence, development and foreign policy. It was a huge review. He boasted that the review would

    “demonstrate to our allies, in Europe and beyond, that they can always count on the UK when it really matters.”

    The Afghan Government were an ally, yet the integrated review made just two passing references to Afghanistan. The review did not even mention the Taliban. It did not mention NATO withdrawal or the consequences of the Doha agreement. It did cut the size of the Army—the very force that we are now relying on—and we criticised that at the time. Eye off the ball; astonishingly careless. The question is: why was the Prime Minister so careless? Why did he fail to lead? It comes down to complacency and poor judgment.

    Several hon. Members rose—

    Keir Starmer

    I will give way in a moment; I am going to make this case.

    There was a calculation that withdrawal would lead to military stalemate in Afghanistan and that that stalemate would accelerate political discussions. Seeing this in July, Members on both sides of this House warned the Government—read Hansard—that they may be underestimating the threat of the Taliban. That was ignored, and the Government’s preparation for withdrawal was based on a miscalculation of the resilience of the Afghan forces and a staggering complacency about the Taliban threat.

    The Prime Minister is as guilty as anyone. This Sunday he said:

    “We’ve known for a long time that this was the way things were going”.

    That was not what he told the House in July, when he stood there and assured Members that

    “there is no military path to victory for the Taliban”,

    and went on to say:

    “I do not think that the Taliban are capable of victory by military means”. —[Official Report, 8 July 2021; Vol. 698, c. 1108, 1112.]

    The British Government were wrong and complacent, the Prime Minister was wrong and complacent and, when he was not rewriting history, the Prime Minister was displaying the same appalling judgment and complacency last week.

    The British ambassador’s response to the Taliban arriving at the gates of Kabul was to personally process the paperwork for those who needed to flee. He is still there and we thank him and his staff. The Prime Minister’s response to the Taliban arriving at the gates of Kabul was to go on holiday—no sense of the gravity of the situation; no leadership to drive international efforts on the evacuation. The Foreign Secretary shakes his head. [Interruption.] What would I do differently? I would not stay on holiday while Kabul was falling. There are numerous examples of leaders on both sides of the House who have come back immediately in a time of crisis. [Interruption.] The Foreign Secretary is shouting now, but he was silent—[Interruption.]

    Mr Speaker

    Order. The Prime Minister was heard and I want to hear the Leader of the Opposition. I do not want people to shout. You may disagree, but you may also wish to catch my eye. Do not ruin that chance.

    Keir Starmer

    The Foreign Secretary shouts now, but he stayed on holiday while our mission in Afghanistan was disintegrating. He did not even speak to ambassadors in the region as Kabul fell to the Taliban. Let that sink in. You cannot co-ordinate an international response from the beach. This was a dereliction of duty by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, and a Government totally unprepared for the scenario that they had 18 months to prepare for. It is one thing for people to lose trust in the Prime Minister at home, but when the trust in the word of our Prime Minister is questioned abroad, there are serious consequences for our safety and security at home.

    Andrew Bridgen

    Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

    Keir Starmer

    In one moment.

    Recent events in Afghanistan shame the west—and not just the scenes of chaos. What does our abandonment of the Afghan people say to those brave people around the world living under regimes that pay scant regard to human rights but resisting those regimes in pursuit of democracy, equality and individual freedom? What does this retreat from freedom signal to those who are prepared to stand up for it? What does this surrender to extremism mean for those prepared to face it down? What does it mean for those nations who support an international rules-based system when we hand over power to those who recognise no rules at all? That is the challenge of our time.

    The British and Afghan people will have to live with the consequences of the Prime Minister’s failure. We have fought for 20 years to rid Afghanistan of terror—terror that threatens our security here in Britain and liberty in Afghanistan. The Taliban are back in control. The Prime Minister has no plan to handle the situation, just as he had no plan to prevent it. What we won through 20 years of sacrifice could all be lost. That is the cost of careless leadership.

  • Keir Starmer – 2021 Comments on Boris Johnson and Coal Mine Statement

    Keir Starmer – 2021 Comments on Boris Johnson and Coal Mine Statement

    The comments made by Keir Starmer, the Leader of the Opposition, on 6 August 2021.

    The Prime Minister has shown his true colours yet again.

    For Boris Johnson to laugh when talking about the closure of the coal mines is a slap in the face for communities still suffering from the devastating effects of Margaret Thatcher’s callous actions.

    I’m proud to have always stood with our coalfield communities. I represented the miners in court as the Tories tried to close the pits. These communities contributed so much to the success of our country, and then were abandoned.

    The Tories didn’t care then, and they don’t care now.

    For Boris Johnson to treat the pain and suffering caused to our coalfield communities as a punchline shows just how out of touch with working people he is.

    The Prime Minister must apologise immediately.

  • Keir Starmer – 2021 Letter to Boris Johnson Over Self-Isolation

    Keir Starmer – 2021 Letter to Boris Johnson Over Self-Isolation

    The letter sent by Keir Starmer, the Leader of the Opposition, to Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister, on 18 July 2021.

    Dear Prime Minister,

    During the pandemic the public have sacrificed so much to stick to the rules. At a time when we need to maintain confidence in self isolation, parents, workers and businesses will be wondering what on earth is going on in Downing Street.

    Today’s latest fiasco of yourself and the Chancellor being magically selected for a testing trial so you could avoid isolation like the rest of us is just the latest example of the Conservatives fixing the rules to benefit themselves, and only backtracking when they were found out.

    The reported comments that you “did look briefly at the idea” of taking part in a daily test pilot scheme will provide no reassurance to the public, to whom this will look very much like one rule for Conservative ministers, and another rule for the public.

    There are still serious questions that remain:

    How did the trial to avoid self-isolating include the Prime Minister, Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster?

    How was inclusion in the trial decided?

    How long was it before the trial confirmed you could be released from isolation?

    When did you travel to Chequers? Why did both your and Chancellor’s original statement say you would continue to work from Downing Street?

    Where is the Chancellor self-isolating?

    If the pilot has been letting Conservative ministers avoid self-isolation since May, why has this not been made public sooner?

    Will the Government release a full list of Conservative ministers covered by the self-isolation trial?

    Have any other ministers benefitted from the trial and avoided self-isolation?

    How many people have deleted the NHS app?

    Will join me in urging the public to continue to follow the rules on self-isolation?

    There are hundreds of thousands of people who have been forced to miss family events, close businesses and go without pay because they have done the right thing. And yet ministers have played the system. This cannot go on. The public need clear leadership at this time, not this hypocritical way of trying to do things that just undermines confidence in the rules and puts lives at risk.

    As news broke this morning of your initial decision to avoid self-isolation, the many thousands of people across the country who are self-isolating would have wondered why they were not offered the same opportunity.

    Over the past week, there have been children sent home from school after a positive case in their bubble, NHS staff working overtime to cover staff absences and businesses struggling to run a normal level of service due to their employees self-isolating. These people deserve an immediate answer from ministers about the Cabinet’s participation in this scheme.

    I have been sent examples of businesses and individuals struggling to do the right thing and follow the rules. They would have benefited from this policy. Examples I wish to highlight include:

    – A Midlands transport provider concerned that high numbers of drivers and control room staff isolating will negatively impact on services and lead to cancellations

    – Train drivers in Sheffield self-isolating and leading to service cancellations this weekend

    – Large numbers of staff at Ipswich hospital who had to take time off because they or their family had to isolate, causing elective surgeries to be cancelled

    – Security staff at Heathrow Airport having to self-isolate, causing disruption

    – Bin collections being cancelled due to staff shortages caused by self-isolation

    In addition, the tube workers on London Underground, which is now facing staff shortages due to self-isolation leading to delays and cancellations, could have benefited from the trial. But contrary to the Government’s claims, Transport for London has not yet been confirmed as a participant in the scheme.

    The public deserve an answer to these questions. I look forward to his response, and trust that a minister will come to Parliament on Monday to explain this system for the benefit of our constituents.

    Keir Starmer

    Leader of the Labour Party

  • Keir Starmer – 2021 Speech on Foreign Aid Cuts

    Keir Starmer – 2021 Speech on Foreign Aid Cuts

    The speech made by Keir Starmer, the Leader of the Opposition, on 13 July 2021.

    I start by thanking you, Mr Speaker, and hon. Members from across the House for ensuring that this debate took place today. In particular, I thank the right hon. Members for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) and for Maidenhead (Mrs May). I think they are the “lefty” propagandists that the Prime Minister was talking about a couple of weeks ago. I have to say that if the Prime Minister had confidence in the arguments he is making to this House, he would have given way to them a moment ago so that his arguments could be tested. He does not have confidence in them, otherwise he would have done so—that is obvious already. However, we do welcome the chance to debate this motion.

    The motion is broad and, if I may say so, from this Prime Minister it is typically slippery. The House should have had the opportunity for a straight up/down vote on whether to approve or reject the Government’s cut to overseas aid to 0.5%. This motion does not do that. But the Chancellor’s written ministerial statement is clear: if the motion is carried, the cut in overseas aid to 0.5% will effectively carry on indefinitely. I will expand on that point in just a moment—[Interruption.] I will expand on that point and take interventions on it.

    Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)

    Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

    Keir Starmer

    I am going to develop that argument. When I get to it, I will give way so that that argument can be tested, in the usual way. But if the motion is rejected,

    “the Government would consequently return to spending 0.7% of GNI on international aid in the next calendar year”.—[Official Report, 12 July 2021; Vol. 699, c. 4WS.]

    Let me be clear: Labour will vote to reject this motion tonight and to return overseas aid to 0.7% of GNI.

    Mr Harper

    Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

    Keir Starmer

    I am going to summarise my argument—[Interruption.] I am going make my argument, and when I get to the relevant part, I will take interventions.

    The case that we make is this: first, that the cut is wrong, because investing 0.7% on international aid is in Britain’s national interest; secondly, because the economic criteria set out by the Chancellor would lead to an indefinite cut that is likely to last beyond this Parliament; and, thirdly, because it matters that this House keeps its word to the voters who elected us. Every Member here—every Member here—was elected on a manifesto to retain the 0.7% target, and it matters that we keep our promises to the world’s poorest, particularly at such a time of global uncertainty.

    Mr Harper

    I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way. I agree with him about keeping promises, and Conservative Members were also elected to keep fiscal promises to reduce our debt and not to borrow for day-to-day spending. I hope in his remarks he will set out, given that he is not going to support this motion, which areas of spending he is going to cut to pay for it or which taxes he is going to raise. If he does not do either of those things, then I am afraid his promises and his vote today are hollow, and no one will believe him.

    Keir Starmer

    I have to say that it is a bit rich from someone who may break the manifesto commitment to say that the vote today and the words today are hollow, but just to take that straight on, it is a false economy, I am afraid. Cutting aid will increase costs and have a big impact on our economy. Development aid—we all know this—reduces conflict, disease and people fleeing from their homes. It is a false economy to pretend that this is some sort of cut that does not have consequences.

    Mr Mitchell

    The right hon. and learned Gentleman is making a House of Commons speech, not a partisan speech. Can I ask him what I would have asked the Prime Minister if the Prime Minister had given way? First, will he confirm that the cut we are discussing today is 1% of the borrowing the Prime Minister described that he quite rightly sanctioned last year? Secondly, will he underline the fact that this was an all-party promise made at the general election by every single one of us, and we really should not break our promises to the poorest in this terrible way?

    Keir Starmer

    Yes and yes. It was not ambivalent in the manifestos and it was not conditional; it was clear.

    On the first part of the argument—the national interest—British aid saves lives, it builds a more secure world, and it promotes democracy and British soft power. For the last 20 years, that has been the political consensus across this House. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown first set the goal of the UK reaching the 0.7% target—[Interruption.] I am making a speech to the House and for the House. David Cameron and the right hon. Member for Maidenhead made it a reality, and we acknowledge that in the right way. It has been supported—[Interruption.] The chuntering is all very well, but this has been a cross-party position for 20 years, and successive Prime Ministers have kept to the commitment. Every other living Prime Minister thinks this is wrong; there is only one Prime Minister who is prepared to do this, and he is sitting there, on the Front Bench. I acknowledge what those on the Benches opposite did in relation to this—the previous Prime Minister is sitting opposite. I am openly acknowledging that, and it has been supported by all parties, and rightly so. As the sixth richest country in the world, Britain has a moral obligation to help the world’s poorest, and our aid budget has done that with fantastic results.

    Dame Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)

    Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

    Keir Starmer

    I will in a moment.

    This has been providing education for women and girls; fighting poverty; providing sanitation, healthcare and vaccines; building resilience and infrastructure; and doing incredible post-conflict and reconstruction work, where I think Britain does a better job than anyone else, so it has real results. Let us be clear what these cuts would mean: 1 million girls losing out on schooling; nearly 3 million women and children going without life-saving nutrition; 5.6 million children left unvaccinated; an estimated 100,000 deaths worldwide. [Interruption] The Prime Minister says “Rubbish”; that is the human toll of the choices the Government are making, and it is not rubbish.

    Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)

    The case being made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman is that the Prime Minister is making a promise he will not keep, but what did Tony Blair and Gordon Brown do? They made a promise but they never, ever spent 0.7% of GDP on aid, and therefore the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s speech lacks all moral force.

    Keir Starmer

    They more than doubled it; they set the goal, and then successive Prime Ministers implemented that goal. That is such a weak argument—11 years into this Government that is such a weak argument. When I was Director of Public Prosecutions, which has a five-year term, the very idea that I could turn around four or five years into the role and say it was somebody else’s fault five, 10, 15, 20 years ago—I have always found such an argument particularly weak. This is such a bad argument but it is used all the time. They have been in power for 11 years; either take responsibility for what you are doing or give up.

    Our overseas aid budget goes beyond that moral obligation: it also helps build a more stable world and keeps us safer in the UK. In Afghanistan aid has supported improvements in security, in governance, in economic development and in rights for women and girls, yet, despite all the challenges that that country now faces and the security and terrorist threats that that poses to the UK—we know about those, and the previous Prime Minister the right hon. Member for Maidenhead knows about them—UK aid to Afghanistan is being cut from £192.3 million to £38.2 million. That is Afghanistan. [Interruption.] The Prime Minister chunters, but they are actually the Government figures. In Yemen, where there is the biggest humanitarian crisis in the world, UK aid has been cut by nearly 60%; in Syria, the Government are slashing aid by around 50%; and for the Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh there is a cut of 42%. All of those decisions will create more refugees, more instability and more people having to flee their homes.

    Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)

    Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the words of General James Mattis, the former United States Defence Secretary? When President Trump proposed cutting overseas aid, General Mattis said, “Fine, cut it, but you will have to give me, the Defence Secretary, more money to buy more bullets.”

    Keir Starmer

    I am aware of that, and it exposes the false economy argument in the Prime Minister’s case.

    This cut will also reduce UK influence just when it is needed most, and of course it risks leaving a vacuum that other countries—China and Russia, for example—will fill. At a time when Britain will host COP26 and has hosted the G7 we should be using every means at our disposal to create a fairer and safer world, but we are the only G7 country that is cutting our aid budget—the only G7 country. That is not the vision of global Britain that those of us on the Labour Benches want to see, and I do not think it is the vision of global Britain that many on the Benches opposite want to see either.

    Dame Andrea Leadsom

    All of us in this House long to see our aid commitments re-established at 0.7% of national income, but the Leader of the Opposition will nevertheless appreciate that we continue to be one of the most generous foreign aid donors. He is making a good point about the 0.7%, but can he explain why, in all the Labour years of Labour Government, they averaged 0.36% of national income on overseas aid?

    Keir Starmer

    They doubled it, actually.

    Let me turn to my second point, which has already been debated: the economic argument behind the Government’s position. The Prime Minister and Chancellor say that these cuts are unavoidable because of the pandemic and the economic consequences we now find ourselves in, but the whole point of the 0.7% target is that it is relative to the UK’s economic success or challenges: it rises when we grow and falls when we experience economic shock like the pandemic. Nobody in this House is arguing for overseas aid to be maintained at the pre-pandemic level during the downturn in strict terms. We all recognise that a contracting economy means a relative contraction in our aid budget, but the Chancellor and Prime Minister are asking the House to agree to go beyond that, to impose a new target of 0.5% and to create entirely new criteria for ever returning to 0.7%. In effect, the Chancellor is proposing a double lock against reverting to 0.7%. The written ministerial statement makes it clear that Britain will go back to 0.7% only when public debt is falling as a percentage of GDP and there is a “current budget surplus”.

    Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)

    Will the right hon. and learned Member give way?

    Keir Starmer

    Let me make this point, and the Prime Minister can intervene if he wants. On the former point, the Office for Budget Responsibility does not predict public debt falling as a percentage of GDP until 2024 or 2025 at the earliest. If the Prime Minister wants to intervene, I am ready. That would mean returning to 0.7% will not happen in any year in this Parliament. I am clear about that. Does anyone want to intervene? That is the OBR’s prediction.

    Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)

    I thank the Leader of the Opposition for allowing me to intervene. Perhaps he can help in ascertaining when those targets would have been met in the past 20 years.

    Keir Starmer

    Well, that is a very good point. I think it is once in 20 years. However, there are two points here and, if there is a contrary argument, the Prime Minister can make it. On the first point, the OBR does not predict a fall in debt as a percentage of GDP until 2024 to 2025. Therefore, anybody voting tonight who is pretending to themselves that the cut is temporary and will be changed in a year or two is not looking at the facts. If anybody wants to say they have better statistics and the OBR has got it completely wrong, please do so—that includes the Prime Minister.

    On the second point, the OBR does not forecast a current surplus for its entire forecast period. In fact, there is no expected timeline for that criterion to be met at all. What the Chancellor is setting out is not a temporary cut in overseas aid; it is an indefinite cut. Let me remind the House that only, I think, five times in the past 30 years has a current budget surplus been run—four of them, I might add, were under a Labour Government and one under the Conservatives—so the chances of those criteria being met under a Conservative Chancellor are remote at best. All the more so, because the statement creates an artificial £4.3 billion fiscal penalty for any Chancellor who seeks to rebalance the Budget. So this is an indefinite cut—it is not going to be reversed next year or the year after—and, however much the Prime Minister shakes his head, there is no contrary argument.

    This is not just about economic necessity; a political choice is being made. Not only is it against our national interest but it further erodes trust in our politics. That brings me to my third point: trust. There is now a central divide in British politics and across the world between those who value truth, integrity and honesty and those who bask in breaking them. We were all elected on manifestos that committed to the 0.7% target. I am proud to have stood on that commitment and I know that many hon. Members across the House are as well.

    Mr Simon Clarke

    Will the right hon. and learned Member give way?

    Keir Starmer

    I will in just a moment. Let me quote page 53 of the Conservative manifesto, which says:

    “We will proudly maintain our commitment to spend 0.7 per cent of GNI on development”.

    Do not shake your head, Prime Minister—it is there in black and white. As Conservative Members have said, that is not equivocal or conditional. It was a clear promise to voters and it should be honoured. If it is not, where does that leave us? There are already countless examples of the Prime Minister breaking his promises, such as: no hard border in the Irish Sea; no cuts to our armed forces; and an already-prepared plan for social care—the list is endless. That matters. It matters to the British people that they can trust a Prime Minister to honour a clear commitment. It matters to our reputation around the globe that the word of the British Government will hold in good times and bad.

    Today, the House has the chance to stand up for a better kind of politics for the national interest, to do what we know is right and to honour our commitments to the world’s poorest. When the Division is called, Labour MPs will do so, and I am sure that others on the Conservative Benches will do so. I urge all Members to do so.