UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Lucy Frazer – 2023 Speech at the Onward Think Tank

    Lucy Frazer – 2023 Speech at the Onward Think Tank

    The speech made by Lucy Frazer, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, on 19 July 2023.

    Thank you Onward for hosting today’s event

    It’s an event dedicated to young people.

    I’d like to start by thanking those organisations in the room that spend their time supporting young people.

    Groups like The National Youth Agency and UK Youth, working with colleagues right across the sector to support the youth workforce.

    The National Citizen Service Trust, our DCMS Youth ALB.

    The Back Youth Alliance putting young people’s voices at the heart of their vision.

    The Youth Endowment Fund, the Youth Futures Foundation and the George Williams College, helping shape an evidence-based approach to working with young people.

    What I want to focus on today is why it is so important that we invest in maximising the potential of young people across the country.

    And I wanted to start with a story.

    It’s a story about maximising that potential.

    A story about a remarkable woman.

    Called Yetta Frazer.

    Who was my grandmother.

    She had the most enormous amount of self belief, determination and focus.

    And became the first female barrister in Leicester.

    She would remind me, every time I saw her of a quote from Robert Browning.

    “A man’s reach should exceed his grasp or what’s a heaven for”.

    This was translated as.

    Life is full of opportunities.

    Think big,

    Be ambitious,

    Believe in yourself.

    I was lucky to have her.

    Because she instilled those values in me.

    They are essential core conservative values.

    Everybody has potential.

    Everybody can fulfil it.

    They may need a step on the way. And if they need it, or want it, we will give it to them.

    They may not, and if they don’t, and can do it on their own, we won’t stand in the way of. success or tell them what they should be doing or how they should be doing it.

    We will support all young people to maximise their potential.

    And that’s what I want to talk to you about.

    The potential of everyone across our country.

    And how we help them fulfil it.

    And I want to start with what we have already done.

    Because we have invested heavily in supporting young people across government.

    And we have done it in a conservative way.

    That is, thoughtful consideration of how and where money ought to be spent.

    Based on evidence about what makes the most difference.

    So there is DfE funding for education. The highest on record.

    Including free school meals and the holiday activity and food programme.

    Home Office funding for the youth endowment fund on programmes which prevent children being exploited and getting involved in serious violence.

    MoJ funding on youth justice, to support every council to catch and prevent youth offending earlier than ever.

    DWP funding for the kickstart scheme which provided a vital leg up in the world of work for young people who needed it,

    As well as their boosted Youth Hubs and Youth Employability coaches who help address barriers to employment.

    DHSC help, including mental health support teams in schools and increasing access to community health services.

    DLUHC funding local authorities to level up opportunities and preventing significant risks for young people such as youth homelessness.

    And here in DCMS, we have been leading from the front, with the National Youth Guarantee.

    A landmark programme backed by over half a billion in funding, to broaden the horizons of young people right across the country.

    And we are already seeing results.

    Over £100 million of the Youth Investment Fund has gone out of the door, giving thousands more young people access to opportunities in their community.

    Supporting young people is not the job of one department.

    It is the job of every government department.

    And today I want to focus on what we are doing in DCMS and what more we can do.

    Because I want to ensure that every young person has more opportunities than their parents.

    And I’m going to explain it in three short ways, which I think will be familiar to all of you.

    Everywhere in the country people should have

    Someone to talk to,

    Something to do,

    Somewhere to go.

    Turning first to “someone to talk to”.

    As I said, I was lucky.

    I had supportive parents and a trailblazing role model of a grandmother.

    And I know millions of people across the country are just as lucky as me.

    Others find supportive individuals on their journey.

    Some people find teachers.

    My grandfather was a headmaster and I remember a few years after I had been elected as an MP, I received an email out of the blue from one of his former pupils,

    This former pupil, now an adult, wrote to me and said:

    “Your grandfather was one of the most inspirational people in my entire life”.

    ” Although he was a scientist, he recognised in me a youthful artist and did everything he could to set me on the path and with the aims that have shaped my career.

    ” He had a huge part in shaping who I have become.

    ” My career has been as a costume designer in film and theatre.

    ” Dr Hyman Frazer joins Harold Pinter, Ridley Scott, and Franco Zeffirelli in having had a major influence in my development as an artist and a person.

    ” But in fact your grandfather was the first of those influencers”

    So some young people find some support themselves outside of the family.

    But some young people have no-one.

    And that’s why we need mentors and role models.

    They could be youth workers,

    Guide leaders, sports team coaches, music teachers.

    They could be trusted adults found in youth centres.

    I know some of you are directly training and providing mentors.

    At DCMS, we too are already providing some funding individually – through our bursaries for youth workers, with our Million Hours Fund.

    Through NCS we are supporting the One Million Mentors scheme and working with the Youth Endowment Fund, providing mentors to help young people in Leicester at risk of exclusion to stay in school.

    I want every young person to have a rock of some kind, someone they can turn to, if they don’t already have that.

    And we will set out in due course how we can grow the work we are doing to achieve that.

    Second, turning to “Something to do.”

    Young people need something to belong to.

    Something constructive on which to spend their time and feel part of.

    That is why we have delivered improvements to over 3,300 grassroots football facilities up and down the UK, and a third of our target of 3,000 renovated tennis courts.

    Earlier this month, we announced school holiday activities in antisocial behaviour hotspot areas, with more to come.

    We’ve also announced a number of initiatives to support young people on their career paths, like our Discover Creative Careers programme.

    Through the National Youth Guarantee, we have created multiple opportunities for young people to join scouts, guides, and take part in the Duke of Edinburgh award scheme.

    Thousands of young people have signed up to the new NCS programme which provides more activities which give young people real skills, teach them resilience and build their confidence.

    We will continue to build on the National Youth Guarantee and explore other opportunities for young people, with more ways to build their confidence, resilience, employment and life skills.

    And finally “somewhere to go”.

    We have already announced the first 43 organisations across the country to receive Youth Investment Fund grants,

    Which we will be continuing to roll out to level up areas and increase the number of young people accessing those spaces.

    We also want to look further at which places are ones we can develop to support young people which may include looking at the use of our schools and community buildings more broadly.

    Our policies are and will be evidence-based.

    As everyone in this room, who works so hard in such an important sector, knows these types of support change lives.

    Put those on the wrong path, onto the right one.

    And for others unlock opportunities to enrich the lives of every young person.

    Turning to the evidence, I have no doubt that you all know. that mentoring can have a significant impact on the development, of social emotional skills, reduces the risk of entering into the justice system and adds months of academic progress.

    In fact, the Youth Endowment Foundation estimates that mentoring can reduce youth violence by 21%.

    And the value of sport, uniform groups and youth employment is more than just doing the activity.

    It is the sense of belonging and the new social network that is gained.

    The evidence shows that these pro-social connections and feelings of belonging are key to social mobility.

    Robert Putnam summarises the evidence like this:

    ‘The influence of peers …has been shown on teens’ academic achievement, educational aspirations, college going, misbehaviour, drug use, truancy, and depression … High standards and aspirations tend to be contagious – as do low standards and aspirations.’

    Raj Chetty’s landmark study on social mobility found that social connection with those of different income and race, and membership of clubs and societies were 2 of the top 5 drivers of social mobility.

    We want to create positive experiences for young people, and something they can belong to, a sports team, a youth group, a summer programme.

    That’s why all the work you are doing is so vital to our young people’s future.

    And we will continue to develop policy to expand these young people’s horizons in this way.

    Someone to talk to, something to do, somewhere to go.

    These should not just be the preserve of the kids of pushy parents or tiger moms, but available to every young person everywhere.

    I’d like to end with a thought. It’s a positive thought.

    Often it is said we don’t understand people if we haven’t had their experience.

    You can’t help someone in poverty or without work, someone who has been in the justice system, unless you too know what that feels like.

    But if that means that those who have had a positive experience cannot bring that to the table to improve the lives of others.

    I profoundly disagree.

    To know what it is like to be supported.

    To have experienced that sense of belonging.

    To have learnt from the values of those you trust, and seen first hand the importance of passing those to others.

    To truly understand these positives can be powerful and valuable.

    We should believe in all young people, and want for them, at least what we have had for ourselves.

    If we don’t believe in young people and what they can achieve. Nor will they.

    I believe in levelling up. Not levelling down.

    And believe that we can give our young people a better life and more opportunities than we had ourselves.

    I believe we can achieve this together.

    As Yetta would have said otherwise ‘what’s a heaven for’.

    That’s what today is about.

    Supporting young people is not just the preserve of Government, we all have a role to play.

    That includes the youth sector, local authorities, schools, parents, and the private sector.

    So I want to hear from all of you, and I want us to work together to deliver even more for young people in the coming months.

  • Robert Jenrick – 2023 Statement on the Illegal Migration Bill

    Robert Jenrick – 2023 Statement on the Illegal Migration Bill

    The statement made by Robert Jenrick, the Minister for Immigration, in the House of Commons on 17 July 2023.

    This House sent back to the House of Lords its 20 amendments to the Bill, many of which simply drove a coach and horses through the fabric of the legislation. We brought forward reasonable amendments where it was sensible to do so and it is disappointing, to say the least, the some of those have been rejected. I welcome the fact that the 20 issues that we debated last week have now been whittled down to nine, but the issue now before us is whether the clearly expressed views of this House, the elected Chamber—not just in the votes last week, but throughout the earlier passage of the Bill—should prevail.

    We believe that inaction is not an option, that we must stop the boats and that the Bill is a key part of our plan to do just that. The message and the means must be absolutely clear and unambiguous: if people come to the UK illegally, they will not be able to stay here. Instead, they will be detained and returned to their home country or removed to a safe third country. There is simply no point in passing legislation that does not deliver a credible deterrent or provide the means to back it up with effective and swift enforcement powers.

    We cannot accept amendments that provide for exceptions, qualifications and loopholes that would simply perpetuate the current cycle of delays and endless late and repeated legal challenges to removal. I listened carefully to the debate in the other place, but no new arguments were forthcoming and certainly no credible alternatives were provided.

    Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)

    I thoroughly endorse what my right hon. Friend says. This is a matter of extreme national interest, as is reflected in the votes of constituents throughout the country. They feel very strongly about these matters. Does he not agree that it is time for their lordships to take note of the fact that the British people want this legislation to go through? They want progress, given the extreme difficulties this is presenting to the British people.

    Robert Jenrick

    I strongly endorse my hon. Friend’s comments. This is an issue of the highest importance to the people we serve in this place. Of course there is a legitimate role for the other place in scrutinising legislation, but now is the time to move forward and pass this law to enable us to stop the boats.

    Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)

    I wonder whether my right hon. Friend has noted the remarks of Lord Clarke, who is not a particularly vicious right-wing creature. He said this Bill is entirely necessary and that we have to get on with it.

    I also wonder whether my right hon. Friend has looked at today’s remarks by Lord Heseltine.

    Lord Clarke and Lord Heseltine seem to have come up with a sensible option. We should go ahead with this Bill. We have to have much better European co-operation and, really, we have to build a wall around Europe. [Interruption.] And we have to do much more—this is what the Opposition might like—in terms of a Marshall plan to try to remove the conditions of sheer misery that cause people to want to leave these countries in the first place.

    Robert Jenrick

    I read the remarks of the noble Lord Clarke, and I entirely agree with his point, which is that, having listened to the totality of the debate in the House of Lords, he had not heard a single credible alternative to the Government’s plan. For that reason alone, it is important to support the Government.

    I also agree with Lord Clarke’s broader point that this policy should not be the totality of our response to this challenge. Deterrence is an essential part of the plan, but we also need to work closely with our partners in Europe and further upstream. One initiative that the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and I have sought to pursue in recent months is to ensure that the United Kingdom is a strategic partner to each and every country that shares our determination to tackle this issue, from Turkey and Tunisia to France and Belgium.

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

    I completely agree with my right hon. Friend. I believe that the Bill should go through, as we have to do something about the deaths in the channel, which is an important moral purpose.

    I bring my right hon. Friend back to Lord Randall’s amendment on modern slavery. We agree quite a lot on this issue, and the Government have said that they will do stuff in guidance, so Lord Randall has taken the words spoken by my right hon. Friend at the Dispatch Box and put them on the face of the Bill—this amendment does exactly what my right hon. Friend promised the Government would do in guidance. The Government have not issued the guidance in detail, which is why the amendment was made. Why would we vote against the amendment today when my right hon. Friend’s words and prescriptions are now on the face of the Bill?

    Robert Jenrick

    First, the Lords amendment on modern slavery goes further by making the scheme, as we see it, much more difficult to establish. There are a number of reasons but, in particular, we think the complexity of the issue requires it to be provided for in statutory guidance rather than on the face of the Bill, in line with my assurances made on the Floor of the House. One of those assurances is particularly challenging to put in statutory guidance—where an incident has taken place in the United Kingdom, rather than an individual being trafficked here—and that is the point Lord Randall helpfully tried to bring forward.

    We are clear that the process I have set out should be set out in statutory guidance, because the wording of the amendment is open to abuse by those looking to exploit loopholes. Those arriving in small boats would seek to argue that they have been trafficked into the UK and that the 30-day grace period should apply to them, on the basis that they qualify as soon as they reach UK territorial waters. The proposed provision is, for that reason, operationally impossible and serves only to create another loophole that would render the swift removal we seek impossible or impractical. The statutory guidance can better describe and qualify this commitment, by making it clear that the exploitation must have occurred once the person had spent a period of time within the UK and not immediately they get off the small boat in Kent. For that reason, we consider it better to place this on a statutory footing as guidance rather than putting it in the Bill.

    Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

    The Democratic Unionist party is concerned about the trafficking of children and young people. My question is a simple one. We see economic migrants who are fit and healthy but none the less make that journey, and we see those who have had to leave their country because they have been persecuted, discriminated against or been subjected to brutal violence, or because their family members have been murdered. My party and I want to be assured that those who flee persecution have protection within this law, because we do not see that they do.

    Robert Jenrick

    We believe that they do, because at the heart of this scheme is the principle that if an individual comes to the UK illegally on a small boat, they will be removed back home if it is safe to do that—if they are going to a safe home country such as Albania. In determining that the country is safe, for example, as in the case of Albania, we would have sought specific assurances from it, if required. Alternatively, they will be removed to a safe third country, such as Rwanda, where, again we would have sought sufficient assurances that an individual would be well-treated there. As the hon. Gentleman can see in the courts at the moment, those assurances will be tested. So it is not the intention of the UK Government to expose any genuine victim of persecution to difficulties by removing them either back home and, in the process, enabling their refoulement, or to a country in which they would be unsafe. We want to establish a significant deterrent to stop people coming here in the first place, bearing in mind that the overwhelming majority of the individuals we are talking about who would be caught by the Bill were already in a place of safety. They were in France, which is clearly a safe country that has a fully functioning asylum system.

    Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)

    Let me take the right hon. Gentleman back to the criticism he was making of the other place, because if the elected House is about to break international law, it is entirely fitting that the other place should try to prevent that from happening. The Minister has stood at the Dispatch Box telling us that this Bill is about deterrence, whereas the Home Office’s own impact assessment has said:

    “The Bill is a novel and untested scheme, and it is therefore uncertain what level of deterrence impact it will have.”

    As a raft of children’s charities have pointed out, once routine child detention was ended in 2011 there was no proportional increase in children claiming asylum. So will he come clean and accept that this Bill absolutely will have the effect, even if it does not have the intention, of meaning that people trying to escape persecution will not be able to come here, because there are not sufficient safe and legal routes?

    Robert Jenrick

    I am not sure exactly what the hon. Lady’s question was. If it was about access to safe and legal routes, let me be clear, as I have in numerous debates on this topic, that since 2015 the UK has welcomed more than 500,000 individuals here—it is nearer to 550,000 now—for humanitarian purposes. That is a very large number. The last statistics I saw showed that we were behind only the United States, Canada and Sweden on our global United Nations-managed safe and legal routes, and we were one of the world’s biggest countries for resettlement schemes. That is a very proud record. The greatest inhibitor today to the UK doing more on safe and legal routes is the number of people coming across the channel illegally on small boats, taking up capacity in our asylum and immigration system. She knows that only too well, because we have discussed on a number of occasions one of the most concerning symptoms of this issue, which is unaccompanied children who are having to stay in a Home Office-procured hotel near to her constituency because local authorities do not have capacity to flow those individuals into safe and loving foster care as quickly as we would wish. That issue is exactly emblematic of the problem that we are trying to fix. If we can stop the small boats, we can do more, as a country, and be an even greater force for good in the world.

    Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)

    Will the Minister set out how my constituent will be protected? He is Albanian and has been subjected to modern slavery by gangs from Albania. He has three bullet holes in his body and, if he returns, perhaps those gangs will give him more. How will he be protected?

    Robert Jenrick

    The existing arrangement that we have secured with Albania—incidentally, Albania is a signatory to the European convention against trafficking — enables us to safely return somebody home to Albania, with specific assurances to prevent them being retrafficked to the United Kingdom and to enable them to be supported appropriately upon arrival.

    On the broader issue of modern slavery, the Bill makes a number of important protections when we establish the scheme. If they are party to a law enforcement investigation, their removal from the country will be stayed. We have said that we will bring forward statutory guidance, giving them a 30-day period, allied to the period set out in ECAT, to come forward and work with law enforcement, which is extendable if that enforcement activity goes on for some time. We would then only remove that person either back home to a safe country, such as Albania, or to a country, such as Rwanda, where we have put in place appropriate procedures to ensure that that Government, in turn, looks after them.

    I point the hon. Lady to the judgment in the Court of Appeal that made some criticisms of the Government’s approach, but did not say that the arrangements in Rwanda with respect to modern slaves were inappropriate; it supported the Government in that regard. We will clearly put in place appropriate procedures to ensure that victims, such as the one she refers to, are properly supported.

    Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)

    Many opponents of the Bill seem to support uncapped safe and legal routes. The reality of that would be that potentially over 1 million people could get the ability to come here. Does the Minister agree that those proposing that should be open and honest about it, and explain what the dramatic consequences would be for public services and community cohesion in this country?

    Robert Jenrick

    I completely agree. Anyone who feels that this country has sufficient resource to welcome significant further numbers of individuals at the present time, should look at the inbox of the Minister for Immigration. It is full of emails and letters from members of the public, local authorities and Members of Parliament, on both sides of the House, complaining that they do not want to see further dispersal accommodation and worrying about GP surgery appointments, pressure on local public services and further hotels. I understand all those concerns, which is why we need an honest debate about the issue.

    That is why, at the heart of the Bill, there is not only a tough deterrent position for new illegal entrants, but a consultation on safe and legal routes, where we specifically ask local authorities, “What is your true capacity?” If we bring forward further safe and legal routes, they will be rooted in capacity in local authorities, so that those individuals are not destined to be in hotels for months or years, but go straight to housing and support in local authorities. That must be the right way for us to live up to our international obligations, rather than the present situation that, all too often, is performative here, and then there are major problems down the road.

    Let me reply to issues other than modern slavery in the amendments before us. On the issue of detention, we believe that a necessary part of the scheme, provided for in the Bill, is that there are strong powers. Where those subject to removal are not detained, the prospects of being able to effect removal are significantly reduced, given the likelihood of a person absconding, especially towards the end of the process.

    We have made changes to the provision for pregnant women, which I am pleased have been accepted by the Lords, and unaccompanied children, but it is necessary for the powers to cover family groups, as to do otherwise would introduce a gaping hole in the scheme, as adult migrants and the most disgusting people smugglers would seek to profit from migrants and look to co-opt unaccompanied children to bogus family groups to avoid detention. That not only prevents the removal of the adults, but presents a very real safeguarding risk to children.

    On unaccompanied children, we stand by the amendments agreed by the House last week. They provided a clear differentiation between the arrangements for the detention of adults and those for the detention of unaccompanied children. The amendments agreed by this House provide for judicial oversight after eight days’ detention where that detention is for the purpose of removal.

    On the standards of accommodation, I have been clear that unaccompanied children, including those whose age is disputed, will be detained only in age-appropriate accommodation, and that existing secondary legislation—the Detention Centre Rules 2001—sets out important principles governing the standards of such accommodation.

    Last week, some Members asked whether unaccompanied children would also receive age-appropriate care while in detention. The answer to that is an emphatic yes. The operating standards for immigration removal centres contain provisions around the treatment of children, including requirements on the education and play facilities that must be provided for children.

    Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)

    I thank my right hon. Friend for making it clear that, if there is any doubt about the age of an unaccompanied child, they will be treated as a child. I also thank him for saying that, if a child is detained, it will be in an age-appropriate centre. However, on the issue of what is age-appropriate, I will just say that I have looked at the operating standards to which he referred. It is an 82-page document. It has no mention of unaccompanied children. It talks about who looks after the locks and hinges and where the tools and the ladders are to be stored, but there is nothing about how we keep these children happy, healthy and safe from harm. I point him instead to the guidance for children’s care homes and ask him gently if we could update the rules on detention centres to make sure that they look more like the rules we have for safeguarding children in care homes.

    Robert Jenrick

    My right hon. Friend makes a number of important points. The guidance is very detailed, but I am sure that it would benefit from updating. Therefore, the points that she has made and that other right hon. and hon. Members have made in the past will be noted by Home Office officials. As we operationalise this policy, we will be careful to take those into consideration. We are all united in our belief that those young people who are in our care need to be treated appropriately.

    Let me turn now to the Lords amendment on modern slavery—I hope that I have answered the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). This seeks to enshrine in the Bill some of the assurances that I provided in my remarks last week in respect of people who are exploited in the UK. However, for the reason that I have just described, we think that that is better done through statutory guidance. In fact, it would be impractical, if not impossible, to do it through the Bill.

    Sir Iain Duncan Smith

    The point that my right hon. Friend made earlier is that, somehow, those people will be able to get into the UK and make a false claim. However, the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 already provides for that, so anyone found to have made a false claim will be disqualified, and disqualified quite quickly. The critical thing is to prosecute the traffickers. That way, we can stop them trafficking more people on the boats. My worry is that this provision will put off many people from giving evidence and co-operating with the police for fear that they may still be overridden and sent abroad while they are doing it and then be picked up by the traffickers. Does he give any credence to the fear that this may end up reducing the number of prosecutions of traffickers as a result?

    Robert Jenrick

    I understand my right hon. Friend’s position, and it is right that he is vocalising it, but we do not believe that what he says is likely. The provision that we have made in the statutory guidance that I have announced will give an individual 30 days from the positive reasonable grounds decision to confirm that they will co-operate with an investigation in relation to their exploitation. That should give them a period of time to recover, to come forward and to work with law-enforcement. That is a period of time aligned with the provisions of ECAT, so we rely on the decision of the drafters of ECAT to choose 30 days rather than another, potentially longer, period. That is an extendable period, so where a person continues to co-operate with such an investigation, they will continue to be entitled to the support and the protections of the national referral mechanism for a longer period.

    Sir Iain Duncan Smith

    I just want to make it clear that under the new regulations, the Secretary of State can still feasibly decide that, even if someone is co-operating, they do not need to remain in the UK for that. That is the critical bit: they live under the fear that they can be moved somewhere else to give that evidence. Does the Minister not agree that that will put a lot of people off giving evidence?

    Robert Jenrick

    I hope that that is not borne out. It is worth remembering that we will not remove anyone to a country in which they would be endangered. We would be removing that person either back to their home country, if we consider it safe to do so, usually because the country is an ECAT signatory and has provisions in place, or to a safe third country such as Rwanda, where once again we will have put in place significant provisions to support the individual. I hope that that provides those individuals with the confidence to come forward and work with law enforcement to bring the traffickers to book.

    Vicky Ford

    I am particularly interested in the arrival of unaccompanied children in this country, because obviously the Minister has tightened up the eight-day period for them on exit. I believe that he just agreed with me that the standards for age-appropriate accommodation in detention centres need to be updated to look more like those for children’s homes. Is he prepared to concede that no unaccompanied child should be put in such a detention centre until that update of the rules has been undertaken?

    Robert Jenrick

    I understand the point that my right hon. Friend makes, but I am not sure that that is necessary, because the Detention Centre Rules 2001 are very explicit in the high standards expected. They set the overall standard, and underlying them will no doubt be further guidance and support for individuals who are working within the system. If there is work to be done on the latter point, we should do that and take account of her views and those of others who are expert in this field, but the Detention Centre Rules are very explicit in setting high overarching standards for this form of accommodation. That is exactly what we would seek to live up to; in fact, it would be unlawful if the Government did not.

    Vicky Ford

    In a children’s home, we would expect there to be the right to access a social worker and advocacy, and for the child to have the care that they particularly need. We would expect Ofsted to oversee that, not prison inspectors.

    Robert Jenrick

    I am grateful for those points. Social workers will clearly be at the heart of all this work, as they are today. Every setting in which young people are housed by the Home Office, whether it be an unaccompanied asylum-seeking children hotel, which we mentioned earlier, or another facility, has a strong contingent of qualified social workers who support those young people. I am certain that social workers will be at the heart of developing the policy and then, in time, operationalising it.

    Their lordships have attempted but failed to smooth the rough edges of their wrecking amendments on legal proceedings, but we need be in no doubt that they are still wrecking amendments. They would tie every removal up in knots and never-ending legal proceedings. It is still the case that Lords amendment 1B would incorporate the various conventions listed in the amendment into our domestic law. An amendment shoehorned into the Bill is not the right place to make such a significant constitutional change. It is therefore right that we continue to reject it.

    Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)

    Will the Minister give way?

    Robert Jenrick

    I will not, because I need to close my remarks; this is a short debate.

    Lords amendment 9B continues to undermine a core component of the Bill: that asylum and relevant human rights claims are declared inadmissible. The Lords amendment would simply encourage illegal migrants to game the system and drag things out for as long as possible, in the hope that they would become eligible for asylum here.

    Lords amendment 23B brings us back to the issue of the removal of LGBT people to certain countries. The Government are a strong defender of LGBT rights across the globe. There is no question of sending a national of one of the countries listed in the amendment back to their home country if they fear persecution based on their sexuality. The Bill is equally clear that if an LGBT person were to be issued with a removal notice to a country where they fear persecution on such grounds, or indeed on any other grounds, they could make a serious harm suspensive claim and they would not be removed—

    Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)

    Will the Minister give way?

    Robert Jenrick

    I will not, because I need to bring my remarks to a close now. They would not be removed until that claim and any appeal had been determined. As I said previously, the concerns underpinning the amendments are misplaced and the protections needed are already in the Bill.

    On safe and legal routes, Lords amendment 102B brings us to the question of when new such routes come into operation. The amendment again seeks to enshrine a date in the Bill itself. I have now said at the Dispatch Box on two occasions that we aim to implement any proposed new routes as soon as is practical, and in any event by the end of 2024. I have made that commitment on behalf of the Government and, that being the case, there is simply no need for the amendment. We should not delay the enactment of this Bill over such a non-issue.

    Lords amendment 103B, tabled by the Opposition, relates to the National Crime Agency. Again, it is a non-issue and the amendment is either performative or born out of ignorance and a lack of grasp of the detail. The NCA’s functions already cover tackling organised immigration crime, and men and women in that service work day in, day out to do just that. There is no need to change the statute underlying the organisation.

    Finally, we have Lords amendment 107B, which was put forward by the Archbishop of Canterbury. This country’s proud record of providing a safe haven for more than half a million people since 2015 is the greatest evidence that we need that the UK is already taking a leading international role in tackling the refugee crisis. This Government are working tirelessly with international and domestic partners to tackle human trafficking, and continue to support overseas programmes. We will work with international partners and bring forward proposals for additional safe and legal routes where necessary.

    However well-intentioned, this amendment remains unnecessary. As I said to his grace the Archbishop, if the Church wishes to play a further role in resettlement, it could join our community sponsorship scheme—an ongoing and global safe and legal route that, as far as I am aware, the Church of England is not currently engaged with.

    This elected House voted to give the Bill a Second and Third Reading. Last Tuesday, it voted no fewer than 17 times in succession to reject the Lords amendments and an 18th time to endorse the Government’s amendments in lieu relating to the detention of unaccompanied children. It is time for the clear view of the elected House to prevail. I invite all right hon. and hon. Members to stand with the Government in upholding the will of the democratically elected Commons, to support the Government motions and to get on with securing our borders and stopping the boats.

  • Peter Bottomley – 2023 Speech on Higher Education

    Peter Bottomley – 2023 Speech on Higher Education

    The speech made by Sir Peter Bottomley, the Father of the House, in the Commons on 17 July 2023.

    I thank the Secretary of State. Those of us with long memories know that we either ration places by number or we give people choice. If she is giving people the choice of being able to discriminate between the courses and universities on offer, I congratulate her, as I do especially on the lifetime learning and the degree apprenticeship expansion, which has already happened, with more to come.

    However, can I also speak up for those who either got fourth-class degrees or failed to take a degree at all, including two of the three Governors of the Bank of England who went to King’s and who came out without a degree? Rabi Tagore left university, and many other poets, painters, teachers or ministers of religion—whether rabbis, imams or ministers in the Christian Church—do not show up highly on the earnings scale, but they might show up highly in their contributions to society. Can my right hon. Friend please make sure that she does not let an algorithm rate colleges, courses or universities?

    Gillian Keegan

    I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks, and I very much agree that this is about choice—the lifelong loan entitlement, degree apprenticeships and all of the other choices—and about people understanding that there are many different routes to success in life. We have asked the Office for Students to look at earnings, because I realise that is difficult and that some jobs will not earn people more. However, for his information, five years after graduating from some courses, people are earning less than £18,000. That is less than the minimum wage, and it is not acceptable.

  • Bridget Phillipson – 2023 Speech on Higher Education

    Bridget Phillipson – 2023 Speech on Higher Education

    The speech made by Bridget Phillipson, the Shadow Secretary of State for Education, in the House of Commons on 17 July 2023.

    I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement.

    Today’s statement tells us several stories about this Government. It tells a story about their priorities: why universities, and why now? It tells a story about their analysis: what they think is wrong and what they think is not. It tells a story about their competence: why these changes, when their own regulator has used a different approach for so long? It tells a story about their prejudice, about why they continue to reinforce a binary choice for young people: either academic or vocational, university or apprenticeship. Above all, it tells a story about values—about the choice to put caps on the aspirations and ambitions of our young people; about Ministers for whom opportunity is for their children, but not for other people’s children; about a Government whose only big idea for our world-leading universities is to put up fresh barriers to opportunity, anxious to keep young people in their place. It tells you everything you need to know about the Tories that this is their priority for our young people.

    This is the Tories’ priority when we are in the middle of an urgent crisis in this country; when families are struggling to make ends meet; when patients are facing the biggest waiting lists in NHS history; when children are going to school in buildings that Ministers themselves acknowledge are “very likely” to collapse; and when a spiral of low productivity, low growth, and low wages under the Tories is holding Britain back. It is because the Prime Minister is weak and he is in hock to his Back Benchers that we are not seeing action on those important priorities. Instead, after more than 13 years in power, the Government have shown what they really think of our universities, which are famous across the world, are core to so many of our regional economies and were essential to our pandemic response: that they are not a public good, but a political battleground.

    The Government’s concept of a successful university course, based on earnings, is not just narrow but limiting. I ask the Secretary of State briefly to consider the case of the right hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak). The Prime Minister has a degree in politics from one of our leading universities, yet his Government lost control of almost 50 councils this year, he was the second choice of his own party, and now he is on track to fail to deliver on the pledges he set himself publicly. Does the Secretary of State believe that the Prime Minister’s degree was in any sense a high-value course?

    Let us be clear what today’s announcement is really about. Many of our most successful newer universities—the fruits of the determination of successive Governments, Labour and Conservative, to spread opportunity in this country—often draw more students from their local communities. Many of those areas are far from London, far from existing concentrations of graduate jobs. Many of those students come from backgrounds where few in their family, if any, will have had the chance to go to university. Many of those young people benefit from extra support when they arrive at university to ensure they succeed. We on the Labour Benches welcome the success of those universities in widening participation and welcoming more young people into higher education, yet today, the Secretary of State is telling those young people—including those excited to be finishing their studies this year—that this Government believe their hard work counts for nothing. Can the Secretary of State be absolutely clear with the House, and tell us which of those universities’ courses she considers to be of low value?

    The Secretary of State is keen to trumpet her party’s record on apprenticeships, but let me set out what this Government’s record really is. Since 2015-16, apprenticeship starts among under-19s have dropped by 41%, and apprentice achievements in that age group are down by 57%. Since the Secretary of State entered this place, the number of young people achieving an apprenticeship at any level has more than halved, failing a generation of young people desperate to take on an apprenticeship.

    Lastly and most importantly, the values that this Government have set out today are clear: the Conservatives are saying to England’s young people that opportunity is not for them and that choice is not for them. The bizarre irony of a Conservative Government seeking to restrict freedom and restrict choices seems entirely lost on them. Labour will shatter the class ceiling. We will ensure that young people believe that opportunity is for them. Labour is the party of opportunity, aspiration and freedom. Let us be clear, too, that young people want to go to university not merely to get on financially, but for the chance to join the pursuit of learning, to explore ideas and undertake research that benefits us all. That chance and that opportunity matter too. Our children deserve better. They deserve a Government whose most important mission will be to break down the barriers to opportunity and to build a country where background is no barrier. They deserve a Labour Government.

    Gillian Keegan

    As usual, the hon. Lady has more words than actions. None of those actions was put in place either in Wales, where Labour is running the education system, or in the UK when it was running it in England. We have always made the deliberate choice of quality over quantity, and this is a story of a consistent drive for quality, whether that is through my right hon. Friend the Schools Minister having driven up school standards, so that we are the best in the west for reading and fourth best in the world, or through childcare, revolutionising the apprenticeship system—none of that existed before we put it in place—and technical education and higher education.

    I was an other people’s child: I was that kid who left school at 16, who went to a failing comprehensive school in Knowsley. I relied on the business, and the college and the university that I went to. I did not know their brand images and I knew absolutely nobody who had ever been there. I put my trust in that company, and luckily it did me very well. Not all universities and not all courses have the trusted brand image of Oxford and Cambridge, which I think is where the hon. Lady went, along with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I have worked with many leaders all over the world in my many years in business, and the Prime Minister is a world-class leader.

    On apprenticeships, it is a case of quality always over quantity. What we found, and this is why I introduced the quality standards, is that, yes, the numbers were higher, but many of the people did not realise they were on an apprenticeship, many of the apprenticeships lasted less than 12 months and for many of them there was zero off-the-job training. They were apprenticeships in name only, which is what the Labour party will be when it comes to standards for education.

  • Gillian Keegan – 2023 Statement on Higher Education

    Gillian Keegan – 2023 Statement on Higher Education

    The statement made by Gillian Keegan, the Secretary of State for Education, in the House of Commons on 17 July 2023.

    With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to announce the publication of the Government’s higher education reform consultation response. This country is one of the best in the world for studying in higher education, boasting four of the world’s top 10 universities. For most, higher education is a sound investment, with graduates expected to earn on average £100,000 more over their lifetime than those who do not go to university.

    However, there are still pockets of higher education provision where the promise that university education will be worthwhile does not hold true and where an unacceptable number of students do not finish their studies or find a good job after graduating. That cannot continue. It is not fair to taxpayers who subsidise that education, but most of all it is not fair to those students who are being sold a promise of a better tomorrow, only to be disappointed and end up paying far into the future for a degree that did not offer them good value.

    We want to make sure that students are charged a fair price for their studies and that a university education offers a good return. Our reforms are aimed at achieving that objective. That is why the Government launched the consultation in 2022, to seek views on policies based on recommendations made by Sir Philip Augar and his independent panel. The consultation ended in May 2022, and the Department for Education has been considering the responses received. I am now able to set out the programme of reforms that we are taking forward.

    I believe that the traditional degree continues to hold great value, but it is not the only higher education pathway. Over the past 13 years, we have made substantial reforms to ensure that the traditional route is not the only pathway to a good career. Higher technical qualifications massively enhance students’ skills and career prospects, and deserve parity of esteem with undergraduate degrees. We have seen a growth in degree-level apprenticeships, with over 188,000 students enrolling since their introduction in 2014. I have asked the Office for Students to establish a £40 million competitive degree apprenticeships fund to drive forward capacity-building projects to broaden access to degree apprenticeships over the next two years.

    That drive to encourage skills is why we are also investing up to £115 million to help providers deliver higher technical education. In March, we set out detailed information on how the lifelong learning entitlement will transform the way in which individuals can undertake post-18 education, and we continue to support that transformation through the Lifelong Learning (Higher Education Fee Limits) Bill, which is currently passing through the other place. We anticipate that that funding, coupled with the introduction of the LLE from 2025, will help to incentivise the take-up of higher technical education, filling vital skills gaps across the country.

    Each of those reforms has had one simple premise: that we are educating people with the skills that will enable them to have a long and fulfilling career. I believe that we should have the same expectation for higher education: it should prepare students for life by giving them the right skills and knowledge to get well-paid jobs. With the advent of the LLE, it is neither fair nor right for students to use potentially three quarters of their lifelong loan entitlement for a university degree that does not offer them good returns. That would constrain their future ability to learn, earn and retrain. We must shrink the parts of the sector that do not deliver value, and ensure that students and taxpayers are getting value for money given their considerable investment.

    Data shows that there were 66 providers from which fewer than 60% of graduates progressed to high-skilled employment or further study fifteen months after graduating. That is not acceptable. I will therefore issue statutory guidance to the OfS setting out that it should impose recruitment limits on provision that does not meet its rigorous quality requirements for positive student outcomes, to help to constrain the size and growth of courses that do not deliver for students. We will also ask the OfS to consider how it can incorporate graduate earnings into its quality regime. We recognise that many factors can influence graduate earnings, but students have a right to expect that their investment in higher education will improve their career prospects, and we should rightly scrutinise courses that appear to offer limited added value to students on the metric that matters most to many.

    We will work with the OfS to consider franchising arrangements in the sector. All organisations that deliver higher education must be held to robust standards. I am concerned about some indications that franchising is acting as a potential route for low quality to seep into the higher education system, and I am absolutely clear that lead providers have a responsibility to ensure that franchised provision is of the same quality as directly delivered provision. If we find examples of undesirable practices, we will not hesitate to act further on franchising.

    As I have said, we will ensure that students are charged a fair price for their studies. That is why we are also reducing to £5,760 the fees for classroom-based foundation year courses such as business studies and social sciences, in line with the highest standard funding rate for access to HE diplomas. Recently we have seen an explosion in the growth of many such courses, but limited evidence that they are in the best interests of students. We are not reducing the fee limits for high-cost, strategically important subjects such as veterinary sciences and medicine, but we want to ensure that foundation years are not used to add to the bottom line of institutions at the expense of those who study them. We will continue to monitor closely the growth of foundation year provision, and we will not hesitate to introduce further restrictions or reductions. I want providers to consider whether those courses add value for students, and to phase out that provision in favour of a broad range of tertiary options with the advent of the LLE.

    Our aim is that everyone who wants to benefit from higher education has the opportunity to do so. That is why we will not proceed at this time with a minimum requirement of academic attainment to access student finance—although we will keep that option under review. I am confident that the sector will respond with the ambition and focused collaboration required to deliver this package of reforms. I extend my wholehearted thanks to those in the sector for their responses to the consultation.

    This package of reforms represents the next step in tackling low-quality higher education, but it will not be the last step. The Government will not shy away from further action if required, and will consider all levers available to us if these quality reforms do not result in the improvements we seek. Our higher education system is admired across many countries, and these measures will ensure that it continues to be. I commend this statement to the House.

  • Nigel Farage – 2023 Comments on the Resignation of Alison Rose

    Nigel Farage – 2023 Comments on the Resignation of Alison Rose

    The comments made by Nigel Farage on Twitter on 26 July 2023.

    Dame Alison Rose has gone. Others must follow.

    I hope that this serves as a warning to the banking industry.

    We need both cultural and legal changes to a system that has unfairly shut down many thousands of innocent people.

    I will do my best to be their voice.

  • Alison Rose – 2023 Statement on Standing Down as Natwest Group Chief Executive

    Alison Rose – 2023 Statement on Standing Down as Natwest Group Chief Executive

    The statement made by Alison Rose following her resignation as the Chief Executive of the Natwest Group on 26 July 2023.

    I remain immensely proud of the progress the bank has made in supporting people, families and business across the UK, and building the foundations for sustainable growth. My NatWest colleagues are central to that success, and so I would like to personally thank them for all that they have done.

  • James Cleverly – 2023 Speech at the UN High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development

    James Cleverly – 2023 Speech at the UN High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development

    The speech made by James Cleverly, the Foreign Secretary, in New York on 17 July 2023.

    In 2015, 193 countries agreed the UN’s 17 Sustainable Development Goals. This was a landmark multilateral achievement, to chart our course towards a fairer, healthier and more prosperous world by 2030.

    Yet today at the halfway point, we are on course to miss a staggering 88% of the targets that we set.

    This is clearly unacceptable. We cannot continue with business as usual if we are to end poverty, improve health and education, increase prosperity, or slow climate change.

    But if we act together, we can still get the SDGs back on track. So what do we need to do?

    My top priority is reforming development finance – and targeting it to areas which will accelerate progress, like food security, health, renewable energy, and the empowerment of women and girls.

    This is not my idea. It’s what my fellow foreign ministers from developing countries tell me that we need to do. That’s why the UK supports the ambitions of Mia Mottley’s Bridgetown Initiative.

    We need Multilateral Development Banks to free up trillions more for developing countries by implementing the G20’s independent review on Capital Adequacy Frameworks.

    We need more private sector investment, particularly in clean energy, water and sanitation, and climate-resilient infrastructure.

    We need all creditors to offer Climate-Resilient Debt Clauses, to pause loan repayments when disasters strike – as the UK Export Finance is doing in 12 African and Caribbean countries.

    And we must ensure developing countries have strong public finances through better tax collection and tackling of illicit financial flows.

    Our international financial system needs to become more responsive to shocks – so we can help poorer and smaller countries – especially those at risk of natural disasters – to sustain development gains and to prevent roll backs.

    We cannot stop floods, we cannot stop droughts, we cannot stop hurricanes. But we can stop the economic crises and debt spirals that they cause.

    I recognise that the UK doesn’t have all the answers. But we are committed to working with all our partners to urgently accelerate progress towards the SDGs over the next 7 years.

    All of us need to recommit to the Sustainable Development Goals at the upcoming Summit at UNGA in September. Because we will need political will and partnership to forge bigger, better, fairer international financial systems which meets today’s development needs.

    And we can translate our joint political ambitions into concrete reforms through the G20, World Bank, IMF and at COP28.

    It is time for us to go further and faster. Let us seize the opportunity.

    Thank you.

  • James Cleverly – 2023 Speech at the United Nations Security Council

    James Cleverly – 2023 Speech at the United Nations Security Council

    The speech made by James Cleverly, the Foreign Secretary, in New York, United States, on 17 July 2023.

    More than 500 days have now passed since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

    At least nine thousand innocent civilians lie dead – including 500 children. Thousands more Ukrainians have been kidnapped, imprisoned and tortured.

    Homes, businesses, schools and hospitals have been reduced to rubble.

    Russia’s incessant attacks have knocked out 60% of Ukraine’s power supply.

    This war has claimed countless victims.

    I’m going to focus on those who have been forcibly deported in this war – and those who are going hungry as a result of it.

    In Kyiv last month I met a teenage boy – I’ll call him Denys.

    When the Russians captured his home town, they told Denys and his classmates that they were going on a holiday.

    They were in fact transported to a Russian camp where they were neglected, indoctrinated and abused.

    Denys’ distraught mother was desperately searching for him.

    But the Russians pretending to look after Denys and countless others told him his parents had abandoned him.

    This boy’s ordeal lasted for 7 months before his mother – thanks to the charity Save Ukraine – found him and brought him home.

    But 19,000 Ukrainian children remain in Russian camps – and their parents are desperately searching for them.

    A further 2½ million Ukrainian men and women have been deported to Russia.

    These are barbaric crimes. Russia is trying to erase Ukrainian identity and cultural history. And they are using children as an instrument of war.

    But the world is watching and Russia will be held accountable. We welcome the International Criminal Court’s investigation. And we will leave no stone unturned until the responsible are brought to justice.

    Ukrainians are Russia’s principal victims. But this war is also harming the poor and the vulnerable across the world – particularly in Africa, in Asia and in Latin America.

    Energy prices rocketed by 20% worldwide last year – almost doubling global inflation from 4.7% to 8.7%.

    World food supplies have fallen sharply.

    Ukrainian food exports – maize, barley or wheat – have plummeted by more than 40%.

    With catastrophic consequences for Sub-Africa which relies on these supplies.

    Food prices are rocketing – by a staggering 332% in Lebanon last summer.

    Some of these losses were offset by the Black Sea Grain Initiative – brokered by the UN Secretary-General and Turkey.

    But today Russia has announced it is refusing to extend it and is taking a colossal 23 million tonnes of Ukrainian food off of world markets over the forthcoming year.

    As the UN Secretary General said this morning: “Today’s decision by the Russian Federation will strike a blow to people in need everywhere”. We call on Russia to return to the table and agree to extend the Black Sea Grain Initiative indefinitely – and to implement it fully without delay.

    Let us be clear – Russia’s actions are taking food out of the mouths of the poorest people across Africa, the Middle East and Latin America.

    We cannot allow this war to go on for another 500 days.

    The UN General Assembly has called – repeatedly – for peace.

    A peace that is based on the principles of the UN Charter and our shared belief that might does not equal right.

    President Zelensky’s 10-point peace plan shows the way forward.

    Ukraine wants peace. We want peace. The whole world wants peace.

    Peace will bring home Ukraine’s lost children – and feed the hungry of the world.

    Peace will keep the promises we all made in the UN Charter.

    Peace will pave the way to a reformed multilateral system.

    Peace will help deliver the Sustainable Development Goals.

    A just and lasting peace is what we all want.

    The Russian Federation can choose peace – today. By withdrawing all Russian forces from Ukraine.

    Mr Putin – bring your troops home. End this war now.

  • James Cleverly – 2023 Statement on Russia’s Withdrawal from the Black Sea Grain Initiative

    James Cleverly – 2023 Statement on Russia’s Withdrawal from the Black Sea Grain Initiative

    The statement made by James Cleverly, the Foreign Secretary, on 17 July 2023.

    The United Kingdom condemns in the strongest terms Russia’s decision to withdraw from the Black Sea Grain Initiative. Russia’s illegal war against Ukraine has obstructed the free flow of grain and other foodstuffs through the Black Sea, causing worldwide suffering. We urge Russia to re-join the initiative, which was developed by the UN in 2022, and allow the unimpeded export of grain.

    Since its inception, the initiative has played a significant role in lowering and stabilising global food prices, delivering over 32 million tonnes of food products to world markets. Russia has obstructed the proper operation of the deal for several months. In doing so, Russia is serving its own interests and disregarding the needs of all those around the world, including in the poorest countries, who are paying higher food prices as a result. The UN estimates that without the grain provided by the BSGI, the number of undernourished people worldwide could increase by millions.

    While exports of grain from Ukraine are restricted, Russian exports of food are at higher levels than before the invasion. We have always been clear that the target of our sanctions is Russia’s war machine and not the food and fertiliser sectors. Contrary to Russian claims, the UN and other partners have taken significant steps to ensure that Russian food is able to access world markets. The best way for Russia to address concerns around global food security would be for it to withdraw its forces from Ukraine and end the war.