UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Maria Caulfield – 2022 Statement on the Essex Mental Health Inquiry

    Maria Caulfield – 2022 Statement on the Essex Mental Health Inquiry

    The statement made by Maria Caulfield, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, in the House of Commons on 4 February 2022.

    It is normal practice, when a Government Department proposes to undertake a contingent liability in excess of £300,000 for which there is no specific statutory authority, for the Minister concerned to present a departmental minute to Parliament giving particulars of the liability created and explaining the circumstances; and to refrain from incurring the liability until 14 parliamentary sitting days after the issue of the minute, except in cases of special urgency.

    I have today laid a departmental minute proposing to provide an indemnity that is necessary in respect of a Department of Health and Social Care established non-statutory, independent inquiry into the care and treatment pathways and the circumstances and practices surrounding the deaths of mental health inpatients in Essex.

    The Essex Mental Health Independent Inquiry has been established to investigate deaths which took place in mental health inpatient facilities across NHS Trusts in Essex between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2020. It will draw conclusions in relation to the safety and quality of care provided locally and nationally to mental health inpatients.

    In January 2021, the Minister of State for Patient Safety, Suicide Prevention and Mental Health announced the establishment of the inquiry—HCWS729, 21 January 2021—to be chaired by Dr Geraldine Strathdee CBE. The indemnity will cover the entire duration of the inquiry’s work, from January 2021 until when the inquiry submits its final report, expected in 2023, and for an unlimited period after that date. However, we believe there is a low risk of the indemnity being called upon beyond five years of the inquiry having reported. The indemnity will cover the chair and all other members of the inquiry team, against any liability, including any legal or other associated costs, arising from any act done, or omission made, honestly and in good faith, when carrying out activities for the purposes of the inquiry in accordance with its terms of reference.

    The indemnity will only apply to acts done or omissions made during the course of the inquiry and will exclude personal criminal liability, negligence or reckless acts. There will be no cap placed upon the indemnity, so the maximum exposure is strictly unlimited. However, any losses are not expected to exceed a value of £3 million based upon the best estimate currently available at this stage of the inquiry’s work. If the liability is called, provision for any payment will be sought through the normal supply procedure.

    The Treasury has approved the proposal in principle. If, during the period of 14 parliamentary sitting days beginning on the date on which this minute was laid before Parliament, a Member signifies an objection by giving notice of a parliamentary question or by otherwise raising the matter in Parliament, final approval to proceed with incurring the liability will be withheld pending an examination of the objection.

  • Chris Philp – 2022 Statement on Modernising Communications Offences

    Chris Philp – 2022 Statement on Modernising Communications Offences

    The statement made by Chris Philp, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, in the House of Commons on 4 February 2022.

    I wish to inform the House that the Government will be accepting the recommended harm-based communications offence, false communications offence and threatening communications offence, as laid out in the Law Commission’s “Modernising Communications Offences” report, published in July 2021.

    The offences will be brought into law through the online safety Bill, which we are committed to introducing to Parliament as soon as possible.

    These new offences will help ensure that the criminal law is focused on the most harmful behaviour while protecting freedom of expression. The current offences are sufficiently broad in scope that they could constitute a disproportionate interference in the right to freedom of expression. The new offences will protect freedom of expression and, in the case of the harm-based offence by increasing the threshold of harm to serious distress, will ensure that communications that individuals find offensive, such as the expression of a view they do not like or agree with, will not be caught. In addition, the court cannot find someone guilty of the harm-based offence or false communications offence if they have a reasonable excuse. A reasonable excuse would include if the communication was or was intended as a contribution to the public interest.

    We have also accepted the Law Commission’s recommendation to include a press exemption within the general harm-based communications offence and the knowingly false communications offence. While we do not expect the new offences will capture communication made by the media, including this press exemption demonstrates the Government’s commitment to upholding media freedom.

    The Government will repeal the existing communication offences, including section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and sections 127(1) and (2) of the Communications Act 2003, as recommended by the Law Commission.

    Alongside the online safety regulatory framework, the offences will help deliver the Government’s objective of making the UK the safest place to be online.

    In addition, as the Prime Minister has indicated, we welcome the recommended offence on cyber-flashing and are carefully considering it.

    The report recommends a further three offences. The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and the Ministry of Justice are carefully considering the remaining offences and accompanying recommendations, including the hoax calls offence, an offence for encouraging or assisting self-harm and an offence for epilepsy trolling. We will continue to assess these offences and issue a full response to the Law Commission later this year.

    I would like to express my sincere thanks for all the work that the Commission has carried out as part of this review over the past four years.

  • Sajid Javid – 2022 Speech on World Cancer Day

    Sajid Javid – 2022 Speech on World Cancer Day

    The speech made by Sajid Javid, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, at the Francis Crick Institute on 4 February 2022.

    Every second counts.

    Do you know that every 90 seconds, someone in the UK is diagnosed with cancer.

    In the time that it will take me to speak to you today, 13 people will get the news that their world will be turned upside down.

    I lost my Dad to this vicious disease, and I know all too well the grief and the heartbreak that that brings.

    He had colon cancer, but by the time that he was diagnosed it was too late. It had already spread to his lungs and liver.

    I was so moved by the dedicated care that he received in his final days and I will be eternally grateful to Macmillan for the compassion that they showed him and my whole family.

    This painful experience also impressed upon me that when it comes to cancer there isn’t a moment to spare.

    Who knows, that if he had been diagnosed a bit earlier he may still be with us today and he could have been alive to see me become the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care.

    You see my story is one of many.

    There are around 166,000 cancer deaths per year, a daunting statistic.

    But our experience of COVID-19 has shown us what we can do when we all unite against a common threat.

    By putting all of the country’s effort and infrastructure behind one shared goal, we achieve things that would have seemed impossible.

    Building Nightingale hospitals in a matter of days sending millions of free rapid flow tests to households across the country and vaccinating over 10% of the adult population in just one week.

    Now that COVID-19 is in retreat, we cannot lose that spirit.

    And we must capture it and think ambitiously about how we can apply it to other health threats that we all face.

    Today is, of course, World Cancer Day.

    So, let’s make this the day where we declare a national war on cancer…

    The story of the past few years has been one of some progress.

    The figures for survival a year after diagnosis have increased by over ten percentage points over the past 15 years, that’s a remarkable achievement.

    But we do need to go a lot further.

    Despite the very best efforts of the NHS staff who did so much to keep seeing cancer patients throughout the pandemic, throughout the last two years we know that COVID-19 has had a major impact on cancer care.

    There are still around, we estimate, some 34,000 people who haven’t come into cancer services for treatment.

    And on top of all this – although we lead the way in Europe for some cancers like melanoma and some others we do sit far behind some other countries with some other cancers.

    The CONCORD study has ranked the UK 14th out of 28 countries that were studied for the diagnosis of breast cancer and we’re behind other large countries in Europe when it comes to survival rates for ovarian cancer.

    so today we’re taking the first step in doing a lot, lot more. And that’s why I’ve published today a call for evidence that will inform a new 10 Year Cancer Plan for England a searching new vision for how we will lead the world in cancer care.

    This Plan will show how we are learning the lessons from the pandemic and how we will apply them to improving cancer services over the next decade.

    It will take a far-reaching look at what we want cancer care to be in 2032 – ten years from now.

    Looking at all stages, looking at prevention looking at diagnosis looking at vaccines and treatments.

    First, we must prevent people from getting cancer in the first place.

    Traditional interventions have been focused further down the chain, on the treatments that are so vital for those that have already been diagnosed.

    But the greatest impact we can have is preventing these people from needing cancer care at all.

    The causes of cancer of course they are varied and they’re complex, but we know that for example that smoking is one of the greatest factors.

    In 2019, a quarter of deaths from cancers were estimated to be due to smoking.

    Although there are positive signs that smoking is declining there are still around six million people who smoke regularly in England.

    My ambition is for England to be smoke free by 2030 and this year we will publish a new Tobacco Control Plan for England setting out how we are going to get there.

    This will have a focus on reducing smoking rates in the most disadvantaged areas and groups.

    And to inform this Plan, I’m pleased to announce that Javed Khan the former Chief Executive of Barnado’s will be leading an independent review looking at what more we can do to drive down those smoking rates and help people give up smoking for good.

    Javed will be able to bring to bear his vast experience from the public and voluntary sectors I’m thrilled that he will be leading on this lifesaving work.

    Obesity is also a major risk factor, and we are striving to halve childhood obesity by 2030 including through the measures that are in the Health and Care Bill, which is going through Parliament right now.

    Alcohol consumption, too, this is linked to many types of cancers and we’re rolling out specialist Alcohol Care Teams in hospitals where rates of alcohol related admissions are highest.

    We estimate that this will prevent some 50,000 admissions over the next five years.

    And you know as that old adage goes: prevention is better than cure. But this is critical when prevention means sparing patients and their loved ones the anxiety of that cancer diagnosis.

    This prevention agenda and this Government’s work to level up across the country, it’s really two sides of the same coin.

    Why, because many of those risk factors of cancer that I’ve just talked about like obesity and like smoking they have a strong link with social deprivation.

    For instance, in 2020, around 20 per cent of the adult population of Blackpool were smokers, compared to 7 per cent in Barnet.

    There are stark disparities when it comes to cancer outcomes too.

    The proportion of people whose cancer is diagnosed at any early stage is around 8 percentage points lower in the most deprived areas compared to the most affluent.

    To tolerate such disparities for such a major killer is to accept the greater risk of death solely based on your background, where you live, what social group you might belong to…

    I cannot accept this. I have made tackling disparities one of my most pressing priorities as the Secretary of State.

    And on Wednesday, we announced that we will be publishing a Health Disparities White Paper this year looking at how we can tackle the core drivers of inequalities in health and I see plenty of areas where we can level up disparities on cancer.

    Take for instance clinical trials.

    We must work harder to get people from a wider range of backgrounds represented.

    This is not just a scientific necessity but also a moral one.

    Making sure that the clinical trials that take place, that they are developing treatments that are effective for all patients.

    But currently some communities are under-represented, which we cannot tolerate when the stakes are so high.

    We must also look at what we can do to address the variation in cancer outcomes across the country.

    The Targeted Lung Health Checks Programme offers a shining example of what can be done.

    Rather than people coming to us, we go to them taking mobile trucks into the heart of local communities.

    After successful pilots in Manchester and Liverpool, we rolled them out to targeted areas across the country where we knew people were of the greatest risk.

    The results have been phenomenal.

    Within this programme, a massive 80 per cent of lung cancers are being diagnosed at an early stage, compared to less than 30 per cent before.

    Many of these people were fit and healthy and had no symptoms at all.

    One married couple Danny and Christine from Hull they both went to get checked in a supermarket car park and they soon received the sad news that Danny had lung cancer.

    But because he was diagnosed early, they were able to act very quickly and now they have both given up smoking and these two, Danny and Christine are encouraging others to come forward and take advantage of this initiative.

    When I talk about lung cancer, I can’t also help thinking about my late friend and colleague James Brokenshire, who we still miss very dearly.

    Thanks to this programme, we have been able to give far more people a far better chance against cancer and of living a longer and healthier lives with their loved ones.

    This approach has so much potential, and I want to look at how we can roll out more of these targeted types of measures.

    To right the wrongs that currently exist and to level up on cancer care across the country.

    You know one of the privileges of being able to this job, is being able to speak to this country’s brilliant cancer charities and foremost experts in cancer care on a regular basis as I just did a couple of hours ago in a round table that I held just here.

    There’s a common consensus and this came through in the round table, there is a common consensus that one of the most important ways of making an impact on cancer outcomes is early diagnosis.

    The majority of deaths from cancer come because we sadly catch it too late, like my father. Detecting the disease early can save time, save money, but most importantly, can save lives.

    It is likely that early stage diagnoses have reduced over the past 18 months due to the pressures of the pandemic but we’ve taken steps to get us moving in the right direction.

    We have announced a new network for example of Community Diagnostic Centres which are already doing amazing work in communities across the country offering patients quicker and easier access to vital cancer tests.

    In their first seven months, they have already provided more than 400,000 tests and we expect to see over two million extra scans in their first full year of operation.

    The NHS Long Term Plan, it rightly has a big focus on early intervention and commits to diagnosing 75% of cancers at stage 1 and stage 2 by 2028.

    The most recent data impacted of course sadly by the pandemic for 2019. It shows that we are currently at 55% but I want to see if we can even set a mission to exceed the 75% target.

    And to do this, we’ll have to take every opportunity to give people the certainty that diagnosis can provide.

    So that the Call for Evidence, this demonstrates the ambitious plans that we have for the next decade.

    Extending screening to more people, for example by extending bowel screening to people aged between 50 and 60 by 2024/2025 launching a new programme for liver surveillance along with working with primary care to trial new routes into the system, like using community pharmacy and perhaps even self-referral.

    But if there’s more we can do, we want to hear about it, and that’s why this Call for Evidence is so important.

    I’m especially interested in how we can encourage young people to come forward and make sure that when they do they are diagnosed quickly.

    I was so moved to meet a very inspiring woman Charlotte Fairall someone I met just before Christmas with her constituency MP.

    Charlotte’s daughter Sophie was sadly taken by an aggressive form of cancer at the age of ten.

    This went unnoticed by a GP before it was diagnosed in A&E, diagnosed by a paediatrician, who found a tumour that was 12 centimetres long.

    Charlotte is now a dedicated fundraiser and a passionate advocate for improving childhood cancer care and by meeting her that had a great impact on me.

    Last year the UK Health Security Agency, they produced the first UK-wide report on cancer in young people which showed that every day in the UK ten children or young people are diagnosed with cancer.

    We know that patterns of cancer in young people are very different to adults.

    We already know this, so treating cancer for young people as a distinct speciality was pioneered in the UK and it has been replicated in many other countries across the world.

    But there’s still much more progress that we need to make, especially to improve recognition and on early diagnosis and this is an area where I will be placing a particular focus in the years ahead.

    Everyone is different and has their specific own treatment needs.

    I want every patient to have the support they need, that’s going to be tailored to them both during and after their treatment.

    In the future, more and more people will have cancer alongside other conditions so care centred around the individual is going to be absolutely crucial.

    We’ve already made huge strides, and around 83% of all cancer multidisciplinary teams have adopted personalised care and that’s up from 25% in 2017.

    But we will keep striving to get this number up and to improve follow-up care for cancer patients so that patients have someone to turn to even in the years after they finish their treatment.

    And as we keep working to improve care, we will draw on the innovation and the enterprise that has proved its worth during this pandemic.

    As one of the clinical leaders here at the Crick recently said: cancer is “an evolving system that plays by evolving rules”.

    As cancer evolves, we must evolve too, and the best way we can do that is by embarking on new technologies and treatments and by making this country the best place in the world to develop them.

    The past two years have shown the sparks of ingenuity that can fly when public and private sectors they work seamlessly together.

    Now we must use this to transform all parts of cancer care, from referral, through the diagnosis, and then through the treatment.

    In the Life Sciences Vision, we identified cancer as an area where we can use cutting-edge technologies to make a real difference.

    The Office for Life Sciences and Genomics England have done so much to build bridges with industry and to improve care for patients and if you look around an NHS ward you will see the most incredible technologies being pioneered in this country.

    Before I came here today, earlier this morning, I visited University College London Hospital to see how they are using proton beam therapy using high energy protons to precisely target tumours reducing the damage to nearby healthy tissues. I also saw, and it was fascinating technology, I think David the CEO is with us here today. I also saw a few months before that, I saw in a visit to Milton Keynes Hospital. I saw how they have been the first hospital, the first in Europe to use state-of-the-art surgical robots for major gynaecological surgery including complex cancer cases.

    Most exciting of all, the NHS is currently embarking on the most important trial of early detection for generations.

    This is the NHS-Galleri Trial which explores how we can detect cancer early when used alongside existing cancer screening.

    This trial has been set up and recruited at a pace that we have never seen before anywhere in the world, and is showing already great promise with the potential to transform how we detect cancer in this country.

    But I don’t want us to just stop there. I want to see many more Galleris.

    There are so many other technologies and treatments that have great promise and we do need to make the most of them.

    I want us to keep deploying the most cutting-edge technologies like AI, backed by our AI Health and Care Award.

    I want to explore how we can do more on personalised treatments such as immuno-oncology using the power of the body’s own immune system to prevent, to control, and eliminate cancer.

    Just as we saw during the COVID-19 pandemic, we’ve seen how vaccines gave us a solution.

    I also want us to explore every avenue on how vaccines can help us fight cancer too.

    You know we already have the HPV vaccine for some forms of cancer, like cervical cancer and here I’m determined to get the uptake of this vaccine back up on track because of the disruption of the pandemic.

    And this vaccine, the HPV vaccine is already a true success story.

    Data published just a few months ago showed how it is cutting cases of cervical cancer by almost 90%.

    Over 80 million people have now received the vaccine worldwide, including my three daughters.

    Due to the huge advances in vaccines and testing we have the very real possibility now to all but eradicate cervical cancer in my lifetime.

    A really exciting mission that we can all get behind.

    Although it might be some way on the horizon, there is also the potential I think to develop vaccines for other forms of cancer too.

    Of course cancer vaccines are going to be notoriously difficult.

    After all, we know that cancers develop specifically because they evade immune control.

    But just because it’s difficult doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try.

    And I want to intensify research in this area, building on the huge advances that were made during the pandemic on mRNA technology.

    And that research, you now the technology that had not been deployed until the pandemic came along, and look how fast the world moved to make use of it.

    But the latest technologies, it’s also important to remember that they really cannot work without the data that sit behind them and health and care data in particular has so much potential for innovation and for researchers.

    While the lessons of the pandemic was how much value there was where we could unlock this data.

    Here in the UK, we linked the primary care records of millions of people to the latest COVID-19 data meaning that we were able to conduct the world’s largest analysis of coronavirus risk factors.

    And I think we can apply these lessons to cancer too.

    This is an area where this country has so many natural strengths.

    We have one national health care system which means that we have all this valuable data effectively stored in one place.

    This includes one of the best cancer registries in the world which, unlike many comparable countries, logs every single cancer case that’s been diagnosed in England.

    The OpenSAFELY analytics platform has shown what can be done.

    It has used health and care data to identify which areas of the country have lower rates of testing for prostate cancer so that we can then take targeted action.

    What we need now is to build on this and drive the use of data even further.

    Including reducing the lag in early diagnosis performance data – which can act as a big barrier for researchers – from years to just a matter of weeks and days.

    This Call for Evidence invites views on what more we can do to promote the safe sharing of data to power the most cutting-edge technologies in the NHS.

    The document we are publishing today shows our determination to thwart this menace that’s taken so many lives.

    This is a big priority for me and my department and I’m delighted also to be able to call on Maria Caulfield and my ministerial team a former NHS nurse that specialised in cancer care.

    But you all know that governments cannot do this alone.

    We will need a new national mission, that’s drawing on the best of humanity to defeat this threat to us all.

    We want to hear views from far and wide to help us shape this work. That’s the point of the call of evidence.

    I want to hear from cancer patients, from their loved ones, people working in cancer care, pioneering researchers like those here at the Crick, some I met today. I can’t tell you how impressed I’ve been by them, and many, many more.

    So please join us in this new effort so fewer people face the heartache of losing a loved one to this wretched disease.

    Because every second counts.

    Thank you all very much for listening, thank you.

  • Laura Farris – 2022 Speech on the Down Syndrome Bill

    Laura Farris – 2022 Speech on the Down Syndrome Bill

    The speech made by Laura Farris, the Conservative MP for Newbury, in the House of Commons on 4 February 2022.

    I begin, as others have, by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) on this truly groundbreaking Bill. I will add a few reflections of my own, the first of which dovetails with his remarks on Second Reading.

    Our understanding of and respect for people with Down syndrome and equivalent conditions have evolved so much in my lifetime. Forty years ago, people with Down syndrome or something similar were viewed as problems to be managed, rather than people with potential to be realised. Employment, if it existed at all, was seen as an act of charity, rather than an opportunity for a person to be productive or to be in a role in which they could develop and thrive. The idea of someone with Down syndrome having a personal intimate relationship was taboo. It is amazing to think how far we have come. We have a far greater understanding not only of developmental conditions but of how they can exist on a spectrum.

    There are far more opportunities for education, employment and training. So many excellent employers in Newbury employ somebody who has a learning disability, but I want to give a particular mention to a young lady with Down syndrome called Karen who is doing a fantastic job and loving life at Nando’s in Newbury. The Bill recognises the specific challenges, particularly with health and care, but squarely places them alongside recognition of the dignity of people with Down syndrome and the idea that their families should not be scrubbing around for care and that that should be dependent on the provision of their local authority.

    While I was preparing my speech, I thought about how far we have come in Parliament in what we say about disability. The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and the Equality Act 2010, particularly the latter, contained important provisions about disability, such as the duty to make reasonable adjustments, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Edward Timpson). It is notable that the focus in the interpretation of both Acts was on physical disability, long-term health conditions such as cancer, or mental conditions such as schizophrenia or depression.

    I know that I am right, because I refreshed my memory of the statutory guidance published to go with the Equality Act to see what it said about disability. It is an extensive body of work on just the subject of disability, running to 60 pages and giving example after example of how society should respond, and there is not a single reference to Down syndrome and scant reference to any form of learning disability. I mention that not to minimise the significance or value of the Equality Act, but to point out that we as a society have been reluctant to confer on public authorities, employers or anyone else much in the way of positive duties on learning disabilities. If we are honest with ourselves, we know that we would be nervous to say very much about learning disabilities at all. I applaud my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset for taking the bull by the horns and presenting the Bill.

    I want to conclude with remarks on two points that have been made by other Members but are important. The Bill will receive Royal Assent, but it is right that we should not ignore all the other people with learning disabilities, particularly when there is an intersection with health concerns and a need for ongoing adult social care. I have a niece who falls into that category, and she was in special needs education throughout her younger years. The majority of her co-pupils had Down syndrome, so it is fair to say that she was considered by the authority to have something similar. She is now a young adult who has had significant challenges with her health and some of her communication abilities, but she has a job and a very busy social life and she is living a really productive life. A lot of the issues the Bill seeks to address apply equally to her and to thousands of others. The difficulty is in the definition, and finding statutory language that would correctly encompass all those conditions is technical and challenging—I do not resile from that. Of course I respect the ambit that my right hon. Friend chose for his Bill, but I must put on record my ambition that it will go wider and that we will see soon progress from the Department.

  • Edward Timpson – 2022 Speech on the Down Syndrome Bill

    Edward Timpson – 2022 Speech on the Down Syndrome Bill

    The speech made by Edward Timpson, the Conservative MP for Eddisbury, in the House of Commons on 4 February 2022.

    It is a real pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), who, in a more modest way than I normally remember, has established an important part of what has made this Bill possible: his energy, enthusiasm and drive to get it to this stage in this shape and at such speed.

    Many of us in this House will have different personal and professional reasons for supporting this Bill. For me, I must go all the way back to the early 1980s: believe it or not, I was alive and about seven or eight years of age. My parents had started fostering a few years before, and ended up doing so for about 30 years. During that period from the early ’80s to the mid-’80s, we as a family looked after Down syndrome babies, who came to live with us for weeks and sometimes months. We also offered respite care once a month for a long weekend for a Down syndrome boy in his early teens, to give his parents a much-needed break from an incessant and stressful time. Despite the love they had for their son, they needed a pressure valve in order to maintain their ability to look after him and keep their energy levels up.

    We were as happy as could be to provide that respite care. I recall it vividly, because it captured some of the most enjoyable images of our time in fostering. I recall many occasions with that young teenager, who had a couple of obsessions that infiltrated our household. The first was with the recording artist Shakin’ Stevens, who I am sure is also a favourite of all those present. That young boy was a fanatic follower of Shakin’ Stevens, and whenever he came to join us for a weekend, the first thing he would do was to put on our Shakin’ Stevens tape, and we would all dance together in the kitchen with real abandon. I remember it as an extremely happy time.

    That teenager was also fixated on the wrestling on “World of Sport” with Dickie Davies on a Saturday morning. He used to sit very close to the screen, because he did not have great eyesight, but he was transfixed by the bouts that were shown. Often, an hour or so would go by and he would not have moved.

    There was one scarier moment when we took him to a local swimming pool, where he was very keen to put on a mask and snorkel, go underwater and have a go at swimming. Unfortunately, it became apparent very quickly that he could not swim, so someone who was on duty had to jump in, fully clothed, and rescue him. However, the fact that he wanted to do those things and that he was given the opportunity was important, because, as my right hon. Friend said, we must ensure that the rights people with Down syndrome have are the same as for everybody else. That includes all those opportunities that we come across in our lives.

    That experience has led me to want to speak to the Bill—unfortunately, I was not on the Committee—as I am extremely supportive of what it seeks to achieve. There is clearly a lot of crossover between the reforms to the special educational needs and disabilities system, which I brought forward as children’s Minister, and this private Member’s Bill. As a learning disability, the estimated 47,000 people who have Down syndrome will potentially benefit from that system.

    The diagnosis will come extremely early in people’s lives, so there is no reason why an education, health and care plan cannot be put in place as early as possible. A focus on outcomes, whether educational, social or employment-related, can be built into those plans, which can go up to the age of 25. As we know, the life expectancy of those with Down syndrome has increased dramatically from the days when we were looking after Down syndrome children, so there is every reason to ensure that those outcomes are brought to fruition.

    In publishing the guidance that the Bill brings in, there is an opportunity to ensure that the reforms to the special educational needs and disabilities system, particularly to the code of practice and the local offer that must be published in every local area to explain the services available for those with special educational needs and how to access them, marry up with what is already out there. That will ensure that there is a clear pathway for parents and carers to know what is available and how they can access it.

    The level of support that those with Down syndrome need throughout their lives will vary considerably. It is important to remember that they are people with different individual needs, although there are certain services that they are more likely to need than others, such as speech and language therapy, physiotherapy or optician or hearing specialists. Therefore, the Bill is an opportunity to pull together the different routes to accessing key services.

    It is vital, however, that those children, young people and adults with Down syndrome have a sense of agency and that they feel that those things are being done not to them but with them, so that they have a stake in their future. For example, with the increased life expectancy of those with Down syndrome and some outliving their parents, they are having to be cared for by other means. There are recent instances of people ending up in an elderly care setting that is not necessarily as appropriate for them as it could be, which may have stymied the possibility of them reaching out to a more individual lifestyle and having support in the community.

    The Bill presents an opportunity to ensure that the guidance reflects the fact that those with Down syndrome need to be very much part of what they need for their future, so that the services that are built around them reflect that and ensure that the outcomes that they know they are capable of are reached. Although we have the Equality Act 2010 and the reasonable adjustments that go with it, they need more focus and definition through this Bill, for all the reasons that the Down’s Syndrome Association has illustrated so well in the case studies that it set out and that show the difference that will make.

    I accept the point about other conditions, but doing all that will provide a blueprint for how each individual person, irrespective of their condition, can be provided with guidance, support and wraparound services. We need to use the Bill as a way to demonstrate our commitment not just to those with Down syndrome, but to all those living with a learning disability for whom we know we can do better by bringing together the services that already exist more effectively. With medicine and our understanding of conditions improving, we can ensure that the way that we build services reflects the needs of all those who require them.

    I am hugely supportive of this Bill, for the personal and professional reasons I set out, and I very much hope and expect it will make a significant difference to many lives. It truly is the landmark that my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset suggests.

  • Liam Fox – 2022 Speech on the Down Syndrome Bill

    Liam Fox – 2022 Speech on the Down Syndrome Bill

    The speech made by Liam Fox, the Conservative MP for North Somerset, in the House of Commons on 4 February 2022.

    I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

    May I begin by thanking Members on both sides of the House for the support that they have given the Bill from the very outset? There are not many things that justify the downsides of being a Member of Parliament, but this is certainly one of the upsides—when we can see what will inevitably be a crisis emerging and do something about it in due time. That is one of the privileges given to us, and I am grateful to Members for their support in taking the Bill forward. They have not only supported it here in the House but advocated for it outside the House, where it has become one of the best-known private Members’ Bills in recent times in terms of public awareness of what is happening. That matters a great deal, because the Bill is not exactly the same as it was when we considered it on Second Reading—a subject that I will come to in a moment.

    The most common question that I am asked is, “Why have you been so concerned with this issue?” I explained on Second Reading that when I was growing up, the boy next door to me had Down syndrome. As a GP, I saw a number of those with Down syndrome and their families, and I saw the difficulties that they encountered. We regularly see one of my friends in my constituency, where I live, whose son Freddie has Down syndrome. As Members of Parliament, we have all recognised that having someone in the family with Down syndrome is not just a single problem to be dealt with; it is a conglomeration of problems. Families find themselves fighting on a number of fronts to get the quality of care that, frankly, they already have a right to. For me, that was why we needed a separate Bill.

    All Members will have had letters asking why the Bill could not have been wider—why we could not have included more conditions in it. I suppose there are two answers to that. The first is that private Members’ Bills have to be short and concise if we are going to get them through. Let me be very frank: getting a foot on the ladder of legislation in areas such as this is crucial. If we reach for too much in a private Member’s Bill, we can end up with zero. I think we have set the appropriate level of ambition in this Bill.

    We also have to recognise the complications that come with an extended Bill when it comes to the view of the Treasury. Many years ago, I was in the place of the Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris). It is definitely a case of gamekeeper turned poacher, but you learn a great deal as the gamekeeper for when you have to be the poacher later on when it comes to private Members’ Bills. I put on the record my thanks to her for her help. The role of the Friday Whip is not well understood outside Parliament, but when they are on your side, they can be very powerful allies indeed, and her support is very much appreciated.

    We also wanted the Bill to be separate because it is about a definable group in the population. Down syndrome is not something where there is any dubiety about the diagnosis and, as I said, there are complex identifiable needs. For example, we know that those with Down syndrome have a higher level of issues such as congenital heart disease, they have a higher instance of leukaemia, they have myriad ear, nose and throat problems, and the earlier they are dealt with, the better. It is difficult enough for parents to be fighting waiting lists and fighting to be regarded with sufficient urgency; if they are also dealing with the education system and trying to get help for a learning disability, that is an additional problem.

    The successes in medical care are the main driver for the Bill. When I was growing up, that boy next door had a life expectancy of 15 years. When I became a doctor in 1983, the life expectancy was about 30. Now, it is about 60. We should all be extremely grateful for that, but, as ever with advances in medical science, it brings its own problems. The problem, if we want to see it as such, is that parents will have this extra worry: “What will happen when I’m not there?” That is why I referred at the very beginning to a perfectly identifiable crisis that is on its way to us. If we actually take measures now, we can prevent individual tragedies. If there is a real justification for Members of Parliament having their own constituencies and dealing with real people, rather than being creatures only of a political party, it is that constituency link, which tells us about problems that need to be addressed and gives us the early warning sign to pass legislation to be able to deal with them. The complexity of the issues is one reason why we need separate legislation and why we had to bring different provisions into the Bill as it comes back for Third Reading from when it left the House after Second Reading.

    Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)

    The right hon. Member is making such a powerful point. He and many other Members have had numerous letters questioning the narrowness of the Bill. Will he reassure us that this is only the beginning and most definitely not the end of the process?

    Dr Fox

    Indeed. I would not even say it is the end of the beginning. It is on the way to being the end of the beginning, but this will be a perpetual battle. So long as medical science is able to make advances in genetics and immunology, this process will continue into the future and we will need to look at it. It is worth pointing out, to answer the hon. Lady’s question more directly, that we considered this in Committee. The Minister for Care and Mental Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan), made it clear that in the guidance that will be issued, which I will come to in a moment, it is entirely possible to deal with the effects of other conditions that may have the same effects as those emanating from Down syndrome. In a way, yes, we are starting the process, and the way in which we change the Bill is absolutely key to that.

    On Second Reading, I think it is fair to say, because we can be a little self-critical, that this was a well-meaning Bill that went as far as we could. However, I made it clear that one big issue was missing—the enforcement of rights. It is all very well to make available new provisions and rights in law, but if an individual or parent does not have the ability to enforce those rights, if there are no mechanisms or levels to pull to enable them to get the full benefit of what the legislation supposedly gives them, ultimately we are failing to achieve what we want. We discussed two major issues. I purposely left them out of the Bill on Second Reading because we were not ready. There is nothing worse than poorly-thought-out legislation that we have to come back and amend. It is far better to think the process through, get agreement on both sides of the House and with the Government, and then proceed on the basis of unanimity, as happened in Committee.

    The changes were essentially twofold. The first was getting agreement from Ministers that they would issue guidance to local health and education bodies and planning authorities to ensure that healthcare, education and long-term care issues would be properly taken into account. That was a major step forward. Again, it answers the question of how we can broaden the effects of the Bill, even with measures that are not in the Bill. That means looking at other conditions that will face the same problems as created by Down’s syndrome. However, that agreement created its own parliamentary problem for us, because as those who listen to debates in the other place will know, guidance issued by Ministers that is not laid before Parliament creates a potential democratic deficit. That is why I think it was the first major step forward for the Bill in Committee when the Government agreed not simply that the Minister would issue guidance, or that that guidance could apply directly to the various bodies concerned—another important step in itself—but that that guidance would be laid before Parliament.

    Up to that point, I had considered whether we needed to put a sunset clause in the Bill, to have it completely reviewed to see whether it worked in practice. The fact that the guidance will be laid before Parliament enables us to look in real time at what is happening, including parliamentary Committees looking at how the guidance actually works. That is a huge step forward. I think it is actually precedent-setting and turns this from a nice Bill into a cutting-edge and meaningful Bill. That is a huge achievement and one thing for which the Bill will be most remembered.

    Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con)

    I pay huge tribute to my right hon. Friend for bringing forward the Bill and the manner in which he has done so. On the territorial extent of the guidance, as a Welsh Member of Parliament I pay tribute to him, but he will know far better than I, given his length of service in this place, that the Bill’s territorial extent is England only. The Minister has alluded to working with devolved counterparts, but may I ask him to use his passion and experience to urge the devolved Administrations to follow suit?

    Dr Fox

    I thank my hon. Friend for that question. It will not surprise him to hear that, as a committed Unionist, I will come back to that. We need to consider the quality of life of all citizens in the United Kingdom, not just those for whom we are directly legislating today.

    I turn to the second element of precedent-setting changes that we made to the Bill in Committee. As we move to the new integrated care structure in the health service, we will have a named individual on the integrated care boards responsible for the application of this legislation, should it receive Royal Assent. That really matters, because those who have Down syndrome, their parents, their families and communities will know who in the new structure is responsible for ensuring that the guidance issued by Ministers is given effect on the ground. I think that even the direct application of ministerial guidance—as it would have had—and parliamentary scrutiny would not have been not quite enough to guarantee the effect of the Bill’s provisions where it really matters.

    That is precedent-setting. I doubt very much whether this will be the only occasion on which my hon. Friend the Minister has to consider representations for named individuals to take responsibility, but I take great pride in the Bill being the first, because I think it is a major step change from what we have had. It will give the new integrated care plans the idea of responsibility for their application to named individuals, which gives us a point of pressure in the system that did not otherwise exist.

    Finally, I turn to the Bill’s application to one part of the United Kingdom. At the beginning of the legislative process, we had a choice. We could have set out a United Kingdom Bill and challenged the Governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland for legislative consent orders. We could have said, “We dare you not to have the same provisions.” However, that would have become a debate about devolution, not Down syndrome, and I passionately wanted the Bill to focus on the needs of those with the condition and not become an argument about Government process or our constitutional relationships.

    Having said that, I completely take the view that a person with Down syndrome should not have fewer rights in one part of this United Kingdom than in any other. The Bill is making speedy progress through the House. I hope that it will make speedy progress through the other place and that, hopefully, it can get to Royal Assent before World Down Syndrome Day on 21 March, at which point we would be the only country to have legislated for it. That is important for our concept of global Britain, which cannot be just about trade, defence or economies; it must also be about our values, and I can think of no clearer signal to send than to legislate on this point.

    I say to those in charge of the legislative programmes in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland that it is unthinkable that people with Down syndrome living in those parts of the United Kingdom should have fewer rights, or rights applied at a later date, than those in England, for whom we are legislating today.

    When it comes to health, it is the duty of all those who run those devolved parts of the United Kingdom to ensure that everybody in the UK, irrespective of where they live, gets the same access at the same time to the changes to which we are giving effect today.

    This Bill began with great intentions, and ends now as a landmark Bill. It recognises that, in the provision of services, whether in health, education or long-term care in this country, Parliament will give not only rights, but applicability and enforceability of those rights in our systems. That is a change in the whole way in which we think about such legislation in this House.

    I am very proud to have been the mover of this Bill; as the mover of the Bill, I am also very moved by the support that has come from every party in the House of Commons and from the Government. I thank all my colleagues and, with your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, I may be able to thank some others who have been instrumental in the progress of the Bill a little later.

  • Keir Starmer – 2022 Comments on the Creative Industries

    Keir Starmer – 2022 Comments on the Creative Industries

    The comments made by Keir Starmer, the Leader of the Opposition, on 2 February 2022.

    Thank you Caroline, and hello everyone.

    I’m so pleased to be here talking to you for the first time.

    This should not be a one off.

    But the beginning of a conversation we can keep coming back to.

    As I was planning this talk, I was reflecting on how lucky we are.

    We live in a country with a cultural heritage stretching back thousands of years.

    Our literature, art, music, theatre, advertising and fashion are admired all over the world.

    We have a truly national culture, maintained by universal public broadcasting.

    And 2022 will be a big year to celebrate that culture.

    It is Her Majesty the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee.

    The Women’s Euros are here, Birmingham will host the Commonwealth Games and the BBC will celebrate the centenary of its creation.

    But as great as they are, I am not here just to celebrate the cultural achievements of the past.

    Instead, I want to look at the source of this heritage – our creativity as a nation.

    Creativity allows us all to see the world in entirely new ways.

    We saw it in the scientists at Oxford developing the coronavirus vaccine every bit as much as we see it in our great painters, actors, and musicians.

    So my focus today is not just on what are known in policy circles as “the creative industries”.

    I want to widen the conversation to talk about our creative nation.

    Because I believe that all good industry is creative.

    To be creative is the economic necessity of our times.

    Creativity brings beauty and meaning into our lives.

    But it is also the source of innovation and invention.

    It is the expression of talent and imagination.

    It is the key to the security, prosperity and respect that our country needs and nowhere is this more in evidence than in the creative industries themselves.

    At the beginning of this year, I set out my contract with the British people.

    Its objective was the creation of a new Britain in which people get the security, prosperity, and respect they deserve.

    Today, I want to fill in the details of this contract.

    To give you a sense of how those values will make us an even more creative nation.

    I’ll talk about how Labour will work in partnership with you to provide security to a creative workforce to bring prosperity to the nation and to restore respect to the industry and creative communities across the nation.

    The first term in my contract with the British people is security.

    Labour is committed to providing security for people working in every sector.

    The creative industries were left especially exposed to the pandemic.

    Output in the creative industries declined by more than a third between 2019 and 2021.

    That’s partly because – beyond Britain’s renowned creative brands –

    there are legions of small businesses, micro-businesses and freelancers who depend for a living on the success of those brands.

    A third of creative workers are freelancers – double the UK average.

    That rises to 7 in 10 workers in music and the performing and visual arts.

    The pandemic left many people in these industries insecure and short of support.

    110,000 jobs were lost.

    And if Britain is to recover strongly from the pandemic the creative industries must thrive.

    We need your entrepreneurial spirit, your ability to navigate and embrace change.

    We need you to feel safe to take risks.

    We need your ideas and innovation.

    In return for that, the government should provide you with the security to do so.

    A decade of this Conservative government, though, has let you down – badly.

    Economic growth has slowed and the cost of living has risen faster than earnings.

    This makes it harder to build new businesses.

    Labour would unleash the entrepreneurial spirit so evident in the creative industries – with our plan for 100, 000 start-ups across the country.

    Sadly, today the British economy is increasingly defined by insecure work and low pay.

    The government I lead would deliver the security at work you need and deserve.

    We would raise the minimum wage to £10 an hour.

    We would give workers full rights from day one.

    We would ban zero-hours contracts and we would increase Statutory Sick Pay and make it available to all.

    In addition, we have a ten-point plan to live well with Covid, preventing the need for future restrictions.

    This would give the creative industries security from the threat of cancellations.

    We will not prosper if we are not secure.

    Security and prosperity work together.

    The second term in the contract is prosperity.

    Under my leadership, Labour is back in business.

    We will equip the next generation for work and we will invest to create high-skilled jobs.

    In response, we expect each sector to invest in the long term, too.

    We expect businesses to contribute to the aim of net-zero.

    And we expect them to be good local citizens by supporting their workforces with fair pay and flexible working.

    Labour believes Britain’s future prosperity lies with its home-grown industries.

    And the creative industries are a Great British success story.

    In 2019, for instance, they contributed over one hundred billion pounds in gross value added to the UK economy.

    That’s greater than the aerospace, automotive, life sciences and oil and gas sectors combined.

    And that’s not all, these industries supported a further £62.1 billion across the supply chain.

    There are 2 million jobs in the creative sector and a further 1.4 million more rely on it.

    And creativity is nation-wide.

    Some of Britain’s most famous characters – James Bond and Harry Potter were brought to life in Pinewood Studios in Buckinghamshire through the acknowledged excellence of our film crews, technicians and set-builders.

    The UK theatre industry is world-beating. Our productions are in huge demand and our West End, regional theatres and community arts are envied worldwide.

    We have world-leading 3D capture technology at Dimension Studios in London.

    The UK gaming industry has evolved into the UK’s most lucrative entertainment sector and is the leading video game market in Europe.

    More than 1,500 people are employed in the industry in its birthplace in Dundee.

    In 2020, the universities of Abertay, Dundee and St Andrews announced the launch of a £9m gaming research and development centre in the city.

    The University of Reading’s Thames Valley Science Park is soon to become the UK’s biggest film studio, creating 3,000 jobs.

    There are studio developments underway in Cardiff, Northern Ireland, Yorkshire, Manchester and Scotland.

    The creative industries are growing four times the rate of the UK economy as a whole.

    Their gross value-added has grown by over a third in the North-West and almost half in Scotland over the last decade.

    The creative industries are creating jobs at three times the UK average.

    Employment in the sector grew 21% in Northern Ireland and 30% in the West Midlands between 2010 and 2017.

    And we are exporting the fruits of our creativity too.

    The creative industries account for 12% of total UK exports.

    Our creativity enhances Britain’s international reputation.

    It attracts investors and visitors.

    But leaving the EU does of course pose challenges.

    There is, for a start, a potential loss of funding.

    Between 2014 and 2020, the UK received 68 million euros in funding from Creative Europe.

    And we will lose funds such as Erasmus+, Europe for Citizens and the European Structural & Investment Funds.

    In addition, EU citizens are a significant part of the UK’s creative industries workforce.

    Creative professionals need to be able to travel abroad at speed so the impact on them has been tough – with musicians especially hard hit.

    The Conservatives believed it was enough to get Brexit done.

    It’s not.

    We urgently need to Make Brexit Work.

    We would push for a visa waiver for touring artists.

    And we would negotiate an EU-wide cultural touring agreement – including allowances for cabotage, carnets and custom rules.

    It is only when we achieve security and prosperity that we will be paying the creative industries the respect they are properly due.

    Respect is the third term in my contract with the British people.

    Every village, town and city in Britain has a sense of identity.

    And nothing creates more civic pride than a cinema, a museum, a theatre, a gallery, or a concert hall.

    Creativity has driven the regeneration of so many of our towns, cities and regions.

    Margate, for instance, the home of the Turner Contemporary, attracts 2.9 million visitors and generates £68 million for the local economy.

    In Folkestone, the Creative Quarter has regenerated the area with arts, creative industries and education.

    And of course in Scotland we have the world’s largest international arts festival – the Edinburgh festival.

    The Edinburgh festival, as many of you will know first-hand, is the launch pad for creatives across the country – and indeed the world – who bring their performances and new works to the city.

    And Scottish TV productions – like Outlander – are exported across the world helping to promote jobs in the media that make Britain such a world leader in TV production.

    The UK video effects industry thrives in Cardiff Bay with successful businesses like Bait Studio.

    And Creative UK launched the Culture and Creative Investment Programme in the North-East.

    We need to look after our national culture, too.

    The UK’s public service broadcasting is a national treasure because it is also local and global.

    Local news, the World Service, the BBC and Channel 4 are the narrators of our national story.

    They create jobs and drive productivity.

    The Conservatives threaten the future of these two great institutions.

    The plan to privatise Channel 4 and the threat to the BBC as we know it are a direct attack on some of the best of Britain’s creative work.

    There will be an economic price to pay, too.

    Yesterday, the Secretary of State announced £50 million of investment for the creative industries.

    But the privatisation of Channel 4 would put £2.1 billion of gross value-added to the supply chain at risk over the next ten years.

    It risks putting 60 UK production companies out of business showing that the Government isn’t interested in growth.

    Meanwhile, a commercial BBC would rob us – and the world – not only of superb news services with unparalleled local knowledge but of a valuable cultural export.

    I want to challenge all of you here today and the wider sector to be bold to come together and assert your collective clout by speaking out in defence of the value of public sector broadcasting against the government’s attacks.

    I promise you this.

    You can do so knowing that a government I lead will always have your back.

    Our record, in government, on creativity and culture speaks for itself.

    The last Labour government oversaw a boom in creative industries and institutions.

    Tate Modern opened in 2000.

    The Eden Project in Cornwall in 2001.

    The Baltic Centre for Contemporary Art on the Quayside in Newcastle opened in 2002.

    And the Sage Gateshead concert hall opened in 2004.

    In Salford, meanwhile, MediaCityUK began life in 2006.

    The next Labour government will help the creative industries flourish again.

    Creative roles now make up a significant part of the Government’s Shortage Occupation List.

    And they include many of the jobs predicted to grow as a share of the workforce by 2030.

    As I tour the country, I am frequently struck by how often I am told about skills shortages.

    A recent survey showed that 80% of businesses were worried about skills.

    In this context the Government’s squeeze on creative subjects in curriculums is self-harming.

    Even STEM industries say that the stripping away of vital creative subjects including drama, music and art is costing them.

    Even primary age children have seen almost a 40% decline in participation in music activities.

    Not only does this affect access to careers in the performing arts it also further degrades the creativity upon which our national prosperity rests.

    The skills gaps in the creative industries workforce aren’t being filled by the available training.

    Funding per student in further education and sixth form colleges has fallen by 11% in real terms since Labour was last in government.

    Digital skills are another area where the UK needs to improve.

    But fewer than half of employers believe young people have the digital skills they need.

    In government, we would add digital skills to the basics of reading, writing and arithmetic.

    And last year, we launched our Council of Skills Advisors.

    David Blunkett, a former education secretary will work alongside the tech entrepreneur Praful Nargund the skills expert, Rachel Sandby-Thomas and Kevin Rowan of the TUC.

    In government, we would ensure that everyone leaves education ready for work and ready for life.

    The reputation of the creative nation depends on it.

    Prosperity, security and respect.

    The three terms of my contract with the British people.

    A Labour government would extend this contract to the creative industries.

    You have achieved so much.

    But to succeed as a country, we will need more creativity than ever before.

    I want us to become an even more creative nation.

    A nation defined by its willingness to take risks and embrace change.

    Creativity can make us more prosperous as a country.

    And it can bring meaning, beauty and pride to every village, town and city.

    It can give people opportunities to flourish.

    The security they need to do so and the respect they deserve.

    Together we can build the creative nation of which we can all be proud.

    Let’s keep this conversation going.

    Thank you.

  • Keir Starmer – 2022 Speech on Trust in Politics

    Keir Starmer – 2022 Speech on Trust in Politics

    The speech made by Keir Starmer, the Leader of the Opposition, on 3 February 2022.

    Thank you for hosting me here today and for that fascinating presentation. How shocking these figures are!

    I want to give a few brief reflections on them and what I think they mean for politics, for government and for business in the UK.

    Of course, I am concerned to see trust in so many institutions fall – in some cases to an unprecedented low.

    But I also want to set out a way forward.

    Because trust counts – and I’m not prepared to give up on it.

    The start point is to be honest with ourselves and face up to the scale of the challenge.

    Trust in government is falling.

    Trust in politics and politicians is falling.

    Trust in the media is falling.

    Two thirds of the public think that the way politicians act undermines democracy.

    Six out of ten people think politicians are likely to lie to them.

    Six out of ten!

    Sadly, that doesn’t surprise me given recent events.

    But it does disappoint me – it frustrates me.

    But honestly – I’m not surprised.

    It’s inevitable when we have a government that is misleading the public and covering up their own wrongdoing to save the Prime Minister’s job.

    This is a government in paralysis.

    Instead of representing the people who elected them and addressing the challenges the country faces, they are intent on saving themselves not serving the country.

    The cost of living is rising.

    Prices and taxes are up and wages are stagnant.

    While the whole country worries about how they will pay those bills when they come, this government is too pre- occupied to act.

    This government has let them down.

    No wonder the public don’t trust them.

    But we all suffer from this decline in trust.

    The appeal of democracy has always been based on two promises.

    The first is that the world will get better; democracy will deliver.

    The second is that people will be listened to; democracy will empower.

    Both of those promises rely on trust.

    And, right now that trust is in short supply.

    Small wonder the public is more pessimistic than they have been in years.

    They are pessimistic about their own security and standards of life.

    They expect things will just get worse over the next five years.

    They doubt the truth of what they hear from political leaders and from the media.

    And they feel shut out of the whole political system.

    Just 3 in 10 people feel they have the power to influence politics with their vote.

    And almost 6 out of 10 say they feel powerless as a citizen to affect change.

    For too long too many people have felt that politics has been removed from them.

    While they play by the rules, politics is not delivering its side of the bargain, even at the most basic level.

    Trust is not easily rebuilt but we really must do better than this.

    We are better than this

    And I am well aware that just because the Tories lose the public’s trust

    It doesn’t mean Labour simply inherits it.

    Trust has to be earned.

    I am confident but not complacent about the task ahead.

    I want to make a concrete commitment about decency and standards in public life.

    Of course, these standards already exist.

    They are known as the Nolan principles.

    Selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty, leadership.

    I shouldn’t have to pledge to honour these principles but, sadly, I feel I do.

    So my solemn promise to you will always be to run a government that honours these principles.

    I believe in making credible promises that we will deliver – the very opposite of government by meaningless slogans.

    I would like to say a bit more about how a Labour government would be different.

    I want to start with the partnership that we would like to strike with British business.

    Business was one of the encouraging stories from today’s survey launch.

    It is heartening to see the high trust that workers place in their employers.

    I know the great value that employers and business can offer.

    It’s something I saw growing up in my parents’ work.

    My father was a toolmaker.

    My mother worked as a nurse.

    And the thing that I really remember from my dad was how hard he worked.

    His industry was a real source of pride and value.

    I was encouraged to see how business is seen as leaders in society, with solutions to some of the big challenges of the day.

    British business is a real source of pride, both here in the UK and internationally.

    Many businesses are driven by a sense of purpose.

    Determined to meet the challenge of the climate crisis.

    Supporting the changes we need to make to protect our future.

    Today’s report shows the public’s expectation that business will continue to show leadership on the big future issues.

    Half of the public think business should do more, not less, on climate change.

    44% think business can go further on workforce reskilling.

    But business alone cannot be expected to carry the trust of this country.

    Business can only lead when it has the support of a serious government.

    That’s why I believe that British business needs a more active, effective partnership with government.

    And that government needs an industrial strategy designed to get our country fit to face the future.

    The Director of the CBI, Tony Danker, has been clear about what’s needed: supporting business to invest, he says, will require ‘catalytic public investment’.

    That’s what Labour’s climate investment pledge does – £28bn every year for each and every year of the next decade – to ensure the industries and jobs of the future are found all across Britain.

    The business community and the political world need to work together.

    We both have a job to do.

    So what would Labour do?

    Earlier this year, I took the opportunity to set out a vision for government worthy of the British public.

    I set out my contract with the British people.

    Something tangible that you can see and go back to, so you know how a Labour government will lead, and what to expect.

    My contract will be founded on three principles; Security, Prosperity and Respect.

    All of these are critical for rebuilding trust.

    The public need security.

    Only when you feel secure in your own life, can you trust that things will be okay.

    That is clear in this year’s Trust Barometer report.

    Those who work hard but lack economic security are less likely and less able, to place trust in the institutions around them.

    Of course they are gaps in trust between high and low earners in the UK is one of the highest compared to other countries internationally.

    And we have seen in the data today that lower income earners are much more likely to think the UK economic system doesn’t work for them.

    Labour is focused on bringing security back to people across Britain.

    We would improve security of employment through our New Deal for Working People.

    And we would improve economic security for thousands right now by keeping energy bills down as the cost of living bites.

    But to provide this security, our nation needs to be prosperous.

    Prosperity is the second principle in my contract – and, let’s be honest, right now Britain is not as dynamic, competitive and profitable as we need to be.

    Our industrial strategy will drive productivity and ensure we Buy, Make and Sell more in Britain.

    Supporting the industries of this country which have so much potential, and so much opportunity to make us proud.

    We would scrap and replace business rates with a much fairer alternative to incentivise investment.

    We will invest in green industries creating jobs all around the country

    And we will make Brexit work so British business can thrive.

    The last principle of my contract is perhaps the most important for building trust.

    That is Respect.

    The public deserves a government that respects them.

    A government that listens, hears, and responds.

    A government that empowers them to take local decisions for themselves.

    And we all deserve a Government that is respectful of tax-payers money and how it is spent.

    The Chancellor has just written off £4.3bn of fraud, stolen from the Government during Covid.

    Under Labour, this would not happen.

    The fiscal rules that my shadow chancellor, Rachel Reeves, has set out, will be the framework for responsible spending, and our Office for Value for Money will account for every pound.

    So despite the gloomy outlook for trust right now in the UK, I do have hope.

    There are opportunities to earn back trust and I am clear how Labour would go about the task.

    By delivering security, prosperity and respect for British people throughout this country.

    Because we simply cannot go on with trust being eroded in every British institution.

    It is often said that the Prime Minister doesn’t believe the rules apply to him.

    That he has a sense of entitlement which transcends the normal rules of politics.

    I think it is considerably worse than that.

    It isn’t that the Prime Minister thinks the rules don’t apply.

    He absolutely knows that they do.

    His strategy is to devalue the rules so they don’t matter to anyone anymore.

    So, that politics becomes contaminated.

    Cynicism and alienation replace confidence and trust.

    So that the taunt “politicians are just in it for themselves” becomes accepted wisdom.

    It is a strategy to sow disillusion; to convince people that things can’t get better; government can’t improve people’s lives; progress isn’t possible because politics doesn’t work.

    But I’m not going to play the Prime Minister’s game.

    I simply refuse to accept that Britain can’t be governed better than this.

    I will never give up on the power of politics to be a force for good.

    And I will always fight to defend those essential British values of honesty, decency and integrity.

    We don’t have to accept the repeated lies from the dispatch box.

    Or the casual devaluing of the office that does so much damage around the world.

    As DPP, I prosecuted MPs over their expenses.

    And today I refuse to turn a blind eye to the dodgy practices in Downing Street.

    I won’t simply shrug my shoulders at the dishonesty and disrespect on the basis that it is “priced in”.

    That’s why I said line one of my contract with the British public would be the return of the Nolan principles to public life.

    My solemn vow is that the government I lead will govern in the public interest.

    Where standards stand for something; where truth means something and where honesty is at the heart of everything that it does.

    The health of our democracy depends on it.

    We cannot give up on all the good that is here in the UK: good businesses, good ideas, good people.

    We must rebuild public trust in our institutions, raise public trust in our industries, and build a country that works together, united, for its future success.

    No matter what damage has been inflicted by this government, I believe this can change.

    It’s time for a change.

    Together we can build a Britain fit to face the future so I hope very much to be able to return here in a few years’ time with that presentation telling a different story.

    A story of rising trust, with a Labour Government.

    Of a democracy in which trust is restored and people can once more expect integrity from their government.

    Thank you.

  • Layla Moran – 2022 Tribute to Jack Dromey

    Layla Moran – 2022 Tribute to Jack Dromey

    The tribute made by Layla Moran, the Liberal Democrat MP for Oxford West and Abingdon, in the House of Commons on 2 February 2022.

    To the tributes already paid, I add the profound sympathies of both myself and all the Liberal Democrats who sit on these Benches. As a relatively new Member of the Commons, I confess that I did not know Jack that well, but what I did know I really, really liked.

    I first met him in a mindfulness meditation class, which he, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) and I attended with other MPs as we sought to find some calm in the storm of the 2017 to 2019 Parliament. I dare say that it was, at times, hilariously awkward. I remember Jack taking those classes with great humour. He oozed wisdom and kindness, and I think it was that shared experience that meant that, when we caught each other’s eye while passing each other in the Lobby, he would ask how I was, and he really meant it. Since his passing, I have learned that that kind man, whom I liked so much, had a similar effect on pretty much everyone he met. The tributes today are proof of how respected he was across the political spectrum. While a trade union man through and through, he was a pragmatist. He would work with anyone who could deliver his aims and shared his values.

    Part of Jack’s appeal and great strength was that he was so obviously driven by his values and by a deep desire to help people. Quite simply, Jack Dromey was one of the good guys. I think it says it all that he worked to the last. In that final debate on Afghanistan, he urged Parliament and the Government to take a more compassionate approach to those in the world who need us the most and said:

    “Our country has a proud history of providing a safe haven to those fleeing persecution.”

    He also spoke of our country’s most fundamental values

    “of decency, honesty and fairness.”—[Official Report, 6 January 2022; Vol. 706, c. 129WH.]

    Jack embodied those values.

    To the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham, to their children, Harry, Joe and Amy, and to the whole family, there are no words, but I hope that from today’s tributes they can take some comfort in knowing the impact that Jack had and how he affected not just this House but the whole country.

  • Andrew Mitchell – 2022 Tribute to Jack Dromey

    Andrew Mitchell – 2022 Tribute to Jack Dromey

    The tribute made by Andrew Mitchell, the Conservative MP for Sutton Coldfield, in the House of Commons on 2 February 2022.

    It is a privilege and an honour to speak today about Jack, who I am proud to call my friend and colleague in this place. He was my parliamentary neighbour, as his constituency inside Birmingham city ran alongside the royal town of Sutton Coldfield, and there were many mutual issues affecting our constituents, on which we worked seamlessly, constructively and enjoyably together.

    Jack’s arrival in Birmingham was somewhat unexpected, not least because those of us keenly watching the outcome of the selection contest had been advised that this was an all-women shortlist, but we quickly established a rapport. The thing I learnt early on about Jack was that he was a brilliant negotiator. Faced with a brick wall, his instinct was not to pound his way through it, but to skilfully manoeuvre around it wherever possible. And he was ineffably charming and patient. He had a considerable knack locally of bringing people of different persuasions to common positions. He did it at times of great anxiety in the automotive industry in the west midlands with Caroline Spelman, our former colleague from Meriden, with West Midlands Mayor Andy Street and, most recently, with me working on Afghans coming to Birmingham from Kabul.

    All of which leads me, finally, to a story about Jack’s negotiating powers and—forgive me for name dropping, Mr Speaker—about his relationship with the Marquis of Salisbury, a former colleague in this place, Conservative Minister and Member for South Dorset, Robert Cranbourne. When his lordship was a Defence Minister, he held regular meetings with the unions in Whitehall. These meetings sometimes ran for four hours and meaningful results were slow in being achieved, but during particularly drawn-out moments the Marquis, as he is now, would catch the eye of the then senior trade union negotiator, as he then was, Jack Dromey. After one such meeting, his lordship rang up Jack to suggest that it would perhaps be better if they sorted out the business beforehand, possibly over lunch, and, to Robert’s relief, Jack willingly agreed. “Where should we go?” asked Jack, to which the Marquis replied, “I wonder if you might like to come to White’s, my club in St. James’s,” to which Jack replied, “Ah, I’ve always wanted to go there.”

    And so affairs of state and the Ministry of Defence were congenially sorted out by these two distinguished public servants. On the first occasion, as various chiselled-featured members of the British establishment walked through the club’s hallowed portals, Jack drank orange juice, but on the final occasion, after a particularly successful negotiation had been concluded, glasses of vintage port were consumed. As he stepped out on to the street, Jack thanked his lordship for his kind hospitality, and as he left said over his shoulder, “By the way, please don’t tell Harriet where we’ve been. And especially do not mention the vintage port!” [Laughter.] For the avoidance of doubt, Mr Speaker, I can of course confirm that this was a workplace event. [Laughter.]

    As we remember an adopted son of Birmingham taken from us far, far too soon, let us remember the words of Harry, Jack and Harriet’s son, who with both sadness and pride spoke of the quality, but not alas the quantity, of the years they all had together.