Tag: Speeches

  • Daniel Kawczynski – 2022 Personal Statement Apologising for his Conduct

    Daniel Kawczynski – 2022 Personal Statement Apologising for his Conduct

    The statement made by Daniel Kawczynski, the Conservative MP for Shrewsbury and Atcham, in the House of Commons on 19 January 2022.

    With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a personal statement to the House.

    Last week, the Committee on Standards published a report on my conduct following a complaint from Sir Stephen Irwin, the chair of the independent expert panel, that I had not abided by a determination of the IEP that I apologise unequivocally to the House for my behaviour in bullying members of House of Commons staff. I sincerely apologise for my conduct, which led to this investigation. I acknowledge that in speaking to journalists and the radio, I undermined the sincerity of the apology that I gave the House on 14 June 2021. I am sorry that my conduct will have had a further harmful effect on the complainants, and that it may have diminished public confidence in the process. I will be sending a written apology to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, the chair of the independent expert panel, and the original complainants.

    I am conscious that my conduct may have merited suspension from the service of the House for a longer period, and appreciate the Committee’s consideration of the difficulties that I was experiencing in my personal life at the time and the mental health issues that I explained to it. I accept that speaking out in the way I did to the media had a detrimental effect on the House’s conduct policy by undermining the integrity of the complaints process, and I deeply regret my actions. I am committed to learning from the mistakes I have made, and to working on my personal development, especially in my communication with others in every interaction that I have. I hope that others will learn from my experience, and I should be happy to share what I have learnt with others.

    The House has rightly worked hard to change its culture so that everyone who comes on to the estate, or has any dealings with Parliament, feels safe from bullying or harassment. I want to do everything I can to assist in that, and I regret that my actions fell short.

  • Sarah Owen – 2022 Speech on the Misuse of Fireworks Bill

    Sarah Owen – 2022 Speech on the Misuse of Fireworks Bill

    The speech made by Sarah Owen, the Labour MP for Luton North, in the House of Commons on 21 January 2022.

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

    I am grateful to present my Bill for Second Reading. I appreciate fireworks’ beauty, as we all do—how they can light up the sky and add magic and awe to our special occasions. I am here not to spoil the fun of fireworks, but to bring forward some common sense solutions that I hope the Government will take on board.

    There is a harmful side to fireworks that must be addressed and challenged. We have spoken before in the House about the fire safety hazards, their use as weapons, and the extreme nuisance that the noise can create, but the Government are yet to bring in any meaningful regulations. We have a debate almost every year about the nuisance of fireworks, yet regulations have not followed.

    In the Bill, I call on the Government to show compassion to the communities affected by the relentless use of noisy fireworks by committing to limit the volume of fireworks, increase the minimum fine for the misuse of fireworks, review the laws around the licensing of sellers, and consult with relevant charities to ensure that their reforms are informed and effective. Last year, more than 300,000 of our constituents signed a petition calling for Government restrictions on the sale and use of fireworks. One of my residents in Luton North started a petition to make fireworks silent, while more than 13,000 people signed a similar petition on the Government website to call for quieter fireworks. That is where I will start.

    The current decibel limit for fireworks is 120 dB. I am not sure that many people could say exactly how loud that is, so to put it into perspective, the legal sound limit for a rock concert is 107 dB. I am painfully aware how old it makes me sound to say “rock concert”, but that is how it is described. A Formula 1 race typically reaches 140 dB. One of the loudest ever recorded sounds is a volcanic explosion that reached 172 dB. The pain threshold for humans is breached by anything above 130 dB, yet our limit for legal firework noise sits between that and a rock concert. That simply does not make sense.

    Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)

    I thank my hon. Friend and fellow Whips Office colleague for bringing forward a brilliant private Member’s Bill, which will be hugely appreciated by many residents of Newport East and by my local Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. On the issue of noise, does she agree that we need to do something about illegally imported fireworks, which are so much noisier and more powerful, that are sold online?

    Sarah Owen

    My hon. Friend makes a very important point, one that I hope to come on to later in my speech, specifically in relation to licensing and tightening up licensing laws.

    The Royal National Institute for Deaf People states that even a short exposure to sounds of 110 decibels to 120 decibels can cause harm to hearing. Noise-induced hearing loss damages the delicate inner ear. The effects may appear immediately or emerge over time, but either way the damage is not reversible.

    Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)

    I congratulate the hon. Member on bringing forward the Bill and on highlighting the importance of improving the regulation of fireworks. As a veterinary surgeon, I have had the sad misfortune to have had to prescribe on numerous occasions sedation for dogs around the time of bonfire night, because of the dreadful effects fireworks have on them. I have also, sadly, witnessed the fear, flight and fright response of large animals: farm animal livestock and horses that stampede, panic, run through fences, damage themselves and run on to roads because of fireworks. I am grateful to the hon. Member for speaking about the effects on human health, but does she agree that firework regulation should take into consideration the effects on animals, too?

    Sarah Owen

    Absolutely. I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and for the experience and expertise he brings to this place in raising that point.

    As a bare minimum, we must change the maximum limit to 90 decibels. I am aware that that measure alone does not tackle all the issues, such as the one the hon. Gentleman has just raised, but it will make a strong start in addressing the impact of fireworks.

    For my constituents, fireworks are not just a disturbance on bonfire night or new year, they are a constant year-round and sometimes weekly nightmare. When I have posted on social media about the frequency and intensity of fireworks in Luton, I have been flooded with streams of distressing stories from constituents. One Luton resident wrote that she had become so accustomed to the intrusive noise of fireworks that, shockingly, when someone was shot outside her home, she did not call the police or an ambulance because she did not register the sound as unusual. The person, thankfully, survived, but my constituent was no less shaken.

    Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)

    Does the hon. Lady agree that one of the big problems with fireworks is the way they have evolved? I am probably a little bit older than she is, but my first experience with fireworks was a rocket in a bottle in the backyard and the rocket struggling to get above the house. The fireworks that can now be bought are such powerful beasts. The issue is not just about animals or people: as the son of a fireman, I know there are other implications as well.

    Sarah Owen

    From the son of a fireman to the daughter of a firefighter: I wholeheartedly agree. Legislation has not been able to catch up with the speed of development of fireworks.

    When I spoke in a debate on this issue in November, a local Luton parent wrote to me about her experience, which sums up the distress that fireworks cause. She wrote:

    “We can hear fireworks every single night. Without exaggeration, I counted, they can go off every 10 minutes between 6 pm and midnight. Sometimes at 1 am. The stress caused by them is enormous and growing. My child is terrified. To a point where she screams and begs me to stop them. We have to put on a white noise sound on a tablet in her room in order to reduce the sound of the bangs. If she wakes up, she cries, shivers and goes back to sleep with earmuffs on. Before bedtime she begs me for no fireworks. Mental health in our family is in pieces. I am genuinely worried about the wellbeing of my daughter. We can’t live like this.”—[Official Report, 8 November 2021; Vol. 703, c. 10-11WH.]

    Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)

    I thank the hon. Lady for giving way; she is being very generous. Her constituent relates a very sad story. Does she agree that fireworks being set off for days or in some cases weeks either side of festivals and outside of the normal regulated permitted time makes it even more difficult for people to shield, whether young people or pets, from the distress caused by noisy fireworks?

    Sarah Owen

    I wholeheartedly agree. This is not just about the noise of the fireworks, but also the unplanned and unexpected nature of them, which really impacts communities.

    The testimony I read out has stuck with me. As a mum of a toddler, I know that disturbing a child’s sleep—or, for that matter, a parent’s—is no joke. The fireworks around us in Luton are sometimes so loud that my daughter’s baby monitor lights up red. That is with double glazing and all windows and doors shut. Many of us will know that the next day with a young child who has not had a full night’s sleep is absolutely no fun at all—it is not a fate I would wish on even my strongest opponents here.

    Many colleagues will also be pet owners. Luckily, my dog Herman is a fairly chilled out chap when it comes to fireworks, but I have had reports from pet owners in Luton where the impact of the fireworks on their pets has turned their household upside down. Their beloved animals are scared, fearful and shaken, even after the noises have stopped.

    A 2021 report by Cats Protection found that 63% of cats in the UK are negatively affected by fireworks. Cats can presume themselves to be in danger from sudden bursts of light and loud noise. In response to a threat to their safety, cats often bolt out of the house and put themselves in danger of traffic or get lost beyond their owner’s reach. That is of course devastating for the owner, but if a cat thinks its life is in danger, nothing can get in its way.

    For dogs too, continuous fireworks can cause long-term stress, as we have heard, which can lead to behavioural problems and heartbreaking health consequences. As I said earlier, constituents have reported their pets shaking, crying and even having seizures long after the bangs have stopped.

    Lowering the legal decibel level for fireworks does not solve that problem alone. What I am proposing today is a positive start for legislative change. Our domestic and wild animals need tighter laws around when fireworks can be licensed to be displayed and sold. If restricted to only be sold around permitted celebrations, such as fireworks night, new year’s eve, Diwali, Eid and the lunar new year, people with mental health issues, parents and pet owners can at least make preparations to minimise the impact of fireworks.

    There must also be a review into who is permitted a licence to sell fireworks. Currently, retailers do not need a licence to sell around the celebration days I have mentioned. A review must also look into who is permitted to set off fireworks. Some stakeholders such as the Dogs Trust urge the Government to limit fireworks licensing to organised public displays only, with local authority approval. Currently, there is no legal requirement to have a licence for setting off consumer fireworks in the UK. Literally anyone can set off some rockets and a Catherine wheel in their garden with no training and no safety requirements. Surely that cannot be right.

    Unfortunately, there are also people who deliberately misuse fireworks to cause harm and distress to others, which is completely unacceptable. That is why I have called for tougher minimum fines in my Bill. We know that the toughest sentences for misusing fireworks are very rarely used. A fixed penalty charge notice just does not cut it as a deterrent or a punishment when fireworks can often cost many hundreds of pounds, and it does not reflect the negative impact on our communities.

    There is another group who have spoken to us who are severely impacted by noisy and reckless fireworks: veterans. I have no idea what traumas they have lived through, although some Members of this House will know. Their service to our country in volatile war zones can leave them with post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, depression or a combination of mental health problems. Servicemen and women can experience heightened stress at times of the year when fireworks intensify, such as on bonfire night. The sudden flashes and bangs of fireworks can bring back memories of the horrors of war. After all they have enduring in their courageous work, that is simply not another terror they should or need to experience.

    My hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) found discarded boxes of fireworks during a campaign session. They had names such as “Rain of Terror”, “Big Bomb” and “All Out War”, which shows that many fireworks are not marketed as something beautiful, but as something loud, and something to be scared of.

    At key times of celebration, veterans can make plans to avoid fireworks displays to protect their mental or physical health. However, in places where fireworks are a regular occurrence all year round, they can find themselves in a constant state of anxiety. Combat Stress told me:

    “We see a higher rate of distress in veterans accessing our services in November.

    Not only is it challenging because of the grief surrounding Armistice, but the sound and sudden unexpected bangs of fireworks can be reminders of frontline combat where they were exposed to the horrors of war in service to this country.

    Firework displays bring people together and create a lot of joy for spectators. We don’t want to ruin anyone’s fun but we urge the public to understand how distressing noisy fireworks can be for military veterans.”

    Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)

    I really applaud my hon. Friend for choosing misuse of fireworks as the subject of her Bill. The measures that she wishes to bring in would be absolutely fantastic, so I hope that she will have Government support. Does she agree with me that, together with those measures, an education campaign is needed to put the word out about how dreadfully people can be affected?

    Sarah Owen

    I wholeheartedly agree. I think that people do not fully understand the impact of fireworks, the changes that have been made to them and how loud they have become. If many people understood what a particular decibel level was and the impact that it would have on the wider radius of their neighbourhood or community, they would perhaps think twice about using them.

    I hope that none of us will make a judgment that the veterans charity Combat Stress—or any other organisation that has expressed concerns about fireworks in support of our brave and struggling members of the forces—is trying to ruin anyone’s fun. As I have said, the measures that I suggest in this Bill are common-sense reforms that also show compassion to veterans who have already been through unimaginable trauma.

    Of course, it is not only ex-servicemen and women who suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder. Mental health problems are experienced by people from all backgrounds; as a society, we are gradually beginning to recognise how we can adapt to their needs and show sensitivity. I just want to share one example. During the recent lockdowns, in Northwell in Luton North we had some community clear-up days. Neighbours went door to door to involve people in those clear-up days, and there was one house with a garden that was terribly overgrown. They had never seen the person living there come out of the house. Deniece Dobson, who was running that community clear-up and has been an absolute stalwart and leading light of it, knocked on the door—it was somebody who lives four or five doors away from her—and it was the home of a veteran who was suffering from PTSD. She could not go out; she said how distressing the fireworks had been. I am so grateful to Deniece and all the people around her and in that community who took the time and made the effort to clear up and to get to know their neighbour. But to hear that fireworks were having such an impact on someone who served our country was truly worrying.

    Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)

    I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this Bill forward today. I think the whole House can agree that this is an area where the law has not kept pace with developments, and that what my hon. Friend has put forward is well researched and well argued. Although the timescale of the day means that the Bill is unlikely to proceed, I just wanted to place on the record my thanks and support for the Bill from the Dispatch Box.

    Sarah Owen

    I thank my hon. Friend. I am grateful for everyone’s interventions and support. I think we can all agree that it is crucial that, in taking this legislation or any other relevant changes forward, the Government—I urge them to do this—consult veterans charities and mental health organisations to learn from the people affected about the very real impact that fireworks have on their lives, hear their wisdom and show a willingness to learn. It is clear that there are simple steps, laid out in my Bill, that could go a long way in ensuring that our children, pets, animals, veterans and all our neighbours have a much more peaceful life.

    Firework displays can be a really beautiful and joyful spectacle without being so loud that they become medically and mentally harmful. Limiting the noise to 90 dB and reviewing who can sell and use fireworks will go a long way to solving the issues faced by residents in Luton North and thousands of other people across the country. The noise from fireworks is currently unreasonable and unregulated. Thankfully, today we can go one step further towards changing that. I hope that Ministers will work with me and support the measures laid out in this Bill.

  • Fleur Anderson – 2022 Speech on Cladding in Putney

    Fleur Anderson – 2022 Speech on Cladding in Putney

    The speech made by Fleur Anderson, the Labour MP for Putney, in the House of Commons on 21 January 2022.

    Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for granting this debate on the impact of unsafe cladding in Putney. I thank the Minister for taking the time to respond today. I also thank all those who are watching, who may increase the audience for this debate considerably, as it is on an issue of huge importance to my constituents in Putney, Roehampton and Southfields. I have been campaigning on it for over two years now, since I was elected. It is one of my biggest campaigns, so I am very grateful to be given this time—an unusual amount of time to be able to explain the impact of cladding in Putney, which echoes the stories and experiences of people affected by cladding all over the country.

    First, I thank the UK Cladding Action Group, the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership and the End Our Cladding Scandal campaign, and all the cladding campaigners locally, for campaigning relentlessly on the issue. I am with you in the fight.

    I will talk today about some of the failures of the Government to respond to the cladding crisis. Developers have checked out of many developments that they built shoddily and have moved on. So will the Government really be able to bring them to the table? The building safety fund is failing. It is too slow and has too many exemptions, and there is nothing in the Building Safety Bill to actually protect leaseholders. Will it all be hot air? These are the questions that I will be asking.

    Madam Deputy Speaker, imagine that you had worked really hard and saved for your entire life to buy your first property. You find your dream flat—there are many dream flats in Putney; it is a wonderful place to live—and you have your offer accepted. You invest your life savings to complete the purchase. You buy the flat in good faith, no doubt having been serenaded by an estate agent and after the council searches have come back clean as a whistle. You are good to go ahead. Everything has fallen into place. You have planned your new life and you move into your new home.

    Then you are told, after you have signed on the dotted line, that because of the wanton recklessness and corner cutting of a cowboy developer, your new home is actually riddled with fire safety issues. It is a deathtrap. And you are asked to stump up £50,000 or more to get it fixed. You either do not pay, or you will be forced to pay, or bankrupted. Even if you could pay, it will not get fixed straightaway; it might get fixed in two, three or four years. You do not know what the schedule will be; you are at the mercy of the managing agents and the developers. Until then, you are stuck and, as in many cases, bankrupt.

    It sounds like an absurd situation and something straight out of “Rogue Traders”, but it is actually the exact experience of thousands of leaseholders in Putney, Roehampton and Southfields, and it has happened on the Government’s watch.

    As I will explain, the Government’s announcement last week was welcome. It is a step change and new words. However, it will do little yet to change the reality. It is important to realise that behind the numbers, the surveys and the technical language, there are people who are having their lives ruined. I will say something about the impact that is having on them.

    One constituent said to me:

    “I am living this nightmare every day as this mess continues to drag on. I ask you; you tell me, ‘What’s the point of living a life like this?’ I am starting to get sick again and I’m finding it super hard to carry on.”

    Another constituent has said:

    “I’ve been diagnosed with stress-induced epilepsy and I’m now on medication for the next 5 years as a minimum. I’m at risk of being declared bankrupt, and this may mean I am jobless, as my profession depends on this. Critically vulnerable leasees are facing ever-mounting financial pressures and are unsure they can keep going.”

    Another constituent, who is father to a young family, said:

    “We are like prisoners for the mistake we have not made.”

    He finished by saying something that was painful to read:

    “Do we need to commit suicide to be heard by others on this issue?”

    I have heard similar comments by others who feel desperate.

    Another constituent, who has terminal cancer, wrote:

    “At the moment, I am facing a bleak death. I had hoped I could use the capital from my flat (I own 25%, Notting Hill Genesis own 75%) to either fund future hospice care or transfer to sheltered housing… However, I am unable to sell this flat, and am pretty much trapped here.”

    I could go on. The mental and physical health impact on leaseholders across the country is phenomenal.

    I am afraid that the optimism and good words contained in the Secretary of State’s announcement last week belie a real grasp of what is happening. The urgency of the situation has not been seen by the Government so far, because we are years after Grenfell and we are still in this situation. I have had residents from 30 blocks in my constituency reach out to me in the past two years. I have had numerous meetings with them, with developers and with managing agents, and this is the ninth time that I have spoken about this in the House. I will outline some of the cases because they are good examples not only of what is happening to those people—these are specific cases that need to be addressed by the Government—but of what is being experienced by so many people around the country.

    I will start with the Riverside Quarter, a huge development that was developed and owned by Frasers Property Ltd. Shortly after the Grenfell fire, eight of the buildings failed fire safety tests and Frasers told leasees in the four older blocks that, since it had no remaining financial interest in the buildings, under leasehold law those leasees would have to pay. So it fixed the cladding in four blocks but would not fix it in the other four blocks.

    Although Frasers has been able to secure funding through the building safety fund for three of the four remaining blocks, the fourth block was denied funding due to a slightly different final coat of render being used. The internal fire risks are identical in all four blocks, but this seemingly arbitrary technicality resulted in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government turning it down.

    On 15 December last year, Frasers sent a notice that under its lease terms it will be charging the 204 leaseholders over £4.2 million for unfunded fire repair costs. Charges per flat will be as high as £72,000, on top of those 204 leaseholders having to pay £170,000 a year between them for waking watch, which they call sleeping watch. This is a prime example of developers who are also freeholders ignoring the Secretary of State’s stated intentions.

    The second development is the Swish building, in east Putney. Over two years ago, unsafe, non-ACM cladding was discovered on the Swish. It has been at stage 2 of the building safety fund application for over a year. The timber part of the application has been rejected and the freeholder, Tapestart Ltd, is nowhere to be seen. Work to fix the cladding should have started in September 2021, yet residents are nowhere even close to receiving approval for funding. There has been delay after delay, with no clear transparency from the managing agent, Trinity Estates.

    Next is 2, 6 and 8 Hardwicks Square. Unsafe cladding was discovered, following an EWS1 assessment in 2018, in which it scored a B2 rating. Residents applied to the building safety fund over a year ago. They were left in the dark about the application for nine months, but then told that there were more defects than had been thought, so the application needed to go back to the drawing board. It is still pending and they are still waiting. They are paying for waking watch to the tune of £45,000 a month and have had an eye-watering 500% insurance hike. The ultimate freeholder is Blackstone, a private equity company. Will Blackstone be speaking to the Secretary of State as part of the roundtable discussions?

    Next door to Hardwicks Square is the Filaments development, where the developer has agreed to pay for remediation. That shows that some developers do pay up, and I commend them, but there are several major fire safety defects. Everyone in the development has been waiting for two years. They have experienced delay after delay, and residents are incredibly anxious. Will the Government set a final deadline for works to be done everywhere, no matter who is paying for them?

    The Radial development has not received funding for the remediation of unsafe, non-ACM cladding found on the block, despite the application having been made in July 2020. What is the delay? It is getting ridiculous. I wrote to the freeholder, the ominously named Godfather Investments, 18 months ago, urging them to take responsibility and I received the following chilling response:

    “We have taken legal advice on the whole issue of liability for unsuitable cladding and it is well documented that in circumstances such as described…the Freeholder has no liability. With respect, we find the suggestions contained in your letter to be wholly disingenuous and counterproductive.”

    I hope that the Secretary of State is also speaking to Godfather Investments, that they have changed their tune and that they will be supporting the remediation of cladding.

    One of the smaller affected blocks is Mill Court development, which is interesting because it is under 11 metres high, so it does not come within the remit of the building safety fund. Yet residents have been told they face costs of around £1 million for remediation works. The Building Safety Minister, Lord Greenhalgh, recently said he was “appalled” when he heard about the case and Optivo’s extensive remediation plans for such a small building. However, Optivo is still intending to move ahead with remediation works, subject to the announcement of further Government guidance. Does the Minister agree with Lord Greenhalgh’s assessment? If buildings under 11 metres are declared unsafe, will they be added to the remit of the Fire Safety Bill?

    Finally, I want to highlight Percy Laurie House, which is over 18 metres and was assessed as having a form of cladding requiring remediation. The residents made an application to the building safety fund, but again it has now been a year since they made it and, despite following up frequently, the application has remained pending for 12 months. It is a familiar story, and it is causing enormous anguish.

    Let me be clear: I welcome many aspects of the recent announcement from the Secretary of State, which echo much of what the Labour party and I have been calling for for the past two years. However, the situation on the ground in Putney exposes several realities that the Secretary of State has not yet grasped. First, what assurances are there that developers are coming to the table? I understand that developers had a meeting with the Secretary of State yesterday: I would like to know who came to that meeting, and for leaseholders to be assured that developers are taking action and things are moving ahead. Can they have hope? Will they be able to sleep at night again? Too many developers I am in contact with seem to have just checked out of the process.

    Secondly, the building safety fund is clearly riddled with serious flaws. It is arbitrarily denying funding for certain types of cladding, and it is painfully slow. Application success seems to rest on the competency of the property manager, rather than the safety of the building. As the constituency MP, I should not need to chase application updates for residents: the whole safety fund needs an overhaul. To give perspective, in two years that fund has only funded 18 out of the 1,000 buildings that need work—that is 1.8%.

    Thirdly, what about buildings under 11 metres? There is a gaping hole there, and as the case of Mill Court shows, withdrawing the consolidated advice note has not stopped fire safety works proceeding and the costs being passed on to leaseholders.

    Fourthly, what about non-cladding defects? Why the omission? We cannot just make a building half safe. I have many constituents facing ruinous costs for non-cladding fire safety defects, who seem to have been abandoned by the Government.

    There is only one way to end this nightmare for leaseholders, which is the one thing that the Government have so far refused to do: put cast-iron legal protections for leaseholders from the costs of remediating any historic cladding and non-cladding defects on the statute book. That could have been done this week through the Building Safety Bill, but was not. The Government still have a few more opportunities to do so, but they are fast running out of time. I seek assurances from the Minister that it will be done. Ministers have promised 18 times to protect leaseholders from ruinous fire safety costs, yet leaseholders in my constituency, at least, still cannot sleep at night for worries about their building and the costs they may have to pay for. I stand with my affected residents and leaseholders in Putney, Roehampton and Southfields, and we say to the Government, “No more hot air. Time to put your money where your mouth is and end this misery.”

  • Amanda Milling – 2022 Statement on British Council Staff in Afghanistan

    Amanda Milling – 2022 Statement on British Council Staff in Afghanistan

    The statement made by Amanda Milling, the Minister for Asia, in the House of Commons on 20 January 2022.

    During August 2021, through a shared effort right across Government and our armed forces, we delivered the largest, most complex evacuation in living memory. Between 15 and 19 August, the UK evacuated over 15,000 people from Afghanistan. That included over 8,000 British nationals, and close to 5,000 Afghans who loyally served the UK—including British Council employees—along with their dependants. The UK also evacuated around 500 special cases of particularly vulnerable Afghans, including some British Council contractors, journalists, human rights defenders, campaigners for women’s rights, judges and many others. All former British Council employees have arrived in the UK with their family members. In August, the Government agreed to resettle more than 50 of the most vulnerable British Council contractors, many of whom have already arrived in the UK with their families.

    Travel in and out of Afghanistan remains difficult. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is providing assistance and supporting families who are eligible for resettlement in the UK. The Government have also agreed to consider British Council contractors for resettlement based on risk. On 6 January, the Minister for Afghan Resettlement announced the opening of the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme. In its first year, the Government will honour our commitment to offer ACRS places to the most at-risk British Council contractors, as well as GardaWorld contractors and Chevening alumni. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office will be in touch with those eligible to support them through the next steps of the process.

    The British Council performed an important role in Afghanistan; it worked to support the UK mission in Afghanistan and to promote our values. The Government will do the right thing by British Council employees and contractors, including by resettling those contractors who are most at risk.

  • Brandon Lewis – 2022 Statement on the Petition of Concern Mechanism for the Northern Ireland Assembly

    Brandon Lewis – 2022 Statement on the Petition of Concern Mechanism for the Northern Ireland Assembly

    The statement made by Brandon Lewis, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, in the House of Commons on 20 January 2022.

    I am today laying before both Houses of Parliament the fourth report by the UK Government on the use of the petition of concern mechanism in the Northern Ireland Assembly.

    As part of the New Decade, New Approach deal upon which devolved Government was restored in Northern Ireland on 11 January 2020, the UK Government committed to undertaking such a report every six months.

    This report covers the period from 12 July 2021 to 11 January 2022 during which no petition of concern has been lodged against any motion in the Assembly.

    The fact that there have been no uses of petitions of concern since the restoration of the political institutions is a positive reflection of the conduct of business within the Assembly. However, I want to take this opportunity to reinforce the importance of a stable, mature, functioning Executive and Assembly that is focused on addressing the issues that really matter to daily lives.

    The UK Government are standing by their commitment to bring forward legislation that provides the necessary reforms to the petition of concern mechanism. The Northern Ireland (Ministers, Elections and Petitions Of Concern) Bill has completed report stage in the House of Lords. Once this legislation has completed its passage through Parliament and received Royal Assent, it is crucial that the Assembly reflects the detail of these reforms in its Standing Orders to ensure the full implementation of these aspects of the New Decade, New Approach deal.

    This is the final report of this Assembly mandate under the UK Government’s commitment to report on the use of the petition of concern. As there have been no uses of the petition of concern mechanism since the restoration of the Northern Ireland Assembly, we conclude that no further reform is necessary at this time.

  • Liz Truss – 2022 Speech at the Lowy Institute

    Liz Truss – 2022 Speech at the Lowy Institute

    The speech made by Liz Truss, the Foreign Secretary, on 21 January 2022.

    I’d like to begin by acknowledging the Traditional Owners of this land – the Gadigal people – and by paying my respects to Elders past and present.

    It’s great to be back in Sydney and at the Lowy Institute with my friend Marise Payne. As the UK sets out on its future as global Britain, we now have full use of our trade, our defence, our diplomacy, and our development policies, to be able to work with friends and partners across the world. And I see Australia as a real inspiration in that, in it with the work you do to promote free trade, freedom of speech, human rights, and rights for women and girls as a leading nation.

    And our close bonds now are more important than they’ve ever been. And we are doing more and more together. And it’s vital because of the growing threats we face.

    The Kremlin hasn’t learned the lessons of history. They dream of recreating the Soviet Union, or a kind of “Greater Russia” carving up territory based on ethnicity, and language.

    They claim they want stability, while they work to threaten and destabilise others.

    We know what lies down that path, and the terrible toll in lives lost and human suffering it brings.

    That’s why we urge President Putin to desist and step back from Ukraine before he makes a massive strategic mistake.

    Ukraine is a proud country with a long history. They have known invading forces before – from the Mongols to the Tatars. They suffered through the state-sponsored famine. Their resilience runs deep. If they have to, Ukrainians will fight to defend their country.

    Invasion will only lead to a quagmire, as we know from the Soviet-Afghan war or the conflict in Chechnya.

    Last week, at the NATO-Russia Council we sent a clear message to Moscow that any further incursion into Ukraine would bring massive consequences, including through coordinated sanctions hitting the financial sector, and individuals.

    This week, the United Kingdom announced a new package of training, support and defensive weapons for Ukraine to boost their defensive capabilities. And we’re working with our partners on high impact measures targeting the Russian financial sector, and individuals.

    We’re also strengthening our bilateral partnership following high-level talks in London in December – and we’re fostering new trilateral ties with Poland and Ukraine.

    We’re also pushing for alternatives in energy supply, so that nations are less reliant on Russia for their gas.

    We need everyone to step up. Together with our allies, we will continue to stand with Ukraine and urge Russia to de-escalate.

    What happens in Eastern Europe matters for the world.

    Threats to freedom, democracy and the rule of law are not just regional – they’re global. And that’s why we have to respond together.

    Iran’s nuclear programme has never been more advanced. China has been conducting military flights near Taiwan. And it is using its economic muscle to attempt to coerce democracies like Australia and Lithuania.

    Russia and China are working together more and more, as they strive to set the standards in technologies like artificial intelligence, assert their dominance over the Western Pacific through joint military exercises and in space through closer ties.

    The International Institute for Strategic Studies argues we are now seeing the “strongest, closest and best relationship” the two countries have had for 70 years.

    And we are seeing an alignment of authoritarian regimes across the world. It is no surprise that regimes like Belarus, North Korea or Myanmar find their closest allies in Moscow and Beijing.

    They don’t look to these nations as partners but as puppets. Moscow wants them to promote their propaganda and destabilise free democracies on their doorstep.

    At the same time, Beijing has forged a so-called “iron brotherhood” with Belarus. China is the biggest buyer of Iranian oil and Pyongyang’s largest trading partner.

    China and Russia have spotted an ideological vacuum and they’re rushing to fill it. They are emboldened in a way we haven’t seen since the Cold War.

    As freedom-loving democracies we must rise up to face down these threats. As well as NATO we are working with partners like Australia, India, Japan, Indonesia and Israel to build a global network of liberty.

    Aggressors are reneging on their commitments and obligations. They’re destabilising the rules-based international order and they’re chipping away at the values that underpin it. But they have nothing to offer in its place.

    The free world is different. We’re not defined by what we’re against but by what we’re for.

    We believe in freedom and democracy. We believe in individual liberty as the greatest transformative force on earth.

    When people have agency over their own lives, when they have freedom and opportunity, they achieve incredible things.

    As Prime Minister Scott Morrison said, “we know from the evidence of human history that democracies are the engine room of change.”

    We see this in the ideas and innovations that fuelled our fightback against COVID – from the University of Sydney’s Edward Holmes publishing the COVID genome… to Oxford’s Sarah Gilbert and her life-saving vaccine… to our shared efforts to distribute vaccines to those in need around the world.

    We want to work together to tackle the big problems we face. That does include working with countries like China and Russia where it’s necessary – on trade, tackling climate change, or bringing Iran to the negotiating table. But in doing so, we will stand up for what we believe in.

    In December, I welcomed G7 Foreign Ministers to Liverpool, together with Marise Payne and some of our other closest friends and allies.

    We expressed our concern about China’s economic coercive policies and we united to condemn Russia’s aggression. Together, we showed our determination to stand shoulder to shoulder for freedom and democracy around the world.

    We are continuing that vital work this week with our AUKMIN, our Australia-UK Foreign and Defence Ministerial Meeting, the first that we’ve had since 2018.

    And we’re determined to act together in three key areas.

    First, we will stand up for our economic security.

    That means calling out China when it blocks products from Lithuania or imposes punitive tariffs on Australian barley and wine.

    It means cutting strategic dependence on authoritarian regimes, starting with Europe’s dependence on Russian gas.

    I means helping countries avoiding having their balance sheets loaded with debt. It is estimated that 44 low to middle income countries have debts to Beijing in excess of 10% of their GDP.

    We’re responding on all of these fronts. And we’re strengthening our supply chains by taking our economic ties with like-minded nations to new heights.

    We took a huge step forward by signing our Free Trade Agreement with Australia in December.

    This is a world-class deal that will remove all of the tariffs on goods, both ways.

    It will be easier for our people to live and work in each other’s countries, particularly those under 35.

    We are building on this by working with Australia to join the Trans-Pacific Partnership – reinforcing the reliability of supply through one of the largest free trade areas on earth.

    We’re also working together to provide low and middle income countries with honest and reliable alternative sources of investment.

    In November, I launched British International Investment, helping to mobilise up to £8 billion a year of public and private financing to these countries by 2025, leveraging the firepower of the City of London.

    Yesterday, Marise Payne and I agreed on closer UK-Australia cooperation to boost opportunities for investment across the Indo-Pacific – particularly in areas like energy, climate change, adaptation and technology.

    And we are working together to impose sanctions on human rights abuses and to keep those using forced labour out of our supply chains.

    Second, freedom must be defended and that’s why we are deepening our security ties.

    Last year in our Integrated Review, the UK we set out a new deterrence posture – including the biggest increase in defence spending since the end of the Cold War.

    We need to see everyone stepping up in this way. Too few of our NATO allies are meeting the 2% spending target. So it’s great to see that Australia is also increasing its commitments to our collective security.

    The power of our partnership has been demonstrated time and time again.

    We will forever remember those from Australia and New Zealand who gave their lives for freedom on the historic battlefields of Europe, the Mediterranean, North Africa and the Pacific.

    The depth of our commitment remains plain to see today… from the 5 Eyes intelligence partnership… to the Five Power Defence Arrangements with our friends Singapore, Malaysia and New Zealand… to the Carrier Strike Group which visited the region last year, led by HMS Queen Elizabeth.

    Our forces exercised in the South China Sea with ships and aircraft from Australia and other partners – standing up for our mutual interests, and supporting regional stability.

    And of course last year we finalised our landmark AUKUS partnership.

    With this deal, we’ve opened a bold new era in our long history together.

    By joining forces with the US we are showing our determination to protect security and stability across the region. We are helping Australia acquire a nuclear powered submarine, and also means deeper cooperation between our three nations on advanced capabilities like cyber, AI and quantum. We want to use this deeper expertise to help support stability with partners right across the Indo Pacific.

    I’m looking forward tomorrow to visiting the shipyard in Adelaide, where the UK and Australia are building new Type 26 Frigates. And Adelaide will of course play an important role in developing the new AUKUS submarines.

    This is a truly formidable and cutting edge partnership – and we are determined to continue strengthening it for the benefit of us all.

    Finally, we are boosting our cooperation on technology.

    Technology has empowered people by enabling incredible freedom, but we know it can be seized upon by others to promote fear.

    We cannot allow the technologies of the future to be hijacked for malign ends – whether it’s cyber attacks, or building high-tech surveillance states through facial recognition software and AI.

    Global technology standards must be shaped by the free world.

    That’s why we want to go further and faster by deepening our science and tech collaboration.

    Just as Australia has banned Huawei from its 5G network, we are stripping high-risk vendors out of our infrastructure. And we are embracing Australian expertise – for example to bring the state-of-the-art 5G to the London Underground.

    Delivering our strategic advantage in science and technology is an absolutely vital objective of the integrated review.

    And so I am pleased that this week we’re launching our new Cyber and Critical Technology Partnership with Australia – aimed at tackling malign actors, strengthening supply chains and harnessing tech to support freedom and democracy.

    Building these partnerships and drawing other countries closer to the orbit of free-market democracies, will ultimately make us all safer and freer in the years to come.

    That is why it is time for the free world to stand its ground.

    We need to face down global aggressors.

    We should be proud of our ideas and our ideals – clear about what they have brought to mankind, and even more ambitious for what we can do together in the future.

    Forty years ago Margaret Thatcher gave the Sir Robert Menzies lecture in Melbourne. She said: “Where freedom…exists, I seek to expand it; where it is under attack, I shall defend it; where it does not exist, I shall try to create it.”

    I cannot think of a better friend than Australia to work with on this vital endeavour. We can make great things happen.

    Thank you.

  • Rachel Reeves – 2022 Keynote Speech on Labour’s Economic Strategy

    Rachel Reeves – 2022 Keynote Speech on Labour’s Economic Strategy

    The speech made by Rachel Reeves, the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, in Bury on 20 January 2022.

    It’s great to be in Bury today – a town with a central place in the story of our industrial heritage and in our economic future.

    Home to John Kay, the inventor of the flying shuttle which made Lancashire home to Britain’s thriving textiles industry.

    Birthplace too, of Sir Robert Peel, the last Prime Minister to split the Conservative Party. And why did he do so?

    Because the Conservatives would not put the interests of the people of this country ahead of the interest of a well-connected, elite. How times change.

    And so it is particularly fitting to welcome Bury South’s own Christian Wakeford to the Labour Party. Christian, like so many others, sees that our country needs Keir Starmer’s leadership and a Labour government now more than ever.

    And it is great to be joined by James Frith, the former Labour MP for Bury North, and someone who I know will play a big part in Labour’s future too.

    But I am here to talk about Britain’s economic future, and our potential as a country.

    We are a country with so much going for us.

    Dynamic industries with reach all around the world, not least our cultural industries, with venues all around the country, like the Met, where we are today – giving life to our towns and cities.

    And millions of working people able to make a lasting contribution to the future of our country.

    The question is: why is a country with such rich resources not seeing that potential realised? Why are so many working people here in Bury and all across the country not feeling the benefits?

    And how have we become trapped in this cycle of low growth, low pay, and high taxes?

    The answer is simple. It comes down to a decade of Conservative failure.

    Their failure to plan ahead.

    Their failure to work together with business and industry.

    And their failure to put the national interest above the interests of their friends and donors, utterly removed from the lives of working people.

    For the best part of a decade, I worked as an economist at the Bank of England.

    My first job there was to analyse the Japanese economy. Japan had just reached the end of what was often called its ‘Lost Decade’. We now talk about Japan’s ‘Lost Decades’ – thirty years of stagnant growth.

    I saw the perils of an economy becoming trapped in a cycle where demand is sucked out of the economy and growth suppressed.

    Britain has been through its own lost decade.

    And so Covid hit us harder than other countries, in terms of lives lost, and the hit to our economy.

    We have a choice.

    We can continue down the path of another Lost Decade. Or we can take an approach based on bringing people together in a national endeavour, and on understanding that Britain’s real wealth is found – not in the bank accounts of friends and donors of the Conservative Party – but in the effort and talent of tens of millions of working people in this country.

    Labour has a plan to build a stronger economy based on exactly that approach.

    A plan to give people the respect they deserve.

    A plan for real economic security.

    A plan for prosperity in every part of Britain.

    That is the plan that I will set out today.

    But first, let’s look at where we are. While ministers worry only about the political costs of their parties, ordinary people are facing a cost of living crisis – with prices rising at the supermarket and the at petrol pump, energy bills soaring, and real wages falling.

    People rightly expect leadership from government.

    But instead they are being left to shoulder the burden alone, with the added insult of the triple whammy of a freeze on the income tax threshold, rising council tax, and a hike in National Insurance contributions.

    Now is the wrong time to raise taxes on ordinary working people.

    Labour would keep bills down by cutting VAT on energy, and expanding the Warm Homes Discount, taking at least £200 off the typical bill – with up to £400 in additional support for low and middle earners and pensioners – paid for by a windfall tax on North Sea oil and gas profits.

    But this isn’t just about the short-term. As Professor Dieter Helm has shown, the global spike in gas prices has exposed the government’s failure to plan, leaving us uniquely exposed.

    And it’s not just energy. That is just one chapter in a decade-long story of economic failure.

    Between 1997 and 2010, when Labour were in government, the UK economy grew at 2.3% a year. Over the decade leading up to the pandemic it grew by an average of 1.8% a year.

    And now the Bank of England expects growth to fall to as low as 1 per cent by the end of this Parliament, while other countries in the OECD are expected to grow at almost twice that rate.

    This is the British economy according to Rishi Sunak.

    No matter how much he tells us he wants to keep borrowing down and taxes low, the effect of such anaemic growth is devastating for our public finances.

    If we could catch up with the growth rate of our best-performing peers, by 2030 the UK would have £75bn more in tax receipts – a growth dividend able to ease the burden of taxes on working people and start to repair the damage done to our overstretched public services over a decade of underinvestment.

    Another Lost Decade isn’t inevitable.

    These failures sit squarely on the shoulders of the Conservatives. Their policies have choked off growth and squeezed living standards.

    The Conservatives have become the party of high taxation because they are the party of low growth.

    But the choices they make on tax show whose side they’re on. And it’s certainly not the side of the tens of millions of people hit by the cost of living crisis.

    Their approach isn’t just unfair – though it is.

    It isn’t just going to make life that much harder for working people – though it will.

    It won’t work.

    As the TUC General Secretary Frances O’Grady has said:

    ‘Our economy will only recover when working people can afford to spend in local shops and businesses’.

    I’ve been hearing the same from businesses I speak to, concerned that customers will stay away as they feel the hit to their purses and their wallets.

    It’s a vicious circle. Tory policies fail to deliver growth, and their response is policies that squeeze growth further.

    It’s like trying to drive with the brakes on.

    It’s no wonder the Tories have failed to deal with the cost of living crisis, because the Tories are the cost of living crisis.

    We need a serious plan to deliver higher growth, built on the knowledge that wealth doesn’t just trickle from the top down, but comes from the bottom up and the middle out.

    A plan that can drive up living standards, fund the public services we need, and allow us to get the national debt falling.

    Under Keir Starmer’s leadership, Labour has changed, but so too have the Conservatives.

    The Conservatives once called themselves the party of business. That’s a distant memory.

    When the Prime Minister said ‘F- business’, I thought it was a throwaway remark. Little did I know it would be the central organising principle of his government.

    And what’s left?

    A government concerned not with unleashing the talents of British people, empowering the next generation of entrepreneurs, supporting British business, and sharing opportunity widely, but instead with selling access to the corridors of power.

    A party not of productive business, but of crony capitalism. A government of waste – wasted money, wasted talent and wasted potential. This calls for a new contract between government and the British people.

    That is what underpins Labour’s plan.

    A plan to break us out of this cycle of high taxes, high prices and low growth.

    A plan to get our economy firing on all cylinders, in every part of the country and every sector of the economy.

    A plan that is proudly pro-worker, and proudly pro-business.

    A plan for an industrial Britain, a learning Britain, an investing Britain, an innovative Britain, and a trading Britain.

    Let me set these out.

    First is a serious strategy for an industrial Britain, fit for the 21st century.

    Where the Conservatives scrapped their own Industrial Strategy Council, Labour will create an industrial strategy built on an ethos of cooperation across the public and private sectors, employers and workers.

    To unlock the brilliance of our leading businesses and entrepreneurs, mobilising these immense resources to create good work and economic growth in every part of Britain, and ensure that our communities can take pride in great British industries.

    Britain has great strengths, whether in our world-leading creative industries, our automotive sector, or life sciences.

    We have advantages in industries that will be vital to our green transition, including tidal and wind energy as well as the technologies needed for carbon capture and storage, and we already have great businesses leading the way, like Switch Mobility, in my own city of Leeds, who are pioneering the transition to electric buses – cheaper and better for the environment.

    And initiatives we will build on like the UK Battery Industrialisation Centre, supporting the scale-up of the manufacture of batteries for electric vehicles and other applications.

    Labour will continue to work with industry to develop plans for these and other sectors.

    Of course industrial strategy is about making sure that we are succeeding in the most high-tech industries.

    But it’s not enough for an industrial strategy to focus on a small number of businesses in a small number of sectors.

    As the University of Manchester’s Karel Williams has long argued, we must attend to the foundations of our economy, without which we could not enjoy healthy lives or strong communities, but which have been neglected by government for too long.

    Whether that’s our high street businesses, or sectors in which millions work to provide us with care, transport, energy and water, and food on the shelves.

    It’s what I call the everyday economy.

    Millions work in it. We all rely on it.

    The state of our everyday economy really matters.

    Because driving up pay and conditions in the everyday economy is key to increasing spending power in our communities and reviving our high streets.

    Because if we want to drive up national productivity then it’s not only a few businesses at the leading edge which need to feel the benefits of new technologies and investment.

    And because those foundations provide us with security as a society – especially when a crisis hits.

    That calls for industrial strategies for sectors like care which have too often been overlooked, breaking loose of our cycle of long hours, low pay and low productivity, with a new deal for work.

    And supporting those businesses which give life to our high streets by abolishing business rates and replacing them with a fair system that levels the playing field between online multinationals and high street businesses.

    A real plan for the economy begins with the understanding that those industries of the future and the overlooked sectors on which we all rely are two sides of the same coin – the success of each dependent on the other – that no matter how innovative, no business can thrive without those strong foundations.

    And any government serious about the strength of our economy and the welfare of our people will have a plan for both to thrive, together.

    Second: we need a learning Britain.

    We must ask ourselves how any country can achieve its potential when over 200,000 primary age children live in local areas where there are no good or outstanding schools, while record numbers of businesses report challenges getting the skilled staff they need.

    Keir Starmer has set out a plan to make sure every young person leaves education ready for life and ready for work, with the practical skills, the careers advice and the experience they need to thrive in a modern economy.

    And Labour has launched a new Council of Skills Advisers last year, to rethink how we approach skills for the decades ahead.

    We need to expand opportunities for school leavers too.

    But the Conservatives have shown themselves incapable of reversing the decline in apprenticeships, which has seen nearly 200,000 opportunities lost under their leadership, including a fall of 50% in the number of 16 to 18-year-olds starting an apprenticeship.

    Labour would start now with our plan to create apprenticeship opportunities for young people – which could have seen one hundred thousand extra apprenticeships created this year – to drive our economic recovery.

    Third: an investing Britain.

    Over the last decade, a lack of investment has been holding Britain back.

    In the nine years leading up to the pandemic the UK ranked third last out of the 38 countries in the OECD for investment as a proportion of GDP. And over the next five years, the UK is forecast to have a near £800 billion investment gap compared to other OECD economies.

    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 decade – to ensure the industries and jobs of the future are found all across Britain.

    Giga-factories to build batteries for electric vehicles, a thriving hydrogen industry, offshore wind with turbines made in Britain, planting trees and building flood defences, getting energy bills down and guaranteeing Britain’s energy security, and allowing our economy to adapt as we drive down our carbon emissions.

    This is a global race for the jobs of the future.

    As the former governor of the Bank of England Mark Carney has said, we will require significant private investment alongside public to meet the challenges and opportunities of net zero.

    Our climate investment pledge will leverage at least as much again in private investment, by giving businesses certainty and confidence.

    We will also catalyse private investment by supporting businesses to focus on the long-term good of the company, through changing the priority duty of directors, and by replacing business rates with a new system of business taxation that properly encourages growth and investment.

    Labour’s fiscal rules would ensure that necessary investment can take place in a way that supports sustainable public finances, not unlike the government’s rules which have already to led to the cancellation of the Northern Powerhouse Rail.

    As well as an investment Britain we need an innovative Britain.

    A Labour government will create the conditions for new, innovative businesses to start, grow and thrive – whether that is through a fair tax system that encourages and rewards growth, or by directly supporting the next generation of entrepreneurs through our target to help create 100,000 new businesses over the next five years – with a particular focus outside London and the South East.

    Initiatives like B Corporations and The Purposeful Company show how a new way of doing business is on the rise, one that understands the value of working in partnership with workers and communities.

    Keir Starmer has committed the next Labour government to a minimum target of three percent of GDP invested in R&D, from both the public and private sectors.

    53% of UK research and development funding is directed at London and the greater South East – which benefits hugely from the Golden Triangle of London, Oxford and Cambridge.

    The comparative total for the entire north – from Newcastle to Bradford, Wigan to Grimsby – is just 16%.

    We will support our northern universities, colleges and businesses not just to drive innovation, but to make sure that the fruits of the work of our leading scientists and institutions benefit small and medium-sized business, and are felt across our regions – so we can drive up productivity across the economy.

    And there are great examples of work already being done and potential to be unleashed with the right support.

    Like Northern Gritstone, a patient capital venture headed by Lord Jim O’Neill, formed in partnership with the universities of Leeds, Manchester and Sheffield with the aim of providing a pipeline for research to develop into successful businesses – creating wealth and jobs.

    Britain is a country of creators, of makers and of problem-solvers.

    We need a government that understands the value of our collective ideas and innovations, from the shopfloor to the boardroom.

    And to unleash our potential we will build a trading Britain.

    A truly patriotic government will champion British businesses at home and abroad.

    The first step is to make Brexit work for the British people – addressing the flaws in the Tories’ deal that are hitting our food and drinks manufacturers, creative industries and professionals.

    A Labour government won’t stand by on the side-lines and let British businesses and consumers pay the price for the mess the Tories have made. And we will seize new opportunities for British businesses to thrive at home and abroad.

    We are a competitive and highly-skilled nation. We can work with our friends and neighbours to raise standards and do trade better.

    We will build on the UK-EU trade deal in the interests of British businesses to cut red tape and make life easier for our exporters.

    And with our plan to buy, make and sell more in Britain, we will use all the tools at government’s disposal to support businesses in this country – leading a culture change at the heart of government, putting local industries first and ensuring major infrastructure projects use, where possible, materials made here in Britain.

    Asking every public body to increase the number of contracts to British firms, big and small to grow our industries and increase standards, while strengthening domestic supply chains and investing in the reshoring of jobs back to Britain.

    Running throughout this Plan is a commitment to a stronger economy for every part of Britain.

    In too many parts of our country, confidence in the future does not yet match pride in the past.

    I spent three years working at HBOS in Halifax, so I know well what it can mean to a town to have a world-recognised business rooted in the local area.

    But investment, jobs and opportunities have not been evenly spread across the country and it’s taken its toll on families and working people. Many people have had to move many miles away to find decent opportunities to get on.

    So our mission is to create more and better jobs that are closer to home, so people have a real choice.

    As research from IPPR shows, the Tories have taken £413 from every person, through cuts to local council funding, with just £32 returned in levelling up for the North.

    Even then, the government doesn’t trust people to set out their own priorities, adopting a top-down approach.

    It’s people on the ground, in their communities, who best understand what they need – the assets they can build on, and how to fulfil their ambitions.

    There’s so much creativity in our regional towns and cities, building on our industrial past but adapting to the economy of the future.

    Like Castleton Mills in my own constituency, once a key part of West Yorkshire’s textiles industry, but now a creative, collaborative space housing freelancers, remote workers and start-ups – including Northern Bloc Ice cream, and businesses from music promotion to digital content.

    This creativity and resourcefulness is there to be unleashed all across our great country.

    The Prime Minister’s survival strategy may involve wrecking our historic institutions and dragging the country’s global reputation down with him, but I reject the idea our best days are behind us – that we are fated to weaker growth and diminishing living standards.

    There have never in living memory been so many opportunities for investment in new industries, new jobs, and new growth that can be felt in all parts of the country.

    We need a future-looking government, working in a spirit of cooperation with businesses and trade unions to plan for the long term, to seize those opportunities.

    The choice ahead of our country is this:

    Another Lost Decade of low growth, high taxes, and a deepening cost of living crisis.

    Or a contract between British government and the British people, a national effort to build a stronger economy, more resilient public services – and prosperity felt in every part of Britain.

    That means real economic and energy security.

    It means good jobs and thriving businesses in every town.

    It means strong public services paid for by fair taxes and strong growth.

    It means Britain’s best days lie ahead.

    Thank you.

  • Boris Johnson – 2022 Statement on Omicron

    Boris Johnson – 2022 Statement on Omicron

    The statement made by Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister, to the House of Commons on 19 January 2022.

    Mr Speaker, with permission I will make a statement on our progress against Omicron and the review of our Plan B measures.

    Within hours of learning from scientists in South Africa about the emergence of a new Covid variant last November, this government acted, introducing balanced and proportionate restrictions at our borders to slow the seeding of Omicron in our country.

    As we learned more about this highly transmissible new variant, we implemented the Plan B measures we had prepared precisely in case our situation deteriorated, encouraging people to change their behaviour to slow the spread of the virus and buying crucial time to get boosters into arms.

    We made the big call to refocus our National Health Service, necessarily requiring the difficult postponement of many other appointments –

    So that we could double the speed of booster programme.

    And thanks to the extraordinary efforts of our NHS and its volunteers, we delivered the fastest booster programme in Europe, reaching half our population before any other European country, with more than 36 million boosters now in arms across the UK, including more than 90 per cent of all over 60s in England.

    And taking a balanced approach, we resisted calls from others to shut down our country all over again.

    Many nations across Europe have endured further winter lockdowns.

    Many have seen hospitality curfews and nightclubs closed, capacity limits at sports stadiums, the return of social distancing, and, in some places, Christmas and New Year as good as cancelled.

    But this government took a different path.

    We kept England open.

    And we supported those businesses which faced reduced demand because of the response to Plan B measures.

    And while we must continue to remain cautious, the data are showing that time and again this government got the toughest decisions right.

    Today’s latest ONS data show clearly that infection levels are falling in England.

    And while there are some places where cases are likely to continue rising,

    including in primary schools – our scientists believe it is likely that the Omicron wave has now peaked nationally.

    There remain, of course, significant pressures on the NHS across our country, and especially in the North East and North West.

    But hospital admissions which were doubling every 9 days just two weeks ago – have now stabilised, with admissions in London even falling.

    And the numbers in intensive care not only remain low but are actually also falling.

    So this morning, the Cabinet concluded that because of the extraordinary booster campaign together with the way the public have responded to the Plan B measures – we can return to Plan A in England and allow Plan B regulations to expire.

    As a result, from the start of Thursday next week mandatory certification will end.

    Organisations can, of course, choose to use the NHS Covid Pass voluntarily but we will end the compulsory use of Covid status certification in England.

    From now, the government is no longer asking people to work from home and people should now speak to their employers about arrangements for returning to the office.

    And having looked at the data carefully, the Cabinet concluded that once regulations lapse, the government will no longer mandate the wearing of face masks anywhere.

    Mr Speaker, from tomorrow, we will no longer require face masks in classrooms, and the Department for Education will shortly remove national guidance on their use in communal areas.

    In the country at large, we will continue to suggest the use of face coverings in enclosed or crowded places, particularly where you come into contact with people you don’t normally meet.

    But we will trust the judgement of the British people and no longer criminalise anyone who chooses not to wear one.

    The government will also ease further restrictions on visits to care homes and my Rt Hon Friend, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, will set out plans in the coming days.

    Mr Speaker, as we return to Plan A, the House will know that some measures still remain, including those on self-isolation.

    In particular, it is still a legal requirement for those who have tested positive for Covid to self-isolate.

    On Monday we reduced the isolation period to five full days with two negative tests.

    And there will soon come a time when we can remove the legal requirement to self-isolate altogether – just as we don’t place legal obligations on people to isolate if they have flu.

    As Covid becomes endemic we will need to replace legal requirements with advice and guidance urging people with the virus to be careful and considerate of others.

    The self-isolation regulations expire on 24th March, at which point I very much expect not to renew them.

    Indeed were the data to allow, I would like to seek a vote in this House to bring that date forwards.

    In advance of that, we will set out our long-term strategy for living with Covid-19, explaining how we hope and intend to protect our liberty and avoid restrictions in future by relying instead on medical advances – especially the vaccines which have already saved so many lives.

    But to make that possible, we must all remain cautious during these last weeks of winter.

    When there are still over 16,000 people in hospital in England alone, the pandemic is not over.

    And, Mr Speaker, make no mistake, Omicron is not a mild disease for everyone – and especially if you’re not vaccinated.

    Just look at the numbers in intensive care in other countries where vaccination rates are far lower.

    Indeed, from our NHS data, we know that around 90 per cent of people in intensive care are not boosted.

    So I urge members across the House to do everything possible to encourage any remaining constituents who have not done so – to get boosted now.

    And for the next few weeks, I encourage everyone across the country to continue with all the cautious behaviours that we know help to keep each everybody safe.

    washing hands,

    letting fresh air in,

    getting tested, self-isolating if positive, and, as I say, thinking about wearing a face covering in crowded and enclosed settings.

    Mr Speaker, Omicron has tested us, just as Alpha and Delta did before.

    But let’s remember some of what we’ve achieved.

    We were the first nation in the world to administer a vaccine. We were the fastest in Europe to roll it out.

    Because outside of the European Medicines Agency, this government made the big call to pursue our own British procurement strategy rather than opting back into the EU scheme as some people urged.

    We created a world-beating testing programme, the largest in Europe, and procured the most antivirals of any country in Europe too, because this government made the big call to invest early in lateral flow tests and in cutting-edge drugs to protect the most vulnerable.

    We’ve delivered the fastest booster campaign in Europe, and we’re the first to emerge from the Omicron wave, because the government made the big call to focus on our NHS, and to refocus our activity and lead that campaign to Get Boosted Now.

    And that’s why we’ve retained the most open economy and society anywhere across the European continent, and the fastest growing economy in the G7 – because we made that tough decision to open up last Summer when others said that we shouldn’t, and to keep things open this winter when others wanted them shut.

    This week the World Health Organisation said that while the global situation remains challenging, the United Kingdom can start to see “light at the end of the tunnel”.

    And Mr Speaker, this is no accident of history.

    Confronted by the nation’s biggest challenge since the Second World War and the worst pandemic since 1918, any government would get some things wrong. but this government got the big things right.

    And I commend this Statement to the House.

  • James Cartlidge – 2022 Speech on the European Court of Human Rights

    James Cartlidge – 2022 Speech on the European Court of Human Rights

    The speech made by James Cartlidge, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice, in the House of Commons on 19 January 2022.

    As ever, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair for the Adjournment debate, especially as you served on the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe as recently as 2017, as my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) observed.

    I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate and on the quality and detail of his speech. I value his insight into the problems that face the Strasbourg Court given his twin roles as chair of the UK delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and vice-president of the Assembly. I commend his work in both roles: he and the rest of the delegation do a fantastic job representing our Parliament in Strasbourg.

    My hon. Friend is widely recognised at the Assembly as a champion of democracy and transparency, the latter of which is particularly central to the debate. To highlight just one of his achievements in Strasbourg, he co-authored two important reports that pointed out issues affecting the rule of law and democracy in Turkey. The reports led to the Assembly’s adopting two resolutions, the most recent of which was adopted in April last year and called on Turkish authorities to take steps to address the issues that my hon. Friend had raised, including the need to refrain from incriminating, prosecuting and arresting peaceful demonstrators, students and LGBT people.

    I mentioned transparency; in June last year, my hon. Friend supported the motion introduced by one of his co-delegates, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger), that called on the Assembly to set up a transparency register to address concerns about the influence of some NGOs in the Assembly’s decision-making processes. I heard the similar concerns that my hon. Friend expressed in respect of the Strasbourg Court and will in a moment touch on the issue of the selection and election of judges to the Court, which made up much of the substance of his speech.

    The Council of Europe, and the European Court of Human Rights in particular, has played a leading role in the protection and promotion of human rights across our continent. The Court now has jurisdiction in respect of no fewer than 47 countries and is widely recognised as one of the most successful regional human rights courts in the world.

    The UK, of course, has a long-standing tradition of ensuring that rights and liberties are protected both at home and abroad and, as my hon. Friend knows, was instrumental in the drafting of the European convention on human rights and in the setting up of the Council of Europe, the primary statue of which is still known as the treaty of London.

    As we have previously assured the House, the Government are wholeheartedly committed to remaining party to the ECHR and will ensure that our obligations under it—including those relative to the execution of judgments of the Strasbourg Court against the UK—continue to be met. It has long been a UK objective to strengthen the Strasbourg Court and the convention system, both to improve the efficiency of the European Court of Human Rights in the light of its continued backlog of pending applications and to ensure that it can focus on the most important cases before it, underpinned by the principle of subsidiarity to which my hon. Friend referred in detail.

    It is true that the Court, having become a victim of its own success, continues to face significant challenges, with its case load having grown exponentially in the past 20 years. As a way to address this, in 2010 ECHR state parties adopted the Interlaken declaration, a 10-year programme of work known as the Interlaken process that set out to reduce the Court’s backlog of cases and allow for all cases, especially those that concern serious violations of human rights, to be adjudicated within a reasonable time. That was followed in 2012 by the Brighton declaration, which was adopted under the UK’s chairmanship of the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers.

    As my hon. Friend will recognise, the UK has been at the forefront of efforts to reform the Strasbourg Court following the Interlaken declaration, and the Brighton declaration went further than Interlaken in a number of respects. Notably, it called for the stronger application of the principle of subsidiarity and the doctrine of the margin of appreciation. Those calls were, of course, aimed to address the Court’s growing case load, but they also served as a reminder of the paramount role of national courts in the enforcement of human rights.

    One of the major achievements of the Brighton declaration was protocol No. 15 to the convention, which came into force in August 2021. Not only does protocol No. 15 add the principle of subsidiarity and the margin of appreciation to the preamble of the convention, but it will improve the efficiency of the Strasbourg Court by shortening the time limit for applications, ensuring that all applications have been duly considered by domestic courts and ensuring an appropriate upper age limit for judges, so that they can serve for the full term of their tenure and provide continuity to the Court. We also welcomed the adoption in 2018 of the Copenhagen declaration, which carried forward some of the initiatives begun in Brighton.

    Although it can be said that the Interlaken process has been partly successful—the number of applications pending before the court in January 2021 was 62,000, which is down from a record high of just over 150,000 applications in 2011—the Court’s caseload is still stubbornly high and some other issues remain. Although state parties agreed in November 2020 that no comprehensive reform of the convention was needed, there was a recognition that further efforts should be pursued, and I very much agree with that assessment.

    My hon. Friend has already alluded to a specific area that is worth highlighting: the selection and election of judges to the Strasbourg Court. In my view, it is crucial that judges in Strasbourg are of the highest calibre possible and independent from any political influence, as we aim to have in our system in the UK. As my hon. Friend has already mentioned, judges are elected by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, as stipulated by article 22 of the convention. As part of that, the advisory panel set up in 2010 gives a non-binding opinion on whether countries’ candidates for judges, provided as a shortlist, meet the necessary criteria set out in paragraph 1 of article 21 of the convention.

    I am aware that the panel is one way in which the Council of Europe has tried to improve the standard of judges elected to the Strasbourg Court in recent years, with the aim of increasing confidence in its judgments. However, consideration must be given to whether the process undertaken by the advisory panel is sufficiently robust to ensure that all candidates meet the requisite suitability criteria. I particularly note the concern raised by my hon. Friend about the calibre of some candidates put forward and their affiliations, be they political activists or academics who have limited experience in the practical application of the law. I would therefore welcome the Parliamentary Assembly’s exploring ways in which to share best practice with state parties to assist in that regard.

    John Howell

    Is my hon. Friend aware that Russia recently put forward three Russian candidates to be judges? They were considered so inadequate that even the committee responsible for them sent them home without seeing them.

    James Cartlidge

    My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Russia has already had quite a lot of mentions in the debate. I am sure that will continue on matters affecting the ECHR, but as I said, we need to look at the issue of judges, which was such an important part of his speech.

    I am particularly pleased that, at our Government’s request, state parties have agreed to ask the Steering Committee for Human Rights to take a further look at the effectiveness of the system for the selection and election of judges at the Strasbourg Court. The report will also look into the need for additional safeguards to preserve their independence and impartiality, and it may well explore some of the areas of concern raised by my hon. Friend. I know the committee will undertake other important work concerning reforms of the Strasbourg Court, including a review of the first effects for protocol No. 15 to the ECHR.

    Although the focus of the debate has quite rightly been on reform at Strasbourg level, it is worth noting that our proposed reforms of the Human Rights Act 1998 should help to address the systematic reliance on Strasbourg jurisprudence by our domestic courts. Among other measures, we are consulting on options for reform of section 2 of the Human Rights Act that will emphasise the primacy of domestic precedent. These options will set out a broad range of case law, including, but not limited to, Strasbourg jurisprudence that UK courts may consider.

    As the title of the debate is “European Court of Human Rights: Reform”, let me sum up by reiterating the UK’s commitment to its obligations under the European convention on human rights and that we will continue to abide by the Court’s judgments. We will continue to work with our Council of Europe partners to pursue ongoing reform of the Court, both to improve the Court’s efficiency in the light of its large backlog of pending applications and to ensure that it can focus on the most important cases before it, underpinned by the principle of subsidiarity.

    I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. He put his case eloquently and in great detail, and I pay tribute to him again for his work. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to respond for the Government.

  • John Howell – 2022 Speech on the European Court of Human Rights

    John Howell – 2022 Speech on the European Court of Human Rights

    The speech made by John Howell, the Conservative MP for Henley, in the House of Commons on 19 January 2022.

    It is a great pleasure to have the Adjournment debate tonight. I am the leader of the UK delegation to the Council of Europe, but I will not be commenting on the consultation recently launched by the Lord Chancellor as it is largely a domestic issue. I will be considering the European Court of Human Rights from the Strasbourg end.

    I am not from the wing of my party that believes we should pull out of the European Court of Human Rights, and I do not have an isolationist perspective that we should simply go it alone and ignore anything the Court says. The purpose of this debate is to consider how the Court can be reformed to make it better for people right across Europe, to make it more useful, to make its judgments more relevant and, above all, to make sure its judges show the same degree of integrity for which British judges are famous.

    The UK has a key role in taking this forward. This is not about judgments but, among other things, it is about judges. The key question for the Government is whether they will support me, as the Secretary of State for Justice suggested, in the reforms about which I have already begun to have conversations in Strasbourg.

    Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate and for all that he does in his role at the Council of Europe, of which the UK is a member. Does he agree that, although we have left the European Union—there is still some fragility in relation to that—it is crucial that the UK continues to play a part in the Council of Europe to ensure that human rights cases, in which he is particularly interested, are dealt with properly and that countries such as Russia, which has the most cases brought against it, are held to account? Does he agree that is important?

    John Howell

    I agree, and I will address the enormous number of cases involving Russia. The order of countries with the most cases before the European Court of Human Rights is: Russia, Turkey and Romania. We are nowhere on that list, but it is important for us to concentrate on it.

    I shall turn first to the question of judges. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe elects the judges of the European Court of Human Rights. This immediately brings into question whether there should be a balance between the democratic legitimacy provided by us electing those judges and the political process. That question has been asked not only by us in Europe; it is always being asked in the USA. The politics of judges are not declared on their curriculum vitae, but everyone knows the political background of each candidate, and the voting for or against them is very much on party lines, as you will remember, Madam Deputy Speaker, from your time on the Council of Europe.

    According to the European convention on human rights, judges must

    “be of high moral character and must either possess the qualifications required for appointment to high judicial office or be jurisconsults of recognised competence.”

    To ensure that these standards are met, there are two phases to the election process. The first phase is a national selection procedure, in which each state party chooses a list of three qualified candidates. The second phase is the election procedure undertaken by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, in which parliamentarians assess the qualifications of the three candidates before voting to decide which one should become a judge. A fair and transparent process is called for throughout the entire operation. All candidates must have appropriate legal qualifications and experience, but the judge need not be a judge in their own country, and it is possible for politicians and civil servants to be appointed as judges. This happens frequently. In the UK, where judges are appointed and progressed through the judicial rankings based on merit and with political bipartisanship, this concept can be difficult to understand.

    At this point, I should like to praise our own judge there, Tim Eicke QC. He is qualified in at least two systems of law, he is genuinely independent, and a fair process was used to appoint him. He has gone out of his way to give support to the Parliamentary Assembly, and we have had a number of discussions with him. I pay him the greatest possible compliments for the work that he does in the Court.

    A recent report shows that at least 22 of the 100 permanent judges who have served on the European Court of Human Rights between 2009 and 2019 are former officials or collaborators of seven non-governmental organisations that are highly active before the Court. Since 2009, there have been at least 185 cases in which at least one of these seven NGOs was officially involved in the proceedings. In 88 of those cases, judges sat in a case in which the NGO with which they were linked was involved. For example, in one case before the Court, 10 of the 16 applicants were NGOs funded by the one NGO that looked after them, as were six of the NGOs acting as third parties. Of the 17 judges who have sat in the Grand Chamber, six are linked to the applicant and intervening NGOs. From 2009 to 2019, there were only 12 cases in which a judge withdrew from a case apparently because of a link with an NGO involved in the case. This situation calls into question the independence of the Court and the impartiality of the judges, and it is contrary to the rules that the ECHR itself imposes on states in this area.

    Particular attention should be paid to the choice of candidates for the posts of judges. A mechanism is needed for avoiding the appointment of political activists, not only to the office of judge, but as Court jurists. Links between NGOs, lawyers and applicants should be made visible by asking them to indicate in the application form whether they are accompanied in their efforts by an NGO, and to mention its name. This requirement would improve the transparency of the proceedings, both for the Court and for the respondent Government. The future of the convention system rests on this, as:

    “The quality of judges and members of the Registry is essential to maintaining the authority of the Court and therefore also for the future of the Convention mechanism.”

    I emphasise that it is the quality of the judges that is crucial to the future of the system.

    We all know that NGOs have a strong political or ideological character, which in itself should be seen not as an advantage, but as an obstacle to appointment to the Court. To this end, candidates for the office of judge should have the obligation to declare their relationships with any organisation that is active at the Court. Also, the Parliamentary Assembly should be given sufficient means to carry out a proper assessment of candidates before the election. The current arrangement does not allow for in-depth discussion, although there is a separate Committee set up on which a number of Members of this House serve.

    The current publication of the summary of judges’ curriculum vitae could be complemented by a simple thing: a declaration of interests. The demand for declarations of interest and their publication is growing, as they constitute one of the main measures to prevent conflicts of interest. Such a declaration has been imposed on all French magistrates since 2016. In the United States, members of the Supreme Court are subject to a declaration of interests, updated each year and made public, which notably mentions the advantages or gifts received during the previous year. A similar requirement should be put in place if we want the quality of judges of the European Court of Human Rights and the whole structure to be in line with what we expect it to be.

    Some work also needs to be done on formalising withdrawal procedures. Any judge who, in a particular case, has doubts as to the requirements concerning him or herself on the principles of judicial ethics should have the obligation, and no longer only the option, to inform the President of the Court. The Court should inform the parties in advance of the composition of the formation of the panel that will decide their case, in accordance with the principle of publicity of the proceedings provided by the convention itself, in article 6. In its current practice, the Court deprives the parties of the possibility of requesting the withdrawal of a judge, as it only informs them of the identity of the judges when the judgment is published. There are exceptions to this, where the case is tried in public hearing or in the Grand Chamber, but most cases are not so tried, so the ability of the person bringing a case to challenge a judge for his or her association with an organisation such as an NGO is removed. A party cannot generally effectively request the withdrawal of a judge, which I think is very sad.

    Finally, I want to turn to the Brighton declaration to see whether it might be able to help. It was produced towards the end of our chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers, not long after I entered the House, although I was not involved in the Council of Europe at that time. The declaration covered the future of the European Court of Human Rights. It opened with a general reaffirmation of our

    “deep and abiding commitment to the Convention”

    The aim of the Brighton declaration was to secure rights and freedoms as defined in the convention. It also recognised the fundamental principle of subsidiarity. That may have been one of the first occasions on which the term “subsidiarity” was used to describe a European institution. It would be typical of the EU to steal that, as it stole the flag of the Council of Europe and the anthem as well—but we can consider that on another occasion.

    The declaration contained specific practical measures designed to enhance the role of national Parliaments in ensuring effective implementation, such as their being offered information on the compatibility of draft primary legislation with the convention—I, and, I am sure, all other Members, have seen the use of those measures in the context of legislation that we consider and how we go about implementing it—and it encouraged the facilitation of the important role of national Parliaments in scrutinising the effectiveness of the measures taken by Governments to implement judgments of the Court. However, while those measures are welcome, the declaration failed to address the key points that I have mentioned—for instance, the point about reform of the judges. I suspect that that is because there is such a vested interest in that regard, and that reform will therefore prove to be a long task; I hope that I will continue in my current role for long enough to be able to perform it. The changes that were proposed in the declaration were relatively technical and uncontroversial in nature.

    It would be more useful for me to address some of the issues that are likely to come up under the consultation, which I said I would not cover in my speech. Let me now say that I lied about that, and touch on a few of them. They include the ability of individuals to obtain practical and effective access to the Court, and the relationship of the Court to the member states which are part of it. The declaration gave a strong commitment to the convention without tackling the crucial issue of the election of judges. I return to what I said about the quality of those judges being essential to the future of the Court and of the convention system.

    Those are all important things to discuss, but if we get too far into them without tackling the problem of the judges and the mechanics of the Court, we miss a trick—here I repeat what I said at the beginning of my speech: we, as the United Kingdom, have a great deal to offer because of the standards of our judicial system and our experience—because we miss the opportunity to reform the Court not just for our benefit, but for that of people throughout Europe.

    I will leave the House with one important statistic that I have already mentioned in response to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). The countries with the most cases against them are Russia, Turkey and Romania. The UK has very few cases against it. Everybody remembers votes for prisoners because over the time that I have been in Parliament that is the one major issue that has come to the House. That gives us a good chance to implement change that is clean and for the greater benefit. I hope that, with the help of the Ministry of Justice, I will be able to carry that out in Strasbourg, hopefully with the agreement of all the other member countries that elect judges to the European Court of Human Rights.