UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Bank of England – 2022 Statement on the Collapse of the Pound

    Bank of England – 2022 Statement on the Collapse of the Pound

    The statement made by the Bank of England on 26 September 2022.

    The Bank is monitoring developments in financial markets very closely in light of the significant repricing of financial assets.

    In recent weeks, the Government has made a number of important announcements. The Government’s Energy Price Guarantee will reduce the near-term peak in inflation. Last Friday the Government announced its Growth Plan, on which the Chancellor has provided further detail in his statement today. I welcome the Government’s commitment to sustainable economic growth, and to the role of the Office for Budget Responsibility in its assessment of prospects for the economy and public finances.

    The role of monetary policy is to ensure that demand does not get ahead of supply in a way that leads to more inflation over the medium term. As the MPC has made clear, it will make a full assessment at its next scheduled meeting of the impact on demand and inflation from the Government’s announcements, and the fall in sterling, and act accordingly. The MPC will not hesitate to change interest rates by as much as needed to return inflation to the 2% target sustainably in the medium term, in line with its remit.

  • Kemi Badenoch – 2022 Statement on Trade Negotiations with Israel and Canada

    Kemi Badenoch – 2022 Statement on Trade Negotiations with Israel and Canada

    The statement made by Kemi Badenoch, the Secretary of State for International Trade, in the House of Commons on 23 September 2022.

    The first round of United Kingdom-Israel free trade agreement negotiations took place between 12 and 20 September.

    In parallel, the third round of United Kingdom-Canada free trade agreement negotiations commenced on 12 September and concluded on 16 September.

    Following the death of Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, these rounds proceeded, with appropriate adjustments.

    The round of negotiations with Israel was conducted in a hybrid fashion; a small group of United Kingdom officials travelled to Jerusalem for in-person discussions, with further officials attending virtually from the United Kingdom. During this initial round, talks focused on gathering insights on key interests and priorities across policy areas as well as building a shared understanding of each other’s initial positions. Technical discussions focused on 29 policy areas in over 50 sessions.

    A new agreement with Israel—with services and innovation at its heart—will build upon our existing trade and partnership agreement. It will cement our relationship with a rapidly growing economy and take our trading relationship to the next level. It will support United Kingdom jobs, and update outdated trade rules, unleashing our high-tech innovative economies.

    The negotiations with Canada were conducted in a fully virtual format. Technical discussions were held across 26 policy areas across over 50 separate sessions.

    Talks focused on reaffirming the United Kingdom’s positions, having tabled and presented text across the majority of chapters in the previous round. The United Kingdom’s negotiating team made progress on understanding areas of policy convergence and divergence with Canada. They agreed text where possible and in the United Kingdom’s interests and objectives to support economic growth.

    The negotiations continue to reflect a shared ambition to secure a progressive deal which looks to build on the United Kingdom-Canada trade continuity agreement, and strengthens our existing trading relationship, already worth over £21 billion in 2021.

    We are clear that any deals we sign will be in the best interests of the British people and the United Kingdom economy. We will not compromise on our high environmental and labour protections, public health, animal welfare and food standards, and we will maintain our right to regulate in the public interest. We are also clear that during these negotiations, the NHS and the services it provides are not on the table.

    We are working towards holding a second and fourth round of negotiations with Israel and Canada respectively in due course.

    Parliament will be kept updated as these negotiations progress.

  • James Cleverly – 2022 Statement on the UN General Assembly

    James Cleverly – 2022 Statement on the UN General Assembly

    The statement made by James Cleverly, the Foreign Secretary, in the House of Commons on 23 September 2022.

    The Prime Minister led the UK delegation to the high-level segment of the 77th Session of the UN General Assembly which took place in New York between 19 and 26 September.

    The delegation travelled to UNGA immediately after attending the state funeral for Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. The UN and its member states joined the global expressions of grief and respect following the death of Her late Majesty, with UN Secretary-General Guterres leading the tributes. Her late Majesty had a long relationship with the UN, from the founding meetings in London in 1946 through to her visit in 2010 when she remarked that the UN had become “a real force for common good”.

    The Foreign Secretary represented the UK at the UN Security Council meeting on Ukraine, attended a separate event on strengthening co-operation on accountability for atrocities committed in the conflict, and spoke at the launch of the First Lady of Ukraine’s foundation. The Foreign Secretary hosted a UK-Gulf Co-operation Council Ministerial and attended the Secretary-General’s global crisis response group meeting, as well as meetings focused on global food security and the Indo-Pacific.

    He met counterparts from Australia, Canada, China, India, Indonesia, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia and the United States. Ministers Ford, Ahmad and Goldsmith participated in a wide range of events focused on international development, education, the environment, prevention of sexual violence in conflict and various regional issues, and met a number of counterparts.

    These events supported the Prime Minister’s and the wider delegation’s programmes—including a range of bilateral meetings and roundtables with business leaders in New York. The delegation engaged with Presidents Biden and Macron, as well as Prime Minister Jugnauth of Mauritius, Prime Minister Kishida of Japan, Prime Minister Lapid of Israel, President Nauseda of Lithuania, President Erdoğan of Turkey and President von der Leyen of the European Commission.

    To mark the UK’s support for our Ukrainian allies, the Prime Minister joined the Ukrainian First Lady and the Ukrainian Prime Minister at an exhibition on accountability for international crimes committed in Ukraine, maintaining the international spotlight on Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. She also set out to the UN General Assembly how the UK would use its network of partnerships across the globe, such as the Commonwealth and organisations like the G7, to strengthen the principles of sovereignty and self-determination, and to promote freedom and democracy in all parts of the world.

  • Tom Pursglove – 2022 Speech on Campsfield House Immigration Removal Centre

    Tom Pursglove – 2022 Speech on Campsfield House Immigration Removal Centre

    The speech made by Tom Pursglove, the Minister of State at the Home Office, on 23 September 2022.

    I have listened with close interest to the debate today, and I thank the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) for setting out her case in the way she did, albeit that I disagree with considerable elements of it. I will set out the case from the Government’s perspective as to why that is. I welcome the opportunity to respond to the points that have been raised, as I also did in my recent letter to the hon. Lady.

    Let me state at the outset that the Government are committed to a fair and humane immigration policy that welcomes those who arrive legally and, crucially, that maintains the integrity of our border and works in the interests of the people of this country. Each week, we see more people arriving in the UK after crossing the channel on small boats, putting their lives at risk and yet more money in the pockets of the evil people smugglers who exploit them. That cannot be allowed to continue, and I have set out the arguments on that many times on the Floor of the House.

    Our immigration system must encourage compliance with the immigration rules, as well as protecting the public. Immigration detention is an essential part of effective immigration control and management. It is used sparingly, with 95% of people who are liable for removal from the UK managed in the community while their cases are progressed. We continue to support people to leave voluntarily wherever possible. That work happens day in, day out. It is important that the immigration removal estate can respond to changes.

    We need to ensure sufficient resilience and capacity in the right locations for the men and women it is necessary to detain for the purpose of removal. That is why the April announcement on tackling illegal migration made it clear that the removal estate would be expanded. Our plans for the site of the former Campsfield House immigration removal centre in Oxfordshire are part of that expansion. I should emphasise that it would be wrong to characterise the plans as a simple reopening. We accept that by the time the centre closed in 2018 it needed significant investment, although it is worth noting that the last report by the local independent monitoring board in 2018 found the centre to be well run.

    Under our plans, we will invest in significant improvement to the site, with a clear focus on welfare and safety. The new centre will provide decent, safe and secure accommodation for up to 400 men in detention. I can confirm that it will not be for the purpose of detaining families. Although planning is in the early stages, the intention is to use a mix of refurbished buildings and new-build accommodation on an area within the secure perimeter of the existing site. The refurbished part of the new centre will house approximately 160 people, compared with almost 300 in the previous centre. The refurbished accommodation will reflect current best practice, with most rooms being dual occupancy. Rooms in the new-build accommodation will all be dual occupancy.

    All IRCs in England have dedicated health facilities run by doctors and nurses, commissioned by NHS England and delivered to the equivalent quality standards of services in the community. As in other IRCs in England, NHS England will commission healthcare services for the centre. In a previous ministerial capacity I visited Derwentside in County Durham, and there has been a lot of learning from the experience there. I hope it provides some reassurance to say that a bespoke healthcare offer appropriate to the site will be developed to meet the need that exists.

    On riots, escapes, self-harm and suicide at the former Campsfield House centre, I want to emphasise that in developing the site, our focus is on dignity, welfare and safety. Significant improvements have been made to detention in recent years, with a programme of reforms introduced following Stephen Shaw’s 2015 and 2018 reviews of welfare in detention, to which the hon. Lady rightly referred. His reports, and others by external bodies including His Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons and the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, have informed both our strategic and tactical approach to detention.

    The new IRC will not be operational until at least late 2023. Our plans are at an early stage, and we are committed to listening to local and other voices. My officials have written to local stakeholders and are listening to their views. We have already met with the local parish council, and we will continue to engage with it and others over the coming months.

    On planning and procurement of services, we are reaching out to the local planning authority and we have made it clear that we will go out to the market to procure the services to run the site. We are looking both for value for money and for good quality, safe and secure accommodation that meets the needs of the residents in the facility. We have held a market engagement event with interested potential bidders, and there has been a good level of interest in delivering the services.

    I want to be clear that we do not and cannot detain people indefinitely. It is not lawful to do so. The law is clear that we can detain people only where removal is a realistic prospect within a reasonable timescale, or initially to establish their identity or basis of claim. That is set out in both legislation and domestic case law. Over time, the Government have necessarily adapted their strategic approach to the use of immigration detention, in response to the international challenge of illegal migration and the need to break the business model of the evil people smuggling gangs. Decisions on the appropriateness of an individual’s detention or continued detention are always made on a case-by-case basis.

    I hope I can offer some reassurance on the hon. Lady’s point about age-disputed children and the particular case that she referred to. In some cases, individuals who are detained subsequently claim to be children. When this occurs, they will usually be afforded the benefit of the doubt and released into the care of social services until a further assessment of their age has been made, unless their physical appearance and demeanour strongly suggest that they are significantly over 18, or other evidence shows that they are an adult.

    I also refer the House to the measures on age assessment in the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, which will make a considerable difference in helping to identify, and make appropriate decisions about, the age of those who claim to be children. We will deliver those reforms at the earliest possible opportunity. We will make progress on this, because we recognise the significant safeguarding concerns that arise, in both directions, when there is a need to identify a child’s age. I was disappointed that the hon. Lady and her colleagues were not supportive of the 2022 Act, which was in many respects arguably designed to expedite cases. It aims to ensure that people are not in detention for any longer than is necessary, to end the cycle of claims and appeals, and to end the efforts made on occasion to frustrate proper removal from our country.

    Of course, we want to provide certainty on individual cases as quickly as possible, and to maintain a fair immigration system in which those with a right to be here are properly cared for as quickly as possible and those who have no right to be here are removed without needless delay. That is what the reforms aim to achieve; I hope that the hon. Lady and her colleagues change their view when we enact them.

    We have a series of detention safeguards, including the detention gatekeeper, case progression panels, and our “Adults at risk in immigration detention” policy, to ensure ongoing proper scrutiny of detention decisions. People are provided with written reasons for their detention when they are detained, and then at least every 28 days thereafter. That includes information about what steps have been taken in progressing their claim to remain in the UK, and/or in relation to their return.

    Individuals in immigration detention can apply for bail at any time. The use of detention is subject to rigorous scrutiny, including by the independent monitoring boards, His Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons, the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration and, of course, the courts. To pick up on the point about visiting, as is the case in detention facilities around the country, visiting is permitted and appropriate arrangements will be made to allow that to happen. I am certainly willing to raise with officials the voluntary work done in the hon. Lady’s community to facilitate those visits. I thank those involved in helping to organise visitation in her area.

    I know that the hon. Lady had concerns about local employment when the previous centre closed, and particularly about the impact on the jobs of those who worked there when it closed. I am sure that we are in agreement on the benefits of opening a new centre for jobs in the area. The recently opened Derwentside facility provides around 200 jobs in that area. I fully expect that the reopening that we are discussing will provide several hundred jobs in the hon. Lady’s area, which is not insignificant.

    Initial estimates of the operating costs were in the region of £170 million over the lifetime of the contract, as we said in the prior information notice that we published on Wednesday 21 September. Actual costs will be known only when the procurement is concluded, but the approach being taken will ensure value for money, and we anticipate that costs will be lower than that initial estimate. In addition to the operating costs, there will be building and refurbishment costs.

    I thank the hon. Lady for her contribution today. We have begun engagement with the council and other key local stakeholders to ensure that we have a full understanding of the impact of our plans. This debate has been a welcome opportunity to hear some of those views. We will of course reflect on what we have heard as we develop the plans. I am always happy to speak to colleagues from across the House about immigration matters that are relevant to their constituencies, and that most certainly applies to this project. More widely, we will continue driving forward the reforms needed to make our immigration system fairer and more effective. That is what the public expect, and what we are determined to deliver.

  • Layla Moran – 2022 Speech on Campsfield House Immigration Removal Centre

    Layla Moran – 2022 Speech on Campsfield House Immigration Removal Centre

    The speech made by Layla Moran, the Liberal Democrat MP for Oxford West and Abingdon, in the House of Commons on 23 September 2022.

    I am grateful to the House for allowing me another chance to raise the proposed reopening of Campsfield House immigration removal centre, after business was so mournfully changed two weeks ago.

    I start by thanking the Minister for engaging with me and my office on this issue and answering my questions today. However, I am deeply disappointed that we have to debate this issue again at all. One of my first campaigns as a parliamentary candidate for Oxford West and Abingdon was the campaign to close Campsfield House. At the time, Campsfield was a detention centre for over 200 adult men facing deportation. My community fought tirelessly for over two decades to close the centre, and make no mistake: we are ready to fight again.

    The Government are now planning to reopen the centre, with an expanded capacity of 400 beds at a cost of £227 million to the taxpayer. Our opposition comes primarily from concern over the welfare of the detainees, the impact that has on everyone in the community and also the cost efficiency of this plan in the immigration detention estate. It is expensive and does not achieve its aims. But most of all, it is cruel.

    I want to start with detainees’ own descriptions of Campsfield. One man detained at the centre said:

    “Some of us have been here for over 3 years with no prospect of removal or any evidence of future release. There is no justification whatsoever for detaining us for such a period of time. Our lives have been stalled without any hope of living a life, having a family or any future.”

    Another former detainee talked about finding solace in music:

    “I tried to create a kind of musical environment around me in Campsfield. It genuinely helped me so I didn’t get too depressed. It saved me from self-harm and suicide, which I saw many people try. It made me feel like I was reaching out beyond the fences. Sometimes I think it’s ok to escape reality in that kind of a place because the reality there can feel like you are living in a nightmare.”

    The nightmare of immigration detention was made much worse by failures in processes and procedures. In 2013, I uncovered that a child was being held at Campsfield. A boy was held there for between two and three months. He would have been the only child in an adult-dominated, guarded facility with barbed wire fences. He would not have been allowed to go to school and he would have been unable to interact with other children or lead any sort of normal childhood. We know very little about him other than that he was between 12 and 16. I hope that all hon. Members will agree that that was and is totally unacceptable—but he was not the only one. Another boy was incorrectly identified by social services as being an adult and was held at Campsfield for 62 days. He was 16. The chief inspector of prisons said that he

    “was held by mistake and should never have been detained”.

    That is fine, but there is only one way to ensure that such an atrocity does not happen again at Campsfield, and that is simply not to reopen it.

    Accidental child detention is not the only concern. As detainees faced unacceptable conditions, tensions often boiled over into aggression and protest. There were riots, fires and escapes. Detainees completed suicide. One asylum seeker completed suicide at Campsfield after being detained for six months and denied bail three times. He was only 18 years old.

    As hon. Members might imagine, all that causes enormous distress to the local community. It is important to note that detention has an enormous effect far beyond the fences. A volunteer visitor service was set up by local people and became the wonderful organisation Asylum Welcome, which does fantastic work to support asylum seekers across Oxfordshire and plays a pivotal role in welcoming Ukrainian refugees.

    One former visitor said:

    “The men detained at Campsfield House were representative of a broad range of humanity—not all were angels, although most that I spoke to were very decent people. But they were all human and therefore deserving of their human rights, and none deserved to be locked away without having committed a crime”.

    That is critical: most of the detainees who passed through Campsfield were true asylum seekers—they were not criminals. The Home Office claims that Campsfield is necessary to hold foreign national offenders, yet in 2017 an average of only 98 were held at Campsfield at any one time. Why do we need a 400-bed centre away from the main airports?

    Immigration detention is described by the Home Office as having a “limited, but crucial role” in helping to control our borders. There are a stringent set of circumstances in which the Government have the power to detain an individual: to enable removal from the country; to establish the basis of someone’s identity or claim; and when the Home Office suspects that someone will not comply with immigration bail. The Home Office’s own guidance states:

    “Detention must be used sparingly, and for the shortest period necessary.”

    On the face of it, that is sensible. I make it clear to the Minister that I can see the need for a small number of detention places, very close to airports, for people to be held for an extremely short time. That is not in question. But what is happening now, with the expansion of the detention estate, starting with Campsfield, shows that there is a failure in that system.

    When the chief inspector of prisons carried out a final inspection before Campsfield closed, the average length of detention was 55 days, but some men were held for “excessive periods”. The longest detention in that year was one year and five months, but we have heard from detainees who were held for more than three years. Many detainees are not held in one centre but are deported, released, or moved around the system. They are passed from one centre to another and not allowed to form relationships. An MP might advocate for them, but then they move and the MP cannot do so anymore. They do not have consistent caseworkers. That is cruel, but it is also incredibly costly.

    The cost element needs to be explored. When Campsfield was open, it cost £86 a day to detain someone there, but costs have increased. In the first quarter of 2022, the average cost of holding someone in detention was £107 per day. The more individuals we detain, and the longer we keep them behind bars, the more costly it is. As the Minister may well remember, we are in a cost of living crisis. Families are struggling to afford food; pensioners cannot afford to turn their heating on. We heard this morning the Chancellor’s grand plan to tackle the economic crisis—I am sorry, but the way to solve this is not to keep detaining people at enormous cost, it is instead to invest that money in a system to improve processing times.

    Taxpayers deserve a Home Office that does its job properly. Figures from the House of Commons Library reveal that the same amount of money that the Government will be spending on re-opening Campsfield could be used to fund more than 1,000 asylum caseworkers, who are desperately needed to process that backlog. Why are we not investing that money in staff? How many new caseworkers do the Government intend to bring into the system, or are they just accepting failure?

    We raised concerns at the time about the welfare of those in Campsfield, but we must also understand why there has been this shift in policy. That is why this debate is so important. Campsfield was shut in 2017 off the back of the Stephen Shaw review, which concluded that the “direction of travel” for the detention estate in the UK should be “downwards”, both for reasons of welfare and for better use of public money. The Home Office agreed with that recommendation and made the decision to reduce the immigration detention estate, aiming to reduce it by almost 40%. As part of that Campsfield closed, but the Government have now changed direction and numbers are climbing to the same levels that we saw before 2019. Not only are they re-opening Campsfield, but there is another detention centre at Haslar in Hampshire, both with more beds than they had before. That is a clear, active change of policy, and we have not had an explanation for what has changed. Which recommendations in the Shaw review does the Minister now not accept?

    How does that change of policy fulfil the Government’s legal obligations? There have been legal challenges on human rights grounds for those held on the detention estate, but most of those people—and this is where we must end—are not criminals. Most of those people are true asylum seekers, and 80% of those who try to claim asylum in the UK are granted asylum. When we combine the fact that there are a small number of foreign prisoners who should be detained and supported, and that 80% of those who try to claim asylum are granted asylum, I simply ask the Minister why the Government are doing this, and whether they will reverse the decision to reopen Campsfield House.

  • Rachel Reeves – 2022 Response to the Chancellor’s Fiscal Statement

    Rachel Reeves – 2022 Response to the Chancellor’s Fiscal Statement

    The speech made by Rachel Reeves, the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the House of Commons on 23 September 2022.

    Thank you, Mr Speaker.

    I would like to welcome the Rt Hon Gentleman to his place and I thank him for his statement.

    He is the third Conservative Chancellor this year – and it’s still only September.

    The Chancellor has confirmed that the costs of the energy price cap will be funded by borrowing, leaving the eye-watering windfall profits of the energy giants untaxed.

    The oil and gas producers will be toasting the Chancellor in the boardrooms as we speak – while working people are left to pick up the bill.

    Borrowing higher than it needs to be, just as interest rates rise.

    And yet the Chancellor refuses to allow independent economic forecasts to be published which would show the impact of this borrowing on our public finances on growth and inflation.

    It is a budget without figures.

    A menu without prices.

    What, Mr Speaker, has he got to hide?

    This statement is an admission of 12 years of economic failure.

    And now here we are – one last throw of the dice, one last claim that these ministers will be different.

    For all the chopping and changing and chaos and confusion there has been one person here throughout.

    The Prime Minister.

    She’s been a minister for a decade, out defending every single economic decision.

    When the Prime Minister says she wants to break free from the past, what she really means is she wants to break free from her own record.

    Because where have the last 12 years left us?

    Lower growth, lower investment, lower productivity.

    And today, we learn we have the lowest consumer confidence since records began.

    The only things that are going up are inflation, interest rates and bankers’ bonuses.

    As the Tories become more and more detached from reality millions of people are lying awake at night worrying about how they’ll make ends meet.

    Labour won the argument that action on energy bills was necessary.

    But the question is: who pays?

    The energy producers who have profited so much from the rise in prices should make a contribution.

    But when the country asked who should foot the bill for their energy rescue
    package the Conservatives responded: “you”, the British people.

    Instead of standing up for working people, the Conservatives chose to shield the gigantic windfall profits of the energy giants leaving tens of billions of pounds on the table and pushing all the costs onto borrowing to be paid for by current and future taxpayers.

    This Prime Minister and Chancellor have no regard for taxpayers’ interests or the concerns of working people.

    It’s not just that this Conservative government is not working for ordinary families – it’s actively working against them.

    Mr Speaker, we have had six so-called growth plans from the Conservatives since 2010.

    A litany of failure.

    I do at least commend the Chancellor on having the ambition of achieving two and a half percent growth a year – the last Labour government’s rate of growth.

    But to achieve that sort of growth and for that growth to be sustainable, you need a credible plan.

    And the truth is that this government does not have one.

    The Prime Minister and Chancellor are like two desperate gamblers in a casino, chasing a losing run.

    The argument peddled by the Chancellor today isn’t a great new idea as much as he’d like us to think so.

    What this plan adds up to is to keep corporation tax where it is today and to take national insurance, which they voted to increase, back to where it was last March.

    Some new plan!

    And it’s based on an outdated ideology that says if we simply reward those who are already wealthy, the whole of society will benefit.

    They’ve decided to replace levelling up with trickle down.

    As President Biden said this week, he is “sick and tired of trickle-down economics.”

    And he is right to be.

    It is discredited, it is inadequate and it will not unleash the wave of investment that we need.

    Mr Speaker, it’s not just this side of the House with concerns.

    The Rt Hon Member for Surrey Heath, described the Prime Minister’s economic plans as ‘taking a holiday from reality’.

    The Rt Hon Member for Richmond, two Chancellors ago, was perhaps too honest with his party when he told them:

    “We tried having a … low corporation tax … as a means of getting businesses to invest.”

    But that “It has not worked.”

    The new Chancellor and Prime Minister used to agree with that.

    They voted for the corporation tax rise, and Labour supported it too.

    Members opposite might have changed their minds, but we have not.

    Because the evidence shows that low rates of Corporation Tax are not the best way to boost investment and productivity and the Tories’ own record shows that.

    Britain has the lowest headline rate of corporation tax in the G7 but we also have the lowest rate of private investment.

    That’s why Labour would do what businesses are actually asking for:

    Using targeted investment allowances to boost productivity and growth.

    And scrapping outdated and unfair Business Rates, that harm our small businesses and high streets replacing them with a system that’s fit for the 21st Century.

    What about their other policies?

    Let’s take these so-called ‘investment zones’.

    Again, these are nothing new.

    Every time they were tried, all they have achieved was moving growth around
    the country, not creating growth.

    The best way out of this high tax, low growth spiral that the Tories have created is to get the economy firing on all cylinders in all parts of the country.

    It’s going to take much more than a stamp duty cut to get our economy back on track and home ownership back to the levels last seen under the Labour government.

    These stamp duty changes have been tried before.

    Last time they did it, a third of the people who benefited were buying a second or third home, or a buy to let property.

    Is that really the best use of taxpayers money when borrowing and debt are already so high?

    And can the Chancellor confirm today how much of his stamp duty cut will go to those purchasing multiple properties?

    Instead of a stamp duty rates going up and down like a yo-yo, we’ve got to get building.

    We need to target support at first time buyers and tackle the issue of homes being sold to overseas investors.

    The Chancellor has made clear today who his priorities are. Not a plan for growth, a plan to reward the already wealthy.

    A return to the trickle down of the past, back to the past, not a brave new future.

    This Chancellor and Prime Minister proclaimed in Britannia Unchained that ‘the British are amongst the worst idlers in the world’.

    And to prove they mean it, instead of supporting working people this government is cutting their rights at work.

    Working people are the backbone of Britain and should be respected not sneered at.

    Labour will always stand up for their rights.

    The Chancellor has in effect today admitted he has broken his fiscal rules.

    This is the 10th time the Tories have broken their own rules, something that I’m sure the Office for Budget Responsibility would have confirmed if they had been allowed to publish their forecasts today.

    Mr Speaker, it is unprecedented to have a fiscal statement of this scale with no independent forecasts from the Office for Budget Responsibility.

    Never has a government borrowed so much and explained so little.

    Economic institutions matter.

    Yet this government has undermined the Bank of England, sacked the respected Permanent Secretary at the Treasury and silenced the Office for Budget Responsibility.

    That is no way to build confidence.

    This is no way to build growth.

    Mr Speaker, Labour believes in wealth creation.

    We will always support enterprise, creativity and hard work.

    We want British businesses to grow, to be successful and contribute to our wider prosperity.

    We don’t believe – as the Chancellor and Prime Minister do – that British workers are idlers.

    We understand that it is the workers who turn up every day to make the great product at a factory or deliver a great service in the store who generate growth.

    It is the teachers giving the young people the skills they need.

    It is the doctors and nurses keeping people well.

    It is the entrepreneur taking a personal risk to start a new business.

    These are the people who generate growth – and they all deserve to share in it too.

    Mr Speaker this statement is more than a clash of policies.

    It is a clash of ideas – two different ideas of how our country prospers.

    If you’re a pensioner worried about the cost of living, a working family seeing your mortgage costs going up or a small business owner whose costs are spiralling, the government’s announcements today do little to reassure you.

    Bigger bonuses for the bankers and huge profits for energy giants, shamelessly shielded by Downing Street.

    And all the while, ministers pile the crushing weight of all these costs onto the backs of taxpayers.

    The Conservatives can’t solve the cost of living crisis.

    The Conservatives are the cost of living crisis.

    And our country cannot afford them anymore.

  • Suella Braverman – 2022 Statement on the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill

    Suella Braverman – 2022 Statement on the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill

    The statement made by Suella Braverman, the Home Secretary, in the House of Commons on 22 September 2022.

    The Government are today introducing the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill, as committed to in the Queen’s Speech at the start of this parliamentary Session. Building on the recently enacted Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022, the measures in this new, significant Bill enable us to bear down further on kleptocrats, criminals and terrorists who abuse our open economy, strengthening the UK’s reputation as a place where legitimate business can thrive while driving dirty money out of the UK.

    The UK is at the forefront of global efforts to tackle illicit finance and economic crime. There have already been a number of important strides forward in the effort to confront and address economic crime in recent years, including:

    being the first G20 country to establish a public register of domestic company beneficial ownership in 2016 (the “people with significant control” register);

    the introduction of new powers in the Criminal Finances Act 2017 to include unexplained wealth orders and account freezing orders;

    allocating £400 million through the spending review and new economic crime levy to support law enforcement over the next three years, as well as a £63 million spending review settlement over the next three years for implementation of Companies House’s transformation programme;

    the publication of the economic crime plan in 2019 and the progress made against it by both the public and private sector;

    establishing the national economic crime centre to co-ordinate the law enforcement response to economic crime and the combatting kleptocracy cell in the National Crime Agency to focus on targeting corrupt elites and their assets in the UK; and

    most recently, passing the expedited Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act.

    The economic crime landscape is constantly evolving, and we cannot be complacent about the threat. That is why we are bringing forward this further legislation to help tackle these problems and transform our fight against illicit finance.

    The key elements of the Bill include:

    broadening the registrar’s powers so that the registrar becomes a more active gatekeeper over company creation and custodian of more reliable data, including new powers to check, remove or decline information submitted to, or already on, the companies register;

    introducing identity verification requirements for all new and existing registered company directors, people with significant control, and those delivering documents to the registrar;

    providing Companies House with more effective investigation and enforcement powers and introducing better cross-checking of data with other public and private sector bodies;

    tackling the abuse of limited partnerships (including Scottish limited partnerships) by strengthening transparency requirements and enabling them to be deregistered;

    creating powers to more quickly and easily seize and recover cryptoassets;

    creating new exemptions from the principal money laundering offences to reduce unnecessary reporting by businesses carrying out transactions on behalf of their customers;

    enabling businesses in certain sectors to share information more effectively to prevent and detect economic crime; and

    providing new intelligence gathering powers for law enforcement.

    These new measures will tackle economic crime, including fraud and money laundering, by delivering greater protections for consumers and businesses, boosting the UK’s defences, and allowing legitimate businesses to thrive. They will also protect our national security, by making it harder for kleptocrats, criminals and terrorists to engage in money laundering, corruption, terrorism financing, illegal arms movements and ransomware payments. And they will support enterprise by enabling Companies House to deliver a better service for over four million UK companies, maintaining our swift and low-cost routes for company creation and improving the provision of data to inform business transactions and lending decisions across the economy.

    This Bill forms a key part of the wider Government approach to ensure that law enforcement and the private sector have the tools needed to help tackle economic crime, sitting alongside the key provisions in the Online Safety Bill which will tackle online fraud, as well as the upcoming second economic crime plan and fraud action plan.

    This Bill has been developed in close partnership with law enforcement agencies, as well as with the financial sector, professional and business groups, and civil society organisations. This reflects the breadth of the measures in the Bill, the nature of the threats posed and the importance of working across sectors to tackle economic crime.

    The Government remain committed to tackling economic crime and illicit finance, and to strengthening the business environment across all of the UK. We will continue to work with the devolved Administrations on these measures and the formal legislative consent motion process.

  • Richard Fuller – 2022 Statement on the Health and Social Care Levy Repeal Bill

    Richard Fuller – 2022 Statement on the Health and Social Care Levy Repeal Bill

    The statement made by Richard Fuller, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, to the House of Commons on 22 September 2022.

    Today the Government have introduced the Health and Social Care Levy (Repeal) Bill.

    This Bill delivers the Prime Minister’s promise to reverse the temporary 1.25 percentage point increase in national insurance rates from 6 November and will cancel the levy coming in as a separate tax from April 2023.

    In cancelling the tax rise for employees, the self-employed and employers, the Government are acting to support individuals with the cost of living by allowing them to keep more of what they earn, as well as to support businesses to pursue growth, innovate and invest.

    This will be an average tax cut of around £135 for workers this year and around £330 next year. Taking into account the increase to national insurance contributions thresholds at the spring statement and the levy reversal, almost 30 million people will be better off by an average of over £500 in 2023-24.

    Around 60% of businesses with NICs liabilities will see a reduction in their NICs bill, with 20,000 of these businesses being taken out of paying NICs entirely due to the combination of this measure and the employment allowance. The average savings for businesses will be £9,600 for the 2023-24 tax year.

    The Government are implementing the change as soon as possible, to maximise the cash benefit for people and businesses this year. Most employees will receive a cut to their national insurance directly via payroll in their November pay.

    The self-employed will pay NICs at 9.73% on earnings between £11,909 and £50,270 per annum. The blended figure is equivalent to seven months at the higher rate 10.25% and the remainder at 9%

    While the tax rise will be cancelled, funding for health and social care services will be maintained as planned. The additional funding used to replace the expected revenue from the levy will come from general taxation. The Government remain committed to ensuring fiscal discipline over the medium term.

  • Graham Stuart – 2022 Statement on the UK’s Updated 2030 Nationally Determined Contribution

    Graham Stuart – 2022 Statement on the UK’s Updated 2030 Nationally Determined Contribution

    The statement made by Graham Stuart, the Minister for Climate, in the House of Commons on 22 September 2022.

    The Glasgow climate pact, agreed by almost 200 countries at COP26 in November 2021, recognised the need for accelerated action to limit global warming to 1.5° C above pre-industrial temperatures. It called for all countries to “revisit and strengthen the 2030 targets in their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) as necessary to align with the Paris Agreement temperature goal by the end of 2022, taking into account different national circumstances”.

    During its COP presidency, the UK has been working with partner countries, non-state actors and civil society to encourage countries, particularly major emitters, to respond to this call. And the UK has shown leadership by revisiting its own NDC to ensure it remains a fair and ambitious contribution to global action on climate change. The latest science from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—IPCC—published earlier this year highlighted the closing window for action to keep 1.5° C in reach and made clear the urgency of delivering on the Glasgow climate pact.

    In revisiting the UK NDC, the Government considered a range of factors including the latest available science, expectations in the Paris agreement and the Glasgow climate pact, the UK’s existing 2050 net zero commitment, and energy security, as well as advice and evidence from the Climate Change Committee and other independent commentators.

    The UK has strengthened its NDC by making the following updates to the accompanying information to facilitate clarity, transparency and understanding—ICTU—in line with international best practice and the Paris agreement rulebook:

    clarified how the target—which remains a commitment to reduce all greenhouse gas emissions by at least 68% by 2030 on 1990 levels—aligns with the Paris Agreement temperature goal;

    explained more fully how the UK will deliver the NDC by 2030;

    updated on the progress made in expanding the territorial scope of the NDC to include the UK’s Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories; and included more, detail on levelling up, gender, green skills, public engagement, Just Transition and how the UK is supporting other countries with delivery of their NDCs.

    The UK’s NDC requires the fastest rate of reduction in greenhouse gases between 1990 and 2030 of any major economy and is on a trajectory to net zero by 2050. The Government are committed to net zero by 2050 and looks forward to the review led by Chris Skidmore to ensure that it is delivered in a way that is pro-business and pro-growth.

    Since submitting the NDC in December 2020, the UK has published a range of sectoral strategies and plans and has signed up to numerous pledges and actions to deliver on the 2030 target. The Prime Minister has also announced an ambitious package of measures to tackle soaring energy prices and ensure the UK’s energy security, following Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine.

    The UK will submit its updated NDC to the UNFCCC in time for the deadline for inputs to the NDC synthesis report, 23 September 2022, and will lay a copy in the House at the same time.

  • Jacob Rees-Mogg – 2022 Speech to the IAEA 66th General Conference

    Jacob Rees-Mogg – 2022 Speech to the IAEA 66th General Conference

    The speech made by Jacob Rees-Mogg, the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, to the IAEA 66th General Conference in Vienna on 26 September 2022.

    Mr President,

    Congratulations on your appointment as President of this Conference.

    It is an honour to be here today, and I would like to express His Majesty’s Government’s gratitude for the phenomenal work of the Director General and the Secretariat over the last year. Their commitment, resilience, and professionalism in responding to threats to the security and stability of our world has shown, once again, the value of the Agency to the global community.

    Mr President, The United Kingdom firmly believes that the peaceful uses of nuclear technologies are essential to resolving some of the most pressing challenges of our time. First, this means boosting our energy security through safe and secure nuclear power to address climate change and food insecurity.

    Yet we cannot ignore those who threaten this vision. The United Kingdom continues to condemn the Russian Federation’s unlawful invasion of Ukraine and its reckless actions against nuclear facilities, including at the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power plant. Russia’s wicked actions threaten the safety of millions and undermine the use of nuclear technology. The United Kingdom supports the IAEA’s work to ensure the safety and security of nuclear facilities in Ukraine, including at the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power plant. However, we are clear that the only way to resolve the nuclear safety issues in Ukraine is for the Russian Federation to end its unprovoked invasion, and unconditionally withdraw all its troops and personnel from Ukraine’s nuclear facilities and its internationally recognised borders.

    While Russia acted alone to block consensus at the recent Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, the United Kingdom will play its part to advance our commitments under the NPT. This includes the Sustained Dialogue on Peaceful Uses, where we – alongside 30 other partners – aim to continue expanding access to nuclear technologies, to allow more countries to benefit from them, through medical, environmental and energy applications.

    It is also deeply concerning, Mr President, that Iran has chosen not to seize the critical diplomatic opportunity to restore the JCPoA and instead continues to escalate its nuclear programme. The JCPoA cannot in any way be used to release Iran from its legally binding safeguards obligations that are essential to the non-proliferation regime and international security. The only way the issues can be resolved is through Iran providing technically credible explanations to the Agency’s outstanding questions.

    Mr President, despite these threats to the global non-proliferation architecture, we must not lose sight of the opportunities of advanced nuclear technologies. That is why, earlier this year, the British Energy Security Strategy set out our intention to boost deployment of civil nuclear up to 24GW by 2050, including through the development of Small Modular Reactors. Meanwhile, we are improving our plans for decommissioning and developing a geological disposal facility to dispose of our most hazardous radioactive waste safely and securely.

    We are also leading global efforts to make Fusion Energy a reality. By investing in the best research, we plan to build a prototype fusion power plant that will put energy on the grid by 2040 – demonstrating Fusion Energy’s commercial viability.

    Furthermore, Mr President, it is more important than ever to have resilient international supply chains for uranium and nuclear fuel. The United Kingdom has many decades of experience of making fuel for our own reactors and for export to the rest of the world. We will continue to build on this, ensuring that our supply chains and capabilities are ready to help fuel this energy secure future.

    We must also recognise, Mr President, that challenges from the COVID-19 pandemic to Russia’s illegal war in Ukraine have highlighted the importance of working together to strengthen our nuclear safety, security and safeguards frameworks.

    The Agency can count on His Majesty’s Government’s full support in its efforts to strengthen these systems, including through our cooperation with the US and Australia on AUKUS naval nuclear propulsion. We are working closely with the IAEA to ensure that the precedent set by Australia’s acquisition of submarines strengthens the global non-proliferation regime. As our leaders said in last week’s statement, the AUKUS partners are fully committed to establishing an approach that meets the highest non-proliferation standards. We welcome Director General Grossi’s report to the September IAEA Board of Governors meeting on this issue, in which the Director General reported his satisfaction with our engagement.

    We also remain committed to working with Contracting Parties to strengthen IAEA Conventions, particularly through the valuable Peer Review processes, and maintaining robust emergency response arrangements.

    An effective and robust safeguards system remains an essential enabler for the peaceful uses of nuclear. We urge those countries that have not yet done so to ratify Comprehensive Safeguards Agreements and Additional Protocols. Only fully implemented and ratified agreements, matched with high security standards for nuclear material and sites will deserve the public’s confidence in nuclear technologies and provide the assurance that they are safe, secure and safeguarded.

    I would also like, Mr President, to applaud the IAEA’s significant contribution to science and research and the Director General’s unwavering commitment to nuclear for development. I am happy to pledge £3.4 million to the Technical Cooperation Fund.

    The technologies under development today are needed to solve the most pressing global development challenges of our time, and it is our responsibility to deliver these to those who need it most.

    Finally, let me emphasise Mr President, the UK will continue to give the Secretariat, and the Director General, our wholehearted support.

    Thank you very much.