UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Andrew Murrison – 2025 Speech on Access to NHS Dentistry

    Andrew Murrison – 2025 Speech on Access to NHS Dentistry

    The speech made by Andrew Murrison, the Conservative MP for South West Wiltshire, in the House of Commons on 22 May 2025.

    Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I prefer Ben— I have never enjoyed Andrew—but Andrew will do.

    Quite honestly, NHS dentists are saints. As my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) has said, the reason why we do not have any NHS dentists is that it is far more remunerative to do expensive dental work than the sort of grinding service work that NHS dentistry implies. The reason for that, fundamentally, is the so-called new dental contract introduced in 2006. That is the problem. Units of dental activity have plagued the dental profession and the provision of NHS dentistry all these years.

    I am delighted that the Government are revising the dental contract that their Labour predecessor introduced 20 years ago, but, unless they are prepared to underwrite it, I am afraid that we will still be more or less in the same position. It is not as if we are not training dentists—we are training more and more dentists and there are more and more dental schools, and rightly so—but if those professionals are going to practice in the NHS, they need to be incentivised to do so.

    Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)

    I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the 2006 NHS dentistry contract, which clearly needed revision. Why did his party not do that in 14 years in government?

    Dr Murrison

    I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has destroyed the consensual way in which I was trying to introduce my remarks.

    If I may, I will explain that I think there has been a conspiracy of silence all these years on NHS dentistry. What Government have to get to grips with is whether they intend that dentistry should continue to be a universal part of our NHS and whether it will be exempted from the universality that has characterised the provision of healthcare services in this country since 1948.

    The Government could decide that dentistry is a bit like ophthalmic optics, which in the 1940s was deliberately excluded from NHS provision. I am not recommending that, but I am recommending to the Minister that we are at least honest with the public. At the moment, we have this pretence around NHS dentistry that says, “Of course you have the right to have your teeth fixed at no cost to you at all up front.” In reality, in most parts of the country, mine included, that is a complete fiction.

    When the Government come to their new arrangements, which I welcome very much, can we first have some honesty? Can we have some money behind them? Can we have some idea about what part of current NHS provision the Government intend to deprioritise, if that is their intention, to ensure that we have truly universal provision of NHS dentistry going forward?

  • Irene Campbell – 2025 Speech on Access to NHS Dentistry

    Irene Campbell – 2025 Speech on Access to NHS Dentistry

    The speech made by Irene Campbell, the Labour MP for North Ayrshire and Arran, in the House of Commons on 22 May 2025.

    When the NHS was introduced, it made the biggest positive changes ever to the health of the general population. The original “How to use your NHS” booklet from 1948 stated:

    “It will provide you with all medical, dental and nursing care. Everyone—rich or poor, man, woman or child—can use it or any part of it.”

    On the topic of dentistry, it said:

    “After 5th July you can go to any dentist taking part in the new arrangements (there will be a list at your Post Office).”

    At that time, 83% of registered dentists signed up to work in the NHS. Currently, in England, approximately 66% are signed up to work in the NHS, a significant reduction since the early days that demonstrates a clear barrier to access.

    As a former NHS manager in Scotland, I have seen the importance of early intervention when it comes to health inequalities, particularly in dentistry. Scotland too has an access crisis, with decreasing numbers of NHS participating dentists. Naturally, those lower levels of participation affect patient access to NHS dental services, and dentists lose the chance to pick up early signs of decay, cancers and other serious issues, which results in higher costs for the NHS and worse outcomes for patients.

    Additionally, children and adults from the most deprived areas were less likely than their wealthier counterparts to have seen their dentist within the last two years. Recent statistics from Public Health Scotland showed that 55.9% of children from the most deprived areas have seen their dentist in the last two years, compared with 75.8% for children in the least deprived areas. Those figures drop to 42.7% and 53.5% for adults.

    In September 2008, the gap in child participation between the most and least deprived areas was three percentage points. That increased to seven percentage points by 2010, 18 percentage points in 2021, and then 20 percentage points in 2023. We cannot let that continue. As oral health inequalities continue to grow, it is important that our NHS strategy involves a focus on increasing participation and access in more deprived areas. Otherwise, we will continue to see further such worrying trends, which cause more serious problems further down the line.

  • Julian Lewis – 2025 Speech on Access to NHS Dentistry

    Julian Lewis – 2025 Speech on Access to NHS Dentistry

    The speech made by Julian Lewis, the Conservative MP for New Forest East, in the House of Commons on 22 May 2025.

    Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for that no-pressure introduction. I congratulate the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) on her speech and I agree with every part of it. I was hoping to quote from individual cases raised by constituents and from the local Women’s Institute, but all that will have to go by the board.

    I have a wonderful briefing from the British Dental Association and, in the remaining two and a half minutes, I would like to make one pertinent observation, from which everything else flows. Dentistry is a highly skilled profession in which practitioners can charge colossal sums of money in private practice, which gives them a financial incentive to steer clear of working for the NHS. That is the root of the problem.

    On 13 March, I put a question to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care about a point made by the Darzi report, last September, which says:

    “There are enough dentists in England, just not enough dentists willing to do enough NHS work, which impacts provision for the poorest in society.”

    I was pleasantly surprised when his reply was:

    “NHS dentistry is in a terrible state and, in fact, in many parts of the country it barely exists. There are lots of reasons for that, and it is a source of constant astonishment to me that the dentistry budget was underspent year after year despite that situation.”—[Official Report, 13 March 2025; Vol. 763, c. 1298.]

    In reality, as the BDA points out, the reason why that budget is underspent is not because of the lack of demand, but because NHS practices cannot fill vacancies and are unable to meet contractual commitments. Therefore, those who do work with and for the NHS are having to deliver dental care at a loss. There is a fundamental requirement for a rewritten constitution and contract by which it becomes worthwhile for people to practice dentistry in the NHS, because otherwise we will see a two-tier society, in which only the rich can get the dental care that people so desperately need.

  • Melanie Onn – 2025 Speech on Access to NHS Dentistry

    Melanie Onn – 2025 Speech on Access to NHS Dentistry

    The speech made by Melanie Onn, the Labour MP for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes, in the House of Commons on 22 May 2025.

    I beg to move,

    That this House has considered access to NHS dentistry.

    I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for this debate and the colleagues who supported that application. I am pleased that many Members want to speak and am aware of the limitations on time, so I will keep my remarks brief.

    During the general election, Labour promised to tackle the lack of NHS dental services, and I welcome the progress already made in the Labour Government’s first 10 months. After 14 years of neglect we are finally starting to see action to address the crisis in NHS dental care, including the launch of 700,000 extra urgent dental appointments, with my own integrated care board in Humber and North Yorkshire delivering 27,196 of them across the region.

    This Government are rightly focusing on prevention by rolling out much-needed supervised tooth-brushing schemes in schools. That is a small intervention with long-term benefits, particularly for children growing up in areas like mine where levels of tooth decay are among the highest in England. Currently, one in three five-year-olds in deprived areas experience tooth decay—a shocking statistic that simply must be addressed.

    Over 260,000 people have signed a petition led by the British Dental Association, the Women’s Institute and the Daily Mirror calling on the Government to urgently deliver on their promise to reform NHS dentistry, and the demand could not be more urgent. Catherine, one of many constituents who has written to me about dental provision, had been with her dentist for over a decade but during the pandemic a missed appointment—a simple missed appointment that was cancelled by the surgery itself—saw her removed from her regular appointments, and she has since been unable to join another practice, being told that waiting lists would take at least two years. In the meantime she suffered devastating deterioration to her oral health, losing all of her back teeth, suffering with an infected crown and bridge, and facing the real fear of losing her top teeth too; and Catherine is only in her 40s. She was quoted £14,000 privately for treatment. She simply cannot afford that. She has had to endure constant pain that no one should be left to bear.

    Constituents regularly tell me that they cannot find an NHS dentist taking new patients. They are calling every single practice listed on the NHS website and they are getting nowhere. People are living in pain, they are missing work and their mental health is suffering. Some people are even attempting their own dental work, and we cannot allow that to become the norm.

    The desire for action is also supported by dental practices in my constituency. One of them told me:

    “We’re seeing high-need patients we’ve never treated before, often for complex work—but we’re doing this using the same budget we’ve had for years.”

    In fact, some of the new urgent care and schools-based initiatives are not additionally funded. The BDA’s most recent figures show that dentists in England are delivering the least NHS care of all four UK nations: only 39% of dentists in England are spending most of their time on NHS work, compared with nearly 60% in Scotland. Practices are delivering NHS treatments at a loss: they lose over £42 for every denture fitted and nearly £8 for every new patient they see.

    This Labour Government pledged to reform the dental contract: it was in our manifesto; it was part of the plan that we were elected on. I welcome the early signs of recovery, but when we say that we want to go further, faster, it is precisely on issues like this that the public are looking to Government to deliver.

    In Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes and across the nation we are privileged to have so many dedicated dental professionals. Tomorrow I am visiting Dental Design Studio to celebrate its 20 years of high-quality dental care provision in Cleethorpes. It is a real credit to the team there who have delivered consistent care to local people, often under increasing strain. And our young people are not forgotten locally: thanks to the commitment of Dr Jatinder Ubhi from Dentology, multiple young people in my constituency have received essential dental support.

    We must not let dentistry become a luxury service only for those who can afford to go private. We need a new approach that is fair, that funds dentists properly, and that delivers accessible care to everyone who needs it.

  • Peter Swallow – 2025 Speech on the Mental Health Bill and Legislative Scrutiny

    Peter Swallow – 2025 Speech on the Mental Health Bill and Legislative Scrutiny

    The speech made by Peter Swallow, the Labour MP for Bracknell, in the House of Commons on 22 May 2025.

    It is an honour to present to the House the Joint Committee on Human Rights’ report into the Mental Health Bill. As Members will know, the Joint Committee is a cross-party body of both Houses, chaired by Lord Alton of Liverpool, whose remit is to examine matters relating to human rights within the UK, including through legislative scrutiny.

    Over the course of our inquiry into the Bill, we have examined legal frameworks and witness submissions and, crucially, heard from those with direct experience of the mental health system. As part of our inquiry, the Committee convened a roundtable with individuals who had experienced detention under the Mental Health Act 1983. Their testimonies were powerful, candid and often harrowing. They spoke of the trauma of being sectioned, the overuse of medication and restraint, and the disempowerment from being detained in facilities that too often felt isolating rather than therapeutic.

    Participants have since shared with us

    “how important this visibility was to them, to see their evidence truly listened to and shared publicly”.

    Hearing directly from people with lived experience was not just informative; it was essential. These conversations grounded our scrutiny in the realities faced by patients and families. The insights shared at that roundtable shaped our thinking and sharpened our final recommendations. As one participant told us:

    “lived experience matters. Using it to inform policy should be the standard, not a shock.”

    I take this opportunity to thank all those who contributed to the roundtable, often at the cost of revisiting past trauma. The Committee is also grateful for the expert work of the Committee’s legal counsel, particularly Alex Gask who led on this work, as well as Thiago Simoes Froio and Hafsa Saeed who led on the delivery of the roundtable event.

    It became clear over the course of our scrutiny just how overdue the Mental Health Bill had become. It will introduce substantial changes to the Mental Health Act, which provides the legal framework for the detention and compulsory treatment of people with “mental disorders”—an outdated term, but one that remains part of our law. The changes introduced by the Bill will bring our mental health legislation into the 21st century, strengthen patient rights and help end practices that bring more harm than good.

    When people hear about detention under the Mental Health Act, many instinctively think of those who have committed the most serious and violent crimes. They picture high-security hospitals such as Broadmoor, which happens to be located in my constituency. I have had the opportunity to visit Broadmoor. The work they do there is outstanding; it is vital, world-leading work that deals with some of the most complex and challenging cases in psychiatric medicine.

    Let us be clear, though: the reality of detention under the Mental Health Act is not limited to high-security hospitals or individuals convicted of serious crimes. Many people detained under the Act are not criminals. Many of them are children, young people and adults with autism or learning disabilities who are detained not because they pose a danger to others, but because the support they need in their communities simply is not there. This is not just inefficient, it can often be deeply traumatising and raises significant human rights concerns.

    That is why the Committee welcomes the major changes introduced by the Government’s Bill. It will end the detention of individuals under section 3 of the Mental Health Act solely on the basis that they are autistic or have a learning disability; tighten the criteria for detention and require decision makers to consider the nature, degree and likelihood of harm before deciding to detain; introduce the concept of a nominated person to replace the outdated nearest relative system; and remove police stations and prisons as places of safety for individuals in crisis. As stated in the evidence we received from witnesses, those are important, welcomed and long-awaited reforms. They reflect the breadth of the Government’s consultations and prove that the Government listened to the information they received.

    While welcoming the Bill’s direction of travel, the Committee believes that there are areas where the Government could go even further to provide enhanced protections for human rights. That is why, based on the evidence we received during the inquiry, we have recommended a few key amendments. First, we recommend a new clause to ensure that children detained under the Mental Health Act are accommodated on adult wards only when that is demonstrably in their best interests.

    Secondly, we recommend an amendment to clause 1 to include equity as a fifth guiding principle under the Act. This would refer specifically to addressing inequalities in treatments and outcomes on racial grounds in particular, and I welcome the Health Secretary saying on Second Reading of the Bill on Monday:

    “People from ethnic minority communities, especially black African and Caribbean men, are more than three times as likely to be sectioned.”—[Official Report, 19 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 783.]

    In our report, we find that adding equity as a guiding principle would do more to address racial disparities.

    Thirdly, we recommend an amendment to clause 32 to shorten the review periods for restricted patients who are discharged into conditions amounting to the deprivation of liberty. The first review will be required within six months, rather than 12, and subsequent reviews will take place annually, rather than every two years.

    Those key amendments come amid a range of other recommendations. Recent case law shows that mental health patients in state-commissioned and funded but privately provided care do not come within the protection of the Human Rights Act. That loophole must be closed, and we recommend that the Government do just that.

    We also heard evidence that the question of when the Mental Health Act and when the Mental Capacity Act should govern a patient’s deprivation of liberty and treatment is far too complex and raises human rights concerns, not least because depriving a person of their liberty on any ground can be justified only if the legal basis is clear. We therefore recommend that the Government carry out an urgent review and provide the clarity that is currently lacking on this question.

    Another crucial area the Bill covers is the rights of children, who are particularly vulnerable when assessed or treated under the Mental Health Act. Many of the proposed changes to the law will be positive for children, including the introduction of an opt-out approach to receiving a report from independent mental health advocates, but we recommend that the Government consult on introducing a statutory test for assessing whether under-16s are competent to consent or to refuse consent to treatment—a cornerstone of compliance with a child’s human rights.

    The Committee also deems it vital that prisoners whose mental health makes holding them in prison unsuitable are transferred promptly to an appropriate setting. Keeping them in prison may result in human rights breaches. In our report, we welcome the introduction in the Bill of a statutory 28-day timeframe for hospital transfer. Relevant data should be collected and made available to monitor and help to ensure compliance with that standard.

    The Committee welcomes changes to restriction orders placed on a small number of offenders detained under a hospital order, but the Government should consider introducing more prompt and regular reviews by the mental health tribunal, to ensure that any loss of liberty is justified. Witnesses told us that, in the absence of effective support in the community, autistic people and people with learning disabilities could still end up in unjustified detention on other legal bases. The Government have stated that the change in the Bill will come into force only where there are strong community services in place, but it is vital that this does not delay the much-needed reform. We therefore welcome the Government’s commitment to provide a written ministerial statement annually to both Houses of Parliament setting out progress to date on implementation. On what more the Bill could do to improve the prospects of patients receiving timely care in the community, we also ask the Government to consider introducing an English equivalent to the right to a mental health assessment that applies in Wales.

    The report makes it clear that much more is needed to fix the broken mental health system in this country, and I know the Government recognise that as well. This is a small, targeted Bill, which will not change everything, but the changes it will introduce are significant and long overdue. The Government have committed to introducing mental health experts in every school, to set up Young Futures hubs and to recruit 8,500 more mental health staff. By focusing on community-based interventions and driving down waiting lists for mental health support alongside the welcome changes in the Bill, we can turn the tide and fix our broken mental health system, so that the human rights of all those with mental health needs are properly protected and they can get the support they need.

    I commend this report to the House.

  • Lisa Nandy – 2025 Speech at the Evening Reception of UK National Day at World Expo Osaka

    Lisa Nandy – 2025 Speech at the Evening Reception of UK National Day at World Expo Osaka

    The speech made by Lisa Nandy, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on 22 May 2025.

    Good evening everyone. Konbanwa .

    It’s a pleasure to welcome you all to the UK’s Pavilion to celebrate our National Day at the Expo 2025 Osaka Kansai. I would especially like to extend a warm welcome to Her Imperial Highness Princess Akiko of Mikasa and former Prime Minister Kishida, both good friends of the United Kingdom.

    The UK and Japan bilateral relationship is the strongest it has been in decades, underpinned by our common values, shared view of the world and our close people-to-people links. From security to economic growth and working together to tackle global challenges, our partnership is going from strength to strength. This step-up in collaboration was launched under the 2023 Hiroshima Accord – with thanks to former Prime Minister Kishida – and last year Prime Ministers Starmer and Ishiba agreed to build on it even further. The State Visit to the UK by Their Majesties the Emperor and Empress of Japan in June last year celebrated the depth and breadth of our partnership – as His Majesty the Emperor said, ‘we are friends like no other’.

    I have seen this partnership first-hand here in Japan. And if you have had a chance to go through our visitor experience today, you will have seen the power of UK and Japanese collaboration. We can achieve so much more when we harness our shared creativity and innovation. In this spirit, the National Ballet of Japan makes their European debut at the Royal Opera House in London with their production of “Giselle” in July, under the artistic direction of Yoshida Miyako, who made her career as the first Japanese Principal ballerina in the UK’s Royal Ballet.

    Ours is a partnership that is more relevant than ever. With growing uncertainty and instability around the world, there is so much that the UK and Japan can do together to ‘design future society for our lives’. This is, I believe, the defining challenge of our lives – to empower people the world over to build a world that works for us, and us for it.

    So, I am delighted to be launching Musubi: a flagship new initiative that will foster meaningful people-to-people connections between the UK and Japan and build the shared leadership to tackle the challenges and opportunities ahead of us.

    That includes championing our young people and building a pool of international talent. And today we are announcing:

    • A new Musubi Scholarship with University College London, supported by Amano Enzyme Inc.;
    • A Youth Offshore Wind Scholarship Programme with SSE Pacifico to foster future talent in this dynamic sector; and * The Robert Walters career development programme to help our brightest young people reach their full potential.
    • It includes drawing on the power of sport to build connections and enrich lives. Where:
    • 2025 Premier League winners Liverpool Football Club’s International Academy in Kawasaki is developing young players and providing opportunities to build leadership qualities.
    • And the UK Ekiden – inspired of course by Japan’s famous relay race – is bringing teams together in a celebration of teamwork, connection and friendship.

    And it includes building the leadership of the future.  Later this summer at this Pavilion the UK and Japan will host an event focused on promoting female leadership in business, building on the fact that our agreement with Japan was the first UK trade agreement to include a chapter on women’s economic empowerment.

    All of this will be championed by our Musubi Friendship Ambassador – Hello Kitty, presented by Sanrio.

    This is the most ambitious initiative of its kind between the UK and Japan – but it is also just the beginning. Over the years to come, this initiative will continue to grow – building a lasting legacy of connections and opportunity for our countries. Thank you to all our Pioneer Partners – and I hope to see many other companies and organisations joining us on this journey! I am now delighted to introduce a congratulatory message from The Princess Royal in her capacity as Chancellor of the University of London.

    Finally, this event and indeed our pavilion itself would not have been possible without our key sponsors and contributors: I would especially like to thank AstraZeneca, Aston Martin, IHG Hotels & Resorts, Diageo’s Johnnie Walker, Robert Walters, Liberty, the governments of Scotland and Wales, Ampetronic, Brompton and last but certainly not least, BBC Studios.

    Finally, I would like to thank everyone here this evening – I’m delighted that we have been able to gather so many of the UK’s closest friends in Japan, and I know with your support the UK-Japan partnership will continue to flourish. Arigato gozaimasu!

  • Lisa Nandy – 2025 Speech at the National Day Official Ceremony at World Expo Osaka

    Lisa Nandy – 2025 Speech at the National Day Official Ceremony at World Expo Osaka

    The speech made by Lisa Nandy, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on 22 May 2025.

    Your Imperial Highness, your excellency and esteemed guests. It is a great honour to be hosting the UK’s National Day celebrations here at Expo 2025 Osaka Kansai

    Let me start by offering my congratulations to the Government of Japan, the Expo Association and everyone involved in organising Expo 2025. In today’s world where many want to focus on differences and divisions, it is no mean feat to bring together over 150 countries with a shared goal of “designing future society for our lives.” I am very much looking forward to seeing more of this amazing Expo site in the course of today.

    Expo 2025 is very much about a global conversation, and within that global conversation, the UK and Japan have a particularly strong partnership. Our bilateral relationship is the strongest it has been in decades, underpinned by our common values, shared view of the world and our close people-to-people links. As His Majesty the Emperor said on his State Visit to the UK in June last year, we are ‘friends like no other’.

    The UK has a long history with Expos – going back to 1851 when the first ever EXPO was held in London – and a long history with Japan, from the arrival of William Adams/Miura-Anjin in 1600 to the Choshu 5 travelling to Britain in the mid-19th century to learn about the Industrial Revolution which was transforming my country and the world.

    The Japanese pioneers who travelled to Britain learnt much about our industrial prowess, bringing that technology back to Japan helping to transform Japan into the thriving, technologically advanced nation it is today. It is especially pertinent to reflect that one of those pioneers who ventured as far as Manchester went on to found the Osaka Chamber of Commerce, giving rise to Osaka’s tremendous growth. So our links are long and very relevant to this region. I am personally delighted as someone who was born in Manchester to see those links between Manchester and Osaka grow ever stronger.

    It was the sharing of technology and ideas which drove the UK-Japan relationship then, and still drives it now. And it is that belief in the power of ideas to build the future that lies at the heart of the UK pavilion at Expo. The UK’s theme at Expo 2025 is Come Build The Future. It is about the power of small ideas to come together, as children do with building blocks, to create something magical and potentially world-changing.

    We are a country of ideas that thrives on diversity, on a special mix of tradition and modernity. Our ancient universities drive world leading research, our whiskies and gins are still made to centuries old recipes, produced using cutting edge technology by a new generation of female distillers, our historic playhouses showcase the newest creative talents; and our small island is home to people from every country on the globe and has a capital city where over 300 languages are spoken.

    Today our National Day offers a snapshot of that, underlining the message of partnership: the Edinburgh Military Tattoo will perform with taiko drummers, later today the BBC Planet Earth Live III concert will be performed by the Osaka based Century orchestra with a renowned UK conductor, and musicians from across the four nations of the UK will connect with new Japanese audiences.

    I said earlier that the UK-Japan partnership is stronger than ever. This is evident from our ever-deepening economic and trade ties, through CPTPP, our collaboration on the green agenda, in defence, security, and digital technologies. But today I want to draw attention to the powerful cultural and people-to-people connections between our countries which underpin that partnership. I want to salute the power of the creative industries, of our story-tellers, to bring people together to entertain and delight, and to cross divides of language and culture.

    Later today, as part of our National Day, we are bringing the Japanese premiere of BBC’s Planet Earth III Live in concert to the Expo Hall. The BBC will be well known to all of you – it has an average global reach of 450 million people across the world, bringing both independent news you can trust and award-winning television – both drama and documentary. Their BBC Earth natural world documentaries have been seen by a quarter of a billion people and have inspired positive environmental change across the world. Planet Earth, by transforming abstract climate data into personal, emotional experiences, has motivated viewers to care and take action to help shape a sustainable future.  Again, well aligned with our UK pavilion theme and that of Expo 2025.

    For a partnership to flourish you need to bring not only ideas but also people together. That is why later today I shall be announcing a new form of UK-Japan partnership which focuses on that very idea of connection, of bringing people together. The UK and Japan have been connecting for hundreds of years. We want to make sure we continue to do that into the future too. We hope young – and old – visiting Expo 2025 and our pavilion will be inspired to connect globally and to seek out new ideas and new partners.

    To make progress towards the SDGs and tackle the global challenges we all face, we need to come together to share our ideas, to use them as the building blocks of a better future. The UK is committed to doing that, to doing that in partnership with others and is delighted to be here at Expo 2025 to take that partnership still further.

  • Keir Starmer – 2025 Remarks at Press Conference on Diego Garcia

    Keir Starmer – 2025 Remarks at Press Conference on Diego Garcia

    The remarks made by Keir Starmer, the Prime Minister, at the Permanent Joint HQ in Northwood on 22 May 2025.

    A few moments ago…

    I signed a deal…

    To secure the joint UK-US base on Diego Garcia.

    This is absolutely vital…

    For our defence and intelligence…

    And therefore –

    For the safety and security of the British people.

    The full assessment of why this is so important is highly classified.

    But I want to speak as frankly as I can.

    The strategic location of this base is of the utmost significance to Britain.

    From deploying aircraft to defeat terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan…

    To anticipating threats in the Red Sea and the Indo-Pacific…

    The base is right at the foundation of our security and safety at home.

    It has helped us to…

    Disrupt threats to the UK…

    Support counter terror operations against Islamic State…

    And to reduce the risk to brave British and American servicemen and servicewomen.

    The base will help protect the safe passage of our Carrier Strike Group as it goes through the Middle East.

    It enables rapid deployment across the Middle East, East Africa, and South Asia…

    It helps combat some of the most challenging threats we face,

    Including from terrorism and hostile states…

    And its location creates real military advantage across the Indo-Pacific.

    The base gives the UK and the US access to unique and vital capabilities – which benefit us directly.

    Many of these capabilities are secret, but they include…

    Airfield and deep-water port facilities…

    Facilities that support the worldwide operation of GPS…

    And the monitoring of objects in the earth’s orbit…

    And equipment to monitor the nuclear test ban treaty.

    The base is one of the most significant contributions we make to our security relationship with the United States –

    Which is critical for keeping Britain safe.

    Almost everything we do from the base is in partnership with the US.

    President Trump has welcomed the deal –

    Along with other allies.

    Because they see the strategic importance of this base –

    And that we cannot cede this ground to others who would seek to do us harm.

    And let me be clear –

    We had to act now…

    Because the base was under threat.

    The courts have already made decisions which undermine our position.

    And if Mauritius takes us to court again…

    The UK’s longstanding legal view…

    Is that we would not have a realistic prospect of success…

    And would likely face a Provisional Measures Order within a matter of weeks.

    But this is not just about international law.

    This is about the operation of the base.

    Even if we chose to ignore judgments made against us…

    International organisations and other countries would act on them.

    And that would undermine the operation of the base –

    Causing us to lose this unique capability.

    One example of this is the electromagnetic spectrum.

    Countries have the right to manage this spectrum as they wish within their borders…

    A right that’s recognised in regulations…

    And overseen in the International Telecommunication Union.

    The use of spectrum is key to understand and anticipate those who seek to do us harm.

    If our right to control it is put into doubt…

    We would lose the first line of defence against other countries who wish to interfere and disrupt this capability…

    Rendering it practically useless.

    In addition – if we do not agree this deal…

    The legal situation would mean that…

    We would not be able to prevent China…

    Or any other nation…

    Setting up their own bases on the outer islands,

    Or carrying out joint exercises near our base.

    We would have to explain to you – the British people –

    And to our allies…

    That we had lost control of this vital asset.

    No responsible government could let that happen.

    So there is no alternative –

    But to act –

    In Britain’s national interest.

    By agreeing to this deal now – on our terms –

    We are securing strong protections, including from malign influence…

    That will allow the base to operate well into the next century…

    Helping to keep us safe for generations to come.

    Other approaches to secure the base have been tried over the years –

    And they have failed.

    Now there is obviously a cost to maintaining such a valuable asset.

    We pay for our other military bases.

    Allies like the US and France do the same.

    This cost is part and parcel of using Britain’s global reach to keep us safe at home…

    And it will be less than cost of running one aircraft carrier for a year.

    Today’s agreement is the only way to maintain the base in the long term.

    There is no alternative.

    We will never gamble with national security.

    So we have acted –

    To secure our national interest…

    To strengthen our national security –

    And to protect the British people for many years to come.

    Thank you.

  • John Healey – 2025 Statement on the Chagos Islands Deal

    John Healey – 2025 Statement on the Chagos Islands Deal

    The statement made by John Healey, the Secretary of State for Defence, on 22 May 2025.

    Thank you, Prime Minister.

    As the world becomes more dangerous, the Diego Garcia military base becomes more important.

    But I want to underline the urgency and uncertainty over the future control of this UK base.

    Within weeks, we faced new legal rulings which would weaken the UK’s full operational sovereignty over this base, and within just a few years, this irreplaceable military and intelligence base would become inoperable.

    That’s why we have taken action today.

    That is why the Prime Minister has signed this treaty today, securing this base for the next 99 years and beyond.

    Our allied nations are right behind us and behind this deal – the US, Australia, New Zealand, India, Canada.

    Others want to see this base closed. They want to see this deal collapse – China, Russia, Iran.

    The value of this deal is beyond doubt.

    Full control of Diego Garcia for the next 99 years and beyond.

    Full control and protection of the electromagnetic spectrum that priceless intelligence; communications, sensors; radar; a strengthened buffer zone so we can control the seas and the skies immediately around Diego Garcia and wider islands up to 100 miles – an effective veto over any developments or hostile activities.

    And with the base in jeopardy, no action was no option, and anyone who would argue to abandon this deal would abandon this base.  So let me be clear, the British people and our British forces are safer today and into the future because of this deal.

    Thank you.

  • Liam Byrne – 2025 Speech on the UK-EU Summit

    Liam Byrne – 2025 Speech on the UK-EU Summit

    The speech made by Liam Byrne, the Labour MP for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North, in the House of Commons on 22 May 2025.

    I rise to speak to the House today on behalf of the Business and Trade Committee on our sixth report—a road map for the EU reset. I hope you will forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker, for using this moment to share my profound thanks to the members of the Committee, who are both diligent and hard-working.

    From our earliest days together as a Committee, it was clear to us all that our relationship with the European Union had been trapped in the logic of the past, and that although not all of that past was bitter, the present was clearly unsatisfactory, and the future could be richer if we collectively chose to reset that relationship with more ambition. That, we sensed, was also the analysis of His Majesty’s Government. We asked ourselves what could be done to move this relationship forward—not distracted by fantasy, but informed with a real, hard-headed and pragmatic focus.

    We travelled to Brussels, Belfast and Geneva. We listened to businesses, trade unions, diplomats and officials in the European Commission. We looked at border posts, trade barriers and, I am afraid to say, an awful lot of lost opportunities. We asked one simple question: how can we make these arrangements better? We sought not to reopen old wounds, but to open new doors.

    What surprised us was that it was not difficult to find 21 different ways in which our relationship with the European Union could be reset in a manner that would make our country richer—with steps that would support our security, deepen our energy ties, and cut the red tape that is throttling trade with the EU. These were not abstract aspirations. They were grounded, practical and deliverable, and they were supported by an overwhelming coalition of business groups that we met. In short, the proposals we presented were backed by business, because they were good for business and therefore good for our country.

    We divided the work into three ambitions: first, to defend our prosperity; secondly, to defend and advance energy co-operation; and, thirdly, to cut the red tape strangling trade at the border.

    On security, we proposed a bold new partnership: a joint defence industrial policy, a framework for protecting critical national infrastructure and stronger co-ordination to tackle economic crime. We called for closer co-operation at the World Trade Organisation, including UK participation in the new dispute resolution procedures, because a rules-based order is not just idealism; for us it is insurance. On energy, we saw something extraordinary: an opportunity to unlock the potential of the North sea as the world’s biggest green energy power station. That vision demanded that we come together with the EU to create a single carbon border adjustment mechanism and to connect, again, electricity trading and emissions trading. That could add up to a faster and cheaper path to net zero for both us and our European neighbours.

    On trade, we welcomed the Government’s ambition for a deep sanitary and phytosanitary agreement and, indeed, a fair fisheries deal, but we pressed for some specifics: mutual recognition of alternative economic operator schemes; bilateral waivers for safety and security declarations; co-operation around roll-on, roll-off ferries; rejoining the Pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention; mutual recognition of conformity assessments; and a long-term road map for compatible regulation.

    On services, we urged His Majesty’s Government to strike a new data adequacy agreement, pursue deeper co-operation on financial services, ensure UK access to Horizon Europe framework programme 10, sort out a new road map for mutual recognition of professional qualifications, reduce the barriers for touring artists, and implement a visa-based, number-capped, age-capped youth experience scheme.

    We published our draft report to test it. The response was overwhelming, with support levels of between 80% and 90% for the measures that we proposed. Businesses said, “This is what we need, because it will unlock growth, create jobs and raise wages.”

    On Monday, we saw some signs that the Government had listened. We were glad to see progress on security, defence, electricity trading and emissions alignment. There was a new security and defence pact. There was useful language on critical national infrastructure. There was a welcome step towards joining electricity and carbon markets together. There was, however, also much left in the to-do pile. There was no iron-clad commitment to a shared defence industrial policy and there was too little progress on law enforcement co-operation. There was silence on WTO co-operation, although I acknowledge that may come in the trade strategy when it is published. We also thought that there could have been more on financial services co-operation, data adequacy and mutual recognition of conformity assessments.

    This is a deal without a date—a handshake, but not yet a contract. None the less, it was an important start. After years of drift and division, this was the first time since Brexit that, collectively, we had the chance to stop digging ditches of grievance and start rebuilding some bridges of co-operation. This was a step forward, but it was only a step. What comes next must be really clear. We must now have a timetable for drawing up, finalising and implementing these agreements. There should be action to take forward the unfinished business, which we have set out in this report. Crucially, we think there should be a bigger role for Parliament, because Parliament should not be a bystander while our future is forged.

    Let us not retreat into nostalgia. Let us work pragmatically together in the national interest, because that is how futures are built. We are at our best in this Parliament when we choose to lead, and that is exactly what this relationship now needs. I commend to the House this report and its call to action.

    Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)

    Does my right hon. Friend agree that consistency and clarity are exactly what businesses require to grow and thrive? That is why the Government should consider the report’s recommendation to consult with industry on rejoining the pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention. PEM membership could support tariff-free trade, simplify rules of origin and reduce trade barriers for key sectors such as automotive, manufacturing, chemicals and food production. By joining PEM, British business would expand its preferential market access to 25 countries, thereby strengthening supply chains and boosting the competitiveness of British exports.

    Liam Byrne

    My hon. Friend made that point repeatedly during the Committee’s deliberations. What has been especially welcome is how she consistently brings the perspective of local businesses in her Dudley constituency —the home of the industrial revolution, as we all know. She is right that, subject to consultation, in particular around the implications for the electric vehicle industry, rejoining the PEM convention could deliver us some rules of origin that would radically cut red tape for many businesses in her constituency and across our country. Frankly, it would also lower costs at a time when that is much needed.

    Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)

    I thank the right hon. Gentleman and his Committee for their extensive piece of work and for the report he has presented today. He mentions the wide range of different asks that the UK Government had and that he recommended that they pursue. Does he agree that it is disappointing that out of the areas that the UK wanted to achieve agreement on, movement for touring artists and participation in EU defence spending are left unagreed, while the UK Government seem to have agreed on and traded one of our most valuable areas in the negotiation: access to our fishing grounds?

    Liam Byrne

    The hon. Lady will know, as I do, that although fisheries and the fishing industry constitutes quite a small part of our economy—about 0.04% of GDP—for many coastal communities it is a vital industry. Nevertheless, we felt—I certainly did—that the prize of an SPS agreement, which could be worth a huge boost of up to £3 billion to £4 billion a year according to Aston University and that allows for shellfish exports to the European market, was potentially a prize was worth having.

    However, the hon. Lady is right to say that the biggest concern that we should have had was defence industrial co-operation. We cannot defend Europe in the way that we should, and we cannot spend the increases in our defence spending in the way that we should, unless we reorganise Europe’s fragmented defence industrial base. We cannot be stronger together unless we build that shared defence base together. I very much hope that we will hear of progress on that in the strategic defence review and the national security review when those strategies are presented to Parliament before the summer recess.

    Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)

    Our Committee’s report covered how we can help agrifood businesses export to the EU, and I was delighted to see Salmon Scotland and the National Farmers Union Scotland come out in support of the deal this week. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it was baffling to see the SNP stand with Reform and the Tories in opposition to the deal?

    Liam Byrne

    The consensus when we published the draft of our report was overwhelming, and the measures we proposed were backed by an enormous majority of business groups across the country, including groups across Scotland. What business saw was a practical, hard-headed, common-sense set of recommendations that should be supported by not only the Government but those in public life across our country.

    Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)

    I thank the right hon. Member for his leadership and hard work on the Committee. I welcome the move this week, and the set of aspirational statements of intent that go in the right direction. That is great, but does he agree that we should focus on the big stuff? Proportionately, the deal with India will get us 0.1% of GDP growth by 2040 and the American pact takes us to a position that is worse than where we were six months ago, so Europe is where it is at. Europe represents 45% of our trade versus 12% with the US, but of the beneficial 21 recommendations that the Committee set out, maybe five or six have been hit. The key thing is to go for the big stuff, such as being back inside the customs union. That would make a big difference.

    Liam Byrne

    The report could not have been as well written or as strong and robust in its recommendations without the hon. Member’s input. We are grateful for the hard work he put into getting the report right. As he knows, a bespoke customs union was not a proposal we made, perhaps because it would not necessarily have swept up the Committee in unanimity. What is striking is that the measures set out in the report would have been significant enough to offset the economic damage we will suffer because of the tariffs introduced by President Trump. The hon. Member is right that in economic matters it is always wise to focus on the big numbers, and the big numbers in trade come from a better, closer, stronger relationship with the European Union.

    Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)

    I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his report and his stewardship of the Committee. My inbox was full of emails from local businesses in Redditch, relieved that after years of hesitation and no progress we are finally in a dialogue with the EU about improving access for businesses. Does he agree that, as the report states, by continuously speaking to the EU we can finally start getting rid of the red tape, as was promised to businesses by many on the pro-Brexit side, and get proper access to the markets that world-leading companies in Redditch really should be able to access freely?

    Liam Byrne

    My hon. Friend has consistently been a strong voice for the business community in Redditch since he joined us in the House. He is right that what has been lacking for a long time in the relationship with the European Union is the kinetic energy required to drive any bureaucracy forward.

    A number of working groups were set up because of the trade and co-operation agreement. In a cross-party spirit, I should say it is important to note that the mood in Brussels changed significantly under the last Prime Minister, with the progress made in the Windsor framework. However, unless significant amounts of political attention and energy are invested, things will not move forward, and there is still a long way to go. The Committee has set out in the report where some of that progress still needs to happen, but ultimately politics is what changes things. I hope that the political energy that went into Monday can be sustained for the future.

    John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)

    I thank the right hon. Gentleman, whose tremendously adroit chairmanship of the Committee has allowed a lot of cross-party working, which has been really refreshing and very good. This is a moment of regret: the Committee did flag up how fragile coastal communities could be damaged badly by a multi-year deal on fishing, and the 12-year deal is beyond anything anybody imagined. It will hammer fragile communities right across Britain, and particularly in Scotland; that is unfortunate. Does he agree that achieving an SPS deal must be balanced with the deals with India, America and so forth that are coming down the tracks—I am sure the Committee will look at this—and that we must have due care for ensuring that the Brexit freedoms that allow us to strike those deals are not damaged?

    Liam Byrne

    The hon. Gentleman is right. As we were composing the report for the House over the last few weeks, he consistently underlined the risks that coastal communities would confront if the deal were to go the wrong way. We are all incredibly grateful to him for the voice he provided

    We must ensure that we enshrine certain standards that allow us to draw closer to Europe without compromising the alliances already coming into place and those that we still need to strike in order to restore our role as the great free trading nation on this planet. The way in which the Government seek to tessellate the agreement with the trade deal with the United States, with our leadership of the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, with the deal with India and with the deals that are still to come with the Gulf Co-operation Council, Korea and Switzerland needs to be very carefully balanced. It looks like the Government have just about got it right. However, I know that the hon. Gentleman, like me, will want our Committee to keep an extremely close eye on that as the trade talks proceed.

    James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)

    I thank my right hon. Friend for this excellent report that is rooted in pragmatism and practical steps, which I know my constituents welcome. He has highlighted a gap—as he sees it, it is a first step —and there is a lot more to do. Will his Committee undertake to monitor the gap between what the Government have committed to and where he would like the Government to be, and will he and his Committee continue to make recommendations to the Government?

    Liam Byrne

    My hon. Friend is right to point that out. The good news for the Minister is that he now has the scrutiny framework in front of him that the Committee will use to judge the progress that he makes over the course of this Parliament. There is a moment that is still to come for this Parliament, however. At some point—we are not quite sure when—scrubbed treaties will need to be laid in this House. This House will then enjoy the grand total of 21 days during the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 process in which to scrutinise them. That is not very long. The Committee has therefore decided this week that we will open inquiries on the EU, India and United States deals. We will seek to hold hearings on each of those trade deals before the summer so that the House can be as well informed as possible when the CRaG process begins, and we can zero in on the issues that are at stake for our constituents.

    Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)

    I am grateful to the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee for this thorough set of proposals, and especially for the call for a greater role for Parliament. The Committee red, amber and green-rated its 20 proposals and marked as green the UK-EU security pact. Yet the Prime Minister’s spokesman admitted:

    “This is a first step towards UK participation in Europe’s defence investment progression”

    and went on to say that it merely

    “opens the door towards joint procurement.”

    Will the Committee Chair acknowledge how much more there is to do before this amounts to a shared defence industrial base?

    Liam Byrne

    The hon. Member is absolutely right. He knows, because of the extraordinary record of service that he brings to this House, that there is an immense amount of work that we still need to do to conquer the inefficiencies and fragmentation of the European defence industrial base. We cannot spend the money that we propose to spend on defence wisely unless we change the way that we procure military equipment. On the one hand, that will provide greater certainty and long-term contracts to defence suppliers and, on the other, it will help ensure that we are building an innovative ecosystem of funding to help smaller, innovative, nimble and agile suppliers of weaponry to come forward in the way that they can to ensure that the lessons that we have learned on the battlefields of Ukraine inform our military strategy in future.

    If there is one lesson that we have learned, it is that any warfighting capability depends on the strength of our defence industrial base. Quite obviously, today’s defence industrial base in Europe is not in the right place, and together with our partners we have to work hard on that. I hope that the strategic defence review will set out some practical steps for how we will do that together with our allies in Europe.

    Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)

    I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his statement and on the work of his Committee. Clearly, renewable energy is an important part of our relationship with the European Union. What opportunity did his Committee have to examine that and the trade of energy between the UK and the European Union, particularly in the light of the possibility in the near future of an interconnector between Morocco and the UK by way of the UK-Morocco Power Project, or Xlinks? He may know that if the UK does not greenlight that in the near future, other European countries certainly will.

    Liam Byrne

    The right hon. Member is absolutely right to say that Morocco is a country that we should work more closely with. Xlinks is an exciting proposal. As a stable, long-term partner to Europe, Morocco is a country with which we have a shared interest in the future.

    The perspective that we brought to the question was on how we can ensure a faster, cheaper and less risky path to net zero for us and for Europe. We heard striking evidence from many in the electricity and energy sectors about almost the thoughtless way that we had been disconnected from electricity trading schemes. What really worried us in the near term was that, given different carbon prices in the UK and Europe, if Europe introduced a carbon border adjustment mechanism, and we did a little later on, almost a tariff wall would be created.

    We think the Government have done well in seizing that win-win, but that is not to take anything away from the logic and force of the hon. Member’s remarks. Ultimately, we will need several big infrastructure initiatives if we are to do what we all know needs to be done in this country: to drive down industrial electricity prices.