Tag: Speeches

  • James Cartlidge – 2025 Speech on the UK Airstrike on a Houthi Military Facility

    James Cartlidge – 2025 Speech on the UK Airstrike on a Houthi Military Facility

    The speech made by James Cartlidge, the Shadow Defence Secretary, in the House of Commons on 30 April 2025.

    I am grateful to the Secretary of State for early sight of his statement and to the Minister for the Armed Forces for the briefing he extended to me and other parliamentarians earlier today. As far as His Majesty’s Opposition are concerned, the rationale for these actions has not changed since we undertook similar operations in government in the months leading up to the general election, with the support of the then Opposition. We agree that this action is effectively an act of self-defence on behalf of ourselves and our closest allies.

    With the main target for RAF Typhoons being a Houthi drone factory, we should remember that drones were used by the Houthis to target our own naval ships, such as the attempted drone attack on HMS Diamond in January last year. While HMS Diamond was able to take effective action in response on that occasion, we know that this capability can be produced in very large numbers and that the threat remains a clear and present danger. Indeed, we understand that the US navy continues to be subject to Houthi aggression, including from drones. In our view, it is therefore entirely legitimate to support the defence of our close ally, the US, and to prevent future potential attacks on our own fleet and international shipping by attacking the Houthi drone threat at source.

    The Houthis’ actions are not just a threat to ourselves and our allies; as the Secretary of State said, they are illegal and completely counter to international humanitarian priorities, given that their attacks have imperilled aid deliveries to the Yemeni people, while undermining a crucial shipping route for grain en route to some of the poorest people in the world. The Government therefore have our full support for this latest operation, and the Opposition are grateful to the brave and highly skilled personnel of the Royal Air Force who conducted the mission, including the Typhoon crews and those supporting the air-to-air refuelling mission. In particular, we welcome their safe return and the completion of what appears to be a successful operation in degrading Houthi drone capability.

    The US has been undertaking its own self-defence against Houthi attacks, and we very much welcome the close working with US allies, as was the case when we were in government working with the previous Administration in the US. That underlines the continuity of our most important strategic military partnership, and it is right that we work as closely as possible with the US to address threats to freedom of navigation.

    That being said, freedom of navigation is vital to the ships of many nations, not just the UK and the US. The whole world benefits from action taken to keep international shipping flowing, which supports the wider economy. Can the Secretary of State update us on what talks he has had with other allies, including NATO members, on providing direct military support against the Houthi threat in future? After all, it is not only a threat to many other nations, but involves other hostile states, notably Iran, with its long-running support not just for the Houthis, but for Hezbollah, Hamas and other armed groups in Iraq and elsewhere. How will the UK dock in to the approach being taken by the new US Administration towards Iran?

    The Secretary of State referred to Russian involvement. Can he confirm reports that the Houthis have received targeting assistance with potential ballistic missile attacks from Russia? Does that not show why supporting Ukraine against Russia is about a much wider strategic picture that directly threatens the United Kingdom? He also referred to the use of our military base, Diego Garcia, for regional security operations, but soon it will not be ours. Does this kind of action not show why surrendering its sovereignty is so reckless?

    Let me finally turn to the subject of the strategic defence review. It is very concerning that the permanent secretary to the Ministry of Defence told the Public Accounts Committee on Monday:

    “it is a strategic defence review that will need to be translated into a set of specific investment decisions in individual capabilities and projects. That will be work for later in the summer and into the autumn.”

    The Secretary of State knows of the need for urgent procurement decisions relating directly to the Houthi threat in the Red sea, not least on upgrades to the Sea Viper system, which we believe must be accelerated. He also knows that procurement is largely on hold, awaiting the publication of the SDR. He promised to publish it in the spring; can he confirm that it will definitely be published in May—which is the last month of spring—and, most importantly, can he confirm that in May we will see the full details of all major individual procurement choices, so that the MOD can get on with them as a matter of the utmost urgency?

    John Healey

    I welcome the tone and content of the hon. Gentleman’s response to my statement. Labour backed the last Government’s strikes against the Houthis and, as he pointed out, the rationale then was the same as the rationale now. That was a useful contribution to this discussion. The hon. Gentleman was right to say that the clear and present threat that the Houthis pose to all nations, including ours and our closest allies, is also the same.

    When I was shadow Defence Secretary and responded to what was said by the last Government, I did so as the hon. Gentleman has responded today, because this is bigger than politics. It is about freedom of navigation, it is about regional stability, and it is about that most important security relationship that the United Kingdom has with the United States.

    The hon. Gentleman asked me about specific capabilities. We are now able to plan to provide the best possible kit for our armed forces, because of the historic commitment that the Prime Minister made to the House in February to raise the level of defence spending to 2.5%—three years earlier than the date that was in the hon. Gentleman’s own unfunded plans—and then to raise it to 3% in the next Parliament. He asked about the capabilities on some of our naval ships. When I met the crew of HMS Diamond in the autumn, they demonstrated to me, and described to me in detail, just how exceptional their response to that multiple attack was, and just how effective the weaponry on the ship was at that time. We are upgrading those ships with a number of capabilities, including DragonFire. It was the hon. Gentleman who first talked about that, but we are installing it not on just one ship, as he proposed, but on four; we are installing it sooner than he planned; and we are funding it fully, which he had not done.

    The hon. Gentleman asked about discussions with other nations. The importance of regional stability, the Houthi threats and the freedom of navigation in the Red sea were discussed by Foreign Ministers at the G7, and have been discussed by NATO Foreign Ministers in the last month. The very carrier strike group whose deployment the hon. Gentleman welcomed last week is multinational by design. It is designed to exercise together but also, together, to reassert some of the basic principles that last night’s attacks were designed to support, such as the freedom of navigation of our seas.

  • John Healey – 2025 Statement on the UK Airstrike on a Houthi Military Facility

    John Healey – 2025 Statement on the UK Airstrike on a Houthi Military Facility

    The statement made by John Healey, the Secretary of State for Defence, in the House of Commons on 30 April 2025.

    I wish to make a statement to update the House on the action we took last night against a Houthi military target. We did so in collective self-defence and to uphold the freedom of navigation, as Britain has always done.

    Yesterday, UK forces conducted a joint operation with US allies against a Houthi military facility in Yemen. Our intelligence analysis identified a cluster of buildings 15 miles south of Sanaa used by the Houthis to manufacture drones of the type used to attack ships in the Red sea and in the gulf of Aden. Royal Air Force Typhoon FGR4s, with air refuelling support from RAF Voyager tankers, struck a number of those buildings with Paveway IV precision bombs last night. This action was limited, targeted and devised to minimise the risk to civilian life. Everyone involved in the UK operation has returned to base safely. On behalf of the House, I thank all members of our armed forces involved in this operation and pay tribute to them for their total professionalism and courage.

    Yesterday’s operation was carried out alongside the US, our closest security ally. It was conducted in line with both the UN charter and the established UK policy of this Government and the last; you will remember, Mr Speaker, that when Labour was in opposition, it backed the Government when they conducted five separate strikes with the US against Houthi targets.

    Yesterday’s attack aligns with four broad objectives. The first is to restore freedom of navigation in the Red sea and the gulf of Aden, the second is to degrade Houthi capability and prevent future attacks, the third is to reinforce regional security alongside allies and partners, and the fourth is to protect our economic security at home. First thing this morning, the Government briefed the shadow Defence Secretary, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge); the Speakers of both Houses; the Liberal Democrats’ defence spokesperson, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire); and the Chair of the House of Commons Defence Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi). I can now tell the House that our initial assessment is that the planned targets were all successfully hit, and we have seen no evidence of civilian casualties.

    Since November 2023, the Houthis have been waging a campaign of aggression against international shipping in the Red sea. To date, there have been over 320 attacks; those attacks are illegal and deadly, and we totally condemn them. Maritime routes have been disrupted, sailors have been killed, and commercial ships have been hit and sunk. The Houthis have even targeted aid vessels destined for Yemen itself, as well as military vessels of our allies and partners. Both the Royal Navy and the US navy have been forced into action in the Red sea—last September, I met the crew of HMS Diamond, who shot down a ballistic missile and multiple drones in self-defence during their deployment in the Red sea.

    Make no mistake: the Houthis act as an agent of instability across the region. They continue to receive both military and financial backing from Iran, and even Russia has attempted to support the Houthi operations. The aggression in the Red sea and the gulf of Aden is yet another example of how our adversaries are increasingly working together against our interests. As such, I want to be clear that this Government reject any Houthi claims that attacking ships in the Red sea is somehow supporting Gaza. The Houthis were targeting tankers and seizing ships well before the war in Gaza began, and their attacks since have targeted vessels of all nations, so hear me when I say that these attacks do absolutely nothing for the Palestinian people or the push for a lasting peace.

    An estimated 12% of global trade and 30% of container traffic passes through the Red sea every year, but the Houthi threat has led to a drastic fall. Levels are down by 55% on what they were in November 2023; the majority of ships now take a 5,000-mile diversion around the Cape of Good Hope, adding a full fortnight to a journey between Asia and Europe and pushing up prices for the goods that British people and others rely on. This cannot continue.

    In opposition, I argued that, for what is now 80 years,

    “the lion’s share of the responsibility for protecting international freedom of navigation in the Red sea is being shouldered by the Americans, just as the US has been doing across the world”—[Official Report, 24 January 2024; Vol. 744, c. 355.]

    Since last month, the US has been conducting a sustained campaign, targeting the Houthis in Yemen to restore freedom of navigation. It moved two carriers into the region, and its recent strikes have destroyed multiple command and control centres, air defence systems, advanced weapons manufacturing sites and advanced weapons storage sites. The US military says that its operations have now degraded the effectiveness of the Houthi attack, reporting that ballistic missile launches have dropped by 69% and one-way drone attacks are down by 55%.

    The US continues to be the UK’s closest security ally. It is stepping up in the Red sea, and we are alongside it. Yesterday’s joint operation builds on the broader support that we have provided to the US in the region in recent months. That includes air-to-air refuelling; the use of our important military base, Diego Garcia, for regional security operations; and RAF Typhoons to support the defence of the US carrier strike group, which has been coming under near-daily attack from Houthi missiles and drones.

    This Government will always act in the interests of our national and economic security. The UK is stepping up and encouraging allies to do more to protect our common security, just as we are with the eight-month deployment of our carrier strike group to the Mediterranean and the Indo-Pacific, which started last week. The UK has a long and proud history of taking action to protect freedom of navigation. This illegal Houthi aggression does not just disrupt shipping and destabilise the region; it hits our economy here at home. That is why the Government took this decision. It is why the UK has taken this action to help protect freedom of navigation, reinforce regional stability and strengthen economic security for families across the country. We are determined that we will keep Britain secure at home and strong abroad.

  • Rachel Reeves – 2025 Speech at the Innovate Finance Global Summit

    Rachel Reeves – 2025 Speech at the Innovate Finance Global Summit

    The speech made by Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, at the Innovate Finance Global Summit held on 29 April 2025.

    Thank you Janine, and good afternoon everyone.

    It’s a pleasure to be here today to mark the 11th year of UK FinTech Week …

    … brought together once again by Innovate Finance…

    …who continue to champion tirelessly our FinTech sector.

    As Chancellor, I’ve always said it’s my job to back the builders…

    … back the wealth creators…

    …and the job creators.

    So my job is to back all of you in this room.

    After all, it’s thanks to your work that the UK is a world leader in FinTech.

    When I was working at the Bank of England 20 years ago…

    …FinTech was in its infancy…

    …an offshoot of financial services…

    …and there was certainly no such thing as FinTech week.

    But times have changed, the industry has changed.

    Last year, the UK’s FinTech sector attracted $3.6 billion of investment – more than any other country bar the US.

    Almost half of Europe’s FinTech unicorns are based here in Britain…

    …and roughly a third of all UK unicorns are FinTechs – a higher share than anywhere else.

    Companies like Allica Bank and Zilch, who were both recently named among the fastest growing companies in Europe by the Financial Times …

    …Or Zopa, for whom 2024 marked another year of extraordinary economic growth.

    Last week when I was in Washington for the IMF Spring Meetings…

    … I spoke to industry, legislators, and policymakers…

    …as well as US firms already operating here in the UK.

    I set out our strengths as an open trading nation with trade links around the world…

    …and as a nation that can provide political and financial stability and certainty to businesses…

    …in an uncertain world.

    The UK has a long history of breaking new ground in Financial Services.

    We were the first country to develop uniform Open Banking standards…

    …and we were one of the first countries to establish a system for near-instant digital payments with the Faster payments system in 2008.

    In my Mansion House speech last year, I published the National Payments Vision…

    … setting out the government’s ambition for seamless account-to-account payments…

    …and demonstrating our commitment to a regulatory environment that cares about managing the burden we put on businesses.

    Something that we will build in with the consolidation of the Payment Systems Regulator into the FCA.

    The UK is Europe’s leading hub for investment…

    …raising more equity capital than the next three European exchanges combined last year.

    I am committed to building on these strong foundations…

    …with an ambitious programme of reforms.

    Last September I chose to extend the UK’s generous venture capital schemes…

    … the Enterprise Investment Scheme and the Venture Capital Trust scheme…

    …which – alongside the Seed Enterprise Investment Scheme – offer generous tax reliefs…

    …in return for investing in British business.

    And we will soon publish the final Pension Investment Review, ahead of the introduction of the Pension Schemes Bill…

    …where we will legislate to unlock up to £80 billion of investment into companies like yours…

    start-up, scale-up, and fast growing businesses.

    …delivering a major consolidation of the Defined Contribution market and the Local Government Pension Scheme…

    …so that pension funds have sufficient scale to invest in growing industries like FinTech.

    I am determined to make sure that the UK remains one of the best places in the world for FinTechs to start-up, scale-up and to list…

    …benefitting from our stable and liquid markets.

    Last July, the FCA implemented a fundamental rewrite of the UK’s Listing Rules, the biggest reforms in a generation.

    These new rules now put the UK in line – or in many cases ahead – of other global markets in giving companies the flexibility to pursue their growth ambitions…

    …backing their aspiration…

    …and allowing them to raise large amounts of capital more easily.

    And for those companies who want to remain private for longer, we are developing the new Private Intermittent Securities and Capital Exchange System – or PISCES…

    …which we will legislate for next month.

    This is a brand new type of stock exchange for trading private company shares…

    …supporting private companies to scale and grow…

    …and providing a steppingstone to IPO.

    Finally, we’ve reformed the rules to allow greater investment research to be produced on UK listed companies…

    …and reducing the burdens imposed on public companies through the UK’s Corporate Governance Code.

    I want the UK to be a place where you can take risks…

    …innovate and experiment…

    …and find new ways to deliver for your customers.

    When I met with senior leaders from across the FinTech sector last month…

    …you told me about the importance of getting the balance of regulation right…

    …especially on digital assets.

    I agree.

    While the UK will always be committed to high international standards…

    …I am determined that our regulatory framework supports economic growth.

    That’s why I’m delighted that we are today publishing draft legislation for the UK’s comprehensive regulatory regime for cryptoassets…

    …engaging with all of you to ensure that the final legislation – planned for later this year – delivers for government and most importantly for the industry…

    …and makes the UK a great place for digital asset companies to invest and innovate.

    For the UK to be a world-leader in digital assets…

    …international cooperation is vital.

    Which is why I discussed continued U.S. and UK engagement with Secretary Bessent last week…

    …including further dialogue at the upcoming UK-U.S. Financial Regulatory Working Group in June…

    …to support the use and responsible growth of digital assets…

    …maintaining the deep historic relationship between the world’s two largest financial centres through this period of significant technological change.

    Regulation must support business, not hold it back.

    Our regulators were among the first to embrace and develop sandboxes…

    …including the Digital Securities Sandbox, where I’m delighted that we already have a broad range of firms all looking at different proposals for tokenising our financial markets.

    Last November, I announced that this government will issue a Digital Gilt Instrument…

    …an entirely new debt instrument…

    …using distributed ledger technology…

    this will enable us to experience first-hand the benefits of digital technologies in debt issuance.

    And I know that there is appetite to go further.

    Last week, Secretary Bessent and I also discussed how our officials could explore opportunities to support industry to innovate cross-border…

    …in line with proposals put forward by US Securities and Exchange Commissioner Hester Peirce about a transatlantic sandbox for digital securities…

    …potentially allowing greater digital collaboration between capital markets in New York and London.

    I’ve talked about what we’ve already done, and some ideas for the future.

    Financial services is one of the key growth-driving sectors in the UK’s modern industrial strategy…

    ….with FinTech as a priority growth opportunity…

    …and I look forward to publishing the Financial Services Growth and Competitiveness Strategy at my upcoming Mansion House address…

    …which I can today confirm will take place on the 15th July.

    At Mansion House last year I set out my vision on economic growth…

    …and the new approach required to build sustainable growth…

    …on a platform of stability.

    At Mansion House this year I’ll talk about how we can go further and faster in realising that growth.

    By publishing the Financial Services Growth and Competitiveness Strategy…

    …I will set out our strategy for the rest of this parliament and beyond…

    …building on our strengths in areas including capital markets, insurance and asset management…

    … supporting firms to innovate by ensuring they can access and develop the talent they need…

    …and promoting the UK as a great place to do business globally.

    Backing the builders in FinTech means improving outcomes for businesses and consumers…

    …revolutionising how we invest and trade…

    And driving growth and prosperity, here in the UK.

    It’s incredible how far Fintech has come in the past decade…

    And I’m enormously optimistic about the future.

    From the huge growth of the sector that has already taken place…

    …to the passion, drive and commitment I see from all of you to make FinTech a huge UK success story…

    …it is clear that our job in government is to back you, back the builders, back the change makers all the way.

    And I am ready to do just that.

    Thank you very much.

  • Shabana Mahmood – 2025 Statement on the Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill

    Shabana Mahmood – 2025 Statement on the Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill

    The statement made by Shabana Mahmood, the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, in the House of Commons on 22 April 2025.

    I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

    When I spoke in this House on 1 April, I set out the Government’s intention to introduce emergency legislation, because I believe that our justice system must be above all else fair, and that, standing before a judge, we are all equal, no matter the colour of our skin or the question of our faith. Given the existential nature of this matter for our justice system, I was clear that we would move at pace to change the law. The Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill was introduced that same day. With Second Reading taking place just three weeks later, we are forging ahead with plans to legislate as quickly as possible.

    Before I set out the contents of the Bill, it bears repeating how we came to be in the current situation and why expedited legislation is necessary. In the last Parliament, the Sentencing Council put forward revised guidelines on the imposition of community and custodial sentences. I should note that during a statutory consultation they were welcomed by the last Conservative Government in no uncertain terms. The shadow Transport Secretary, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), who was a Justice Minister at the time, should be able to furnish his colleagues with the details, but as he is absent today, I will do so.

    Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)

    Can the right hon. Lady clarify whether the guidelines proposed under the previous Government were the same as those with which she is dealing now, or did they differ—and if they differed, how did they differ?

    Shabana Mahmood

    They did not differ in any substantial way. All the guidelines, in so far as they concern issues relating to race, religion, culture or belief, are exactly the same as those to which the Justice Minister responded under the Conservative Administration. Hiding behind that, I am afraid, shows a failure to reckon with the Opposition’s own track record, which has become quite a hallmark of theirs in recent weeks and months.

    These guidelines help judges, when sentencing an offender, to determine whether to impose a community order or a custodial sentence, providing guidance on the thresholds for disposals of this type. In the process of deciding which threshold has been met, judges are required by law to obtain a pre-sentence report, except in circumstances where they consider such a report to be unnecessary. The reports are used to give the courts more context of the offending behaviour in a given case, and set out any factors that should be considered as part of the sentencing process. As I said to the House on 1 April, generally speaking I am in favour of the use of pre-sentence reports, and in fact I have recently freed up capacity in the Probation Service precisely so that it has more time to produce reports of this type.

    Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)

    The chairman of the Sentencing Council has argued that the sentence should be tailored to the offender, but my constituents—and, I suspect, those of the Secretary of State—think that the sentence should be tailored to the offence and its effect on the victim. That is what counts, not the background, circumstances, history or origins of the offender.

    Shabana Mahmood

    The purpose of the pre-sentence reports, used properly, is to provide the court with the full context of the offending behaviour. That enables the court to ensure that when it imposes a custodial sentence it will be successful and capable of being delivered in respect of that offender, or else a community sentence should be imposed instead. It is a useful mechanism that judges have at their disposal. We would expect it to be used in all cases except when the courts consider it unnecessary because they have all the information. Because I consider pre-sentence reports to be so important in giving the courts all the information that they need to pass the right sentence for the offender who is before them, I have specifically freed up capacity in the Probation Service so that it can do more work of this type. However, the updated guidelines specifically encourage judges to request them for some offenders and not others, stipulating circumstances in which a pre-sentence report would “normally be considered necessary”. That is the bit that I am seeking to change.

    Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)

    The right hon. Lady has just said something very important: namely, that she would normally expect a pre-sentence report to be given in all, or at least almost all, cases. I hope that is her position, because what seems unfair to me is that a pre-sentence report, which presumably enables people to present arguments in mitigation, should be available to some people who have been convicted of a crime but not to others. Surely it should be available either to everyone or to no one, because everyone’s individual circumstances deserve the same degree of consideration.

    Shabana Mahmood

    The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. In fact, we fully support section 30 of the Sentencing Act 2020—the sentencing code—which makes it clear that a court must obtain a pre-sentence report unless it considers it unnecessary to do so. That would be in cases where judges consider that they already have at their disposal the facts that will enable them to make a determination of the correct sentence for any particular offender. I think that the Sentencing Council got things right in the paragraph of the current guidelines that comes before the one that is the subject of the debate and the Bill, which states:

    “PSRs are necessary in all cases that would benefit from an assessment of one or more of the following: the offender’s dangerousness and risk of harm, the nature and causes of the offender’s behaviour, the offender’s personal circumstances and any factors that may be helpful to the court in considering the offender’s suitability for different sentences or requirements.”

    That covers all the areas in which we would normally consider PSRs to be necessary, and I would like them to be used more extensively. Indeed, I would like them to be the norm in all cases, because I think they offer important information to people who are passing sentence—unless, of course, it is unnecessary because judges have already been furnished with all the details, having heard the whole of the case that has been taking place before them.

    Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)

    The Lord Chancellor has just given us, very helpfully, the list of matters that might be relevantly considered in a pre-sentence report. As she has said, however, one of the items on that list is “personal circumstances”, and that is what the Bill will remove from the Sentencing Council’s discretion. May I ask her why she has not used in the Bill the language that is included in the explanatory notes? Paragraph 8 states that the Bill will

    “prevent differential treatment… It does this by preventing the creation of a presumption regarding whether a pre-sentence report should be obtained based on an offender’s membership of a particular demographic cohort”.

    That strikes me as a much narrower exclusion, and perhaps one better targeted at the problem that the Lord Chancellor has, in my view, rightly identified.

    Shabana Mahmood

    The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right. That is why we have offered the additional context in the explanatory notes. Personal characteristics and personal circumstances have, over the years, been elided in different court judgments, and the different definitions of the two have sometimes slipped. I wanted to make it clear in the Bill that we are constraining the Sentencing Council’s ability to create guidance for PSRs in relation to personal characteristics. We refer in the Bill to race, religion, culture and belief, specifically to ensure that the Sentencing Council understands that we are targeting this part of the offending section of the imposition guideline. It will then have its own interpretation of how personal circumstances and personal characteristics should apply. I would expect this to be analogous to protected characteristics in the Equality Act 2010, in terms of the way in which the courts are likely to approach the question of what a personal characteristic is for the purpose of the Bill.

    However, I wanted to make the intention behind the Bill very clear to the Sentencing Council, and to everyone else. It is tightly focused on the offending section of the imposition guideline and leaves the wider question of personal circumstances untouched. As I will explain later in my speech, there is helpful Court of Appeal guidance on circumstances and on other occasions on which a PSR should normally be required, and nothing in the Bill will affect the Court of Appeal precedents that have already been set.

    Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)

    Is the Lord Chancellor aware that the Sentencing Council guidelines, and indeed the Bill, turn on issues that some of us have campaigned on for decades? I think that there would be concern if the Bill undermined the independence of the judiciary.

    Shabana Mahmood

    It certainly does not undermine the independence of the judiciary. There is a long tradition of campaigners, including my right hon. Friend, who have a lengthy track record of campaigning on issues relating to disparities within the criminal justice system and, indeed, across wider society. In so far as those disparities relate to the criminal justice system, my strong view is that they are matters of policy.

    Parliament is the proper place for that policy to be debated, and Parliament is the proper place for us to agree on what is the best mechanism to deal with those problems. It is not within the purview of the Sentencing Council, because this is a matter of policy. Judges apply the laws that are passed by this House; that is their correct and proper function. I will always uphold their independence in that regard and will never interfere with it, but this turns on a matter of policy. It is right for the Government of the day to seek a policy response to this issue, and it is right for it to be debated and, ultimately, legislated for in the House.

    Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

    I thank the Lord Chancellor for opening the debate, and for her answers to the questions so far. I think every one of us believes that the foundational principle that justice is blind must be adhered to in every way, but we live in an age of ever-changing political correctness, which, regardless of whether we like it or not, invades Parliament and our lives.

    I am very much in favour of what the Lord Chancellor has said about race and faith. As a person of faith, I want to make sure that race and faith can never be mitigating or aggravating factors when it comes to justice. Given the lives that we live, the world that we live in, and all the things that impact on us daily and in this House as MPs, can the Lord Chancellor confirm that faith, justice and religion will always be preserved in the way that they should be?

    Shabana Mahmood

    For me, one of the most moving parts of the parliamentary day is when the day starts with prayers. Those are Christian prayers, and I am of the Muslim faith, but I always find it moving to be part of them and to hear them. They remind us that we all belong to a country with a long heritage, which is steeped in faith. The source code for much of the law of England and Wales is the Bible. The hon. Gentleman makes some broader points on the issue of faith and how important it is, and I suspect that he and I have a lot in common in that regard. There must never be differential treatment before the law of our land, and before any court, on the basis of faith.

    Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)

    I welcome the Lord Chancellor’s point about parliamentary sovereignty and that fact that policy must be determined by this place. I think many Members from across the House will have been quite shocked by the response of the Sentencing Council to her letter when she asked it to consider the guidelines again. Does she agree that if this place continues to butt heads with the Sentencing Council over guidelines like these, maybe the best thing to do is abolish the Sentencing Council?

    Shabana Mahmood

    I have had constructive conversations with the Sentencing Council, and I have made it very clear that I do not really do personal. I certainly would not do it in relation to the judiciary, whose independence I uphold and whose security I am ultimately responsible for. I take those responsibilities very seriously. I swore an oath on my holy book, and that means a huge amount to me. There is a clear difference here about where the line is drawn between matters of policy and matters that are correctly within the purview of the judiciary, which is how the law should be applied in the cases that they hear. I am simply making it very clear that this is policy and is for this place to determine, but as I will come to later in my speech, this situation has highlighted that there is potentially a democratic deficit here. That is why I am reviewing the wider roles and powers of the Sentencing Council, and will legislate in upcoming legislation if necessary. I will now make more progress with my speech and give way to other colleagues later if people wish to intervene again.

    The updated guidelines specifically encouraged judges to request pre-sentence reports for some offenders and not for others, stipulating the circumstances in which a pre-sentence report would “normally be considered necessary”. This included cases involving offenders from ethnic, cultural or faith minorities. In other words, a pre-sentence report would normally be considered necessary for a black offender or a Muslim one, but not necessarily if an offender is Christian or white, and we must be clear about what that means. By singling out one group over another, all may be equal but some are more equal than others. We must also be honest about the impact that this could have. Equipped with more information about one offender than another, the court may be less likely to send that offender to prison. I therefore consider the guidance to be a clear example of differential treatment. As such, it risks undermining public confidence in a justice system that is built on the idea of equality before the law.

    Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)

    Given that the Sentencing Council refused the Lord Chancellor’s first invitation to rewrite its guidance, is she confident that the limited nature of this Bill is sufficient? Would she not be wiser to take a broader power to ensure that in future all sentencing guidance has an affirmative vote in this place?

    Shabana Mahmood

    It is right that, moving at pace, I have sought to have a targeted Bill that deals with this particular imposition guideline. I have made it very clear that I am conducting a wider review of the role and powers of the Sentencing Council. If we need to legislate further—maybe in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests, although other mechanisms are also potentially available—I will do so. I am not ruling out further legislation—in fact, it is very much on the table—but it is right that we are moving quickly in order to deal with the problems that could be caused by the guidelines coming into force, and that I have taken targeted action in this short but focused Bill.

    As I told the House a few weeks ago, I had several discussions with the Sentencing Council in the time leading up to 1 April, when the updated guidelines were due to come into force. I reiterate my gratitude to the council’s chair, Lord Justice William Davis, for engaging with me on this issue and for ultimately making the right call by pausing the guidelines while Parliament has its say. I should say again that I have no doubt whatsoever about the noble intentions behind the proposed changes, because I understand the problem that the Sentencing Council was attempting to address. Racial inequalities exist in our justice system and are evident in the sentencing disparities between offenders from different backgrounds, but as the Sentencing Council acknowledges, the reasons for this are unclear. Addressing inequalities in the justice system is something that this Government take very seriously, and we are determined to increase confidence in its outcomes, which is why we are working with the judiciary to make the system more representative of the public it serves.

    I have also commissioned a review of the data that my Department holds on disparities in the justice system in order to better understand the drivers of the problem, but although I agree with the Sentencing Council’s diagnosis, I believe it has prescribed the wrong cure. Going ahead with the new guidelines would have been an extraordinary step to take. It would have been extraordinary because of what it puts at risk: the very foundations of our justice system, which was built on equality before the law. The unintended consequences would have been considerable, because the idea that we improve things for people in this country who look like me by telling the public that we will be given favourable treatment is not just wrong, but dangerous. We are all safer in this country when everyone knows we are treated the same. If we sacrifice that, even in pursuit of a noble ideal such as equality, we risk bringing the whole edifice crashing to the ground.

    I know there are disagreements in this House with regard to the correct policy to pursue, not least between the shadow Secretary of State for Justice, who opposes the guidelines, and the shadow Transport Secretary, whose support for them I have noted already—though I suppose that does assume that the shadow Secretary of State for Justice really is who he shows himself to be today. I must admit that I have begun to question whether his principles are set or really of no fixed abode. After all, he did pose as a Cameroon centrist for so many years, and only recently became his party’s populist flag bearer. It is enough to make me wonder whether he is, in fact, a Marxist—but one of the Groucho variety. “These are my principles,” he says, and if you do not like them, he has others.

    Regardless of our positions on this question of policy, one thing is clear: this is a question of policy. How the state addresses an issue that is systemic, complex and of unclear origin is a question of what the law should be, not how the law should be applied. Let me be clear about that distinction: Parliament sets the laws and the judiciary determine how they are applied, and they must be defended as they do so. I will always defend judicial independence, and as I said earlier, I swore an oath to do so when I became the Lord Chancellor. Given the shadow Lord Chancellor’s recent diatribes, including just hours ago in this place, he may want to acquaint himself with that oath, if he intends ever succeeding me in this position, although I am assuming that it is my job he wants, not that of the Leader of the Opposition.

    James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)

    I think the Lord Chancellor just said that the approach to the guidelines taken by the Sentencing Council puts the foundation of the justice system at risk. Given that, how can she have confidence in a Sentencing Council that takes such an approach?

    Shabana Mahmood

    I have engaged constructively with the Sentencing Council and will continue to do so, and I am in the process of legislating to prevent this imposition guideline from ever coming into force. It has currently been paused, and I think that was the right step for the Sentencing Council to take. I am conducting a wider review of the roles and powers of the Sentencing Council, and it is right that I take a bit more time to think carefully about that, about what we may or may not want it to do, and about how we may right the democratic deficit that has been uncovered. I think my approach to the Sentencing Council is very clear from the action I am taking.

    Sir Julian Lewis

    I do not think anyone is questioning the firm action the Lord Chancellor is taking. The point my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) made is: why should it be necessary for her to take that action? Surely, if the Sentencing Council cannot see the distinction she makes between its proper role and Parliament’s proper role, it is not fit to do the job.

    Shabana Mahmood

    The Sentencing Council might argue, rightly, that given the guideline was welcomed by the former Government, it probably thought it was on safer ground than I consider it to be. However, there is clearly a confusion, a change in practice, or a development in ways I disagree with about the proper line between what is practice or the application of the law and what is properly in the realm of policy. That is what I am absolutely not going to give any ground on and that I will be setting right.

    Sir John Hayes

    The right hon. Lady is right about the moving process or trend that she has described, but the trouble is that it is part of a bigger problem, is it not? It is the problem of judicial activism, and it is not new. For some time, judicial activists have sought to do exactly what she has said, and it is they, not people in this House, who endanger the separation of powers.

    Shabana Mahmood

    However, it is always up to the people in this House, if they feel that a law is being applied in ways that were not intended, to put that law right. I am afraid the right hon. Member’s comment is a rather damning indictment of 14 years of Conservative Government, with 14 years of sitting back and allowing other people to do the policy work that Ministers in the previous Government perhaps did not have the time or inclination to do themselves.

    I do not think that judges, in applying the law, are doing anything wrong; they are doing their job. They are public servants, and they do their job independently. It is right that we have an independent judiciary in this country. We are very lucky to have a judiciary that is world class and highly regarded. One of the reasons why so many businesses from all over the world want to do business in this country is that they know they can trust our courts system and the independence of our judges. I think it is incumbent on the whole of this House to defend the independence of the judiciary, because that independence was hard won. It is one of our absolute USPs as a rule of law jurisdiction in this country, and none of us must ever do anything that puts it at risk.

    If there are issues about the way in which the law is applied—if Parliament or Ministers ever consider that it has strayed too far from the original intention—we can always legislate, and I am doing just that today. I hope this is an example that others, if they have issues in their areas, may consider taking as well. It is a question of policy, and that should be decided and debated here in this place, in this House, and the public must be able to hold us to account for the decisions we take, rewarding or punishing us at the ballot box as they see fit. This is the domain of government, politics and Parliament, and today we reassert our ability to determine this country’s policy on the issue of equality of treatment before the law.

    Dr Caroline Johnson

    The right hon. Lady is making a point about the wider justice system and the importance of equality before the law. What has she done to assure herself and the House that, in all aspects of her Department’s work, people are being treated equally under the law—whether in relation to parole, how they are treated in prison, bail conditions and so on?

    Shabana Mahmood

    I have ordered a wider review of all guidance across all the MOJ’s work in so far as it relates to equality before the law to make sure that the problems we have uncovered here are not replicated elsewhere. There is the issue of bail guidance, which was discussed in the House earlier. I have already ordered a review, and that guidance is being redrafted as we speak. That particular guidance has been something like 20 years in the making—it has been added to over many years—so the redraft has to be careful and we must make sure it does not have any unintended consequences. However, we are cracking on with that work at pace, and I will make sure that, by the time I am done, we can all be absolutely clear that this sweep towards allowing potential differential treatment is sorted out once and for all.

    Dr Johnson rose—

    Shabana Mahmood

    If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I will make more progress. I think I have been more than generous.

    That brings me to the Bill before us today. While the updated Sentencing Council guidelines are currently paused, if we do not act they will come into force— [Interruption.] Well, there was a lot to say, gentlemen, about the previous Government’s track record and it needed to be said. And I do not think the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) should mind me taking interventions from people on his own side. That is a novel approach for the shadow Front Bench.

    Let me turn to the specifics of the Bill. It is tightly focused, containing just two clauses. Clause 1 amends section 120 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, which brought the Sentencing Council into existence. It dictates that the guidelines the council produces may not include references to personal characteristics, including race, religion or belief, or cultural background. Clause 2 relates to how the Bill will be enacted: that it will apply only to England and Wales, and that its measures will come into force on the day after it passes.

    It is also important to be clear about what the Bill does not do. It does not stop the Sentencing Council from issuing broader guidance concerning requests for pre-sentence reports in those cases where it is helpful for the court to understand more about an offender’s history and personal circumstances. The Bill does not interfere with the courts’ duties to obtain a pre-sentence report in appropriate cases, for example those involving primary carers and victims of domestic abuse. And, as detailed in the Bill’s explanatory notes, it does not change existing precedent where the courts have determined that pre-sentence reports are necessary or desirable, in cases such as: Thompson, where the Court of Appeal recently emphasised their importance in sentencing pregnant women or women who have recently given birth; Meanley, in which the court referenced the value of pre-sentence reports for young defendants; or Kurmekaj, where the defendant had a traumatic upbringing, vulnerability, and was a victim of modern slavery. Instead, the Bill narrowly focuses on the issue at hand, putting beyond doubt a principle which finds its ancient origins in Magna Carta and has developed over the centuries to serve the interests of justice not just here but in jurisdictions around the world: that each of us, no matter who we are, where we come from or what we believe, stand equal before the law of the land.

    Wider questions remain about the role and the powers of the Sentencing Council, as I have noted. The council does important work, bringing consistency to judicial decision making, but it is clear in this instance that it went beyond its original remit. It sought to set policy, which stood out of step with the Government of the day. Therefore, it raises the question: who should set sentencing policy? Today’s legislation only addresses this question in the narrowest terms, considering the guidance on pre-sentence reports. It does not give us a definitive resolution as to whether it is Government Ministers or members of the Sentencing Council who should decide policy in the future. As I noted, that leaves us with a democratic deficit.

    As I told the House on 1 April, the question of the role and powers of the Sentencing Council must therefore be considered further. That work is already under way in my Department. Should a further change be required, the Government will include it in upcoming legislation. The Sentencing Council plays an important role in our justice system, and any changes to it must be made carefully and with the consideration it deserves. I am sure they will be discussed more in this House in the months ahead, and I welcome the opportunity to debate them.

    The Bill we are debating today is small, but the issues it contains could not be of greater significance. I know the majority of right hon. and hon. Members in this House would agree that the Sentencing Council’s intentions on this issue were noble, but in trying to reach for equality of outcome, they sacrificed too much, undermining the sacred principle of equality before the law. It is right that we, as policymakers, stop the updated guidelines from coming into force. We must stand up for the idea that no matter our race or religion, no person should receive preferential treatment as they stand in the dock before a judge, so I beg to move that the Bill now be read a second time.

  • Nick Thomas-Symonds – 2025 Speech at the Conference on Baltic Studies in Europe

    Nick Thomas-Symonds – 2025 Speech at the Conference on Baltic Studies in Europe

    The speech made by Nick Thomas-Symonds, the Minister for European Union Relations, at the University of Cambridge on 24 April 2025. This version was supplied by the civil service, so the political content has been removed.

    Introduction

    It’s a pleasure to be here with you all. Before I begin, I would like to thank the Association for the Advancement of Baltic Studies for hosting this important conference.

    I would also like to thank my friend Charles Clarke, not only for the invitation to speak here today.

    [political content removed]

    As part of that career, his time as Home Secretary, he had to deal daily with the implications of a complex and dangerous world, encapsulated by the heinous 7/7 attacks.

    While the nature of the threats our country faces have evolved since then – we know that the threats to our security, our economy and way of life are as pronounced now as they have been at any time in post war history.

    And these challenges do not just face the UK – or any one of our allies – alone; we face them, together. Therefore, it is crucial to ask how we can leverage our longstanding international relationships – and build upon them – to face these challenges together.

    The United Kingdom and the Baltic States enjoy an alliance built on shared values, on open trade, on a strategic, robust approach to defence.

    We respect one another, and it is through this respect that we work alongside each other – whether directly or through international organisations – to the benefit of our societies.

    Our citizens not only celebrate freedoms, but also realise that they are hard won and must be defended.

    I believe that – through the UK’s mission to go beyond the status quo with the European Union and grow our strategic alliance with our biggest trading partner – we could build on our relationship even further, to make us more prosperous, safer and better defended.

    I should clarify that – in the spirit of this broad alliance – while I will mainly be talking about Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, I will also be touching on the Baltic Sea States, the other countries that share the same icy waters, including Sweden, Poland and Finland, which I understand follows the remit of this centre.

    Relationship with the Baltics

    Just over a month ago, the Times journalist Oliver Moody gave a talk at this university – at the Centre for Geopolitics – about his book ‘Baltic: The Future of Europe’.

    He spoke about the remarkable journey that the Baltic Sea States have taken over the last century: not just armed conflict, but the push and pull between independence, occupation and independence again.

    Reflecting on where we are now, he said: “This is the most coherent that north-eastern Europe has ever been. You have the Nordic and Baltic States working on a more equal footing than ever before, you have Poland starting to look north, and Germany is getting more involved”. He capped his remarks off by saying that this teamwork would have delighted the former Prime Minister of Estonia – Jaan Tonisson – who campaigned for a Scandinavian Superstate in 1917. Moody said that this cooperation is nothing short of “Jaan Tonisson’s dream, on steroids”.

    That claim is probably for the experts in this room to take a view on, but what is clear is the sheer depth of the shared objectives, opportunities and challenges.

    When you consider the history of these countries, this state of play is all the more remarkable. After all, to study the 20th Century developments of the Baltic States is to study world history. I am proud to say that, in many ways, the United Kingdom has been a positive part of that history, especially with Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia.

    When the British public were rejoicing throughout the UK on Armistice Day in 1918, the Royal Navy had no time to rest, as they started their campaign in the Baltic. They were playing their part to establish an independent Estonia and Latvia, providing weapons, ammunition and much-needed support, where over 100 naval servicemen bravely lost their lives for Baltic independence. In May 2022, the UK and Lithuania agreed a Joint Declaration to mark 100 years of bilateral relations, but it also looked towards the future. It outlined an agreement to boost defence and security collaboration, build closer trade ties, and promote people-to-people links.

    We already start from a strong place, as the UK is a home to many Baltic people – well over 350,000 of them.

    We host Latvia’s largest diaspora, as well as Lithuania’s and Estonian’s largest European diaspora. Our trading relationship is positive, which accounts for over £6bn in goods and services – up from last year. Who would have thought, from just over thirty years of Estonian independence, that there would be an Estonian bank running offices in London, Manchester and Leeds, or an Estonian defence company setting up a production facility for air defence missiles in Wales.

    I greatly admire the spirit, the fortitude and the determination of the Baltic States; they have known what it is to lose their freedom, their independence and – as a result – are embracing its benefits. The Baltic tech sector – for example – has one of the strongest and most innovative ecosystems within Europe, a fact elegantly demonstrated at this year’s Oscars, when a wholly digitally designed film from Latvia won the Best Animated Feature, against long-established studios like the US’s Pixar and the UK’s Aardman Animations.

    Many Baltic firms are key investors in the UK, and have excelled in areas where others have stumbled, because they have had a clear focus on innovation and progress.

    Indeed, I have deeply appreciated my time with the Baltic Sea States. Last year, in Opposition, I visited Estonia – to meet with various leaders who are working tirelessly to defend their homeland. I was struck not only by the scale of the Russian threat their face – especially in areas like cyber-warfare – but also by their determination to rise to that challenge.

    Also, during a visit to Stockholm, I went to the SAAB Headquarters – who recently announced that they will be supplying the Latvian Government with a short-range ground-based air defence system. We spoke openly about the importance of cross-Europe defence, and they were very grateful for the UK’s renewed focus on European defence, and the Prime Minister’s leadership.

    Ukraine

    This historic collaboration – these well-defined relationships – only adds to our collective strength when we consider countering the complex situation, facing the world reshaped by the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

    Of course, to many of the Baltic Sea States, Russian aggression is nothing new. Indeed, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are ardent supporters of the Ukrainian fighters seeking to overcome this illegal Russian invasion. And they have shown this support in many ways – including as key hosts for Ukrainian refugees. According to the U.S. think tank The Wilson Centre, Estonia has hosted approximately 40,000 Ukrainian refugees, Latvia has around 50,000, and Lithuania has issued more than 50,000 visas.  A record of support that the UK also shares, and I am proud of the role my own constituency is playing in hosting Ukrainian families.

    In stepping up to defend the freedoms the UK and Baltic nations enjoy we recognise the hard-won sovereignty and dignity which the Baltic States have worked so hard to secure.

    I know from my own personal experience from meeting those defence officials – many with frontline experience on their border with Russia and Ukraine – that the threat they feel is not theoretical, it is existential. The defence of the Baltic Sea is – unquestionably – as important now as ever. That is why NATO takes this issue so seriously, launching the ‘Baltic Sentry’ mission to increase surveillance of ships crossing those cold waters.

    The UK also takes the security of the Nordic and Baltic states incredibly seriously. It’s why we were so supportive of NATO expansion for Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia – and others – in 2004. As the then UK Prime Minister – and Charles’s former boss – Tony Blair, said these invitations meant “a significant contribution to European security, and secures the place of the new Allies in the Euro-Atlantic community”.

    It’s also why we formed – with our Baltic counterparts and Nordic countries – the Joint Expeditionary Force, set up in 2018. To ensure our commitment to European security and international stability remains strong.

    It was only in November last year that we demonstrated the effectiveness of this Force with ‘Exercise Joint Protector’. More than 300 personnel were deployed to Liepāja in Latvia, and worked with staff in the UK. This – and the many other exercises the Force has undertaken – shows just how ready we and our partners are to respond to crises in the Baltic and Nordic regions.

    Keir visited British troops serving with NATO in December 2023 in Estonia.  There is an incredibly powerful image of him on that trip – standing with our brave troops.  Showing how committed he is to supporting the vital work they do, working with NATO allies to keep this continent safe.

    [Political content removed]

    The UK and Euro-Atlantic Security

    Here in the UK, we have been unequivocal about the need to bolster security across the European continent. We must look at how we safeguard each other – through our alliances; NATO, the Joint Expeditionary Force and through direct country-to-country connections too.

    We need to work better together on key issues facing our continent’s security. I mean everything – from how we improve our defence capabilities to ensuring we have the technological edge in conflict, how we finance these improvements, to how we bolster our industrial capacity across the continent. The Prime Minister will make this point on the world stage at the Joint Expeditionary Force Summit in Oslo next month, and NATO’s Hague Summit in June.

    Much of this work is underway. You may have seen His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales visit British troops in Estonia last month, who – under Operation Cabrit – are providing a deterrent to Russian aggression, bolstering NATO’s presence in Europe.

    At the centre of this is our absolute commitment to securing a just and lasting peace in Ukraine. The Prime Minister has been clear that for this plan to succeed, it must have strong US backing – and he is working closely with President Trump on this. I know other leaders – including those in the Baltics – have joined the chorus demanding that Ukraine’s voice must be at the heart of any talks.

    The importance of this cannot be overstated. Indeed, it was a point the Prime Minister made absolutely clear at the ‘Leading the Future’ Summit hosted here in the UK. There, he convened the ‘Coalition of the Willing’, building on our efforts to put pressure on Putin, keep military aid flowing to Ukraine and strengthen sanctions on the Russian war machine. This was followed by the announcement from the Defence Secretary of an additional £450m to Ukraine, which will fund hundreds of thousands of new drones, anti-tanks mines and supplies to make necessary repairs to military vehicles.

    This work is of vital importance. When Europe is under threat, then the Europeans have to – and are – stepping up on defence and security.

    We are living through a generational moment in the history of our continent. This is a point I made at a recent Baltic Breakfast event where I welcomed the further expansion of NATO to include Finland and Sweden. With both these countries, we are building on our defence and security relationship – whether it’s the strategic partnership we share with Sweden or the Memorandum of Understanding between the UK and Finland on civil nuclear, strengthening our energy security.

    The UK knows we have a responsibility to help secure the continent and that, even though we have left the EU, we would never turn our back on our allies in Europe. That’s why we have committed to reaching 2.5% of GDP on defence spending by 2027, with an ambition to achieve 3% in the next parliament. In practice, that means spending over £13 billion more on defence every year from 2027. This is the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the Cold War, and it will safeguard our collective security and fund the capabilities, technology and industrial capacity needed to keep the UK and our allies safe for generations to come.

    It has been good to see other European nations doing the same, especially across the Baltic States. Lithuania continues to set the standard within NATO. Your desire to increase defence spending to 5% or even 6% GDP is admirable. Latvia now spends 3.45% of its GDP on defence, and is investing heavily in areas, such as air and coastal defence. And Estonia is aspiring to increase defence spending to 5% of its GDP.

    Given the political context, it is of vital importance for European countries to take on responsibility for their own security. As one of Europe’s leading NATO powers, it is essential that the UK and the EU work together to strengthen European security. We have substantial shared interests and objectives and, crucially, we both have the means and influence to effect change on a global stage.

    But we cannot shy away from the reality of the situation we find ourselves in. Europe faces war on the continent, as well as an urgent need to ramp up our collective defence capabilities, and we have already seen a step-change in European cooperation.

    At the same time the UK and EU are facing global economic challenges. These are shared problems which require a collective response, with mutual interests.

    And I believe a firm alliance between the UK and the EU is undeniably a part of that – and mutually beneficial. We need to put an end to ideology and build a new strengthened partnership with Europe.

    Now, Charles, I promise not to make a point of mentioning you throughout my lecture, but I wanted to touch on something from the recent past.

    After he left Government, Charles became the Visiting Professor at the University of East Anglia for their School of Political, Social and International Studies, where – during a series of lectures – he posited the idea of the ‘Too Difficult Box’, the place where important political decisions get put when things got too complicated to solve.

    As he explained in a lecture eleven years ago at the University of South Wales – just south of my constituency of Torfaen – plenty of short-term challenges face politicians when they are trying to solve the long-term problems this country faces, which means decisions get delayed, politicians don’t feel empowered or convinced enough to act, the ‘Too Difficult Box’ fills up.

    I think everyone in this room can recognise at least one important national decision that has been left to grow dust in the ‘Too Difficult Box’.

    Which is why this Government has chosen to behave differently towards our national interests. Indeed, it is precisely the difficulty of our challenges which urges us to act. The ‘Plan for Change’ recognises the complex world we live in and redefines the way that Central Government responds to the problems of the day, to work across-Departments to tackle some of the most challenging problems we face – whether it’s breaking down the barriers to opportunity, making the UK a clean energy superpower, or building an NHS that is fit for the future.

    At the heart of all of this work are what we call our ‘Strong Foundations’, which are economic stability, secure borders and national security. To me, these priorities are inseparable; you cannot have one without the other two.

    I also believe that our relationship with the European Union has an important role in these foundations, we must find pragmatic solutions that work in the national interest.

    The kind of pragmatic approach that Charles promoted with the ‘Too Difficult Box’ is exactly the kind of approach we must take when redefining our relationship with the EU, as we move towards a strengthened partnership with our biggest trading partner.

    So far, by my count, we have seen over seventy different direct engagements between UK Ministers and their EU counterparts.

    This work was exemplified by the meeting the Prime Minister had with the President of the European Commission last October, a meeting where both agreed to put our relationship on a more solid, stable footing. They agreed to work together on some of the most pressing global challenges including economic headwinds, geopolitical competition, irregular migration, climate change and energy prices. In December, the Chancellor attended a meeting of the EU finance ministers – the first time a British Chancellor has been invited to the Eurogroup since Brexit. And I have been having regular meetings with my counterpart Maroš Šefčovič to maintain forward momentum on our shared agendas.

    However, I want to be clear: we fully respect the choice made by the British public to leave the European Union, that was clear in our manifesto.  As were the clear red lines we set out, around the Customs Union, the Single Market and Freedom of Movement.

    We are also demonstrating our role as good faith actors through the implementation of the Trade and Co-operation Agreement and the Windsor Framework.

    But I also believe that this global moment requires us to go further. It is an opportunity to build our partnership – where our continental security is paramount, where our collective safety is guaranteed, where our respective economies flourish together. It is in our mutual self interest.

    The Three Pillars

    I mentioned that the defining structure of our future relationship with the European Union has three important pillars – prosperity, safety and security.

    On prosperity, we must boost growth and living standards, by creating export and investment opportunities for UK business and reducing barriers to trade with our biggest trading partners.

    Already we have started work on this. We have said that we will seek to negotiate a Sanitary and Phytosanitary agreement – which is one of the clear barriers to trade across the continent, and it was particularly pleasing to see a number of UK businesses writing in last weekend’s Financial Times supporting this plan.

    Let me turn to safety. Now, of all audiences, I don’t need to explain the importance of a strong and secure border, but we must do all we can to strengthen our continental collective ability to tackle organised crime and criminality, working together on irregular migration. We see – every day – the threats across our continent from criminals with no respect for international borders.  From terrorism, to vile people smuggling gangs and drug smugglers – the threat to our communities is real. If we want to protect our respective borders and keep our citizens safe, then we need to work together.

    Already, we have made important progress on this work. Within the first few weeks of coming into power, the Prime Minister stated that border security would be at the very heart of our plans to reset our relationship with the European Union. We have committed to deepening our partnerships with Europol and its European Migrant Smuggling Centre. But I believe that we can go further in this work. We need to find ways to better coordinate law enforcement. We must do all we can to strengthen the tools available to aid our collective ability to tackle organised crime, which will only lead to more secure borders.

    We recognise that the Baltic states have faced a unique challenge when it comes to irregular migration, Russian led instrumentalisation of migration is an appalling use of human beings for political gain.

    I saw the nature of this myself on a recent visit to the Polish / Belarussian border. We absolutely condemn states instrumentalising human beings and putting them in danger, and support efforts to combat this issue at the EU’s external border. Whilst the UK may face different migration challenges, there are clear commonalities – underlining the imperative of working together on the shared priority of securing our borders.

    Which brings me on to the final point, security. I have made clear throughout this lecture that we must respond to the collective security challenge that we all face. An ambitious UK-EU security and defence relationship must be a part of this.

    All of us in the UK Government appreciate the steps that the EU is taking on this, and we welcome their recent Defence White Paper, which recognises the UK as an “essential European ally”. But we should also recognise the importance of the Baltic Sea States within that Paper.

    As Oliver Moody pointed out in his talk, the significance and the symbolism of that paper cannot be overlooked. He said: “It was presented by an Estonian high representative, a Lithuanian defence commissioner, with a great deal of input from a Latvian economics commissioner, a Polish budget commissioner, a Finnish vice-president of the commission for technological sovereignty and security, all in tandem under the leadership of a German president of the European Commission […] this would have been completely unimaginable in the 1990s.”

    He’s right to point out the importance of this unity, both in the Baltic region and across our continent.

    We have made it clear to our EU partners that we are ready to negotiate a Security & Defence Partnership with the EU. We believe it should build on the EU’s existing partnership agreements with other third countries, while recognising the unique nature of our security relationship. It will complement NATO and our NATO First approach, while boosting our bilateral cooperation with European partners.

    But we want to go further, trying to create new ways to ramp up our defence industrial capacity, financing and capability development.

    UK-EU Summit

    All of these points I have mentioned will no doubt be crucial discussion points when the UK welcomes European Union leaders to the first UK-EU Leaders’ Summit on 19th May.

    The Prime Minister will host the President of the European Council, António Costa, and the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen.

    The Summit will provide an opportunity to make further progress on our shared priorities and we shall set out further details in due course. What I can tell you now is that this will be the first of regular UK-EU summits, which we committed to when the Prime Minister met the President of the European Commission in October last year. We expect these to take place annually, in addition to regular engagements at Ministerial level, recognising that new agreements will take time to agree.

    Conclusion

    Ladies and gentlemen, it is clear to me that the future of Europe – whether that’s innovative businesses or the most resilient of responses to Russian aggression – has a home in the Baltic.

    The UK wants to be an important part of that future, and we are working hard – right across the Government – to change our relationship with the EU for the mutual benefit of all European states.

    We are living through a time of generational challenge to our very way of life.  I know that in the face of this, an alliance – across our continent, in pursuit of freedom – will be vital.

    So, I thank all of you here for your interest in this vital area, I thank Charles for the invitation to address this group – and I look forward to working with many of you to deliver a secure and prosperous future for our people.

  • David Lammy – 2025 Statement on Events at El Fasher in Sudan

    David Lammy – 2025 Statement on Events at El Fasher in Sudan

    The statement made by David Lammy, the Foreign Secretary, on 24 April 2025.

    The reports of violence in and around the city of El Fasher are appalling.

    Last week, the UK gathered the international community in London to call for an end to the suffering of the Sudanese people. Yet some of the violence in Darfur has shown the hallmarks of ethnic cleansing and may amount to crimes against humanity. Both sides must de-escalate urgently in Darfur and implement UNSCR2736, which calls on the RSF to halt its siege of El Fasher and bring an immediate stop to the fighting.

    The UK will continue to use all tools available to us to us to hold those responsible for atrocities to account.

    The warring parties have a responsibility to end this suffering. There are no exceptions to the laws of war: both the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces agreed at Jeddah to protect civilians and facilitate humanitarian access.

    It is their responsibility to enforce these commitments, through command and control of their fighters and aligned militias. The RSF must immediately cease attacks on civilians, and the SAF and allied Joint Forces must allow safe passage for civilians to reach safety.

    Hundreds of thousands have been displaced; yet many more in Zamzam IDP camp and El Fasher are being blocked from fleeing this violence by the warring parties. They must be free to seek safety wherever they think best and be protected as they do so.

    The warring parties must give humanitarian actors the security guarantees needed to  deliver aid rapidly, safely and at scale, including through a 72-hour pause in fighting. This must be through transparent notification of movement, rather than permission, throughout North Darfur and beyond.

  • Keir Starmer – 2025 Remarks at the IEA Future of Energy Security Summit

    Keir Starmer – 2025 Remarks at the IEA Future of Energy Security Summit

    The remarks made by Keir Starmer, the Prime Minister, at Lancaster House in London on 24 April 2025.

    Good afternoon, everyone – it’s really fantastic to see so many people here, in London, welcome to London, I’m so pleased we have got so many representatives from so many places and in a sense we’re here today for one simple reason:

    Because the world has changed.

    From defence and national security on the one hand, much discussed in recent months…

    To the economy and trade…

    Old assumptions have fallen away.

    We are living through an era of global instability…

    Which is felt by working people as an age of local insecurity.

    Factory workers, builders, carers, nurses, teachers…

    Working harder and harder for the pound in their pocket…

    But feeling at the same time that they have less control of their lives.

    *

    And energy security is right at the heart of this.

    Every family and business across the UK…

    Has paid the price for Russia weaponizing energy. And it has.

    But it’s not just that.

    *

    Let’s be frank.

    When it comes to energy…

    We’re also paying the price for our over-exposure…

    Over many years…

    To the rollercoaster of international fossil fuel markets.

    Leaving the economy – and therefore people’s household budgets…

    Vulnerable to the whims of dictators like Putin…

    To price spikes…

    And to volatility that is beyond our control.

    Since the 1970s, half of the UK’s recessions have been caused by fossil fuel shocks.

    That’s true for many of the other nations represented here this afternoon.

    So what’s different today is not the information we have.

    It’s not our awareness of the problem.

    No.

    What’s different now…

    Is our determination…

    In a more uncertain world…

    To fix it.

    It’s our determination that working people…

    Should not be exposed like this anymore.

    *

    So, to the British people, I say:

    This government will not sit back…

    We will step up.

    We will make energy a source…

    Not of vulnerability, but of strength.

    We will protect our critical infrastructure, energy networks and supply chains…

    And do whatever it takes…

    To protect the security of our people.

    Because this is the crucial point –

    Energy security is national security…

    And it is therefore a fundamental duty of government.

    And I’m very clear –

    We can’t deliver that by defending the status quo…

    Or trying to turn the clock back…

    To a world that no longer exists.

    *

    Of course, fossil fuels will be part of our energy mix for decades to come.

    But winning the fight for energy security depends on renewal –

    It depends on change…

    It depends on cooperation with others.

    And that’s why we’re all here today – so many countries, so many communities represented.

    *

    The IEA was founded in 1974,

    In the midst of an energy crisis,

    To help us work together to secure energy supplies…

    And reduce future energy shocks.

    Well, that has taken on a new urgency today.

    So our task is clear –

    To act – together…

    To seize the opportunity of the clean energy transition.

    Because homegrown clean energy…

    Is the only way…

    To take back control of our energy system…

    Deliver energy security…

    And bring down bills for the long term.

    *

    And I want to tell you –

    That is in the DNA of my government.

    When we came into office last year…

    We knew there was no time to waste.

    So in our first 100 days…

    We launched Great British Energy –

    As a national champion to drive investment and transform clean power.

    We scrapped the ban on onshore wind…

    And became the first G7 economy to phase out coal power.

    While we won’t turn off the taps…

    We’re going all out –

    Through our Plan for Change…

    To make Britain a clean energy superpower…

    To secure home grown energy…

    And set a path to achieving clean power by 2030.

    *

    Now, I know, some in the UK don’t agree with that.

    They think energy security can wait.

    They think tackling climate change can wait.

    But do they also think that billpayers can wait too?

    Do they think economic growth can wait?

    Do they think we can win the race for green jobs and investment by going slow?

    That would serve no one.

    Instead, this government is acting now…

    With a muscular industrial policy –

    To seize these opportunities…

    To boost investment…

    Build new industries…

    Drive UK competitiveness…

    And unlock export opportunities –

    In wind, nuclear, hydrogen, carbon capture, heat pumps and so much more.

    That is the change we need.

    We won’t wait –

    We’ll accelerate.

    *

    Because we’re already seeing the benefits.

    The UK’s net zero sectors are growing three times faster than the economy as a whole.

    They have attracted £43 billion of private investment since last July.

    And now they support around 600,000 jobs across the UK.

    That means more opportunities…

    And more money in people’s pockets.

    And we’re going further.

    We’ve stripped out unnecessary red tape…

    To put Britain back in the global race for nuclear energy…

    And allow for Small Modular Reactors for the first time.

    We’re speeding up planning for clean energy projects –

    Including onshore wind…

    To power millions of homes and unlock further investment of £40 billion each year.

    *

    It’s really clear to me –

    That investors want policy certainty.

    They want ambition.

    That is what we’re providing.

    And now we are raising our ambition even further.

    I am really pleased to announce today…

    That we’re creating a new Supply Chains Investment Fund –

    As part of Great British Energy.

    It will be backed by an initial £300 million of new funding…

    For domestic offshore wind…

    Leveraging billions of new private investment…

    Supporting tens of thousands of jobs…

    And driving economic growth.

    When companies are looking to invest in clean energy…

    When partners are looking to build new turbines, blades or cables…

    Our message is simple:

    Build it in Britain.

    I am determined to seize this opportunity –

    To win our share of this trillion-dollar market…

    And secure the next generation of great jobs.

    I’ve met apprentices at the docks in Grimsby – fantastic individuals…

    I’ve been to Holyhead in Wales…

    And the National Nuclear Laboratory in Preston…

    And I’ve seen the brilliant clean power infrastructure that we are building in this country.

    But more than that…

    I’ve seen the pride that these jobs bring.

    This is skilled, well-paid work…

    Meaningful work –

    A chance to reignite our industrial heartlands…

    To rekindle the sense of community pride and purpose…

    That comes from being part of something that is bigger than yourself.

    And so I’m pleased to tell you…

    That I can share some more good news this afternoon.

    Earlier today, we finalised a deal with ENI.

    It will see them award £2 billion in supply chain contracts…

    For the Hynet Carbon Capture and Storage project…

    Creating 2,000 jobs, across North Wales and the North West.

    I want to thank all those here today who are part of this success story.

    Because it is all built on stability, yes…

    But our ruthless focus on delivery…

    But it is also built on partnership.

    *

    So let me say –

    It is a real pleasure today to welcome my friend –

    President von der Leyen.

    Ursula – it is so good to have you with us this afternoon. Last time we were in this building, Ursula and I stood together with other colleagues here at Lancaster House, that was just last month, six weeks ago…

    Standing shoulder-to-shoulder with President Zelenskyy…

    Working together for European security.

    Today we stand, again together with Fatih and others and the IEA…

    United behind European energy security.

    Europe must never again be in a position where Russia thinks they can blackmail us on energy.

    And until Russia comes to the table and agrees a full and unconditional ceasefire…

    We must continue to crack down on their energy revenues which are still fuelling Putin’s war chest.

    This is the moment to act.

    And it is the moment to build a partnership with the EU that meets the needs of our time –

    Facing up to the global shocks of recent years…

    And working together to minimise the impact on hard-working people.

    So we’re doing more with the EU to improve our interconnections…

    And make the most of our shared energy systems…

    As well as building on the fantastic partnerships that we already have…

    With countries like the Netherlands, Germany, Norway and so many others.

    We have a common and important resource in the North Sea…

    Which can help us meet common challenges –

    To me, this is just common sense.

    So let’s seize this potential…

    To drive down bills…

    And drive up investment, growth and energy security.

    I was elected with a mandate to deliver change.

    So I make no apologies for pursuing every avenue…

    To deliver in the national interest and secure Britain’s future.

    That is always my priority.

    And of course this has to be a global effort as well.

    We need to see a wider coalition…

    That unites the north and south…

    In a global drive for clean power.

    That’s why I launched the Global Clean Power Alliance at the G20 last year…

    Working alongside the EU’s Global Energy Transitions Forum.

    And that’s why we’re joining forces to take this forward.

    We want to tackle the barriers and bottlenecks that are holding countries back.

    So I am pleased to announce today…

    That, under the Global Clean Power Alliance…

    We are establishing a first-of-its-kind global initiative…

    To unblock and diversify clean energy supply chains.

    We are harnessing the political leadership needed to make this happen.

    Because, ultimately…

    That is what this is about:

    Leadership.

    In this moment of instability and uncertainty…

    Where we are buffeted by global forces…

    We are taking control.

    We are working together with partners from around the world…

    With the IEA and all of you here today…

    To accelerate this vital global transition.

    And in the UK…

    We are stepping up now…

    To make energy a source…

    Not of vulnerability, and worry…

    Which it is at the moment and it has been for so long…

    But a source of strength, of security and pride.

    With British energy, powering British homes, creating British jobs –

    A collective effort, to boost our collective security…

    For generations to come.

    Thank you very much.

    *

    And now it is my very great pleasure and privilege to introduce…

    President von der Leyen, my friend Ursula, thank you very much for being here. Ursula, the stage is yours.

  • Claire Hughes – 2025 Speech on Littering from Vehicles (Offences)

    Claire Hughes – 2025 Speech on Littering from Vehicles (Offences)

    The speech made by Claire Hughes, the Labour MP for Bangor Aberconwy, in the House of Commons on 22 April 2025.

    I beg to move,

    That leave be given to bring in a Bill to increase penalties for civil offences relating to littering from vehicles; to make provision about the use of technology in detecting and identifying persons who have committed such offences; and for connected purposes.

    I start by thanking the Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), for being here today. When I was first elected last year, I did not expect that litter would be one of the first issues I would be campaigning on in Parliament, but over the past nine months it is something that constituents have raised with me again and again, because frankly, they are fed up. Roadside littering has become more than just an eyesore. For many, it is a visible sign of a lack of respect for our environment, for our communities and for each other. Right now, too many people seem to think it acceptable to buy a takeaway from a drive-through, to eat it, drink it on the go, and then throw the rubbish out the window.

    Research backs that up. The road safety charity IAM RoadSmart found in February this year that nearly 40% of motorcyclists had experienced car drivers or passengers throwing litter out their window while overtaking. National Highways found that 65% of drivers who admit to littering have thrown food and drink packaging from their vehicle. Keep Wales Tidy reported that fast-food litter hit its highest-ever levels in its latest annual report in 2023.

    It appears that while some people care a lot about keeping their cars clean, they are not nearly as bothered about keeping our communities clean. Scientific litter mapping carried out on road networks in and around Cardiff showed that litter was dropped every three seconds. That is the equivalent of 28,800 pieces of litter every day in just one city. When roadsides are already strewn with litter, it signals that littering is acceptable and it encourages more of the same. In rural and coastal areas, such as those I represent in north Wales, roadside litter adds to the growing sense that tourism, while vital to our local economy, places a disproportionate burden on local residents and the authorities tasked with cleaning up.

    To be clear, littering is already a criminal offence in England and Wales under the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Local authorities can issue fixed penalty notices in lieu of prosecution of up to £500 in England and £150 in Wales. In England, if someone is caught throwing litter from a vehicle, litter authorities can also issue a civil penalty, even if they cannot establish the identity of the person who threw the litter. It is evident, though, that the current penalties are not acting as a sufficient deterrent. We only need to look out of our car window the next time we slow down near a roundabout or traffic lights to see the evidence.

    Litter is not just ugly; it puts those tasked with clearing it up at risk, and it costs UK taxpayers a massive £1 billion a year to clear it up. Many of us would agree that money could be better spent elsewhere, including on our NHS. Litter also has serious social and environmental consequences. It is estimated that 3 million animals die due to litter in the UK every year. Discarded food attracts wildlife such as deer and foxes to the side of the road, where they are more likely to be hit by cars. Small mammals get trapped in bottles and die. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals receives about 10 calls a day about animals injured or killed by waste, and it believes the actual number to be far higher. We are said to be a nation of animal lovers, but the figures suggest otherwise.

    Litter from vehicles makes its way to the sea. A staggering 350 kg of litter was collected in just one day by North Wales Wildlife Trust volunteers during their annual beach clean-up in January. Not all of that will have been thrown from vehicles, of course, but a significant proportion of that which gets thrown from cars ends up getting blown into watercourses and ends up in our rivers and streams. Microplastics are another huge concern as litter degrades in the environment. Bangor University conducted some of the world’s first-ever research looking at microplastics in the UK’s rivers and lakes and even found them in a remote lake near the summit of Yr Wyddfa.

    I am therefore pleased that both the UK and Welsh Governments are taking action to tackle this kind of pollution, including by restricting single-use plastics and introducing deposit return schemes. To truly get a grip of this problem, we need a multi-pronged approach, and tackling roadside littering has to be part of that. Some people might say that a lack of litter bins is to blame, and I do not disagree that more bins would help. The Road Haulage Association, which I have met, is calling for better facilities for long-distance lorry drivers, and I fully support that ask. However, a lack of bins does not make it okay for anyone to throw cans, food packaging or empty bottles on our roads knowing that somebody else will have to pick it up.

    I am sure that every Member of this House would join me in thanking the army of volunteers up and down the country who dedicate their time and energy to litter-picking week in, week out. In my constituency, groups such as the Friends of Mostyn Street in Llandudno, Trash Free Trails and Keep Bangor Tidy—to name just a few—remove huge quantities from our communities. We owe them all a huge debt of thanks, but we cannot keep expecting volunteers to clear up after the minority of people who have refused to act responsibly.

    One of the central missions of this Government is to take back our streets, tackling crime and restoring a sense of order. I strongly welcome the measures being introduced in the Crime and Policing Bill to crack down on antisocial behaviour and to stop turning a blind eye to what the last Government deemed “low-level crimes”. In a similar vein, this Bill proposes increased civil penalties for littering from vehicles, because I strongly believe that we need stronger deterrents. The Bill also allows for an expansion in the use of technology for the identification of offenders, which is currently a barrier to enforcement and further weakens the deterrent powers of fixed penalty notices. We need to ensure that the law keeps pace with advances in technology, which will not only increase the detection rate, but reduce the costs of enforcement.

    To conclude, this Labour Government are relentlessly focused on the priorities of working people in our country, and 81% of people in the UK say that litter makes them feel angry and frustrated. There are many pressing issues in the Government’s in-tray inherited from the last 14 years, but tackling roadside littering will help restore pride in our communities, protect biodiversity and support nature restoration. I hope that the House will support this Bill. I thank the House for giving its time and attention to this important matter.

    Question put and agreed to.

    Ordered,

    That Claire Hughes, Mr Alex Barros-Curtis, Andrew Ranger, Ann Davies, Becky Gittins, Catherine Fookes, Kanishka Narayan, Llinos Medi and Sarah Coombes present the Bill.

    Claire Hughes accordingly presented the Bill.

  • Liam Byrne – 2025 Speech on British Steel

    Liam Byrne – 2025 Speech on British Steel

    The speech made by Liam Byrne, the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee, in the House of Commons on 22 April 2025.

    I want to thank the Government for saving British Steel. Our Committee has been clear that it is essential for us to retain the ability to make primary steel in this country, and the steps that were taken a couple of Saturdays ago have helped derisk exactly that. The Government deserve credit for that. However, the Committee has written to the Government to say that a steel strategy needs to come forward as quickly as possible. It must be a clear, long-term vision for the industry, and there must be safeguards against the potential of a floodtide of steel from China. We need to use public procurement much more aggressively to support our local industry, energy costs need to come down, and we need a plan to keep scrap onshore. Will the Minister tell us when she plans to bring forward that steel strategy? Ultimately, what is good for the steel industry is good for Scunthorpe.

    Sarah Jones

    My right hon. Friend is of course right: the steel strategy is all the more important now than when we devised it in opposition and committed £2.5 billion for the steel strategy fund in our manifesto. We are looking at how we use that financial support, and, as he knows, at how we might do primary production. We are investigating future market opportunities and how we can increase demand here in the UK. He speaks of procurement, which of course is incredibly important. I have been talking to the procurement Minister and working on that, along with the Steel Council. We need to consider the availability of suitable sites for future investments.

  • Andrew Griffith – 2025 Speech on British Steel

    Andrew Griffith – 2025 Speech on British Steel

    The speech made by Andrew Griffith, the Shadow Industry Minister, in the House of Commons on 22 April 2025.

    I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement, and I join her in thanking the Scunthorpe workers for their efforts over the last few weeks.

    We are here once again because the Government had no plan—they failed to prepare, they bungled negotiations, and they took too long to listen to the warnings. What do we have to show for it? We have this botched nationalisation and a potential bill for the taxpayer stretching into the billions. I say billions, but it remains entirely unclear how much this bungled 11th-hour decision will cost, while the assets still belong to China. I hope that Members across the House will agree that this is a complete mockery of transparency and accountability, and I hope that the relevant Select Committees will take it upon themselves to conduct their own inquiries. Instead of a statement from the Treasury today, the Chancellor is running to the International Monetary Fund in Washington to explain how she broke the UK economy. Steel nationalisation, the IMF downgrading growth forecasts, trade union summits in No.10—it is all sounding a bit 1970s.

    The simple problem is that we do not know the answers to any of these questions because the Government have failed to publish an impact assessment. Will the Minister confirm to the House when they plan to do so? Has anyone in government asked the Office for National Statistics whether British Steel will now be classified as a publicly owned entity? Has the ministerial team discussed the impact of the takeover with the Chancellor on her already evaporated fiscal headroom? To date, how much has the Department spent, or how much has it committed to underwrite—that is a straightforward question that deserves an answer? Given that her Department had no budget for revenue support of steel, has the Minister been able to secure additional funds from the Treasury, so that other sectors or support for British exporters do not pay the price?

    We have seen no further detail of the Government’s proposed steel strategy, or any confirmation of longer-term plans to protect British steelmaking. Labour Members refused to back a coking coalmine to produce some of the raw materials that blast furnaces rely on. Instead, they wait for shipments to arrive from halfway around the world. Most importantly, the Government have not set out how they intend to reduce the enormous burden of sky-high energy costs. Instead, the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero seems dead set on delusional policies that drive energy prices in this country even higher. We cannot make steel sustainably when we have the highest energy prices in Europe. Prices for industrial energy in Birmingham in this country are four times higher than those in Birmingham Alabama. We cannot make steel if we do not have coal.

    As Nissan’s Alan Johnson said today, the “simple fact” is that the UK is

    “too expensive… Once you’ve paid your electricity, gas, NICs we are too expensive—any industrial strategy that does not tackle that is a waste of time.”

    Well, we are here once again. There is no steel strategy, no industrial strategy, no export strategy and no energy strategy. Perhaps when she replies the Minister can share a single strategy that this Government actually possess.

    Sarah Jones

    It is getting harder and harder to understand quite what the Opposition’s policy is on steel. It is all over the place. On the one hand, they ask us questions about costs. They say they had negotiated a modernisation plan with British Steel, but they will not tell us how much money they were willing to throw at that plan. Their proposal, apparently, was to build on two sites. If Jingye was asking us for £1.2 billion to build on one site, how much taxpayers’ money were the Government putting on the table to fund two? We need answers to those questions.

    On nationalisation, last week the shadow Secretary of State for Business and Trade, who was, as we know, Financial Secretary to the Treasury when Liz Truss crashed the economy, said that he backed full nationalisation of British Steel. On the other hand, this morning the Leader of the Opposition said on Radio 4 that nationalisation should be the “last resort.” It seems a bit muddled. Finally, the hon. Member asked questions about the cost of energy pricing, forgetting of course that industrial energy prices doubled under the Tories. UK Steel, the trade body for the steel industry, is clear and has said that it is

    “the UK’s reliance on natural gas power generation”

    that leaves us with higher prices than our international allies. It is not too much clean energy, but too little.

    The hon. Member asked a reasonable question about the costs. I hope he will understand that matters at the moment are sensitive and commercially confidential, and I hope he will be assured that we will publish accounts in due course. We are securing materials and reviewing things such as health and safety, and other critical roles. Regular meetings are happening between the Departments and British Steel, as he would expect, and of course we will publish those details in due course. He asked about the coalmine. British Steel has told us directly that it could not use that coal because of the sulphur content. We also need coke ovens to turn coal into coke, and the coke ovens at British Steel were closed on his watch several years ago. The reality is that the Tories failed the British Steel sector, and this Labour Government are securing it.