UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Suella Braverman – 2023 Statement on the Illegal Migration Bill

    Suella Braverman – 2023 Statement on the Illegal Migration Bill

    The statement made by Suella Braverman, the Home Secretary, in the House of Commons on 7 March 2023.

    With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the Government’s Illegal Migration Bill.

    Two months ago, the Prime Minister made a promise to the British people that anyone entering this country illegally will be detained and swiftly removed—no half measures. The Illegal Migration Bill will fulfil that promise. It will allow us to stop the boats that are bringing tens of thousands to our shores in flagrant breach of both our laws and the will of the British people.

    The United Kingdom must always support the world’s most vulnerable. Since 2015 we have given sanctuary to nearly half a million people, including 150,000 people from Hong Kong, 160,000 people from Ukraine and 25,000 Afghans fleeing the Taliban. Indeed, decades ago, my parents found security and opportunity in this country, for which my family are eternally grateful.

    Crucially, these decisions are supported by the British people precisely because they are decisions made by the British people and their elected representatives, not by the people smugglers and other criminals who break into Britain on a daily basis. For a Government not to respond to the waves of illegal migrants breaching our borders would be to betray the will of the people we were elected to serve.

    The small boats problem is part of a larger global migration crisis. In the coming years, developed countries will face unprecedented pressure from ever greater numbers of people leaving the developing world for places such as the United Kingdom. Unless we act today, the problem will be worse tomorrow, and the problem is already unsustainable.

    People are dying in the channel. The volume of illegal arrivals has overwhelmed our asylum system. The backlog has ballooned to over 160,000. The asylum system now costs the British taxpayer £3 billion a year. Since 2018, some 85,000 people have illegally entered the United Kingdom by small boat—45,000 of them in 2022 alone. All travelled through multiple safe countries in which they could and should have claimed asylum. Many came from safe countries, such as Albania, and almost all passed through France. The vast majority—74% in 2021—were adult males under the age of 40, rich enough to pay criminal gangs thousands of pounds for passage.

    Upon arrival, most are accommodated in hotels across the country, costing the British taxpayer around £6 million a day. The risk remains that these individuals just disappear. And when we try to remove them, they turn our generous asylum laws against us to prevent removal. The need for reform is obvious and urgent.

    This Government have not sat on their hands. Since this Prime Minister took office, recognising the necessity of joint solutions with France, we have signed a new deal that provides more technology and embeds British officers with French patrols. I hope Friday’s Anglo-French summit will further deepen that co-operation.

    We have created a new small boats operational command, with more than 700 new staff; doubled National Crime Agency funding to tackle smuggling gangs; increased enforcement raids by 50%; signed a deal with Albania, which has already enabled the return of hundreds of illegal arrivals; and are procuring accommodation, including on military land, to end the farce of accommodating migrants in hotels.

    But let us be honest: it is still not enough. In the face of today’s global migration crisis, yesterday’s laws are simply not fit for purpose. So to anyone proposing de facto open borders through unlimited safe and legal routes as the alternative, let us be honest: there are 100 million people around the world who could qualify for protection under our current laws. Let us be clear: they are coming here. We have seen a 500% increase in small boat crossings in two years. This is the crucial point of this Bill. They will not stop coming here until the world knows that if you enter Britain illegally, you will be detained and swiftly removed—back to your country if it is safe, or to a safe third country, such as Rwanda.

    That is precisely what this Bill will do. That is how we will stop the boats. This Bill enables the detention of illegal arrivals, without bail or judicial review within the first 28 days of detention, until they can be removed. It puts a duty on the Home Secretary to remove illegal entrants and will radically narrow the number of challenges and appeals that can suspend removal. Only those under 18, medically unfit to fly or at real risk of serious and irreversible harm in the country we are removing them to—that is an exceedingly high bar—will be able to delay their removal. Any other claims will be heard remotely, after removal.

    When our Modern Slavery Act 2015 passed, the impact assessment envisaged 3,500 referrals a year. Last year, 17,000 referrals took on average 543 days to consider. Modern slavery laws are being abused to block removals. That is why we granted more than 50% of asylum requests from citizens of a safe European country and NATO ally, Albania. That is why this Bill disqualifies illegal entrants from using modern slavery rules to prevent removal.

    I will not address the Bill’s full legal complexities today. [Interruption.] Some of the nation’s finest legal minds have been and continue to be involved in its development. But I must say this: rule 39 and the process that enabled the Strasbourg Court to block, at the last minute, flights to Rwanda, after our courts had refused injunctions, was deeply flawed. Our ability to control our borders cannot be held back by an opaque process, conducted late at night, with no chance to make our case or even appeal decisions. That is why we have initiated discussions in Strasbourg to ensure that its blocking orders meet a basic natural justice standard, one that prevents abuse of rule 39 to thwart removal; and it is why the Bill will set out the conditions for the UK’s future compliance with such orders.

    Other countries share our dilemma and will understand the justice of our position. Our approach is robust and novel, which is why we cannot make a definitive statement of compatibility under section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998. Of course, the UK will always seek to uphold international law, and I am confident that this Bill is compatible with international law. When we have stopped the boats, the Bill will introduce an annual cap, to be determined by Parliament, on the number of refugees the UK will resettle via safe and legal routes. This will ensure an orderly system, considering local authority capacity for housing, public services and support.

    The British people are famously a fair and patient people. But their sense of fair play has been tested beyond its limits as they have seen the country taken for a ride. Their patience has run out. The law-abiding patriotic majority have said, “Enough is enough.” This cannot and will not continue. Their Government—this Government—must act decisively, must act with determination, must act with compassion, and must act with proportion. Make no mistake: this Conservative Government—this Conservative Prime Minister—will act now to stop the boats. I commend the statement to the House.

  • Rishi Sunak – 2023 Speech on Asylum and Migration Changes

    Rishi Sunak – 2023 Speech on Asylum and Migration Changes

    The speech made by Rishi Sunak, the Prime Minister, at Downing Street in London on 7 March 2023.

    Today we are introducing new legislation to keep my promise to you – to stop the boats.

    My policy is very simple, it is this country—and your government—who should decide who comes here, not criminal gangs.

    The first step is understanding the nature—and scale—of what we are dealing with.

    The number of people entering the UK illegally in small boats has more than quadrupled in the last two years.

    Those illegally crossing the Channel are not directly fleeing a war-torn country… or persecution… or an imminent threat to life.

    They have travelled through safe, European countries.

    They are paying people smugglers huge sums to make this dangerous, and sometimes tragic, journey.

    The reason that criminal gangs continue to bring small boats over here is because they know that our system can be exploited…

    ….that once here…illegal migrants can make a multitude of asylum, modern slavery and spurious human rights claims to frustrate their removal.

    And the risk remains that those individuals just disappear into the black economy.

    That is the reality we must deal with…

    And with 100 million people displaced around the world…

    ….if we do not deal with it now, the situation will just get worse and worse.

    People must know that if they come here illegally it will result in their detention and swift removal.

    Once this happens – and they know it will happen – they will not come, and the boats will stop.

    That is why today we are introducing legislation to make clear that if you come here illegally you can’t claim asylum…

    …you can’t benefit from our modern slavery protections…

    ….you can’t make spurious human rights claims

    …and you can’t stay.

    We will detain those who come here illegally and then remove them in weeks, either to their own country if it is safe to do so, or to a safe third country like Rwanda.

    And once you are removed, you will be banned—as you are in America and Australia—from ever re-entering our country.

    This is how we will break the business model of the people smugglers; this is how we will take back control of our borders.

    Now, this Bill provides the legal framework needed to deliver this in a way that no other legislation has done before.

    This is tough but it is necessary and it is fair.

    This legislation will be retrospective.

    If you come on a small boat today, the measures in this bill will apply to you.

    And this is just part of what we are doing.

    I’ve always been clear this is a complex problem that can’t be solved overnight and will require us to use every tool at our disposal.

    That’s why I’ve already secured the largest ever small boats deal with France.

    And patrols on French beaches are already up 40 per cent.

    I also promised progress on enforcement and we’ve increased raids on illegal working by 50 per cent.

    I’ve also negotiated a new deal with Albania, which accounted for a third of all small boats arrivals.

    And that’s already delivering. We’ve returned 500 illegal migrants to Albania and we are seeing far fewer come as a result.

    This shows that there is nothing inevitable about illegal migration.

    Deterrence works, and with will and determination, the government can get on top of it—and we will.

    Now, this will always be a compassionate and generous country.

    It is something that we’re all rightly proud of.

    Just look at how we have welcomed Ukrainians, Syrians from refugee camps, and embraced Hong Kongers fleeing the Chinese clampdown.

    But the current situation is neither moral nor sustainable. It cannot go on.

    It’s completely unfair on the British people…

    ….who have opened their homes to genuine refugees…

    ….but are now having to spend nearly £6 million a day to put up illegal migrants in hotels.

    It’s unfair on the people who have come to this country legally to see others skipping the queue.

    And it’s devastatingly unfair on those who most need our help but can’t get it as our asylum system is being overwhelmed by those travelling illegally across the Channel.

    If we can’t stop the boats, our ability to help genuine refugees in future will be constrained.

    Full control of our borders will allow us to decide who to help, and to provide safe and legal routes for those most in need.

    I understand there will be debate about the toughness of these measures… all I can say is that we have tried it every other way… and it has not worked.

    So I say again: my policy is very simple, it is this country—and your government—who should decide who comes here, not criminal gangs.

    And I will do whatever is necessary to achieve that.

  • Andrew Mitchell – 2023 Speech at the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies

    Andrew Mitchell – 2023 Speech at the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies

    The speech made by Andrew Mitchell, the Minister for Development, in London on 7 March 2023.

    Your excellencies, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen,

    Salaam-Alaikum.

    I’m very proud and honoured to be connected to the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies under its inspirational leader Farhan and also under His Highness Prince Turki who contributes so brilliantly to the leadership of the Oxford Centre. And I hope you will accept this salutation, especially as it comes from a Cambridge man.

    We live in extraordinary times. We are safer, richer and longer-living than at any time in our history but we also face existential threats, from climate change to pandemics and from devastating weapons to cyber attacks.

    Thirty years of incredible human progress between 1990 and 2020 is now sharply in reverse, partly because of the Covid pandemic, and other events too like the illegal invasion of Ukraine and what it has done to the food chain and what it has done to inflation in very poor countries, mean that all the dials which were moving forward so successfully are now in reverse and we have to do something about that.

    On my visit to Turkey last month, where the UK is delivering lifesaving support following the devastating earthquakes, I witnessed just how swiftly and tragically these things can change.

    We must meet these challenges head on, for the sake of future generations, and collaboration is central to this.

    Sir Isaac Newton spoke of standing on the shoulders of giants, and in our collective history we have made startling progress through shared learning and co-operation on science and technology.

    In the early medieval period, the extraordinary intellectual flowering of the Islamic world helped shape the scientific landscape we know today. And we heard some examples of that earlier this afternoon.

    Institutions like the Bayt al Hikma (House of Wisdom) in Baghdad, and its counterparts in Damascus, Cairo and Fez, translated texts from Greece, Rome, India, Persia and beyond.

    They brought startling insights and discoveries that radically changed our understanding of everything from maths to medicine, physics to optics, astronomy to the natural world.

    Through the multi-faith, multi-ethnic courts of Palermo, Toledo and Cordoba, these ideas catalysed the European Renaissance.

    The challenges we face today call for a similar spirit of curiosity and collaboration.

    As with the past, we now look to a future of partnership with the Islamic world, with opportunities from the grassroots to the global level.

    Indeed, as two major global aid donors, I look forward to welcoming our Saudi friends to London next week for the inaugural annual high-level aid dialogue.

    Together, we will identify new opportunities for collaboration to respond to rising development and humanitarian needs.

    I turn now to our approach in the United Kingdom.

    Over the last 25 years in particular, the United Kingdom has invested hugely in supporting our partners to improve education, health and the environment, from Afghanistan to Nigeria, and from Bangladesh to the Gambia.

    Many tens of thousands of Muslim students have studied in the UK through our Chevening and British Council scholarships, returning to enrich their communities with what they have learnt.

    And two weeks ago I was in Jordan where I saw first-hand how UK support helps 150,000 children a year to receive a quality education.

    But it is clear that traditional models of cooperation, aid and development will no longer meet the needs of the modern world.

    Today I would like to talk about our vision for the years to come, a vision in which our friends from across the Muslim world play a vital role.

    One that places science and technology at the heart of our work, with all the benefits this brings to both prosperity and to security.

    A vision that couples strength with resilience, boosting our defences and enhancing our response to climate change and global health threats.

    When it comes to climate change, we must of course act together, with the greatest urgency.

    We have already witnessed the devastating impacts across the planet, from scorching temperatures and dust storms across the Gulf, to fires in Algeria and devastating floods in Pakistan and Indonesia.

    On a visit recently to Niger, one of the poorest countries in the world, I saw the startling effects that climate change has on food security, as they roll back the equivalent of 500 football pitches worth of agricultural land every single day

    As hosts of the COP27 and COP28 respectively, Egypt and the United Emirates have not only brought their leadership and networks to bear, but built upon the environmental stewardship so deeply embedded in Islam.

    We saw this back in 2015, when prominent scholars combined Islamic and scientific principles to draft the Islamic Declaration on Climate Change, calling on all nations to commit to net zero – and helping to lay the groundwork for the Paris Agreement.

    Six years later, Muslim faith leaders joined their counterparts from other religions in signing the ’Faith and Science Appeal for COP26’, together highlighting the important work Muslim leaders and their institutions can do to build a bridge between science and faith, and put commitments into action.

    For the United Kingdom, partnerships with Muslim countries play a vital role in our work to protect the planet and restore nature.

    One great example is our work with Jordan, Egypt, Morocco and Tunisia to support renewables, green industry and clean transport, like electric buses to reduce the pollution and congestion in Amman.

    This is all backed with £25 million in UK climate finance.

    In Indonesia, our Just Energy Transition Partnership support is powering the transition away from fossil fuels and towards a green economy, unlocking billions in private finance for new infrastructure.

    I turn now to the issue of Public health.

    Beyond climate change, the COVID-19 pandemic has been another stark reminder that individual safety, national security and global prosperity are interconnected.

    All rely on healthy and productive societies – which we cannot achieve without strong and inclusive health systems.

    This is why the UK is at the forefront of work to achieve this, along with our global partners.

    The University of Oxford is working in close collaboration with other academic institutions, including the Zayed and Khalifa Universities in the UAE, supporting efforts to combat anti-microbial resistance and infectious diseases.

    In Yemen, the UK, working with UNICEF, has made pioneering use of satellite imagery to forecast cholera risks and thereby intervene quickly.

    And in January, I saw for myself the vital work being done on vaccines and tests for COVID and other deadly diseases at the world-class Institut Pasteur de Dakar in Senegal, backed by UK funding and with support from companies in the UK and in the Republic of Korea.

    I returned from Senegal feeling energised and optimistic.

    I had seen first-hand the role research hubs are playing in partnership with organisations across the public and private sector, all working together to tackle today’s biggest global problems.

    I know friends in this room see this just as clearly, which is why so many of you are investing heavily in education, in science and in technology.

    We know it is critical to harness all the brainpower and expertise we have, right across society.

    Nowhere more so than in the technology sector, where solutions are so often found outside of government and often with philanthropists.

    That is why we are glad to see the developing partnership between the Qatar Foundation and Rolls-Royce, to advance work on climate technology in the UK and Qatar, where I was on Sunday, creating thousands of jobs and new opportunities for global investors.

    The problems of today’s world simply cannot be solved by money alone, so the answers lie in sharing scientific and technological expertise, and in investing in our business and trade networks in countries around the world, including many of our friends who are here in this magnificent room today.

    This is how we make the smartest investments and find the brightest and best people to come up with solutions, and this is how we address inequalities and promote opportunity.

    Allow me to share just two examples of projects the British Government is sponsoring with friends around the world.

    The first is the UK-Gulf Women in Cybersecurity Fellowship, where rising stars in the cyber world from Gulf countries are supporting positive female role models, promoting peer-to-peer learning and boosting collaboration on cyber between their countries and the United Kingdom.

    The second is in Pakistan, where the UK has linked up with Sehat Kehani, a women-led telemedicine platform, which provides health care for Afghan refugees and displaced people, especially girls and women.

    Not only does this platform use smart technology to help patients access the best possible care, it also provides employment for more than 5,000 female doctors.

    Examples like this just remind us how fast technology is changing – and how vital it is to harness its power, together with the power that comes from working in partnership.

    If I may conclude, your Excellencies this is why I am so excited by the potential of this new research venture, and delighted to celebrate its launch today.

    In a world that is not short of division, what better way to build bridges than through collaboration and cooperation?

    We have already made great progress together, and this project will find many more opportunities across health, science and technology opportunities to solve the huge challenges we face, and build a healthier, safer, more prosperous world for our children and grandchildren, my first of which is expected to enter this world in just nine weeks from now

    Thank you very much.

  • Neil O’Brien – 2023 Speech on Prescription Charges for People Aged 60 or Over

    Neil O’Brien – 2023 Speech on Prescription Charges for People Aged 60 or Over

    The speech made by Neil O’Brien, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons on 6 March 2023.

    I am grateful to the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) for opening the debate so effectively on behalf of the Petitions Committee, and I thank all Members for their constructive contributions. I also thank the 46,000 members of the public who signed the petition.

    The Government provided their initial response to the petition in January 2022, and I am pleased to be able to respond again today, having listened to hon. Members’ important and interesting contributions. The context, of course, is the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the high energy prices, inflation and cost of living pressures that it has unleashed. It is worth situating the debate in the context of some of the things we are doing to take action on that, some of which hon. Members have already referred to.

    This winter, we are spending a total of £55 billion to help households and businesses with their energy bills—one of the largest support packages in Europe. A typical household will save about £900 this winter through the energy price guarantee, in addition to £400 through the energy bills support scheme. We are also spending £9.3 billion over the next five years on energy efficiency and clean heat, making homes cheaper to heat. Some of that is being paid for by the windfall tax; at 75%, it is one of the highest in any of the countries around the North sea, and it is enabling us to do more on the cost of living, such as the £900 cost of living payment for 8 million poorer households, and the largest ever increase to the national living wage, which will help 2 million workers. In total, we are spending £26 billion on cost of living support next year.

    Turning specifically to prescription exemptions, I should start by trying to manage expectations about what I can say today, for reasons on which I will elaborate. It is clear that the outcome of the consultation on aligning the upper age exemption for prescription charges with the state pension age is very important to many Members’ constituents. However, I can only say at this point that no decision has been made yet to bring proposals forward.

    We received over 170,000 responses to the consultation —a testament to the strength of feeling on the issue. We want to ensure that everyone across the country, especially those affected by the cost of living pressures caused by the Russian invasion, can afford their prescriptions. That is why we have thought long and hard about how best to balance the needs of those in the affected age group, many of whom will find that they have additional health needs compared with when they were younger, with the pressures facing the public finances. I can, however, assure Members that we will respond to the consultation in due course.

    Hon. Members will be aware that the petition calls on the Government to protect free NHS prescriptions for all over-60s. We value our older members of society, and we recognise their social care and health needs. On the one hand, we recognise that families up and down the country are facing unprecedented pressures with the cost of living; on the other, we have to recognise that in the light of the covid pandemic, which has tested the NHS like never before, and the challenging economic landscape, we must ensure that public sector spending represents the best value for money for the taxpayer. As we look to the future in a post-pandemic world, there is no shortage of challenges ahead of us: an ageing population, an increasing number of people with multiple health conditions, and deep-rooted inequalities in health outcomes, which we are tackling. That is all in addition to the challenges of the pandemic and the elective backlog.

    Charges have been around in the NHS for over 70 years, and prescription charges provide a valuable source of income for the NHS, contributing £652 million in 2021-22. That significant funding helps to maintain vital services for patients, and it is particularly important given the increasing demands on the NHS.

    It is for those reasons that we consulted on aligning the upper age exemption for prescription charges with the state pension age. Historically, the initial exemption for prescriptions was for people aged 65 and over. The exemption was then extended to women aged 60 and over in 1974, and to men aged 60 or over in 1995, based on the state pension age for women at that time. The state pension age has subsequently increased to 66 for both men and women, with legislation already in place to increase it to 67, and then 68, in future years.

    The Government have abolished the default retirement age, meaning that most people can continue to work for as long as they want and are able to. That means that many people in the 60 to 65 age range can remain in employment and be economically active, and therefore more able to meet the cost of their prescriptions. Indeed, more than half of people aged between 60 and 65 are economically active, with a further 20% receiving a private pension or some other income.

    As increasing numbers of people live longer, work longer and so on, there are more people claiming free prescriptions on the basis of their age. It is projected that by 2066 there will be a further 8.6 million UK residents aged 65 and over, and that they will make up about a quarter of the total population.

    It is important to know that over 1.1 billion prescription items are dispensed in the community each year, with nine out of 10 currently dispensed free of charge. The exemptions that allow that may be based on the patient’s age, certain medical conditions, or income. We estimate that if we were to make the proposed change, around 85% of 60 to 65-year-olds would be minimally affected by it. As I have just noted, more than half of them are in employment, with about another 20% retired with a private pension, so they have a higher income, while others would continue to qualify for free prescriptions on the basis of their particular conditions.

    It is also worth noting that there are extensive arrangements in place to help those who are most in need of support with prescription charges. People who are on a low income but do not qualify on the basis of an automatic exemption, such as being on universal credit, can get help through the NHS low income scheme, which provides either full or partial help with health costs on an income-related basis. Anyone can apply for the scheme if they or their partner, or they jointly as a couple, do not have savings, investments or property totalling more than £16,000, not including the place where they live. A person will qualify for full help with their health costs, including free NHS prescriptions, if their income is less than or equal to their requirements.

    To support those who do not qualify for an exemption due to one of the many other reasons, such as their age or their condition, or for the NHS low income scheme, prepayment prescription certificates, which were mentioned earlier in the debate, are available to help those who need frequent prescriptions to reduce the cost. The prescription charge is currently £9.35; a three-month PPC is £30.25; and a 12-month certificate is £180.10, which amounts to just over £2 a week. PPCs can offer significant savings, and an annual PPC can be paid for in 10 direct debit payments, to allow people to spread the cost over the year.

    Andrew Gwynne

    I am a little concerned about the tone of what the Minister is communicating. He seems to be accepting that there will be a change on prescriptions for pensioners, but does he acknowledge the challenge with pension credit, whereby a large number of pensioners who are eligible for it do not apply for it, because they are fearful of the means test? What will he do to ensure that that does not happen when it comes to prescriptions?

    Neil O’Brien

    Perhaps I can set the hon. Member’s mind at ease. I said earlier that no decision had been made, and I reiterate that now. I have talked about the different measures that cause people either to be exempt from charges or to have the cost of their prescriptions cut, and I talked about PPCs as a final step, which can reduce the cost of prescriptions for those who do pay them.

    It has been mentioned several times that prescription charges have been abolished entirely in the devolved Administrations. Health is of course a devolved matter, but it is worth noting that spending is £1.25 in Scotland and £1.20 in Wales for every £1 in England, so there is that additional budget. Those devolved Administrations, with the record increases in their spending settlements, have full discretion about how they choose to spend those budgets.

    Several hon. Members asked me quite specific questions about the outcome of the consultation. I can only reiterate that we continue to consider, long and hard, the many responses that we received, trying to balance the cost of living pressures with the need for increasing funding for the NHS, and we will respond to the petition in due course. I thank hon. Members for their contributions today.

    Tonia Antoniazzi

    I thank Members for participating in the debate and the Minister for his response. I am sure that the people I have met will not be reassured by that response, but it is difficult, with no decision having been made about the reduction in prescription charges. That needs to be done, and the Minister needs to confirm it.

    I feel for the many unpaid carers—mostly women—who look after children or partners, given of the impact of this situation on them. People see that as unfair, and the system is not perfect, so we hope that change will come.

  • Andrew Gwynne – 2023 Speech on Prescription Charges for People Aged 60 or Over

    Andrew Gwynne – 2023 Speech on Prescription Charges for People Aged 60 or Over

    The speech made by Andrew Gwynne, the Labour MP for Denton and Reddish, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons on 6 March 2023.

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I want to start by thanking the Petitions Committee for facilitating this debate, and my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) for the passionate way in which she put forward the arguments of Peter, Denise and many others who find themselves in the predicament of having to pay for prescriptions or who worry that they might have to pay for them as pensioners.

    It is a pleasure to respond to the debate on behalf of the shadow Health and Social Care team, but also as the Member of Parliament for Denton and Reddish, and I know that many of my constituents are concerned about this potential policy change. As we have heard, we are in the middle of a cost of living crisis, when many people face unsustainable rises in their energy and household bills. It is little surprise that the Government’s decision to consult on scrapping free NHS prescriptions for the over-60s will be of profound concern to many people already struggling to make ends meet. That anxiety has been compounded by characteristic delay from the Department of Health and Social Care.

    The Government first announced the consultation to scrap free NHS prescriptions for the over-60s in July 2021, meaning that there was little or no time for Members of this House to sufficiently scrutinise the proposals before that year’s summer recess. The consultation closed in September 2021 and, two and a half years on, we are still none the wiser about where the Government are on the issue.

    A quick glance at written parliamentary questions shows that many Members from across the House have asked the Government for clarity, only to receive a boilerplate response that an announcement would be made “in due course”. In his response, will the Minister set out precisely when that announcement will be made and why there has been such a delay in the Government addressing their own consultation?

    That is important, because the Government’s own impact assessment raises several potential problems with the proposals. Notably,

    “some people towards the lower end of the income distribution may struggle to afford all their prescriptions”,

    which can result in

    “future health problems for the individual and a subsequent cost to the NHS.”

    That is precisely the point made in their interventions by my hon. Friends the Members for Gower and for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi) and, indeed, the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier), who is not in her place. Therefore, if the Government do decide to opt for this policy, we need to know what steps they will take to support people—especially those over 60 and with long-term conditions—with their prescription fees.

    Prescription charges have already increased by 30% since 2010 and, given the financial context we are in, there are really valid concerns about people being priced out of accessing vital medicines. The Royal Pharmaceutical Society recently conducted a survey of 269 pharmacies, with half of respondents saying that patients were asking them which medicines they could do without. Half of pharmacies surveyed also said that they have seen a rise in people not collecting their prescriptions at all. That is incredibly concerning.

    Last year, Asthma & Lung UK found that 15% of surveyed people with respiratory conditions were rationing the use of their inhalers to make them last longer. Some 5% of people said they were being forced to borrow medicine from others, which really frightens me, because someone’s prescription is pertinent to them and them alone. I had hoped that we had moved away from a world where we lend medicines to others. Frankly, these statistics should be ringing alarm bells in the Department of Health and Social Care and, for that matter, in the Department for Work and Pensions, but unfortunately we have had radio silence.

    I would like to impress on the Minister the simple fact that if people are not taking vital medication, they could be living in extreme pain, and in some cases they will be at risk of serious medical complications as well. Have the Minister and his officials made any assessment of the number of people in England who are currently unable to afford medicine, and of the knock-on impact on NHS services, which are already at breaking point thanks to this Government’s mismanagement of the NHS?

    Last year, the Government froze prescription charges in a move that was welcome to many in England. The next review is due to take effect in April, and I am sure I do not need to remind the Minister that that will come at the same time as the implementation of Ofgem’s new energy price cap. Will the Minister provide an update on that review? Does he anticipate another rise in the cost of prescription charges, or will the Government do the right thing and freeze them again, for another year?

    While he is at it, perhaps the Minister will also nudge his colleagues in the Treasury to do the decent thing and implement a proper windfall tax on energy and gas giants to extend energy support, so that those on the lowest incomes are protected against astronomical price rises. In the 21st century, here in the United Kingdom, no one should be forced to choose between accessing vital medication, heating their home or feeding their family.

    The final point I wish to make is connected to this issue. The Government seem to have no vision or appetite to prioritise preventive public health. In the context of an ageing population, it is important that we build healthier communities. That is important not only morally, but practically, especially if we want to reduce reliance on prescriptions and primary care. What steps is the Minister taking to prioritise preventive health? On that note, will he set out why the public health grant allocation has still not been announced for local authorities in England? Many local authorities that have already set their budgets still do not know what their public health grant allocations will be in three and a half weeks’ time.

    The next Labour Government will give the NHS the tools, staff and technology it needs to treat patients on time and to put prevention right at the heart of everything it does. Coming back to the issue before the Chamber, I really hope that the Government understand the concern, worry and anxiety of those over 60 in England, who are concerned that their free prescriptions may come to an end.

    I want to mention my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), who was here at the start of proceedings. As a member of the shadow Cabinet, he cannot take part in these deliberations, but he wanted me to highlight some of the work he has done in his constituency. He and his local team collected signatures against the proposed scrapping of free prescriptions for the over-60s. His story can be told 650 times over to the Minister, because there are elderly people across England who are concerned about this issue and who want answers from Ministers. They want their concerns to be heeded, they want assurances that the Government get the reason why prescriptions are free for the over-60s and they want the Government to understand why it is important that that remains the case. They also want to know that the Government are on their side on this issue, that their free prescriptions are not at risk and that we will not face people who cannot afford their medication with the dilemma of whether to heat their homes, feed their families or get the medication they so desperately need. Britain is better than that, and I hope the Minister has some positive news for us.

  • Marion Fellows – 2023 Speech on Prescription Charges for People Aged 60 or Over

    Marion Fellows – 2023 Speech on Prescription Charges for People Aged 60 or Over

    The speech made by Marion Fellows, the SNP MP for Motherwell and Wishaw, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons on 6 March 2023.

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank all the previous speakers; some of what I say will be a repetition, but in this case I do not think repetition is unwelcome.

    Under the SNP Scottish Government, prescription charges were abolished in Scotland in 2011. Scotland gets free prescriptions because the Scottish Government believe that mitigating the costs of illness is in the best interests of the population of Scotland. The SNP has led the way in delivering progressive and forward-thinking public health measures, which people across Scotland continue to benefit from. I speak from experience, as I was honoured to be part of the call for the new generation of cystic fibrosis medications to be released in Scotland, which was first place to get them. I declare an interest, because my granddaughter Saoirse will continue to benefit from those new drugs for the rest of her life, and they will extend her life expectancy quite considerably.

    All credit to the Scottish Government: inhalers, antibiotics, life-saving medicines such as insulin for diabetes and many other treatments are provided at no cost at all to the patient at any stage. Scotland receives no extra funding for this decision and does not take money from other areas of the United Kingdom to pay for it. England is out of step with the rest of the UK. For more than a decade, NHS prescriptions have been free in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Yet the Tories, who have been in power in England for 13 years, have not replicated this approach, instead penalising those wishing to collect medicines; and, as we have already heard, the cost of living crisis has increased the non-collection of prescriptions.

    When the NHS was founded in 1948, there were no prescription charges, but fees were introduced in the early ’50s to help with funding. Labour’s position in 2019 was to roll back charges for England—that appears to have been dropped under the present leadership. Unequivocally, the SNP has used the powers we have to ensure that people in Scotland benefit from the most generous social contract in the UK. The cost of NHS prescriptions can be mitigated in England if people use a prescription season ticket—a prepayment card. However, many people in England are still unaware of the system. Is the Minister prepared to advertise it more than is currently the case?

    I used the example of cystic fibrosis medication, but the hon. Member for Gower has done really good work in the area of hormone replacement therapy over the years. After the arguments she has forcefully put in this place, it is incredible that women going through the menopause still have to pay for their HRT. The most recent announcement committed the Government to reduce the cost from April this year so that women can receive a year’s supply of HRT for the cost of two single NHS prescriptions in England, but in the rest of the UK they get it free. Although cost reductions are welcome, charging menopausal women less seems inadequate—they should get it free because the amount of work they can then do will increase, and that is a benefit to the whole economy.

    People who have asthma are sometimes afraid to collect their prescriptions, as we heard from the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi). A small survey of pharmacists published by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society last month found that a rising number of patients in England are failing to collect their medicines, because they cannot afford them. Some 51% of the pharmacists surveyed reported an increase in patients not collecting their medication, and 67% saw a rise in patients asking whether there was a cheaper over-the-counter substitute for the medicine they had been prescribed. That is appalling in this day and age, and it leads to more hospital admissions and more expensive care being required in the longer term. It defies common sense to allow that to continue.

    The three devolved Governments have taken a preventive approach to mitigate poorer health outcomes by providing free access to medicines for those who need them. In England, the tax on sickness reduces access to medicines and leads to poorer health, time off work and potential hospital admissions, offsetting any costs gained from prescription charges. The UK Government should scrap prescription charges. To introduce them for people who are working until 67 is absurd. As the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) said, we are more likely to need medication as we get older.

    The Government’s public consultation document ominously states:

    “Anyone aged 60 and older can get free prescriptions for medicine. We are thinking about changing this.”

    The change would mean that prescriptions would be free only when people get to pension age. Today’s pensioners have no need to worry, but they will worry—people worry even more during a cost of living crisis.

    Is the Minister prepared to heed what is happening in the devolved nations and to equalise access to medicine across the United Kingdom?

  • Taiwo Owatemi – 2023 Speech on Prescription Charges for People Aged 60 or Over

    Taiwo Owatemi – 2023 Speech on Prescription Charges for People Aged 60 or Over

    The speech made by Taiwo Owatemi, the Labour MP for Coventry North West, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons on 6 March 2023.

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) for securing such an important debate.

    As a cancer pharmacist, chair of the all-party parliamentary pharmacy group and somebody who still volunteers at a local hospital—I was there this morning—I have seen at first hand the difference that free access to medication makes to those over the age of 60. For years, I have treated patients whom the prescription proposals will make worse off. I know just how anxious they are at the prospect of having to fork out another monthly expense that they simply cannot afford. When the choice is between heating and eating, which is a day-to-day reality for thousands of people in my city, we cannot sit idly while health is incorporated into the mix. It should not have to be spelt out that, as people age, they will develop long-term healthcare needs, and those needs will need to be treated by prescription drugs.

    Margaret Ferrier

    Prescription charges have been described by pharmacies as attacks on the sick. As we have heard, pharmacies have reported a significant increase in the number of patients not collecting their prescriptions because they simply cannot afford them. Does the hon. Member agree that that is worrying for all age groups, but especially for over-60s, who are more prone to sickness and to requiring that medical aid?

    Taiwo Owatemi

    I agree. Sadly, we look at the pharmacy shelves and see that many patients are not picking up their prescriptions, or patients come to the pharmacy counter, realise how much a prescription costs and that they cannot afford it because they have not financially planned for it. I will speak about that later in my speech.

    The Government’s impact assessment concluded that 52% of people between the ages of 60 and 64 will have at least one long-term health condition, so by aligning medical exemptions with the state pension age, the Government are hitting the people in my community who have the greatest need for medication but simply cannot afford it. What do the Government expect to happen when people in their 60s decide that they can no longer afford their prescriptions? If saving money is the Government’s aim, I question whether they have considered the reality—that the proposals will simply shift the costs from primary to urgent care. Health conditions will inevitably worsen, and patients will be forced into overcrowded A&E units—adding to the already overwhelmed health service.

    I support some of the points highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Gower regarding long-term health conditions, especially unchanging health conditions such as asthma, motor neurone disease and sickle cell anaemia. As she highlighted, the York Health Economics Consortium estimated that £20 million would be saved each year if the NHS scrapped prescription charges for people with Parkinson’s and inflammatory bowel disease. That is because fewer people would be forced into A&E, which would mean fewer hospital admissions and fewer GP visits. If we want to save the NHS money and reduce the burden on the NHS, prevention is key, and medicines play an essential part in preventing patients’ healthcare conditions from worsening and preventing patients from developing other health conditions. It is concerning that the Government can consider the proposals as a way of reducing the burden on the healthcare system. That is a hugely irresponsible decision for the Government even to consider making. It is essential that the Government engage in some form of cumulative impact assessment. People over the age of 60 with long-term conditions will be disproportionately affected.

    My older constituents in Coventry North West are anxious and stressed. They tell me that they simply do not know how they will make ends meet at the end of each month, especially when they have to deal with soaring energy bills and food costs. They ask why the Government continue to attack elderly residents during the most severe cost of living crisis for a generation. I hope that the Government will answer that. I especially worry that making our ageing population pay for medication will leave huge numbers of people unable to afford essentials and force them into further hardship. I add my support for the Prescription Charges Coalition, which is calling for a freeze in prescription charges for 2023 and has said that the Government must scrap the alignment plans. I recognise that the Government are planning to support the proposals.

    Every year, especially on 1 April, I find myself helping patients to fill out prepayment card applications or to navigate the increase in NHS charges, because many do not even realise that those changes are coming. I therefore first ask the Government to notify patients of the increase way before 1 April so that they are able to financially plan; otherwise, the increase may mean that many do not have access to their medication when they need it. Secondly, will the Government review the long-term exemption list for patients with medical conditions that, due to their nature, we know will not change?

    I want to make a final important point. Older people have contributed to our society their whole lives, and they have trusted that if they work hard and pay their taxes, they will be looked after. That is the deal we make with them, and it is what they expect from us when they get older. The Government’s proposal will break that trust. We cannot afford to abandon older people now simply because the Government have decided that this is the best way forward. Doing so will impact trust in the long term.

    Lastly, will the Minister, who is responsible for primary care, come to the all-party parliamentary pharmacy group meeting from 1 pm until 3 pm on 29 March in Room S, Portcullis House, and speak to pharmacists? We would like to continue the debate and to talk about the current pressures facing pharmacy as a whole.

    It has been a pleasure to contribute to the debate. I look forward to hearing from other colleagues.

  • Tonia Antoniazzi – 2023 Speech on Prescription Charges for People Aged 60 or Over

    Tonia Antoniazzi – 2023 Speech on Prescription Charges for People Aged 60 or Over

    The speech made by Tonia Antoniazzi, the Labour MP for Gower, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons on 6 March 2023.

    I beg to move,

    That this House has considered e-petition 594390, relating to prescription charges for people aged 60 or over.

    It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. The petition I am presenting touches on a number of incredibly important issues in healthcare from access to treatment to public health and preventative care, all within the context of how the NHS adapts to an ageing population. Although the petition focuses on prescription charges, it must be considered in the broader economic context of the cost of living crisis, with months of rising prices and inflation where even the most basic necessities are becoming luxury items for many.

    The steady rise of pensioner poverty since 2015 shows no sign of stopping, continuing a trajectory that will see millions of us face a retirement dominated by debt and hardship. That context means we are duty-bound to look beyond figures on spreadsheets and examine what the proposed scrapping of free prescriptions for that age group would mean for those who would be impacted by it. It is those impacts that the petition creator Peter had in mind when he set it up.

    When I spoke to Peter about why he started the petition, he shared his concern about the impact these changes would have not on him, but on his local community—the men and women who are already struggling with costs and are making difficult choices about what to prioritise. It is people like him who have spent a lifetime working in industry and those who, because of that work, now suffer from a variety of medical conditions, each needing different medications. It is those women, including his wife, who had their lives upended by the callous way the Government implemented the equalising of the state pension age. WASPI—Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign—women, who were born in the 1950s and live in England, have further issues to deal with compared with those in devolved countries.

    Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)

    Uprating the age when prescriptions become free in England to be in line with the state pension age, as the Government consulted on, would be harmful given the cost of living crisis, as the hon. Lady said, and the growing economic activity in those over 50 for various reasons, including their health. Does she share my concern about what this could mean for ease of access to medical treatment for the older generation?

    Tonia Antoniazzi

    I thank the hon. Lady for her contribution. It is, indeed, a huge concern that people with multiple health problems are facing extra difficulties in accessing prescriptions and are having to make those difficult choices about how they spend their money.

    For Peter, it seems that something has gone incredibly wrong to get us to this point—something broader than this planned introduction of charges, but something encapsulated by it. It is the breaking of a promise—the promise between citizen and state and the promise that a lifetime of contribution, whether financial through tax and national insurance or through the unpaid labour of care that enables our economy to function, means support in retirement. Peter kept his part of the bargain. It was great to have a conversation with him. He could not believe that his petition was being debated in this place, and it is so important that his voice and the voices of others are heard in this place. He kept his part of the bargain, first in the shipyards on the Tyne and then working on aircraft. He paid in and did what was expected, as did hundreds of thousands of others, but the Government have not held up their end of the bargain. They have changed the rules, and it looks like they will do so again. That unfairness is the reason why we are discussing the matter today.

    The plan to introduce charges seems particularly unfair when Peter does not even have to look that far from home to see a better way. England is the only nation in the United Kingdom without free prescriptions and, as colleagues may have guessed from my accent, I am Welsh. I have the great pleasure of representing Gower, one of the three Swansea constituencies, which is beautiful. If anyone ever wants to visit, please do.

    Swansea and Newcastle have a lot in common: both are port cities with a proud industrial heritage; both are famous for an excellent night out. It seems the height of unfairness to many in Newcastle and across England that they alone in the United Kingdom pay for prescriptions. I am sure that the Government will tell us that several conditions are exempt and that pre-payment certificates cut costs, but, as I said earlier, we must look beyond the briefings to the reality of the system actually. The exemptions list is not only woefully out of date but, apart from the addition of cancer in 2009, it has not been reviewed since 1968. It also does not cover several life-changing conditions, such as Parkinson’s, arthritis, asthma, Crohn’s disease, cystic fibrosis, lupus or motor neurone disease.

    That is the tip of the iceberg. People with those conditions, and other complex, lifelong conditions, still pay for their prescriptions. For those with multiple, co-existing conditions, the cost is even higher. Evidence from the Prescription Charges Coalition, a group of 50 organisations calling on the Government to scrap prescription charges for people with long-term conditions in England, shows that people with long-term conditions struggle to pay for their medication. A third of respondents in England with long-term conditions reported that they had not collected a prescription item due to the cost. Nearly a third admitted that they are skipping or reducing medication doses, with cost concerns a key factor for more than four out of 10. As a direct result of reducing or skipping medications, nearly three in five—59%—became more ill, and 34% needed to visit their GP or hospital. In fact, the Government’s own impact assessment on the introduction of charges highlighted that issue and noted the potential effect on people’s health.

    In 2018, thousands of over-the-counter medicines were taken off the list of those that GPs are able to prescribe, leaving those with long-term conditions facing additional costs for their conditions and to stay well. Those worrying health outcomes come with a cost to the NHS. Several member organisations of the PCC conducted research last year. They found that, of those surveyed, one in six of those with asthma and lung disease had cut back on using their potentially life-saving inhalers, as they were worried about the cost; 29% of respondents with cystic fibrosis reported that they had skipped their medication due to prescription charges; and one in five people with multiple sclerosis say that they do not have enough money to pay for the medication or treatment they need.

    One lady who lives with kidney disease was hospitalised twice because she had to wait until payday to collect a prescription. In hospital, she had to have a lumbar puncture and an MRI scan, which cost the NHS thousands of pounds more than the prescription would have. As colleagues can see, the impact is vast and, when meeting campaigners prior to this debate, I heard far too many stories like that one. The lived reality of those impacted by this proposed change and the issues caused by the current dysfunctional exemptions system are best understood through that lens.

    I work closely with Parkinson’s UK, which is one of the many organisations deeply concerned by this proposal. Medication is the only way to control the symptoms of Parkinson’s disease; most have to take a cocktail of medications to stay well. Research shows that Parkinson’s cost households over £19,000 a year in 2021, due to loss of work; and additional health and social care costs. As Parkinson’s progresses, it becomes more complex. Among people eligible to pay for prescriptions who are aged 60, in any year 5.5% will die within five years and 23.8% will need support to live independently—that is within only five years of being diagnosed. However, they would still have to pay for their essential medications for Parkinson’s.

    I want to tell the Chamber a little about Denise. She is 59 and was diagnosed with Parkinson’s in April 2019. She has had to reduce her working hours from 37.5 to only 12 per week, due to her symptoms. She uses a prepayment certificate for her prescriptions, because it is cheaper than purchasing them individually. If the exemption age rises to 66, however, she will have to continue paying for them.

    Denise told Parkinson’s UK about the impact that that would have on her:

    “I always thought I would work until I was 67, because I would be able to. However, as my Parkinson’s advances I worry about whether I physically will be able to. My employer is really understanding, allowing flexibility to start later in the mornings until my medication has kicked in, but I have already had to reduce my hours by 60% and I’m already noticing the impact of this reduced earning capacity on our household.

    I have to pay for my prescriptions, and this is eating into the diminishing amount I can contribute towards the household bills. If they were to increase the age at which I become exempt, it would be really tough because we haven’t allowed for more years of these additional charges.

    It feels like the Government is once again penalising those living with a long-term condition like Parkinson’s that anyone could get and for which currently there is no cure.”

    Denise’s story is not an isolated one. Parkinson’s is not the only condition whose sufferers will be further disadvantaged by the change, but this is not a problem that will be solved by changing the exemption list. An exemption list has winners and losers baked into its design, and the complexities of managing chronic conditions mean that any approach that is not universal is not fit for purpose.

    Furthermore, the Government need to answer why the change is being prioritised now. What evidence is there that it will have any kind of positive impact? We cannot see one. Even if the Government make savings in the short term, the long-term impacts could be catastrophic, leading to greater illness and to more GP and hospital visits.

    A poll published in Pulse found that 40% of GPs linked prescription charges to adverse patient outcomes, also indicating that those could lead to far greater costs and more adverse outcomes down the line. Initial results of the 2023 survey by the Prescription Charges Coalition showed that nearly 10% of respondents had not collected medicine due to cost. Of that group—I have more data —30.74% said that they now have other physical health problems, in addition to their original health condition; 30.33% said that they had to go to their GP; 17.32% said that they had to go into hospital for treatment; and 8.32% said that they had to go to A&E.

    Research published in 2018 by York Health Economics Consortium highlighted how ending prescription charges for long-term conditions could save money and reduce pressure on the NHS. That comes from preventing avoidable health complications that occur when people do not take their medication. The research identified net savings of more than £20 million per year if the NHS scrapped prescription charges for people with Parkinson’s and inflammatory bowel disease alone. Instead, the Government are discussing introducing additional charges. That flies in the face of common sense.

    We know that the NHS is under pressure, but that is the case across the United Kingdom, and the devolved nations are not even discussing removing universal free prescriptions. I urge the Government to follow that lead, to look to the future and not to engage in short-termist, quick fixes that will not be a fix for all, and not for the petition creator.

  • Michelle Donelan – 2023 Statement on Science and Technology

    Michelle Donelan – 2023 Statement on Science and Technology

    The statement made by Michelle Donelan, the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, in the House of Commons on 6 March 2023.

    February marked a watershed moment for science, innovation and technology in the United Kingdom. For the first time in our history, we created a Government Department that concentrates our best minds around a single mission: making Britain a science and technology superpower—one that uses discovery and innovation to solve the problems that are priorities for the British people.

    Our vision for the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology starts from an extraordinary position. This is a nation that last year joined only China and the United States by having a tech sector worth $1 trillion. We beat China, Japan, Korea, France and Germany in the global innovation index—and attracted more tech investment than the latter two combined. On average, our universities have produced a Nobel prize winner every year for the last two decades, and four of our universities make up the global top 10.

    We have an incredibly unique and powerful platform from which to grow and innovate for the benefit of the British people, which is why I plan to take a ruthlessly outcome-focused approach to this new Department—ensuring that, in both the short term and the long term, our work is improving people’s daily lives in ways they can feel and see around them.

    This Government’s vision for the future is an NHS that uses artificial intelligence to find, treat and reduce illnesses such as cancer and heart disease so that we have more time with our loved ones. We should have local transport services that allow us to travel faster, safer and cleaner than our parents did. The schools of the future should be powered by the kind of technology that unlocks hidden talents in every child no matter where they live. As the “Department for the future”, our focus will be on how we can use science, technology and innovation to ensure that the British people live longer, safer, healthier and happier lives.

    Such an important goal requires immediate action, which is why my first few weeks as Tech Secretary have been focused relentlessly on action and delivery. I see this as a once-in-a-generation opportunity to send a clear signal around the world that Britain plans to lead the way in science, innovation and technology.

    Today I have published “The UK Science and Technology Framework”, which sets out the Government’s goals and vision for science and technology in an enduring framework that will see us through to 2030. It has been developed in close collaboration with the UK science and technology sector, and represents a commitment to scaling our ambition and delivering the most critical actions needed to secure strategic advantage through science and technology.

    The science and technology framework is the strategic anchor that Government policy will deliver against, and which the Government will hold ourselves accountable to. We will have a clear action plan for each strand of the framework in place by summer 2023 and delivery will be overseen by the National Science and Technology Council.

    Immediate investments to get us started delivering against the framework will include:

    £250 million for technology missions in AI, quantum and engineering biology. This is part of our commitment to the five key technologies found in the science and technology framework, which also includes semiconductors and telecoms.

    A £50 million uplift for UK Research and Innovation’s world-class laboratories fund. This will help research institutes and universities get on with the cutting-edge scientific research that saves lives, supports our economy and society, and protects our planet.

    The Government are investing in the most powerful form of computing, the formidable “exascale”, which has the ability to solve massive societal issues such as energy sustainability and support thousands of businesses. This is complemented by a new dedicated public compute programme for AI research of scientific importance.

    We are providing £10 million in the UK innovation and science seed fund—UKI2S—an early-stage venture fund providing patient capital and support for businesses emerging from the UK’s publicly funded science and knowledge base.

    Further still, we are investing in a research data cloud pilot, to enable us to help ensure that our researchers can access the information they need to develop the transformative technologies of the future. The pilot will test methods for improving data sharing for research, and harnessing its value for science and innovation.

    This is also a Government that are looking for opportunities to test different models of funding science, to support a range of innovative institutional models, such as focused research organisations, known as FROs, working with industry and philanthropic partners to open up new funding for UK research. For example, we are working with a range of partners to increase investment in the world-leading UK Biobank, to support the continued revolution in genetic science.

    On top of this, the Government are investing up to £50 million to spur co-investment in science from the private sector and philanthropy to drive the discoveries of the future, subject to business case approval. We are delighted to confirm that we are already talking to Schmidt Futures, a philanthropic initiative of Eric and Wendy Schmidt, about additional support of up to $20 million.

    I am also delighted to announce the return of PsiQuantum to the UK. Supported by £9 million in Government funding, PsiQuantum’s decision to establish a quantum computing research centre in Daresbury in the north-west marks a vote of confidence in the global competitiveness of the UK’s quantum sector, built up over the years of Government investment, and a vital boost to the regional economy.

    These are just some examples of what will be a constant drumbeat of delivery and action from my Department. However, this will also be a Department that understands the importance of forward, strategic planning for achieving enormous goals, such as gaining superpower status. That is why we have published, or are very shortly publishing, responses to key reviews that will help to inform our work. These include:

    Publishing Sir Paul Nurse’s landscape review of research, development and innovation. This sets out how our R&D organisations can work together to drive discoveries and innovations that will improve the lives of the British people.

    Publishing the “Independent Review of The Future of Compute”, led by world-leading AI expert Professor Zoubin Ghahramani. Our response will ensure that we harness the power of compute to boost economic growth and address society’s greatest challenges. We are announcing today that we will be implementing two of the most important recommendations with immediate effect and Government will respond to the remaining recommendations in due course.

    And the Government have just published our consultation response on cyber-physical infrastructure—CPI. This response outlines our plan to put Britain right at the forefront of the increasing convergence of the physical and digital worlds, helping our researchers and entrepreneurs to solve real-world problems in everything from transforming our energy systems to enabling sectors from agriculture to manufacturing to be more efficient and innovative, securing sustainable growth in these sectors.

    These will form the basis of clear, decisive and forward-thinking plans that will be coming out of my Department, underpinned by our science and technology framework, which sets out our clear strategic approach in a 10-point plan. These points can be summarised as: identifying critical technologies; signalling the UK’s strengths and ambitions; investing in research and development; creating a pipeline of talent and skills; financing innovative science and technology businesses; using procurement to drive innovation; seizing international opportunities; improving access to physical and digital infrastructure; pursuing innovative, regulation and influencing global standards; and making the public sector more innovative. The Chancellor recommitted in his autumn statement to the largest ever increase in public R&D funding over a spending review period, with annual spend rising to £20 billion by 2024-25. This significant underpinning investment will be geared towards delivering the framework.

    Of course, forming a key part of that framework and sitting at the heart of my new Department will be people and skills. Britain is home to some of the best scientists in the world, but this is no reason to be complacent; if we want to carry on punching above our weight in an increasingly competitive world, we must do more to secure better jobs for British people and attract international talent. That means making Britain the best place in the world to carry out cutting-edge scientific research, or to start and grow a technology business.

    Take artificial intelligence. We are focusing on training more specialists, proactively attracting them from around the world and ensuring that they have the resources and equipment to innovate. We are investing an additional £117 million distributed by UKRI for centres for doctoral training, which will double the number of AI researchers we are training and comes on top of the existing commitments we made in the AI sector deal and continued in the national AI strategy, including the initial £100 million in the AI centres for doctoral training, £46 million in Turing AI fellowships, and up to £30 million AI and data science conversion course scholarship programme, all of which will help us develop the best and brightest right here in the UK.

    AI can speed up the discovery and development of life-saving drugs, and help us to monitor air pollution in our communities and find new ways to cut it. That is why the Government have today tasked our trade commissioners, ambassadors and the wider global talent network with finding the next generation of AI leaders from around the world, showcasing our fantastic offer, and matching them to specific opportunities. We will find and attracted talented people before they have won a Nobel Prize or created the next unicorn and help them to achieve those goals in the UK. We will also be delighted to welcome exceptional young people to the UK in July, as part of the global RISE programme, an initiative of Schmidt Futures and the Rhodes Trust.

    I am also cognisant of the fact that Horizon and the UK’s position on it is an important issue to get right. Colleagues from across the House have raised it with me and I am grateful for the engagement so far. Our research community needs to see that the Government understand their need for stability, clarity and confidence. That is why I am announcing a further extension of the Horizon Europe guarantee to protect thousands of researchers from uncertainty.

    This extension will support eligible, successful applicants, covering calls that will close on or before 30 June 2023. It will ensure that eligible, successful UK applicants will continue to be guaranteed funding and will receive the full value of their funding at their UK host institution for the lifetime of their grant, supporting them to continue their important work in research and innovation. Successful awardees do not need to leave the UK to receive this funding.

    Our position has always been one of openness to discussions on research and innovation collaboration and that very much continues to be our position. We welcome the EU’s recent openness to discussions, following two years of delays. The EU has not yet made any proposals to address the financial terms of UK association, given that we are now over two years into a seven-year programme. We continue to be ready to work swiftly and constructively together on a range of issues including UK association.

    Finally, I want to extend an invitation to Members across the House. With the agenda being set, immediate actions already being announced and a commitment to delivery, there is one final important element that will help ensure that these ambitious goals are achieved: your input and support.

    My approach will be guided and shaped by an open-door policy, where I invite colleagues to raise issues, concerns and ideas with me at any time. Government achieve at their best when we collaborate and give everyone a voice in setting the priorities and plans for the future of our country. I look forward to working with you closely to deliver life-changing results for your constituents and for the future of the United Kingdom.

    I will deposit a copy of “The UK Science and Technology Framework”, the “Independent Review of the UK’s Research, Development and Innovation Organisational Landscape”, the “Independent Review of the Future of Compute” and the “Cyber-Physical Infrastructure Consultation Response” in the Library of the House.

  • Chris Philp – 2023 Statement on the Coronation and Extended Licensing Hours

    Chris Philp – 2023 Statement on the Coronation and Extended Licensing Hours

    The statement made by Chris Philp, the Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire, in the House of Commons on 6 March 2023.

    The Government have consulted on, and will be proceeding with, the proposal to make a licensing hours order under section 172 of the Licensing Act 2003 to relax licensing hours in England and Wales to mark His Majesty the King’s coronation. The order is intended to enable people in England and Wales properly to celebrate the constitutional, historic, and momentous significance of the coronation of the King and the beginning of his reign.

    The order will apply to premises already licensed until 11 pm for the sale of alcohol for consumption on the premises, for the provision of late-night refreshment—only where there is also the sale of alcohol for consumption on the premises, and for the provision of regulated entertainment in England and Wales. The order will extend the licensing hours for such premises from 11 pm to 1 am the following day, on Friday 5 May, Saturday 6 May and Sunday 7 May.

    An economic assessment is being prepared and will be published alongside the order on www.gov.uk.