UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • John Glen – 2022 Statement on the Public Works Loan Board Lending Limit

    John Glen – 2022 Statement on the Public Works Loan Board Lending Limit

    The statement made by John Glen, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, in the House of Commons on 11 May 2022.

    The Public Works Loan Board (PWLB) is a HM Treasury lending facility to local government. The PWLB passes on central Government’s lower cost of borrowing to local authorities to support their delivery of housing, local infrastructure, service delivery and local regeneration. It also helps local authorities to manage their cash flow in a predictable and cost-effective way.

    Today, I wish to announce an important step the Government are taking regarding the ongoing effective management of the PWLB.

    I will shortly commence section 112 of the Finance Act 2020, amending the National Loans Act 1968 to increase the overall PWLB lending limit from its current level of £95 billion to £115 billion. This will allow the PWLB to make an additional £20 billion of advances to local authorities across England, Scotland, and Wales, continuing to fund essential local projects that will support the delivery of local infrastructure, housing, and service delivery.

    The lending limit was previously raised from £85 billion to £95 billion in October 2019. Heightened local authority lending, as highlighted in reports produced by the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) and National Audit Office (NAO), has driven the need to implement this further increase. The ongoing increase in lending largely reflects local authorities’ continued investment in their capital programmes and the expansion of their delivery of services through capital expenditure. The PWLB provides critical support for local authorities through accessible, low-cost lending, and it is important that this access is maintained. I note the action taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to address instances of excessive risk, which will safeguard the proper and proportionate borrowing and investment provided by the PWLB.

    The PWLB remains the best source of accessible, low-cost borrowing for local government. By extending the overall lending limit, the Government are strengthening their commitment to supporting local government delivery of key local priorities.

  • Paul Scully – 2022 Statement on Low-income Workers and Exclusivity Clauses

    Paul Scully – 2022 Statement on Low-income Workers and Exclusivity Clauses

    The statement made by Paul Scully, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, in the House of Commons on 11 May 2022.

    I am pleased to announce the latest steps the Government have taken to better protect and support low-income workers as we look to build a high-skilled, high-productivity, high-wage economy.

    The UK’s flexible and dynamic labour market has always been the envy of the world. It gives businesses the confidence to create jobs and invest in their workforce, whilst giving workers more choice over who they work for, and how often.

    This Government want to put more power into the hands of individuals and businesses to find and create work that suits their personal circumstances. Today we are confirming our intention to widen the ban on exclusivity clauses, ensuring the lowest-paid workers have the freedom to boost their income through extra work if they wish.

    Exclusivity clauses, which restrict staff from working for multiple employers, were banned in zero hours contracts in 2015. Since then, the number of people on zero hours contracts with a second job has risen, and more workers have been able to take advantage of the opportunity to boost their income. Our latest reform will build on the success of those changes.

    The Government proposals will widen the ban on exclusivity clauses which restrict staff from working with multiple employers, to those whose income is below or equivalent to the lower earnings limit at £123 a week. An estimated 1.5 million workers are earning on or below £123 a week and the new reforms will ensure that workers in this group that have exclusivity clauses have the freedom to top up their income with extra work if they choose.

    While not everyone will want a second job, the reforms will remove any barriers that currently prevent those who want to do so, and give workers more flexibility over when and where they work to best suit their personal circumstances such as childcare or study.

    As well as supporting workers to increase their income, the reforms will also benefit businesses by widening the talent pool of job applicants to those who may have been prevented from applying for roles due to an exclusivity clause with another employer, and also helps businesses to fill vacancies in key sectors like retail and hospitality. The reforms will support low-paid workers to make the most of new opportunities where demand is growing.

    The reform will be delivered through new secondary legislation which will be laid before Parliament in due course. It follows a consultation launched by the Government in December 2020, where the majority of responses agreed with the approach to extend the ban to contracts where the workers’ guaranteed weekly income is below or equivalent to the lower earnings limit of £123 a week.

    Additionally, many responses to the consultation highlighted the impact that covid-19 has had on job security and the decrease in guaranteed working hours for many people. Extending the ban to those earning below or equivalent to the lower earnings limit will therefore enable workers who have been moved to reduced hours contracts due to the pandemic to increase their income by taking on additional work if they wish.

    The Government also announced its commitment to publishing employment status guidance, making it easier for individuals and businesses to understand which employment rights apply to them.

    This Government have been absolutely clear that we will do whatever we can to protect and enhance workers’ rights, and give businesses the confidence to create jobs and invest in their workforce. These reforms will put more power into the hands of individuals and businesses to find and create work that suits their personal circumstances.

  • Michael Ellis – 2022 Speech to the Inaugural UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly

    Michael Ellis – 2022 Speech to the Inaugural UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly

    The speech made by Michael Ellis, the Minister for the Cabinet Office, at the inaugural meeting of the UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly on 12 May 2022.

    Introduction

    I am delighted to be here at this inaugural meeting of the UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly, which of course couldn’t come at a more critical moment for European democracy.

    This forum is an important part of the governance that supports the new UK-EU relationship, but it is also a link between democratic representatives and the people that we serve. I hope that the following couple of days will provide an opportunity for Parliamentarians across the English Channel to exchange ideas on how we can get the most out of our new relationship – to the benefit of course of our respective citizens and businesses. Ukraine

    Because right now, in Europe, as we all know, there is another parliament which has continued to meet even as rockets and artillery shells fall around it.

    And today, members of Ukraine’s Parliament, the Verkhovna Rada, are representing fellow Ukrainians and carrying out the functions of Ukrainian democracy.

    They have continued to meet throughout Russia’s illegal invasion, even as Russian troops occupied the outskirts of the capital Kiev, even as their members trained to use weapons to defend their city. So it is all the more vital that our collective support for Ukraine – parliament to parliament, has been included on the PPA’s agenda.

    The European Parliament’s resolution on the 1st of March, calling for defensive weapons for Ukraine and punitive sanctions against Moscow, led the call on many of your governments to act. The UK Parliament has also been united in support of our action on Ukraine, and the UK has worked closely with the EU to take that action, including:

    six waves of punitive sanctions against the Russian economy, cutting off funding for its war effort;

    military, humanitarian and economic assistance for Ukraine; and

    measures to reduce our reliance on Russian hydrocarbons.

    These are significant steps, but we must be prepared to go further. And the UK will be working with our international partners to ensure freedom and democracy are strengthened through a network of economic and security partnerships around and across the globe.

    Trade and Cooperation Agreement

    While Putin has sought to sow division among Western alliances, the war in Ukraine has instead drawn the UK and EU together. That is welcome after the inevitable strains which the change in constitutional relationship brought since 2016. We see the EU as an essential partner in a global alliance of shared values – and we want success for the Union and we hope the EU wants that for us too.

    And our Trade and Cooperation Agreement has now been operating for a year and a half. And our economic relationship is generally working well. The TCA – the world’s largest zero-tariff, zero-quota FTA – is helping businesses adjust to the new commercial environment.

    And the governance of the TCA is running smoothly. The Partnership Council, and all of the Specialised Committees, successfully convened last year. And through these channels, we have ensured effective implementation of the agreement and we’ve engaged in technical discussions on matters ranging from intellectual property to road transport.

    And where we have identified issues regarding compliance for example, or opportunities to reduce unnecessary barriers to trade – such as EU import restrictions on SPS products or the VAT and debt protocol – we have used these committees to formally register our concerns.

    And some positive steps have also been taken by both sides outside of the structures of the TCA. Data adequacy decisions have been adopted for example.

    We have concluded bilateral aviation agreements on all-cargo rights with 19 EU Member States.

    And the UK as COP president continues to engage closely with Commission Executive Vice-President Timmermans on climate change priorities.

    And while these positive steps are welcome, we have also faced some challenges on the TCA. And it’s right to say that two stand out in particular.

    We are deeply disappointed that the EU countries continue to delay formalising the UK’s participation in Horizon Europe (and Copernicus, Euratom Research and Training). There is no practical reason for this delay – the EU is not fulfilling the commitments they made when the TCA was agreed. It is frankly disheartening that a number of countries have now successfully associated to Horizon, including for example Israel and Kosovo, while the EU continues to delay the UK association. And this is purely political – the EU have drawn links to the Northern Ireland Protocol, an entirely separate issue. And the EU’s approach is putting long term collaboration – on what are shared challenges – at risk.

    Now we have done literally everything that is required on our side – all that is required is for the EU to complete its formal processes, and to give its delegates in the Specialised Committee a mandate to agree to adopt draft Protocols that were agreed under the TCA. The UK stands ready to become a significant financial contributor to Horizon, and that would be for the benefit of UK and EU scientists, researchers and business alike – and it is the EU which is preventing this.

    Now, the greatest challenges we face, like tackling global pandemics, reaching net-zero or finding new sources of energy, they all require cooperation across our borders.

    Whatever our other disagreements, holding back the ability of UK and EU scientists to work together benefits no one and sends an unfortunate message about the politicisation of cooperation, which risks making it harder frankly for third countries to rely on cooperation with the Union. So we continue to press the EU to resolve this issue, but have been clear that we cannot wait forever; we will be ready to deliver domestic alternatives. Now the second area, we need to accelerate the development of new efficient electricity trading arrangements which were due to come into force last month. The UK has set out its significant concern about these delays and remain clear that we expect this work to proceed at pace. Efficient electricity trading will catalyse the development of renewables in the North Sea – supporting our shared net zero ambitions and plans to reduce reliance on Russian hydrocarbons.

    So I welcome the fact that both of these points will be considered by the PPA over the coming two days. And Her Majesty’s Government will consider carefully any recommendations this forum may wish to put to the Partnership Council.

    Withdrawal Agreement

    Now the UK and EU have worked closely together on implementing the Withdrawal Agreement since 2020 of course, and there have been positive examples of good cooperation, including on agreements related to the Sovereign Base Area in Cyprus and in Gibraltar.

    Citizens’ Rights continue to be a priority for the UK Government. We take our obligations very seriously and we have implemented the arrangements we agreed under the Withdrawal Agreement and we have done so in good faith. The EU Settlement Scheme has been an overwhelming success, with over 6.5 million applications and almost 5.8 million grants of status made so far. The Government’s approach to the Settlement Scheme is long standing and there is no ‘legal uncertainty’ for EU citizens in the UK. Whilst cooperation with the EU has been constructive, the UK continues to hold some concerns. Outstanding issues include ongoing reports of UK nationals facing difficulties accessing their rights in declaratory Member States, non-compliant resident processes, insufficient safeguards and a lack of detail on appeals processes. These issues are having a concrete impact on the lives of UK nationals in Member States, and we call on the EU to take proactive and immediate action to resolve those issues.

    On Northern Ireland, our overriding priority has been, and continues to be, preserving peace and stability. The situation as it stands, following the election, is clearly undermining the Belfast Good Friday Agreement and creating an unacceptable situation in Northern Ireland.

    Peace in Northern Ireland is based on respect between all communities, and it’s based on the consent of those communities – current arrangements with the EU are undermining that. We will not allow this to continue, we must fix the domestic impact of the Protocol, we must stabilise the situation in Northern Ireland and form an Executive – thereby protecting the Belfast Good Friday Agreement.

    The current situation with the Protocol is not working – it has created a two tier system where people in Northern Ireland are not treated the same way as everyone else in the UK.

    I want to take this opportunity to be clear about a few things. Firstly, we have never actually proposed scrapping the Protocol and we do not intend to – because there will always have to be a treaty governing the UK-EU relationship in respect of Northern Ireland. However we do need to see significant changes to it. We believe in the founding objectives of the protocol – to protect the Belfast Good Friday Agreement, to ensure Northern Ireland remains an integral part of the UK and the UK internal market, and to provide assurance to the EU that the single market is protected. But clearly, in its current form, the Protocol is not delivering on those internal objectives.

    Now, ladies and gentlemen, we have engaged in negotiations with the European Union in good faith. Vice President Šefčovič has tried to find solutions within the narrow mandate he has been given. But I regret to say that it is our clear view that the European Union’s proposals would take us backwards from where we are today. It’s therefore hugely disappointing that the EU have confirmed that they will never change their mandate, and because of that, the situation is now very serious.

    We have gone out of our way to ensure none of our proposals risk undermining the integrity of either the EU or the UK’s single market. We have created new systems to provide the EU with commercial data they have been asking for – giving them confidence no goods are being smuggled into either market.

    And we will continue to talk with the EU, but we will not let that stand in the way of protecting peace and stability in Northern Ireland. As both the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary have made clear, we will take action to protect the Belfast Good Friday Agreement if solutions cannot be found.

    Conclusion

    From the Palace of Westminster to the Verkhovna Rada – many parliament buildings across Europe, ladies and gentlemen, have been repaired or rebuilt from damage in wartime. This building here stands as a testament to the peace Europe has largely enjoyed for most of our lifetimes.

    As that peace is threatened by Putin, and it is all the more vital that parliamentarians work together in defence of our shared democratic values.

    Whilst these past years have not been easy for UK-EU cooperation – perhaps unavoidably so – I think these recent months have been a reminder that there is a bigger picture. And in that geopolitical bigger picture the UK and EU are not only natural, but we’re essential partners.

    We will, of course, have differences of view, as we do today on the Northern Ireland Protocol, where we are asking the Union as friends and allies to understand our primary responsibility to protect the peace and stability of our country. But there is far more that does and should unite us.

    And I very much hope that this inaugural meeting of the UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly can make progress on these issues, and show that we elected representatives can be the driving force of a new era of UK-EU partnership. To benefit all of the people we proudly represent. Thank you very much.

  • Yvette Cooper – 2022 Speech on Preventing Crime and Delivering Justice

    Yvette Cooper – 2022 Speech on Preventing Crime and Delivering Justice

    The speech made by Yvette Cooper, the Shadow Home Secretary, in the House of Commons on 11 May 2022.

    I have to say, that was an astonishing refusal by the Home Secretary to take interventions and questions from the shadow Home Secretary and a shadow Cabinet Minister. I have been taking part in Queen’s Speech debates for 25 years and I have never seen a Government Minister at the Dispatch Box afraid to take questions from her opposite number—I have never seen that anywhere. She took questions from a few other Members; her predecessors always took questions from me. I wonder what she is so frightened of. All my questions would have been really factual—maybe that is what she was frightened of.

    When the Prime Minister opened the Queen’s Speech debate yesterday, he did not mention crime—not once. Those of us out on the streets talking to residents in different communities across the country—an experience that was probably rather better on our side of the House than theirs this time—know that crime and antisocial behaviour were raised a lot, but the Prime Minister did not mention them once.

    The cost of living, soaring bills and rising prices were top of people’s list, but they were followed by crime and antisocial behaviour and a real persistent concern that when crimes are being committed, too often, nothing is done. There was nothing in the Queen’s Speech to tackle rising bills and rising prices and also no serious plan to tackle rising crime and falling prosecutions. There was nothing from the Prime Minister yesterday about the basic issues bothering people across the country.

    Vicky Foxcroft

    I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. It was a shame that the Home Secretary did not want to give way to me, because I wanted to ask her why, more than 30 minutes into her speech, there had been no mention of a public health approach to tackling serious violence, which has a long-term plan, addresses the root causes and is joined up. Perhaps the Government want to be tough on crime and not tough on the causes of crime.

    Yvette Cooper

    My hon. Friend is right to talk about the public health approach and the need to prevent crime and work across communities to do that.

    Across the country, in the last few weeks alone, I have heard from residents and victims talking often about there being no action when things go wrong; about repeated vandalism not being tackled even though there is CCTV evidence of who is responsible; and about the victim of an appalling violent domestic attack who was told that it would not come to court for two years.

    I have heard about repeated shoplifting where the police are so overstretched that they have stopped coming; about burglaries where all the victim got was a crime number; about scamming, where Action Fraud is such a nightmare to engage with that pensioners have given up trying to report serious crimes; about persistent drug dealing outside a school where nothing had been done months later; and about a horrendous rape case where the brave victim was strung out for so long and the court case was delayed so many times that she gave up because she could not bear it anymore.

    I have heard about police officers tearing their hair out over Crown Prosecution Service delays because they know that the victim will drop out if they cannot charge quickly; about other officers who are working long hours to pick up the pieces when local mental health services fail but who know that that means that they cannot be there to deal with the antisocial behaviour on the street corner; and about women who no longer expect the police to help if they face threats of violence on the streets or in their homes. There is case after case after case where crimes are being committed but no one is being charged, cautioned or given a community penalty and no action is being taken—and it is getting worse.

    Since the 2019 general election—in fact, since the Home Secretary was appointed—crime is up by 18% and prosecutions are down by 18%. The charge rate is now at a record low of 5.8% compared with 15.5% in 2015. Cautions and community penalties are down too, notwithstanding the Prime Minister and his Downing Street staff’s attempt to make valiant personal efforts to get those numbers back up again.

    The Home Secretary made an astonishing claim. She said:

    “We have reformed the criminal justice system so that it better supports victims and ensures that criminals are not only caught but punished.”

    Where are the criminal justice reforms that are pushing the prosecution rates up? The prosecution rates have plummeted on the Conservatives’ watch, which means that under the Home Secretary and the Conservatives, hundreds of thousands more criminals are getting off and hundreds of thousands more victims are being let down.

    The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)

    Will the right hon. Lady give way?

    Yvette Cooper

    I will give way to the Policing Minister. I will also give way to the Home Secretary as many times as she wants, so that she can explain why prosecution rates have plummeted and cautions and community penalties have collapsed.

    Kit Malthouse

    I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way. I understand the picture that she is trying to paint, but I know that she will want to give the House a balanced picture overall. I am sure, therefore, that she will want to acknowledge that in the latest publication on crime statistics by the Office for National Statistics, violence was down 8%, knife crime was down 4%, theft was down 15%, burglary, which she mentioned, was down 14%, car crime was down 6% and robbery was down 9%. Although we acknowledge that the fight against crime is never linear, we should celebrate our successes, should we not?

    Yvette Cooper

    I am hugely relieved and glad that during lockdown, while everybody was at home, there were fewer burglaries of homes. I am also hugely relieved that during lockdown, while there were fewer people on the streets, there were fewer thefts on the streets. In April, however, the Office for National Statistics said:

    “Since restrictions were lifted following the third national lockdown in early 2021, police recorded crime data show indications that certain offence types are returning to or exceeding the levels seen before the pandemic… violence and sexual offences recorded by the police have exceeded pre-pandemic levels”.

    On overall crime, I am sure that the Policing Minister would not want to make the mistake that the Business Secretary made of somehow dismissing fraud, which is responsible for some of the huge increases in crime, and of saying that it is not a crime that affects people’s daily life. We know that it causes huge problems and huge harms, particularly for vulnerable people across the country.

    Mr Sheerman

    My right hon. Friend is coming up with some telling statistics. I have talked to constituents and the police, who say that morale has never been lower and their numbers have never been so small. Since 2010, Conservative Governments have diminished resources for the justice system more than for anything dealt with by other Departments. The balance is totally out, so the morale of the police and the confidence of my constituents have plummeted.

    Yvette Cooper

    My hon. Friend makes an important point. I pay tribute to police officers across the country who are working incredibly hard in our communities to try to crack down on and prevent crime. They walk towards danger when the rest of us walk away. They are valiantly trying to hold things together, but too often, they are let down by the Government, particularly when dealing with violence against women and rape. The rape charge rate has gone down from 8.5% in 2015 to a truly shocking 1.3%. Today, in England and Wales, an estimated 300 women will be raped. About 170 of those cases will be reported to the police, but only three are likely to make it to a court of law, never mind the jail cell. Just think what that means.

    That applies not just to rape, but to many other crimes. No charge are made within a year of the offence being committed in 93% of reported robberies, 95% of violent offences, 96% of thefts, 97% of sexual offences, over 98% of reported rapes and over 99% of frauds. It is a total disgrace. As one police officer said to me, “This is awful—it feels like once serious offences are effectively being decriminalised”, because there are no consequences.

    Dame Margaret Hodge

    My right hon. Friend is making a very powerful speech. I want to move on beyond the police to the issues she has raised about fraud. Fraud is now the biggest crime facing us, and the cost to the economy is coming on for something like £190 billion a year. Does she agree with me that, as well as funding the police, it is absolutely imperative that we fund all the enforcement agencies fighting this sort of economic crime? While the Americans are raising the amount of money spent on this, we are lowering our investment into the enforcement agencies.

    Yvette Cooper

    My right hon. Friend makes a really important point, and we will pay the price if the law against economic crime is not enforced. The system just is not working. Everybody will know what a nightmare it is to try to report fraud; they may be passed from pillar to post, and sent between Action Fraud and the local police force. She is right, too, on some of the more serious issues, where this is also about the relationship between the police, the Serious Fraud Office and other enforcement agencies that need to take action. I hope this will be debated in our discussions on economic crime.

    It is a really damning picture: crime rising while there is a shocking drop in prosecutions and action. But what is the Home Secretary’s response? Soon after she took up the job, she said:

    “let the message go out…To the British people—we hear you… And to the criminals, I simply say this: We are coming after you.”

    Well, to the Home Secretary I simply say this: “You’d better start running faster, because they’re all getting away.”

    To be fair to the Prime Minister, yesterday his main Home Office focus was anger at the Passport Office, and that is probably something all of us can agree on, including the newly-weds who are having to cancel their honeymoon, and the hard-pressed families who face losing thousands of pounds that they had long saved up for a well-deserved holiday. Ministers told us the issue was being sorted out, but most of us can say from our constituency casework that it is getting worse. People are being badly let down, so the Prime Minister was right to be angry yesterday, although who does he think has been in charge of the Passport Office for the last 12 years?

    The Prime Minister now says he wants to privatise the Passport Office if this is not sorted out. However, the immigration Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster)—told us:

    “The private sector is already being used in the vast majority of the processes in the Passport Office.”

    He also said:

    “The bit that is not…is the decision itself.”—[Official Report, 27 April 2022; Vol. 712, c. 767.]

    That leaves us back with the Home Office failing to get a grip on private sector contracts and failing to take basic decisions. It is part of the pattern of Home Office failure and the Prime Minister casting around to get someone else to step in. Ukrainians fleeing war have been waiting weeks on end for visas because the Home Office added long bureaucratic delays. So many desperate families have given up because they could not afford to wait; they have found somewhere else to live, and others to give them sanctuary instead. There have been 80,000 applications to Homes for Ukraine, but only 19,000 people have arrived.

    Lee Anderson

    The right hon. Member is being very generous with her time. She made a point about Ukrainian refugees; a family moved in next door to me two weeks ago. I would like to thank the Home Secretary personally: the family got in touch with me, and within minutes of my contacting the Home Secretary about them, her team had got back to me. The family is now in our village of Kirkby-in-Ashfield. They thank the Home Secretary, the Prime Minister and the people of Great Britain.

    Yvette Cooper

    The people of Great Britain have shown that they want to help desperate families who are fleeing Ukraine. However, the facts are clear: there have been 80,000 applications, but there are only 19,000 people here. The Home Secretary says that is because they are staying where they are. Yes, a lot of them are; they gave up because it became so difficult.

    Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)

    Does my right hon. Friend agree with me about the really troubling reports—some of these are cases I have dealt with, but some of these I heard of through the media—of the Home Office issuing visas for only some members of Ukrainian families? The families quite rightly do not want to leave someone behind, so do not come here. That is classed as Ukrainians not taking up a visa, rather than Home Office failure. At the same time, the Home Office lines are bunged up. We cannot get through, and when we do, we are told, “I don’t even have a computer in front of me. I’m just on a phone line, and I don’t know what to say.” This is failure at the Home Office, and the Home Secretary has presided over it.

    Yvette Cooper

    My hon. Friend is right. I have also heard of cases where one family member does not get their visa, and of course the whole family has to wait. They are not going to be separated at a time of crisis. That Home Office Ministers think it is somehow a triumph to take four weeks to issue basic visas to people fleeing war in Europe is totally shameful.

    It now takes more than a year to get a basic initial asylum decision, because the Home Office is taking just 14,000 initial decisions a year—half the number it was taking in 2015. This basic incompetence means that the backlog has soared, and so too has the bill for the taxpayer. It takes nearly two years to get a modern slavery referral, which means that victims do not get support and prosecutions just do not happen. No wonder that even the Prime Minister, who is not known for his laser-like focus on delivering policies, has lost confidence in the Home Secretary and is getting other people to do the jobs instead.

    The Prime Minister is looking to privatise the Passport Office; channel crossings are to be handed over to the Ministry of Defence; Homes for Ukraine is to be handed over to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities; and visas are to be handed over to the new Refugees Minister. Decision making on asylum processing is so slow that Ministers are in the ludicrous and unworkable situation of paying Rwanda over £100 million to take decisions for us. At this rate, crime will be given to the Ministry of Justice and the fire service will be given to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Under this Home Secretary, the Home Office has in effect been put into special measures because it cannot get the basics right. If the Home Secretary cannot get the basics done on any of those core decisions, she should get out the way and let someone else sort it out.

    There is an alternative to this shambles. On crime and prosecutions, it was obvious a decade ago that this was where we were heading as a result of Government policies. I warned in 2013 of the risk of falling charge rates. I warned then about the Home Office’s failure to help the police tackle increasingly complex and fast-changing crimes, and about the risks if there was no proper, urgent plan to modernise policing, none of which has happened. I also gave a warning about what it would be like if the police were ripped out of the heart of our communities. Now, our towns, cities and rural communities are all paying the price; they all feel that the criminal justice system is not there for them when they need it.

    Where is the action in the Queen’s Speech to turn this around? Where is the action to help the police modernise, so that they can keep up with fast-changing crimes? Where is the action on reform, and on raising police standards so that we improve confidence? Where is the action on getting justice and improving safety for women and girls? There is nothing on establishing specialist rape investigation units in every police force, nothing on establishing specialist rape courts to speed up cases and make sure that they have the expertise necessary, nothing on setting up the domestic abuse and stalking perpetrators register for which we have been calling for years, and nothing to establish a mandatory minimum sentence for rape—all things Labour has been calling for. There is nothing to tackle antisocial behaviour—the powers are just not being used. There is nothing to sort out community penalties, which are too often dropped, and nothing to prevent crime and antisocial behaviour There is nothing to ensure that neighbourhood police are restored to our streets or to set up neighbourhood prevention teams, which Labour has repeatedly called for.

    The Home Secretary wants to boast that she is delivering the biggest increase in police funding for 10 years—well, who has been in power for the last 10 years? She has not even restored the police her party cut and she is not getting them out on to the streets. There are still 7,000 fewer police in our neighbourhoods compared with 2015. Instead, the police are weighed down by more bureaucracy, stuck back at their desks doing paperwork—the only way to improve their visibility is to move their desks nearer to the window.

    To be fair, the Government have proposed a victims’ Bill, and we would support that, but it is only in draft and it was first promised in 2015. It was promised again in 2016, again in 2017, again in 2019 and, yes, again in 2021. This year, it did not even get a proper mention in the Humble Address and there was certainly nothing from the Prime Minister yesterday.

    The Home Secretary rightly made a personal commitment to strengthen victims’ rights back in 2014 when she first said that she backed a new victims’ law. She was right to do so because at that time 9% of cases were being dropped because victims were dropping out of the criminal justice system as they had lost confidence. Since then, those figures have almost trebled. Last year, 1.3 million cases were dropped because victims gave up and dropped out. Yet is she seriously telling us she does not have time in this Parliament for victims again? Instead, the Government’s top priority is a rehashed Public Order Bill, even though they have just done one, because they are again failing to work with the police to sort out swift injunctions against serious disruptive protests or to help the police sensibly to use the powers that they have.

    There are Bills that should command cross-party support. Labour supports a “protect” duty that could keep people safer from potential terror attacks. We remember with sadness all the victims of the Manchester attack. I ask the Government to listen to the calls from bereaved families from other major incidents, and I ask the Home Secretary again to look at calls for a Hillsborough law, which she knows have been made by Members across the House and by the families who have lost so much.

    Labour also welcomes the long-overdue economic crime Bill. We have called for years for action to strengthen Companies House and we will be pressing for stronger action on money laundering, including illicit finance used for terrorist activity. On terrorism and national security, we always stand ready to work with the Government in the national interest. We agree on the need for a register of foreign agents, which, again, has been promised for years. We need much greater vigilance and action against hostile state activity. My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) raised a significant issue that the Home Secretary did not answer, so I ask her to consider it and to be ready to answer it in future. There should be some transparency on the issues around contact with foreign agents. It would be helpful if she could confirm whether the Prime Minister, when he was Foreign Secretary, met the ex-KGB agent Alexander Lebedev in Italy in April 2018 and whether any civil servants were present. It would be very helpful to know that information.

    Labour supports stronger action on modern slavery and hopes that the Bill will be an opportunity to go further, but the Home Secretary needs to reverse some of the damaging provisions from the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 that will make it harder to prosecute trafficking and slavery gangs, as the retiring Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner has warned. We must also ask: where is the employment Bill with the long-promised single enforcement body to crack down on forced labour and abuse? Without those measures, this is still not a serious plan to tackle modern slavery.

    In the absence of any serious action in the Queen’s Speech on the cost of living or to push prosecutions up, the Government talked instead about levelling up and community pride. The trouble is, they just do not get it. There is no levelling up if people cannot afford to eat, cannot afford to pay their bills or cannot afford to go to the local shops. There is no community pride if town centres do not have police officers or see no action when there is vandalism, street drinking, shoplifting or litter—or if, too often, the windows are broken and nothing is done. How can people have that local pride if there are no neighbourhood police to help prevent crimes, solve problems or nip them in the bud, or if people feel that there are no consequences for criminals? The very communities to whom the Government keep making false promises about levelling up are towns that are being hardest hit by antisocial behaviour and persistent unsolved crimes.

    Trust within our communities depends on us having trust in the law and trust in there being consequences. That is why Labour has called for the police to be getting back on the street and to have neighbourhood prevention teams and partnerships in place that work both to prevent crime but also to tackle the criminals and bring them to justice. If people stop believing that a fair and valiant criminal justice system will come to their aid if they are hurt or wronged, that is corrosive for our democracy, too. That is why it is so damaging to feel like we have a Government who shrug their shoulders as victims of crime are let down. The Conservative party in government is not a party of law and order any more. Too often, it is a party of crime and disorder, a party that is weak on crime and weak on the causes of crime, letting more criminals off and letting our communities down. Britain deserves better than that.

  • Priti Patel – 2022 Speech on Preventing Crime and Delivering Justice

    Priti Patel – 2022 Speech on Preventing Crime and Delivering Justice

    The speech made by Priti Patel, the Home Secretary, in the House of Commons on 11 May 2022.

    It is an honour to open today’s Queen’s Speech debate on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government.

    Keeping citizens safe is the first duty of any Government and, although it is not the only duty, meeting every other duty depends on it. Whenever fear and crime flourish, people cannot, and nor can our economy or our democracy. The Conservative party is the party of law and order. Unlike some, we understand that freedom includes the freedom of the law-abiding majority to go about their business free from harm. Those on the Opposition Benches are eager to defend the murderers, paedophiles, rapists, thugs and people with no right to be here. They cheer on selfish protesters who cause chaos and endanger lives. They back people who thwart the removal of foreign national offenders from our country.

    In the last Session, opposition parties voted against the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill and the measures to stop the likes of Insulate Britain ruining the lives of ordinary working people going about their daily business.

    Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab) rose—

    Priti Patel

    I will not give way. The right hon. Lady will have the chance to speak shortly.

    Opposition parties voted against tougher sentences for killer drivers, greater powers to monitor terrorists, and an end to the automatic release of dangerous criminals. They are much less curious about the rights of everyone else to go about their everyday business free from molestation. It amazes me that the Labour party dares to hold a debate on crime just after having voted against the PCSC Bill. If Labour Members really cared, they would have backed the Bill.

    This Government and this party back the police, our intelligence and security services and the law-abiding majority. We have reformed the criminal justice system so that it better supports victims and ensures that criminals are not only caught, but punished.

    Yvette Cooper

    Will the right hon. Lady give way?

    Priti Patel

    While the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) voted repeatedly against boosting police funding, we have given the police the investment they need. An increase of £1.1 billion has taken the spending to nearly £17 billion a year.

    Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)

    I am very grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way. I want to engage not in the to and fro on which she started her contribution, but on a subject where I think there is unity across the House, which is in the fight against economic crime. Does she agree that if we are to be effective in fighting economic crime, we must have measures that introduce better transparency, that properly fund our enforcement agencies, because, at the moment, they are not fit for purpose, and that also hold to account the enablers of economic crime for the actions that they take?

    Priti Patel

    The right hon. Lady is absolutely right. I will come onto the forthcoming economic crime Bill, which speaks very specifically not just about how we do better and more, but how we target our resources to stamp out fraud and go after the permissive environment and the individuals who occupy that space and commit the most appalling economic crimes.

    Since I became Home Secretary, an additional 13,500 police officers have been recruited. We are well on the way to our target of 20,000 more police officers by next March. Following the incredible response to our public consultation—

    Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)

    I am extremely grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way. May I reinforce the cross-party nature of what the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) has just said? She will know that the right hon. Lady and I have done quite a lot in the House to support the points that she has just made. I very much hope that, when the right moment comes in the economic crime Bill, she will listen carefully to the work that has already been done to try to reinforce the very point that she has just made.

    Priti Patel

    My right hon. Friend is correct on this. I know that, for many years, he has been a champion of many of the reforms, some of which have been put in place. We have had part 1—the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022 and sanctions—but the next Bill will also tackle Companies House and many of the wider issues that have been raised.

    Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)

    The Home Secretary has talked about the extra 13,000 officers recruited across the UK. It perhaps helps to break the figures down. Cheshire has had 189 new officers, and we are seeing results from those additional recruits. There has been a striking improvement in the number of arrests in relation to child abuse cases. Those officers increased from 10 to 46, and last month, we saw 28 extra arrests in Cheshire. Does she agree that that sort of increase makes a significant difference? It is not just about having fluorescent jackets on the streets; it is about the work of investigators tackling terrible crimes such as child abuse.

    Priti Patel

    My hon. Friend is right. There are a number of points to make on that. I know that the Minister for Crime and Policing recently visited that team. First and foremost, when it comes to the most appalling crimes of child abuse and sexual exploitation, a number of significant measures were passed through Parliament in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, including tougher sentences, which, as I have already said, the Labour party voted against.

    Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)

    Will the right hon. Lady give way?

    Priti Patel

    Let me make a bit more progress.

    Following the incredible response to our public consultation, we published the violence against women and girls strategy. The Government have passed the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 and launched the multi-year “Enough” campaign to challenge and change misogynistic attitudes. These are terrible crimes that disproportionately affect women and girls, such as domestic abuse, sexual violence, stalking and female genital mutilation. Addressing them is our priority and responsibility. The Government’s rape review found a steep decline in the number of cases reaching court since 2016. One of the key reasons for this was the number of victims withdrawing from the criminal justice process, and in too many instances the criminal justice system has simply not been good enough and has failed victims. Across Government, my colleagues and I intend to transform support for victims by ensuring that cases are investigated fully and pursued vigorously through the courts.

    Karl Turner

    The Home Secretary talks about victims; why is crime up 18% but prosecutions are down 18%?

    Priti Patel

    I will come on to that as well, but first I want to speak about the rape action plan. We will increase the number of cases reaching court back to 2016 levels, which means reducing the number of victims who withdraw from the process and putting more rapists behind bars.

    Crucial in how the Government will do this is not just money but investment in capabilities and the court system. The Government are investing over £80 million in the Crown Prosecution Service to tackle backlogs and recruit more prosecutors across the entire the country, because we need to start tackling this inequality. There is a significant inequality; that is in part a result of factors such as the way charges have been made and prosecutions brought, but there are other challenges as well.

    Yvette Cooper

    Will the right hon. Lady give way?

    Priti Patel

    No, I will not give way; the right hon. Lady will have a chance to speak. [Interruption.] The right hon. Lady will have an opportunity to speak shortly. [Interruption.] If I may finish my point, I may come to her.

    The other factor in terms of policing is the increase in the volume of digital evidence, and a vast amount of work is taking place across policing and the CPS now looking at how we can have an end-to-end approach across the criminal justice system to assess digital evidence. Also, for the first time the criminal justice system is now going to be held to account through performance scorecards through the crime and justice taskforce and also through the MOJ as well as the Home Office.

    Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)

    I thank the right hon. Lady for giving way. Is she aware, among student victims of sexual assault, of the use of gagging clauses and non-disclosure agreements in university non-contact agreements? I am in touch with various victims, particularly from Oxford university. One college, Lady Margaret Hall, has now signed a pledge to no longer use these but none of the other colleges has. Will the right hon. Lady join me and the universities Minister, the right hon. Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan), in asking other colleges to do the same, and will she consider meeting me so that I can relay to her the thoughts of victims in these cases?

    Priti Patel

    The hon. Lady is absolutely right. [Interruption.] I hear calls for more legislation from Labour Members, but, frankly, they also vote against all Government legislation. The hon. Lady raises a serious point. Through the crime and justice taskforce particularly, which is a cross-Government endeavour, the Education Secretary and other parts of Government are working with the MOJ to address and tackle these issues. The CPS has an important role to play here as well. I would be delighted to meet the hon. Lady and to speak to the universities Minister about this, because it is simply not right. Frankly, some of the practices being used are immoral, because they are effectively denying victims their right to have a voice.

    Yvette Cooper

    Will the right hon. Lady give way?

    Priti Patel

    No, I will not give way. The right hon. Lady will have the chance to speak shortly and there are, I think, 32 Members wishing to speak in this debate.

    Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)

    Will the right hon. Lady give way?

    Priti Patel

    Yes, I will give way to the Chair of the Select Committee.

    Dame Diana Johnson

    I am very grateful to the Home Secretary. On the issue of convictions for rape and serious sexual assault, one of the recommendations from the Home Affairs Committee was to have RASSO—rape and serious sexual offences—units in all police forces. Will the Home Secretary ensure that all police forces now have those specialist units, because we know if that is the case, it is more likely that investigations will be more thorough, victims will be treated better and convictions will follow?

    Priti Patel

    The right hon. Lady is absolutely right, and she will be aware of Operation Soteria, which does that. I will come on to wider support through the courts system and independent gender violence advocates, but the system is working now in a much more joined-up way, which I am sure the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford will also welcome. These measures have to be integrated not only with policing, but with the CPS, so that we have an end-to-end approach on prosecution.

    Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)

    The Home Secretary talked about passports. Constituents are telling me that the long delays at the Passport Office could both badly affect the travel industry and ruin family holidays. We need action now. Will she ensure the backlog is dealt with in the coming weeks?

    Priti Patel

    If the hon. Gentleman has a particular case, I have been speaking to other hon. Members—[Interruption.] No, please send it to me. There has been a problem with Teleperformance, the company that runs the helpline on this, but I would be happy to address his points. There is a great deal of work taking place operationally with Her Majesty’s Passport Office in dealing with passports and applications, and we are about to have yet another record month of passport delivery.

    The fourth round of the proven safer streets fund is worth £50 million and will help to reclaim spaces so that people across our communities and streets are safe. Alongside that initiative, the Government have worked assiduously to combat issues such as drugs and county lines. While we know that Opposition Members are weak on combating drugs, this Government have overseen the arrest of 7,400 people as part of the county lines drug programme, and 1,500 lines have been closed. Drug seizures by police officers and Border Force in England and Wales in 2020-21 increased by 21% on the previous year. The 10-year drugs strategy is underpinned by £30 million of new investment to tackle that scourge.

    The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 backs the police with improved powers and more support for officers and their families in recognition of the unique and enormous sacrifices they make. It means tougher sentences for the worst offenders and modernises the criminal justice system with an overhaul of court and tribunal processes.

    Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)

    I thank my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act. When I brought to this House the Desecration of War Memorials Bill, she immediately picked it up and ran with it and included it in the policing Bill, despite the mocking from the Labour party, including the Leader of the Opposition, saying that we were trying to protect statues rather than war graves and the war memorials to our glorious dead. Thank you, Home Secretary.

    Priti Patel

    I thank my hon. Friend for his support in making the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill an Act of Parliament. It is through that work that we are now able not only to protect and stand with our officers and back the police, but to have tougher sentences for the worst offenders and to modernise the criminal justice system. The most serious sexual and violent offenders will spend longer in prison. The maximum sentence for assaulting an emergency worker has doubled, and whole-life orders for those who commit premeditated murder of a child will be extended. Those are all key features of the Act.

    This Government are also investing £4 billion to create 20,000 additional prison places by the mid-2020s, and the GPS tagging of 10,000 burglars, robbers and thieves over the next three years will deter further offending and support the police in pinning down criminals at the scene of their crime. That is why this Government will not stop. The beating crime plan is exactly the plan to cut rates of serious violence, homicide and neighbourhood crime.

    Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)

    If the Home Secretary will allow me to intervene, I co-chair with the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) the all-party parliamentary group on miscarriages of justice. We are looking at the real problems with forensic science since its privatisation. If we are going to catch more criminals and have a more effective criminal justice system, will the Home Secretary make it a priority to ensure that forensic science in every part of the country is as good as it can be?

    Priti Patel

    I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman and the work of that group. Forensic science and the investment that goes into it is absolutely crucial to making sure that justice is served, and that victims receive the justice that they deserve. I would be happy, perhaps with Ministers, to organise a meeting on this, because there is a great deal of investment and work in forensic science. That is primarily because crime types evolve, and, in terms of the way in which sexual violence cases such as rape take place, digital evidence needs to be treated in a very different way, with the time that digital downloads take and the implications for forensic use. We would be happy to meet and have further discussion, and perhaps share any information and any good practice that we are experiencing in this evolving area.

    The beating crime plan includes £130 million to tackle serious violence and knife crime. This complements the improved stop-and-search powers that we have given the police so that they can do what is necessary to keep people safe. This law and order Conservative Government are introducing several Bills in this parliamentary Session that will further help to prevent crime and deliver justice. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act was a major step forward, but elements were frustrated by the unelected other place, urged on by Opposition Members. We will not be deterred from our duty to protect the law-abiding majority from the mob rule and the thuggery that we have seen. The public order Bill will combat the guerrilla tactics that bring such misery to the hard-working public, disrupt businesses, interfere with emergency services, cost taxpayers millions, and put life at risk.

    Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)

    The public order Bill, as the Home Secretary knows, will be music to the ears of many residents in Ashfield. We have seen these eco whatever-they-ares with their little hammers smashing up petrol stations. Does she think it is a good idea to give them bigger hammers and other tools and put them to work seven days a week like the rest of us?

    Priti Patel

    My hon. Friend, like me, believes in work, and that is effectively what we are doing in this Government—we are cracking on with the job, basically, in delivering on the British people’s priorities.

    It is important to reflect on this point: the dangerous nature of these protests should not be lost on anyone in this House. We saw in particular the recent Just Stop Oil protest, and there are other sites and oil refineries where these protesters impose themselves. It really is a miracle that somebody has not been killed or injured through the tactics that are being used. To give one example, in the county of Essex, £3.5 million was spent just on policing overtime to deal with those protesters, draining the resources of Essex police so that it could not protect citizens across the county, and at the same time it had to call for mutual aid from Scotland, Wales, and Devon and Cornwall.

    Despite Labour and the Lib Dems ganging up to prevent those measures from being included in the PCSC Act, we will act to support ordinary working people because we are on their side. The public order Bill will prevent our major transport projects and infrastructure from being targeted by protesters and introduce a new criminal offence of locking on and going equipped to lock on, criminalising the act of attaching oneself to other people, objects or buildings to cause serious disruption and harm. The Bill also extends stop-and-search powers for the police to search for and seize articles related to protest-related offences and introduces serious disruption prevention orders—a new preventive court order targeting protesters who are determined to repeatedly inflict disruption on the public. The breach of those orders will be a criminal offence.

    Modern slavery is something that rightly exercises this House. It is a damning indictment of humanity that this ancient evil has not gone away. This Government will follow previous Conservative Governments in doing everything that we can to identify it and stamp it out. The new modern slavery Bill will strengthen the protection and support for victims of human trafficking and modern slavery. It will place greater demands on companies and other organisations to keep modern slavery out of their supply chains. The Bill will enshrine in domestic law the Government’s international obligations to victims of modern slavery, especially regarding their rights to assistance and support, and it will provide greater legal certainty for victims accessing needs-based support. Law enforcement agencies will have stronger tools to prevent modern slavery, protect victims, and bring those engaged in this obscene trade to justice.

    In response to Putin’s appalling and barbaric war on Ukraine, this House passed an economic crime Bill within a day so that we could sanction those with ties to Putin. The UK is an outstanding country to do business in, in no small part because dirty money is not welcome here. An additional economic crime and corporate transparency Bill will mean that we can crack down even harder on the kleptocrats, criminals and terrorists who abuse our open economy. There will be greater protections for customers, consumers and businesses from economic crime such as fraud and money laundering. Companies House will be supported in delivering a better service for over 4 million UK companies, with improved collection of data to inform business transactions and lending decisions throughout our economy.

    The Online Safety Bill will tackle fraud and scams by requiring large social media platforms and search engines to prevent the publication of fraudulent paid-for advertising. It will address the most serious illegal content, including child sexual exploitation and abuse, much of which beggars belief and is utterly sickening. Public trust will be restored by making companies responsible for their users’ safety online. Communication offences will reflect the modern world, with updated laws on threatening communication online, as well as criminalising cyber-flashing.

    Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)

    The Home Secretary has expressed her outrage and disgust at the crime and abuse that is to be found online. Why has her party done nothing about it for the past 12 years?

    Priti Patel

    First, the hon. Lady and her party spend a great deal of time voting against the measures that we do bring forward on this. Secondly, the passage of the Online Safety Bill will give her and her party every opportunity to support us in keeping the public safe through some of the new offences that will be brought in.

    This Government were elected with a manifesto commitment to update the Human Rights Act 1998 so that we enjoy the right balance between the rights of individuals, national security, and effective government. The UK is a global leader with ancient and proud traditions of freedom and human rights. Our Bill of Rights will reinforce freedom of speech and recognise trial by jury. It will strengthen our common-law traditions and reduce our reliance on Strasbourg case law. Crucially, the Bill of Rights will restore public confidence and curb the abuse of the human rights framework by criminals. This is a welcome and much-needed update, 20 years after the Human Rights Act came into force, and it will apply to the whole of the United Kingdom. Human rights are not something that should only be extended to criminals. In what has to be the most twisted logic I have seen as Home Secretary, I have lost count of the number of representations I have received from immigration lawyers and Labour Members begging me not to deport dangerous foreign criminals. The Conservative party stands firmly with the law-abiding majority.

    The most vulnerable among us are not murderers, sex offenders and violent thugs, but their victims. Our victims Bill will mean that victims are at the heart of the criminal justice system, that they will get the right support at the right time, and that when they report a crime, the system will deliver a fair and speedy outcome. The victims code will be placed into law, giving a clear signal of what they have a right to expect. There will be more transparent and better oversight of how criminal justice agencies support victims so that we can identify problems, drive up standards, and give the public confidence. We are increasing the funding for victim support services to £185 million by 2024-25. That will mean more independent sexual and domestic violence advisers and new key services such as a crisis helpline.

    Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)

    I very much welcome the measures to put the victims code on a statutory footing, because these are very basic rights that need to be upheld for anyone who is a victim of crime. One of the other consequences of being a victim of crime is often the mental health fall-out from being involved in that crime and what follows afterwards—the trial or other matters. During what is Mental Health Awareness Week, I ask: what can be done to add to the victims code to ensure that those who find themselves in that unenviable position get the support they need so that they can get their mental health back as well as the rest of their life?

    Priti Patel

    My hon. Friend makes probably one of the most important points about support for victims, and also about how we can help victims to rebuild their lives and live their lives with confidence going forward.

    Within this work and the framework is the question of how we integrate many of our mental health service supports and the NHS more widely. The funding for victims, particularly in the areas of independent sexual violence and domestic violence advisers, is just one part of that. Legislation is only part of the solution. It is about how we deliver integrated services within our communities and also how much of the triaging takes place, whether that is through police and crime commissioners, the Victims’ Commissioner or even local policing, as well as mental health services in the community.

    Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP) rose—

    Priti Patel

    I will give way one last time.

    Jim Shannon

    I thank the Home Secretary for giving way. She mentioned £187 million, I think, for victim support. Will some of that money come to Northern Ireland? Will it be new money? Will it be part of the Barnett consequentials? How will it filter through?

    Priti Patel

    Many of these issues are devolved matters, but this is such important work—a lot of good work is taking place through the integrated end-to-end approach, and also through the scorecards that we are now setting up—that I would be very happy for the hon. Gentleman to speak to our Ministers about best practice, learnings and how the work can come to Northern Ireland. There is, it is fair to say, a great deal more that we do need to do in Northern Ireland, and I know we have had these conversations many times.

    The data reform Bill will modernise the Information Commissioner’s Office so that it can take stronger action against organisations that breach data rules. We now have more than 490 Crown court places available for use, which is comparable to pre-pandemic levels, and more than 700 courtrooms that can safely hold face-to-face hearings are open across the civil and family justice system. An additional 250 rooms are available for virtual hearings. In March, we announced the extension of 30 Nightingale courtrooms, and we have opened two new super-courtrooms in Manchester and Loughborough. Furthermore, we are ensuring sufficient judicial capacity by expanding our plans for judicial recruitment.

    The Nationality and Borders Act 2022 will mean that we can focus our support on those who need it most, not on those who can afford to pay the evil people-smuggling gangs to come into our country. The Act increases the sentences for those coming here illegally and means that people-smugglers face life behind bars. It also makes it easier for us to remove dangerous foreign criminals, as demanded by the British public but not by those on the Opposition Benches or those lawyers working to undermine the will of the public. The British public’s priorities are those of this Government. We are on their side, and we will continue to do everything we can by making this Act viable and workable and delivering for the British people.

    We are hospitable and charitable as a country, but our capacity to support the more than 80 million people worldwide who are on the move is not limitless. Many Labour Members and others on the Opposition Benches do not seem to understand that, but we do. It is why we have developed our world-leading migration and economic development partnership with Rwanda to deter illegal entry. We are providing solutions to the global migration challenges that countries across the world are facing. As ever, we hear very little from the Opposition, who seem to support the same old broken system and uncontrolled migration to our country.

    Two terrorist incidents highlight how we can never be complacent. The attack outside Liverpool Women’s Hospital last year would have been a disaster, had it not been for the incredible quick thinking and courage of the taxi driver involved on the scene. The terrible murder of our dear friend Sir David Amess was shocking, but not without precedent. We have worked closely together, Mr Speaker, to tighten security for Members, and we will continue to do so, and this Government will continue to work with our Five Eyes partners to keep the United Kingdom and our allies safe.

    The “National Cyber Strategy 2022” outlines my approach to tackling cyber-crime. We have terrorist activity committed online and information circulated by terrorist individuals and organisations. Going further, the G7 forum on ransomware launched new programmes, such as our work on economic crime, to counter illicit finance and commodities. Improving our international partners’ ability to disrupt organised crime and terrorist activity is a priority to which this Government are committed.

    In the past 12 months, we have completed a review of police firearms licensing procedures in response to the terrible and tragic shootings in Plymouth last August. New statutory guidance came into force in November. It improves firearms licensing safety standards and will ensure greater consistency in decision-making. The measures in the national security Bill will further protect our national security, the British public and our vital interests from those who seek to harm the UK. It delivers on our manifesto commitment to ensure that the security services have the powers they need.

    The Bill represents the biggest overhaul of state threats legislation for a generation. We have world-class law enforcement and intelligence agencies, but they face an ever-present and increasingly sophisticated threat. The Bill gives them an enhanced range of tools, powers and protections to tackle the full range of state threats that have evolved since we last legislated in this area. It will also prevent the exploitation of civil legal aid and civil damage payments by convicted terrorists. The Bill enhances our ability to deter, detect and disrupt state actors who target the UK, preventing spies from harming our strategic interests and stealing our innovations and inventions.

    The Bill also repeals and replaces existing espionage laws, many of which were primarily designed to counter the threat from German spies around the time of the first world war. It will introduce new offences to address state-backed sabotage, foreign interference, the theft of trade secrets and the assisting of a foreign intelligence service. The Bill will for the first time make it an offence to be a covert foreign spy on our soil. A foreign influence registration scheme will require individuals to register certain arrangements with foreign Governments, to help prevent damaging or hostile influence being exerted by them here.

    Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)

    Can the Home Secretary confirm whether the national security Bill will clarify whether it would have been inappropriate or unlawful for a Foreign Secretary to have met a former KGB officer, as we understand the Prime Minister did back in April 2018?

    Priti Patel

    If I may, I will not comment on that specific example that has been given. Actually, I think the focus should be on the legislation that is coming forward in this House, where there are plenty of debates to be had, rather than making a point like that. I think it speaks to how the Opposition treat matters of national security, and the disdain that they show to the significance of the threats posed.

    Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)

    Will the Home Secretary give way?

    Priti Patel

    I will not, because I need to make progress so that others can come in.

    The national security Bill provides us with powers to tackle state threats at an earlier stage by criminalising conduct in preparation for state threats activity. It will also mean that other offences committed by those acting for a foreign state can be labelled as state threats and those responsible sentenced accordingly. When sentencing for offences outside of the Bill, judges will be required to consider any connection to state threat activity and reflect the seriousness of that when handing down a sentence. There is also a new range of measures to manage those who pose a threat but it has not been possible to prosecute them. The use of these measures will be subject to rigorous checks and balances, including from the courts, but we cannot be passive, sitting around until someone does something awful.

    The Manchester bombing tore into the fabric of our freedom. It was a truly evil act that targeted people, many of them young or children, who were doing something that should have been a simple pleasure—attending a concert. The protect Bill will keep people safe by introducing new security requirements for certain public locations and venues to ensure preparedness for and protection from terrorist attacks. It will provide clarity on protective security and preparedness responsibilities for organisations as part of the protect duty, and it will bring an inspection and enforcement regime that will seek to educate, advise and ensure compliance with the duty. We have worked closely across Government with partners and victims’ groups, and I pay particular tribute to Figen Murray and the Martyn’s law campaign team for developing the proposals and working with us.

    These Bills further establish the Conservative party as the party of law and order, as do all the actions I have taken since I became Home Secretary. The people’s priorities are our priorities. Those on the Opposition Benches have only two responses, which they alternate between. Whether we hear splenetic outrage or total silence, their warped worldview means they have plenty to say about the rights of lawbreakers, but nothing to offer the law-abiding majority. We await their plan for a fair and firm immigration system that rewards those in need, not evil people-smugglers.

    Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)

    Will the Home Secretary give way?

    Priti Patel

    I will not; I am wrapping up. We await the Opposition’s plan to beat crime. We await their plan for a criminal justice system that protects victims and punishes the guilty. We will wait in vain, while the Government get on and do the job of delivering on the people’s priorities.

  • James Cleverly – 2022 Statement on Jim Fitton and Detention in Iraq

    James Cleverly – 2022 Statement on Jim Fitton and Detention in Iraq

    The statement made by James Cleverly, the Minister for Europe and North America, in the House of Commons on 11 May 2022.

    I thank the hon. Lady for raising this important case. I recognise that this is a very distressing time for Mr Fitton and his family. I would also like to reassure hon. Members that consular officials continue to maintain contact with Mr Fitton and his family—indeed, they met his family this morning—and we liaise with his lawyers to provide consular assistance. Since his arrest in March, consular officials have visited Mr Fitton on four occasions.

    We understand the urgency and the concerns that Mr Fitton and his family have. We cannot, of course, interfere or seek to interfere with the judicial process of another country, just as we would not expect interference in our own judicial process. That said, the British ambassador in Baghdad has raised and will continue to raise Mr Fitton’s case with the Iraqi Government. That includes raising with the authorities the UK’s strong opposition to the death penalty, in the context of both its potential application to Mr Fitton and our in-principle opposition to it in all instances.

    Wera Hobhouse

    Thank you for granting the urgent question, Mr Speaker.

    I am deeply concerned by the nature of the Foreign Office’s engagement with my constituent’s case. Jim is a 66-year-old geologist. He is sitting in a cell in Iraq, he has missed his daughter’s wedding and he potentially faces the death penalty. His family are worried sick. Nearly a quarter of a million people have signed a petition urging the Government to help Jim, whose lawyer believes that representations from the British Government could make a huge difference to his case, but I am afraid the Government give the impression that they are not particularly interested or worried. Ministerial engagement has been slow: it took 10 days for the Minister’s private office to inform me that a meeting with Jim’s family was not on the cards.

    Jim is days now away from a trial. We are told that the Government will not be making crucial representations to the Iraqi Government. I understand that the German Government are making representations on behalf of one of their nationals who has been detained with Jim; why will the Foreign Office not do the same?

    I hope that the Minister will be able to answer these key questions. Jim’s trial is fast approaching. Will the Minister meet me and Jim’s family before the trial, and before it is too late? Will he commit himself to making representations to his Iraqi counterpart, as the German authorities are doing? This matter has implications far beyond Jim’s case; it fits into a concerning pattern of the UK Government’s failing to do enough for its citizens abroad. Can the Minister clarify his view of the role of the Foreign Office in supporting British citizens who run foul of legal injustice and draconian laws abroad, as has happened in Jim’s case? Will he commit himself to a root-and-branch review of the way in which the Foreign Office responds to situations such as this?

    British citizens deserve the help of the British Government. Jim Fitton is potentially facing the death penalty. I urge Ministers to do everything they can to stop this nightmare before it turns into a tragedy.

    James Cleverly

    I completely reject the hon. Lady’s assertions about the role of the British Government in this case, and in other consular cases. Let me remind the House of the facts, with your indulgence, Mr Speaker: I do think it is worth going into this in detail.

    On 23 March, shortly after Mr Fitton’s arrest, consular officials visited him in detention. On 4 April, consular officials visited him again. On 10 April, the British ambassador to Iraq raised his case with the Iraqi authorities. On 25 April, consular officials visited Mr Fitton in detention again. On 1 May, the British embassy sent a note verbale to the Iraqi Government on Mr Fitton’s case. On the same date, and on 8 May, the British ambassador again raised the issue of Mr Fitton’s case with the Iraqi Government. Also on 8 May, consular officials visited Mr Fitton in detention. On 10 May, the British ambassador again raised Mr Fitton’s case with the Iraqi officials. On 11 May—just today, as I said—the family met our expert consular officials.

    We do these things not because cases are raised in the House, but because they are the right things to do. I am proud of the work done both by our officials in Iraq and by the consular team in the UK to support individuals who have been arrested and their families. We will of course continue to raise this case with the Iraqi officials, we will of course continue to liaise with Mr Fitton and his family, and we will continue to support British nationals in incarceration around the globe.

    James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)

    Mr Fitton is not my constituent, but a large number of his family and friends live in the village of Box, just outside Bath.

    I have two caveats. First, I entirely accept the Minister’s injunction that this is not a matter for the British Government and must come under the Iraqi judicial system; that is perfectly correct. Secondly, ancient relics are extremely important to the Iraqi Government, particularly post Saddam Hussein. I also, incidentally, reject much of what the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) had to say about the consular service in general. In my experience it is outstandingly good, and it is quite wrong to attack it in general because of this particular case.

    That said, we have here an elderly—he is a little younger than me, but none the less elderly—scientist who inadvertently picked up a couple of shards in Iraq: a very minor offence in our terms, albeit an important one with regard to Iraq. He is facing a very long prison sentence or possibly a death sentence, so I want to hear from the Minister that he will absolutely commit himself to doing whatever we can through the consular service, particularly by providing English-speaking lawyers and English-speaking support of one kind or another to try to either get him off or at least mitigate the sentence that he will have to face.

    James Cleverly

    I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks about the professionalism of the Foreign Office’s consular team. They deal with incredibly difficult and sensitive issues regularly. I can assure him that we will continue to work tirelessly to bring this case to the attention of our opposite numbers in the Iraqi Government. As I have said, it would be wrong for us to attempt to distort their legal process but we will of course help Mr Fitton’s family to secure legal representation, including English-speaking legal representation, to give him the proper ability to defend himself in this instance.

    Mr Speaker

    We now come to the shadow Minister, Bambos Charalambous.

    Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)

    I would like to congratulate the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) on securing this urgent question today and on her tireless advocacy on behalf of her constituent, Jim Fitton. My thoughts are with Mr Fitton and his family, and I would like to echo the concerns raised by colleagues across the House. In March, Mr Fitton, a British citizen and retired geologist, was arrested in Iraq on a charge that carries the death penalty. He remains detained. As we have heard, he was part of a tour group visiting Iraq on an organised geology and archaeology trip. During the tour, the group picked up some broken fragments of stone and pottery from the ground. The fragments were out in the open, unprotected, and without nearby signage warning against their removal. Members of the tour were told that they could take the fragments as a souvenir as they held no economic or historical value. Mr Fitton’s family have made it clear that, as a retired geologist, he would never in any way intend to disrespect or appropriate the rich and fascinating culture of the region; rather, he would celebrate it.

    However, Mr Fitton awaits a trial date for sentencing, which is expected imminently. The window for intervention from the Foreign Office is therefore narrowing. Urgent Government action is needed, and the lack of engagement from Ministers is creating frustration for everyone who wishes to see the situation resolved. The Foreign Office needs to do everything it can to protect British citizens who are wrongfully detained abroad. I hear what the Minister has said about the consular support that has already been provided, but I would like to ask him what efforts the FCDO is urgently taking on behalf of Mr Fitton not only to secure a high-level meeting with judicial officials in Iraq regarding legal representation in order to resolve the case, but to engage with Mr Fitton’s family. Does he share my concern that dragging his feet in cases such as these is resulting in public trust in the Government’s commitment to protecting British citizens wrongfully detained abroad being profoundly impacted? As each day passes, this case becomes more serious and I urge the Government to take the necessary steps to allow Jim to be reunited with his family before it is too late.

    James Cleverly

    The FCDO visited Mr Fitton in detention on 23 March. He was arrested on 21 March. The hon. Gentleman, who knows I have a huge amount of respect for him, is frankly talking nonsense when he talks about dragging our feet. We visited Mr Fitton in detention within days of his arrest, and we have visited him three times since then. As I have said, we have interacted with the ambassador to the Iraqi Government on more than weekly occasions on this issue. I completely reject the hon. Gentleman’s assertion about the British Government’s engagement on this issue. We are deeply engaged with this issue, and we will remain deeply engaged with this issue. As I have said, it would be completely inappropriate for us to seek to distort the Iraqi legal process, but we will continue to support Mr Fitton in his legal defence of the case against him, and we will continue to support his family through what we completely understand is a deeply distressing time.

    Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)

    I congratulate the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), my near neighbour, on raising the case of her constituent. I accept that the Government cannot interfere directly in matters of this sort, but will the Minister understand that the mechanics of the criminal justice systems of other jurisdictions are not necessarily the same as we would expect in the United Kingdom? Will he contrast the approach to this problem by the UK Government with that of Germany, which appears to be far more involved at ministerial level?

    James Cleverly

    I previously held the brief for the middle east and north Africa, as did my right hon. Friend, and he will know that the UK enjoys a very close and strong relationship with the Iraqi Government at both ministerial and official levels. I completely understand his point about Iraq’s judicial system being dissimilar to our own, but we must respect the judicial systems operated by other countries. We completely understand the concern of Mr Fitton and his family, and we will continue to engage as intensively as we already have to ensure that he receives a fair trial and has good legal representation. We do these things not because of questions in the House but because we believe they are the right thing for the UK Government to do to support British nationals overseas.

    Mr Speaker

    I call the SNP spokesperson, Chris Law.

    Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)

    I welcome this urgent question from the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) precisely because action is not happening on the ground, notwithstanding the Minister’s reassurances.

    This is an unimaginably anxious and distressing time for Jim Fitton and his family, and I would like to send a message of support to them all on behalf of the SNP. Sadly, we know the FCDO does not have the strongest track record on ensuring the safe and swift release of UK nationals from foreign detention. The FCDO must intervene now, using every diplomatic avenue, to prevent the Iraqi authorities from sentencing Mr Fitton to death.

    It is wholly disproportionate that Mr Fitton faces a potential death penalty for the removal of protected fragments of artefacts. His family have stated that FCDO Ministers are yet to lobby their Iraqi counterparts against issuing a death sentence. Is this true? If so, why is urgent action not being taken to safeguard a UK national? Finally, what is the FCDO doing to secure Mr Fitton’s urgent release?

    James Cleverly

    I will not simply refer the hon. Gentleman to my previous answers, but when I have listed the British embassy’s intensive engagement at the most senior levels with the Iraqi Government, including through a note verbale, it is a complete perversion of the situation for hon. Members to say that the UK Government have not engaged. We completely understand the concerns of both Mr Fitton and his family. We will continue to support him and them through this incredibly difficult time, and we will continue to engage with the Iraqi Government to ensure the right outcome for Mr Fitton, but we cannot, should not and would not seek to distort Iraq’s legal system, as we would not accept that happening to us.

    Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)

    I pay tribute to and thank the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for her work on this case. I express my support and solidarity with Jim Fitton’s family.

    Nothing is more important than consular services to support those facing injustice abroad. Jim Fitton’s sister, Ruth, is my constituent, and she approached me over the May bank holiday to set out the situation that Jim and the family are currently experiencing. I wrote to the Foreign Secretary twice that afternoon, and I have yet to receive a response. I gently suggest to the Minister that his claims of urgency are certainly not reflected in the response, or lack thereof, I have experienced. I wrote to the Foreign Secretary to implore her to take action, and I have had no response, even though I made it very clear that we are in a perilous situation and that the trial date could be set for this week—I understand it will now be 15 May.

    I support all the questions that have been asked by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Surely advocacy for a British citizen is not interference in another country’s legal system. The family’s lawyers are responsible for the legal case, and all the family are asking the FCDO to do is to endorse that case. Will the FCDO please give us a single point of contact—somebody that we and the family can liaise with—so that we are kept up to date on what is happening?

    James Cleverly

    The family have a point of contact within the consular system. The hon. Gentleman says that he wrote to the Foreign Secretary in May. Prior to his correspondence, we had already visited Mr Fitton in detention three times, we had raised his case with the Iraqi authorities and we had issued a note verbale.

    Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

    I thank the Minister for his response. What steps have been taken to assess the adequacy of the food, exercise and light to which Mr Fitton has access? What steps are the UK Government taking, if possible with the Iraqi Government, to secure his release back to the UK under some system where he can then have access to his family?

    James Cleverly

    The hon. Gentleman raises a valid point. As part of our regular visits to Mr Fitton, we ensure that his circumstances remain humane and appropriate. We give advice on the remand system, on what privileges he might expect, and on social and welfare services. We also, of course, seek to ensure that he gets proper English language representation. Those are the things we will continue to do to support him through a case that, as a number of right hon. and hon. Members have mentioned, has not yet gone to trial.

    Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)

    I thank the Minister for coming to the Chamber today to respond to this UQ. What constructive action can the Government take to put pressure on Iraq to secure Jim’s safe release or, at the very least, to have the abhorrent threat of the death penalty taken off the table immediately?

    James Cleverly

    As I say, in all our interactions with not just Iraq, but all countries that have the death penalty, we ensure that when we speak on this issue we highlight that we have an in-principle opposition to the death penalty. We will continue to make it clear to the Iraqis that we oppose the imposition of the death penalty, both in Mr Fitton’s case and more generally. On support to his legal team, ultimately it would not be appropriate for the UK Government to take on a “quasi” role as legal representatives, but we will of course ensure that Mr Fitton does have appropriate and professional legal representation, in a language that he can understand.

    Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)

    I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) on raising this matter. There is a difference between consular support and ministerial support. My question to the Minister is: what is the point in all these visits if then when there are opportunities to actually do something useful, it does not get done? For example, Jim’s lawyer sought to refer the case to the court of secession, as doing so would have, in effect, thrown the case out. At that moment, a supportive letter from the Minister would have made all the difference, yet it did not happen. Why?

    James Cleverly

    The hon. Lady is fundamentally wrong in her assertion. Our consular staff are the experts in this field. It is right that, whether it be the ambassadorial team in Baghdad or the consular team here in the UK, we apply the technical experts to problems such as this. That is exactly what we have done.

    Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)

    The Minister mentioned in an earlier answer that there was a direct line for the family to contact officials. Will he confirm that that is an open line for the family to contact whenever they seek reassurance, as opposed to a line of reporting back on the Government’s actions?

    James Cleverly

    As I have highlighted, our consular team are in regular contact with the family and had a meeting with them just today. I have no doubt that our team will continue to work with them. We recognise just how concerning this situation is and how fearful they will be because of these circumstances. Our consular team are experts in dealing with families in circumstances such as these, and I have no doubt that they will continue to liaise closely with Mr Fitton’s family.

    Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)

    Mr Fitton is clearly not my constituent, but his former colleague Mark Smith is, and Mr Smith is bereft at his plight. Will the Minister impress on the Iraqi authorities the fact that Mr Fitton is far from some profiteering treasure hunter but is instead a deeply respectful accredited academic who would never disrespect Iraq or its artefacts? Will the Minister confirm that the Government will use all channels to try to impress on the Iraqi authorities the need for the most expedient and increased leniency in this case?

    James Cleverly

    I assure the hon. Gentleman that the UK Government, at every level, always seek to take the actions that we believe will best benefit British nationals overseas. I assure him that the level of engagement I have outlined in my answers will set the pattern for our continued engagement. We will of course seek to ensure that the legal process is conducted absolutely properly and that we support Mr Fitton and his family through our consular services throughout this incredibly concerning process.

  • Alok Sharma – 2022 Speech at the Future of News Conference

    Alok Sharma – 2022 Speech at the Future of News Conference

    The speech made by Alok Sharma, the COP26 President, at the Future of News Conference in London on 11 May 2022.

    Ladies and gentlemen, thank you so much for having me here today.

    They say that only two things in life are certain, death and taxes.

    But to that list, I would add the tenacity and the rigour of the British press.

    Whether it is war, or corruption, or injustice, or hypocrisy, or indeed a desire for greater transparency, you are unrelenting, uncompromising, and fearless in your pursuit of the truth, and in your determination to hold those in power to account.

    I can tell you, from personal experience, being under the magnifying glass of the British press can be mildly uncomfortable.

    Anyone remember “Air Miles Alok”?

    Anyone from the Daily Mail here? Ok let’s move on.

    But however much it makes those under scrutiny squirm, I hope that you will never change.

    Over the past year, I have been in 35 countries to persuade governments to up their climate commitments.

    Because as you all know, better I think than anyone, you rarely land a story, or in my case a commitment, on the phone.

    It needs to be face-to-face.

    And on those visits I have been in very many newsrooms, I have been interviewed by your peers from Berlin to Brasilia, from Nairobi to New Delhi.

    But rarely does anything evoke greater trepidation in politicians than walking into Milbank or indeed taking a call from a Fleet Street journalist.

    And I have to say I think that is a credit to your industry, and the press freedom this country holds so dearly.

    The question I really want to address today is what a future shaped by a changing climate means for reporting, and holding to account, by the British press.

    Because that unfortunately is the future that we face.

    Now you will be aware of this, but I think it’s worth saying that scientific report after scientific report demonstrates that unless we get to grips with climate change, the effects will be catastrophic for people and nature.

    Last year, we had a seminal report by the UN climate science body, the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, noted that average global temperatures have risen by 1.1 degrees above preindustrial levels.

    The report also concluded that human activity is unequivocally responsible for global warming.

    This report was agreed by 195 countries, and its findings were based on the distillation of 14,000 scientific papers.

    I can tell you from my own personal experience, getting almost 200 countries to agree on something this substantive is far from easy.

    Now, there will be those who will say that 1.1 degrees does not sound like very much, but we see the impacts around the world.

    Last year saw devastating floods across Europe and Asia.

    Wildfires raged in North America and Australia.

    And already this year India and Pakistan have been experiencing extreme heat waves, with some of the hottest months since records began.

    Floods have killed hundreds in South Africa.

    And the IPCC’s latest reports published this year, tell us that due to climate change, ecosystems are being irreversibly destroyed, people are being forced from their homes, human health is being damaged, and water and food insecurity have increased.

    I have seen this first hand.

    I’ve met mountain communities in Nepal that have been forced to flee from their homes because of a combination of floods and droughts caused by the changing climate.

    I’ve witnessed the effects of Hurricane Irma four years on in Barbuda.

    Buildings lying derelict, roofs still blown off, walls crumbling, and people forced from their island homes due to climate change.

    And talking to those affected is heartbreaking.

    Because you get to not just see but you get to hear the human cost of a changing climate.

    The reality is that climate change does not respect borders.

    It impacts us all.

    Here in the UK each of our top ten warmest years since 1884, have occurred since 2002.

    Climate change is not a stand alone issue to be mitigated.

    Unfortunately it exacerbates other existing risks.

    These are what respected think tanks, like Chatham House, call the “systemic cascading risks” of global warming; the knock-on-effects resulting from climate change, such as food and water insecurity, pests, diseases, the loss of lives, livelihoods and infrastructure.

    Indeed in one of its recent reports, Chatham House makes the case that such factors could, ultimately, displace people, disrupt markets, undermine political stability, and exacerbate conflict.

    And, frankly, where people’s ability to feed their families becomes precarious and extreme weather and disease wipe out livelihoods, people may be forced from their homes, and civil unrest may foment,

    events that can undermine fragile governments, and then ultimately reverberate around the globe.

    It is because climate is central to geopolitics, that the UK’s Integrated Review established tackling climate change and biodiversity loss as the UK’s top international priority.

    These impacts are happening today, and we know that in the future, they will become more severe.

    Because unfortunately further temperature rises are now inevitable.

    Even if we limit the rise in global temperature to 1.5 degrees celsius, the effects will be significant.

    Yet there is still everything to play for, because the higher temperatures rise, the more extreme the effects become.

    And every fraction of a degree makes a difference.

    At 1.5 degrees warming, 700million people will be exposed to extreme heat around the world.

    At 2 degrees it’s 2 billion people.

    At 1.5 degrees, 70 percent of all coral reefs around the world would be destroyed.

    At 2 degrees they are just about all gone.

    But to keep that 1.5 degree limit alive we are going to have to halve global emissions by 2030.

    And I think it’s worth saying that the cost of inaction is far, far greater than the cost of taking action now.

    The Office for Budget Responsibility projects that unchecked climate change could lead to UK public debt reaching a staggering 289 percent of GDP by the end of the century.

    But just as the science has become starker, the environmental and economic opportunities presented by tackling climate change have become clearer.

    When the UK took on the role of hosting COP26, less than 30 percent of the global economy was covered by a net zero target.

    By the time we got to COP26, with like minded partners around the world, we had persuaded 90 percent of the global economy to sign up to net zero.

    So I would say that where the UK has led, others have followed.

    Net zero is one of the clearest economic trends.

    It encompasses just about every country and every sector.

    As journalists, you are used to following the money.

    So there is a reason why more than 7000 international companies have signed up to rigorous net zero targets.

    There is a reason why, at COP26, financial institutions with over $130 trillion dollars of assets on their balance sheets were signed up to net zero.

    There is a reason why earlier this year Larry Fink, who as you know runs Black Rock, one of the biggest fund managers in the world, wrote to the CEOs of Black Rock’s investee companies, and he noted:

    that climate risk is investment risk, that there is a tectonic shift of capital underway, that sustainable investments have now reached $4trillion, and that every company and every industry will be transformed by the transition to a net zero world.

    Mr Fink went on to ask these investee companies whether they would lead this transition or whether they would be led.

    And the reason for all of this is because businesses around the world can see the economic dividend from the pursuit of net zero.

    It is clear to governments and businesses that the future of the global economy is clean.

    And we must embrace the opportunities that presents.

    But whether we do so fast enough or not, one thing is clear.

    Climate change will define the future.

    So it is rightly commanding increasing media attention.

    Years ago, climate was a side issue for journalists specialising in international development or the environment.

    Now it runs through many areas, from business, to culture, to sport, to economics, to fashion, and of course politics.

    Analysis by Carbon Brief, which focuses on climate, shows that the number of editorials in UK newspapers calling for more action to tackle climate change has quadrupled in three years.

    And yes, scepticism has diminished.

    That same analysis found that in 2011, right-leaning newspapers ran one editorial in favour of climate action for every five against.

    By 2021, those same newspapers were publishing nine positive editorials for every one against.

    Now, from my perspective, this focus is extremely welcome, but of course this year, climate is no longer in the spotlight.

    COP26 is over, although of course our presidency year continues until November.

    The headlines are understandably dominated by the other immense and immediate challenges facing the world.

    Vladimir Putin’s illegal and brutal invasion of Ukraine will define 2022.

    And that is rightly the focus of the media and the international community.

    And I understand that you’ve just had a discussion panel on Ukraine and reflected on the journalists who have very sadly lost their lives, and of course I pay tribute to all of them.

    And of course, governments must also address the global crisis in energy markets and increasing inflation and its attendant impacts.

    And again, the media is naturally focusing on this.

    And actually it is quite interesting that, the current crisis has also made clear to governments that homegrown renewables and clean energy,

    the price of which cannot be manipulated from afar, are the best option for domestic energy security.

    Climate security has become synonymous with energy security.

    And the chronic threat of climate change is unfortunately not going away.

    And so journalists are vital to ensure it continues to receive the column inches and the air time that it deserves, and that leaders are held to account.

    Because world leaders have committed to tackle climate change.

    Almost seven years ago, countries forged the Paris Agreement.

    And in this they committed to limit the average rise in global temperature to well below two degrees, pursuing efforts towards 1.5.

    Last year at COP26, nations agreed the historic Glasgow Climate Pact that showed how we will deliver this.

    And countries agreed to revisit and strengthen their 2030 emissions reduction targets this year, to align them with the Paris temperature goals.

    They agreed to phasedown coal power and phase out fossil fuel subsidies.

    And they agreed that the developed countries would provide more finance to support developing nations to deal with climate change.

    Alongside the Glasgow Climate Pact, companies and countries made commitments at COP26 to clean up critical sectors, to halt deforestation, and to work together to accelerate green technologies.

    In short, the world has agreed what it needs to do. Our task now is to deliver.

    And to achieve that, we need you to do what you do best, and hold governments and businesses to account.

    The British media has significant international clout.

    Editorials written here are read with keen interest in capitals around the globe.

    You help focus the eyes of the world on those in positions of responsibility,

    to scrutinise whether or not they deliver on their commitments.

    And if they do not, you have the tools to hold them to account.

    We also need you to help people understand the reality of climate impacts.

    And help them make informed choices.

    And of course, we need you to interrogate objectively the benefits of the move to clean economies.

    Ladies and gentleman, I believe that the chronic threat of climate change, and its expansive impact, will increasingly be the biggest story of the twenty-first century.

    I will go further.

    I would argue it will ultimately be the biggest story in many of our lifetimes.

    And we need you to tell it.

    And we need you to shape it.

    By continuing to do what you do best.

    Speak truth to power.

    Report on the reality of the world around us.

    These are the finest qualities of the British press.

    So whatever the future of news, they must endure.

    Thank you.

  • Steve Barclay – 2022 Speech at Cyber UK

    Steve Barclay – 2022 Speech at Cyber UK

    The speech made by Steve Barclay, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, on 11 May 2022.

    Thank you, Lindy. Good morning colleagues.

    Across the Cabinet Office and No10 we see the range of threats that our country faces.

    Core to our defence is the work of you Lindy, and your colleagues at the National Cyber Security Centre. So firstly a huge thank you to you, but also to all those in the room who do so much to keep us safe.

    And it is these threats that I want to talk about this morning – particularly in the context of Russia’s brutal invasion of Ukraine.

    But also the huge opportunity that cyber in the UK currently presents, including setting out the whole of society approach that is integral to tackling those threats but also achieving the UK’s potential and indeed building on the comments of Sir Jeremy yesterday.

    Much progress to protect us from the risk of internet-based attacks has been made since the launch of the UK’s first National Cyber Strategy, with cyber experts thwarting 2.7 million online scams last year alone – more than four times that of 2020.

    The NCSC has said that it believes that Russia continues to pose a significant and enduring cyber threat to the UK.

    And yesterday, the UK – along with the EU, the US and other allies – said that Russia was responsible for a series of cyberattacks mounted since the invasion of Ukraine.

    Their impact has been felt across Europe, in disrupted access to online services and even in the operation of wind farms.

    And Russia has said it sees the UK’s support for Ukraine as ‘unprecedented hostile actions’ – and as Avril Haines said yesterday, Putin is preparing for a long conflict.

    So we must all, therefore, consider the likely long-term threat, so that we are as prepared as we possibly can be.

    And the greatest cyber threat to the UK – one now deemed severe enough to pose a national security threat – is from ransomware attacks.

    Should the UK face an attack on the scale previously inflicted on Ukraine’s critical national infrastructure sites, businesses and the public should not expect to receive advance warning.

    Preparedness is therefore essential.

    And our defences must be in place: ready for whatever comes in whatever way.

    This is why the work, Lindy, of the NCSC is so important.

    And I am sure many of you here today have had the benefit of their knowledge and free resources.

    But it is crucial that we spread the word wider.

    I was delighted to learn that the NCSC’s cyber advice for businesses was accessed over 100,000 times after Tony Danker, the director general of the CBI, and I wrote a piece for The Times.

    And that 3,000 schools have accessed the NCSC’s new cyber defence tools for schools in the first week after its release.

    But of course there is no room for complacency.

    Every member of the public has their part to play; every company in a supply chain can make sure they are not the weakest link.

    Because making sure we are ready, as Sir Jeremy said yesterday, is a whole of society effort.

    And that is one reason why the conference CyberUK is a calendar highlight – an opportunity to channel the expertise, enthusiasm and enterprise across government and business.

    But also a great opportunity to shine a light on the national success story that digital and cyber has become.

    Thanks to our work together, I am determined that the UK will be the world leader for innovation, gaining a digital education, and indeed having an open, safe and reliable internet.

    And this allows us to take full advantage of the broader social and economic opportunities of the digital age, which is at the core of our National Cyber Strategy.

    And make no mistake: the record £2.6 billion of Government funding is a statement of our intent.

    As the Prime Minister has said: ‘We want the UK to regain its status as a science superpower, and in doing so to level up.’

    Cyber is key to this mission.

    It is no accident that we are here today in the heart of Cyber Wales’s Ecosystem.

    Having previously met in Glasgow.

    And next year we will be off to Belfast.

    Evidence of the Union working to benefit the whole of the United Kingdom.

    I also note, as many in the room will be aware, that today is the 25th anniversary of the supercomputer Deep Blue beating the chess champion Garry Kasparov – in a man versus machine contest that indeed astonished the world.

    Now back then, Deep Blue was a project costing $100million. The computer weighed 1.4 tons with two, six-foot five-inch black towers.

    Compare that today, to the mobile phones in our pockets matching it for processing power.

    Such is the speed of progress, digital technology has already grown to touch every aspect of our lives.

    Democratising threats, but also playing an important part in our future growth, with the potential for huge economic gains.

    Look at what the cyber security sector alone contributed to the UK economy last year: generating £10.1 billion in revenue and it attracted more than a billion pounds in investment.

    Thanks to 6,000 new jobs being created, over 52,000 people are now employed in cyber security and – I think importantly – more than half of them are outside London and the South East.

    So as well as Wales, cyber security clusters are flourishing in Scotland, Northern Ireland, in the North West and in the East Midlands.

    But we want to see more start-ups – like the new collaboration between NCSC and the five tech companies to develop low-cost ways to tackle ransomware attacks which is testimony to the UK being the best place for innovation outside Silicon Valley.

    As the country builds back from the pandemic, the cyber skills revolution will help fuel growth, equip people to build and switch into new careers.

    And to stay working where they grew up, spreading opportunity all around the UK.

    Through our CyberFirst bursary programme, more than 100 students receive £4,000 and eight weeks paid training or development work with government and industry; leading to a full-time role when they graduate.

    And now those working in cyber– including indeed people here today – will have the chance to become chartered professionals, as the UK Cyber Security Council has been granted its Royal Charter in recognition of the invaluable work it is doing to raise standards and ensure good career pathways.

    Of course, investment in business and skills is immensely important to the economy and jobs. But it is also essential to help us preserve the UK’s core values of democracy and free speech – as we are doing through our Online Harms Bill.

    From my conversations with heads of schools, business leaders and chief executives, the message of the need to keep people safe online is indeed landing and it’s spreading; with key sectors stepping up to do their bit.

    In schools, we now have more than 1,500 teachers signed up to deliver our Cyber Explorers programme, seeding their enthusiasm in younger students for maintaining a safe and resilient cyber space: and I’m indeed looking forward to meeting pupils from St Joseph’s School here in Newport to hear their experiences of the CyberFirst Girls Competition.

    We also have the National Cyber Force combining the hard and soft power from our military and intelligence services to counter the threats that we face.

    And Government has been working with partners across the sector on legislation in order to help keep us safe online.

    We’re protecting consumers by enforcing minimum standards in connected products, through the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Bill – so the ‘Internet of Things’ doesn’t become the ‘Internet of Threats’.

    Telecoms operators that fail to meet security standards will face heavier Ofcom fines under the Telecommunications Security Act.

    And just yesterday the Data Reform Bill, in the Queen’s Speech will ensure that personal data is protected to a higher standard, and enable stronger action against organisations for a breach.

    Together this legislation will play a significant role, but we also alongside it require a global approach.

    In these uncertain times, international allies are essential: in intelligence-sharing, shaping the governance of cyberspace, and deterring irresponsible behaviour and ensuring cyberspace remains free, open, peaceful and secure.

    The road to free and resilient cyberspace runs through our friends in Warsaw and Bucharest all the way to Kyiv.

    And the UK was among the first states to set out how the rules-based international order extends to cyberspace – and it’s something my colleague Suella Braverman, the Attorney General, will be saying more about at Chatham House next week.

    Last year, when I launched the National Cyber Strategy, we said that Ransomware had become the most significant cyber threat facing the UK. It is therefore imperative that we continue to prepare for the future, and learn from past attacks – at home and indeed abroad.

    We must not drop our guard, underestimate the threat or take our eye off the ball when it comes to our cyber defences across society.

    In the run-up to the Ukraine invasion, Russia unleashed deliberate and malicious attacks against Ukraine.

    The Ukrainian financial sector was targeted by distributed denial of service attacks that took websites offline.

    With the UK government declaring the Russian Main Intelligence Directorate, the GRU, as being involved.

    Since then, evolving intelligence about Moscow exploring options for cyberattacks prompted last month’s joint advisory from the UK and our Five Eyes allies – that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine could expose organisations within and beyond the region to increased malicious cyber activity.

    Some UK citizens have already felt the impact of cyberattacks.

    And some authorities estimate that in 2020, ransomware attacks may have cost the UK economy a minimum of £615 million.

    Over the past year, the National Crime Agency has received on average one report from victims of a Russia-based group responsible for ransomware attacks in the week. One report a week. Indeed, some authorities have estimated that over the last year global ransomware payments are up 144%, and the average demand is $2.2 million.

    But the number of incidents – and indeed their economic cost to the UK – is likely to be much higher. Law enforcement teams believe that most attacks go unreported: perhaps through embarrassment or a reluctance to admit that money has indeed changed hands.

    So, I would encourage any organisation that suffers an attack to come forward, report it to Action Fraud who run our 24/7 cyber reporting line.

    By doing so, you will help us to strengthen our individual and collective resilience as we learn from each other.

    In one attack in the UK, the National Crime Agency alerted a public sector organisation to an ongoing breach of its systems. Within hours, the NCA had identified the compromised services and located the exfiltrated data, which it later managed to take down; so that no personal information got out.

    What we learned is that our controls quickly spotted the incident and our reaction was swift.

    And we were then able to share useful evidence with industries so they can learn and prepare for similar attacks.

    The government is stress-testing its own defences, too.

    The more complete our security picture, the better we would handle any attack.

    And in the context of our most capable adversaries becoming more sophisticated, I can announce that we have agreed support for the next decade of UK cryptographic capabilities – nothing less than the entire ecosystem that keeps government safe – recognising the vital national importance of our sensitive sovereign Crypt-Key technology.

    Now, computer professionals tell me there is only one sure-fire way to know a computer is never hacked. Never connect it to the internet.

    But – let’s be realistic. That’s not an option.

    Which is why we have to work together.

    Through the NCSC’s world-leading tools and advice.

    Through acting with international allies.

    Through legislation.

    Through protecting our own government systems.

    But most importantly through harnessing our collective strengths and acting as one, building, as Sir Jeremy set out yesterday, a whole of society response.

    This is at the heart of the National Cyber Strategy, treating the cyber domain as no longer being a niche concern simply for the IT team – but as a wide-ranging grand initiative.

    Being a responsible, durable, effective cyber power cannot be achieved by government alone.

    So we want to work with industry, universities, schools and individual citizens getting involved.

    Working together. As a whole society.

    Thank you very much.

  • Penny Mordaunt – 2022 Speech to Belgian Trade Delegation

    Penny Mordaunt – 2022 Speech to Belgian Trade Delegation

    The speech made by Penny Mordaunt, the Minister for Trade Policy, at The Athenaeum Club on 10 May 2022.

    It’s an honour to welcome Her Royal Highness Princess Astrid, Her Excellency the Minister, and the Belgian delegation here to London.

    I would like to thank the Federation of Enterprises in Belgium and the CBI for all the good work you are doing and for inviting me today.

    Our nations are longstanding allies with a partnership built upon our shared values of free trade, security, and democracy.

    We are both founding members of NATO, and now more than ever we must be united in our commitment to European security.

    But security is more than just defence, ensuring our economic stability is vital.

    The ability for our nations to capitalise and seize new opportunities is one which cannot be taken for granted. We must work together to protect our businesses, consumers, and sectors.

    I appreciate that for many businesses the last few years have caused difficulty and uncertainty. I want to reassure you that the UK is as open as ever and committed to supporting your firms.

    While I appreciate Brexit was not to everyone’s liking, it does highlight certain qualities that are helpful to business. Knowing that the government does what the people tell it to do. Whatever you think of Brexit, it helped to reinforce the belief that governments are the servants of the people. Never the other way around.

    So change has come to our trading relationships. It has happened and we are adjusting. Change offers unprecedented opportunities for fresh thinking in business. Change is the fuel that entrepreneurial companies need.

    Whilst the UK has set a new path, we’re committed to close trading ties with Belgium and the rest of Europe. We remain strong friends and allies. After the Ukrainian war, now more than ever, we respect each other’s commitment to democracy.

    A relationship based on zero tariffs and zero quotas under the Trade and Cooperation Agreement.

    A relationship we are building on through meaningful engagement to make sure the deal delivers on its promise of free, fair, and plentiful trade.

    The £900 million that Belgian firms invested in the UK over the past year alone, is testament to the work we have already done.

    However, we must not be complacent.

    The UK is committed to the continued modernisation of its relationship with the EU, ensuring we maximise our collective potential – as evidenced through the UK’s £180 million investment to build a Single Trade Window; streamlining traders’ interactions with border agencies.

    A second opportunity I would like to speak to is shared priorities…

    We have never been closer in our common purpose.

    Both our nations are rising to the existential challenge of our age – climate change in the long-term, and rising energy costs in the short-term. I believe these two challenges are two sides of the same coin. Reducing carbon and reducing costs walk hand in hand. When we re-use, re-cycle and reduce we save money as well as protect our environment.

    Of course, this will take close cooperation. But I believe we, in partnership, can be successful.

    Belgium and the UK are world leaders in this regard with you committing to increasing offshore wind generation to 8 Gigawatts by 2030 and the UK setting an ambitious target to quadruple our solar and wind power generation over the next decade.

    I also welcome the current joint ventures in wind technology between our countries and recognise there are many further opportunities for collaboration including in hydrogen, carbon capture and electric cars.

    But to guarantee success, our governments must continue to provide the connections and infrastructure that enables world-class talent to deliver.

    The MoU on energy cooperation signed earlier this year is working towards exactly that.

    The final point I want to highlight is the UK’s role as a gateway to the world.

    Belgium can and should see the UK as a means to access global opportunities – from the US to the Indo-Pacific.

    By operating in the UK, Belgian businesses will be able to benefit from the network of Free Trade Agreements we are now signing outside of the EU.

    The UK has already agreed deals with Australia and New Zealand. One of the Bills announced in the Queens speech today will bring those deals into effect.

    We are on track to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership by the end of year. And I’m driving forward trade talks between the UK and 20 individual US states, slashing bureaucracy, and strengthening our ties with the world’s largest economy.

    All these agreements will benefit Belgian businesses who invest in, and trade with, the UK.

    As economic competition intensifies worldwide, we must clear the path to trade between our nations. We must remove unnecessary obstacles to growth and ensure we provide our businesses with the necessary tools to succeed.

    Because it is businesses, not governments, that deliver prosperity.

    It is businesses, not governments, that create sustainable jobs and drive innovation.

    And it is businesses, not governments, that forge the trade and investment ties which bring nations together.

    So, let’s set more innovative British and Belgian firms free to trade and invest between our markets.

    Change can be the opportunity they’ve been waiting for.

    Thank you.

  • Leo Docherty – 2022 Statement on UK Military Support for Ukraine

    Leo Docherty – 2022 Statement on UK Military Support for Ukraine

    The statement made by Leo Docherty, the Minister for Defence People and Veterans, in the House of Commons on 10 May 2022.

    The United Kingdom strongly condemns the appalling, unprovoked attack President Putin has launched on the people of Ukraine. We continue to stand with Ukraine and continue to support its right to be a sovereign, independent and democratic nation.

    The United Kingdom and our allies and partners are responding decisively to provide military and humanitarian assistance. This includes weapons that help Ukraine’s heroic efforts to defend itself. We have sent more than 6,900 new anti-tank missiles, known as NLAWs—next-generation light anti-tank weapons—a further consignment of Javelin anti-tank missiles, eight air defence systems, including Starstreak anti-air missiles, 1,360 anti-structure munitions and 4.5 tonnes of plastic explosives.

    As Ukraine steadies itself for the next attack, the UK is stepping up efforts to help its defence. As we announced on 26 April, we will be sending 300 more missiles, anti-tank systems, innovative loitering munitions, armoured fighting vehicles and anti-ship systems to stop shelling from Russian ships.

    The United Kingdom has confirmed £1.3 billion of new funding for military operations and aid to Ukraine. This includes the £300 million the Prime Minister announced on 3 May for electronic warfare equipment, a counter-battery radar system, GPS jamming equipment and thousands of night-vision devices.

    The Ministry of Defence retains the humanitarian assistance taskforce at readiness; its headquarters are at 48-hours readiness, and the remainder of the force can move with five days’ notice, should its assistance be requested. The UK has pledged £220 million of humanitarian aid for Ukraine, which includes granting in kind to the Ukraine armed forces more than 64,000 items of medical equipment from the MOD’s own supplies. We are ensuring that the UK and our security interests are secured and supporting our many allies and partners, especially Ukraine.