UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Volodymyr Zelenskyy – 2022 Statement on the Situation in Ukraine (12/10/2022)

    Volodymyr Zelenskyy – 2022 Statement on the Situation in Ukraine (12/10/2022)

    The statement made by Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the President of Ukraine, on 12 October 2022.

    Ukrainians!

    The enemy launched a second wave of terrorist attacks against our country.

    As of this morning, there were 28 missiles, of which 20 were shot down. More than 15 drones, almost all of them are Iranian combat drones. Most were shot down.

    I am thankful to all our warriors of the Air Forces, Ground Forces and Intelligence involved in defense against these Russian strikes!

    And, by the way, at the request of the military command, I want to celebrate soldier Dmytro Shumskyi (anti-aircraft missile platoon of the 57th separate radio engineering battalion, Chernihiv direction) for yesterday.

    On October 10, Dmytro Shumskyi showed excellent skills and reaction and shot down two terrorists’ cruise missiles with the help of Stinger MANPADS.

    One person saved dozens of lives. Thank you for that!

    Restoration works are taking place quite quickly and efficiently throughout the country.

    If it wasn’t for today’s strikes, we would have already restored the energy supply, water supply and communications that the terrorists damaged yesterday. And today, Russia will achieve only one additional thing: it will delay our recovery a little.

    Where there was destruction, the infrastructure will be renewed everywhere. Where there were losses, there is already or will be construction. Where there were any hopes of the enemy, there will be ruins of Russian statehood.

    And I thank everyone who, at their level, provides recovery after terrorist attacks.

    I am grateful to the rescuers – more than a thousand employees of the State Emergency Service, who immediately arrived on calls and began neutralizing the consequences of terrorist attacks.

    At the suggestion of the Minister of Internal Affairs, I would like to especially note the selfless and determined actions of senior ensign Borys Shapovalov, commander of the department in the Zaporizhzhia region; sergeant Oleksandr Smiyan, firefighter-rescuer, Zaporizhzhia region; ensign Yuriy Lozynskyi and junior sergeant Oleksiy Biletskyi, respirator workers of the mining and rescue department, Kyiv city.

    I am grateful to all the doctors who helped the wounded and injured!

    I am grateful to all energy workers and utility workers for their high-quality response and quick work.

    I am grateful to the local government workers, heads of local government and government officials who worked together, truly in unity and excellently.

    Now most of the cities and villages that the terrorists wanted to leave without electricity and communication are already with electricity and communication.

    In some cities and districts, work is still ongoing. In some cities and districts, energy workers apply temporary restrictions on energy supply according to the schedule – this is necessary solely in order to maintain the stability of the energy system.

    The government controls all this – we are trying to restore normal conditions as quickly as possible.

    I would also like to thank all Ukrainians who listened yesterday and limited their own electricity consumption during peak hours – from 17:00 to 22:00.

    Thanks to our conscientiousness, we managed to save a tenth of the energy on average in the country, which allowed the system to work more stably. And our goal should be to save a quarter of electricity precisely during these peak hours.

    It should be done today and in the near future.

    Please postpone the energy consumption of appliances that require a lot of electricity to other hours of the day. It is not difficult for an individual, and it gives a great result within the scale of our entire country.

    I took part today in the extraordinary summit of the Group of Seven, which was convened by the German presidency on our initiative.

    We discussed the response of the most powerful democracies to this new Russian escalation.

    For such a new wave of terror there must be a new wave of responsibility for Russia. New sanctions, new forms of political pressure and new forms of support for Ukraine.

    Tomorrow, the defense support for Ukraine will be discussed in the “Ramstein” format. I expect progress from our partners on the issue of air and anti-missile defense, agreements on new supplies of other weapons and ammunition we need.

    The terrorist state must be deprived of even the thought that any wave of terror can bring it anything.

    A separate task for intelligence is to establish all those involved in these missile attacks against Ukraine, in schemes with Iranian drones.

    The individual responsibility of terrorists should be the same as the responsibility of the terrorist state. We work for this.

    Today I had separate conversations with the Prime Minister of Italy and the Prime Minister of Australia. I heard absolutely clear support, absolutely clear condemnation of all manifestations of Russian aggression against Ukraine and international law.

    We also have a detailed statement from the Group of Seven, in particular, that all those responsible for terror against Ukraine will be brought to justice. Starting with the current political leadership of Russia and ending with everyone who serves these terrorist interests.

    Mankind and humanity are stronger than any terrorists. I am thankful to everyone who fights and works for our victory!

    And one more thing. Today, 32 of our warriors were freed from Russian captivity. We do everything for Ukraine – possible and impossible. Gratitude to everyone who worked for this result!

    Glory to our beautiful people! We will restore everything that was destroyed!

    Glory to Ukraine!

  • Volodymyr Zelenskyy – 2022 Speech to the UNESCO Executive Board

    Volodymyr Zelenskyy – 2022 Speech to the UNESCO Executive Board

    The speech made by Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the President of Ukraine, on 11 October 2022.

    Ladies and Gentlemen!

    Dear defenders of the educational, scientific and cultural heritage of mankind!

    Today, Ukraine is going through the 230th day of a full-scale war.

    How was your morning today? I will tell you what ours was like. At eight o’clock in the morning, most of the territory of Ukraine was already in a state of air alert.

    Russia launched cruise missiles from the Caspian Sea and the Black Sea.

    Today, children in Ukraine didn’t go to kindergartens, schools, or universities again. Online learning is introduced everywhere.

    In this war, we cannot know who and what will be targeted by Russian missiles.

    Children or adults… An educational facility or a cultural object… A critical infrastructure facility or, for example, a memorial to the victims of the Holocaust.

    All of these are equal targets for Russia.

    This night, a Russian missile hit the premises of the Khortytsia Academy in the Zaporizhzhia region. For what? This is their tactic. The tactic of terrorists.

    More than 2,600 educational facilities have already been destroyed or damaged by such terrorist attacks by Russia.

    Yesterday in Kyiv, our capital, a Russian missile hit the crossroads in the central part of the city. People died – literally burned in cars.

    And it was 700 meters from the bell tower of St. Sophia’s Cathedral, a UNESCO World Heritage Site.

    At the same crossroads are the buildings of Shevchenko University, one of the most important universities in Eastern Europe. It was affected by this strike. The Institute of Philology is damaged.

    Russia can award itself the special title of winner of universities, institutes, academies and schools. How many cruise missiles do educational institutions have? Zero. And Russia has hundreds of missiles.

    This is what its victory is like.

    Another Russian missile hit Tereshchenkivska Street in Kyiv yesterday. The premises of the Khanenko Museum were damaged, masterpieces by Velázquez, Canova, and Cellini are stored there. The premises of the Shevchenko Museum. One of the most renowned Kyiv publishing houses.

    Can you imagine a missile attack on Babyn Yar in Kyiv, the burial place of a hundred thousand victims of Nazi executions? And this strike took place.

    Can you imagine the shelling of the Menorah in Drobytsky Yar, Kharkiv region, where 20,000 Nazi victims are buried? And this shelling also took place.

    540 is the total number of objects of cultural heritage, cultural institutions and religious buildings damaged by Russian strikes in Ukraine during the full-scale war since February 24. Almost 200 destroyed or damaged temples!

    And it is possible – while I am addressing you now – that one of the Russian strikes damaged other cultural or educational objects, other memorials or temples.

    Ladies and Gentlemen!

    Dear defenders of the educational, scientific and cultural heritage of mankind!

    Please tell me why the representatives of Russia are still among you? What are they doing at UNESCO?

    How can there be representatives of a terrorist state in UNESCO, which is proud of the destruction it causes in another country?

    I am grateful to UNESCO for supporting Ukraine at this time and for all the principled statements that were made to protect Ukraine and culture from Russian aggression. But still, new steps are needed – steps that Russia will feel.

    A terrorist state definitely has no right to chair one of the key bodies for the protection of cultural and natural heritage – the UNESCO World Heritage Committee. Such a Russian presidency devalues the institution itself – its significance, its reputation.

    It is inadmissible to let Russia destroy the authority of UNESCO.

    The terrorist state must be excluded from all UNESCO bodies and from the Organization itself.

    Let it be a historical example for everyone in the world that no one will tolerate an enemy of culture, an enemy of history, an enemy of education, an enemy of science.

    Unfortunately, this is Russia’s choice – to oppose everything that matters to humanity.

    This is its deliberate choice.

    The second thing that is needed now is the expansion of our joint efforts to protect cultural heritage in Ukraine. Just now! Given daily threats of Russian strikes.

    We must provide a clear signal that the world will not turn a blind eye to the destruction of our common history, our common culture, our common heritage.

    One of the steps for this should be the preservation of the historical center of Odesa – a beautiful city, an important port of the Black Sea and a source of culture for millions of people in different countries.

    Together with our partners, we prepared the nomination file of Odesa for inclusion in the World Heritage List. We are passing this on to UNESCO.

    And I am asking you to initiate an extraordinary session of the UNESCO World Heritage Committee to resolve this issue for Odesa.

    And please, it cannot be delayed, it cannot be postponed.

    Odesa, like all other cities of Ukraine, is a target for Russian strikes. Please support Odesa! Show at the level of UNESCO precisely that Russian terror must end.

    Colleagues! Ukraine has been a conscientious member of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization since May 12, 1954. Our state always invests only in the preservation of our common heritage and never in destruction!

    Now we need your support. Support in the preservation and protection of education, science and culture.

    I would like to express my gratitude to UNESCO and its partners for their willingness to provide 50,000 computers for Ukrainian teachers to ensure online education. But we need more.

    We already offer partners – both at the state level, and at the level of international and non-governmental organizations, businesses – to join the reconstruction of Ukraine after hostilities.

    Some partners have joined. Now I am addressing those who have not yet decided to support Ukrainian recovery. This project will definitely become the largest economic and infrastructure project in Europe over the last 50 years. And this is a historic opportunity for each of you – to be participants in this project, to be historically significant defenders of education, culture and science – our joint heritage.

    I believe that our common strength will be enough so that terror can never win.

    I thank you for your attention! Thank you for this opportunity to address you!

    Glory to Ukraine!

  • Richard Newby – 2022 Speech on the Growth Plan (Baron Newby)

    Richard Newby – 2022 Speech on the Growth Plan (Baron Newby)

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

    My Lords, when Liz Truss was elected as Conservative Party leader a mere five weeks ago, she and her new Government faced two separate economic challenges. The first was how to respond to the dramatic impending rise in gas prices, due on 1 October. The second was how to put the country on a path to sustainable growth. The Government’s response to these challenges was to introduce the measures announced by the Chancellor on 23 September, which attempted to deal with them both in one fell swoop.

    On the first, dealing with the impending energy price rises, the Government have introduced an extensive package covering both individual households and businesses. In our view, it still suffers from a number of flaws. For example, we believe that the freeze should have been applied to April rather than October prices. The business support lasts only six months, leaving companies unsure what happens after that. Most importantly, it is not accompanied by a windfall tax on the energy producers, which could have helped mitigate the very substantial costs. However, at least the measures are timely, offer real relief and will protect the vast majority of people and businesses from at least some of these otherwise unbearable costs.

    All the remaining measures announced on 23 September seek to deal with the second challenge of promoting growth. Sadly, far from doing so, they have already precipitated an economic crisis, will leave many people worse off and will fail in their fundamental purpose. For a start, there was literally no reason to introduce these changes so precipitately, with no attempt to quantify their consequences and no explanation of how they were to be funded. As a result, the markets were alarmed, the Bank of England had to step in to prevent a pension fund collapse and interest rates, including mortgage rates, rose. Before looking at the broader consequences for the economy and the Government’s reputation, let us look at the individual measures announced on 23 September and see how they might help achieve the Government’s aim of promoting growth.

    I start with the £18 billion cut in corporation tax. In reality, this will do little or nothing to promote growth. If you look at corporation tax rates across the developed world, there is no correlation between them and long-term economic growth. Many of our European competitors have higher corporation tax rates and higher long-term growth. The business community itself has not been making the case that lower corporation tax rates in themselves mean higher investment and therefore growth.

    The best argument for the cuts to income tax and national insurance—other than a purely populist political one—is that they might help stave off the worst of a recession because they will help prop up consumer spending in the short term. That may be true, but it has nothing to do with promoting underlying growth. The reason is that, with almost full employment and in the absence of larger-scale immigration, the only way in which growth can be increased over the medium and long term is by improving productivity. Achieving this requires sustained increases in investment in people and equipment. Cuts in income tax and national insurance will simply not achieve this.

    As for the cut in stamp duty, this may mitigate the costs of buying a house, but it pales into insignificance compared to the increased mortgage costs which the Government’s actions have brought about. These so-far unfunded tax cuts will do absolutely nothing to resolve the UK’s problem with long-term growth.

    But what about the supply-side measures which the Government plan to introduce? As with the ill-fated proposed 45% tax rate cut, some simply appear to benefit those who need help least—for example, the proposal to end the cap on bankers’ bonuses. Some, such as the proposed investment zones, are highly unlikely to increase aggregate investment in the economy as a whole. Some, such as the intention to speed up planning and infrastructure projects, are so vague that they are, frankly, meaningless. Some, such as the proposals to curb the right to strike and to strengthen universal credit sanctions, simply look mean and vindictive. Whatever they are, they will not lead to a spurt in growth.

    So, if the Government’s package of tax and supply side measures look doomed to fail the growth test, what about their other consequences? Three in particular stand out. First, the manner in which they have been announced has completely spooked the markets, particularly the mortgage market. The number of mortgage products fell by over 40% because mortgage providers lost any sense of the future trajectory of interest rates. Those mortgages which are still available now cost on average about 1% more than before the Chancellor’s announcement. This is entirely down to the Government’s own Budget, before any further increases in interest rates by the Bank of England.

    Secondly, it is now clear that the Government plan to cut public expenditure to pay for their tax cuts. We do not yet know where these cuts will fall, but we do know that the impact of inflation on departments’ budgets already means that they will struggle to maintain services while providing fair wage increases. The idea which the hapless Chief Secretary seems to believe, that there is substantial fat to be cut, is laughably false. We wait with trepidation for a Halloween horror story to see where the cuts are going to fall.

    Thirdly, and most damaging to the Government, they have lost within days of their formation any shred of a reputation for economic competence. They are pursuing fiscal policies completely at odds with the monetary policy that the Bank of England is legally bound to pursue. They have bet the farm on a pro-growth strategy which no respectable economist believes will work, and they have already been forced into U-turns caused by a lack of support for their policies, even among their own MPs.

    Against all this, the Prime Minister simply labels all her critics as “anti-growth”. This is risibly untrue, so let me suggest as a starter a five-point plan which might actually do something to improve Britain’s growth prospects. First, given that the Government are in a big, big hole, they should stop digging—stop pushing ideological policies which will not promote growth but will undermine their credibility as a serious Government. There are many to choose from, but I suggest that they should stop their attacks on the healthier food agenda. Supporting buy-one-get-one-free offers clearly makes the Prime Minister feel better but will do serious damage to the fight against obesity, and the illness and therefore lack of productivity that ensue. The Government should think again.

    Secondly, the Government should start rebuilding economic ties to the EU. We know that Brexit will reduce GDP consistently unless things change. They should start by sorting out the Northern Ireland protocol but then move towards aligning with the single market. This will do more for growth than any number of third-order supply-side gimmicks.

    Thirdly, instead of prioritising fracking and North Sea oil permits, the Government should put their weight behind a green industrial revolution, including a massive programme of housing insulation. This will create jobs and growth and help mitigate the high energy costs now facing millions of households.

    Fourthly, the Government should invest in skills. Having a more productive workforce is the only way we can increase productivity and therefore growth, and spending more on apprenticeships, FE and lifetime learning is the only way we can achieve this.

    Fifthly, the Government should create a climate which encourages business investment. Investment in the UK has lagged that of France, Germany and the US for years. This is why they are much more productive and why household incomes there are now so much higher than here in the UK. Stability and consistency would improve the investment climate, but so too would a new industrial strategy which recognised where Britain’s economic strengths are and showed how the Government planned to support them.

    Setting the UK on a path to sustainable growth will not be easy, but it is possible. What is not possible is to do so with a Government who are driven by a simplistic, failed ideology, who have failed even the most basic tests of competence, and who the British people rightly think have to go.

  • Angela Smith – 2022 Speech on the Growth Plan (Baroness Smith of Basildon)

    Angela Smith – 2022 Speech on the Growth Plan (Baroness Smith of Basildon)

    The speech made by Angela Smith, Baroness Smith of Basildon, in the House of Lords on 10 October 2022.

    My Lords, first, I welcome the noble Baroness back to the Front Benches. Many of us were surprised when she was departed from them previously, and I welcome her to her new job. I note that her official title is Minister of State for Government Efficiency. I wish her well; she has never been one to shy away from a challenge, and she has a challenge in that one.

    We look forward very much to the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Gohir. I am convinced that she will make an important contribution to the work of the House, so I look forward to hearing her and welcome her to this place. It is with slightly less enthusiasm that I look forward to the valedictory speech of the right reverend Prelate. Personally and from these Benches, let me say to him that he has been an asset to the House. We have greatly welcomed his wisdom and wise counsel, and we are going to miss him. I thank him for all he has done and look forward to his speech with some regrets.

    We last met in this Chamber to pay tribute to and remember Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth. We did so in a spirit of unity and common purpose. With a new monarch and a new Prime Minister, it is a time of significant change. At a time when we most needed stability, instead we had the most extraordinary non-Budget Budget that this country has seen for at least a generation. I listened with interest to the Minister’s speech, and I was surprised that there was no acknowledgement of the turmoil that this country has found itself in in the last couple of weeks since that Statement.

    On Friday 23 September, after this House had risen for the Conference Recess, the new Chancellor made his first Statement to House of Commons—and what a Statement it was. Then, and in the days that followed, Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng set out the package, which ended any pretence of fiscal responsibility or levelling up—or indeed of understanding the pressures on families, individuals and businesses across the UK. The response of experts and the markets was one of incredulity. How could this happen? At a time of high interest rates, the great government plan was to borrow more to pay for tax cuts that would benefit those who had more than anyone else in the first place. There was no absolute cap on energy bills but instead a cap on the unit price, which will see some families still paying well over the £2,500 promised under Labour’s alternative plans. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, is responding, and I hope that he will address this in his response.

    Following the non-Budget Budget, the pound fell, the markets reacted to the lack of confidence in the Government, and the Bank of England had to step in with a £65 billion commitment to prop up the economy. It clearly did not help confidence in the UK that the Chancellor refused to publish information from the Office for Budget Responsibility. Given the unprecedented market reaction, the Prime Minister should have heeded calls from across the political spectrum to return to Parliament.

    A strong or weak economy is not an academic exercise. It is not just a way to gamble on the markets to see whether you can make any money—it is about people’s lives. When mortgage offers were withdrawn, hundreds of products were pulled only to be replaced with fewer and more expensive alternatives, and some saw their opportunity of owning their own home or keeping the home that they were in disappear overnight. That will also force up rents. The Prime Minister gave her so-called reassurances that they had borrowed money to try to help with energy costs, but so much of that will be swallowed up by increased housing costs, either in mortgage payments or rents. There was a real need and opportunity for the Government to respond and for ministerial accountability to Parliament. Instead, we had over a week of unhelpful distractions, mixed messages and Cabinet infighting.

    The media were briefed that the November “fiscal event” was being brought forward to October, but nobody thought at the time to tell the Chancellor. We now know that it will be the very last day of October. Two Cabinet Ministers joined Back-Bench colleagues in mounting what has been called a “pre-bellion” on the issue of uprating universal credit benefits by inflation. As the Prime Minister turned to BBC local radio to put her case, her lack of empathy as she appeared to be reading out “lines to take” on fuel bills cut little ice with listeners.

    This chaos has come at the worst possible time. Household budgets are under enormous pressure, hitting almost everyone with high petrol prices, spiralling food costs, supply issues and ever-increasing interest rates. Even those who previously felt relatively secure are now nervous for the future. The help with fuel bills will still leave many families paying far more than £2,500.

    It is an expensive package, funded by borrowing, so I fail to understand why—despite Labour’s pleas and some from the Government’s own side as well, and the welcome intervention of Shell’s CEO—the Prime Minister and the Chancellor are so set against taxing the billions of pounds in excess profits, preferring instead costly extra borrowing. It does not make economic sense. The mini-Budget damaged both the economy and confidence in the Government—

    Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)

    Will the noble Baroness give way?

    Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)

    It is unusual, but to the noble Lord I will.

    Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)

    These are unusual times. Does the noble Baroness accept that the Government’s package of support for people and businesses with their energy bills is far in excess of what the Labour Party was promising? Does she also accept that her proposed tax on the energy companies would have raised a trifling £8 billion compared with the costs of the scheme that has been put forward by the Government? Will she not welcome that?

    Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)

    I would welcome a fairer way. The key question is: who pays? The Government had a choice. They could have said that future taxpayers will pay—at a time when borrowing is higher than it has been for years—or they could have said that the energy companies should make a contribution to this. The £8 billion the noble Lord cites is wrong; it is at least £14 billion. I do not dispute the “generosity”—I use inverted commas—of the Government; this is an expensive package. The problem is that it will cost us for years to come and still means that many households will be paying over £2,500, which they cannot afford. The noble Lord makes a brave defence of the Government but it is not one that I can support.

    The Prime Minister, when talking about the economy, spoke about having an

    “iron grip on the nation’s finances”,

    but you do not do that by having a spending spree one day and then slashing your tax base the next. My noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe will talk about the gilt market in his closing remarks later, but the Government’s actions have raised the cost of borrowing at the worst possible time, leaving a bill for future generations. Yet Ministers want us to believe that this crisis is not of their making and that, somehow, the decisions taken in Downing Street are not responsible for these economic problems.

    There is no doubt that international issues have a domestic impact. If proof were ever needed that we are globally interconnected, the war in Ukraine is that proof. However, as with both Brexit and the Covid pandemic, it is not just about the issue but about how Governments respond at the time, as well as the long-term resilience planning to prepare for such events.

    The Prime Minister insists that this is all caused solely by the “global economic crisis” caused by Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. This House knows that supporting Ukraine involves sacrifices. We stand alongside the Ukrainian people and will continue to do so. Of course that conflict brings serious economic impacts, but it is also just plain wrong to insist that recent events are a direct result of it. Did the pound crash against the dollar because of the events in Ukraine? Did the war make UK gilt prices go up? Did Putin force banks to pull hundreds of mortgage deals from the market? No, no, no. These were immediate, emphatic and damning responses to the Government’s announcement.

    When we look at the timeline of what happened and when, we see that the market movements perfectly tracked announcements and media appearances by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, including last week’s speeches in Birmingham. The Chancellor claimed that the economic chaos was partly the result of the additional “pressure” he experienced following the death of the Queen, as his Statement came just

    “four days after the funeral”.

    But he chose that date. I am sure that I was not alone in my exasperation at the economic turmoil being explained away as policies being badly communicated. That was not the issue. They were the wrong policies, and no amount of communication could disguise that.

    Some excuses were more imaginative than others. Though not a member of the Government, the noble Lord, Lord Hannan—he smiles at me; he probably knows what is coming next—tried his best to help. I look forward to his contribution later. He remarked that the real reason for the pound’s crash was really quite simple. It was not because of decisions taken in Downing Street. The pound’s value collapsed because “the markets are terrified” of Keir Starmer. This time, the party opposite was not blaming the last Labour Government; it was blaming the next one. It might be helpful to reflect that, on average, the last Labour Government achieved higher annual growth than we have seen over the past 12 years of a Conservative Government.

    The Prime Minister and Chancellor now claim to have listened. They say they have listened to the markets, to the public and to their own MPs. After nine days of digging in on the 45p income tax rate, Liz Truss finally announced, in a massive U-turn during the Conservative Party conference, that it would remain. However, most of the mini-budget still stands—but it is only Monday. It is currently still a package aimed at those in the top 5% of income, despite mainstream economic analysis and experience having shown time and time again that trickle-down economics simply does not work. The Government would do well to follow the advice of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham, and others, and just start again. Or, if the Chancellor is convinced that he has, to borrow a phrase from Boris Johnson, “got the big calls right”, he should publish the OBR’s economic forecast. He should publish it today and in full.

    The OBR was set up by a Conservative Chancellor and its forecasts have become a key part of UK fiscal events. Mr Kwarteng says he recognises the OBR’s independence, but the facts speak for themselves: he muzzled it when it was most needed. And it is not just the OBR in the firing line. The former Bank of England Governor, Mark Carney, has accused Liz Truss of “undercutting” the country’s economic institutions and

    “working at some cross purposes with the Bank”.

    Of course, some have argued that this sorry saga might have been avoided had the Prime Minister not dismissed the Treasury’s Permanent Secretary in one of her first acts in office. Getting rid of a senior civil servant for personal or political reasons is a significant departure from our traditions of how to govern. As we see in this House—perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and I are a good example—we know how to disagree agreeably. Instead, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson of Earls Court, the Prime Minister chose to fire the

    “only official with serious experience of crisis management and then precipitate a crisis a fortnight later.”

    I hope that the Government are not just going to listen to, and surround themselves with, those who will always agree, whatever the issue. That is no way to run an economy and no way to run a country.

    A strong economy is one in which a Government play their full part in supporting and unleashing the potential for growth. That sits alongside strong public services that enhance our social fabric and our economy. A first-rate health service and the best training and educational opportunities are not just items to be ticked off in the “Nice to have” category; they are essential for a modern economy. An incoming Labour Government will implement a genuine plan for growth, creating the biggest partnerships between businesses, government and communities that this country has ever seen. We will ensure greater fairness in the tax system and, by making us a global leader in green technologies, we will secure investment and resilience in our energy markets.

    It is not just in the green economy where we have to be ambitious. We will work together across manufacturing and service industries to find solutions to the ongoing skills crisis, to which this Government have no answer. We will also change how politics is conducted in this country, taking responsibility for our decisions and the consequences they have for people across the nation—because when we look at everything said by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the rest of the Cabinet last week, one word is conspicuous by its absence, and that word is “sorry.”

  • Lucy Neville-Rolfe – 2022 Speech on the Growth Plan (Baroness Neville-Rolfe)

    Lucy Neville-Rolfe – 2022 Speech on the Growth Plan (Baroness Neville-Rolfe)

    The speech made by Lucy Neville-Rolfe, Baroness Neville-Rolfe, in the House of Lords on 10 October 2022.

    My Lords, I start by welcoming the noble Baroness, Lady Gohir, to today’s debate. I very much look forward to hearing her maiden speech and to her future contributions. On a sad note, we are also hearing the valedictory speech from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham, who has provided so many mature, sensible and considered contributions to the House over the past 12 years.

    It is a great privilege to open the debate on the economy. When the new Prime Minister was forming her Administration, I was honoured to be offered the post of Minister of State in the Cabinet Office, in effect replacing my noble friend Lord True, now the Leader of the House. I take this opportunity to express my admiration for his brilliant eulogy to Her late Majesty. I was briefed that most Cabinet Office work was, in the main, worthy, so I anticipated a future dealing with the humdrum detail of government work—below the radar, as it were. In the event—it is sometimes surprising how things turn out—I first come before your Lordships to outline the Government’s economic growth plan.

    As the Prime Minister has made abundantly clear, growth is the core economic mission of this Government. With economic growth, everyone benefits. We cannot have, say, a strong NHS, good schools or effective defence without it. We have three priorities: cutting taxes to boost growth, reforming the supply side of the economy and maintaining a responsible approach to the public finances.

    I will come to the details of the plan shortly, but first I will touch briefly on another important recent development that is an integral part of our whole economic package: our action on energy bills. The Prime Minister rightly took action on this crisis facing households within 48 hours of taking office. The energy price guarantee will limit the unit price that consumers pay for electricity and gas, so that for the next two years the typical annual household bill will be £2,500, in contrast to the £6,000 or so that some predicted. Millions of the most vulnerable households will also receive additional payments.

    We are also helping businesses. The energy bill relief scheme, providing an equivalent guarantee to that for households, will reduce gas and electricity prices for all UK businesses, charities and the public sector, especially schools and hospitals. Finally, to support the market, we have announced the energy markets financing scheme, providing a 100% guarantee for commercial banks to offer emergency liquidity to energy firms in otherwise sound financial health that face high margin calls.

    While early estimates suggested that our package could have cost as much as £160 billion, more recent estimates are much lower. The key point is that we are giving relief and confidence to a large section of the British people, something that will particularly matter to those at the lower end of the scale. Significantly, the measures have been designed to provide an incentive for fuel economy. There is a reduction in cost per unit, not an overall cap, so that it encourages people and businesses to minimise their energy use. More importantly, without this package it would have been a very brutal winter for millions of households and small businesses.

    Our growth plan sets out our vision for a simpler, lower-tax economy. This Government believe that high taxes reduce the incentive to work, encourage tax evasion, deter investment and hinder enterprise. Hence we are cutting the basic rate of income tax to 19p in April 2023—that is, one year early—which will benefit virtually all taxpayers.

    Noble Lords will have heard that the abolition of the 45% band will no longer go ahead. The Prime Minister and Chancellor have accepted that it had become a distraction from our growth plan. I point out, however, that 40% was the top rate from the date of the Thatcher reforms and all through the Major, Blair, and most of the Brown eras. Also, the top rate is 40% in the Republic of Ireland and 39% in Norway.

    International competitiveness must remain a vital objective, so next year’s planned increase in corporation tax will be cancelled. That means that the rate will remain at 19%, the lowest in the G20, enhancing the attractiveness of the UK as a place to do business. We are also confirming that the annual investment allowance will be set permanently at £1 million, and we have introduced legislation to cancel the health and social care levy. Reversing the levy delivers a tax cut for 28 million people, worth on average £330 every year, and a tax cut for nearly a million businesses.

    Planned increases in the duty rates for beer, cider, wine and spirits will also be cancelled. In addition, we want to help families aspiring to buy a home of their own. We have therefore proposed a series of reductions in the thresholds for stamp duty land tax, which will assist buyers, particularly first-time buyers.

    Simplification is close to my heart. We are embedding tax simplification into the institutions of government and repealing recent changes to off-payroll working rules—the infamous IR35—which added complexity and cost for many businesses that engage contractors. I know that this will be particularly welcome to our Economic Affairs Committee.

    We are introducing a VAT-free shopping scheme. We want our high streets, airports, ports and shopping centres to feel the economic benefit of the millions of tourists who visit our wonderful country each year. While the Government believe in lowering taxes wherever possible, achieving growth will take more than that. With more vacancies than unemployed people to fill them, we need to encourage people to join the labour market—getting more people into work by, for example, incentivising those claiming universal credit to secure more or better-paid work. We will also legislate to ensure that strikes can be called only once negotiations have genuinely broken down.

    To drive growth, we need new sources of capital investment. We want to unlock billions of pounds to help British businesses—for example, in developing new technologies that can scale up. Hence we will reform the pensions cap and launch the long-term investment for technology and science fund.

    We need global banks to create jobs here, invest here and pay their taxes here in London, not in Paris or New York, so we are scrapping the cap on bankers’ bonuses. To reaffirm the UK’s status as the world’s financial services centre, we will set out a package of regulatory reforms in the coming months.

    We must also see our way to simplifying regulation and cutting red tape in key areas such as planning and procurement. The weight of complexity and compliance is absorbing precious resources and holding back productivity. I know from my time with the other noble Lords on our Built Environment Committee how important housing and infrastructure are to our growth and success. Sadly, our planning system for major infrastructure is too slow and fragmented. For that reason, we are accelerating infrastructure delivery in energy, road, rail and gigabit-capable broadband, with new legislation that will unpick the complex patchwork of planning restrictions and EU-derived laws that constrain our growth, and we are getting the housing market moving by promoting the disposal of surplus public sector land for housing.

    Finally, and of great significance across our country, we are creating a series of new investment zones. We will liberalise planning rules on agreed sites, releasing land and accelerating development. We are introducing an unprecedented set of tax and national insurance incentives for business to invest, build and create jobs in these zones.

    The steps that the Government are taking add up to a radical and concerted effort to boost growth. In the coming months we will continue to work to bring forward further measures, with announcements on agriculture, business regulation, childcare, immigration and digital infrastructure.

    Crucially, the Government understand that growth and sustainable finances must go hand in hand. I remind noble Lords that in 2021 the UK had the second lowest debt-to-GDP ratio of any G7 country, lower than Japan, Italy, France, Canada and the US. Even so, only continued fiscal discipline will provide the confidence and stability to underpin long-term growth.

    Accordingly, as announced this morning, on 31 October —three weeks from now—the Chancellor will publish a medium-term fiscal plan setting out our responsible fiscal approach and how we plan to reduce debt as a percentage of GDP over the medium term. Further, he has asked the OBR to set out a full economic and fiscal forecast soon, and he continues to work closely with the Governor of the Bank of England.

    In conclusion, I passionately want—we all want—our country to succeed and to live up to our past achievements. To achieve that, economic success is essential. To that end, we must get the economy growing again. We must do so while still dealing with the effects of the Covid pandemic and its impact on our public services. We are also rightly engaged in giving significant help to Ukraine—obviously at a cost. Success will not be easy.

    Today we are here to listen to views from across the House and look forward to engaging in a constructive debate—but, however one looks at matters, achieving economic growth is vital if we are to achieve our ambitions. We need to do things differently and better. That is what the growth plan is all about.

  • Rachel Maclean – 2022 Speech on Sentencing for Child Murderers

    Rachel Maclean – 2022 Speech on Sentencing for Child Murderers

    The speech made by Rachel Maclean, the Minister of State and the Ministry for Justice, in Westminster Hall on 11 October 2022.

    I very sincerely thank my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan) for securing the debate—our first of the parliamentary term—and it is a real pleasure to be here to answer him and to see my friend the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) in his accustomed place. As a former special constable, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich is well placed to campaign and speak out on these issues, based on his personal experience as well as his experience as an excellent constituency MP. He represents his constituents extremely well.

    I commend my hon. Friend for his work to stand up for victims, to bring such issues to the attention of parliamentarians and to campaign for tougher sentences. I completely agree that sentencing fitting the crime is vital for public confidence in the justice system. I know that, as an active and engaged member of the Justice Committee, he will have a lot to say on that in the future. I very much look forward to working with him as well.

    All murders are terrible acts, but those where the victim is a child are particularly so. The murder of those most vulnerable in our society causes extreme grief and devastation for loved ones left behind. As a parent, it is devastating to listen to the cases set out by my hon. Friend. I know society feels it is necessary to ensure that those responsible for those terrible crimes are properly punished.

    It may be helpful if I set out how the sentencing framework in England and Wales responds to the murder of children. Sir Charles, I hope I can abide by your guidance but would welcome your intervention if I fail to do so. I will start by saying that all murder convictions must result in a life sentence. When that life sentence is imposed, the court must determine the minimum period to be served in custody for the purposes of punishment and deterrence. Only when that period has been served in full may the offender be considered for release by the Parole Board. The board will release a prisoner only if it satisfied that it is safe to do so—I will come later to how we have toughened up the Parole Board. The judge will calculate the minimum term by selecting the appropriate starting point as set out in legislation, namely schedule 21 of the Sentencing Act 2020.

    When sentencing adult offenders, the starting points are 15, 25 or 30 years or a whole-life order. Whole life orders are the most severe penalty available in our justice system and someone sentenced to one will spend the rest of their life in prison without the prospect of release. Judges must then consider relevant aggravating and mitigating factors and adjust the minimum term accordingly.

    Of course, offenders serving a life sentence may remain in prison beyond the minimum term set by the court, and some may never be released if the Parole Board does not think it is safe to do so. If and when the offender is released, he or she will remain on licence for the rest of their life and will be subject to recall to prison at any time if they breach the conditions of their life sentence. A life sentence, therefore, remains in force for the whole of the offender’s life and it is an indeterminate sentence under which the offender could spend their life in prison.

    Coming on to sentencing for the murder of children, which my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich spoke about, the framework rightly regards the murder of children as particularly serious. Schedule 21 sets out a number of circumstances where a whole-life order is the starting point when considering what minimum term should be imposed by the court. The legislation provides that the murder of a child should have such a starting point if it involves sexual or sadistic motivation, or the abduction of the child.

    My hon. Friend rightly pointed out that the PCSC Act strengthens schedule 21 by expanding the range of circumstances in which a whole-life order is a starting point when the court is determining how long an offender convicted of murder should spend in prison. That means that the premeditated murder of a child now has a whole-life order as its staring point. Some instances of child murder might also fall within the other circumstances that apply to victims of all ages where a whole-life order is a starting point, for example, terrorist murders or murder committed by someone already convicted of murder.

    Judges still have discretion to depart from those points and to impose a life sentence with a minimum term if they consider that to be the most appropriate sentence, having considered all the circumstances. However, it is right that they must first consider a whole-life order when making that decision. Alternatively, it is possible for the court to regard any offending as exceptionally serious and to impose a whole-life order in a case in which the circumstances are not listed as those where such a punishment would usually be the starting point.

    Where a murder of a child does not meet the circumstances listed in the schedule for which there is a whole-life order as a starting point, the minimum term will be set according to the remaining starting points, depending on the facts of the case. There are aggravating factors applicable to all murders that could result in an increase to the minimum term due to the victim being a child. They include the vulnerability of the victim due to age, and where the murderer abused a position of trust.

    It is important to note that through the PCSC Act, we have ensured that the courts have the fullest range of sentencing powers available to deal appropriately with those who commit other offences against children. It is worth Members noting and remembering that we brought forward Tony’s law, which was named in reference to young Tony Hudgell, who as a baby was abused to such an extent by his birth parents that he is severely disabled. I have had the great privilege of meeting his foster parents, and they are an incredibly inspirational and brave family. I pay tribute to them for all the work they have done.

    The 2022 Act increased the maximum penalty for the offences of cruelty to a person under 16 and of causing or allowing a child or vulnerable adult to suffer serious physical harm from 10 to 14 years of imprisonment. It increased the maximum penalty for causing or allowing a child or vulnerable adult to die from 14 years to life imprisonment.

    I fully recognise that my hon. Friend has kindly noted the progress made by the Government, but I recognise too that he would like a lot of these measures to go a lot further.

    I do not wish to stray and will follow the strictures of the Chair, but may I make a point about judicial independence? My hon. Friend mentioned the case of Arthur Labinjo-Hughes. My understanding is that the judge ruled that those vile acts, although horrific, as my hon. Friend described, were not committed with intent to murder and that there was no premeditation. In our system, judicial independence is a cornerstone of our parliamentary democracy, and we, as politicians, cannot and should not pre-empt sentencing.

    Let me refer to the case of David McGreavy, which my hon. Friend also mentioned. It is highly likely that McGreavy would now be given a whole-life order because he murdered three children with the sadistic motivation that was a feature of the case. If a judge determined that an offender was dangerous and the circumstances of the offence were sufficiently serious, a life sentence for that offence would be mandatory.

    It is important that we turn for a few moments to the role of the Parole Board, which determines the end of an offender’s term in prison. The Government published a root and branch review of the parole system in March, setting out a number of reforms to the parole release process. It was felt that that process needed to be improved, that it should be tougher and that we should look to see where we could improve the system. The reforms will establish a top-tier cohort of offenders who have committed the worst offences, including murder and causing or allowing the death of a child. The top-tier cohort will be subject to increased ministerial scrutiny at the point of release, with new powers to prevent release if Ministers are not satisfied that the new and stricter release test has been met. That means that in future all prisoners who have committed the murder of a child or who have received a parole-eligible sentence for causing or allowing the death of a child will be subject to additional scrutiny at the point of release. We have committed to legislate for those reforms as soon as parliamentary time allows. Those reforms will be broadly welcomed by the public because they will be seen to improve confidence in the system.

    Cases of child murder are rightly punished severely by the courts, and those who are convicted face long prison sentences, possibly with no prospect of release. That is the right thing to do. The Government have increased the powers available to the courts by raising the maximum penalties for acts of cruelty and extending the list of circumstances in which a whole-life order is a starting point to ensure that courts are able to impose severe penalties.

    Jim Shannon

    I thank the Minister for her response to the debate, and I think that the general public across the United Kingdom, particularly people in England and Wales, will welcome what she is saying. Following on from the contribution made by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan), if someone beats a child over time and he or she does not die, but then one day that person beats the child and it does die, surely that should be taken as murder even though the intention at the beginning was not to murder, because it was certainly murder at the end. I am following the Minister’s line of argument here, and I am looking for clarification, please.

    Rachel Maclean

    The hon. Gentleman has gone to the heart of the issue of premeditation, which is relatively new with respect to the PCSC Act and how we have framed the law around sentencing. If I may, I will write to him on the issue in detail. I hope he is sympathetic that I have not been in this ministerial role for a long time, and I do not want to mislead anybody. I want to give the hon. Gentleman the precise facts and the legal position.

    It is vital, and right, that we have increased the powers available to the courts in raising the maximum penalties for acts of cruelty and extending the list of circumstances in which a whole-life order is the starting point to ensure that courts can impose severe penalties for such serious offending. It has been a pleasure to speak about this important topic and to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich, as well as my friend the hon. Member for Strangford. I look forward to continuing to work with my hon. Friend to do whatever we can to increase public confidence in sentencing and the criminal justice system.

  • Kieran Mullan – 2022 Speech on Sentencing for Child Murderers

    Kieran Mullan – 2022 Speech on Sentencing for Child Murderers

    The speech made by Kieran Mullan, the Conservative MP for Crewe and Nantwich, in Westminster Hall on 11 October 2022.

    I beg to move,

    That this House has considered sentencing for people convicted of murdering a child.

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. The subject of this debate is a difficult one—a dark one. It is a subject that no one would rush to talk about, but I hope that I speak today for the families of children who have been murdered, and for future victims and their families, in calling for changes to our justice system, so that it actually delivers justice.

    In my view, along with protecting the public, delivering justice should be the absolute focus of our justice system. Yes, of course we should seek to divert people from offending, particularly those guilty of less serious crimes, but delivering justice is in and of itself a moral good.

    Child murder is one of the most horrific crimes and it must create unimaginable pain for the families who are left behind. I do not have children, but I am lucky enough to have a niece and a nephew, and they are the most precious members of my whole family. Millions of families across the whole country would join me in saying that protecting their children—keeping them safe—is the most important thing in the world, which we would give up anything, or do anything, to achieve.

    It is fair to say that the pain that must come when someone destroys a family by breaking through that wall of protection is something that people never really get over. Just imagine how you would feel if it happened to your family. Along with the loss of innocent life, there is the loss of a future, not just for the child but for their family. The imagined achievements: watching them grow and go on to live their own life, and their own family—all of that is gone; in fact, it is stolen. That haunts people forever.

    One such person is Elsie Urry. David McGreavy killed Elsie Urry’s children—Paul Ralph, who was four, Dawn, who was two, and nine-month-old Samantha—in 1973, at their Worcester home. Forgive the graphic nature of the details that I am about to give, but they need to be given—McGreavy strangled Paul Ralph, cut Dawn’s throat and fractured Samantha’s skull. The bodies of all three children were left on railings.

    Campaigning on this issue has given me the privilege of speaking to Elsie and learning how what happened has affected her. I spoke to her again yesterday, ahead of this debate, and she explained that she feels that she has been left with a lifelong sentence herself. It should come as no surprise that she was horrified that McGreavy was released from prison in 2019. She said that at the time he was sentenced she was left with the impression that he would never get out of prison and that was the sole source of comfort for her.

    It is likely to be the view of the overwhelming majority of the public that if someone brutally murders a child, they should spend the rest of their life in prison. There is sometimes a narrative that forgiveness and moving on are the answer. I welcome that narrative for people who feel that way, and I hope it gives them peace. However, I—and I think many other people—would get more solace from justice being done.

    Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

    I commend the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. As he rightly suggests, a child’s murder hurts every one of us in our heart and we feel for their parent. As a dad of three and a grandfather of six, I understand exactly what he means.

    The Criminal Justice Act 2003 states that the only murder charge against a child that warrants life imprisonment is the murder of a child following abduction, or a murder involving sexual or sadistic motivation. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there needs to be greater emphasis on life imprisonment for child murders that take place within the household and that abduction, while a contributing factor, should not be the only reason for life imprisonment? Any child murderer should be in jail; that should be the only criterion. When the Minister responds to this debate, she should say very clearly that we need to have that in law, because that is what every parent wants—indeed, every non-parent also wants it.

    Dr Mullan

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention and I wholeheartedly agree with him; indeed, I will go on to explain how we have made a tiny step in that direction but are still falling far short of what he says should happen.

    I return to the issue of how people feel when they or their family have been a victim of serious crime. After the murder of Sarah Everard—who, of course, was not a child at the time she was murdered, but obviously never stopped being a child to her loving parents—her family released the following statement:

    “We are very pleased that Wayne Couzens has received a full life sentence and will spend the rest of his life in jail. Nothing can make things better, nothing can bring Sarah back, but knowing he will be imprisoned forever brings some relief.”

    That is exactly how I would feel if any member of my family were murdered, not least if it was my niece or nephew. However, what is known as a whole-life order, rather than just a life sentence, is extremely rare in our justice system, whether the victim is a child or otherwise. Such a sentence was given to Couzens because the judge said that his use of his status as a police officer was of extreme seriousness.

    Across our entire prison population, only around 60 people who are currently in custody are there for the rest of their life, under a whole-life order. That is the suggested sentence when someone is convicted of the murder of two or more persons involving a substantial degree of premeditation, abduction of the victims, or sexual or sadistic conduct; the murder of a child that involves the abduction of a child, or sexual or sadistic motivation, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned; the murder of a police or prison officer; a murder carried out for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause; or when there is a murder by an offender previously convicted of murder. I cannot know, but I suspect that Sarah’s family would have felt exactly the same about wanting to see her killer spend the rest of his life in prison regardless of whether or not he was a police officer and was viewed by the judge as meeting that threshold.

    We frequently hear that a murderer has received a life sentence. That is often reported as their being “jailed for life”, but that is not what actually happens; in my view, that term is misleading. As I have said, to support the public understanding and media reporting of sentencing, we need to think about calling those sentences something other than a life sentence, because in reality, a life sentence means that someone is subject to recall to prison for life—that in theory, they could be in prison for life if they are never thought to be safe for release. The minimum term is actually the guaranteed sentence: in reality, people given a life sentence for murder serve an average of just 16 and a half years, which is very far from anyone’s definition of “life”. The idea that being on parole for life is in any way equivalent to being in prison is insulting to victims and their families.

    During the time I have been campaigning on tougher sentencing, I have picked up on what I will describe as an intellectual snobbery towards people who think that longer sentences serve justice—that it is small-minded thinking; that to think it, a person must somehow be unable to realise the moral and intellectual heights that can be reached through forgiveness; that it is obviously the wrong approach because it does not allow for rehabilitation, as if by default, no matter the crime, victims and their families should care more about that than they do about justice. That is misguided thinking. A society in which people who follow the law see those who do not punished is a noble and valid society. Making sure that victims of crime experience life with some relief, no matter how small, should be our priority.

    Those listening to my speech might be wondering what the point of today’s debate is. They might be aware that the point I am making—that child murderers should spend the rest of their lives in prison—is a deserving call that has already been responded to by the Government. The recently passed Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 brought in a whole-life tariff for the offence of child murder, removing the requirement for child abduction or sexual or sadistic motivation. That measure should have been what would save people like Elsie from experiencing the heartache she has suffered watching her children’s murderer walk free.

    However, I am afraid that as welcome as that measure is, looking at the detail of it makes clear that it falls far short and will rarely do so, because it can be used only when a murder involves significant premeditation. That is why I have called for today’s debate: I am deeply unhappy that that decision undermines what would otherwise be a positive step forward in ensuring justice for victims and their families. Worse than not addressing an issue is giving the impression that we have done so, when in fact we have not. I am entirely unclear why the decision was taken to restrict the measure in that way. I would be grateful if in her response, the Minister would explain the Government’s thinking, because it only takes a casual observer to realise that that restriction is going to leave the public wondering whether in reality we have done what we pledged in our manifesto to do.

    Elsie tells me that her recollection of the case is that the murder of her children was a spontaneous act, without premeditation. More recently, I am sure the Minister and others will remember the horrific murder of Arthur Labinjo-Hughes at the hands of Emma Tustin, tragically with the help of Arthur’s father, Thomas Hughes. Arthur suffered 130 injuries in the lead-up to his death at the age of six. He was poisoned with salt, emaciated, and forced to sleep on a hard floor and stand all day in a hallway. The amount of violence used on him produced forces on his body equivalent to a high-speed road traffic collision. Tustin was convicted of murdering Arthur in December last year, and was given a life sentence with a minimum term of 29 years, before our measure kicked in. Every person I have spoken to and everyone who contacted me about the case wanted to see her locked up for the rest of her life. However, in his sentencing remarks, the judge was clear: there was no premeditation in the case.

    Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)

    Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot talk about sentencing in this case.

    Dr Mullan

    With respect, Sir Charles, the sentence is set, or resolved. It is a closed matter, so I think I can talk about it as a historical case.

    Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)

    I am sorry, but according to the Clerk, you cannot talk about sentencing. You can talk about the details of the case, Dr Mullan, but not the sentencing.

    Dr Mullan

    Okay—I had finished anyway. We know that if that crime were to be repeated tomorrow, the new measure we have passed would not apply, despite it being exactly the type of cruel, callous murder that the public would expect to be impacted.

    Significant premeditation, not just premeditation, is a very high burden to reach. I have reviewed some recent cases where, in sentencing remarks, premeditation was raised. Mohamed Jama was found guilty of murder with an element of premeditation because he armed himself with a knife and actively sought out his victim as part of a plot to avenge the robbery of his brother. Jason Cooper was found guilty of murder with an element of premeditation because he killed his former partner after telling people he would do exactly that, encountering her at a pub and returning home to get a knife with which to attack her. Thomas Dunkley was found guilty of murder with an element of premeditation because he was found to have searched, before the murder took place, for terms such as:

    “What is the fastest way for a human to bleed to death?”

    and:

    “How long does it take to bleed to death from a stab wound?”,

    alongside looking at things he could buy with the money he stole from the deceased. I hope those examples make clear what a significant hurdle premeditation is, let alone significant premeditation.

    Did Parliament, when passing the legislation, really mean to rule out cases such as Arthur’s? Did it mean that unless a murderer has a very clear plan to kill a child, we should be content to see them walk from prison? I am not content with that, and I do not believe that, had it been considered more closely, Parliament would be satisfied with it. Will the Minister say whether the Government remain happy with that position?

    I became aware of the issue as the Bill that became the Act passed through the House, and I raised it with Ministers, although I recognised that such a complex Bill, to which much had been added, was not suited to yet further amendments. However, I am determined that we should fix the issue now. Quite rightly, the public will ask us to explain ourselves when—heaven forbid that it should happen, but sadly it is likely—another poor child is murdered and justice, as most of us would see it, does not prevail.

    A cynic might conclude that an established view of the extremely high thresholds for the use of whole-life tariffs meant that, in reality, the caveat was introduced to continue the extreme restriction of its use while apparently satisfying a ministerial policy intention. I would not suggest that, of course, but others might. The impact assessment states that the Government estimated that, on average, some 10 adults per year commit the murder of a child. I am not clear whether that figure, or the policy development linked to it, took the caveat into account. It certainly does not seem to, and there is no mention of it in the impact assessment. If it seems that the Department was satisfied with the policy without the need for the “significant premeditation” caveat, it should not be such a burden to get it removed at the necessary legislative opportunity. Otherwise, we will have to answer difficult questions when the next case arises and angers public sentiment in a similar way.

    The issue reflects, for me, a need for a wholesale recalibration of our sentencing through the courts and the guidelines we set. What length of time in prison represents justice for different crimes is entirely subjective; no one can give a right or wrong answer. However, I believe the justice system is there to serve the public and our sense of what merits justice. That is the grand bargain that we make when we say we will follow the rule of law and not take matters into our own hands. Of course, the white heat of pure anger and vengeance should not be our guide or starting point, but reasonable, moral, decent people feel continually let down by what we offer them as justice when they and their families are victims.

    The Government can be proud of their overall record, in many ways, such as increasing Labour’s appalling halfway early release to two thirds for serious offenders. Again, I think most people would want that for all offenders, but it was progress none the less. We also introduced GPS tagging for some repeat offenders and brought in tougher sentencing options for child cruelty and dangerous driving. However, acting properly on child murder would have been a step forward that I thought was long overdue and welcome; my support for it was as strong, sadly, as my disappointment in how we ended up doing it.

    We can and must do better. That is the right thing to do. It is the right thing to do for past victims and their families, to honour and recognise their suffering, and so that, when children are murdered, we can at the very least ensure that they and their families get justice.

  • Vicky Ford – 2022 Speech on Blasphemy Laws and Allegations in Commonwealth Countries

    Vicky Ford – 2022 Speech on Blasphemy Laws and Allegations in Commonwealth Countries

    The speech made by Vicky Ford, the Minister for Development, in Westminster Hall on 11 October 2022.

    It is, as ever, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. I join others in expressing how grateful I am to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this debate and for all he does with the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief. I thank all hon. Members for their insightful contributions. I will try to cover a number of the points they raised.

    Let me begin by underlining the Government’s deep concern that the use of blasphemy laws undermines the right to freedom of religion or belief, the right to freedom of expression, and often the right to gender equality as well. My remarks today will cover the broad spectrum of the UK’s work on freedom of religion or belief, of which our work to tackle the misuse of blasphemy laws is an important part.

    Freedom of religion or belief is the right of every person to hold any faith or belief, or none at all, and the freedom to change if they choose. It is the very foundation of a free and open society. People should not live in fear of persecution for what they hold in their hearts or how they choose to express it. For these reasons, the UK Government remain committed to defending freedom of religion or belief for all. Promoting these rights is one of the UK’s long-standing human rights priorities.

    The use of blasphemy laws that undermine human rights, including freedom of religion or belief and freedom of expression, is deeply concerning. The laws generally limit freedom of expression and are compatible with international human rights law in only very narrow circumstances. The Government regularly apply diplomatic pressure on countries that misuse blasphemy laws, often through private lobbying as that can be the most effective way to resolve a sensitive case or bring about longer-term change.

    Hon. Members have drawn particular attention to the Commonwealth. We are proud to be part of the Commonwealth alliance, which is united behind the shared values of sovereignty, democracy and human rights. In June this year, member states reiterated those values at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Kigali, where they

    “noted that freedom of religion or belief are cornerstones of democratic societies.”

    However, despite the agreed values, there remain counties where a person may be imprisoned, fined or even sentenced to death for leaving a religion or expressing a dissenting opinion about a religion.

    As a matter of principle, this Government oppose the death penalty in all circumstances. Our position is well known to Commonwealth members, including Brunei, Malaysia, Maldives, Nigeria and Pakistan. We do not shy away from challenging those who we believe are not meeting their obligations, whether publicly or, when we believe it is most effective, in private.

    Hon. Members spoke about Pakistan and Nigeria, so I will turn to those two countries. In Pakistan, we strongly oppose the use of blasphemy laws against both Muslims and non-Muslims. In June, Lord Ahmad impressed upon Pakistan’s Minister of Foreign Affairs the need to uphold freedom of religion or belief. The British high commissioner regularly lobbies the Pakistani authorities to guarantee the rights of all people, particularly the most vulnerable, including women, minorities and children. We strongly condemn forced marriage and forced conversion of Hindu, Christian and Sikh women and girls, which is an important part of our engagement with the Government. Forcing women and girls into marriage is a serious abuse of women’s rights that often robs them of the right to choose their own future.

    A number of hon. Members mentioned the Ahmadiyya Muslims. We remain very concerned about the reports of discrimination and violence against religious communities in Pakistan, including the Ahmadiyya Muslim community. We continue to urge the Government of Pakistan, at senior levels, to guarantee the fundamental rights of their citizens, regardless of their belief. Some individual cases have been mentioned, particularly that of Tahir Naseem. We strongly condemn the shocking murder of Mr Naseem while he was on trial for blasphemy in 2020, and we are very clear that the perpetrators of such crimes must be brought to justice.

    In Nigeria, the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion and expression is enshrined in the constitution, but blasphemy is still a punishable offence under both secular and sharia law. The murder of Deborah Samuel in Sokoto state in May, following an allegation of blasphemy, was a barbaric and heinous act. I expressed my condemnation in public at the time and urged the relevant authorities to ensure that the perpetrators faced justice in line with the law. I again condemn that attack today and again urge that the perpetrators face justice. Hon. Members may be interested to know that when the Sultan of Sokoto came here to the ministerial conference on freedom of religion or belief in July, he pointed to good inter-faith relations in Sokoto between Muslims and Christians, but he also underlined the point that the action was criminal and has no religious legitimacy.

    Jim Shannon

    I thank the Minister for her strong response on blasphemy laws, which I expected. In relation to wee Deborah Samuel, there is a strong evidential base—it is available in some media, and many people have it. Has it been reinforced to the Nigerian Government that that evidential base, which we believe to be emphatic, could be used to try people not just for some minor crimes, but for murder?

    Vicky Ford

    The hon. Member makes a strong point. As I said just now, the sultan of the area condemned that act as criminal. We condemn all violence against civilians in Nigeria. Christians have been victims of violence, but civilians of all faiths—including many Muslims—have also suffered devastating harm at the hands of extremist groups.

    Mubarak Bala was, as Members have mentioned, arrested in 2020 for alleged blasphemy and has been sentenced to 24 years in prison. I have raised this case personally with the Nigerian Foreign Minister, to whom I have stressed that defending freedom of religion or belief—including non-belief—is a human rights priority. We are following Mr Bala’s case closely, and last week officials from our high commission in Abuja again raised his case with the National Human Rights Commission of Nigeria.

    I know that hon. Members have a keen interest in our broader work on such issues, so I will highlight three pieces of work. First, we are collaborating with and influencing international partners because we know that we cannot bring positive change alone. In March last year, we joined Australia and 50 other countries in a statement condemning the existence of the death penalty as a punishment for blasphemy. In July this year, we hosted the international ministerial conference on freedom of religion or belief here in London. I thank in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) for the huge amount of work she did for that conference, which brought together more than 100 faith and belief leaders and human rights actors, and, I believe, delegations from 100 different Governments, including from around the Commonwealth. The sessions provided opportunities for participants to delve into the challenges created by blasphemy laws and their impact on freedom of expression and freedom of religion or belief.

    Secondly, we are actively working with multilateral organisations such as the International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance, which is chaired very ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton.

    Thirdly, we are working with the G7 and the United Nations to ensure that states uphold their human rights obligations. Just over a fortnight ago, for example, my noble Friend Lord Ahmad spoke at the United Nations urging the international community to call out Iran for systematically targeting members of minority communities, to press Afghanistan to protect minorities who are targeted for their beliefs, to challenge the discriminatory provisions in Myanmar’s citizenship laws, and to hold China to account for its egregious human rights violations in Xinjiang.

    Finally, we are working hard to bring diplomacy and development together on these issues. During the international ministerial conference, my noble Friend Lord Ahmad announced that the UK will extend the hand of partnership to countries that are prepared to take action on their freedom of religion or belief challenges, including by helping with funding or expertise to implement legislative changes. A number of Members, including the hon. Member for Strangford, mentioned the need to make legislative changes in some areas. We are also working with Advocates for International Development, a UK-based non-governmental organisation, to match experts from across the UK with requests from willing Governments about implementing changes in blasphemy laws and access to justice, gender equality, health and education.

    This is a complex area, but change is needed. The Government have a firm belief that no one should suffer because of what they believe or how they express their beliefs.

    Brendan O’Hara

    Before the Minister sits down, will she say a few words about what the Government have done to advocate on Mubarak Bala’s behalf directly with the Nigerian Government? When is the last time the Government spoke to the Nigerians about Mubarak?

    Vicky Ford

    As I said, I have raised the case directly with the Nigerian Foreign Minister, and officials from our high commission in Abuja again raised it with the National Human Rights Commission last week. We will continue to raise it, and I will certainly let the Foreign Minister know that the case of Mubarak Bala has been raised by Members of all parties. I thank them for their support on this journey.

  • Fabian Hamilton – 2022 Speech on Blasphemy Laws and Allegations in Commonwealth Countries

    Fabian Hamilton – 2022 Speech on Blasphemy Laws and Allegations in Commonwealth Countries

    The speech made by Fabian Hamilton, the Labour MP for Leeds North East, in Westminster Hall on 11 October 2022.

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Charles, in the first debate after the conference recess. I thank my friend, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for securing this debate. His work on the issue is hugely appreciated by Members from all parts of the House. I also thank my friend, the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), who is a known champion for freedom of religion and belief. I am glad that the conference that she and many others organised earlier this year was such a great success, with 88 Governments sending representatives. That is a tribute to her work and that of the hon. Gentleman.

    The hon. Gentleman opened the debate by saying that Commonwealth countries are some of the worst offenders when it comes to blasphemy laws, and that a higher proportion of them impose the death penalty for blasphemy. That should be a source of some shame to the Commonwealth. He mentioned exceptions, and I am glad that he pointed out St Lucia, which is a Caribbean island with blasphemy laws that are not enforced. Why does it need them in the first place? That is the question we should be asking.

    The hon. Gentleman pointed out that the central issue is the misuse and abuse of these laws, rather than the laws themselves. That was a very important point. He told us that it had been demonstrated clearly that blasphemy laws were being wrongly applied, for example in Pakistan, where they have often been weaponised. Every speaker today has given examples of that.

    The SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara), rightly said that the blanket repeal of those laws may well have unintended consequences, such as the vandalism of minority places of worship. As the hon. Member for Strangford said, blasphemy laws can be and have been used to try to drive out religious minorities, and should not be used as an excuse for ditching the rule of law and ruling by mob. He concluded with something that I thought rang true for all of us, and with his permission, it is a phrase that I will quote again and again. He said that we need to “deepen our respect for difference” and that, eventually, eradicating blasphemy laws will be part of that. That is a great phrase.

    We heard that the hon. Member for Congleton is worried that rights to freedom of religion and belief are still curtailed by blasphemy laws in many Commonwealth countries. There are 12 countries that still retain the death penalty for blasphemy. She mentioned Nigeria in particular, as every speaker in this debate has done. Nine states there use sharia law, which seems to invalidate the constitution and the rights it confers on citizens. She quoted many appalling examples of the abuse of blasphemy laws in Nigeria. They are contrary to the constitution of the country, which prohibits a state religion.

    Freedom of religion or belief includes the fundamental right to be a non-believer. It is vital that those freedoms are protected everywhere, and that the United Kingdom uses its position to put diplomatic pressure on countries that retain such oppressive blasphemy laws. As we have heard, 79 countries in the world have laws banning blasphemy, and 26 of those are Commonwealth states; that is 46% of the 56 Commonwealth members. New Zealand and Malta repealed their blasphemy laws, but only in the last six years, which is surprising.

    The main countries enforcing blasphemy laws are Bangladesh, Brunei, Nigeria and Pakistan. In countries such as Pakistan, authorities use such laws to target religious minorities and Muslim sects that are not officially respected or tolerated. Even when blasphemy laws are enforced weakly, if at all, they none the less

    “in both theory and practice, harm individuals and societies”,

    according to the US State Department in 2017. They are wrong in principle, and they are open to abuse. The enforcement of blasphemy laws varies significantly between countries, but the fact that they are still on the books in so many places should be a cause for concern for all of us in this House.

    Let me quote article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights. I am sure we all know it, but it is helpful to reinforce it and remember what it says:

    “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”

    Although it is important to oppose the restriction of the freedom of expression everywhere, the UK must focus its diplomatic pressure on those Commonwealth member states that allow violence against religious minorities and atheists on the grounds of blasphemy. One example that many speakers mentioned is Pakistan, which often punishes blasphemy by death. As we know, its blasphemy laws mainly target the country’s Ahmadiyya Muslim and Christian communities, but the extrajudicial killings of those who are deemed blasphemous are particularly worrying. Far more must be done to tone down the rhetoric and ensure that any accusations are treated sensibly and in accordance with the law, as we would expect in any free society that follows the rule of law.

    Let us remind ourselves of what the US State Department said in 2018:

    “Among the range of universal, interdependent human rights, the freedom to follow one’s conscience in matters of religion or belief is essential to human dignity and human flourishing”.

    As we have heard, many incidents illustrate the kind of extrajudicial violence that those accused of blasphemy often face. I shall remind hon. Members again of Tahir Naseem, who was shot dead in court in 2020 after being accused of blasphemy. As the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute, said, in 2011 the governor of Pakistan’s Punjab province, Salman Taseer, and the country’s religious minorities Minister, Shahbaz Bhatti, were also killed after calling for reform of the blasphemy law. They were only calling for reform, and yet they were murdered.

    As we heard, another recent case of the disturbing use of blasphemy laws is that of Mubarak Bala, the president of the Humanist Association of Nigeria. As the SNP spokesperson said, Mr Bala was sentenced to 24 years in prison in connection with a number of social media posts, some of which were deemed blasphemous. I am delighted to hear that, as part of the delegation that went to Nigeria, the hon. Members for Argyll and Bute and for Strangford met the family and promised to do all they could to see the sentenced cancelled. Before being sentenced, Mr Bala had been held without charge for 462 days, and he was denied access to a legal team and medical care for five months. That is completely unacceptable. It does not matter what the allegation is: it is unacceptable to treat anybody who has been accused in that way.

    Blasphemy laws are not just an issue for other Commonwealth countries; they have a direct impact here in the United Kingdom. The use of violence legitimised by the accusation of blasphemy contributed to the murder of Asad Shah, an Ahmadiyya Muslim, in Glasgow in 2016—a case that shocked all of us. I remember hearing the news and being lobbied by the Ahmadiyya community in my own constituency. The killer said that his reason was that Shah had made blasphemous statements. It is also in our country’s interest to do everything that we can to bring these repressive laws to an end in all Commonwealth countries. Will the Minister therefore tell us what discussions she has had with our Commonwealth partners on the use of blasphemy laws, and whether she has taken any diplomatic steps to urge those countries to remove them? Will she also tell us the Government’s view on the use—sometimes described as “misuse”—of blasphemy laws, and will she review the Government’s position on that term?

    We live in a completely globalised world, and we should protect the rights of all who choose to have faith or not. The diversity of our Commonwealth friends and allies is what makes our partnership thrive. It is vital that the UK does all it can to urge countries still employing blasphemy laws to begin to drop them and finally to eradicate them.

    Last week I had the opportunity to visit Morocco as an officer of the all-party parliamentary group and in my role as shadow Minister for peace and disarmament. Morocco is a very interesting country, although I know it is not in the Commonwealth. My late father lived in Tangier as a child, and my late uncle—who was Jewish as well—was the mayor of Tangier in the 1940s, during the second world war. Morocco is a country that tolerates freedom of religion and belief and has demonstrated that very clearly. Indeed, we visited St Andrew’s church in Tangier, which was given by the sultan in the late 1880s to Queen Victoria. It is a magnificent church, decorated in the Islamic style, with contributions made by the local mosque and synagogue. It was a great feeling being there.

    We also had the privilege of meeting an organisation called the Rabita Mohammadia of the Ulemas. The name did not mean much to me, but, literally translated, it means “the league of scholars”—the league of Islamic scholars, of course. It was reconstituted, having lain dormant for many years, by the current monarch, King Mohammed VI. I do not think I have ever heard an Islamic scholar speak as clearly and openly about what Islam means, not just to him and all the worshippers and adherents throughout the world, but for Christianity and Judaism. Indeed, he mentioned Hinduism, Buddhism and Sikhism as well. It actually means freedom for all those who believe in the human spirit and in faith in God or someone above and beyond their own selves.

    This man that we met in the most extraordinary premises in Rabat was a really serious scholar, who talked in philosophical terms that I do not think I have ever had the privilege to hear. I wanted to share that with Members today, because sometimes we believe that it is only Islam that is so extreme. To hear scholars like that in a country where the King has a really important place in the ummah of Islam worldwide gives one faith again in goodness and humanity, that the human spirit will conquer all in the end, and that we will be able to achieve the freedom of religious belief that we all aspire to.

  • Brendan O’Hara – 2022 Speech on Blasphemy Laws and Allegations in Commonwealth Countries

    Brendan O’Hara – 2022 Speech on Blasphemy Laws and Allegations in Commonwealth Countries

    The speech made by Brendan O’Hara, the SNP MP for Argyll and Bute, in Westminster Hall on 11 October 2022.

    Thank you, Sir Charles. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair for this morning’s debate, and I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing it. I agree with him that it will come as a surprise to many people in the UK that 79 countries across the world still have blasphemy laws on their statute books, and that 26 of those are members of the Commonwealth; that is almost half of the membership. As we have heard, where blasphemy laws are in place, they are all too often used to target religious or non-religious minority groups. They are also commonly used to discriminate against ethnic minorities, to facilitate land seizures, or as a convenient way to settle personal disputes. Blasphemy laws are also often used as an excuse to legitimise extrajudicial violence, particularly when someone accused of blasphemy is acquitted through the courts or the police choose not to file charges. In those cases, blasphemy laws have given a cloak of legitimacy to the mob, which has used them as a green light or a call to arms to take matters into its own hands when it feels the judicial process is not delivering the answer it wants.

    We have seen far too many cases of mob violence against individuals or minority communities, including, as we have heard from the hon. Members for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and for Strangford, the case of young Deborah Samuel in Sokoto in Nigeria in May. Because of comments she made on a student WhatsApp group, Deborah was declared a blasphemer. She was brutally beaten and stoned before being burned in a pile of tyres, while others recorded the whole sickening event on their mobile phones. Despite that evidence going viral around the world, only two students have been arrested for Deborah’s death, and they have been charged not with murder but with criminal conspiracy and disturbing the peace. It is an indication of the degree of support they enjoy that, following their arrest, the mob turned out again to demand their release from custody. Sadly, history tells us not to expect too much in the way of justice for Deborah, because the culture of impunity that usually accompanies such crimes will likely mean that the perpetrators of this awful murder face few or no consequences for their actions.

    As the hon. Member for Strangford said, two weeks after Deborah’s murder we were in Nigeria. We spoke to religious groups, secular groups, charities, non-governmental organisations and regional and federal Government. Nigeria is a deeply religious country that, in numerical terms, is almost evenly split between Christians and Muslims, but there are also those who follow traditional African religions and those who have no religious faith—humanists. In a country so divided along religious lines, Nigeria’s humanists need someone to defend their corner, particularly after the jailing of Mubarak Bala, the president of the Humanist Association of Nigeria, who was imprisoned for 24 years for blasphemy on his Facebook page. It is a remarkable and totally unjustifiable punishment for something that most of us would not even recognise as a crime or offence. Some of our delegation spent time with Mubarak’s wife and young child while we were in Abuja, and we promised them we would raise Mubarak’s case and the length of his sentence at every opportunity in this place. I would appreciate it if the Minister updated us with the latest from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, and told us what it is doing to help secure the release of Mubarak Bala.

    As we have heard from the hon. Members for Congleton and for Strangford, Nigeria is not the only senior member of the Commonwealth where blasphemy laws are being used, or where even the accusation of blasphemy can be fatal; the picture is similarly bleak in Pakistan. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Congleton raised the case of the American citizen Tahir Naseem, who in 2020 was shot dead inside a courtroom while standing trial for blasphemy. Tahir was from the Ahmadiyya Muslim community, the only religious community to be explicitly targeted by Pakistan’s laws on the grounds of its faith. Over the years, its members have been relentlessly harassed, denied their civil rights, murdered and officially declared non-Muslim. The murder of Tahir brought thousands out on to the street, not in protest but in support of his murderer, a teenager who had somehow managed to get a loaded gun through three separate security checks before shooting Tahir multiple times. Tahir was a US citizen, and the State Department was unequivocal in its condemnation, saying that he

    “had been lured to Pakistan from his home in Illinois by individuals who then used Pakistan’s blasphemy laws to entrap him.”

    As we have heard, arguably the most high profile case in recent years has been that of Asia Bibi, the Christian woman who in 2010 was arrested and given a death sentence following a dispute with her neighbour who claimed that she had insulted the Prophet. It took eight years for the Supreme Court to acquit her because of lack of evidence, but even then her family were forced into hiding, and a cleric put a bounty of half a million rupees on her head for anyone who would kill her. The Asia Bibi case shone a light on Pakistan’s blasphemy laws, but rather than opening up the debate on their use and purpose, those who dared to question their very existence were themselves deemed guilty of blasphemy, and Salman Taseer, the governor of Punjab province, and the country’s religious Minister, Shahbaz Bhatti, were both murdered after calling for blasphemy law reform in 2011.

    The stark reality is that, as Omar Waraich, head of south Asia at Amnesty International, pointed out, in blasphemy cases in Pakistan

    “an accusation becomes a death sentence, whether carried out by the state or by mobs of vigilantes.”

    The hon. Member for Strangford was therefore absolutely right to question how the continued existence and widespread use of blasphemy laws in so many Commonwealth countries can sit in an organisation whose own core values and principles say that it is there to support

    “tolerance, respect, understanding, moderation and religious freedom”.

    That blasphemy laws still exist in almost half the countries of the Commonwealth is of huge concern, but the manner in which they are being used as a tool of repression is deeply alarming, whether that is through the courts or the unofficial green light to the mob.

    Jim Shannon

    One of the problems, which the hon. Gentleman clearly referred to, is the fact that lawyers and even judges are often frightened to accept blasphemy cases. At the highest level of the law of the land, people are afraid. Does he agree?

    Brendan O’Hara

    There is ample evidence that lawyers and judges are intimidated by the rule of the mob. We have to be part of addressing that to find a solution. I have great sympathy for the argument that we should press for immediate abolition, but the reality on the ground is much more complex and nuanced. Like so much across the Commonwealth, blasphemy legislation is a direct product of British colonialism, because we put much of the blasphemy legislation in place many years ago. The legal precedent for blasphemy laws originated here. At the time it was thought convenient to put a range of other legislation in there, too, meaning that all too often blasphemy covers much more than what we would consider to be blaspheming. Rather than reaching for the wrecking ball, perhaps we have to use diplomacy, international law and solidarity with these persecuted people to bring about positive change. That should start with the Minister calling on all Commonwealth countries who currently have people imprisoned for blasphemy to release them immediately, starting with Mubarak Bala.

    The UK must play its part in offering asylum to the people, and their families, who have been accused of blasphemy and who are at grave risk of extrajudicial violence. The UK should encourage countries as they move to repeal, and we must ensure that they start to decouple all offences that are not blasphemous but that have historically been covered by blasphemy legislation. The UK should condemn unreservedly any legal system in which individuals can be accused, arrested, convicted or demonised on little or no evidence where it is clear that a personal vendetta is a motivating factor. As we work towards the eventual abandonment of all blasphemy legislation across the Commonwealth, the UK has to insist that, as an absolute minimum, no one can be convicted of blasphemy unless there is intent to cause offence, or insult can be proven, because right now people are being convicted of so-called crimes that they were totally unaware they had even committed.

    The widespread use of blasphemy laws and the awful human cost that that brings with it can have no place in an organisation that claims to have the promotion of

    “tolerance, respect, understanding, moderation and religious freedom”

    as its core values. While I share the desire to see these laws abolished immediately, given the complexity of the situation, getting rid of them can be best achieved by supporting, pressuring, cajoling, incentivising and calling out regimes that use blasphemy laws in this way.