UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Jeremy Hunt – 2023 Mansion House Speech

    Jeremy Hunt – 2023 Mansion House Speech

    The speech made by Jeremy Hunt, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, at the Mansion House in London on 10 July 2023.

    My Lord Mayor, Governor, Ladies and Gentlemen – it is an honour to be with you at the Mansion House tonight.

    While some may be distracted by events in Windsor, we all know that Walbrook is the place to be this evening.

    Thank you to the City of London Corporation for hosting us so generously. It is a privilege to follow the Lord Mayor’s excellent address and to give my first Mansion House speech as Chancellor.

    Tonight, I want to talk about long term reforms to our competitiveness, but let me start with the immediate challenge of tackling inflation.

    Following the pandemic and energy shock, like other countries, the UK faces difficult challenges.

    It has shown itself more resilient than many predicted, but that resilience is itself one of the reasons for higher inflation.

    In a cost-of-living crisis, that leads to great concern for many families who see the cost of their weekly food shop or the price of petrol go up.

    But with the levers of fiscal and monetary policy, wholesale food and energy prices falling and a government that has made the battle against inflation its number one priority, there is nothing insurmountable in the current situation.

    Let me be clear again tonight. Working with the Bank, we will do what is necessary for as long as necessary to tackle inflation persistence and bring it back to the 2% target.

    Delivering sound money is our number one focus. That means taking responsible decisions on public finances, including public sector pay, because more borrowing is itself inflationary.

    It means recognising that bringing down inflation puts more money into people’s pockets than any tax cut.

    And it means recognising that there can be no sustainable growth without eliminating the inflation that deters investment and erodes consumer confidence.

    Tackling inflation therefore unlocks the Prime Minister’s two other economic priorities – growing our economy and reducing debt – but because it is a prerequisite for both, it must come first.

    As we tackle inflation, we must always remember our responsibilities to those struggling the most, so I am therefore grateful to our banks and mortgage lenders for their help in developing last month’s Mortgage Charter.

    I agree with the Governor that margin recovery benefits no one if it feeds inflation.

    And I will continue to work with regulators to make sure the needs of families are prioritised in a tough period.

    This evening, though, I want to look further ahead.

    I want to lay out our plans to enable our financial services sector to increase returns for pensioners, improve outcomes for investors and unlock capital for our growth businesses.

    We start from a position of strength.

    The financial and related professional services industry employs over 2.5 million people. Although two thirds of them are outside the South-East, it has made London the world’s second largest financial centre and one of the most dynamic cities on the planet.

    It generates more than £100 billion in tax revenue, paying for half the cost of running the NHS.

    A strong City needs a successful economy, and a strong economy needs a successful City.

    Recent challenges have led to some lose hope and even peddling a declinist narrative.

    They are profoundly wrong.

    I am proud that since 2010, we have one million more businesses and one million fewer unemployed.

    And we’ve grown faster than France, Italy, Japan or Germany.

    In the last decade we have become Europe’s largest life science sector, Europe’s largest technology sector, its biggest film and TV sector and its second largest clean energy sector.

    But as we emerge from our current challenges, the Prime Minister and I have big ambitions for the British economy.

    We want to be the world’s next Silicon Valley and a science superpower, embracing new technologies like AI in a way that brings together the skills of our financiers, entrepreneurs and scientists to make our country a force for good in the world.

    That means making sure our financial services sector, traditionally so nimble and agile, has the right architecture to provide the best possible security for investors as well as capital for businesses, and the best talent right here in the UK to make that happen.

    The structures put in place after the financial crisis have served us well and financial stability will always be our top priority.

    But we can further improve the functioning of capital markets, so this evening I set out the government’s Mansion House reforms.

    They build on the Edinburgh Reforms I announced in December and the vision for financial services which the now Prime Minister spoke about here in 2021 of an open, sustainable, innovative and globally competitive sector.

    Firstly, I am announcing a series of measures to boost returns and improve outcomes for pension fund holders whilst increasing funding liquidity for high-growth companies.

    Second, I will set out ways to incentivise companies to start and grow in the UK by strengthening our position as a listings destination.

    And finally, we will reform and simplify our financial services rulebook to ensure we have the most growth-friendly regulation possible without compromising our commitment to stability.

    Pensions

    I begin with pensions.

    The UK has the largest pension market in Europe, worth over £2.5 trillion. It plays a critical role in providing safe retirement income as part of the social contract between generations.

    Government policy, such as autoenrollment, has strengthened it but so too has confidence in the expertise of our financial institutions to manage investments wisely.

    However, currently we have a perverse situation in which UK institutional investors are not investing as much in UK high-growth companies as their international counterparts.

    At the same time on their current trajectory, some defined contribution schemes may not provide the returns their pension fund holders expect or need.

    Whilst many defined benefit funds are in surplus, their returns are lower than some international peers and some are still underfunded.

    So alongside our outstanding Economic Secretary Andrew Griffith and brilliant Pensions Minister Laura Trott I have engaged with some of our largest pension schemes, insurers, asset managers and experts to put together tonight’s Mansion House reforms. I am also immensely grateful to Sir Jon Symonds and Sir Steve Webb for their advice on how to construct this package. And I’m also very grateful to Gwyneth Nurse and her brilliant team in the Treasury. Gwyneth is of course the real Chancellor as we Official Chancellors come and go.

    Tonight I lay out the direction of travel. Sometimes consultations will be necessary, but all final decisions will be made ahead of the Autumn Statement later this year.

    And as we make those decisions, I will be guided by three golden rules.

    Firstly everything we do we will seek to secure the best possible outcomes for pension savers, with any changes to investment structures putting their needs first and foremost.

    Secondly we will always prioritise a strong and diversified gilt market. It will be an evolutionary not revolutionary change to our pensions market. Those who invest in our gilts are helping to fund vital public services and any changes must recognise the important role they play.

    The third golden rule is that the decisions we take must always strengthen the UK’s competitive position as a leading financial centre able to fund, through the wealth it creates, our precious public services.

    I start with Defined Contribution pension schemes, which in the UK now invest under 1% in unlisted equity, compared to between 5 and 6% in Australia.

    Today I am pleased to announce that the Lord Mayor and I joined the CEOs of many of our largest DC pension schemes – namely Aviva, Scottish Widows, L&G, Aegon, Phoenix, Nest, Smart Pension, M&G & Mercer – for the formal signing of the “Mansion House Compact”.

    The Compact – which is a great personal triumph for the Lord Mayor – commits these DC funds, which represent around two-thirds of the UK’s entire DC workplace market, to the objective of allocating at least 5% of their default funds to unlisted equities by 2030.

    If the rest of the UK’s DC market follows suit, this could unlock up to £50 billion of investment into high growth companies by that time.

    Secondly, we know funds can only optimise returns from a balanced portfolio if they have the scale to do so. We will therefore facilitate a programme of DC consolidation, to ensure that funds are able to maintain a diverse portfolio of bonds, equity and unlisted assets and deliver the best possible returns for savers.

    Tomorrow, the Department for Work and Pensions will publish its joint consultation response with the Pensions Regulator and the FCA on the Value For Money framework, clarifying that investment decisions should be made on the basis of long-term returns and not simply cost.

    Pension schemes which are not achieving the best possible outcome for their members will face being wound up by the Pensions Regulator. We will also set out a roadmap to encourage Collective DC funds, a new type of pension fund which we believe holds great promise for the future.

    Third, we need to ensure that all schemes have access to a wide range of investment vehicles that enable them to invest quickly and effectively in unlisted high growth companies.

    We have launched the LIFTS competition, and will consider closely the bids that have already started to come in for up to £250 million of government support.

    Alongside that, we will explore the case for government to play a greater role in establishing investment vehicles, building on the skills and expertise of the British Business Bank’s commercial arm which has helped to mobilise £15bn of capital into over 20,000 companies.

    Ahead of Autumn Statement, we will test options to open those investment opportunities in high-growth companies to pension funds as a way of crowding in more investment.

    I now move on to Defined Benefit schemes which number over 5000 and operate under a different regulatory regime. Their landscape is also too fragmented.

    I recognise the important role played by insurers offering buy-out schemes, which will continue to be an essential part of the way we improve security for pension members in this market.

    But in addition, we will set out our plans on introducing a permanent superfund regulatory regime to provide sponsoring employers and trustees with a new scaled-up way of managing DB liabilities.

    Having engaged closely with a range of experts, we will launch a call for evidence tomorrow on the role of the PPF and the part DB schemes play in productive investment – whilst always being mindful of the second golden rule to protect the sound functioning and effectiveness of the gilt market.

    Fifth, we will look at the culture of investment decisions and improve the understanding of pension trustees’ fiduciary duty across both DB and DC schemes. DWP and HMT will jointly launch a call for evidence to explore how we can overcome barriers and ensure a focus on good saver outcomes.

    And finally, government must lead by example, so we will consult on accelerating the consolidation of Local Government Pension Scheme assets, with a deadline of March 2025 for all LGPS funds to transfer their assets into local government pension pools and ensure greater transparency on investments.

    To make sure we are delivering the maximum benefits of scale, we will invite views on barriers to achieving better investment returns across the LGPS as well as setting a direction that each asset pool should exceed £50 billion of assets.

    We will also consult on an ambition to double the existing local government pension scheme allocations in private equity to 10%, which could unlock a further £25 billion by 2030.

    Today’s announcements could have a real and significant impact on people across the country.

    For an average earner who starts saving at 18, these measures could increase the size of their pension pot by 12% over their career – that’s worth over £1,000 more a year in retirement.

    At the same time this package has the potential to unlock an additional £75 billion of financing for growth by 2030, finally addressing the shortage of scale up capital holding back so many of our most promising companies.

    Increasing borrowing through £28 billion a year of unfunded spending commitments, as some are suggesting, would entrench inflation and push up interest rates.

    These reforms, conversely, unlock capital from the private sector delivering growth not by subsidy, but by increasing support for entrepreneurs and investors who take risks to create long term value.

    Listings

    I now move onto listings. The UK has the largest stock market in Europe and in 2021 attracted the most global IPOs of any stock market outside the US.

    But between 1997 and 2019, there was a 44% decline in the number of domestic listed companies in the UK, part of a wider trend across western markets, with the US and France seeing even steeper falls.

    I want the world’s fastest growing companies to grow and list right here, making LSE not just Europe’s NASDAQ but much more. As David Schwimmer and Julia Hoggett say, we want it to be the global capital for capital.

    So today we are publishing draft legislation on prospectus reforms, delivering another milestone of Lord Hill’s UK Listing Review. This will create a more effective regime than its EU predecessor, giving companies the flexibility to raise larger sums from investors more quickly.

    The government welcomes Rachel Kent’s excellent Investment Research Review published today and has accepted all recommendations made to it. We therefore welcome the FCA’s commitment to start immediate engagement with the market to inform any rule changes on removing the requirement to unbundle research costs by the first half of next year. This will ensure we are better able to fund quality research into the new Silicon Valley sectors.

    Last week, we abolished protectionist rules inherited from our time in the EU such as the Share Trading Obligation and Double Volume Cap so UK businesses can now access the best and most liquid markets anywhere in the world.

    And, in a highly innovative step which represents a global first, we will establish a pioneering new “intermittent trading venue” that will improve private companies access to capital markets before they publicly list. This will be up and running before the end of 2024, and put the UK at the forefront of capital market innovation.

    Smart regulation

    Finally, behind all those plans must sit a financial services sector ready to innovate faster with regulators willing to support them as they do.

    We have one of the most robust regulatory regimes and some of the best regulators in the world. Brexit gives us the autonomy to put their skills to even better use as we seek to become leaders in the industries of the future.

    So I am delighted that we have just last month passed into law the landmark Financial Services and Markets Act, which will ensure our regulators have an appropriate focus on growth and competitiveness alongside their wider responsibilities.

    The Act also unlocks wholesale reform of our approach to regulation and today I can announce that we are commencing repeal of almost 100 pieces of unnecessary retained EU law, further simplifying our rulebook whilst retaining our high regulatory standards.

    Alongside this, last month I was delighted to sign the new UK-EU financial services Memorandum of Understanding as we build a new relationship with our European partners.

    We are working closely with the Bank of England to reflect on lessons from recent events to ensure the UK has the best possible arrangements in place to improve continuity of access to deposits when a bank fails even if it is not a systemically important one.

    And I want to make sure we remain at the forefront of payments technology. So I am launching an independent review into the future of payments – led by Joe Garner – to help deliver the next generation of world class retail payments, including looking at mobile payments.

    We are laying new legislation to give regulators the powers they need to reform rules on innovative payments and fintech services, and, together with the Bank of England, we are exploring potential designs for the digital pound should we decide to introduce it.

    Conclusion

    My Lord Mayor, Governor, Ladies and Gentlemen.

    Pension industry and listings reforms, backed by smart regulation, to unlock better returns for savers and more growth capital for businesses.

    That is what today’s Mansion House reforms deliver.

    British growth driven by British financial firepower, providing higher living standards and better funded public services.

    With cooperation between government, regulators and business closer than ever…

    … we will deliver not just more competitive financial services but a more innovative economy.

    More money for savers.

    More funding for our high-growth companies.

    And more investment to grow our economy.

    That is the vision I have set out today – let’s deliver it together.

    Thank you.

  • Andrew Mitchell – 2023 Speech at Caucus of African Governors

    Andrew Mitchell – 2023 Speech at Caucus of African Governors

    The speech made by Andrew Mitchell, the UK Minister for Development, in Cape Verde on 8 July 2023.

    Thank you Vice Prime Minister Correia, esteemed Governors of the IMF and World Bank Group, distinguished colleagues, friends, your excellencies.

    What a pleasure it is to be in Cabo Verde and on the beautiful island of Sal. I can well understand why 300,000 of my fellow citizens of the United Kingdom come here every year on holiday. I want to thank the Prime Minister, who I met this morning, for his hospitality and for his personal efforts to strengthen our growing partnership. I also welcome Cabo Verde’s leading voice amongst the SIDS and on innovative climate finance, including their recent debt for nature swap, which will free up funds for the country’s energy transition.

    It has been a privilege, your excellencies, to participate in your Caucus today.

    The Sal Declaration, which you have set out here today is excellent, responds to the urgent need for action. And there is a great deal that the UK strongly supports, including the call for permanent membership of the African Union at the G20.

    The UK’s partnerships in Africa are defined by mutual respect and mutually beneficial economic development. And the World Bank Group has played a central role. We are proud to have been one of the largest donors to IDA [International Development Association].  And we have always sought to ensure that IDA delivers on each nation’s priorities, calling for more resources for climate adaptation, and a sharper focus on job creation.

    We have also used our shareholding in IBRD, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, to argue for more resources to countries graduating out of IDA.  And we have been a vocal champion for the IFC [International Finance Corporation] to scale up its investments across the continent, including through the creation of a Private Sector Window.

    We meet today at an important moment to tackle extreme poverty and climate change.

    The challenges are very significant. We are off-track on the SDGs [Sustainable Development Goals] at this halfway point, set to miss 88% of them by 2030. Progress on reducing extreme poverty has stalled, and in many places has reversed in the face of the pandemic and Russia’s appalling invasion of Ukraine. Global food prices are at historic highs and 45% of African countries are in debt distress or high risk of entering it. And while we welcome enormously the recent agreement to restructure Zambia’s debt, this has taken far too long to deliver. This is also a significant moment in our journey to evolve the World Bank Group.

    I met and listened to many of you in Paris at last month’s Summit for a New Global Financial Pact, at the recent African Development Bank Annuals and World Bank Spring meeting, and during my visits to 12 of your countries since I took this role again at the end of last year.

    I have consistently heard a growing anger and a clear demand to reform the international financial system, as Barbados Prime Minister Mia Mottley has so eloquently articulated. I have also heard that we urgently need a bigger, better and fairer World Bank Group at the heart of this.

    The evolution discussion has rightly shone a light on the Bank’s role in tackling global challenges like climate change. That role is absolutely crucial. We only need to look to tropical cyclone Freddy, which did such awful damage in Madagascar, Mozambique and Malawi earlier this year, and recent droughts in Somalia and Kenya, to see the scale of the challenge we face.

    But these efforts must not detract from a laser focus on ending extreme poverty. Indeed, these are 2 sides of the same coin; as my friend Ajay Banga says, we need a world free of poverty on a liveable planet.

    To deliver the new President’s vision, we need a bigger World Bank, which recognises the growing needs of borrowers.

    The G20 Independent Review of MDB [Multilateral Development Banks] Capital Adequacy Frameworks presents a huge opportunity here.  The World Bank Group Springs package was a strong start, but I believe we can still go further.

    This would allow it to scale up IBRD to better serve clients such as Morocco, Botswana, and South Africa, as well as future graduates from IDA.  Beyond these capital adequacy measures, we should explore how much additional capital is needed to scale up the Bank even further.

    If we are to prevent deep economic scarring across the continent, we should also sustain our elevated IDA financing levels.

    IDA20 responded rapidly to recent crises, but the result of frontloading financing commitments is that volumes are set to drop by around $5 billion for each of the next 2 years.

    I hope that many will contribute to the fundraising efforts for the Crisis Response Window.  But alongside this, we must explore all the other balance sheet optimisation measures to stretch IDA’s financing further.

    We should then start to build a common agenda for a very strong IDA21 replenishment – an IDA which reflects your priorities and is big enough to meet the challenges we all face, that you have made so clear today.

    But the Bank cannot do this alone. That is why we also need it to mobilise much more private capital for your countries.

    I want to see the Multilateral Development Banks develop more bankable projects that the private sector can engage in, transfer more risk to the private sector to free up capital, and strengthen their support for country-specific platforms, like the Just Energy Transition Partnerships.

    I am also excited to see that Ajay Banga has established a new Private Sector Investment Lab and look forward to hearing the recommendations made by Mark Carney and Shriti Vadera to mobilise more investment for African economies.

    We also expect the Bank Group to play a central role at next year’s UK-African Investment Summit, which will bring together African leaders, private sector partners, and international organisations to deliver on your investment priorities.

    Crucially, amongst all of this, we need to work on stronger collaboration within the World Bank Group so that it becomes more than the sum of its parts. So if we provide extra capital to IBRD, that should mean even larger annual transfers to IDA.  And we should look again at the question of IFC’s transfers to IDA as well.

    That brings me to how the Bank must become better. As President Ruto of Kenya so clearly articulated in Paris, the World Bank Group needs to be much faster in getting liquidity to where it is most needed. On average it takes 2 years from project concept to disbursement. And this is simply far too long. But the lessons of the pandemic show that we can act faster when we must, and now we must.

    We need the Bank to better support countries to plan for crises, to build strong social protection systems, and put in place pre-arranged finance like CAT DDOs [Catastrophe Deferred Drawdown Option] so the money flows quickly and to the right places.  The Global Shield against Climate Risk also provides the Bank with an opportunity to help countries respond to climate risks.

    The UK has also been leading the call for creditors to adopt climate resilient debt clauses, which allow repayments to be paused automatically when a shock hits. I was delighted that in Paris the World Bank, US and Spain followed the UK to promise to introduce these clauses.

    We also need a Bank that supports a fairer international financial system.

    This means supporting better and faster implementation of international tax rules to stop revenues leaking away and undermining your efforts to build sustainable public finances. It also means supporting countries such as Ghana and Malawi to restructure their public debts, and strengthening the debt management capacity of others, to avoid unsustainable debts in the first place.

    Friends, I leave with a final thought.  We will never deliver a bigger, better and fairer international financial system, unless we have institutions that properly reflect and respect all their members.

    This is why the UK has chosen to be the leading partner of the African Development Bank, where African countries own 60% of the votes.

    We have guaranteed to expand its financing capacity by $3 billion, and we are the largest donor to the African Development Fund.

    In the World Bank, the UK championed the creation of a third African seat on the Board in 2010.  But the entire African continent still holds just 4.5% of the World Bank’s shareholding.

    So if and when capital increases are needed, it will be important to amplify your voice. A greater say for those with the most at stake.

    The road to the SDG Summit in New York, the Annuals in Marrakech and COP28 in UAE. That road is getting shorter every day.

    I welcome this urgent to call action, and the UK will be right alongside you as we tackle these challenges together.

    I want to thank you all for the very great honour you have given me to address you today. You’ve invited me to join your meeting, and I’ve enjoyed it and learnt so much from it. I look forward to continuing our work together closely, and with the greatest possible effect that we can achieve.

    Thank you very much indeed.

  • Claire Coutinho – 2023 Speech to Policy Exchange

    Claire Coutinho – 2023 Speech to Policy Exchange

    The speech made by Claire Coutinho, the Minister for Children, Wellbeing and Families, on 5 July 2023.

    As a former Senior Fellow of Policy Exchange, I am delighted to be here to speak on a topic for which you have been such strong champions in recent years.

    It was your report on ‘Academic Freedom in the UK’, that planted the seeds for our Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill – and I stand here, three years after the Bill was introduced, with the Act having received Royal Assent.

    At a time when many were closing their eyes to the problem and saying there was nothing to see, Policy Exchange’s research shone a light on why we needed to act.

    The quest for truth has long provided us with the moral coordinates for social and scientific progress.

    Where debate has been suppressed, it has only set us back.

    We now give thanks to the Galileos, the Darwins, the Keplers, the Newtons, for pushing forwards the frontiers of our knowledge.

    Our understanding of astronomy, mathematics, natural history or biology, wouldn’t be the same if those visionaries did not believe in freedom of speech and the pursuit of truth.

    And yet, today, we see free speech under threat in the very places where the most controversial debates should be taking place – on campus.

    The very purpose of a university is to create independent thinkers who are equipped with the tools to think about the world critically.

    They are important training grounds for the business, political and cultural leaders of tomorrow.

    And this generation will need the skills of critical thought more than ever.

    The pace of change we face is transforming the world at a speed not seen before.

    Take the onset of artificial intelligence (AI). The next generation of leaders will face even thornier questions than the ones we face today.

    What role should Large Language Models play in education?

    How do we integrate AI into the workforce without displacing human workers?

    And how do we navigate copyright disputes between human artists and AI?

    These are all challenging ethical and practical dilemmas with no immediate answer.

    The next generation will have to approach these, and so many other problems, with an open mind. A desire to hear other opinions, not silence them.

    We’re doing students a disservice if we shelter them from other points of view, and withhold the opportunity to develop their critical thinking.

    And we’re setting them up for failure if we let them think they can go through life shouting down people with different views.

    As J.S. Mill famously said, depriving ourselves of the chance to debate also denies us “the clearer perception of truth, produced by its collision with error”.

    And yet vigilance is needed as there are those who seek to stifle debate in our universities.

    Curious students are being deprived of attending events, visiting speakers are intimidated by aggressive protests, and in the worst cases, academics are losing their livelihoods – and their reputations – for the crime of expressing an opinion.

    All of this is driven by a small groups of activists who shout the loudest.

    Activists who can fire off a lot of tweets and draft open letters – not simply to express their own opinion, but to close down a wider debate – and by now, we’ve seen the dangers of how this manifests itself on campus.

    If you’re Tony Sewell, you’ll have your honorary degree rescinded because the university doesn’t like the conclusion of a report you wrote for the government.

    If you’re Kathleen Stock, you’ll be hounded out of your job by a toxic, organised campaign to get you fired.

    We’ve even heard of examples of research projects on the culture of censorship in universities being censored because they’re deemed ‘too dangerous’.

    In other words, we may be at the stage where research into censorship is itself being censored.

    It’s even spread to disciplines as far from politics as you can imagine, such as maths.

    I met with a group of mathematicians who were being pressured into ‘decolonising’ their maths curriculum by downplaying or magnifying the work of mathematicians depending on their race.

    They were deeply concerned but also fearful of speaking out, because of the potential for a backlash that could put their jobs at risk.

    However, when I studied maths, I used an Indian decimal system, Arabian-born algebra and imaginary numbers forged in Europe.

    At this meeting I thought of the words of the 20th Century mathematician David Hilbert, who said:

    “Mathematics knows no race or geographic boundaries; for mathematics, the cultural world is one country.”

    And yet some people see even this discipline – the purest of all sciences and one which has developed across borders for more than a millennium – as an outlet for their activism instead of being motivated by a love of their subject and the pursuit of truth.

    The experience of those mathematicians is one shared by many in academia. An insidious censorship bubbling away under the surface, where students and academics with mainstream views don’t say what they think because they’re scared of the consequences for their studies or their career.

    They’re censored by activists who dress up their oppression in the language of tolerance and emotional safety.

    I sympathise with those who worry about the effects of toxic, hate-filled debates. I don’t want to see freedom of speech used as an excuse to abuse.

    But a tolerant society isn’t one where everyone must conform to a narrow, ideological vision of moral virtue – where only those who take a certain point of view are allowed to speak their mind – a tolerant society is one which allows us to understand people we disagree with, and where minority and majority views are protected.

    It should be a university’s duty to stay neutral, to facilitate debate and to protect those who put minority views forward in good faith.

    Universities fail in that duty when they themselves take sides on these contested issues. They risk losing the trust of their staff and students when certain groups are made to feel that their views are not welcome.

    I have no doubt in my mind that there are many leaders at the top of universities who are personally committed to academic freedom. I have heard about this commitment first-hand.

    But Vice Chancellors and Leadership Boards must make sure they are not being undermined by well-intentioned internal processes that stand in the way of freedom of speech.

    This pressure to conform to a progressive monoculture – both from activists and internal processes – has a material effect.

    Research shows that a third of all academics in the UK self-censor.

    A third.

    Often, it’s academics approaching the end of their careers who are more likely to feel they can speak openly than their junior colleagues.

    Your right to free speech in academia shouldn’t rely on your years of experience. It should be a right for all.

    And from Policy Exchange’s own research we know that this is not just an issue for those on the political right.

    While those on the right are more likely to self-censor, 42% of left-leaning academics in the social sciences report that they don’t express their views due to a fear of backlash from their colleagues.

    This will have wider effects than those faced by the individuals involved. For example, there is even evidence that shows that academic freedom boosts innovation. When academic freedom rises, the number of patents filed two years later grows.

    This creep of self-censorship matters.

    If we don’t bring an end to this culture of intimidation, we’re allowing an intellectual sedative to be injected into the University experience.

    And that’s why we chose to take action.

    We legislated, as we promised in the manifesto, to defend and promote that centuries-old principle – the principle of free speech – that has been at the centre of so much of our progress as a nation.

    Our Freedom of Speech Act will hold universities accountable for the state of free speech on their campuses. It will protect staff, students, and visiting speakers who advocate viewpoints of all kinds.

    We’ve created a powerful new Director for Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom at the Office for Students. They will be able to investigate – and take action against – providers who are found to have breached their duties to uphold free speech.

    Our new complaints mechanism, along with the introduction of the right to go to court, means that anyone who feels their free speech rights have been wrongly infringed will have a clear path to redress.

    And for the first time, we’re requiring student unions to protect free speech.

    Freedom of speech is not an optional extra at university. It is central to the university experience.

    Our measures are designed to give people studying and working in universities the confidence and security to speak their mind.

    At every stage of this process, they have been at the forefront of our thinking.

    And I can think of no one better to fight their corner than the new Director of Free Speech and Academic Freedom, Professor Arif Ahmed.

    Arif is a professor of philosophy who has written passionately in the  defence of free speech in the media. He’s stood firm in the face of attempts to shut down his own speaking events, and campaigned to reform the free speech policy at his own university – with an astounding result in his favour.

    He has defended views on the left and on the right, and I have no doubt he will provide strong leadership in championing a culture of tolerance and open debate within our universities.

    As Arif has written himself: “Words are not a form of violence. They are an alternative to violence. Without that distinction we are lost.”

    Now this Act by itself is not enough, I don’t believe that any legislation by itself can change culture, however it’s already starting to have an effect.

    I’ve spoken to Vice Chancellors who are making plans to embed a culture of free speech at the beginning of a student’s academic journey.

    The Provost of University College London, Michael Spence, took the right approach when he made clear that ‘[a university] is not a participant in the public debate, but a forum in which that debate takes place.’

    We have already seen an emboldened approach from university leaders who are fighting back where cancel culture raises its head.

    I am delighted that Kathleen Stock – despite the best attempts of some – did in fact speak to curious and respectful students at Oxford University recently, backed by strong action from their Vice Chancellor.

    I am also pleased that students who disagreed were allowed to protest outside.

    Both are important.

    And that’s because a healthy society is one where people who disagree can do so whilst living alongside each other.

    If you think about how we used to get to know each other, it was often in congregations.

    In churches, local community events, even that bastion of British culture – the pub – where the young, old, conservative, liberal, could all rub alongside each other.

    Now, social media has made it easier than ever for us to become entrenched in our own tribes, surrounded by people who think just like us.

    It’s a vicious cycle. The more and more we use social media, the more its algorithms will feed us what we like to hear, from who we like to hear it from.

    We get hooked on the drip of dopamine hits from people agreeing with us. Those who disagree with us become the enemy.

    But the fundamental wellbeing of our society rests on our ability to tolerate each other. On an individual level, our ability to connect to each other is what makes us happy and well.

    And when we think about the next generation, the leaders of tomorrow, what do we want for them?

    To teach them that they should shut down every person they encounter who has a different view? Or to teach them to be able to understand, to connect, to persuade, to find common ground.

    But common ground only exists where discussion and debate are embraced.

    Free speech at university is an antidote to the toxic effects of social media. By instilling the next generation with a new appreciation for freedom of speech, we can make sure this attitude doesn’t define our society in the years to come.

    The Act will give students and academics the practical framework to put the exchange of ideas over ideology, discussion over division.

    But I will end on the words of the late, great, Sir Roger Scruton, another Policy Exchange alumnus and one of the lecturers I was lucky to have during my own university experience.

    “Free speech is not the cause of the tensions growing around us, but the only possible solution to them…”

    Thank you.

  • Robert Halfon – 2023 Speech at the National Education Opportunities Network

    Robert Halfon – 2023 Speech at the National Education Opportunities Network

    The speech made by Robert Halfon, the Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education, on 6 July 2023.

    It’s great to be back in Exeter for the first time since I was re-appointed as Higher Education and Skills Minister. And in such great company! To be addressing the organisation of professionals for widening access to higher education is to address a crowd that shares my outlook. I want to thank Professor Graeme Atherton for inviting me here today, and for founding NEON back in 2012. The attendance today illustrates how access and participation has evolved from a peripheral tick-box exercise, to a central professional endeavour that all higher education (HE) institutions should take seriously.

    As far as I am concerned, social justice is fundamental to higher education. Universities should exist to facilitate the studies, progression and graduation of all students – including those from disadvantaged backgrounds – so they can go on to get good jobs and pursue worthwhile careers.

    Today, I want to talk to you about the golden thread of social justice that runs through my brief of Higher Education and skills. But I’d like to say at the outset that I’m not offering this summary of measures as the complete solution.

    While areas of deprivation and low achievement still exist, there will still be more work to do. And I really welcome your insights on how we’re doing. When it comes to sharing opportunities fairly, we haven’t reached the point where we can lean on our spades and say ‘job done’. Access and participation measures are not about patting ourselves on the back. Social justice demands we remain open to how we could all do better – and I include myself in that.

    Skills education is incredibly important to social justice – because gaining recognised skills helps a person succeed in the labour market when they don’t have other things that can help you get ahead, such as an education that maximises academic performance, family connections or an understanding of different work sectors.

    That’s why skills make-up the greater part of the Ladder of Opportunity. This framework outlines what we need for the skills system to support people of all backgrounds to ascend to the top rung: well-paid, secure and sustainable employment. This should be an attainable goal for everyone, not just those who start with some advantages in life. One of the pillars that holds-up the Ladder is opportunities and social justice. These need to be our foremost considerations in making quality, skilled employment widespread.

    And I won’t deny that there’s an economic argument for this too. Delivering skills for the country is central to driving the economy. Skilled jobs have the potential to contribute 1/3 of our future productivity growth. In short, there’s no downside to upskilling the nation.

    The Chancellor has his 4 ‘E’s for economic growth and prosperity: Enterprise, Education and Employment Everywhere. His focus is productivity – but we can’t have that without maximising opportunities to reach widespread abilities. The Lifelong Loan Entitlement will be a major catalyst for broadening the opportunity to train throughout a lifetime, which I’ll come to later.

    For now, given that ‘three is the magic number’ of this conference,

    I have three ‘P’s for social justice – Place, Privilege and Prestige.

    Let’s start with Place. Social justice is fundamentally rooted in the places people come from – where they grow up, gain their education and find a job.

    A virtuous cycle of growth can have a remarkable effect on a place. An area with great education and skills training will attract businesses looking for their future workforce. They set-up and invest in the area, which in turn creates more jobs and higher tax receipts – allowing for higher investment in local public services.

    Harlow College has an advanced manufacturing centre and renewable energy facility, which is doing exactly that – attracting relevant businesses to the skills pipeline it has created.

    That is why this government is focused on delivering for places that need a sustainable jobs and skills ecosystem. Last year’s Levelling Up white paper included a clear skills mission: by 2030, 200,000 more people each year will be completing high-quality skills training in England. But it’s not enough to raise skills levels if it only re-enforces current pockets of economic prosperity. So this number will include 80,000 annual course completions in the lowest skilled areas.

    Our 38 local skills improvement plans will support this, covering the whole of England. Each plan is led by an employer-representative body, ensuring that skills provision matches the needs of local employers. Wherever they are in the country, learners will have confidence that the skills they’re developing match those sought by local businesses.

    In all places, people need high-quality careers advice from an early age to help them fulfil their potential. This is the first rung of the Ladder of Opportunity, the beginning of their journey to good employment. We have worked hard to lay the foundations of a coherent careers system, with strong collaboration between educators, training providers and employers.

    The Careers and Enterprise Company work through local Careers Hubs to support schools, colleges and training providers to develop and improve their careers provision. Part of the battle is raising awareness of what’s on offer, so that young people aren’t given a false, binary choice of work or university. Our Apprenticeship Support and Knowledge programme communicates the benefits of apprenticeships, T Levels and other technical learning routes to older school pupils. It’s available nationwide but focusses on disadvantaged areas – places where its message could make the most difference.

    Later in life, the National Careers Service can provide free online guidance. But it also has community-based advisors to provide personal support to adults with recognised barriers to finding work. This includes career routes guidance on apprenticeships, traineeships, university and other technical and vocational routes. Last year it celebrated supporting 1 million adults into a job or learning outcome in 2022. These local, one-to-one interventions make a real difference to the paths taken by those who most need guidance to get back into education, training or work.

    Overall, we are determined that ‘place’ should strongly determine where additional funding is channelled. So, for example, where young people are taking the new T Levels in an economically deprived area, providers now receive additional funding to support their attainment.

    Focussing on place is absolutely necessary for social justice, but it is not sufficient. Because within places, there can be disparities in the opportunities available to different groups – such as those with disabilities or learning difficulties.

    My second P is privilege. Because the privilege of quality education and training opportunities should just not be for the privileged few. It should be available for everyone, regardless of their background or circumstance.

    Schools play a part in this, as I’ve described – but employers, FE colleges, universities and training institutions also need to reach down into their communities to lift the veil on post-16 routes. We’ve seen some great practice right here in this city, with Exeter University’s tutoring pilot run by undergraduates in St James School. This saw a 100% improvement in writing ability following a nine week intervention – a great example of universities working closely with schools to raise attainment. It is crucial that pupils are supported to achieve to a high standard before they’re required to make choices about their future.

    You’ll be aware that the Office for Students recently launched the Equality of Opportunity Risk Register, with 12 key risks to equality of opportunity across the student lifecycle. These have used evidence to determine where interventions can really move the dial on social justice. They’ll be an important tool for designing future initiatives to broaden access to HE, and I look forward to providers rewriting their upcoming Access and Participation plans to incorporate them.

    We should recognise where progress is being made. While a substantial gap remains between the most and least advantaged students, more disadvantaged English 18-year-olds than ever secured a university place last year. And black pupils have seen the greatest increase in the proportion going to university by age 19 – 62.1% in 2020-21, compared to 44.1% in 2009-10.

    In 2020, we met our targets to increase the proportion of apprentices who have learning difficulties and disabilities, or are from an ethnic minority background. This encouraging trend is continuing; halfway through this academic year, both groups’ apprenticeships starts had risen again by nearly 15% on last year.

    We want to further build on this momentum, so that no young person rules themselves out of positive future prospects because of their background or personal circumstances.

    Young people with learning difficulties and disabilities may need extra support to manage their training and complete their apprenticeship. Following some fantastic examples, we want to work with providers and employers so that they can offer more mentoring opportunities for these apprentices.

    My ambition is for every apprentice with a disability to benefit from access to a suitable mentor throughout their apprenticeship. This is why I am today announcing a new mentoring pilot, where a group of trailblazing providers will commit to expanding their mentoring offer to all disabled apprentices, enabled through a bespoke training and support offer. The pilot, which will launch later this year, will mean we can better understand what works for this cohort and set a clear direction of travel to expand the mentoring offer more widely across the sector.

    We are also investing up to £18 million to build capacity in the Supported Internships Programme, which hosts 16 to 24-year-olds with SEND in a substantial work placement. We aim to double the number of these internships to around 5,000 per year by 2025, supporting more disabled young people into employment. Again, this is about targeted support that brings opportunities to people who might otherwise be reluctant to take them. The Chancellor additionally allocated up to £3 million in the Spring Budget to test whether this might be an effective model for other learners.

    Apprenticeships offer a package of wages, training and sector induction which can be instrumental for a young person who has had a very difficult start in life. That’s why from August, we will increase the apprenticeships care-leavers’ bursary from £1,000 to £3,000. This allows these young people to start a new career, confident they can cover the living costs usually met by family. This is on top of the £1,000 available to both the employer and training provider who take on a care-experienced apprentice – making a total of £5,000 additional funding available to boost outcomes for this group.

    So I’ve described measures to spread opportunity across the country, and extend the privilege of quality education and training to everyone, regardless of background.

    But those interventions are not enough. We also need to do something that is in some ways more difficult – to revolutionise the way skills training is perceived.

    The perception is often that vocational education, such as apprenticeships, are somehow worth less than academic education or a university degree. This has always struck me as odd. These courses and training options give learners transferable skills that they can take to a hungry jobs market. Regarding them as ‘lesser’ is both illogical and slightly absurd. Anyone who wants to employ skilled people – whether in a restaurant, a silicon chip factory, or to rewire their kitchen – cannot afford to be dismissive of this education.

    That is why my third P – prestige – is crucial. I want technical education and training routes to have parity of prestige with academic routes. For parents to want their child to do an apprenticeship as much as they want them to go to university. For students to be excited at the prospect of learning a real technical skill that can get them a job. And for teachers to value pupils’ success equally, whether they accomplish a T Level or three A levels.

    I really believe degree apprenticeships can bridge this gap in a way that other initiatives haven’t managed – through their name, their course content, and the institutions that run them. As I said recently in another speech, HE needs to allow FE to leverage some of its prestige. And that is exactly what will happen if more great universities such as Exeter collaborate with industry to create new degree apprenticeships. I was very honoured to speak at the graduation of the first Exeter University Degree Apprentices back in 2021.

    We’ve seen year-on-year growth in these prestigious courses, with over 185,000 starts since their introduction – but we want to go much further. Up to £40 million will be available over the next two financial years [2023-24 and 2024-25] for Higher Education providers to expand degree apprenticeships and widen access to them. This funding will enable institutions to deliver degree apprenticeships for the first time, and broaden the existing range – prioritising new routes to professions previously reserved for traditional graduates.

    The Office for Students will conduct a competitive bidding process for funding later this year. I urge everyone here to look into this for your institution. Great universities like this one have already gone before you, demonstrating the success and social justice these courses can bring about.

    I also want to end the perception that FE colleges are somehow second-rate institutions.

    And that to finally emerge from the shadow of academia, there must be a ‘Skills Oxbridge’ we can point to. I have great respect for the academic excellence of Oxford and Cambridge, but we need to stop using them as a benchmark for everything else.

    I have visited colleges all over the country, from Harlow to Loughborough to Oldham – and I’m looking forward to visiting Exeter College tomorrow. I’ve seen the great work they’re doing – how for example, state-of-the-art T Levels in healthcare are creating a pipeline for future NHS medical staff.

    FE is supplying education solutions to real-world challenges. Its great institutions should be celebrated on their own merits, for preparing their students for good jobs and great careers.

    The way people access further and higher education also plays a part in how it is perceived. From next year, young people will be able to apply for apprenticeships through UCAS alongside undergraduate degree applications, putting technical and vocational education on an equal, accessible footing with academic routes. Our eventual aim is a one-stop-shop, where everyone can explore their career and training options at any point in their lives.

    To further break down the barriers between HE and FE, we are introducing the Lifelong Loan Entitlement to unify education finance under a single system. From 2025, financial support equivalent to 4 years post-18 education (£37,000 in today’s fees) will be available for individuals to use over their working lives. Learning and paying by module will present new opportunities for those unable to commit to a long course. Like getting on and off a train, learners can alight and board their post-school education when it suits them, building qualifications at their own pace. Each learner’s personal account will display their remaining education finance balance, but also act as a portal to guide their learning pathway.

    The LLE’s positive impact is likely to be greatest for disadvantaged students, who are 9 percentage points less likely than their peers to have a sustained education destination after 16-18 study. As a traditional three-year degree is not always a viable option, the Lifelong Loan Entitlement will provide an alternative to train, retrain and upskill, alongside other opportunities in the Government’s broader skills offer.

    I hope I’ve been able to demonstrate that channelling education measures to bring about social justice is a real mission for me. It’s not just about an ‘uplift in spending’ here, or a token initiative there. A coherent strategy runs through my department’s work, where we carefully consider what the key barriers are and how we address them – in order to spread opportunity to everyone, regardless of their background.

    And aside from the social good we can accomplish, there is a really positive story to tell about the tremendous technical and economic power of skills education in this country. Further Education is not second best – it’s at the centre of innovation, preparing young people for the jobs of the future. There are now almost 160 freshly developed apprenticeship standards at degree level, attached to roles at companies like Goldman Sachs and BAE systems.

    I know you are as keen as I am to bring about a future where education and social justice are synonymous. To make sure that talent from every background can find a path up the Ladder of Opportunity, we will persist with the 3 Ps:

    Ensuring that every place has skills training opportunities available.

    Spreading the privilege of quality education and training to everyone, not just the few.

    And raising the prestige of technical education routes to be valued equally with academic ones.

  • Gillian Keegan – 2023 Speech at the Local Government Association Conference

    Gillian Keegan – 2023 Speech at the Local Government Association Conference

    The speech made by Gillian Keegan, the Secretary of State for Education, in Bournemouth on 5 July 2023.

    Thank you, Kevin.

    It is a great pleasure to be here to address the LGA conference for the first time.

    I know how important the work, and the voice, of local government is.

    My first step into public life after a long business career was as a local councillor where I was also trained by the LGA.

    And now as an MP, a Minister, a Secretary of State, I see every day the hard work that councils up and down this country do.

    I often get asked what a “good” or a “great” start in life is for children and that looks like.

    Every child, every family, is different. But to me, there is a common thread.

    Every child needs stability plus parents or carers around them that are fully engaged, so that they can grow, they can learn, and they can thrive.

    This is something that we all worry about, how can we make sure that all children get the stability they need to set them up for life?

    You are often the first line of defence for children in your area and I want you to know that I know how vital your role is.

    What you do changes lives. You can’t ever be thanked enough for this.

    I want you to know that I am right behind you in your efforts.

    It is not lost on me that I am addressing you today while children and young people in schools across the country face disruption from industrial action.

    This disruption is undermining the stability we have been working so hard to recover after the pandemic.

    Let me be clear, we should not be having these strikes. In general, but certainly not now.

    Children have been through so much in the pandemic; I can’t think of a worst time to be willingly keeping them out of school.

    And we know that it’s critical to ensure children spend as much time in school as possible.

    Because we know that time spent in school is time well spent. School provides stability, it provides education, it provides support, it provides community.

    But there are significantly more children missing school than before the pandemic.

    Sadly, tragically, too many children are not attending school regularly, are persistently absent or, are missing education altogether.

    Some have labelled these “ghost children” – but I don’t like that label – they are real children, and their potential is being cut short.

    I’m determined we fix this, and I am grateful for the work you have already done with schools and families to ensure that they and their children get the right support.

    We are clear that the system needs to work together to improve attendance, focusing on a “support-first” approach.

    When we can we will put these new expectations on a statutory footing. Because this really matters.

    In the meantime, we continue to support you in your efforts.

    Our new data tool means you can respond quickly to trends in near real time, our attendance advisers are already working with around 115 local authorities, and our Attendance Action Alliance, which I chair, and which includes the Children’s Commissioner, the President of the Royal College of General Practitioners and the Children’s Mental Health lead from NHS England. Championing good attendance is top of our agenda.

    I’m delighted to say that bit by bit, little by little, our approach is working.

    And this is critical in the next few months as we know that children who miss the first few days of the new term, without good reason, are much more likely to miss long periods of their schooling than their peers.

    This is a critical period, but it is also an opportunity.

    By September we want to be welcoming as many children back to school as possible.

    I believe, truly, that not only can we get this right, but that working together, we will get this right.

    By supporting children, and families, to get kids into school, to get them learning.

    To get them the support they need, and the stability the deserve.

    Of course, there are children who face bigger challenges than others.

    When you look at vulnerable children, whether it’s because of their home life, a disability, or a previous experience, it’s often the same children, who are being counted and treated as vulnerable in three, four, five different systems.

    Nearly half of our children in need also have special educational needs, as do 57% of children who were looked after for at least 12 months.

    Those children, they are just as smart and have just as much potential as their peers. The only difference is that they got dealt a tougher hand in life.

    We all know that they need the support, the stability, and the help that will allow them to reach their potential.

    The reality is that for children with more complex needs, support often takes too long to arrive – and when it does – it is not always of the quality or consistency that they deserve.

    Families have to jump through hoops to get their children what they need, and providers and services are under increasing pressure to deliver.

    That’s why we’re investing, doubling high needs funding in the past four years, so that it now stands at a record £10 billion, and putting £2.6 billion into special and alternative provision school places.

    But it’s not just about funding. It’s about how we use this and that’s why our SEND and Alternative Provision Improvement plan outlines a mission to transform the system so that all children, whatever their needs, can fulfil their potential.

    These children face many challenges, not just one. This creates more need for support, even though they have less to draw on.

    That is why we are working with you to deliver consistent high-quality support, providing more social workers, more educational psychologists, and more support staff.

    We are going to deliver new national standards and practice guides, that will not only show what excellence looks like, but will provide a benchmark of support that every child with special needs can expect.

    We will set out clear roles and responsibilities across the system and end the bureaucratic battle that prevents families and children getting the support they need.

    A standardised EHCP template and national digital requirements will mean families can get the support your teams and partners provide, more simply and quicker.

    We will work with you, and with families, to develop and test these resources over the coming months.

    We will also announce details of how we will work together on testing our reforms through our Change Programme and the establishment of new Regional Expert Partnerships.

    So the good news is, we are definitely going in the right direction.

    But there will always be more to do, and I’m so grateful for your support on this journey.

    That brings me to the second area of partnership I want to speak about – and that’s our work together supporting families.

    You may well have heard the Prime Minister speak about how central family is to our vision of the future.

    But it’s hard for young families to balance both their children’s education and their own careers, especially with financial challenges and especially in the early years.

    Parents in 2022 were paying nearly 6% more for childcare for under 2s and 6.4% more for 2-year-olds than they were the previous year.

    This is why the Chancellor pledged the single biggest investment in childcare this country has ever seen, and why by 2028 we will have doubled spending on childcare with more than £8 billion every year on early years education. But I know you need extra support to deliver this.

    I know you want precise figures, and I’m pleased to say we’ll be confirming funding allocations for each local authority later this week.

    We have also announced £289m of investment to help you set up and deliver wraparound childcare, available from next year. And we’ll be seeking your views on how we make this scheme work effectively.

    This investment will make a real difference to families up and down the country, so that they can balance their lives and support their children.

    This is the support I would like every child to have. But the reality is, family life is often complex. Sometimes there are challenges, and families need extra support.

    In February this year, we set out how we will provide this and ensure children are kept safe and stay happy.

    We called it ‘Stable Homes, Built on Love’, because love and stability are what every child craves and what they deserve.

    Our strategy sets out how we will work with families to help them manage challenges.

    We’ll shortly be announcing which local areas will participate in the first wave of our Families First for Children pathfinder.

    These areas will provide a vision of the future system, supporting families through new Family Help services and an expert child protection response, to ensure frontline workers have the knowledge and expertise to support children and their families. Where children need protection, we will ensure that services, we will give staff the skills and support to take decisive action.

    Where children cannot stay with their parents, we should look first at wider family networks and support them and care for the child.

    And, where a child needs to enter the care system we will provide the same foundation of love, stability, and safety.

    There are 82,000 children in care. They are in our family, they are in our care, and we owe it to them to ask ourselves everyday – are we doing the best we can?

    We must always be ambitious for children in care and care leavers and I’m proud of what we’re doing in Government to help these children thrive and achieve their potential in adulthood.

    One of my most rewarding parts of this job is seeing this first-hand and chairing our cross-government Care Leavers board.

    And I am proud to work in a Government that care so deeply about this and it is great to be working with my colleague Johnny Mercer who is working on taking the lessons we have learnt about supporting veterans, and joining-up support for care leavers in the same way.

    We have increased the leaving care allowance from £2,000 to £3,000 and have consulted on expanding our corporate parenting responsibilities, so that more public bodies provide the right support to care leavers and also businesses.

    These young people need support when they start out on their own. Our Staying Close and Staying Put programmes will enable young people to  stay with their foster carers or close to their children’s homes when they leave care.

    Working together is a huge part of the making sure that all children get the future they deserve.

    I have seen this myself whether through Family Hubs and Start for Life, working with 87 councils in England; or the Supporting Families programme which has helped over 650,000 families already.

    When we get it right, and work together, it leads to incredible outcomes.

    Let me take fostering for example.

    I know first-hand the role foster carers play because many of my aunties fostered children.

    I have also been privileged to meet plenty of inspiring people who open their homes and their hearts to children.

    People like Marites. Marites is a dedicated foster carer – like many other across the country.

    She told me about one of the children she fostered. A seven-year-old boy.

    When he first arrived with her, he didn’t say a word. In fact, he didn’t speak for weeks. They didn’t know what he had gone through in his short life, but his silence spoke volumes.

    But Marites never gave up in the time she supported him. She gave this silent little boy the love and care he needed and slowly he began to recover.

    Years passed and then by chance she caught up with him walking through her borough. Her silent little boy was now the mayor.

    What a story, and what a life changed because one person took a chance on one child.

    You will all have had similar rewarding stories.

    Our job is to make sure every child gets the stability and foundation in life they deserve.

    A child, wherever they are, should be able to feel safe with unconditional love. They should be supported so that they know anything is possible.

    I know we ask a huge amount of you; I know that you wrestle with difficult decisions and pressures every day.

    But let’s just think about the prize. Together, we can create a world where all children, regardless of where they come from, can get the start in life they really deserve.

    Where it truly doesn’t matter where you came from, only where you are going.

    Together, we have started to make that future possible. But there is a lot more work to do.

    Work we must do. Because those children deserve nothing less.

    For me and many of your I know this is personal and I know we’re doing this for the right reasons, and together we can change lives.

    And I promise you, when we see those children grow up, thrive, and deliver that same love and support to their own families.

    We will know that all of the effort we have put in will have been worth it.

    Indeed, it may be the best thing we ever do.

    Thank you.

  • Michael Gove – 2023 Speech to the Local Government Association Annual Conference

    Michael Gove – 2023 Speech to the Local Government Association Annual Conference

    The speech made by Michael Gove, the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, at the Local Government Association Annual Conference held in Bournemouth on 5 July 2023.

    Thank you Kevin for those incredibly kind and inspiring words, and thank you Shaun also for welcoming us to the conference here in Bournemouth.

    And thank you all for being the backbone of our public service.

    Before I go any further, I want to add my own personal tribute to those you have already heard to Bob Kerslake. The LGA family has lost one of its own, and the country has lost a true public servant.

    Bob began his career in government with the Greater London Council, with roles in transport, finance and education. He ended it running the Civil Service.

    Along the way, he was chief executive of the fourth biggest council in England – Sheffield City Council. He also spent 7 years as chief executive at the London Borough of Hounslow, having previously been its director of finance.

    The move into central government saw Lord Kerslake become chief executive of the Homes and Communities Agency; permanent secretary of what was then called the Department for Communities and Local Government, and then of course Head of the Civil Service.

    My colleagues and I most recently valued his work on homelessness at the Kerslake Commission, just as you valued the 6 years he spent as a dedicated LGA President before handing over the baton to Baroness Grey-Thompson.

    On a personal level at the Department for Education I benefitted hugely from Bob’s kindness, his thoughtfulness and his wisdom.

    He was, also, an avowed supporter of devolution – and the flexibility it brought councils during their COVID-19 response. “The vital importance of local government to people’s lives has been very evident throughout this time,” he wrote.

    “If ever there was a practical argument to be made that greater devolution would bring great benefit to the country, it was made over the last year.”

    Bob’s commitment to local government – his belief that power should be exercised as close to the communities we serve as possible – is a continuing inspiration and we honour his memory.

    And in honouring his memory, the first announcement I’d like to make today is quite simple – thank you.

    Putting yourself forward for elected office in local government is an act of selfless public service. Acting as an officer in local government is a noble profession and every one of you deserves our gratitude.

    Especially given the testing times through which we have been living.

    Coping with an unprecedented global pandemic, facing increasing pressures on adult and children’s social care, supporting our Ukrainian guests and others fleeing from Hong Kong and Afghanistan, dealing with inflationary pressures, and always seeking to put the vulnerable in our communities first – we all owe a debt to local government and its leaders.

    And few have been finer leaders than my friend, and your retiring chair, James Jamieson.

    Energetic, always over the detail, persistent, persuasive, a natural team player, a conciliator when required and a fighter for local government always – James: I want to, on behalf of all of us in government and everyone in the hall, say a heartfelt thank you.

    Of course, James, we will stay in touch personally – I hugely value your counsel; I know you will have many future roles to play, not least in the realm of housing policy – and also my diary manager tells me I will be a regular visitor to mid-Bedfordshire in the weeks ahead – a very regular visitor…

    I also want to congratulate your new chair of the LGA. Shaun is the youngest ever chair of the LGA and has racked up a number of achievements at Telford & Wrekin Council since 2016. The LGA noted his ‘outstanding and inspirational’ leadership during COVID-19; while in children’s services, his is the first council outside London to progress from ‘requires improvement’ to ‘outstanding’ status.

    Shaun, I look forward to working with you in the months, and I hope years ahead, to deliver the effective and efficient local services our citizens deserve.

    We will not always agree on the best way forward but I know  that we agree that we can serve the public best when government and local government work closely together. Shaun, congratulations again.

    I personally and this government believe in devolution, decentralisation and driving power down to local communities.

    We want to give local communities more tools – the strongest ones – to make a difference on the issues that matter to residents – from countering anti-social behaviour to revitalising high streets, enhancing the environment to securing more of the right homes in the right places.

    We also believe that with greater power we should also ensure sharper accountability, celebrating the superb work so many councils do and helping to identify where local authorities need additional support.

    We believe that it is by empowering local communities that we can best address the regional economic inequalities which have held us back in the past.

    Local government is at the heart of levelling up. And we also believe in innovation in the delivery of public service – especially when it comes to securing economic growth, delivering beautiful new homes and supporting those most in need.

    I know it is only through listening and learning from you that together we can make progress.

    And the progress that we have made in DLUHC recently has all been down to what we have learnt from you.

    It was your experience in dealing with building safety in the aftermath of the Grenfell tragedy that helped us to bring relief to leaseholders and tenants.

    Your experience in supporting tenants in social housing to secure decent homes which has enabled us to bring in better regulation and higher standards.

    Your knowledge of what works, and what doesn’t, in the private rented sector has shaped our reforms.

    And your experience of the planning system – its strengths and weaknesses – has enabled us to bring forward improvements.

    Your amazing work in supporting Ukrainian refugees has enabled Homes for Ukraine to be such a success – with more than 150,000 Ukrainians benefiting.

    And even now you are helping us to find homes for Afghans to whom we have offered sanctuary, and are working constructively to deal with the pressures, undeniable pressures, that other refugees and asylum-seekers place on communities.

    The wonderful work so many of you do in adult social care is too often underappreciated but I and my ministerial team – and the ministerial team at DHSC – hugely appreciate not just the work you do daily but the expertise that you bring to reforming the sector and helping the most vulnerable.

    On education, supporting children with special needs, and safeguarding children at risk of abuse and neglect – your work, and wisdom, are invaluable.

    In enhancing our environment, dealing with waste, supporting nature to recover and dealing with climate change, you are in the frontline, and we all benefit from your leadership.

    In so many ways local government is the champion of what works, the indispensable ally.

    So much so that when I was told there was a new movie called Everything Everywhere All at Once, I thought it was a fly on the wall documentary about local government.

    Thank you for all you do – and know that it is because you do it so well that we want to empower you further.

    It is our priority, as you know, to go deeper in every area that is keen to pursue further devolution – and I am delighted that devolution deals now cover over 50% of England.

    The LGA has welcomed our commitment to offer all of England the opportunity to benefit from devolution deals by 2030 – and to engage with councils of all sizes.

    Before 2010 the only meaningful devolution within England was to London. Since then, we have allowed more and more communities to take back control of more and more power. Most powerfully through the model of mayoral combined authorities. But also through our programme of county deals and our freeing of districts and boroughs from historic restraints. And the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill gives them – and all planning authorities – more control over the future shape and character of their communities.

    The government’s ambition is to see devolution extended further across England, beyond just the areas named in the Levelling Up White Paper. And we are taking inspiration from the trailblazer MCA model: I can confirm today that these deals will act as the blueprint for other Mayoral Combined Authorities to follow.

    As well as the trailblazer devolution deals signed with the Greater Manchester and West Midlands, we have also agreed to create a new Mayoral Combined County Authority in the East Midlands, a new Mayoral Combined Authority in York and North Yorkshire, we have expanded the North-East deal and we have also announced devolution county deals with Norfolk and Suffolk.

    I was excited to discover earlier today from the wonderful Anne Handley, the new leader of East Riding, that East Riding and Hull are working together on another potential new devolution deal. We want to be with you every step of the way.

    I am an enthusiast – as you all know – for the mayoral model. But of course, one size rarely fits all. And I want to ensure that counties, district and unitary authorities also enjoy greater powers, greater freedom and greater resources.

    So even as we make sure that our drive for devolution is in keeping with the best traditions of local government, we continue to respect existing structures. Indeed, we seek to strengthen them.

    And we wish to ensure also that a light is shone on the great work local government is doing.

    It is to improve accountability and transparency, and help all councils succeed, that I am today officially launching the Office for Local Government (Oflog).

    By providing targeted data and analysis, Oflog will champion the very best in local government and also help us to identify where councils need targeted support to deliver.

    And Oflog will of course work closely in partnership with the LGA’s Innovation and Improvement board, so ably now chaired by the hugely energetic Abi Brown.

    And we want to make sure that Oflog ensures there is wider appreciation of the innovation and excellence displayed every day by local government.

    Swindon Borough Council, for example, now takes an average of 4 days, instead of 11, to clear up fly-tipping after developing AI software to process reports submitted by residents and then work out the most efficient way for street teams to tackle them. It is also saving around £28,000 a year in fuel and staffing costs.

    And the use of machine translation, another manifestation of AI, by its paediatric therapy team has cut the time to process documents from 3 days to 14 minutes, and the average cost per document from £160 to just 7 pence.

    The technology is now used by the council to support Ukrainian and Afghan arrivals, and by their adult and children social care teams when working with people whose first language is not English. The council has made the tech available for use free of charge to other government bodies and institutions, with hospitals, schools, courts and the Welsh and French governments taking it up.

    Where Swindon leads, the world follows.

    At Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council, we’ve also seen innovation. Far more children have an education, health and care plan (EHCP) that meets their needs after those putting the plans together started using a new digital tool to guide them. The percentage of their EHCPs audited as ‘good’ has risen from just 15% to 88%, while those rated ‘inadequate’ have fallen from around 29% to just 1.7%.

    Delivery on the ground from a council putting innovation first.

    And also City of Wolverhampton Council with its Digital Wolves strategy is supporting our key levelling up mission to enhance connectivity by extending 5G coverage.

    Wolverhampton goes all-out to improve broadband connectivity among residents and it has taken full advantage of being among the first cities to host a commercial 5G accelerator.

    These are just 3 of many examples of innovation and excellence in the public sector being pioneered by local government and I want to see it celebrated.

    Oflog is there to celebrate that ingenuity and imagination.

    As you will know, I confirmed in January that Lord Morse will be the first chair of Oflog. We have appointed Josh Goodman, a brilliant civil servant who set up the highly successful Covid Shielding programme, as interim chief executive and have launched a recruitment campaign for the permanent role today – I want to make sure we get a wide range of excellent candidates so anyone here with a CV they want to send, I look forward to seeing it.

    Oflog is about supporting you to get on with the job of running local government and delivering for residents and communities.

    And we will work with you to establish the best indicators of performance that will be upheld via Oflog.

    And Oflog should also support us and the department in another vital way. And that is identifying potential problems in councils earlier.

    We all know that there have been local authorities where problems have arisen – notably Thurrock, Liverpool, Croydon, Slough and most recently Woking.

    A handful of cases, the exception…but the problems did not happen all at once – they were there for some time, and they worsened over time.

    We, collectively and in the department, I think, need to be able to respond to the warning signs.

    These failures are felt most acutely by taxpayers and residents in higher costs and worse services. The reputation of local government as a whole and the many excellent officers also suffers. As does the cause of devolution for which we all want to be making such a strong case.

    Where government intervention is needed to deal with these problems – in the most serious cases – we must be able to take targeted action. The Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill strengthens our ability to act to protect taxpayers where trouble is brewing.

    But we must also remember that these are a small minority of councils – outliers of concern in a sector characterised by excellence – but we must reflect seriously on what these exceptional cases tell us about how core parts of the framework work in practice. But we must also ensure that framework is designed in a way to support our delivery of services. We need in order to ensure that we both identify problems early and free you to do you even better to reform the external audit system.

    It’s just not working at the moment. We need to tackle the delays in external audit and are talking to firms, council representatives and others on concrete steps that will get us back to a system where we all have faster and more effective, swifter and less bureaucratic reassurance in the way money is being used and my colleague Lee Rowley is leading on this work which has long been overdue.

    Where we do intervene, we need to ensure it is rooted in a clearly understood and agreed framework. That is why we are announcing a consultation on new statutory guidance around responsibilities for Best Value.

    I’d like to thank everyone who contributed to the draft. In setting out the expected standards of good practice by 7 themes, and describing the characteristics of a well-functioning authority, it serves to highlight how many councils are doing an excellent job for their communities.

    I know how much we all want to drive prosperity at a local level and in our services – and we are using every tool we have to drive economic development and opportunity that will benefit everyone. And that must include at this point, specifically, critically, centrally, rising to the many challenges of the housing market.

    The government remains committed absolutely to achieving 300,000 homes a year by the mid-2020s and delivering one million homes over this Parliament – we set it out in our manifesto and we are absolutely committed.

    You don’t need me to tell you that all of us who want to see more housebuilding – and greater homeownership – nevertheless face challenges in a world of rising interest rates, inflationary pressures and tight labour markets. These challenges are very far from unique to the United Kingdom. Talking to colleagues in government in Ireland, exactly the same issues affect their housing market and their home ownership ambitions.

    My colleagues, the Prime Minister and Chancellor, are using every tool to meet and master these inflationary pressures and in DLUHC we are determined to work with you on the ground to expand opportunity in the housing market.

    We need to build more homes of every tenure. We need more social and affordable homes. And councils of course have a critical role to play. I want to see all of us – central government, Homes England, housing associations and councils – working together to build more homes for social rent.

    That’s why I announced last month that local authorities should be allowed to keep 100% of the receipt from a right-to-buy sale for 2 years. I know that the LGA championed this move, with James Jamieson making his customary compelling case and Shaun supporting him in this work, and we look forward to working with local authorities to capitalise on the additional money, freedom and flexibility.

    As well as building more social homes we also need to work with the private sector to deliver more homes for rent and more homes to buy.

    And here again I must thank James and the LGA team for their leadership.

    They helped us craft the reforms to the planning system in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. Those reforms are designed to address the weaknesses in our current planning system and to rebalance incentives so more communities can be involved in plan-making, more plans can be adopted and more houses built.

    We know at the moment there are many local authorities without plans in place, and many communities concerned about the wrong type of development in the wrong places.

    Through the reforms in the Levelling Up Bill, we will strengthen the place of neighbourhood plans, we give local authorities the power to protect areas of environmental importance, we strengthen the place of design codes and give authorities more control over the character, the quality, the beauty of development.

    We also give local authorities more power to tackle land-banking to ensure planning permissions are built out.

    Crucially, we make it easier to use compulsory purchase powers and cheaper to acquire land through compulsory purchase order by tackling hope value. And, importantly, we also ensure that local authorities capture more of the land value uplift when planning permission is granted with the new Infrastructure Levy.

    Making new developments beautiful, ensuring they are accompanied by the right infrastructure – roads, schools and GP surgeries.

    Strengthening democratic control over where new developments go.

    Making sure the environment is protected and biodiversity is enhanced.

    And strengthening neighbourhood plans to create liveable, walkable, human scale communities.

    That is, I believe, the way to incentivise and support new development.

    The principles I have outlined – beauty, infrastructure, democracy, environment, neighbourhood – B, I, D, E, N – spell BIDEN.

    And if I say I am unashamedly pro-BIDEN I hope none of you will take that amiss…

    One more thing – if the planning system is to work it needs more resource, more expertise, and more planners.

    That is why we are surging additional planning resource to the frontline. I have asked the department and Homes England to look at plans to go even further. I hope to be able to update you all on progress shortly.

    And of course whether it is planning or in any area, if councils are to be empowered to deliver, then we need to help make funding simpler, more rational and predictable.

    The 2-year blueprint for local government finances published last year should help support long-term fiscal planning, as will the settlements for trailblazer deeper devolution.

    Over the last 3 spending reviews, local government has seen real terms increases in core spending power – with up to £59.7 billion available in England, an increase of up to £5.1 billion on the previous year.

    Over the last 12 months the DLUHC ministerial team has, rightly, sought to ensure that the funding system that will deliver certainty and stability for the remainder of this Parliament.

    For this I want to thank Lee Rowley – a former councillor himself – Dehenna Davison, Rachel Maclean and Felicity Buchan and, most of all, our wonderful Lords minister, Jane Scott, who was an outstanding leader of Wiltshire Council.

    As a team, we are committed to hearing from you about what works best and also critically what more is needed.

    And we know that while we have made progress on devolution, on accountability, on housing and planning and in other areas, there is still more to be done on the reform of funding to local government.

    The system we have now doesn’t work everywhere.

    It is out-of-date.

    There desperately needs to be a fairer, more rational allocation of resources across authorities.

    Also, there need to be fewer ringfences and individual funding pots.

    There need to be more rewards for councils that transform their communities: in the form of incentives to drive meaningful local growth.

    And I believe we will find the solutions together. Moving from complexity to a simpler set-up is in itself a significant undertaking.

    That is why we will engage and consult with you to create a system that both meets the needs of all of our citizens and can withstand economic shocks and inflationary pressures.

    And I look forward to updating you all on the progress of the work that we make.

    But where we can take action quickly, we will. We know the sheer number of funds has become difficult to navigate and deliver.

    The billions of pounds allocated so far through the Levelling Up and Shared Prosperity Funds are, I believe, genuinely transformative but we are always looking for ways to improve how that money and money from other funds reaches you.

    Today, we are publishing the government’s plan for a new, simpler, landscape for local authorities, in line with our white paper commitment.

    That will change how not just DLUHC but how other departments deliver funding.

    We have a commitment to a new digital service that will let you access and monitor your funding flows more easily.

    And we are planning other measures to ease the admin burden – streamlining data and paperwork requirements that you face  to make the most of the money being invested in your communities.

    Ten pilot local authorities will be able to spend their existing funding pots – allocated through the Towns, Levelling Up and Future High Streets programmes – more flexibly.

    And all local authorities that have Towns, Levelling Up and Future High Streets funding will also have more flexibility over their projects – I can confirm that they will be free to make output, outcome and funding changes up to a threshold of 30% without needing to seek any departmental approval.

    We will also change how government provides local growth funding to local authorities, and we will increasingly move towards the use of allocation rather than competition.

    I do believe that an element of competition in the allocation of funds can help encourage innovation, but you can have too much of a good thing.

    From next year, all departments must consider whether they can use existing funds to deliver new money or can use an allocation methodology to distribute it rather than launching another new competition. This must be done before any new fund is launched.

    And where we can improve existing fund allocation we will. So we will take a new approach to the next round of the Levelling Up Fund. We have heard your concerns and will announce further details shortly.

    Listening, learning, reforming, improving – governing is a journey…

    All of us, whatever our political backgrounds or traditions, go on that journey, travelling hopefully, because we want to improve the lives of others.

    One of the great privileges of working in the job I have is seeing how much you all do for the greater good in the jobs you do.

    Strengthening your hand is my mission –

    Working with you is my duty –

    And delivering for everyone is our goal.

    Thank you.

  • Wendy Chamberlain – 2023 Speech on the Privileges Committee Special Report

    Wendy Chamberlain – 2023 Speech on the Privileges Committee Special Report

    The speech made by Wendy Chamberlain, the Liberal Democrat MP for North East Fife, in the House of Commons on 10 July 2023.

    The initial Privileges Committee investigation into the former Prime Minister, the then Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip, has set a clear and fundamental precedent. If a Prime Minister deliberately misleads this House and, by extension, the public, there will be consequences. I put on record my thanks to the hon. and right hon. Members who served on the Privileges Committee. Considering the weighty matter of whether a former Prime Minister misled the House was clearly a significant task, and it is regrettable that, as the report outlines, the actions of some hon. and right hon. Members made the task harder for Members serving on the Committee. As we have heard, that was not without personal consequences for those Members.

    As the Leader of the House pointed out in her opening remarks, there are ways and means of raising issues of privilege. We should remember that the investigation had its genesis in a motion that was passed in this House without Division; not a single Member named in the report voted against the motion. Not only is the Committee cross party, but it has a Conservative majority. It is worth pointing out that there is no Liberal Democrat on the Committee, but I accept as an individual MP that the current process involves a cross-party group of MPs, and they are trusted by this House to investigate with impartiality and to make their findings available for consideration by the House. Those recommendations are then to be approved or rejected by this House. Had Boris Johnson been suspended from Parliament for more than 10 days and chosen to remain an MP, it would have been up to the people of Uxbridge to determine whether they wanted to re-elect him as their MP. Members from all parts of the House must make it clear that we will not tolerate attempts to undermine or attack the vitally important work of this Committee.

    We were promised integrity, accountability and professionalism at all levels of government, and I have to note, like the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), the current Prime Minister’s steadfast refusal to declare where he stands on this issue, let alone to engage with the substantive content of this report and the previous one. That is an abdication of his duty not only as Prime Minister but as an individual MP. It is unfortunate.

    The hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle) said she was pleased that the report was not amended, but there is a sign of weakness from the Government, where they have said “no, thank you” to the offer in the Privileges Committee’s report. It stated:

    “It will be for the House to consider what further action, if any, to take in respect of Members of the House referred to in this special report.”

    I would go as far as to suggest that had the Government taken the opportunity to make some process clear following today’s report, they might have seen off some of the accusations of lack of due process that we have heard today from Members named in the report and those supporting them. Today should have served as an opportunity to set another precedent and to make it clear that there are consequences for those who seek to obstruct the important work of a cross-party, independent Committee. It is a shame that the Government have not done so. That is why I tabled my amendment.

    I accept that my amendment has not been selected, but the clear route forward would have been for the Committee to consider whether contempt had been committed and to return a verdict and, if necessary, a sanction. As the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) said, that could have given her an opportunity to make her case in relation to what has been reported. The same process was used for the Committee’s report into the former Prime Minister, Mr Johnson. I also point out that today’s debate does not shut the window on that opportunity. The Government could bring forward such a motion if they wished at any future point; they could bring it forward tomorrow, and I hope they do so.

    This place is still suffering from the Owen Paterson decision, because that was the point where the convention of this House to accept Privileges Committee and Standards Committee reports on the nod was broken by the Government. Now is the time for a reset.

  • Priti Patel – 2023 Speech on the Privileges Committee Special Report

    Priti Patel – 2023 Speech on the Privileges Committee Special Report

    The speech made by Priti Patel, the Conservative MP for Witham, in the House of Commons on 10 July 2023.

    I have found the debate thus far more than interesting for a number of reasons. A great deal has been said and commented upon in terms of parliamentary procedure and respect for one another, both of which I absolutely support, but also in terms of some of the selective quotes in the report, which have been echoed today, and how they are ascribed to certain Members who have been named in the report. Some of it has been taken out of context, and I will reflect on that point. I do not think that it is healthy for this wonderful Parliament to end up making generalised assumptions and assertions about individuals based on the annex to the report. That is why I wanted to speak today.

    Clearly, I am named in the annex and referenced in paragraph 14. As someone who has had claims made about their actions in the report, and who has been named and had judgments passed on their conduct both by the Committee and so far in the debate—totally inaccurate judgments, if I may say so—I think it is right that I get, at least, a right of reply. I am incredibly respectful of process, not just because I have served in Government, but because being a parliamentarian is the greatest honour we all have, and upholding our traditions, our democracy and parliamentary standards is absolutely right. However, although I appreciate that right hon. and hon. Members may disagree with me, including the Chair of the Committee, who is entitled to do so, I feel that the assertions and claims made in this special report are wrong and cannot be substantiated by the so-called evidence that has been produced and published.

    Sir Desmond Swayne

    Did my right hon. Friend collude in any way with any of the persons listed in the report, or with anyone else, to place pressure on the Committee?

    Priti Patel

    That comes back to the evidence and the point that I was about to make. The answer is: absolutely not. I just do not think it appropriate that, unless the evidence is provided and published, there is an absence of process by the Committee. I do not know if the annex is an exhaustive list of Members of this House—the Chair of the Committee is very welcome to respond to my comments—but it seems quite selective and exclusive. That is why it is important to have this debate and discussion.

    Allan Dorans

    On 16 March 2023, during an interview on GB News, the right hon. Lady said:

    “the lack of accountability…I think there is a culture of collusion quite frankly involved here.”

    Can I have some evidence of that please?

    Priti Patel

    I will come to that particular quote, so the hon. Gentleman will hear what I have to say then.

    I come back to my point on whether the annex is conclusive. Should other individuals in the House have been included in it? On what basis were decisions made? At the outset I put it clearly on the record that it is wrong of Members to seek to place undue and improper pressure on any Members investigating matters at a Committee level. There are processes in place, and it is right that they should be respected. I believe that there is a case for looking at how the processes of this Committee can be clarified, and how the members of that Committee and the persons who are subject to inquiries are protected. From my experience of the handling of all this, I can say that to be named in a report having had no notification—no correspondence or anything of that nature—that I was being investigated for prior conduct—

    Thangam Debbonaire indicated dissent.

    Priti Patel

    The shadow Leader of the House shakes her head, but I just do not think that that is acceptable. We have heard great speeches on having respect for one another, and I agree completely. We must treat each other with civility: if we intend to name another Member in the Chamber, we let them know beforehand. That is an important part of the process.

    We have heard about lobbying and collusion. As one who has served in government, as Home Secretary, I have been involved in all sorts of quasi-judicial policy and decision making on high-profile and complex issues, day in, day out, much of which was the subject of quite active lobbying by Opposition Members. We live in a democracy, and we should be able to have these discussions. All Ministers know that orchestrated campaigns and lobbying are absolutely day-to-day things that go on; that is part of a democracy—the values and safeguards of free speech and freedom of expression. A democracy recognises the value and the importance of challenging and questioning processes and decision making. That is one reason why we are all here as elected Members of Parliament: we do this on behalf of our country and our constituents, and because we have a democratic responsibility to do it.

    In doing that, we raise uncomfortable questions all the time. That is what we do, day in, day out. To silence and cancel out the comments and voices of individuals carries great risk, and I am very worried about that. It causes me grave concern. That is why the decision on the motion must be taken carefully.

    Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)

    The right hon. Lady is making a good case that we need to treat each other with respect. Is claiming that a Committee has been involved in collusion, as she did on GB News, part of that respect?

    Priti Patel indicated dissent.

    Lloyd Russell-Moyle

    Well, it is what is written here. Does the right hon. Lady deny that she said it?

    Priti Patel

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention.

    It is important that there is due process, and it seems to me that the report does not deliver the guidance and the processes that would be helpful to the House when dealing with matters that have been considered by the Privileges Committee. That is because the report is not concerned with establishing or recommending new processes and protections, and we should not sit here pretending that it is. This report has been used by the Committee to criticise and censure individuals. The House should reflect on that in the light of my comments.

    The House will set, in my view, a dangerous precedent if it approves a report that censures and passes judgment on Members of the House without granting due process—fair due process, I should add—to the Members it makes allegations about.

    Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)

    My right hon. Friend knows that I was a member of the Committee. Along with every other member of the Committee, I was clear that there is no censure in the report. Will she clarify what she means by censure? That was certainly not what the Committee intended.

    Priti Patel

    By that, I mean cancelling out views and opinions. That is totally different—

    Dame Angela Eagle indicated dissent.

    Priti Patel

    Would the hon. Lady like to intervene? She is very welcome to. She has spoken. With respect, she also asked for civility in the Chamber and in the way in which we engage with one another. Everyone has strong opinions and, with that, it is right and respectful that we listen to each other.

    Andy Carter rose—

    Dame Angela Eagle

    Will the right hon. Lady give way?

    Priti Patel

    I will give way to my hon. Friend first and then I will come to the hon. Lady.

    Andy Carter

    I think every member of the Committee firmly believes that every Member of Parliament has the right to share their opinions in this House, but the 2019 House of Commons code for Members is very clear: Members must not lobby the Committee, or the Commissioner in a manner calculated to influence their consideration of issues related to conduct. The current Members’ code of conduct does not mention that the Privileges Committee should be included in that. This report suggests that that should be amended so that Members serving on the Privileges Committee are also afforded those rights. I do not want any Member of Parliament to be prevented from saying what they believe once a report is published, but not during the process of producing a report.

    Priti Patel

    With respect, I have heard what my hon. Friend has had to say, but if he had listened to what I have had to say, he would know that I am worried that this will set a dangerous precedent.

    Dame Angela Eagle

    I was going to make a very similar point to the one that the hon. Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter) has just made. Does the right hon. Member agree that this is not about criticising a report once it is published? It is about not trying to nobble it while it is going on.

    Priti Patel

    With all respect to the hon. Lady, in her remarks today, she used a range of phrases, which she scatter-gunned around the Chamber, in an accusatory way about what individuals have said or may not have said. She cannot apply that to all of us, so I think she should have been careful in some of the phrases that she used.

    If I may, I will comment further about my concerns with the process. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Lia Nici) touched on an important point, about which Mr Speaker is also very clear—he is a strong proponent of the concept that important matters should come to the House first, before they are published in the media. As she pointed out regarding the publication of Committee reports, paragraphs 15.10 and 38.56 of “Erskine May” refer to the premature publication and disclosure of Committee proceedings as being in contempt. Cakeism is a phrase that has already been used this afternoon by my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg). We cannot have it both ways.

    I recognise the Committee’s frustrations that the report was leaked, and I know that comments have been made when the Government did not come to the House before announcing things in the media. However, we have to be concerned that details contained in the special report were published by a particular newspaper at 7.20 pm on Wednesday 28 June, some 13 hours and 40 minutes before the special report was published, and before people named in its annex were informed.

    Frankly, given how this has all been conducted—individuals were not contacted in advance and there was no right of reply—is the House not concerned that that newspaper, The Guardian, knew of the report’s contents before the rest of us did? Surely that should be a matter for investigation as well. If the Committee is so concerned with cases of contempt of the House, investigating how the report or its contents were leaked to The Guardian before it was published is something else that should feature in due process.

    Would any members of the Committee or its Chair like to explain why that newspaper knew in advance, before the rest of us? What action is going to be taken? We have already heard talk about restoring parliamentary democracy and integrity to Parliament. Again, that would give confidence to Members that due process was being followed, but it would also give confidence to the public, who also expect standards across the board to be upheld.

    We have a report from the Committee that names Members and peers, but it did not inform us in advance. We have discussed already the House’s rules on behaviour and courtesies. I personally think that Members should be given notice; that is respectful. During my time serving on the Front Bench, or on the Back Benches, as I am now, I hope that I have never offended a Member of this House by being so discourteous as to name them without informing them in advance. That is a good standard that we should all live up to.

    Not only has there been a lack of courtesy shown to Members named in the report, but the absence of due process concerns me a lot. Until this was published, I and colleagues had no idea that we were being investigated, or that there were references to us as individuals in the annex in relation to the inquiry into Mr Johnson.

    Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)

    Will the right hon. Lady give way?

    Priti Patel

    I did not see the Member appear at the start, but I will give way.

    Mr Perkins

    I have been here for all of the right hon. Lady’s speech and, over the 14 minutes of it,, I have been desperately hoping she was going to get to the point she really wants to raise. She does not disagree that she said the things that are in the report, but she thinks it is discourteous that she was not told in advance. She thinks other people may have said things that were missed out of the report. What is actually the main point of what, over the last 14 minutes, she has been saying?

    Priti Patel

    If the hon. Gentleman had the courtesy of listening, the point is actually due process. As he would know, if he had listened to my opening remarks, I also said that I was sure not everyone here would agree with what I was about to say, but affording the courtesy of debate in this House was exactly why we were here. If he does not want to hear what I am saying, he might actually want to leave the Chamber, rather than carrying on in this way. It is important in the debate to have a right of reply. Again, I appreciate that he and other Members will disagree with this, but I think it is right that the basics should be put on the public record. The country is watching. Well, some of the country is watching, if they are not watching Wimbledon right now, but this is an insight into how we engage in our business, and what right of reply Members do or do not have. Quite frankly, this will affect all Members; it is not just about supporting those today, because there will be others in the future and that is important.

    Some of the language that has been used is important as well. I personally think that it simply cannot be right or fair for a Committee to make claims or assertions without giving notice in advance, or the chance to at least respond to allegations. I am going to go as far as to say, if I may, that I found some of this deeply secretive and I just do not think that Select Committees operate in this way; they really do not. I have had the great privilege of serving on a number of Select Committees and I think the way in which we conduct ourselves is very important.

    I notice that the Leader of the House said that this is deeply unusual. It is all deeply unusual, and not just because of a lack of process. My office, supported by the House of Commons Library, undertook some research to see if there was any precedent for MPs being named, and effectively or potentially sanctioned or censured in a report by a Committee. [Interruption.] No, I am giving an example. I hear what the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle) says, but I am just giving an example—colleagues might learn something from this, too. Even the Library said that it could not think of any Committee on Standards, Privileges Committee, or former Committees on Standards recommending anything of this nature without the opportunity for those named to make their case. Today is a chance at least to give that a bit of an airing and to make the case as well.

    I will conclude my remarks. Again, in the light of what I have said thus far, there are so many issues here that I think will have wide implications for Parliament, if I may say so, and for Members of Parliament. I have touched on process. The evidence issue—the lack of evidence that the Committee has presented—has been touched on as well. Paragraph 14 makes serious allegations that I and other Members were part of a co-ordinated campaign of interfering with the work of the Privileges Committee, so one would expect those claims to be backed up with some serious volumes of evidence, but they are not. While the Committee may obviously disagree with Members, the fact that people can now freely express views about the inquiry is obviously part of living in a healthy democracy, with free speech and freedom of expression. However, the Committee has not explained in this report how the expression of an opinion or a view that some people shared could in itself undermine the work of the Committee or could be co-ordinated.

    The hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Allan Dorans), a member of the Committee, touched on my remarks quoted in the annex. Those remarks came from an interview on Budget day that covered a range of issues: the economy, taxation, the Budget, migration—lively issues that I think all Members in the House like to discuss. We also discussed Mr Johnson, and the activities of a Mrs Sue Gray and the Leader of the Opposition. It is not at all clear from the Committee’s report why it believes that a reference, in a lengthy interview covering multiple issues, to questions over transparency and accountability constitutes interference in its work, could be disturbing, or could be part of a co-ordinated campaign. Those are areas on which we should get clarity.

    So far, the suggestions have been one-way; we have been told that we should go to the Committee if there are issues, but the Committee could have raised any issues with us. The Committee could have done that if it had any concern about comments I made. I am not someone who hides behind the sofa in Parliament; many colleagues will recognise that. I would welcome lively engagement, as I am sure other Members referenced in the annex would have done. I certainly would have welcomed the Committee contacting and engaging with me in good time. That is quite important. Frankly, I think the public will still reach their own conclusions about all this.

    I appreciate that I have detained the House for a lengthy period—I thank hon. Members for listening—but given the tone of the accusations made, the contents of the annex, and the lack of a prior opportunity to respond, it is important that we have this discussion and that colleagues listen. I hope that the Committee will reflect on comments made about process. I really do not think that there is evidence to substantiate the claims that have been made and, if the motion is agreed to, there will be the ongoing matter for the House of what that means for MPs.

    I might be boring for Britain right now, but I believe in transparency, accountability and due process, particularly having sat on the Front Bench; today we have also heard about holding Ministers to account. I believe in all that. Woe betide the Minister who misleads Parliament. Sometimes there is not enough scrutiny of the details of what Ministers say, and not enough challenges. That is why it is important that we have this debate about accountability, transparency, due process, and sometimes correcting the record. I believe, as do other hon. and right hon. Members, in transparency, freedom of speech and Members facing fair and due process when allegations are made about their actions. That should be dealt with properly. I urge Members to think about the impact that the report will have on our parliamentary democracy and our freedoms. I fundamentally believe that, without freedom of speech, there can be no democracy; it is something that we have to preserve, stand up for and respect in this House.

  • Angela Eagle – 2023 Speech on the Privileges Committee Special Report

    Angela Eagle – 2023 Speech on the Privileges Committee Special Report

    The speech made by Angela Eagle, the Labour MP for Wallasey, in the House of Commons on 10 July 2023.

    Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker—Madam Deputy Speaker, sorry. I think I got my pronouns mixed up. I rise to support the motion before us today. I am glad that there are no amendments to it, because it is the motion that the Privileges Committee asked to be put before the House in its special report. It is very important that

    “this House notes with approval the Special Report”.

    For us to do that will give us the best chance as a democratic House to put what has been an unprecedented period behind us. It is not usual, as we all know, for a Prime Minister to agree that a Privileges Committee report into what he said on the Floor of this House be sent to the Privileges Committee, as happened in April 2022, with the unanimous support of the House. It is not usual for a Privileges Committee report to involve such high stakes as the one that the members of the Privileges Committee—many of them are sitting here listening to this debate—had to cope with. We have never in my experience—I am not sure that it is even in the history books—had a Privileges Committee of any Parliament put in quite that position. It is therefore to the credit of this House—

    Craig Mackinlay

    Just while we are discussing semantics —I am referring to the interaction that we had on what “impugn” might mean—the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) mentioned the words, “with approval”. My interpretation of “with approval” is that every word in this motion is absolute and correct. I have to say that, having heard the evidence, on the first occasion that my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mark Jenkinson) has been able to speak as part of this evidence, he raised doubts about what has been published as supposedly coming from him. Am I getting this wrong? My interpretation of approval is that it is all absolutely correct. If that is the case, I am afraid that I have doubts on that front.

    Dame Angela Eagle

    I am sure the hon. Gentleman will do what he thinks is right—I think we can all guess what that will be—when we vote. I note that the way in which this House has traditionally worked is that there are Standing Orders and there is Erskine May, but there are also unwritten assurances about how this House should behave when these issues are before it. Certainly, the Leader of the House was correct to ask, rather philosophically, at the beginning of this debate what had changed to cause the emergence of behaviour that I would not have expected to see when I first came into this House 31 years ago. I would not have expected to see people’s integrity being impugned in quite the way that it has been while they were doing duties that this House had unanimously asked them to do. But, of course, social media did not exist when I first came into this House, and neither did GB News. Before things get any more heated, we need to stop and think about the consequences of allowing the behaviour that we have seen in the past few months, as the Privileges Committee has done its report, to continue.

    It is to the credit of this House that the Privileges Committee’s original report—its fifth report—was debated and carried by such a majority. That puts a line in the sand. It enables us to begin to rebuild the reputation of this House and to use the Privileges Committee to ensure that this House can police itself on the Floor in the Chamber and bring Ministers to account by insisting that they tell the truth.

    The special report, again as the Leader of the House pointed out, is unprecedented, because people have never behaved this way in the past when a Privileges Committee was attempting to carry out the duty that was given to it by a motion that was passed unanimously by the House. It is important, given that similar rules apply to the Committee on Standards, that, in what I hope will be the rare occasions in the future when the Privileges Committee may have to meet to do its job and be convened, it will be allowed to do so.

    As I said to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), if we cannot restore the respect that the Privileges Committee must have to do its job in future, we will have to create an outside body to do it. That would be a very profound constitutional change, with far greater implications for the freedom of people to speak in this House than simply abiding by decency, courtesy and proper rules when the Privileges Committee is meeting.

    Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)

    Why on earth would outside individuals want to serve on such a body, if they are to be subjected to the kinds of public abuse that we have seen in this case?

    Dame Angela Eagle

    That is the problem, and I think the special report has done us a service by bringing it to the attention of this House. It is something we have to think about as we consider the motion.

    We have been living through febrile times. We have seen two Members of this House assassinated in the past few years while doing their jobs. There is a lot of anger and controversy out there, wound up and heated up by the way social media works. I think everybody in this House, especially those who have been subjected to some of those outside pressures—there will be many Members of this House who have—needs to think very carefully about how they conduct themselves and the kinds of words they use.

    If there is no respect in this House for the Privileges Committee and the things that we try to do to maintain good behaviour and decency in this House, there will be even less respect outside, and that will damage our ability to ensure that our democracy works properly, because without truth there is no democracy. Although this looks like quite a small report, it is a very significant one, and it is important that Members on all sides of the House, whatever faction they are in, consider seriously the implications of not voting for the motion tonight.

    I have to say that, now that a little of the heat has gone out of the situation, I would have liked to see the Members mentioned in the report have the good grace to stand up and apologise to the House for some of the language they have used, such as kangaroo courts, marsupials and comments about “calibre, malice and prejudice”. The House voted for the members of the Committee to be tasked with a very difficult job. Nobody in their right mind would want to find themselves in that position. It is not a nice way to spend parliamentary time—much less attending 30 meetings, under enormous stress and with the outside social media pressures coming in at them from all angles.

    As someone who stood against the leader of my party, I can tell hon. Members that I have had some experience of how that works out. I have also had experience of how what one does in here can translate out there into threatening behaviour and difficulties—[Hon. Members: “We all have!”] Yes, and I said that earlier in my speech, if Conservative Members were listening.

    Therefore, no matter how high the stakes, it is extremely important that when Members comment, they do so within the Standing Orders and the rules of this House, and that they save comments about witch-hunts, kangaroo courts, malice and the rest of it for when the Committee has reported. One unique thing about this House is that while a report is being compiled and evidence is being collected, that Committee cannot respond to what is being put to it in a 24-hour news cycle. It must wait and let its report do the talking.

    I suspect that those Members who tried to blacken the names of those compiling the report, and unleash that kind of process against them, knew exactly what they were doing and knew exactly the pressure they were trying to bring to bear. It is absolutely shameful that some Members named in the report indulged in that kind of behaviour, including two ex-Cabinet Ministers, members of the Privy Council and an ex-Leader of the House—the right hon. Member for North East Somerset —who knows better, and who knows that he knows better than to behave in that way.

    When I came to this House, I never thought that I would see such behaviour. It is to the great detriment of Conservative Members that we have seen such behaviour. I ask them, one last time, to have the grace to get up during the debate and apologise to the House for the way in which they behaved prior to the Privileges Committee publishing its report, and give us an assurance that they will not do it again.

  • Harriet Harman – 2023 Speech on the Privileges Committee Special Report

    Harriet Harman – 2023 Speech on the Privileges Committee Special Report

    The speech made by Harriet Harman, the Labour MP for Camberwell and Peckham, in the House of Commons on 10 July 2023.

    I thank the Leader of the House for tabling the motion, which arises out of the special report of the Privileges Committee.

    When it approved with an emphatic majority the report of our inquiry into Boris Johnson, the House made it clear beyond doubt that honesty in our Parliament matters, that Ministers are required to be truthful and that there will be consequences for any Minister who is not. The House was endorsing the outcome of the Committee that it had mandated to undertake that inquiry.

    The present motion asks the House to give its approval to our special report, because we want to make sure, if the House ever again mandates the Privileges Committee to undertake an inquiry into a Member, that there will be Members who are willing to serve on the Committee, and that the Committee and its processes are protected while an inquiry is under way so that the Committee is able to undertake its work in the way that the House wants. The motion makes it clear that when a Privileges Committee inquiry is ongoing, Members should not lobby, intimidate or attack the integrity of the Committee. They should not try to influence the outcome of the inquiry or undermine the standing of the Committee, because that undermines the proceedings of the House.

    No Member needs to feel disempowered by this. On the contrary, Members own the entire process. Any Member can object to a Member being appointed to the Privileges Committee. Any Member can speak and vote against any reference to the Privileges Committee or the terms of any reference. Any Member can give evidence to the Committee. Any Member can debate and vote on the report of any inquiry.

    This is not a process imposed on the House by the Privileges Committee. The opposite is the case: it is the House that imposes this responsibility on the Privileges Committee. It is the House that chooses the members of the Committee; it is the House that decides on an inquiry and its terms of reference; and it is the House, by its Standing Orders and precedents, that lays down the processes that will apply.

    Our special report makes it clear that it is not acceptable for Members, fearing an outcome that they do not want, to level criticisms at the Committee so that in the event that the conclusion is the one that they do not want, they will have undermined the inquiry’s outcome by undermining confidence in the Committee.

    Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)

    As the right hon. and learned Lady knows from our exchange of letters in recent days, I was named in the annex to the report for a tweet that did not refer to the Committee. The context of the Twitter thread is clear. She talks about hon. Members being able to give evidence to the Committee, but we had no prior notification that we might be named. I was alerted to my presence in the report by the press. I just wonder how she considers that Members like me might be able to seek redress in such circumstances.

    Ms Harman

    The hon. Gentleman named himself on Twitter by calling the Committee a “witch hunt”, and that was in the public domain. The thread ahead of his tweet was quite clear, so we simply put it in our report. We took what was in the public domain and put it in our report.

    Our special report makes it clear that it is not acceptable for a Member of this House who does not want a particular outcome to seek, by pressure or lobbying, to influence the Committee’s decision.

    Mark Jenkinson

    On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I fear that the right hon. and learned Lady may have just inadvertently misled the House by suggesting that I called the Committee a “witch hunt”. There was no reference to the Committee, and the four-part Twitter thread is quite clear that it was not in relation to the Committee or its investigations. I wonder how I might seek redress on this matter.

    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point of order. I do not know whether he was here at the beginning but, if he was and if he wishes to speak later, he can catch my eye. He has already made his point, and I think the right hon. and learned Member is addressing that point.

    Ms Harman

    Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. If the hon. Member for Workington (Mark Jenkinson) is saying that he does not believe the Privileges Committee’s inquiry into Boris Johnson was a witch hunt, I warmly welcome the fact that he has said so. I thank him for putting it on the record that he does not believe our inquiry was a witch hunt.

    Michael Fabricant

    Does the right hon. and learned Lady not think it would have been courteous of the Committee to warn those listed in the annex that they were going to be listed? If a mistake had been made, it would have given those people an opportunity to make their point before the Committee’s report was published. Would that not have been fairer?

    Ms Harman

    The points and issues that we included in the annex to our report were put in the public domain on Twitter. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman himself put into the public domain that, in relation to the Committee, there was a question of “malice and prejudice”. He felt it was important to put that on to the public record.

    Michael Fabricant

    Will the right hon. and learned Lady give way?

    Ms Harman

    I think the hon. Gentleman will be making a speech.

    Michael Fabricant

    On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is totally—

    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)

    Order. I have not called the hon. Gentleman to make a point of order. If the right hon. and learned Member does not want to give way, which is her right, it is detrimental to the debate if Members who cannot get their own way then make a point of order.

    Michael Fabricant

    But I am making a point of order.

    Madam Deputy Speaker

    Make your point of order.

    Michael Fabricant

    My point of order is that it is also discourteous to partly quote something, actually. And what it clearly—

    Madam Deputy Speaker

    Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat. That is not a point of order. He is addressing it directly to the right hon. and learned Lady, not to me. No more of that, thank you.

    Ms Harman

    Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. If the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) wants to say that he does not believe the Committee was motivated by malice and prejudice, we would warmly welcome that correction.

    Our special report makes it clear that it is not acceptable for a Member of this House who does not want a particular outcome to seek, by pressure or lobbying, to influence the Committee’s decision. The House, by supporting this motion tonight, will be making it clear that, in such an inquiry, the Committee’s responsibility is to gather the evidence, and that it is the evidence that must prevail. That is the only basis on which a decision should be made. Members must not try to wreck the process by pressing Committee members to resign.

    If members of the Committee are not prepared to undertake such inquiries, the House would have no protection from those who mislead it. I have nothing but admiration for my colleagues on the Privileges Committee, particularly the Conservative Members. Despite the pressure they were subjected to, they were unflinching. They came to each of our more than 30 meetings and persisted to the conclusion of the inquiry with a complete and total focus, which was a credit to the House. They gathered the evidence, analysed it and based their decision on it, exactly in the way that the House requires them to. That was then put to the House.

    By supporting this motion tonight, the House will be making it clear that when it appoints members to the Committee, those members will have the support of the House to carry out their work. They are doing a worthy thing by serving on the Privileges Committee.

    Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)

    I appreciate what a difficult job the Committee has—I fully respect that—and, of course, the original Chair did recuse himself from the inquiry. When the original report was put before the House, the right hon. and learned Lady stated that she had received assurances from the Government that she would remain in that position, but she did not elaborate on that at the time. Will she therefore use today as an opportunity to inform the House as to what assurances she had been given and by whom?

    Ms Harman

    Is the hon. Gentleman, in what he has said, withdrawing what he said on Twitter, which was that the Committee was a

    “witch-hunt which would put a banana republic to shame”?

    That is what he actually said.

    Committee members are entitled to the support of the House, because it is the House that has asked them to undertake this work.

    Dame Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)

    As a former Leader of the House, and having both spoken for and voted for the report by the Privileges Committee, which the House did commission, I am afraid that I do not accept the premise that the right hon. and learned Lady, for whom I have a great deal of time and respect, is putting forward today, which is that the Committee, as a result of being asked by the House to look into the behaviour by one of its Members, should therefore be absolutely immune from any form of free speech whatsoever. I cannot agree with her on that basis and will not be supporting the Committee’s report today.

    Ms Harman

    Perhaps I may reiterate that we are not saying that the Committee is immune. We are saying that it is evident that any Member of the House can challenge the appointment to the Committee of any member of the Committee, which frequently happens; that any Member of the House can challenge a reference to the Privileges Committee, and that, too, does happen; and that Members can challenge the terms of reference to the Committee and raise concerns about the procedure. But what Members cannot do is say that something is a witch hunt and a kangaroo court, and that there is collusion; impugn the integrity of the individual members of the Committee; and also undermine the standing of the Committee, because that is undermining the proceedings of the House. If hon. Members are not sure what “impugn” means, they can look at “Erskine May”, which goes into it in great detail—

    Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)

    I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Lady is being continually interrupted, but may I ask her for some clarity on the point she is making? She has mentioned impugning the integrity of members of the Committee in part of the motion, with which I have considerable sympathy. I just want to understand this point. I do not suggest that this has happened here or at any time in the past, but she will recognise that it is conceivable that it would be right to impugn the integrity of a member of the Committee, or of more than one of its members, if there were evidence to do so. May I just be clear that what this motion should be taken to mean is that someone should not impugn the integrity of members of the Committee while an inquiry is ongoing? If there is evidence to do so later, there are mechanisms by which we can do so. We should be clear, should we not, that what this motion means is that while an inquiry is ongoing, it is wrong to impugn the integrity of any member of the Committee?

    Ms Harman

    That is absolutely right, and that is so that the Committee can do its business properly, as mandated by the House, as is the case with the Standards Committee. We cannot have a situation where Members are reluctant to serve on the Committee because, as soon as they undertake an inquiry, it is open season on them. We cannot have a situation where the outcome is based on pressure and lobbying, rather than the gathering and consideration of the evidence.

    The motion does not create any new categories of contempt, nor does it extend what can be regarded as contempt. It simply makes it explicit that the focused, time-limited protection that the House has already made explicit for standards cases is the same for privilege cases.

    Dame Angela Eagle

    Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that if the motion were not to go through, and it was to be open season on all future members of the Privileges Committee during inquiries, the only recourse for this House to ensure that it was not lied to in future would be to have an outside system to assess that, which would be constitutionally novel and—I think—highly dangerous?

    Ms Harman

    My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. If this work of the Privileges Committee is to be done in-house by Members of this House, this House must support them in that work. If the House is not prepared to do that, and it is open season on Members who are put forward for the Committee, we would very quickly find ourselves with an independent, outside process. Most Members of the House want us to keep the process in-house, but to do that we must all respect it.

    Lia Nici

    The right hon. and learned Lady talks about collusion and lobbying. Can she explain how it was that Guardian reporters were briefed before Privileges Committee reports were published for us in this place, and, if she knows who had sight of those reports, who was doing the collusion with those journalists?

    Ms Harman

    Again, this is very unfortunate. I say to the hon. Lady that hon. Members are given a task to do on behalf of the House. They do it to the best of their ability, with integrity, and they should be supported in doing that. Although the hon. Lady was very much against the outcome, which came about on the basis of the evidence, it is not acceptable then to criticise the process, except through the channels and in the ways that I have set out.

    Our special report draws upon “Erskine May”. I invite hon. and right hon. Members to read paragraphs 15.14 and 15.16 of “Erskine May”, which make it crystal clear that it is not acceptable for a Member of this House to seek, by lobbying or arousing public hostility, to influence the decision of members of the Committee, or to undermine the Committee’s credibility and authority. All this is about protecting the House from being misled, by ensuring that there is a strong and fair Committee that will, on behalf of the House, undertake an inquiry, and that there are Members prepared to serve on the Committee and able to do that work without interference.

    Mr Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Ind)

    We heard his name mentioned earlier, in respect of the previous report, but will the right hon. and learned Lady confirm that Sir Ernest Ryder was still in place for the preparation of this special report, that he agreed with the findings of the Committee, and that he found that there was nothing improper about the work of the Committee in this report?

    Ms Harman

    Yes, Sir Ernest Ryder, who provided us with advice for the fifth report, which was the substantive report into Boris Johnson, also provided us with advice for this special report, for which we are grateful. We also had expert advice from the Clerks, including at the most senior level, so that we could be absolutely certain that we were complying with all the rules and processes laid down by the House.

    The objective here is not to protect members of the Privileges Committee. It is even more important and fundamental than that. The objective is to protect this House and thereby to protect our democracy, so I commend this motion to the House.

    Sir Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)

    The motion before the House is proportionate: it seeks only to provide the Privileges Committee, once it is established and sitting, with the same protections enjoyed by the Standards Committee. That is all it does. All colleagues respect the Standards Committee when it is sitting. I hope that we can extend that respect to the Privileges Committee and that the motion is carried.

    I was struck by what the Leader of the House said in her speech. I wrote three or four speeches for this afternoon’s debate—some reflective, some angry and some defensive—but I have put them all aside.

    You will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), the former Prime Minister, was a great friend of mine—one of my greatest friends in politics. I fought tooth and nail, with every fibre in my body, to keep her in No. 10. I turned up whenever I was needed, to do whatever needed to be done, but we lost—that battle was lost.

    I see my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady), the chair of the 1922 committee, in the Chamber. Very quickly, the late Dame Cheryl Gillan and I were thrust into being acting chairs of the 1922 committee, and we oversaw the contest for the new leader of the party. The former Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) was successful; I was one of five people, including my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West, present when, de facto, he became leader of our party and, de facto, the following day, Prime Minister. That was 24 July 2019.

    That day, or shortly afterwards, I was in the Tea Room having supper with my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead, the former Prime Minister, when in bounced the then Secretary of State for Transport, my constituency neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps). He has been my political neighbour for 18 and a half years. Sometimes we are the best of friends; sometimes we are the best of enemies. When we fall out, we normally find an accommodation that allows us to become friends again.

    You may recall, Madam Deputy Speaker, that in 2018, my right hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield was the first to call for the then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead, to stand down. So when he bounced into the Tea Room, the day she ceased to be Prime Minister, or a few days later, and sat down with his supper, I thought, “Oh my word. This is going to be pretty tasty”—not the supper, the conversation. I thought there would be fireworks, because my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead, unencumbered by the office of Prime Minister, could really have a go at my right hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield, my next door neighbour in Hertfordshire. The former Prime Minister fixed him with a steely eye and said, “Now, Mr Shapps, I have a small station in my constituency that needs some investment. What are you going to do for me?”

    In this place, we are judged not by how we handle our successes, but by how we cope with our disappointments. In that Tea Room exchange, I learned so much about character, courage, humility and dignity. To return to the motion, I hope that it is passed tonight. There is a lot of upset and grievance on the Government side of the House, but eventually we have to cast that to one side and move forward.