UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Chi Onwurah – 2022 Speech on Bowel Conditions

    Chi Onwurah – 2022 Speech on Bowel Conditions

    The speech made by Chi Onwurah, the Labour MP for Newcastle upon Tyne Central, in the House of Lords on 11 October 2022.

    I beg to move,

    That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Government to publish an assessment of incidences of bowel conditions and diseases, including an assessment of geographical and socioeconomic disparities.

    We have a hidden epidemic—a hidden epidemic that this Government are making no attempt to understand, and a hidden epidemic that is devastating the lives of many in Newcastle Central: a hidden epidemic of bowel disease and bowel conditions in the north-east.

    Bowel conditions are not a sexy subject; needing the loo rarely is, though it can be a source of humour. I know that children are always fascinated to learn that there was a curtain around your Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker, for over 600 years to enable Speakers to relieve themselves during long sessions. Fortunately, we have moved on since then, but there is still a curtain around bowel conditions. That is why we are all so grateful for the much missed and tireless “Bowel Babe”, Dame Deborah James, who did so much to tackle the stigma surrounding the diagnosis and care of people with bowel diseases.

    Bowel ill health has a significant impact on my constituents, leading to lives lost and stoma surgery, which requires ongoing care and support. Like Members across the House, my primary concern is the wellbeing of my constituents. That is why I, like so many of us, attended the “Stomas in Parliament” event in July, to better understand the impact of stomas on constituents’ lives. It is also why in July, I visited Richard Brady, consultant colorectal surgeon at Newcastle Clinical Research Facility, to see how they are trialling innovative surgical products from the company Coloplast that reduce the burden of leakage on stoma wearers. It was fascinating to hear and see the reality of stoma wearing and changing, but I also learnt of the difficulties confronting so many patients in Newcastle and the north-east.

    One person living with a colostomy told me that he felt invisible to Government. One who has had inflammatory bowel disease since she was 16 and, later, ulcerative colitis has “lost count” of the number of medications and surgeries she has had. Another living with stage 3 bowel cancer explained the frustration and embarrassment they felt in public spaces when a toilet was not available in shops. One patient said that, during the first few months following her ileostomy, her stoma nurse felt like her only friend. Another said that she felt as though the world was crashing down when she was diagnosed with colorectal cancer after experiencing no symptoms, and one person living with a stoma told me that his condition made him fear leaving the house, thus isolating him from the people he loved and the things he loved to do. The lived experiences of those with bowel disease can be very distressing.

    Bowel disease comes in many forms. There is colon cancer, inflammatory bowel disease, Crohn’s disease, diverticulitis, gastroenteritis, diverticular disease, colitis, ileus and many more. All these conditions impact patients differently, and each presents its own challenges.

    The north-east appears uniquely vulnerable to bowel ill health. Scientists believe that that is because we have the perfect storm of contributory factors. According to The BMJ, the north-east has the highest rate of ulcerative colitis in the country, and the UK as a whole has the highest rate in Europe. The north-east also has the highest rates of colorectal cancer in the UK, with 646 patients diagnosed per 100,000 people—14% higher than London. The UK also has one of the lowest survival rates of colorectal cancer in high-income countries.

    Diverticulitis, in which tiny bulges in the colon wall become inflamed, leading to severe pain, is another condition linked with many social factors that are more prevalent in the north-east. One is smoking; 13% of people in the north-east smoke, which is the highest rate in England. Another is obesity. In the north-east, 34% of adults are obese, which is the joint highest rate in England, and 29% of year 6 children are obese—the second highest rate in England.

    Another critical factor is economic deprivation, to which the north-east is particularly vulnerable following 12 years of Conservative economic mismanagement and neglect. Two in five children in the north-east live in poverty—the highest rate of any UK region. According to a recent Survation poll, a third of people in the north-east are worried that they might have to use a food bank—the highest proportion in the country. Access to primary care is also a factor, and can be linked to poverty: when a person works two jobs to make ends meet, it is harder to get to the doctor’s. Other factors include Celtic heritage, lack of exposure to sunlight, and a diet high in animal fat. The consequence of all these factors combined is that the north-east suffers from higher rates of bowel ill health. Despite that, it has lower rates of screening uptake. That means more advanced cases, and higher rates of stomas that result in ongoing care demands and have a significant impact on people’s quality of life.

    As I have said, Newcastle Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust is a centre for innovative bowel disease treatment, and patients cross the Pennines for its support, but the Government need to do much more to highlight and address the unacceptable regional disparities in bowel illness. In answer to my parliamentary questions, the Department of Health and Social Care told me that it makes no assessment of regional disparities in the prevalence of bowel disease. The Bill would make patients living with these conditions visible in the NHS and in Government datasets, which would aid treatment and help to identify areas with a higher prevalence of a condition.

    The Government also told me that there were just under 2,000 newly formed stomas in 2021, but analysis of NHS patient activity data suggests that the true number is around eight times higher, at between 160,000 and 200,000. The Government simply do not know what is happening. We need legislation to better understand, identify, prevent and address bowel conditions, so that we can better target investment, and focus resources on reducing inequity across the UK. My Bowel Conditions (Assessment) Bill would be the first step in addressing the issue, not only for my constituents, but for the country.

    The Bill would provide for the statutory collection and reporting of statistics by region and by socioeconomic indices. This data would be invaluable to all those involved in the treatment of bowel conditions. More importantly, it would help in supporting existing patients, and contribute towards prevention and diagnosis of future patients. Better understanding will save lives.

    The Bill would force the Government to assess, and ultimately address, the inequalities that have grown over 12 years of Tory neglect. Twelve years of Government mismanagement have resulted in record waiting lists for care, and chronic staff shortages. Cancer waiting times worsened in every one of those years prior to the pandemic, and according to Bowel Cancer UK, England is also poorer at diagnosing cancers at an early, more treatable stage than the best performing countries. That is why the next Labour Government will undertake one of the biggest expansions of the NHS workforce, and will produce a long-term workforce plan for the NHS.

    People living with bowel conditions deserve to live in dignity. For this to happen, we need the stories and voices of patients to be heard by the Government. The Bill will make that patient living with a stoma who said that he felt invisible visible to the NHS, to integrated care boards, to the Department of Health and Social Care, and to the Government. I hope that the Bill progresses today, so that we can finally address this hidden epidemic, which affects and cuts short the life of so many in the north-east.

    Question put and agreed to.

    Ordered,

    That Chi Onwurah, Liz Twist, Mary Kelly Foy, Catherine McKinnell, Kate Osborne, Mrs Sharon Hodgson, Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck, Ian Lavery, Ian Mearns and Grahame Morris present the Bill.

    Chi Onwurah accordingly presented the Bill.

  • Bambos Charalambous – 2022 Speech on the Death of Mahsa Amini

    Bambos Charalambous – 2022 Speech on the Death of Mahsa Amini

    The speech made by Bambos Charalambous, the Shadow Foreign Office Minister, in the House of Commons on 11 October 2022.

    Like many Members of this House, I have been heartened to see the bravery of the protesters in Iran in the past few weeks, and particularly the women and girls who are spearheading these protests. Iran has a young population—a population which is clamouring for change against an oppressive regime that aims to restrict the liberty and vitality of its people

    The Opposition stand in solidarity with those protesting for an end to state violence from the morality police, and in solidarity with the friends and family of Mahsa Amini and all those who have been killed or injured in the protests. These protests are about more than compulsory hijab; they are about ordinary Iranian people’s demands for fundamental freedoms to live their lives as they choose.

    We are seeing a flourishing of Iranian civil society, and the UK must support it. While I am pleased that the Government have increased the sanctions on Iran following the Labour party’s calls for them to do so, the UK must do more to support Iranian civil society and independent journalism. BBC Persian Radio, despite being illegal, is accessed by millions of Iranians, but the BBC has announced that it will be closed down.

    May I ask the Minister what the Government are doing to support access to independent news in Iran?

    If the current regime in Iran ends, the UK Government will need to be ready to work with Iranian partners. The UK, today, should be building links with progressive forces within Iran, supporting all those who speak up for human rights. Will the Minister tell us how the UK intends to build relationships with Iranian civil society? There is a sense that change is coming, and we need to be on the right side of history.

    Gillian Keegan

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments, and agree very much with his sentiments. BBC Persian is a legitimate journalistic organisation with editorial independence from the UK Government, and we condemn some of the things that have been happening in relation to the persecution of its employees and ex-employees and members of their families. It is very important that those people continue their work, and we are of course continuing to support the BBC and the BBC World Service in that regard.

    We are very concerned about Iran’s human rights record. We raise the issue of human rights at all appropriate levels of the Iranian Government and at all appropriate opportunities—at all levels, at all times—and we will continue to take action with the international community to press Iran to improve its poor record, for instance through the Human Rights Council in Geneva and the United Nations General Assembly in New York. Iran’s record has been of serious concern to the UK for a long time, and we will continue to work with the Iranian Government and others at all levels.

  • Gillian Keegan – 2022 Statement on the Death of Mahsa Amini

    Gillian Keegan – 2022 Statement on the Death of Mahsa Amini

    The statement made by Gillian Keegan, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, in the House of Commons on 11 October 2022.

    The death of Mahsa Amini in Iran was a shocking reminder of the repression faced by women in Iran. The protests across the country that have followed show us that the Iranian people are not satisfied with the path that their Government have taken.

    I commend the bravery of ordinary Iranians seeking to exercise their right to peaceful assembly and freedom of expression in the face of appalling police violence. We condemn the Iranian authorities’ crackdown on protesters, journalists and internet freedom: the use of violence in response to the expression of fundamental rights by women or any other members of Iranian society is wholly unjustifiable.

    Yesterday, on 10 October, we announced sanctions on senior security and political figures in Iran and the so-called morality police. We have sanctioned the morality police in their entirety, as well as their chief, Mohammed Rostami Cheshmeh Gachi, and the head of the Tehran division, Haj Ahmed Mirzaei. For decades, the morality police have used the threat of detention and violence to control what Iranian women wear and how they behave in public.

    The UK is also imposing sanctions on five leading political and security officials in Iran for committing serious human rights violations in suppressing fuel protests in Iran in 2019. The UK maintains sanctions designations against a further 78 individuals and one entity under our Iran human rights sanctions regime. In all, there are more than 200 sanctions designations in place against Iran, including in relation to human rights, nuclear proliferation and terrorism.

    Theresa Villiers

    These protests show that there are thousands of women in Iran who are not prepared to put up with violent human rights abuses. Will the UK Government stand with those brave women as they call for justice, for freedom and for democracy? Will Ministers meet opposition groups? Will they ban the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps? Will they rule out sanctions relief under the joint comprehensive plan of action process?

    Gillian Keegan

    As the Foreign Secretary has said, the protests send a clear message that Iranian people are not satisfied with the path that their Government have taken; Iranian leaders must now listen. Of course, we stand by those people: the use of violence in response to the expression of fundamental rights by women or any other members of Iranian society is wholly unjustifiable. We continue to keep everything under review, and the UK has called for a full and transparent investigation into the shocking death of Mahsa Amini.

  • Bill Wiggin – 2022 Speech Proposing the Ban of Sealed Bids for Property Purchases

    Bill Wiggin – 2022 Speech Proposing the Ban of Sealed Bids for Property Purchases

    The speech made by Sir Bill Wiggin, the Conservative MP for North Herefordshire, in the House of Commons on 11 October 2022.

    I beg to move,

    That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the sale of property by sealed bids; and for connected purposes.

    The role of Government is to ensure that markets work and that deals are fair and as transparent as possible. We make rules to ensure that unfair exploitation does not occur. That is clearly more important in land and property transactions, as they are usually the largest deals that most of us will ever do with our own money.

    The purpose of my Bill is therefore to enhance transparency, to reduce costs and opaque behaviour, and to ensure that both buyer and seller are treated fairly by the estate agent. Let me say that, despite the vast number of good agents, there are still some who think that using such opaque techniques to try to extort money is acceptable.

    We know that when one buys a property, one does a search and survey before exchanging contracts. That is sensible and prudent. However, when one is asked to submit a best and final offer or a sealed bid, that is done to try to extract more money without any extra information being given. That is not in the interest of any party except the agent, who has made little or no effort to assist in the deal making, as a broker of any other transaction would expect to do.

    A sealed bid or private treaty sale will be suggested to a seller when multiple potential buyers are interested in purchasing the same property. Prospective buyers are invited to submit bids for the property through a secret ballot or through an invitation to submit a best and final offer. All bids are then supposed to be considered at once. The owner of the property and the estate agent then decide behind closed doors, in an unclear and opaque process, who should be declared the winner.

    Agents are not bound by any legislation setting out appropriate processes for how transparency following bids should be handled, nor is there any later declaration of the price or any other useful information that would help the market. In fact, there are no credible statistics available recording how many sales take place by sealed bid, which demonstrates the overly relaxed nature of the regulations surrounding property buying.

    The system is therefore ripe for abuse and detrimental to the confidence of potential buyers. I hope that this Bill can generate real reform and encourage genuine transparency in the property market.

    It is inefficient that with such a process of sealed bids the prospective buyer has no idea what their competitors have bid. To be eligible to submit a bid, one must go through the cost of searches and surveys—an expensive procedure. The average homebuyer pays between £1,000 and £1,500 for conveyancing before exchange of contract. There are also other tedious undertakings, such as letters from one’s bank or lengthy pieces on one’s suitability to own the property.

    Bidders are required to do so much before even being considered for the property, but what do they get in return? Nothing but confusion, secrecy and unanswered questions. They often find themselves in frustrating and distressing circumstances: either they have not bid enough and are never told what the winner paid, or, if successful, they might be paying well over the asking price, and often far more than that which the agent thought the property was worth.

    All that is great news for the seller and the estate agent —right up until the seller becomes a buyer, of course. It leaves an agent who did not know his market with a larger commission, having done less work. It is not surprising that they do not want more transparency and no wonder that this element to the market needs reform.

    Once a bid is submitted, a buyer cannot really alter their offer. Estate agents will often tell buyers that their offer is legally binding before exchanging contracts. That may or may not be true, as a “subject to survey” clause is possible. Supporters of sealed bids claim that they speed up the buying process and discourage time wasters. However, in many cases, the seller or the buyer attempts to renegotiate after the sealed bid has been accepted, thereby prolonging the process. According to Quick Move Now, in quarter 4 of 2021, 39% of property sales fell through due to the buyer changing their mind or attempting to renegotiate the offer. When a property sale falls through, people lose not only the house or flat, but any money they have spent on applying for a mortgage, conveyancing or a property survey. Government figures suggest that consumers waste £270 million each year because transactions fall through. Failed transactions make moving house—already considered one of life’s most stressful experiences—more frustrating and less practical.

    Research undertaken by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy suggests that consumers are extremely concerned by the weakness of regulation for estate agents. Aggressive tactics that are employed to close a deal quickly include practices such as gazumping. A system of sealed bids only encourages such harmful practices, which waste time, wreck estate agents’ reputations and artificially inflate the housing market.

    Often, estate agents use the sealed bids process to pressure inexperienced sellers into accepting the highest bid, with no regard to the circumstances of the buyer, while buyers are pressured into submitting their very highest offer. I must keep saying that estate agents are, by and large, good, honest people. However, the actions of a few can sully the industry. Processes such as sealed bids and best and final offers only add to that unfortunate perception. That is why reform is long overdue.

    Sealed bids not only affect the housing market. In Herefordshire, the average price for prime arable land is £10,670 an acre. Agricultural land values in England have reached their highest level since 2016. During that time, the use of sealed bids for farmland has also increased. That is concerning, as the price per acre for farmland is being increased artificially, in turn putting pressure on the price of food.

    Due to transport costs, the land next door is always more valuable to a local farmer than land further away, and it is more valuable to them than to someone who lives further away. That means that farmers are much more exploited and much more vulnerable than any other type of property buyer. This has to stop. How can we encourage new and aspiring young farmers to acquire land in such an opaque market environment?

    This Parliament has the ability to do far more for prospective home and farm buyers. Now we must find the will. We were elected on a key manifesto commitment to rebalance the housing market towards more home ownership. Home ownership is a fundamental Conservative value. Sealed bids and best-and-final-offer messages do not rebalance the market; they seek to corrupt it. They are not the way to an open, transparent, competitive market; they seek to stifle competition and transparency. They artificially raise prices and hopes, meaning that thousands of pounds are wasted. Through this Bill, I wish to see better regulation of the housing and property market, fairness for all prospective buyers and sellers, and transparency for an industry that has for far too long operated in murky ways. That all starts with an end to the practice of sealed bids and best and final offers.

    Question put and agreed to.

    Ordered,

    That Sir Bill Wiggin, Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger, James Grundy, Dr James Davies, Andrew Rosindell, Cherilyn Mackrory, Mr Mark Francois, Sally-Ann Hart and Sir Edward Leigh present the Bill.

    Sir Bill Wiggin accordingly presented the Bill.

  • Luke Pollard – 2022 Speech on Nuclear Weapons and Vladimir Putin

    Luke Pollard – 2022 Speech on Nuclear Weapons and Vladimir Putin

    The speech made by Luke Pollard, the Labour MP for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport, in the House of Commons on 11 October 2022.

    I welcome the new Minister to his place. It is because Ukraine is winning that Putin’s behaviour is becoming so volatile. The sham referenda, the irresponsible nuclear sabre-rattling, the missile attacks on civilians—these are the hallmarks of a tyrant on the ropes and a tyrant who is losing.

    Labour stands with our friends in Ukraine. With our unshakeable commitment to NATO, the Minister knows that he has our full support for the actions the Government are taking to help Ukraine win. Yesterday’s missile attacks on civilians are a significant escalation. The NATO Secretary-General was right to describe the attacks as “horrific and indiscriminate”.

    Ministers have Labour’s full support in countering Putin’s aggression. In that spirit, I ask the Minister when he will set out a long-term strategy of support for Ukraine, so that we can make sure that Putin’s war ends in failure. Can he confirm that the NLAW—next generation light anti-tank weapon—replacement orders have finally been placed? When does he expect to replenish our depleted weapons stockpiles? What assessment has he made of the worrying statements by Lukashenko and the continued presence of Russian troops and armour in Belarus?

    I would be grateful if the Minister addressed the concerning media reports of the withdrawal of almost 700 British troops currently deployed to our NATO ally Estonia, without any planned replacement. That risks sending the wrong message at the wrong time, and it has worried our international allies. We cannot walk away until the job is done. With that in mind, will he reassure the House that he will not withdraw any further UK troops from our allies, and that the UK will meet our NATO commitments?

    Finally, as more bodies are unearthed at the sites of war crimes, we remember them and we remember those killed yesterday in Putin’s criminal missile strikes. Does the Minister agree that the best justice for those killed is victory for Ukraine, a free and sovereign nation, and war crime tribunals for those responsible?

    Alec Shelbrooke

    I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind comments and I look forward to working across the Dispatch Boxes on these vital issues.

    On the hon. Gentleman’s comments about the horrific war crimes we have seen unfold every time there is a Russian retreat, I think that every decent human being is appalled. I am proud that the UK Government are funding the International Criminal Court, and we will do everything we can to support Ukraine in bringing the perpetrators of these horrific crimes to justice.

    I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I come back to him with a written answer on the postures from Lukashenko.

    On Estonia, the overall capability of our commitment there is far more important than the number of troops alone. We have committed to strengthening that capability over the forthcoming years. I was in Estonia, and indeed Latvia and Lithuania, in my previous role in the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. I have seen at first hand the work that takes place there. All our NATO allies can be reassured that we are committed to making sure that the NATO frontline is secure. We work with colleagues and there will be variation in how that is done.

    With regard to support, the hon. Gentleman will have noticed that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has set up the international support fund. This country contributed £250 million to that, and I believe the total figure is now above €400 million. That is in place to help support Ukraine as this war moves forward and the conflict carries on, so that it can use that money not only in the conflict but to rebuild and, of course, ensure it has the ammunition supplies and things it needs.

    With regard to NLAW and our weapons supply, we are working with industrial supply chains and are confident that we will have the ability to defend ourselves and to give support, but we do not comment on operational capability beyond that.

  • Alec Shelbrooke – 2022 Statement on Nuclear Weapons and Vladimir Putin

    Alec Shelbrooke – 2022 Statement on Nuclear Weapons and Vladimir Putin

    The statement made by Alec Shelbrooke, the Minister of State at the Ministry of Defence, in the House of Commons on 11 October 2022.

    Russia’s continuing assault on Ukraine is an unprovoked and premeditated attack against a sovereign democratic state and it continues to threaten global security. This week, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is meeting with Defence Ministers in Brussels to discuss further support for Ukraine, and later today my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be speaking to members of the G7.

    I can assure the House that the UK and our allies remain steadfast and united in our support for Ukraine. As previously set out to the House, Defence is playing a central role in the UK’s response to the Russian invasion, providing £2.3 billion-worth of military support and leading in the international response.

    We were the first European country to provide lethal aid to Ukraine. To date, we have sent more than 10,000 anti-tank missiles, multiple-launch rocket systems, more than 200 armoured vehicles, more than 120 logistics vehicles, six Stormer vehicles fitted with Starstreak launchers and hundreds of missiles, as well as maritime Brimstone missiles. In addition, we have supplied almost 100,000 rounds of artillery ammunition, nearly 3 million rounds of small arms ammunition, 2,600 anti-structure munitions and 4.5 tonnes of plastic explosive.

    Defence is also providing basic training to Ukrainian soldiers in the UK. To date, we have trained over 6,000 Ukrainian recruits in the UK, and we continually review and adjust the course to meet their requirements. Defence will continue to respond decisively to Ukraine’s requests and the equipment is playing a crucial role in stalling the Russian advance and supporting our Ukrainian friends.

    President Putin’s comments on nuclear are irresponsible. No other country is talking about nuclear use. We do not see this as a nuclear crisis.

    Mr Ellwood

    Thanks to our support and that of allies, Ukrainian forces have done the unthinkable in pushing back Russian force. However, with Putin now on the back foot and the third largest military in the world humiliated, this conflict has entered a darker chapter and we cannot be bystanders. Putin cannot be seen to lose this war and, as his response to the Kerch bridge attack shows, he is stooping to ever more unconventional tactics. The threat of Putin’s turning to tactical low-yield nuclear weapons remains low, but it has increased, posing questions for Britain and the United States that must be addressed before, not after, that line is crossed.

    Russian military doctrine allows first use of nuclear weapons in response to conventional attacks on Russian soil. That is why the sham referendums took place in the Donbas region—so that Putin could claim it was part of the motherland. In response, as things stand, our formal position is so-called strategic ambiguity: the promise of a response, but no public clarity on what that might be.

    We gained a reputation for blinking when it came to Georgia, on chemical weapons use in Syria and when the Crimea was annexed. I believe we should state now what our conventional response would be to Putin’s either deploying nuclear weapons directly or targeting hazardous infrastructure such as chemical or indeed civil nuclear plants. Such clarity could be the very deterrent that helps to prevent such hostile actions from taking place, rather than the vague position we have now.

    Our adversaries—not just Russia—must know and fear the military consequences of daring to resort to using nuclear weapons, even if they are low yield. This is not an operational decision but a political call. We have a duty to do all we can to deter Putin from going nuclear. Let us not leave it to chance. Let us exhibit the robust statecraft and engagement that this unpredictable war now requires.

    Alec Shelbrooke

    I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s comments. I reiterate what I said at the start: President Putin’s comments are irresponsible. No other country is talking about nuclear use, and we do not see this as a nuclear crisis. President Putin should be clear that, for the UK and our allies, any use of nuclear weapons at all would break the taboo on nuclear use that has held since 1945 and lead to severe consequences for Russia.

    President Putin has launched an illegal and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. His forces continue to commit senseless atrocities. The people of Ukraine seek only to restore their sovereignty and territorial integrity, and we will continue to support Ukraine’s right to defend.

    My right hon. Friend speaks of tactical nuclear missiles, but nuclear is nuclear. I reiterate what the Secretary-General of NATO said:

    “President Putin’s nuclear rhetoric is dangerous. It is reckless. NATO is of course vigilant. We monitor closely what Russia does. Russia must understand that nuclear war can never be won and must never be fought. And it will have severe consequences for Russia if they use nuclear weapons. And this has been very clearly conveyed to Russia. So we will continue to support Ukraine. And we will continue to support them in their efforts to liberate even more territory, because they have the right to do so.”

    It is not and never has been tactically smart to outline exactly what the response would be to any potential situation. We will continue on the lines that this Government and, indeed, the Secretary-General have outlined.

  • Advertising Standards Authority – 2022 Ruling on Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities

    Advertising Standards Authority – 2022 Ruling on Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities

    The ruling issued by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) on 12 October 2022.

    Ad description

    Seven newspaper advertorials for the Department of Levelling Up, Housing and Communities:

    a. The first newspaper advertorial, seen on 13 March 2022, featured on the Grimsby Telegraph website, www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk, and had the headline “Levelling Up! What is it and what does it mean for Grimsby?”. Underneath that, text stated, “By Millie Reeves Commercial Writer”. On the far right-hand side, a grey box with the word “ADVERTORIAL” was featured. Directly underneath that, “MOST READ” was stated and a number of links to other Grimsby Telegraph articles were included below that text.

    At the bottom of the article, an infographic was featured which included the HM Government logo.

    b. The second newspaper advertorial, seen 13 March 2022, featured on the Derby Telegraph website, www.derbytelegraph.co.uk, and had the headline “Levelling Up! What is it and what does it mean for Derby?”. The ad had the same layout as ad (a).

    c. The third newspaper advertorial, seen 13 March 2022, featured on the Birmingham Mail website, www.birminghammail.co.uk, and had the headline “Levelling Up! What is it and what does it mean for the West Midlands?”. The ad had the same layout as ad (a).

    d. The fourth newspaper advertorial, seen 13 March 2022, featured on the CornwallLive website, www.cornwalllive.com, and had the headline “Levelling Up! What is it and what does it mean for Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly?”. The ad had the same layout as ad (a).

    e. The fifth newspaper advertorial, seen 13 March 2022, featured on the Leicestershire Mercury website, www.leicestermercury.co.uk, and had the headline “Levelling Up! What is it and what does it mean for Loughborough?”. The ad had the same layout as ad (a).

    f. The sixth newspaper advertorial, seen 13 March 2022, featured on the Newcastle Chronicle website, www.chroniclelive.co.uk, and had the headline “Levelling Up! What is it and what does it mean for Newcastle?”. The ad had the same layout as ad (a).

    g. The seventh newspaper advertorial, seen 13 March 2022, featured on the Wales Online website, www.walesonline.co.uk, and had the headline “Levelling Up! What is it and what does it mean for Wales?”. The ad had the same layout as ad (a).

    Issue

    Lisa Nandy MP and Alex Norris MP challenged whether the ads were obviously identifiable as marketing communications.

    Response

    The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities said they believed the advertorial labelling was both visible and prominent. They explained that block capitals were used in the word “ADVERTORIAL” and that it was set within a frame.

    They clarified that the labelling was in Reach Plc’s house style and common practice across all of their titles. They said publishers were responsible for ensuring content was correctly labelled and followed guidelines. They explained that the labelling differed across both print and digital and they believed publishers were best placed to understand what resonated best with their readers. They also highlighted that many of the articles featured an infographic which included the Levelling Up and HM Government logo.

    Reach Plc said they considered all of the ads to be obviously identifiable as marketing communications for the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. They explained that all of the ads were shown in the “Partner Stories” section of the website. The ads featured a grey box with the label “ADVERTORIAL” prominently placed on the top right-hand side. They emphasised that the label travelled down as the reader scrolled down the page. However, they later confirmed that this technical feature was not in place at the time of the campaign, and therefore, would not have been seen by readers of the ads.

    They re-iterated that all of the articles featured an infographic which included the HM Government logo, and that the final sentence stated, “To find out more about Levelling Up and how the plans will improve your area, as well as how you can get involved with decision making, please go to gov.uk/levellingup”. In addition, they said that the use of “Commercial Writer” in the by-line would make readers aware that the article was commercial content.

    Reach said that, to view the ads, the reader would have had to follow one of three journeys, namely: via a Facebook ad which they believed was labelled in accordance with Facebook guidelines; a labelled Google Display Network ad; or from the homepage on the website in which the image for the article was labelled “ADVERTORIAL” in the top left-hand corner, in font which they believed to be commensurate with font used on the rest of the homepage. They said that meant the advertorials were obviously identifiable as marketing communications.

    Assessment Upheld

    The CAP Code stated that marketing communications must be obviously identifiable as such. Any visual or contextual signposts need to be sufficiently prominent and clear prior to engagement with the content.

    The ASA understood that the ads would generally be accessed either via the homepage of the newspaper’s website or by readers who had interacted with a Facebook or Google ad, which included statements such as “What is Levelling Up? Find out where investments are being made in Derby and your local area”. Whilst those ads were labelled, we noted that the statements did not reference the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and it was not clear from the text that the subsequent article would also be an ad. We noted that on the homepage, the image for the ad was labelled “ADVERTORIAL” in the top-left corner. However, we considered that the font used for the label was small, particularly compared with other text used on the webpage, and as such it was not sufficiently clear that the linked article was an ad. Additionally, readers might arrive at the ad via another route. It was therefore necessary for the ads to be obviously identifiable as ads.

    We considered the desktop versions of the ads, which were labelled with the text “ADVERTORIAL” placed within a grey tile, which we understood was the standard desktop format for all of Reach’s publications. We noted that the advertorial label was placed to the far right-hand side of each website above links to other articles from the newspaper, with a line dividing that part of the page from the advertorial.

    Therefore, we considered, within the context of the full-page ads, that it was not clear that the heading related to the ads and that readers were likely to overlook this text. That was reinforced with the by-line that stated “By Millie Reeves Commercial Writer” which was placed directly underneath the headline. We also did not agree with Reach that the average reader would understand from the term “Commercial Writer” that the article was an ad. We considered readers would see this and understand that, in the absence of prominent ad labelling, the article was a piece of editorial content.

    Whilst we recognised that Reach said the advertorial label remained visible as readers scrolled down the webpage, we did not see evidence of that when we viewed the ads, and they later confirmed that this feature was not available at the time when the ads were live. Nevertheless, if the label did move as the user scrolled, its position would remain far-right aligned, which we considered meant that it would continue to be overlooked by readers.

    We acknowledged that the advertorials featured an infographic which included a HM Government logo. However, we considered that readers were likely to understand that the infographic itself was derived from a government source and used in the context of an editorial article, rather than draw the conclusion that its presence meant the article was an ad for the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities.

    We therefore concluded that the ads were not obviously identifiable as marketing communications. The ads breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules and (Recognition of marketing communications).

    Action

    The ads must not appear again in their current form. We told the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, and Reach Plc to ensure that all future marketing communications were prominently and clearly identifiable as such.

  • Terence Burns – 2022 Speech on the Growth Plan (Baron Burns)

    Terence Burns – 2022 Speech on the Growth Plan (Baron Burns)

    The speech made by Terence Burns, Baron Burns, in the House of Lords on 10 October 2022.

    My Lords, the financial statement has not gone down well. I will leave it to others to address many of the details of why it went wrong, and my noble friend Lord Macpherson has done that with great clarity. I will say a few words about some of the issues facing the new Government in designing the proposed medium-term fiscal plan.

    The first and most important task is to make sure that we get through the period of abnormally high energy prices without serious adverse consequences. I agree with others that the energy price cap scheme has substantial support. Capping prices has the advantage of containing some of the increase in RPI inflation we would have seen and it can be done quickly. It has an in-built mechanism to adjust the amount of subsidy to the future pattern of energy prices.

    Of course, the scheme is not without problems: it dampens the incentive for households to economise on their use of energy and it is not well targeted. But the reality is that it is difficult to target vulnerable households at short notice, as the tax and benefits system is based around individuals rather than households. However, because the scheme is poorly targeted, it could be expensive—indeed, very expensive. Along with others, I must say that I find it very difficult to understand why the Government have resisted a windfall profits tax. Energy companies are experiencing a windfall and we should try to recover some of that.

    At this difficult time, it is essential that fiscal policy supports the Bank of England in bringing down the rate of inflation. The Government have made it clear that they regard bringing down inflation as a job for the Bank of England. I share the view that the Bank of England is not without blame around some aspects of the present circumstances, and it has been slow to recognise the emerging inflationary pressures and to increase interest rates. But my worry is that its task of bringing down inflation will be made considerably more difficult if the Government’s fiscal policy is pulling in the opposite direction.

    The proposed tax reductions next April remain a high-risk strategy until we know the size of the bill for the energy price cap scheme, so it is vital that the Government’s forthcoming medium-term fiscal plan gives dual weight to the OBR’s report on public finances and the need to support monetary policy in the job of bringing down inflation. This lesson was learned the hard way in the 1970s and it was an important driver of the MTFS introduced by the Thatcher Government in 1980.

    I fully support the principle that supply-side measures play a critical role in any policy to improve growth rates, but in the circumstances I hope that they will be concentrated on those measures that do not make the task of dealing with inflation more difficult. In my view, the harm from unfunded tax cuts at this point is very likely to exceed any supply-side benefit. I do not know of any convincing argument that unfunded tax cuts ultimately pay for themselves, other than in very special circumstances of high marginal tax rates.

    In these circumstances, public expenditure cuts will be difficult to find. My noble friend Lord Macpherson talked about this, and I shared his experience for many years. They could also be potentially damaging if they target those who are suffering most from the rise in energy costs and inflation in general.

    This is not to question the longer-term ambition of simplifying the tax system. However, we should recognise that supply-side measures will take time; they require careful analysis and implementation. I witnessed many attempts to introduce supply-side measures. Many of them fell into considerable problems as they moved on because they were exploited by people for whom they were never intended.

    Growth has been affected in all advanced countries by the combination of the financial crisis of 2008, the pandemic and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, so this is a general problem and is not unique to the UK. Higher public indebtedness and higher tax ratios are largely a consequence of dealing with these adverse shocks. I am afraid that the consequences for growth will take some time to work through.

  • Christopher Fox – 2022 Speech on the Growth Plan (Baron Fox)

    Christopher Fox – 2022 Speech on the Growth Plan (Baron Fox)

    The speech made by Christopher Fox, Baron Fox, in the House of Lords on 10 October 2022.

    My Lords, I too welcome the Minister to her new position.

    The current Prime Minister says that she is focusing on growth and, seemingly, she believes that almost the entire rest of the world are enemies of growth, yet her view on who the culprits are is not really supported by the track record of the government incumbents. For example, how does it help when we had a BEIS Secretary, now our Chancellor, turn his back on the industrial strategies that were effective growth partnerships with the Government? How does it help when the badly botched Brexit deal has created so much extra red tape that many businesses have stopped exporting altogether? How does it help when the Tories create duplicate regulations such as UK REACH, which has caused billions of pounds of extra costs for our chemicals industry? How does it help, when all sectors are facing chronic shortages of people and skills, to have a Home Secretary who is quoted as saying that there are too many immigrants in low-skilled jobs? She should have said that because training has been so badly neglected, there are too few British people in high-skilled jobs. High skills boost productivity.

    However, the most effective enemy of growth is instability. In just over three years, we have had three Conservative Prime Ministers. Each enters No. 10 decrying and overturning the efforts of her or his predecessor. It is very difficult for businesses to justify investing with these political shifting sands.

    Last month’s fiscal statement has created yet new levels of instability. To summarise the external view, I will quote the highly respected former US Secretary of the Treasury, Larry Summers:

    “The UK did not have room for a massive ineffectual fiscal expansion. The uncontained energy subsidies were themselves substantially problematic and did not leave room for large, permanent tax cuts. That called the credibility of the government into substantial question.”

    As we saw, once this credibility was called into question, all hell broke loose. Just one consequence of that is the cost of business financing, which has increased materially.

    These rising rates come against a backdrop of near-record levels of SME debt. The banking trade body, UK Finance, puts borrowing by small businesses at over £200 billion. About half of that debt is loaned on floating rates, which means that the cost of servicing is rising every day. With the number of company insolvencies in England and Wales already at a 13-year high, it bodes very badly.

    As the Budget debate unfolded and the debacle became clear, the Prime Minister sought to distance herself by focusing on the previously announced energy cost measures. As we heard from my noble friend Lord Newby, despite their flaws, this principle is broadly welcome—but remember that domestic energy costs remain at least twice those of last year. That is what we should be thinking about when we think about benefits.

    However, the business scheme has a major flaw to which I would like the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, to respond to specifically at the end. Based on the terms of the scheme laid out by the Government, only businesses that signed a fixed agreement after 1 April 2022 and those on variable rates will benefit, so businesses with energy agreements signed before this date do not get a subsidy to their unit prices. I ask the Minister to write to me with the Treasury estimate of the number of UK companies missing out on the subsidy due to this cut-off and its estimated impact. I ask him to undertake at the Dispatch Box today that the Government will review this cut-off.

    In conclusion, when it comes to diagnosing the cause of our country’s problems, the Conservative Party needs to look in the mirror. The enemies of growth are politicians whose ideology drives out realism, Cabinet Ministers for whom blind faith eliminates proven expertise and a party for whom policy purity transcends common sense.

  • Matt Hancock – 2012 Speech to the Association of Colleges Annual Conference

    Matt Hancock – 2012 Speech to the Association of Colleges Annual Conference

    The speech made by Matt Hancock, the then Minister of Skills, in Birmingham on 20 November 2012.

    Two months ago, in this hall, the Prime Minister gave a speech about the need for Britain to compete in the global race.

    He talked about how every one needs to reach their personal best. And how we must not leave anyone behind. He reminded us that our young people must be equipped to compete. Not just with our European neighbours, but with ambitious, innovative, and determined countries all over the world.

    This is a very specific challenge for everyone in this room. And it is that challenge that I want to talk about today.

    Over these past months, I have been hugely impressed by the go-getting and dynamic leadership of the best FE and sixth- form Colleges. I know that you are among the most innovative and responsive of any delivery arm of Government. I know that in this room there is the capacity to do so much more.

    I have a very clear view about what my main role has to be as Minister of Skills. It is not to complain or be a constantly niggling critic. Instead, I want to be the unequivocal champion of Further Education.

    I’m quite unusual in politics.

    When my school didn’t offer the A levels I wanted, I went along to West Cheshire College instead. You were there for me when I needed you. So I will celebrate, eulogise, proclaim and publicise the triumphs in Colleges every day across our land, not just because it is my job to do so, but because I know the value of what you do from my own personal experience.

    But I wouldn’t be doing my job if I didn’t also tell it straight when I think things need to change.

    Now I don’t want any change for change’s sake. But I know you sense a deep unfairness. You feel it in your hearts. I feel it too. It’s a sense of injustice that you deserve a better press, deserve the same recognition as schools and universities.

    Well let me say this – I passionately believe that can happen.

    There is no reason set in stone why technical education should not be seen as on a par with or even more virtuous than university, like it is in Holland or Germany.

    But I also believe this: there is only one way to make that happen. The route to recognition is for every college to be as good as the most outstanding college is today. It will come only when teaching in FE is uniformly high quality. Only when every college is as enterprising as the Gazelle group. When every college reaches for the stars.

    Outstanding education is the route to outstanding acclaim. I want to see every college an outstanding college. I want to see all teaching as inspiring as the best. I will work with you, support you, stand up for you, and yes, challenge you in that goal. And together we can get there.

    For the public at large, the most trusted sign of excellence in education is a positive Ofsted report. School inspection has existed in England since the year Queen Victoria came to the throne. And I am at one with Sir Michael Wilshaw when he reminds us that “Satisfactory is not satisfactory as it’s not good”.

    Ofsted is challenging. I know that. It’s meant to be. But the response must surely be: to raise standards. To improve teaching. To perspire. To aspire. To inspire. And I am at your side.

    I have seen for myself what our best Colleges can achieve:

    • working with engineers in Sheffield to train world class nuclear technicians
    • developing inspiring Peter Jones Enterprise Academies
    • joining employers and universities to sponsor new innovative Studio Schools, UTCs, and Academies.

    I have seen for myself at the Skills Show here in Birmingham the amazing talent on display, honed and thriving through competition.

    When I see excellence I want to spread it. When I see innovation, I want to learn from it. When I see barriers to progress, I want to break them down.

    Over the past two years, under reforms pioneered by my brilliant predecessor, you have taken hold of the freedoms and flexibilities you now have. From next year, a reformed funding system will, I hope, have given you yet more flexibility in how to provide outstanding education.

    But we all know there is more to do. So I want to outline plans in four priority areas where i see the need for further reform.

    • apprenticeships
    • traineeships
    • qualifications
    • standards.

    Let me briefly take each in turn.

    Apprenticeships

    First, apprenticeships.

    Since 2010, over a million Apprenticeships have been started, half a million of them in the last year. And while this increase in quantity is very welcome, we must ensure they are higher quality, more rigorous, and focused on what employers need. I hope that employers come forward with innovative proposals for higher quality Apprenticeships in the second round of the Employer Ownership Pilot we launched yesterday. And Doug Richard will before Christmas say how we can go further, in a report I hope we can embrace.

    Traineeships

    Second, as we raise the standard of Apprenticeships, that will leave a gap. Around the country I have been impressed by the work of many Colleges to give young people the skills they need to get and hold down a job, with Work Pairings, and joint ventures with the Youth Contract and JobCentrePlus. But we must do more.

    So we will bring forward a new traineeship, combining a rigorous core of work preparation, work experience, Maths, and english, with a great deal of flexibility around everything else. I want this to support the best of what’s available, help raise the participation age, and give a clear sense of progression into an Apprenticeship.

    Alongside Traineeships, we must also improve the way our skills system and our benefits system interact. How can we justify a system in which we pay people, so long as they don’t train, rather than support people so long as they do? It’s bad for the economy, it’s unfair on young people, and it has got to stop.

    Qualifications

    Third, high quality education needs stretching and valuable qualifications.

    The QCF is here to stay as an organising framework post-19, but we must be more rigorous about what’s on it, and about what we in Government are prepared to spend scarce resources on. For vocational education to be valued and held in high esteem we must be uncompromising about the value added of vocational education.

    Today we are publishing a revised list of approved vocational qualifications for 14-16 year olds, covering courses taught from next September.

    We are also supporting the work of the Royal Academy of Engineers on new engineering qualifications that will both fit the new system and be stretching and rigorous. I’d like to see more august, employer-led bodies like the Royal Academy step up and design the qualifications employers need. And as you know, as well as reforming qualifications at 16, are we are working on plans for colleges directly recruiting pupils aged 14 and 15 to be directly funded.

    But whatever the age of the learner, I share with Alison Wolf the view that we must encourage the use of the most rigorous and valuable vocational qualifications. And I also share her view that far too little genuinely occupational education takes place among 16-18 year olds.

    We all know that the route for academic kids is straightforward. But those who choose not to take the academic route too often are encouraged into a general applied qualification, instead of properly considering the value of an Apprenticeship or a rigorous occupational qualification.

    So in the coming weeks we will publish a consultation on how to identify the highest value vocational qualifications for 16 to 18 year olds, just as we have done for 14-16 year olds.

    In it we will also consider what more we can do to encourage the take up of Apprenticeships and occupational – as opposed to general applied – qualifications. And of course we must consider what this means for adult qualifications too.

    For vocational qualifications to be seen to be stretching and strong, they must be stretching and strong, and that’s what I hope to achieve.

    Standards

    Finally, standards.

    I have already set out proposals for a guild, led by you, to build up inspirational teaching and a stronger sense of professionalism and pride.

    Today I am setting out plans for high quality colleges to achieve a Chartered Status for Colleges.

    And of course raising standards means tackling poor provision too. We need to be firmer in tackling educational and financial failure, and turning underperforming colleges around.

    And so students and employers alike can see performance for themselves, I can confirm that, from this year, we will introduce common standards and measures of performance between schools and colleges. Both will be expected to meet minimum standards.

    A levels and vocational qualifications are different, so they will be judged separately from each other. But each will be judged in the same way for all institutions. We said we’d introduce a level playing field, and we will.

    And there is one area where Britain should lead the world, but where sinfully we have allowed ourselves to fall behind. Here in these islands, we invented the English language that now dominates the globe. It is the global language: of trade, of culture, of diplomacy, and of the arts. And our history is littered with many of the advances in mathematics too.

    Yet too many of our young people cannot read or write, or add up properly. This is a scandal and it must change.

    We are reforming schools, and exams at 16, to make this happen. That great revolution will take a generation.

    But we don’t have a generation. And it often falls to you to pick up the pieces.

    So to show the value we attach to English and Maths, and to make sure you’ve got the resources to deliver, today I’m announcing we are doubling the amount we pay for adult English and Maths functional skills, and for English and Maths within an Apprenticeship. English and Maths are the foundation of learning and we must succeed.

    Conclusion

    These four priorities: traineeship, apprenticeships, standards, and qualification reform, they are all aimed four-square at raising the value, the esteem, and the regard of further education and skills.

    Recognising only the best vocational qualifications. Increasing support for English and Maths. Stronger Apprenticeships. And new traineeships to help young people into a job.

    I will do what it takes so every one can play their part.

    Ladies and Gentlemen, I am a young man, and honoured to be your Minister. And while this job is hard, it is hugely motivating too. For I am passionate about giving everyone in our country the best possible start. I am passionate about what you do for your students every single day.

    We have not been dealt an easy hand of plenty. And I can’t pretend the road ahead is not tough.

    But I know that the innovation, dedication, and inspiration in this room can get us to our goal. And along that road, I am at your side, every step of the way.