UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Rachel Reeves – 2022 Commons Speech on the Economy

    Rachel Reeves – 2022 Commons Speech on the Economy

    The speech made by Rachel Reeves, the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the House of Commons on 26 May 2022.

    After today’s announcement, let there be no doubt about who is winning the battle of ideas in Britain—it is the Labour party. Today, it feels as though the Chancellor has finally realised the problems the country is facing. We first called for a windfall tax on oil and gas producers nearly five months ago, to help struggling families and pensioners. Today, he has announced that policy but he dare not say the words; it is a policy that dare not speak its name for this Chancellor. It was also Labour that first highlighted the unfairness of this Government’s buy now, pay later compulsory loan scheme. It should not have taken a rocket scientist to work out that this would not cut it, and we pointed that out at the time, but that is the mark of this Klarna Chancellor: announce now, ditch later. Here he is, once again, the Treasury’s one-man rebuttal unit, the Chancellor himself.

    For months, it has been clear that more was necessary to help people bring their bills down, so what took this Government so long? Every day that they have refused to act, we have had £53 million added to Britain’s household bills during this cost of living crisis. This Government’s dither and delay has cost our country dearly. Labour welcomes the fact that the Government are finally acting on our calls to introduce a windfall tax, and it is good to see the SNP U-turning today and saying that they, too, are in favour of a windfall tax on oil and gas profits—well done to the SNP.

    It was a painful journey to get the Government to this point. First, Conservative Ministers said that oil and gas producers were “struggling”—that was the Education Secretary, I think—but then the BP chief executive said that the energy crisis was a “cash machine” for his business, so the Government moved to the second defence. Ministers claimed that a windfall tax would put off vital investments, but the industry said that it would not even change its plans. Then the Government said that a windfall tax would be “un-Conservative”. It is so un-Conservative that Margaret Thatcher, George Osborne and now this Government are doing exactly that. Finally, the Chancellor said that it would be “silly” to offer help now, given that he did not know the full scale of the challenge. What nonsense! It should not take half a million pounds of publicly funded focus groups for the Chancellor to realise that helping families and pensioners is exactly the right thing to do.

    Every day for five months, the Prime Minister sent Conservative MPs out to attack the windfall tax and yet defend an increase in taxes on working people. He has made them vote against the windfall tax not once, not twice, but three times. For months, he has sent his MPs to defend the litany of rule-breaking in No. 10 Downing Street that was set out in the Sue Gray report yesterday. There is a lesson here for Conservative MPs: you cannot believe a word this Prime Minister says, and as long as he is in office, he will continue making fools out of each and every one of you. If they keep him there, that is their choice. The problem is that you cannot fake fairness—you either believe in it or you don’t.

    Labour called for a windfall tax because it is the right thing to do. The Conservatives are bringing it in because they needed a new headline. We see that, too, from all the other things that the Chancellor did not address today: the non-doms keeping their tax privileges while the Government increase taxes on working people; young working people paying more, but those who earn money buying and selling stocks and shares not paying a penny more; contracts handed out to Conservative friends and donors while British businesses miss out; global tech giants making billions in profits while smaller businesses and the energy-intensive industries struggle with higher bills and higher taxes from the Conservative party; and £11.8 billion lost in fraud because of a total lack of respect for taxpayers’ money. That is why we should have had an emergency Budget today that spikes the hike in national insurance, cuts business rates for high-street and small businesses, provides help for energy-intensive firms and ensures that every pound of taxpayers’ money is spent wisely.

    We will look closely at the detail of today’s announcements. Of course, most of them seem to be written by us, but so far we have seen nothing to suggest that this Conservative Government have the ideas or the energy to tackle the challenges we face as a country. A Labour Government would have addressed the underlying weaknesses in our economy, so that we can stop this spiral of inflation, lift wages and provide greater security for families and for our country. The truth is that the Conservatives are running our economy, and people’s living standards, into the ground. We are forecast to have the slowest growth and the highest inflation in the G7. This Government have weakened the foundations of our economy, leaving us exposed to shocks as we lurch from crisis to crisis, and still they refuse to come forward with a real plan to fix our broken system and provide the security we need to face the future with confidence. That means boosting our energy security too. We need to do much more to reduce our reliance on imported oil and gas. That is why Labour’s energy security plan includes a programme of home insulation, to reduce bills not just for one year, but for years to come and to get us all the way to net zero. It is why we have urged the Government to double onshore wind capacity and to end the delay on nuclear power. [Interruption.] And while we are at it, why did this Tory Government get rid of our gas storage—[Interruption.]

    Madam Deputy Speaker

    Order. It is important that we also hear the shadow Chancellor.

    Rachel Reeves

    While we are at it, why did this Tory Government get rid of our gas storage, which would have left us better protected from wild fluctuations in prices? When will this Government provide the strong leadership that this country needs?

    There are a number of questions for the Chancellor about his announcement today. How many people are still waiting for the support they were promised in March? A third of his constituents are still waiting for their council tax discounts. Are households still being asked to pay the supplier of last resort costs for those energy suppliers that have gone bust as a result of a decade of failed energy market regulation? How is this package being funded, outside of the proceeds of a windfall tax? If someone has more than one home, do they get multiple discounts on their energy bills? I know that the Chancellor has adopted two of our ideas today, but may I ask why he has not adopted a third: a cut in VAT on energy bills? It was once touted as the big Brexit bonus, but he has ditched that too. This is a discredited, chaotic and rudderless Conservative Government, whose policies rarely last more than a few months. We pushed for a windfall tax and they adopted it. We said the buy now, pay later scheme was wrong and now they have ditched it. This Government are out of ideas, out of touch and out of time. When it comes to the big issues facing this country, the position is now clear: we lead, they follow. [Hon. Members: “More!”]

  • Rishi Sunak – 2022 Commons Statement on the Economy

    Rishi Sunak – 2022 Commons Statement on the Economy

    The statement made by Rishi Sunak, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the House of Commons on 26 May 2022.

    The high inflation that we are experiencing now is causing acute distress to the people of this country. I know that they are worried. I know that people are struggling. I want to explain what is happening, why it is happening, and what we propose to do about it.

    I trust the British people, and I know they understand that no Government can solve every problem, particularly the complex and global challenge of inflation, but this Government will never stop trying to help people, to fix problems where we can and to do what is right, as we did throughout the pandemic. We need to make sure that those for whom the struggle is too hard, and for whom the risks are too great, are supported. This Government will not sit idly by while there is a risk that some in our country might be set so far back that they might never recover. That is simply unacceptable, and we will never allow it to happen.

    I want to reassure everybody that we will get through this. We have the tools and the determination we need to combat and reduce inflation. We will make sure that the most vulnerable and least well off get the support they need at this time of difficulty, and we will also turn this moment of difficulty into a springboard for economic renewal and growth, with more jobs, higher skills and greater investment: our plan for a stronger economy.

    Before I turn to the details of our plan, let me put into context for the House the challenge we face. This country is now experiencing the highest rate of inflation we have seen for 40 years. The Bank of England expects inflation to average around 9% this year. Our exposure to global shocks continues to explain most of the inflation above the 2% target. Supply chain disruption as the world reopened from covid, combined with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and potentially exacerbated by recent lockdowns in China, are all contributing to significant price increases for goods and energy.

    However, over the course of the year, the situation has evolved and become more serious. There are areas of particular concern. Even excluding energy and food, core inflation has become broader-based and elevated. Of the basket of goods and services we use to measure inflation, a record proportion is seeing above-average price increases. Also, we are acutely exposed to the European energy price shock and, like the US, we have a tight labour market. Make no mistake, the lowest unemployment in almost 50 years, just months after averting a jobs crisis during the pandemic, is good news, but combined with the shock to European energy prices, it does contribute to the UK’s relatively high rate of inflation.

    Lastly, as the Bank has noted, longer-term inflation expectations have risen above their historical averages by more than they are doing in the US and Europe. We cannot and must not allow short-term inflationary pressures to lead people to expect that high inflation will continue over the long term. We can get inflation under control. It is not some abstract force outside our grasp. It may take time, but we have the tools we need and the resolve it will take to reduce inflation. We have three specific tools available to combat and reduce inflation, and we are using them all: independent monetary policy, fiscal responsibility and supply-side activism.

    First, our primary tool is a strong independent monetary policy. Since control of monetary policy was taken out of the hands of politicians 25 years ago, inflation has averaged precisely 2%. It is right that the Bank of England is independent, and I know that the Governor and his team will take decisive action to get inflation back on target and ensure that inflation expectations remain firmly anchored.

    Secondly, we need responsible fiscal policy. That means providing fiscal support where required but not making the situation unnecessarily worse, causing inflation, interest and mortgage rates to go up further than they otherwise would. Excessively adding fiscal stimulus into a supply-constrained economy, especially one in which households and businesses have built up over £300 billion of excess savings, risks being counterproductive and increasing inflationary pressures. In other words, fiscal support should be timely, temporary and targeted. Timely because we need to help people when the shock is at its worst, targeted because unconstrained stimulus will make the problem worse, and temporary because if we do not meet our fiscal rules and ensure the public finances are resilient in the longer run, we create even greater risks on inflation, interest rates and the trend rate of economic growth.

    Thirdly, we are taking an activist approach to supply-side reforms. This will increase our productive capacity, ease inflationary pressures and raise our long-term growth potential. The Prime Minister’s energy security strategy will reduce bills over time by increasing energy supply and improving energy efficiency. The Work and Pensions Secretary is moving half a million jobseekers off welfare and into work and doing more to support older people back into the jobs market. The Home Secretary is making our visa regime for high-skilled migrants one of the most competitive in the world, and in the autumn we will bring forward tax cuts and reforms to encourage businesses to invest more, train more and innovate more—the path to higher growth. Independent monetary policy, fiscal response ability and supply-side reform—the country should have confidence that using these three tools, we will combat inflation and reduce it over time.

    But of course, we know that households are being hit hard right now, so today we will provide significant support to the British people. As I have said, a critical part of how we are dealing with inflation is responsible fiscal policy. What this means in practical terms is that as we support people more, we need to think about the fairest way to fund as much of that cost as possible. The oil and gas sector is making extraordinary profits, not as the result of recent changes to risk taking or innovation or efficiency, but as the result of surging global commodity prices, driven in part by Russia’s war. For that reason, I am sympathetic to the argument to tax those profits fairly, but—[Interruption.]

    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)

    Order. A bit of gentle banter is fine, but when it gets to the stage that nobody can hear what the Chancellor is saying, it is counterproductive. Quieter banter, please.

    Rishi Sunak

    But, as ever, there is a sensible middle ground. We should not be ideological about this; we should be pragmatic. It is possible to both tax extraordinary profits fairly and incentivise investment. So, like previous Governments, including Conservative ones, we will introduce a temporary targeted energy profits levy— [Interruption.] But we have built into the new levy— [Interruption.] We have built into the new levy a new investment allowance similar to the super deduction, which means that companies will have a new and significant incentive to reinvest their profits.

    The new levy will be charged on the profits of oil and gas companies at a rate of 25%. It will be temporary, and when oil and gas prices return to historically more normal levels, the levy will be phased out, with a sunset clause written into the legislation. And crucially, with our new investment allowance, we are nearly doubling the overall investment relief for oil and gas companies. That means that for every pound a company invests, it will get back 90% in tax relief. So the more a company invests, the less tax it will pay.

    We understand that certain parts of the electricity generation sector are also making extraordinary profits. The reason for this is the way our market works. The price our electricity generators are paid is linked not to the costs they incur in providing that electricity but rather to the price of natural gas, which is extraordinarily high right now. Other countries such as France, Italy, Spain and Greece have already taken measures to correct this. As set out in the energy security strategy, we are consulting with the power generation sector and investors to drive forward energy market reforms and ensure that the price paid for electricity is more reflective of the costs of production.

    These reforms will take time to implement, so in the meantime, we are urgently evaluating the scale of these extraordinary profits and the appropriate steps to take. So our energy profits levy will encourage investment, not deter it. It will raise around £5 billion of revenue over the next year so that we can help families with the cost of living, and it avoids having to increase our debt burden further. There is nothing noble in burdening future generations with ever more debt today because the politicians of the day were too weak to make the tough decisions.

    I know the whole House will agree that we have a responsibility to help those who, through no fault of their own, are paying the highest price for the inflation we face. To help with the cost of living, we are going to provide significant targeted support to millions of the most vulnerable people in our society: those on the lowest incomes, pensioners and disabled people.

    First, on people on the lowest incomes, over 8 million households already have incomes low enough for the state to be supporting their cost of living through the welfare system. They could be temporarily unemployed and looking for work; they could be unable to work because of long-term sickness or disability; or they could be on low pay and using benefits to top up their wages. Right now, they face incredibly difficult choices. I can announce today that we will send directly to around 8 million of the lowest-income households a one-off cost of living payment of £650. That support is worth over £5 billion and will give vulnerable people certainty that we are standing by them at this challenging time. The Department for Work and Pensions will make the payment in two lump sums, the first from July and the second in the autumn, with payments from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs for those on tax credits following shortly after. There is no need for people to fill out complicated forms or bureaucracy, as we will send the payments straight to their bank account.

    Our policy will benefit over 8 million households in receipt of means-tested benefits from July. Uprating in that timeframe could only be done for those on universal credit, and our policy will provide a larger average payment this year of £650, whereas uprating the same benefits by 9% would be worth only £530 on average.

    There are two further groups who will need extra targeted support. Many pensioners are disproportionately impacted by higher energy costs. They cannot always increase their income through work and, because they spend more time at home and are more vulnerable, they often need to keep the heating on for longer. We estimate that many people who are eligible for pension credit are not currently claiming it, which means many vulnerable pensioners will not be receiving means-tested benefits. I can announce today that, from the autumn, we will send over 8 million pensioner households that receive the winter fuel payment an extra one-off pensioner cost of living payment of £300.

    Disabled people also face extra costs in their day-to-day lives; for example, they may have energy-intensive equipment around their home or workplace. To help the 6 million people who receive non-means-tested disability benefits, we will send them, from September, an extra one-off disability cost of living payment worth £150. Many disabled people will also receive the payment of £650 I have already announced, taking their total cost of living payment to £800.

    I can reassure the House that next year, subject to the review by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, benefits will be uprated by this September’s consumer prices index, which on the current forecast is likely to be significantly higher than the forecast inflation rate for next year. Similarly, the triple lock will apply to the state pension.

    Of course we recognise the risk that, with any policy, there may be small numbers of people who fall between the cracks. For example, it is not possible right now for the DWP or HMRC to identify people on housing benefit who are not also claiming other benefits. To support them and others, we will extend the household support fund delivered by local authorities by £0.5 billion from October.

    This is a significant set of interventions to support the most vulnerable in our country. We will legislate to deliver this support on the same terms in every part of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland. Taken together, our direct cash payments will help one third of all UK households with cost of living support worth £9 billion.

    We are meeting our responsibility to provide the most help to those on the lowest incomes. I believe that is fair, and I am confident that the House will agree, but many other families who do not require state support in normal times are also facing challenging times. Is it fair to leave them unsupported? The answer must surely be no.

    Although it is impossible for the Government to solve every problem, we can and will ease the burden as we help the entire country through the worst of this crisis. We will provide more support with the rising cost of energy, and that support will be universal. Earlier this year, we announced £9 billion to help with the cost of energy, including a council tax rebate of £150 for tens of millions of households.

    We planned to provide all households with £200 off their energy bills from October, with the cost repaid over the following five years. Since then, the outlook for energy prices has changed. I have heard people’s concerns about the impact of these repayments on future bills, so I have decided that the repayments will be cancelled. For the avoidance of doubt, this support is now unambiguously a grant. Furthermore, we have decided that the £200 of support for household energy bills will be doubled to £400 for everyone. We are on the side of hard-working families with £6 billion of financial support.

    To summarise, our strategy is to combat and reduce inflation over time through independent monetary policy, fiscal responsibility and supply-side activism. We are raising emergency funds to help millions of the most vulnerable families who are struggling right now, and all households will benefit from £400 of universal support for energy bills, with not a penny to repay.

    In total, the measures I have announced today provide support worth £15 billion. Combined with the plans we have already announced, we are supporting families with the cost of living through £37 billion or 1.5% of GDP. That is more than or similar to the support in countries such as France, Germany, Japan and Italy. I am proud to say that around three quarters of that total support will go to vulnerable households.

    As a result of the measures announced today and the action we have already taken this year, the vast majority of households will receive £550, pensioners will receive £850 and almost all of the 8 million most vulnerable households in the country will, in total, receive support of £1,200.

    Let me put that in context. The House will have noted the news from Ofgem earlier this week that it expects the energy price cap to rise to £2,800 in October. That implies an average increase in people’s bills this year of just under £1,200, which is the same amount as our policies will provide for the most vulnerable people this year.

    I know there are other pressures. I am not trying to claim that we have solved the entire problem for everyone—no Government could—but I hope that when people hear of the significant steps we are taking, and the millions we are helping, they will feel some of the burden eased and some of the pressures lifted. They will know that this Government are standing by them.

    Supporting people with the cost of living is only one part of our plan for a stronger economy—a plan that is: creating more jobs; cutting taxes on working people; reducing our borrowing and debt; driving businesses to invest and innovate more; unleashing a skills revolution; seizing the benefits of Brexit; and levelling-up growth in all parts of the United Kingdom. The British people can trust this Government because we have a plan for a stronger economy, and I commend it to this House.

  • John Baron – 2022 Speech on Evacuations from Afghanistan

    John Baron – 2022 Speech on Evacuations from Afghanistan

    The speech made by John Baron, the Conservative MP for Basildon and Billericay, in the House of Commons on 26 May 2022.

    Last summer, Operation Pitting brought over 15,000 people to the UK from Afghanistan. We all commend those who were directly involved on the ground in that operation. However, the recent report by the Foreign Affairs Committee—whose Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), is sitting behind me—sets out that there was no comprehensive plan detailing who should come, how many should come and in what order. Many people who should be in this country in safety are still in Afghanistan in fear for their lives.

    A key example is British Council contractors. They did not work directly for the Government, or indeed for the British Council, but they still did their bit promoting the English language, British culture and British values; the Taliban do not see or recognise the difference. We have about 170 British Council contractors and their families in Afghanistan, of whom about half are deemed to be at very high risk, according to our own definition, and a further 93 or so are deemed to be at high risk. Many of them live in constant fear for their lives, moving from house to house as they are actively hunted by the Taliban.

    I had a positive meeting with the Minister for Refugees last week, but we are coming up against constant FCDO red tape and bureaucracy, which is preventing the FCDO from immediately helping those who are in the greatest danger through the ACRS. It is bureaucracy at our end; we have identified the individuals who are in danger in Afghanistan.

    As somebody who opposed the morphing of the mission into nation building in Afghanistan—I think I was the only Conservative to vote against it when we had the opportunity—I feel that the Government owe these people a debt of honour. There is an obligation to help them. I appreciated the Prime Minister’s answer to my question yesterday, in which he said he would do something about the issue, but I have been raising it since November and they have been in danger since the fall of Kabul. What undertakings can the Government give that they will finally break the bureaucratic deadlock? Time is running out.

  • James Cleverly – 2022 Statement on Evacuations from Afghanistan

    James Cleverly – 2022 Statement on Evacuations from Afghanistan

    The statement made by James Cleverly, the Minister for Europe and North America, in the House of Commons on 26 May 2022.

    The Government are grateful to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs for its inquiry and its detailed report. We will consider the report carefully and provide a written response within the timeline that the Committee has requested.

    The scale of the crisis in Afghanistan last year is unprecedented in recent times. The report recognises that the Taliban took over the country at a pace that surprised the Taliban themselves, the international community and the former Government of Afghanistan. Many months of planning for an evacuation, and the enormous efforts of staff to deliver it, enabled us to evacuate more than 15,000 people within a fortnight, under exceptionally difficult circumstances. The Government could not have delivered an evacuation at that scale without planning, grip and leadership.

    The evacuation involved the processing of details of thousands of individuals by Ministry of Defence, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and Home Office staff in the UK and teams on the ground in Kabul. In anticipation of the situation, the FCDO had reserved the Baron hotel, so the UK was the only country apart from the United States to have a dedicated emergency handling centre for receiving and processing people in Kabul International airport. RAF flights airlifted people to a dedicated terminal in Dubai, reserved in advance by the FCDO, where evacuees were assessed by other cross-Government teams; they were then flown on FCDO-chartered flights to the UK, where they were received by staff of the Home Office and other Departments, who ensured that they were catered for and quarantined. The evacuation was carefully planned and tightly co-ordinated throughout its delivery.

    As it does following all crises, the FCDO has conducted a thorough lessons learned exercise. We have written to the FAC with the main findings of that exercise. Changes have already been implemented by the FCDO, for example in response to the situation in Ukraine.

    We all regret that we were not able to help more people who worked with us or for us to get out of Afghanistan during the military evacuation. Since the end of the formal evacuation last summer, we have helped a further 4,600 people to leave Afghanistan. We will continue to work to deliver on our commitment to those eligible for resettlement in the UK through the Afghan relocations and assistance policy and the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme.

  • G7 – 2022 Joint Statement on North Korea’s Intercontinental Ballistic Missile Test

    G7 – 2022 Joint Statement on North Korea’s Intercontinental Ballistic Missile Test

    The joint statement made by the G7 on 30 May 2022.

    We, the G7 Foreign Ministers of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America, and the High Representative of the European Union, condemn in the strongest terms the test of yet another Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) conducted on May 25, 2022, by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK). Like a number of ballistic missile launches the DPRK has conducted since the beginning of 2022, this act constitutes a further blatant violation of relevant UN Security Council resolutions and undermines international peace and security as well as the global non-proliferation regime.

    We are very concerned by the unprecedented series of ballistic missile tests with increasingly versatile systems across all ranges, building on ballistic missile tests conducted in 2021. Together with the evidence of ongoing nuclear activities, these acts underscore the DPRK’s determination to advance and diversify its nuclear capabilities. These reckless actions flagrantly breach the DPRK’s obligations under relevant UN Security Council resolutions, which the Security Council most recently reaffirmed in resolution 2397 (2017). They also pose a danger and unpredictable risk to international civil aviation and maritime navigation in the region.

    We, the G7 Foreign Ministers and the High Representative of the European Union, reiterate our urgent call on the DPRK to abandon its weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile programs in a complete, verifiable and irreversible manner and to fully comply with all legal obligations arising from the relevant Security Council resolutions.

    We deeply regret that the Security Council has failed to adopt the draft resolution aimed at condemning the series of recent ballistic missile launches by the DPRK and strengthening measures against it despite support from 13 members. We urge all UN Member States, especially Security Council members, to join us in condemning the DPRK´s behaviour and reaffirm its obligation to abandon its weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile programs. These acts demand a united response by the international community, including a united stance and further significant measures by the UN Security Council.

    We reiterate our call on the DPRK to engage in diplomacy toward denuclearization and accept the repeated offers of dialogue put forward by the United States, the Republic of Korea and Japan. By diverting its resources into weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile programs the DPRK further aggravates the already dire humanitarian situation in the DPRK. We urge the DPRK to facilitate access for international humanitarian organizations and for independent assessment of humanitarian needs such as food and medicines as soon as possible.

    We also call on all States to fully and effectively implement all relevant Security Council resolutions, and to address the risk of weapons of mass destruction proliferation from the DPRK as an urgent priority.

    The G7 remain committed to working with all relevant partners towards the goal of peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula and to upholding the rules-based international order.

  • Jo Churchill – 2022 Speech on the Deposit Return Scheme

    Jo Churchill – 2022 Speech on the Deposit Return Scheme

    The speech made by Jo Churchill, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, in the House of Commons on 26 May 2022.

    If you will indulge me, Mr Deputy Speaker, on the day of the Humble Address to Her Majesty, I wish to add my voice and those of the constituents of Bury St Edmunds to the voices of others in this place who have expressed their deep appreciation of and thanks for Her Majesty’s dedication, kindness, good humour and service to our nation. She has visited our great county on many occasions and I know that we will celebrate, as the rest of the country will, with bunting and fanfare over the coming week. I am looking forward to judging a fancy dress competition in one of my lovely villages.

    As a long-term advocate for our natural environment, Her Majesty, I am sure, would be extremely interested in the important subject that we are discussing today. On that note, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) for securing this debate and for the opportunity to discuss the Government’s plans for introducing a deposit return scheme for drinks containers.

    As I am sure my hon. Friend is aware, there is an awful lot going on in this space, driven by our resources and waste strategy and the powers that we took in the Environment Act 2021, which was passed last November. With that in mind, we are proud to be driving forward work across the collection and packaging reforms, which is made up of the deposit return scheme, the extended producer responsibility for packaging and the increased consistency in recycling collections in England to which he referred.

    The DRS is pivotal to this Government’s commitment to increasing recycling rates. However, we should not overlook that it will provide other benefits. In particular, it will deliver high-quality recyclate for recycling; enable the drinks industry to close the loop on its packaging; help move the UK towards the circular economy, where resources are kept in use longer and waste is minimised, taking us away from that linear throwaway society; deter the littering of in-scope containers; reduce the associated damage to wildlife and habitats; and therefore promote pro-environmental consumer behaviours, with potential knock-on effects on other positive environmental activities.

    My hon. Friend has raised some important concerns on behalf of the industry. I want to be clear that our ambition is to introduce a deposit return scheme that works for everyone—for the consumer and across the industries. I know that, in many of our households, across the UK, drinks packaged in metal cans are drunk regularly. For that reason, we all recognise that those cans—light, sturdy, and convenient for storage and transport—have intrinsic qualities that will always make them desirable to consumers and the product of choice. We are of course mindful that any cost to people’s purses, or businesses is particularly tough in the current environment, but we do want to introduce policies that encourage recycling and reduce the amount of litter that blights our environment.

    Although DRS is a complex policy to introduce, requiring the efforts of multiple industries, in one way, we are lucky. As my hon. Friend said, there are 40 other deposit return schemes out there, in other nations, from which we can learn. Not only are we drawing on the experiences of the roll-out of DRS in Scotland to inform implementation and planning, but I had the pleasure of meeting the Environment Minister from Lithuania, where a scheme was also recently introduced. I have plans to visit Norway shortly to find out more about its deposit return scheme. Norway has not included glass in its scheme, and nor have the Netherlands or Sweden. I note that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is no longer in his place, but I understand that southern Ireland, in its plans for a scheme, is contemplating excluding glass. There is, therefore, a mixture of schemes out there.

    I recognise that there are deposit return schemes with different scope across the United Kingdom, given that glass is excluded in England and Northern Ireland, but we remain totally committed to working with the devolved Administrations to ensure that there is a completely coherent, interoperable system across the UK.

    Excluding glass offers us an opportunity to look at how we incentivise reusable schemes for glass. Those containers that are not within the deposit return scheme are within the extended producer responsibility scheme, so exclusion does not in any way mean that we are not making policy to improve the reuse, recycling and resource efficiency of those things. On the question of VAT, as my hon. Friend would expect, we are in discussion with Her Majesty’s Treasury. I have met the Financial Secretary on this matter in the recent past, as has the Secretary of State.

    Ultimately, DEFRA’s ambitious collections and packaging reform agenda cannot be delivered by Government alone. The deposit return scheme will be an industry-led scheme. For that reason we, alongside colleagues in the devolved Administrations, continue to work closely with all relevant sectors to implement a scheme that is as coherent and aligned as we can make it.

    I take this opportunity to thank all those who have fed into the consultations, and those who continue to be generous with their insights and expertise into what is positive about schemes they run and where they think we can improve. That will ensure that we deliver a successful deposit return scheme in England.

  • Philip Hollobone – 2022 Speech on the Deposit Return Scheme

    Philip Hollobone – 2022 Speech on the Deposit Return Scheme

    The speech made by Philip Hollobone, the Conservative MP for Kettering, in the House of Commons on 26 May 2022.

    Thank you very much indeed, Mr Deputy Speaker. What a pleasure it is to see you in the Chair. I should also like to thank Mr Speaker for granting me permission for this debate, and to welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), to her place on the Front Bench.

    The issue before us today is Her Majesty’s Government’s proposed deposit return scheme for drinks containers, whereby consumers will pay a small levy upon purchasing a drink, which is then refunded once the container is returned to a collection point. Specifically, I wish to raise my serious concern that glass bottles are to be excluded from the scheme. The omission of glass represents a real and serious threat to the effectiveness with which a deposit return scheme in England and Northern Ireland can realistically be delivered. Quite simply, its exclusion would be a catastrophe for our natural spaces as we all look to stem the tide of drink container pollution. It also represents the direct betrayal of a promise made by the Conservative party to voters at the last general election, when we said in the manifesto that we would introduce a deposit return scheme for both plastic and glass drinks containers. I wish to use this debate today to urge Her Majesty’s Government to rectify this as a matter of urgency and to immediately revisit the scheme’s design so as to include drinks containers made from glass.

    In 2019, the Conservative party laid out its ambitions for the future of our country in its election-winning manifesto, which attracted 60% support in the Kettering constituency. Central to our aspirations was positioning Britain as a world leader in rising to the environmental challenges that are facing our planet today. One of the challenges identified was how we manage and process waste, and in particular, combating the growing problem of discarded waste, of which drinks containers are a large part. In that manifesto, the Conservative party outlined plans for a world-class deposit return scheme for drinks containers in a bid to minimise their impact on the environment. The manifesto said:

    “We will crack down on the waste and carelessness that destroys our natural environment and kills marine life. We will introduce a deposit return scheme to incentivise people to recycle plastic and glass.”

    Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

    Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

    Mr Hollobone

    I would be honoured and delighted.

    Jim Shannon

    I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing forward this debate. In my council area of Ards and North Down, the council has a strategy and a plan of action for recycling. It includes many kinds of recycling and it tries not to leave anyone out of any part of it. The hon. Gentleman is saying that glass needs to be part of that programme, and that that needs to be a commitment. In my council area, each household has a glass return system and a plastic basin to put the glass into. They can also go to recycling centres, which are probably no further than three miles from any person. Those are examples of what we are doing in Northern Ireland, where there is a clear commitment, a strategy and a plan through the council, and across the Northern Ireland Assembly as well. Would he like to see more of those kinds of strategies?

    Mr Hollobone

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for his helpful and interesting intervention, and I commend his local council for its recycling efforts. There are similar schemes across the four nations, but as I will come on to later in my remarks, the problem with leaving glass out of the deposit return scheme is that it will be a missed opportunity to increase overall glass recycling rates to the best international standards. At the moment, my understanding is that the Government’s proposal for the deposit return scheme in England and Northern Ireland will be different from the deposit return schemes in Scotland and Wales, which will include glass. One of the difficulties is that there will be different deposit return schemes in different parts of the United Kingdom.

    Jim Shannon

    Again, to illustrate the point and support what the hon. Gentleman is saying, the recycling schemes in our council area have, in a way, reached their peak. That is a problem. I think he is referring to something that I would fully support—I know the Minister will give her comments on the matter later—which is some way of raising awareness of the fact that there would be a reimbursement advantage for people who are prepared to recycle their glass. In anticipation of what the Minister will say, I will take a copy of the Hansard report of this debate and make sure that I show it to the relevant Minister at the Northern Ireland Assembly so that they can do the very same.

    Mr Hollobone

    As usual across so many issues, the hon. Gentleman and I are on the same page. My contention is that the United Kingdom will not be able to achieve the best international glass recycling levels unless glass is included in the deposit return scheme.

    As Conservatives, we made a vow to voters to introduce a scheme that serves the public and Britain’s precious natural habitats. However, Her Majesty’s Government have so far committed to introducing, by 2024, a deposit return scheme across England and Northern Ireland inclusive of only plastic bottles and aluminium cans. Glass is a glaring omission.

    A huge 86% of respondents to the Government’s first consultation on the deposit return scheme said they want glass to be included but, despite this overwhelming majority support from technical experts, charities, scientists and the great British public, calls for glass to be included have been ignored.

    The scheme’s current design falls well short of what was promised and will see it fail to achieve what is required. A deposit return scheme that excludes glass runs the risk of being a global embarrassment for a country that seeks to position itself as leading from the front on environmental issues. In its current form, the scheme’s design will fail to crack down on glass waste and will miss a wonderful opportunity to protect our natural environments from glass pollution.

    The case has been made that including glass is problematic. However, this case has been made by glass industry lobbyists who have a vested interest in ensuring glass containers are not included in such a scheme. One such argument is that glass, once collected, can be hazardous and dangerous for those charged with sorting it for recycling when it becomes broken. This works both ways, as it can also be argued that glass poses a greater risk to the public and pet owners when it breaks down in nature rather than in the controlled environment of recycling plants.

    The lack of a deposit return scheme for glass containers poses a very real risk that such containers will continue to end up on our pavements and in our parks and outdoor spaces, where they will be a health and safety risk to UK residents. This public safety danger is unmatched by other containers. In that regard, the scheme’s current proposal fails to protect both the environment and the British public.

    Additionally, glass industry lobbyists have suggested that the inclusion of glass will drive consumers towards purchasing highly polluting plastic bottles. However, with the public already widely aware of the prevalence and environmental impact of plastic pollution, I contend that these claims are speculative at best. If we are to tackle the waste crisis, we must trust consumers to do the right thing, but it is vital that we arm them with the tools to do so.

    British Glass responded to the Government’s consultation, which closed on 4 June 2021, citing various concerns that have little foundation, one of which is that the inclusion of glass would have a detrimental impact on closed-loop glass recycling, despite the industry’s present inability to increase glass recycling rates. Indeed, British Glass explained in its response how the industry is committed to a 90% collected for recycling rate, and to an 80% remelt target by 2030 that would see 80% of all glass recycled back into new bottles and jars, but the stark reality is that this goal will almost certainly never be realised.

    By global standards, the UK lags well behind its international counterparts in the collection and recycling of glass bottles, sitting behind countries such as Ireland, France, Spain, Italy, Belgium and Bulgaria. In 2020, the UK’s glass collection rate for recycling stood at just 76%, well below Italy, which boasts a recycling rate for glass bottles of 87%. Meanwhile, across the UK, it is estimated that 5 billion glass bottles are used each year. Under current recycling rates, this means some 1.2 billion glass bottles each and every year are destined to litter our environment or to languish in landfill.

    Current systems to raise our collection and recycling rates are lacking. Much of the glass collected across the UK is not suitable for closed-loop recycling, where discarded bottles are turned back into new ones. That is due to the current collection process, which often sees the mixing of different colours and crushing during transportation. However, a well-thought-out, properly prepared deposit return scheme can address these issues with separated collection methods, which will make closed-loop recycling far more viable. That should be considered as a point of urgency, as it is estimated that a well-designed scheme for the UK could improve recycling rates for bottles and cans to more than 90%. At the same time as the Government are also presently consulting on the consistency of kerbside collections in England, with the laudable aim of reducing confusion, through their DRS plans they are paving the way for potentially four different deposit systems to be in place in the UK. Potential confusion among consumers caused by the current design is likely to undermine the effectiveness of England and Northern Ireland’s scheme. Both Scotland and Wales are set to see glass included in their schemes, but a lack of consistency across the UK as a whole, where consumers cross borders routinely, could see us fail to raise glass recycling rates to the levels they need to be, because consumers will not know when and where glass containers can be disposed of. The DRS for drinks containers should be designed with a view to avoiding this confusion and instead empowering the public to do the right thing.

    British consumers are overwhelmingly in favour of a scheme that includes all beverage materials and are opposed to the exclusion of glass bottles. A Populus poll commissioned in 2020 by environmental organisation Nature 2030 found some 84% of Britons want all beverage containers to be included in the Government’s proposed scheme. That polling was welcomed by campaigners and academics, who outlined how a comprehensive deposit return scheme will give us the best chance to combat litter. What is vital, and something the Government must not ignore, is that the UK is not walking into unproven territory as it looks to deliver its own scheme; a host of countries have already implemented successful and highly efficient deposit return schemes inclusive of all materials. Those have been proven to dramatically increase collection and recycling rates, and can be used as a powerful template for Britain to follow in implementing its own scheme. Crucially, due to their success, those other international schemes prove that the issues raised by the glass industry lobbyists here are unfounded. Indeed, all-inclusive schemes are common across the world. From more than 40 such schemes globally, only three do not include glass bottles and they exclude glass because they already have in place a returnable system specifically for glass bottles, something that the UK currently lacks. Australia implements a deposit return scheme that also covers beverage cartons, while Canada’s scheme includes cartons, bags in boxes, and plastic pouches. Finland and Denmark, which are considered to implement world-class return schemes, enjoy incredibly high return rates of 94% and 92% respectively. These successes are widely regarded as being due to their systems being inclusive of all materials, with the simplicity of the system being crucial to achieving the public support needed for these schemes to be a success.

    In my view, it makes little sense to deviate from such successful schemes, and even less sense when Scotland and Wales are looking to mirror the international successes. For example, Scotland is set to introduce a scheme that includes glass bottles by August 2023, while Wales is set to introduce a scheme that includes glass by 2024. It is vital to ensure interoperability among the schemes and to help consumers to adopt consistent and responsible behaviour across the four nations of the UK. Not only is the Government’s derisory decision to omit glass seeing us fail to be a world leader on the waste crisis on a global scale, but we are falling well behind Scotland and Wales.

    In an open letter, some 25 experts in the field recently urged the Government to introduce a deposit return scheme for drinks containers that mirrors Denmark’s system. Cross-party politicians, non-governmental organisations and academics are calling for the Government’s scheme to include all materials, including glass, plastic and aluminium. Denmark has a track record of fine-tuning its own scheme to be as effective as possible. It is a ready-made road map that the UK could follow and would help us to avoid the potential pitfalls that we may encounter along the way if we follow our own bespoke path.

    I also wish to raise the issue of VAT. The Government currently plan to apply VAT to deposit return scheme deposits on top of the VAT already charged on the drink. The current expectation is that, if there were a 20p charge, it will be gross of VAT—that is, 17p plus 3p—which means that, if the customer does not return the drinks container that they buy, the producer will receive only 17p back instead of the full 20p. The Government will take the remaining 3p in VAT. If we factor in the estimated 28 billion containers on the UK market, that could mean as much as £185 million lost from the scheme through unredeemed deposits—assuming an 80% return rate—in the first year alone. That would create a situation in which the Government in effect end up profiting from the failure of their own deposit return scheme. What is more, adding VAT to the deposit fee effectively imposes a stealth tax on drinks producers, backing the industry into a corner and creating the real scenario of price rises for the products in question.

    If the Government are serious about introducing a scheme, they need to avoid the noise from glass-industry lobbyists and deliver a scheme that works for the environment. Pandering to industry calls makes little sense in the face of overwhelming public support for glass to be included. Furthermore, there is a health and safety risk. Glass is a high-carbon, highly polluting material that presents a real hazard to the public once it is discarded in public places. We should look to create a scheme that drives up the collection and processing of such material, rather than one that makes closed-loop glass recycling more unattainable.

    In conclusion, the omission of glass from the Government’s deposit return scheme represents a real and serious threat to the effectiveness with which a deposit return scheme in England and Northern Ireland can realistically be delivered. Quite simply, its exclusion would be a potential catastrophe for our natural spaces as we all look to stem the tide of drink-container pollution. It also represents a direct betrayal of a promise made by the Conservative party to voters at the most recent general election, when we said in our manifesto that we would introduce a deposit return scheme for both plastic and glass drink containers. I urge Her Majesty’s Government to rectify the situation as a matter of urgency and immediately revisit the design of their scheme so as to include drinks containers made from glass.

  • Alok Sharma – 2022 Speech in Advance of COP27

    Alok Sharma – 2022 Speech in Advance of COP27

    The speech made by Alok Sharma at the G7 Climate, Energy and Environment Ministerial press conference in Berlin on 27 May 2022.

    In recent months, the clouds have darkened over the international landscape.

    With Putin’s illegal and brutal invasion of Ukraine, war has unfortunately returned to Europe.

    The tectonic plates within our geopolitics have shifted.

    We are seeing inflation spiking around the world.

    We are seeing debt mounting and energy prices rising.

    And globally, people are struggling to feed their families, all as we continue to deal with the effects of the pandemic.

    Yet the current crises should increase, not diminish, our determination to deliver on the challenges we face on climate, on energy, and on the environment.

    The G7 represents some of the most advanced economies in the world.

    So, the message we send as the G7 absolutely matters to the global community.

    Therefore, I am pleased that we have shown leadership today.

    As we sit here, in the shadow of a former coal store, which was then a gas storage tower, now is being converted into offices for clean energy startups, there could be no clearer sign.

    Our shared, long-term energy futures do not lie in fossil fuels.

    This time last year, the G7 showed that it was prepared to act and now we have gone further still.

    I am pleased to say that in this communique we have reaffirmed our unwavering commitment to the Paris Agreement, as well as the commitments made in the Glasgow Climate Pact just six months ago.

    I am encouraged that this communique responds to the Glasgow Climate Pact’s ask of nations to revisit and strengthen the ambition of our individual 2030 emission reduction targets.

    And in line with this, we call on all countries, but especially major emitters, to increase their ambition, if their 2030 NDCs are not aligned with a 1.5 degree pathway.

    On finance, we have reaffirmed our goal to mobilise $100 billion a year to support developing nations, and our confidence that this will be met in 2023.

    Following the Just Energy Transition Partnership for South Africa, which we announced at COP26, we have agreed to work on other such ambitious partnerships and I very much hope we will be able to announce some of these by the time we get to Sharm el-Sheikh.

    Adaptation and loss and damage were also key pillars of the Glasgow Climate Pact.

    In this communique we have underlined their centrality, including our commitment to double adaptation finance by 2025, on 2019 levels, to support those countries most vulnerable to climate change.

    But we must show action and deliver on that pledge.

    So I am pleased that the communique commits the G7 to do just that.

    I welcome the G7’s clear affirmation of commitments on loss and damage, and our support for the operationalisation of the Santiago Network, work on the Global Risk Shield, as well as engagement in the Glasgow Dialogue.

    I am encouraged to see G7 support for an inclusive global Climate Club, to coordinate ambitious climate action, including with the G20 and developing countries.

    We are equally united in the view that climate and environment security are absolutely synonymous with energy and national security and I cannot overstate that.

    Solving the global energy crisis and the chronic climate crisis requires the same solution, it’s about reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, as part of a managed transition.

    So I welcome the significant leadership and unity the G7 has shown, to go further than last year on fossil fuel finance, by committing to cease G7 international fossil fuel finance by the end of the year.

    We also have the G7’s first coal phase-out goal and endorsement of the Glasgow Breakthroughs.

    While governments need to deal with their immediate and acute energy needs, we can, and we must, do this without locking in medium and long-term emissions.

    Looking ahead, we must aim to arrive in Egypt having gone further.

    In the coming months, this group must continue to discuss the targets for 100% net zero power by 2035, 100% of new car sales being zero emission by early next decade, and clear targets in industrial sectors.

    These are tough challenges, and while progress is being made, we must all aim to go further if we are to meet them.

    We have no other choice if we really aim to keep 1.5 within reach.

    We heard yesterday from the Marshall Islands envoy Tina Stege who told us that the window of time to act is in danger of “slamming shut”. It really is as acute as that for many people around the world.

    Additionally, we are all focused on the need to respond to environmental degradation and biodiversity loss.

    I am pleased that we are building on the historic G7 2030 Nature Compact, agreed in Carbis Bay last year.

    In this communique and the Ocean Deal, we have made a series of essential and ambitious commitments.

    And critically, we have joined our foreign and development colleagues in highlighting the need to make the global biodiversity conference, CBD COP15, the equivalent of a Paris moment for nature.

    Rapidly scaling up finance for nature is going to be critical to an ambitious biodiversity agreement, so I am pleased we have committed to mobilise resources from all sources, including public finance, while ensuring our economic and financial decision-making aligns with the recovery of nature.

    I am pleased in particular that G7 members have committed to ensuring their aid portfolios as a whole become nature-positive.

    Despite this progress, across the energy, environment, and climate tracks we have discussed here, our aim to keep 1.5 degrees alive remains fragile.

    We must accelerate delivery, turning targets and commitments into action.

    And we must show the world that leaders recognise the scale of the challenges we face, that we will make good on the promises that we have made, and that we will continue to build on those commitments.

    I want to end by thanking our German hosts for their excellent G7 leadership, and indeed all ministerial colleagues here for continuing to raise the bar, and showing that the G7 remains able and willing to lead from the front, and do so in a united manner.

    But it is now vital that this work continues, through the Germany G7 presidency, the Indonesian G20 presidency, at the CBD COP15, and other international fora as we travel on the road to COP27 in Egypt this November.

  • Liz Truss – 2022 Statement on Visit to Prague

    Liz Truss – 2022 Statement on Visit to Prague

    The statement made by Liz Truss, the Foreign Secretary, in Prague on 27 May 2022.

    Well, thank you very much. It’s very good to be here in Prague with my friend Jan.

    We are very close allies and together we have backed Ukraine against the appalling war perpetrated by Vladimir Putin.

    The Czech Republic knows what occupation is like, first with the Nazis and then with the Soviets. And earlier today, I was pleased to join the commemoration of Operation Anthropoid, celebrating the bravery of heroic Czech resistance fighters who were trained by the British in the Second World War.

    And I saw from the Czech Republic public the strength of opinion in the face of adversity and also the outrage of Vladimir Putin’s appalling war in Ukraine. And it very much reflected the way that we have seen public opinion in Britain, absolutely horrified by what Putin is doing in Ukraine.

    Here in the Czech Republic, we saw the rebirth of democracy and freedom in the 1990s.

    And I know that that is the spirit that Jan and the Czech government represents today. More than any other government and any other country, the Czech Republic, knows the dangers of appeasement and compromise in the face of aggression.

    And that’s why we’ve agreed that we need to keep up the pressure on sanctions both through the G7 and through the EU. And we need to make sure that the brave Ukrainian people have the weapons they need to defend themselves.

    The United Kingdom was the first European country to send weapons to Ukraine and the Czechs were the first country to send tanks to Ukraine.

    Together, we are training Ukrainian fighters through the British Military Advisory Training Team and in the Czech Republic we’ve also discussed the importance of rebuilding Ukraine and having a Marshall Plan supported by the free world to rebuild this vital country.

    Together, we’re fighting Russian and Chinese disinformation, and I want to commend the Czech Republic for the strong stance that they have taken against Chinese economic coercion.

    We must ensure that Taiwan is also able to defend itself.

    We both agree that NATO needs to step up. We need to do more to protect the edges of Europe, including Moldova and the Balkans, which I visited earlier this week. We also need to strengthen the eastern flank, and we need to make sure that Finland and Sweden are able to join NATO as soon as possible.

    We need to do a lot more on cyber warfare to protect ourselves against the hybrid threat.

    We have to be ready for the long haul in supporting Ukraine because we are committed to protecting freedom and democracy.

    Now is not the time to be complacent. There should be no talk of ceasefires or appeasing Putin. We need to make sure that Ukraine wins, that Russia withdraws, and that we never see this type of Russian aggression again.

    Thank you.

  • Jeremy Quin – 2022 Statement on Ukraine

    Jeremy Quin – 2022 Statement on Ukraine

    The statement made by Jeremy Quin, the Minister for Defence Procurement, in the House of Commons on 25 May 2022.

    I beg to move,

    That this House has considered Ukraine.

    It has been exactly one month since the Secretary of State for Defence last came to this House to provide an update on Putin’s brutal, unprovoked and illegal invasion. In that time, Russian troops have failed to take Kyiv and their initial strategic plans have been thrown into complete disarray. They have suffered heavy losses on a par with those in their nine-year conflict in Afghanistan, including more than 15,000 personnel and hundreds of tanks, vehicles and helicopters. They have also strengthened the resolve of the international community in a way that has not been seen for decades.

    Rather than back down, however, Putin has refocused efforts on the eastern Donbas in a bid to entrench control of a land bridge with Crimea to the south. The people paying the tragic cost of his unrelenting war are still the Ukrainian men, women and children who have been bombed in hospitals, blown up in schools and bombarded in railway stations. The number of Ukrainian civilians killed has risen to more than 3,500—including, I regret to say, 250 children—and up to 100 Ukrainian troops are reported to be dying in the battle for the Donbas every day.

    The latest intelligence shows that Putin’s troops are currently bombarding and encircling cities including Severodonetsk, Lysychansk and Rubizhne, while in Mariupol, the last Ukrainian fighters have now been evacuated from the steelworks after more than 10 weeks of brave resistance. It is extremely concerning to hear appalling comments about those gallant defenders from certain Russian MPs. Russia must treat these soldiers in full accordance with the Geneva convention.

    In the Black sea, Russia is continuing to block shipping lanes and reinforce its troops on Snake Island, but it is clear that their momentum has slowed, and in places Ukrainian forces are beginning to push them back to their borders. In Kharkiv, for instance, the fact that three quarters of the 1.4 million inhabitants are Russian speakers has not had one iota of impact on their resolve. Instead, Putin’s forces have been unceremoniously driven out of Ukraine’s second city—not just a major strategic blow for the Kremlin, but a symbolic one, as it peddled the lie that Russian invaders would be welcomed with open arms.

    Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)

    My hon. Friend will be aware that the blockade of the Black sea is one of the contributory factors to rapidly escalating food prices in global markets. In fact, 26 countries now have export bans on various foodstuffs to protect prices for their own domestic markets. This is now blockading some 15% of the world’s calorie intake, according to The Economist. Are the Government treating the reopening of the food supply from Ukraine as an urgent matter? I appreciate that it is very complex and sensitive, but will the Government confirm that they are attaching extreme urgency to it? Otherwise, we will have more starvation and more famines in some of the poorest countries in the world.

    Jeremy Quin

    My hon. Friend makes an acute observation. He is absolutely right to draw the House’s attention to the matter, which is of profound concern. We were in a bad situation with food supplies even before war in Ukraine; we are in a worse situation now. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe and North America informs me that, unsurprisingly, the matter was discussed at the meeting of G7 Ministers; it has also twice been the subject of conversations between the Prime Minister and President Zelensky. It is very much a focus for the Government, and we are in discussions with our NATO allies in the Black sea and others. It is a complex situation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) reminds us, but I assure him that we are very focused on it.

    Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)

    Given the phenomenal impact on world food supplies, the cost of living crisis here, and the forecasts, which are now increasing, that the global economy will shrink by something like £750 billion thanks to this war, why is more not being done to invest in armoury and defence weaponry to basically kick Russia out of Ukraine? I understand that something like £7 billion of military aid has been provided. Is that enough? Should the world not be doing more, in its own self-interest?

    Jeremy Quin

    I remind the hon. Gentleman that I said at the start of my remarks that the world has never been more united over the past few decades. We have committed more than £1.3 billion of military equipment. The people who are doing the heavy work are the gallant defenders of Ukraine, the members of the Ukrainian armed forces; they are being supplied by this country and by many allies around the world. We have organised two donor conferences; I was at a donor conference earlier this week. Military supplies and defensive equipment are coming in from all over the world, in addition to a vast package of economic sanctions against Russia.

    Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)

    The blockade of Odesa is a matter of extreme seriousness. Unless the silos are emptied in the next few weeks, there will be nowhere for the harvest to go. Tens of thousands of people in some of the most vulnerable countries in the world will starve, with all the geopolitical consequences that that will bring. Does that not mean that we need to lift the blockade in Odesa as a matter of urgency? What are we doing to provide Harpoon missiles, for example, to ensure that the ships currently blockading Odesa are dealt with? Unless we can clean up the Black sea so that mines do not pose a threat, we cannot expect insurance companies to insure merchant shipping. That will mean that ships will not leave port.

    Jeremy Quin

    My right hon. and gallant Friend is right that the situation adds a significant risk to starvation globally, with many of the poorest areas of the world most affected; that has been caused directly as a result of the illegal and brutal invasion by Putin. He is also right that we need to work consistently and hard to get a solution that gets grain out of Ukraine and into world markets; I assure him that we are working on that. I can further assure him that coastal defensive missiles are absolutely a part of the package of equipment that we and others are supporting in Ukraine.

    Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD) rose—

    Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con) rose—

    Jeremy Quin

    I shall give way to the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), as he got in first, but then I should make a bit of progress, if that is all right with my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy).

    Jamie Stone

    The Minister is being extraordinarily generous. As the flip side of what he says about our supplying the Ukrainians with equipment, it would be interesting to know what things are like on the Russian side. The Russians’ shells and missiles will be finite. Have we any knowledge of whether there is a chance that they might start to run short of the kit that they need?

    Jeremy Quin

    The hon. Gentleman raises a very good point. There is considerable evidence of significant depletion of Russian equipment and stocks. Clearly, ammunition stocks are less visible, but there has been open source reporting about T-62s—tanks that were designed 60 years ago, although some were upgraded in ’83—being brought out of garages. There is significant evidence that Russia is suffering serious depletion, as the fact of 15,000 personnel being killed in the conflict would suggest.

    As I am in a generous mood, I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole if he is still keen to intervene, but then I must make progress.

    Andrew Percy

    The Minister has highlighted the outrages committed by the Russians. Those outrages include reports of attacks on ambulances and first responders, so I thank him for his work helping us to secure export licences for the battlefield ambulances produced by the brilliant team at the O&H Venari Group ambulance factory in Goole. He knows the project very well: former British military vehicles are converted into battlefield ambulances, 58 of which have been produced so far. They are now in service in Ukraine, so I thank the Minister and his team for their work on securing the export licences. Will he pay tribute to the workers at O&H?

    Jeremy Quin

    I pay tribute to the company’s workers and to my hon. Friend, who was very assiduous, at all hours of the day, in making certain that Ministers were aware of the project and the need to get those export licences through. I am glad that officials in the two Departments have moved very swiftly to achieve those export licences. The brutality shown by Russian forces in this conflict is shocking. I am glad that we are doing our utmost to support the humanitarian effort in Ukraine, having provided civilian ambulances, battlefield ambulances and simple things such as generators.

    We were discussing the fact that Kharkiv was a real and symbolic blow to Russian plans, which we have to believe are coming unstuck. The firing of seven Russian commanders in recent weeks—including the lieutenant general who headed up the invasion of Kharkiv—reeks of a culture of scapegoating and cover-ups, and there is a record of aggression, brutality and incompetence. No wonder the veteran Russian diplomat Boris Bondarev said, as he bravely resigned his post this week, that he had “never been so ashamed” of his country.

    At this critical juncture, our aim remains clear: Russia cannot win. We will continue to support our Ukrainian friends, focusing on three key aspects. First, there is the military response, which is about providing a wide range of support to Ukraine so that it can defend itself and its sovereignty. We were the first European country to supply lethal aid, and we have committed to spending at least £1.3 billion on military support. So far, we have delivered in excess of 6,500 anti-tank missiles, many of which have been used successfully to repel columns of tanks, as well as eight air defence systems, including Brimstone and Starstreak missiles—the fastest in the world, travelling at some 2,000 mph. We have also delivered 15 Wolfhound armoured vehicles, which provide increased protection for essential supplies, as well as a small number of armoured Stormer vehicles fitted with Starstreak launchers to further enhance Ukraine’s short-range anti-air capabilities.

    Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)

    I commend my hon. Friend for the work that he and the Ministry of Defence have done in supporting the Ukrainian forces in their hour of need. We face a dilemma, in that as we empty our quartermasters’ stores, they need to be replenished. If he needs help persuading the Treasury to give the Ministry of Defence money to make sure that those Starstreaks, next-generation light anti-tank weapons and Brimstones are replenished, please will he get in touch?

    Jeremy Quin

    I know that the door of my right hon. Friend, the Chair of the Defence Committee, is always open for such discussions. The Treasury has been very clear that we need to replenish our stocks, and that it will support us in ensuring that they are replenished. I can also assure him that we are making certain that we remain well within our tolerances. There are tasks here for which we always need to be ready, and I can assure him that we remain ready for them.

    The equipment that we provide must be as effective as possible, so we are training specialist Ukrainian units in its use. Last month, for example, Ukrainian troops learned how to use our armoured fighting vehicles on Salisbury plain, and those vehicles have now started to arrive in Ukraine; the number will build to 120 in total. Our support does not end there. The House will be pleased to hear that the challenge laid down by Putin’s brutal war has been seized by UK industry. I have been delighted by the agility that the UK’s defence sector has shown, working closely with Defence Equipment and Support, in bringing through innovative ideas; in some cases, those ideas literally go from desktop to theatre in a matter of weeks. I am determined to maintain this innovative drive, so that we capture every idea, support the best of them, and then swiftly put the results in the hands of our Ukrainian friends.

    Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)

    Can the Minister set out how support for Ukrainian forces will be updated or augmented to deal with increased and intense artillery bombardment from better supplied Russian forces? They have retreated much closer to their own borders, and their supply lines have greatly opened up. Given that, how can we further support Ukraine in defending itself?

    Jeremy Quin

    The hon. Gentleman knows that we are doing our utmost to support our Ukrainian friends. There are intense discussions between our Ukrainian friends and the Ministry of Defence at a number of levels, including between myself, my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces and our opposite numbers in Ukraine. We are ensuring that the equipment that we source to support Ukraine is tailored to its needs and its battle plan in the weeks and months ahead. The hon. Gentleman is right that opportunities may well open up, but I do not for one second underestimate the fierceness of the fight and how intense it is at present in Donbas.

    Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)

    My hon. Friend will be aware that a small number of us in this House have constituents who have been fighting with the Ukrainian armed forces and who are now held in captivity, either by the Russian authorities or their associates. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is providing a degree of consular support to us and to their families, but could I encourage him and other Ministers to give this priority? I urge them to speak with the British and International Red Cross—I suspect that they will prove to be the best interlocutors—to help secure a satisfactory outcome and good treatment for these individuals, who are British citizens, and to help to secure their speedy release and return either to Ukraine or the United Kingdom.

    Jeremy Quin

    That is something that we take extremely seriously. These are, of course, British citizens who have been caught up in the conflict, and they will be provided with all possible consular assistance. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe and North America has confirmed that, which should come as no surprise to my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick). Although we really do discourage anyone from going to Ukraine in these circumstances, the Ukrainian Government have made it clear that where other nationals have been combatants, they are prisoners of war and should be treated as such, in full compliance with the Geneva convention. That is exactly what we expect of every nation.

    In addition to providing lethal and non-lethal equipment, we have been facilitating the delivery of equipment from other countries by convening two international donor conferences and providing logistic support. We have been speaking to partners across eastern Europe to encourage them to donate their former Soviet kit, with which Ukrainians are more familiar. For example, Poland is now donating T-72 tanks to Ukraine in return for a temporary deployment of Challenger 2 tanks from the UK.

    At a time of heightened tension, it is vital that we continue to provide reassurance to our NATO allies in eastern Europe. As part of this effort, we have sent Typhoons to Cyprus to patrol south-east European skies, have deployed frigates and destroyers to the eastern Mediterranean and the Baltic sea, and have temporarily doubled our military presence in Estonia to 1,700 personnel. In other words, where Putin wanted less NATO, he is now getting much, much more.

    Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)

    There is clearly considerable agreement across the House on these issues. One of the important areas in which we have played our part, and should play our part more, is the provision of refuge for those who are seeking a home away from the conflict. People in Sheffield responded very generously to the Homes for Ukraine scheme, but are expressing enormous frustration at the inability of the Home Office to deliver visas within the timeframe that we would expect. At the beginning of April, when Lord Harrington—for whom I have a high regard—took responsibility for the scheme, he set a public target of 48 hours from when people “download the application form” to when they are given permission to travel. I have constituency cases in which families who applied on 26 March still do not have permission to travel two months later, and it is clear that my experience is shared by Members across the House.

    People have told me that they are now applying a second time, particularly when children are involved, because they face such long delays and they have no faith that their original application is still being worked on. Obviously that will only cause further complications and congestion in the system. What assurance can the Minister give me that he will take this up with the Home Office, and that we will do something to meet the obligations we took on, and the ambition that we set, when we launched the Homes for Ukraine scheme?

    Jeremy Quin

    The hon. Gentleman asked his question very sincerely, and I know that his experience is shared by many Members. As a constituency MP, I have encountered such cases myself.

    We are all keen to see these visas processed as soon as possible. As the hon. Gentleman will know, a significant number have been provided—I think it is more than 107,000 now—but I appreciate that that makes no difference to those who are sitting outside Ukraine with diminishing amounts of money, wanting to come to this country and to a home that is desperate to have them and embrace them. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department—my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), who is sitting beside me—recognises that there are issues relating to children in particular; the Home Office is working assiduously to try to get on top of all these issues. In my personal experience, the system seems to be getting faster and better, but we are not there yet, and that work continues to be done by my friends in the Home Office.

    Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)

    Before the Minister moves on to the subject of NATO commitments, may I raise the subject of direct support for Ukraine? As he knows, it has historical debt problems, and the invasion will obviously have a huge economic impact; the statistics are clear to us all. Can the Minister say something about the co-ordination of direct international financial support for Ukraine, and how we can keep the country solvent during a time when that is a very pressing matter for it?

    Jeremy Quin

    We have supplied significant funds directly to Ukraine to help it through this incredibly difficult period. I cannot lay my hands on the exact amount, but the House may be blessed with the figure later in my remarks. We are also working with the G7 and others. Clearly, Ukraine is suffering from extraordinary problems at present, and the international community recognises that. It also recognises that Ukraine is standing up for a cause that means so much to us all, so the hon. Gentleman’s point is well made.

    If I may, I will move on to our economic response. We are escalating our sanctions regime still further to stymie the Russian war machine and isolate Putin. The UK has now sanctioned more than 1,000 individuals and 100 entities, including oligarchs with a net worth of more than £100 billion. In recent days we have focused on his inner circle and the shady financial network surrounding him. This is alongside the asset freezes, trade bans and tariffs that we and other G7 nations have imposed in recent months. Over time, this economic contraction and the restriction of access to complex components will have an ever-deepening impact on the Russian war machine. As time goes on, despite their daily dose of propaganda, it will be harder and harder for the Russian people to ignore the evidence that their leaders are betraying them and their interests.

    Geraint Davies

    Will the Minister give way on the issue of sanctions?

    Jeremy Quin

    I am conscious that other hon. Members want to speak, but I will of course allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene.

    Geraint Davies

    The Minister is probably aware that Putin signed a deal at the Olympics in Beijing for Russia to provide 10 billion cubic metres of gas per year from 2025, compared with 1.25 billion a year now, and that it is supplying more to Indonesia and India as well. Would he accept that, by working with China, Russia will be able to avoid the impact of sanctions over time, and that the imperative is to provide military assistance to get Russia out of Ukraine?

    Jeremy Quin

    There is an overall strategy to achieve the objective to which the hon. Gentleman refers. It is part defensive military aid, part economic and part diplomatic, and all those parts have a role in achieving our overall objective. Analysts are suggesting that, as a result of the economic package of measures delivered by the global community against the Russian economy, there has been a contraction of 10% to 15% in Russian GDP. That is extraordinary contraction. It takes the Russian people back to where they were before the Putin regime commenced, which has to have a direct impact—not only on them and the way that they think about the regime that is betraying their interests, but on the Russian war machine.

    Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)

    Will the Minister give way?

    Jeremy Quin

    I will, but then, if hon. Members will excuse me, I should probably make progress. I am conscious that I have perhaps been speaking for too long to allow others a chance to speak.

    Janet Daby

    I am extremely grateful. My intervention is similar to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield). I have constituents from Ukraine. They are a family of five, but their children have been unsuccessful in obtaining visas. I recognise that there is a priority for visas for Ukrainian people who are outside the UK. Could the Minister ask his ministerial colleagues at the Home Office to look at this case and perhaps give it a degree of priority, so that this family can get their benefits and so on?

    Jeremy Quin

    I ask the hon. Lady to write to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay, who is sitting beside me on the Front Bench; he has generously said that he will assure her of a response as soon as possible to the question she has asked on behalf of her constituents.

    Thirdly and finally, there is the diplomatic response. We are working intensively with our allies and partners to make it clear to the Russian Government that they must withdraw their forces and engage genuinely in peace negotiations. The Prime Minister has visited in Sweden and Finland to agree increased co-operation on security, and to discuss their applications to join NATO, which I am delighted have now been formally received. We have been clear about our view that those countries should be integrated into the alliance as soon as possible. Meanwhile, the Foreign Secretary was in Germany to attend the G7 and NATO Foreign Ministers’ meetings, where she pressed the need for further support for Ukraine. The Defence Secretary met his US counterpart, Secretary of Defence Lloyd Austin, at the Pentagon two weeks ago, and he is in Madrid today for similar discussions ahead of the NATO summit. I will likewise be heading to Canada in a few days’ time.

    We are working closely with our allies to hold Putin and his regime to account for their appalling war crimes. This week we have seen the first Russian soldier jailed for life in Ukraine for murdering 62-year-old civilian Oleksandr Shelipov, but the Ukrainian authorities believe that more than 11,000 other war crimes have been committed, from the indiscriminate targeting of civilians to rape and sexual violence, so we have sent support into the country to help collect evidence, including witness statements and video recordings.

    We have provided additional funding to the International Criminal Court, as well as technical assistance via UK military and police personnel. We have also appointed Sir Howard Morrison to support the Ukrainian prosecutor general in her investigations.

    Even as we work to stop Putin, we must continue to support the Ukrainian people who are bearing the brunt of Russian brutality. The UN estimates that more than 6 million people have been forced to flee the country, while a further 8 million have been internally displaced. That is why we have committed nearly £400 million of humanitarian and economic aid so far, including more than 5 million medical items, 42 ambulances and more than 500 mobile generators.

    At home, the British public have demonstrated their great generosity once again, with more than 200,000 individuals and organisations signing up to offer help. The Ukraine family and sponsorship schemes have, together, issued more than 107,000 visas so far.

    We are also preparing to help Ukraine rebuild when this war is finally over. The Foreign Secretary spoke to G7 leaders about the need for a new Marshall plan for the country, which could be paid for in part using Russian assets—the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) will be pleased to hear that.

    We have already pledged £174 million in aid to help Ukraine’s economy to recover, including a three-year package of support for energy security and reform. In reference to the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), the Secretary of State for Transport recently met his Ukrainian counterpart to discuss ways of getting grain out of the country, which would provide a vital lifeline to the local economy and a much-needed global commodity.

    Mr Ellwood

    My hon. Friend has been very generous in giving way. I was pleased to attend the Lennart Meri security conference in Tallinn last weekend, and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe and North America, who is in his place, also attended. The support for Britain was overwhelming, reflected not just in those who attended the conference but in the result of the Eurovision song contest, in which we rightly came second to Ukraine.

    The Minister is speaking about what other assistance we can provide. Will he clarify whether there is any truth in the reports that we will now be providing hard-power support—troops—to Moldova, in addition to our support for Ukraine?

    Jeremy Quin

    To answer the question precisely, I am aware of no current plans to do that, but we have a close relationship with Moldova. We work co-operatively with Moldova, and it is a relationship we are keen to foster and build on.

    The Ukrainians won the battle of Kyiv and the battle of Kharkiv. They are more than holding their own in bitter fighting, but there remains a long way to go before this war can be won. We must therefore continue to stand by our Ukrainian friends for the long term. They are fighting not just for their survival but for the values of freedom, democracy and justice that are the essence of our society. That is why they must succeed, and this House can rest assured that the United Kingdom will continue to do everything in its power to make sure that outcome is achieved.