Tag: Speeches

  • Louise Haigh – 2021 Comments on the Northern Ireland Protocol

    Louise Haigh – 2021 Comments on the Northern Ireland Protocol

    The comments made by Louise Haigh, the Shadow Northern Ireland Secretary, on 3 March 2021.

    The Prime Minister personally negotiated checks down the Irish Sea, and those checks have been known in detail for many months.

    It is the Government’s staggering lack of preparation that has left Northern Ireland so exposed.

    This is the deal the Prime Minister demanded – he should show some responsibility, and find the lasting solutions with the EU that remain the only way to give businesses the certainty they are crying out for.

    Today’s unilateral action will do nothing to solve those long-term challenges facing Northern Ireland.

  • Jonathan Ashworth – 2021 Comments on Chancellor’s Cuts to NHS Budget

    Jonathan Ashworth – 2021 Comments on Chancellor’s Cuts to NHS Budget

    The comments made by Jonathan Ashworth, the Shadow Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, on 3 March 2021.

    Rishi Sunak promised to be ‘open and honest’ with the British public. But buried in the small print of his Budget is a cut to frontline NHS services that will increase pressure on staff and do nothing for patients stuck on growing waiting lists.

    This Budget papered over the cracks rather than rebuilding the foundations of our country.

  • Keir Starmer – 2021 Comments on the Budget

    Keir Starmer – 2021 Comments on the Budget

    The comments made by Keir Starmer, the Leader of the Opposition, on 3 March 2021.

    Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker.

    After 11 months in this job it’s nice finally to be standing opposite the person actually making decisions in this Government.

    The trouble is, the trouble is, it’s those decisions that have left us with the mess we find today. The worst economic crisis of any major economy in the last 12 months, unemployment at five per cent and as the Chancellor said, forecast to rise to 6.5 per cent, debt at over £2 trillion.

    I’m sure this Budget will look better on Instagram.

    In fact, this week’s PR video cost the taxpayer so much, I was half expecting to see a line in the OBR forecast for it.

    But even the Chancellor’s film crew will struggle to put a positive spin on this. After the decisions of the last year and the decade of neglect, we needed a Budget to fix the foundations of our economy, to reward our key workers, to protect the NHS and to build a more secure and prosperous economy for the future.

    Instead, what we got was a Budget that papered over the cracks, rather than rebuilding the foundations. A Budget that shows the Government doesn’t understand what went wrong in the last decade or what’s needed in the next.

    The Chancellor may think that this is the time for a victory lap but I’m afraid this Budget won’t feel so good for the millions of key workers who are having their pay frozen, for the businesses swamped by debt and the families paying more in council tax and the millions of people who are out of work or worried about losing their job.

    And although the Chancellor spoke for almost an hour, we heard nothing about a long-term plan to fix social care.

    The Chancellor might have forgotten about it, but the Labour Party never will.

    The British people will rightly ask: why has Britain suffered a worse economic crisis than any major economy? The answer is staring us in the face.

    First, the Chancellor’s decisions in the last year.

    This is the Chancellor who blocked a circuit break in September, ignoring the science he told the British people to “live with coronavirus and live without fear.”

    A few weeks later, we were forced into an even longer and more painful lockdown. Whatever spin the Chancellor tries to put on the figures today, as a result of his decisions, we’ve suffered deeper economic damage and much worse outcomes.

    And Madam Deputy Speaker, that is nothing compared with a decade of political choices that meant Britain went into this crisis with an economy built on insecurity and inequality.

    The Chancellor referred to the last 10 years, we’ve got an economy as a result of those 10 years with 3.6 million people in insecure work; where wages stagnated for a decade; over four million children living in poverty and, critically, we went into this crisis with 100,000 unfilled posts in the NHS and where social care was ignored and underfunded for a decade. Members Opposite voted for all of that. Today’s Budget doesn’t even recognise that – let alone rectify it.

    It’s clear that the Chancellor is now betting on a recovery fuelled by a consumer spending blitz.

    In fairness, if my next door neighbour was spending tens of thousands of pounds redecorating their flat, I’d probably do the same.

    But the central problem in our economy is a deep-rooted insecurity and inequality and this Budget isn’t the answer to that. The Chancellor barely mentioned inequality – let alone tried to address it.

    So rather than the big, transformative Budget we needed this Budget simply papers over the cracks. If this had been a Budget for the long-term it would have had a plan.

    A plan to protect our NHS, a plan to fix social care.

    But I can tell you this, a Labour Budget would have had the NHS and care homes front and centre.

    But this Budget is almost silent on those questions.

    If this had been a Budget to rebuild the foundations, it would have fixed our broken social security system.

    Instead, the Chancellor has been dragged – kicking and screaming – to extend the £20 uplift in Universal Credit – but only for a few months.

    Once again deferring the problem. As a result, insecurity and the threat of losing £1,000 a year still hang over six million families.

    They ask what would we do, we would keep the uplift until a new, fairer system can be put in place.

    If this Budget was serious about rebuilding our shattered economy, it would have included a credible plan to tackle unemployment.

    The Chancellor said very little about the Kickstart scheme that’s no doubt because the Kickstart is only helping one in every 100 eligible young people.

    In six months it supported just 2,000 young people, yet youth unemployment is set to reach one million. Like so much of this Budget – the Chancellor’s offer is nowhere near the scale of the task.

    And of course the biggest challenge to this country is the climate emergency.

    The Chancellor just talked up his green credentials, but his Budget stops way short of what was needed or what’s happening in other countries.

    This Budget should have included a major green stimulus – bringing forward billions of pounds of investment to create new jobs and new green infrastructure.

    Instead, the Government is trying to build a new coal mine which we now learn might not even work for British steel. If anything sums up this Government’s commitment to a green recovery and jobs of the future, it’s building a coal mine we can’t even use.

    If the Government was serious about tackling insecurity and those most at risk from Covid, this Budget would have fixed the broken system of statutory sick pay and at the very least filled the glaring holes in isolation payments.

    This isn’t difficult to fix – the Government should just make the £500 isolation payment available to everyone who needs it. That would be money well spent. And a year into the pandemic, it’s a disgrace that it’s not.

    If the Government were serious about fixing the broken housing market, it would have announced plans for a new generation of genuinely affordable council houses.

    Instead, 230,000 council homes have been lost since 2010.

    Yet the Chancellor focused today on returning to subsiding 95 per cent mortgages.

    Now, I know what you’re thinking, I’ve heard that somewhere before. I’ve heard that somewhere before. Maybe it was because the Prime Minister announced it five months ago in his conference speech.

    No, I don’t think anybody heard that. I remember now, I remember now – it’s what Osborne and Cameron came up with in 2013. And what did that do? What did that do?

    It fuelled a housing bubble, it pushed up prices, and made owning a home more difficult.

    So much for “generation buy.”

    I’ve been saying for weeks that this budget will go back.

    I didn’t expect the Chancellor to lift a failed policy from eight years ago. This Budget fell far short of the transformative change we needed to turbocharge our recovery for the decades to come.

    There was no credible plan to ease the burden of debt hanging over so many businesses. This is estimated at £70bn.

    This Budget asks businesses to start paying this money back whether they’re profitable or not.

    That affects millions of businesses, it will hold back growth because businesses will have to pay back money they never wanted to borrow instead of being able to invest in their futures and create jobs in their local areas.

    It’s both unfair and economically illiterate.

    This Budget also fell far short of what was needed to support the self-employed and freelancers, unless, of course, you’re one of the Chancellor’s photographers.

    After a year of inaction, we’ll look at the details of what the Chancellor announced, but it certainly looks like, from the figure of 600,000 that he mentioned, that millions will still be left out in the cold.

    The Chancellor’s one nominally long-term policy was his references to “levelling up.”

    But what does this actually look like? It’s not the transformative shift in power, wealth and resources we need to rebalance our economy.

    It’s not the bold, long-term plan we need to upskill our economy, to tackle educational attainment or to raise life-expectancy.

    It certainly isn’t a plan to focus government’s resources on preventative services and early years. For the Chancellor “levelling up” seems to mean moving some parts of the Treasury to Darlington, creating a few freeports and re-announcing funding.

    That isn’t levelling up: it’s giving up.

    And instead of putting blind faith in freeports, the Chancellor would be better served making sure the Government’s Brexit deal actually works for Britain’s manufacturers, who now face more red-tape when they were promised less.

    For our financial services – still waiting for the Chancellor to make good on his promises.

    For the small businesses and fishing communities whose goods and produce are now left unsold in warehouses. And for our artists and performers who just want to be able to tour.

    Turning to other parts of the Statement, we’ll wait for the detail about the so-called super-deduction, but it’s unlikely to make up for the last 10 years, when the levels of private investment growth have trailed so many other countries.

    Of course, we welcome the creation of a National Infrastructure Bank. Something we’ve called for, for years.

    Although it would have been better if the Government hadn’t sold off the Green Investment Bank in the first place.

    We also welcome the introduction of green savings bonds. I have to say: What a good idea it is to introduce a new set of recovery bonds.

    The trouble is that the scale of what the Chancellor announced today is nowhere near ambitious enough.

    And the long-overdue commitments to extend furlough, business rate relief and the VAT cut on hospitality are welcome. But there is no excuse for holding the announcement of this support back until today – and, of course, we will look at the detail.

    But Madam Deputy Speaker, there are very few silver linings in this Budget.

    The IMF and the OECD have said now isn’t the time for tax rises. We’re in the middle of a once in 300-year crisis. Our economy is still shut. Our businesses are on life-support.

    So it’s right that corporation tax isn’t rising this year or next.

    Of course, in the long-run corporation tax should go up.

    The decade long corporation tax experiment by this government has failed.

    But no taxes should have been raised in the teeth of this economic crisis.

    So it’s extraordinary that the Chancellor is ploughing ahead with the £2bn council tax rise – affecting households across the country.

    So why is he doing that? Why is he doing that when every economist would tell him not to do it.

    Perhaps we find an answer in this weekend’s Sunday Times: “Rishi’s argument was, ‘Let’s do all this now as far away from the election as possible.’”

    Or the Telegraph on 27 January: “Raising taxes now means they can be reduced ahead of the next election, Sunak tells MPs.”

    Or the Mail in September: “Sunak to hike taxes and lower them before the election.”

    Let me be crystal clear. The proper basis for making tax decisions is the economic cycle, not the electoral cycle.

    Madam Deputy Speaker, behind the spin, the videos and the photo ops, we all know the Chancellor doesn’t believe in an active and enterprising government.

    We know, we know he’s itching to get back to his free market principles and to pull away support as quickly as he can.

    One day these restrictions will end.

    One day we’ll all be able to take our masks off – and so will the Chancellor.

    And then you’ll see who he really is – and this Budget sets it up perfectly.

    Because this is a Budget that didn’t even attempt to rebuild the foundations of our economy.

    Or to secure the country’s long-term prosperity. Instead it did the job the Chancellor always intended: a quick fix.

    Papering over the cracks.

    The Party opposite spent a decade weakening the foundations of our economy. Now they pretend they can rebuild it.

    But the truth is: they won’t confront what went wrong in the past and they have no plan for the future.

  • Chris Philp – 2021 Comments on Nightingale Courts

    Chris Philp – 2021 Comments on Nightingale Courts

    The comments made by Chris Philp, the Courts Minister, on 3 March 2021.

    We have achieved an immense amount in our battle to keep justice moving during the pandemic – restarting jury trials before anyone else, turbo-charging the rollout of video technology, bringing magistrates’ backlogs down, and opening more courtrooms for jury trials.

    These new courtrooms are the latest step in that effort, and I am determined to minimise delays and ensure justice is served for Londoners.

    That is why we are investing hundreds of millions to drive this recovery further, deliver swifter justice and support victims.

  • Guy Opperman – 2021 Speech on Pension Schemes Act

    Guy Opperman – 2021 Speech on Pension Schemes Act

    The speech made by Guy Opperman, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, in the House of Commons on 2 March 2021.

    The Pension Schemes Act 2021 received Royal Assent on 11 February. We are now setting out next steps, delivering on the commitment made during the passage of the Pension Schemes Bill and following extensive engagement since report stage in the House of Commons. The Act will introduce:

    Three new criminal offences, including a sentence of up to seven years in jail for bosses who plunder or run pension schemes into the ground.

    The legislative framework needed to usher in pensions dashboards that will give savers greater control over, and awareness of, their pensions.

    The legislative framework to allow collective money purchase pension schemes to operate.

    Powers to require pension schemes to take the Paris agreement temperature goal into account, and other climate change goals set by the Government.

    Strengthened rules around pension transfers to prevent members being misled in relation to transferring their pensions pots.

    Measures to support trustees and employers to improve the way they plan and manage scheme funding over the longer term and enable the Pensions Regulator to take action more effectively to protect members’ pensions.

    We are now progressing the secondary legislation to ensure the UK’s pension system is safer, better and greener. The sequencing of the subsequent legislation will allow for proper consultation, engagement with key stakeholders and further parliamentary debate, through affirmative procedure where required.

    Following our consultation in January 2021 on climate change, we will lay these world-leading regulations this summer to come into force ahead of COP26. This will make the UK the first major economy in the world to legislate for, and bring into practice, the recommendations of the Taskforce on Climate-related Financial Disclosures, ensuring climate change is at the heart of the pensions system.

    On the Pensions Regulator’s powers, we will consult on the majority of draft regulations this spring, and will commence these powers and the criminal offences measures in the autumn. For the duty to give notices and statements to the regulator in respect of certain events, we will consult on the draft regulations later this year, for commencement as soon as practical thereafter.

    In early summer we plan to consult on draft regulations for scams and collective defined contribution schemes, with commencement on the scams measures from early autumn 2021.

    We aim to consult on proposed regulations for the pensions dashboard later this year and lay draft regulations before Parliament for debate in 2022. Delivery remains on track for 2023 in line with the plans published by the pensions dashboards programme.

    On defined benefit scheme funding, later this year we will consult on draft regulations, following promised engagement with key interested parties, working closely with colleagues at the Pensions Regulator as they develop the revised funding code, which will also be subject to a full public consultation.

    Both Ministers and regulators will continue to engage with both Houses of Parliament as these measures progress.

  • Rishi Sunak – 2021 Budget

    Rishi Sunak – 2021 Budget

    The text of the 2021 Budget, published on 3 March 2021.

    [in .pdf format]

  • Richard Burgon – 2021 Speech on Statutory Sick Pay

    Richard Burgon – 2021 Speech on Statutory Sick Pay

    The speech made by Richard Burgon, the Labour MP for Leeds East, in the House of Commons on 2 March 2021.

    The idea behind statutory sick pay is as simple as it is important: workers who are ill are financially supported so that they can stay off work to recover. But during a rapidly spreading virus pandemic, it also helps to prevent the spread of infectious illnesses. The test of whether a system of sick pay is working is whether it achieves those simple aims.

    Unfortunately, as has been shown time and again during this crisis, the UK’s statutory sick pay system is quite simply broken. In the middle of a global pandemic, it is failing to protect either workers who are ill or their wider community. This failure, like so many others of this Government—from Serco test and trace to the personal protective equipment debacle—has contributed to the virus having spiralled out of control and so many losing their lives unnecessarily.

    From the very start of this crisis, I have been contacted by constituents who simply cannot get by on statutory sick pay. Before this debate, I invited my constituents to share their experiences of having to rely on statutory sick pay. The stories that people from my constituency sent to me were quite simply heartbreaking: workers forced to use up their annual leave to self-isolate because the sick pay they would get is not enough to keep them going; families who found that sick pay did not cover even a quarter of their bills; and people forced to use a food bank to feed their family and go into debt to pay their bills after just three weeks of relying on statutory sick pay.

    I have described just a glimpse of the horrific social harm inflicted on people in this country by this Government’s refusal to provide proper financial support during this crisis. People are being forced to choose between putting food on the table and self-isolating to protect their community and their colleagues. This is happening in every constituency of every Member across the country. MPs in this House know it is, and those who refuse to call for better sick pay have to take responsibility for the consequences.

    The two biggest problems with sick pay have been clear from the very start: the level that it is paid at is far too low and, even then, huge numbers of workers are excluded from actually getting it. At £95.85 a week, statutory sick pay is an 80% cut in income for an average worker. Many workers simply cannot afford the immediate loss of income. And who can live off £14 per day? The TUC found that two fifths of workers would have to go into debt or miss paying bills if they had to take statutory sick pay.

    Of course, the terrible consequences of this unacceptably low level of support are not felt equally. Many of the workers hardest hit by it are the same workers on the frontline fighting this pandemic. Let us look at social care. The GMB trade union has revealed that the majority of the UK’s social care workers are entitled only to statutory minimum sick pay, with no additional sick pay from their employer. When the GMB consulted its members who work in social care about what they would do if they had to rely on statutory sick pay, a full 81% said that they would be forced in to work. The Office for National Statistics found that care homes where staff got contractual sick pay above the level of statutory sick pay were less likely to have covid cases than those where staff were forced to rely on the statutory minimum. It is hard to imagine a more fatally self-defeating system during a pandemic than one that leaves care workers forced to go in to work when they should be self-isolating. How many people died in care homes because of this Government’s refusal to properly support workers financially when they are unwell?

    As if the paltry level of sick pay was not enough of a problem, nearly 2 million of the lowest paid workers do not even qualify for sick pay because they do not earn enough. The lower earnings limit means that those earning less than £120 a week are prohibited from accessing sick pay—a discriminatory measure, given that 70% of the workers excluded by that limit are women. Millions of self-employed workers are also excluded. That is the stark reality of working conditions in this country in the 21st century: millions of workers—disproportionately women, black and minority ethnic workers, and those on zero-hours contracts—excluded from even the most basic and limited support by the Government.

    From the start of the pandemic, Labour has called for urgent action to remove the barriers to sick pay that have left the lowest paid workers without support. Throughout the pandemic, trade unions such as Unite the union have made consistent demands on the Government to increase statutory sick pay to the level of the real living wage, and to remove the minimum income requirement so that every worker who needs to self-isolate is supported to do so. The Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union has also called for the Government to legislate for full rights to contractual sick pay for all workers from day one, paid at 100% of wages. Outside the Conservative party, there is even widespread support in Parliament, with MPs from seven parties signing up to support my motion calling for sick pay at a real living wage level.

    I am sure that the Minister’s response will include reference to the Government’s £500 self-isolation support scheme. It is true that, six months into the pandemic, the Government introduced a scheme to give a one-off payment to some people on low incomes who have to self-isolate. Unfortunately, the scheme is woefully inadequate. Only one in eight workers qualify automatically for the main payment; the rest have had to apply for a discretionary payment, and figures suggest that 70% of applications for support from that scheme were rejected.

    Back in November, I asked the Government how many people had applied for that payment. It took more than 100 days to get an answer, and when it finally came, it was that the Government still did not have the figures. No one could honestly look at the scheme and claim that it is an adequate alternative to providing proper sick pay at real living wage levels.

    We know that covid is increasingly a disease of the poor. Those living in the most deprived neighbourhoods have been more than twice as likely to die from covid as those in the least deprived. People in some of the lowest-paid manual jobs are three times more likely to die of covid-19 than those in higher-paid, white-collar jobs. Covid is still circulating at higher levels in the poorest neighbourhoods than in the wealthiest. Proper levels of statutory sick pay would disproportionately help those in poorer areas and in manual occupations, and that is what needs to happen. When we look at why the Government have never acted on increasing sick pay as a priority, perhaps that is the real answer.

    Sick pay was already broken before the pandemic struck, yet even in a global health crisis, the Government have chosen not to fix it, helping the virus spread out of control. The Government cannot claim not to have been warned in advance of the scale of this problem, because just months before the covid crisis struck, their own consultation on sick pay said that the system of statutory sick pay

    “does not reflect modern working practices, such as flexible working,”

    and looked at

    “widening eligibility for SSP to extend protection to those on the lowest incomes”.

    I, along with many in the labour and trade union movements, have been demanding better sick pay for workers for almost a year. In fact, it was a year ago tomorrow—when the UK had a total of just three deaths from covid—that the TUC published a report warning the Government to urgently make our sick pay system fit for purpose. The report called on the Government immediately to raise sick pay to the level of the real living wage and make it accessible to all workers, including the lowest paid. Those recommendations were ignored. It was also last March that the Health Secretary himself said that he could not afford to live off statutory sick pay, but, 12 months on, his Government have done nothing to raise it. If only the Health Secretary were as generous with the payments to working people as he appears to be with his friends when handing out Government contracts.

    The Government’s refusal to act decisively has meant that the virus has spread more than it would have done, and people have lost their lives who otherwise would be with us still. The Government knew about this problem from day one but chose not to address it. The decision not to raise sick pay to a level that workers can actually live on is a deliberate political calculation from this Government. They feared that if sick pay was improved during this crisis, they would never be able to lower it again in the future; it would be a permanent gain for working people. This Conservative Government cannot allow that because it would go against the grain of the constant undermining of our welfare state. Fundamentally, the Conservative party sees the social security system as a means to punish—be that by setting universal credit deliberately low or the cruel bedroom tax— rather than it being there to support people when they need help.

    The Chancellor has a chance finally to sort this issue out tomorrow at the Budget. If he does not, once again he will have shown which side this Government are on, and it is not on the side of working people and their families.

  • Preet Kaur Gill – 2021 Speech on Yemen

    Preet Kaur Gill – 2021 Speech on Yemen

    The speech made by Preet Kaur Gill, the Labour MP for Birmingham Edgbaston, in the House of Commons on 2 March 2021.

    The Government’s announcement yesterday at the high pledging conference discarded the British people’s proud history of stepping up and supporting those in need. In the middle of a pandemic, when millions stand on the brink of famine, the Government slashed life-saving support to the largest humanitarian crisis in the world, halving direct aid to Yemen weeks after they announced £1.36 billion in new arms licences to Saudi Arabia. This is a devastating reminder of the real world impact that the Government’s choices to abandon their manifesto commitment on aid will have on the most vulnerable people and shows that this Government just cannot be trusted to keep their word.

    After six years of brutal conflict, two thirds of the Yemeni population rely on food aid to survive and thousands of people in the country are at risk of famine. Cutting aid is a death sentence that this Government have chosen to make, so will the Minister take this opportunity to apologise? Alongside this cut in humanitarian support, the UK continues to sustain the war in Yemen. Will the Minister follow the lead set by President Biden by stopping all UK arms sales to the Saudi-led coalition, so that we can use our role as the penholder on Yemen to help bring this brutal conflict to an end?

    If the Foreign Secretary is willing to brazenly slash support to people living in the world’s worst humanitarian disaster, despite claiming for months that humanitarian crises were a priority, then the question is, what is going to happen to the rest of the aid budget on other priorities? The Minister has refused

    “to talk to the aid and development community about what will be cut”

    because he is ashamed. He is ashamed that the Government’s cuts will put millions of people’s lives at risk. This Government cannot continue to pretend otherwise. So will they publish a full list of the cuts made in 2020 and of the cuts to be made in 2021 by the end of this week?

    What we saw yesterday are not the actions of global Britain. That phrase rings hollow. Make no mistake: as the UK abandons its commitment to 0.7%, it is simultaneously undermining our global reputation. Does the Minister believe that he has the support of this House to make this appalling cut and, if so, will he bring forward a vote on the 0.7% commitment? Tomorrow, the Chancellor has a choice. He must reverse his decision to make the UK the only G7 nation to cut its aid budget. He must reverse his Government’s retreat from the world stage and celebrate Britain’s proud history as a country that stands up for the world’s poorest and most vulnerable in society. That is the true test of global Britain.

  • James Cleverly – 2021 Statement on Yemen

    James Cleverly – 2021 Statement on Yemen

    The statement made by James Cleverly, the Minister for the Middle East and North Africa, in the House of Commons on 2 March 2021.

    I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) for raising this urgent question. The situation in Yemen remains among the worst humanitarian crises in the world. Two thirds of the entire population—more than 20 million people—require some form of humanitarian assistance. The UN estimates that in the first half of this year, 47,000 people will be in famine conditions and 16.2 million will be at risk of starvation. Improving the dire circumstances faced by so many Yemenis continues to be a priority for this Government.

    Yesterday, I attended the high-level pledging conference for the United Nations humanitarian appeal for Yemen. I announced that the UK will provide at least—I repeat, at least—£87 million in aid to Yemen over the course of financial year 2021-22. Our total aid contribution since the conflict began was already over £1 billion. This new pledge will feed an additional 240,000 of the most vulnerable Yemenis every month, support 400 health clinics and provide clean water for 1.6 million people. We will also provide one-off cash support to 1.5 million of Yemen’s poorest households to help them buy food and basic supplies.

    Alongside the money that the UK is spending to reduce humanitarian suffering in Yemen, we continue to play a leading diplomatic role in support of the UN’s efforts to end the conflict. Yesterday, I spoke to the United Nations special envoy, Martin Griffiths, and we discussed how the UK could assist him in ending this devastating war. Last week, the United Nations Security Council adopted a UK-drafted resolution that reiterated the Council’s support for the United Nations peace process, condemned the Houthi offensive in Marib and attacks on Saudi Arabia and sanctioned Houthi official Sultan Zabin for the use of sexual violence as a tool of war.

    Just last night, a Houthi missile hit and injured five civilians in southern Saudi Arabia. I condemn that further attack by the Houthis on civilian targets in Saudi Arabia and reiterate our commitment to help Saudi Arabia defend itself.

    We are also working closely with our regional and international partners for peace. On 25 February, the Foreign Secretary spoke to the Saudi Foreign Minister, Faisal bin Farhan, about the Yemen peace process, and he also recently discussed this with the US Secretary of State. I discussed Yemen with the Omani ambassador to the UK on 4 February and spoke to the Yemeni Foreign Minister on 20 January regarding the attack on Aden and the formation of a new Yemeni Cabinet.

    The UK is also leading efforts to tackle covid-19 in Yemen and around the world. This month, as part of the UN Security Council presidency, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary called for a ceasefire across the globe to allow vulnerable people living in conflict zones to be vaccinated against covid-19. The UK, as one the biggest donors to the World Health Organisation and GAVI’s COVAX initiative, is helping ensure that millions of vaccine doses get through to people living in crises such as Yemen.

    I thank my right hon. Friend for raising this question and thank hon. Members for their continued interest in Yemen. The conflict and humanitarian crisis deserves our attention, and the UK Government remain fully committed to doing what we can to help secure a better future for Yemenis.

  • Victoria Atkins – 2021 Statement on Controlling or Coercive Behaviour Offence

    Victoria Atkins – 2021 Statement on Controlling or Coercive Behaviour Offence

    The statement made by Victoria Atkins, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office, in the House of Commons on 1 March 2021.

    Today, I am pleased to announce the publication of the Government’s review into the offence of controlling or coercive behaviour (CCB) in an intimate or family relationship—as provided for in section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015. The review follows a commitment made in response to the 2018 consultation on domestic abuse.

    The review considered the available data and research to understand how the CCB offence has been working since its introduction in 2015. It found that since the offence came into force in December 2015, police recorded CCB offences, as well as CCB prosecutions, have increased year on year. These increases demonstrate that the CCB offence is being used across the criminal justice system (CJS), indicating that the legislation has provided an improved legal framework to tackle CCB. However, the review recognises that there is still room for improvement, particularly with regard to raising awareness of what constitutes CCB among the public and across the CJS, and improving the ability of the CJS to record, evidence and prosecute these crimes. The review also considered views from a number of stakeholders who expressed concern that the cohabitation requirement within the offence is preventing some victims of this abuse from seeking justice, and poses challenges for police and prosecutors to evidence and charge abusive behaviours that are not captured by other legislation.

    The review made a number of recommendations, including:

    Building on the work of the Office for National Statistics in 2017, to develop robust estimates of the prevalence and characteristics of CCB;

    In consultation with victims and support services, to develop suitable measures for victim outcomes;

    Further work to assess the levels of awareness and understanding of the offence across the criminal justice system.

    The review also recognised calls for legislative change, highlighting in particular the removal of the cohabitation requirement as well as some calls to extend the maximum sentence length and to remove the requirement to evidence a “serious effect” on the victim. As such, the review made the following research recommendations:

    If legislative changes are implemented, the operation of the legislation should be monitored and reviewed closely to assess the impact and identify any unintended consequences;

    If legislative changes are not made at this time, further research should be undertaken to ascertain the need for, and impact of, such changes to the legislation.

    CCB is an insidious form of domestic abuse and this Government are committed to ensuring all victims are protected. We recognise that coercive or controlling behaviours may escalate following separation, and that members of a victim’s extended family may be involved in control or coercion. We have heard the calls from experts on this matter, and I am very pleased to say that the Government will be removing the cohabitation requirement contained within the offence through an amendment to the Domestic Abuse Bill at Report stage in the House of Lords. This amendment will bring the controlling or coercive behaviour offence into line with the statutory definition of domestic abuse in clause 1 of the Bill and send a clear message to both victims and perpetrators that controlling or coercive behaviours, irrespective of living status, are a form of domestic abuse.

    We recognise that the review also raised questions around the need for other legislative change, including reference to increasing the maximum penalty for the CCB offence in line with the current maximum penalty for stalking, and removing the evidence requirement to prove that the behaviour had a serious effect on the victim. Given the review acknowledged that evidence for these changes is currently limited, we will continue to monitor the offence and keep these other proposals for legislative change under review.

    This summer we will be publishing a domestic abuse strategy which will build on work to date to help transform the response to domestic abuse, tackling perpetrators and placing the needs of victims at the heart of our response. We will consider the wider policy and data recommendations made in the review throughout the development and implementation of this strategy, and will of course continue to engage with domestic abuse organisations throughout this process. We will also update the statutory guidance for the controlling or coercive behaviour offence to reflect both the findings of the review and change to the legislation.

    Domestic abuse is an abhorrent crime and this Government are committed to doing all that we can support victims and tackle offenders. I am delighted that, in removing the co-habitation requirement within the CCB offence, we are able to take another step in ensuring every victim has access to the protection that they need.

    A copy of the review will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.