UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Liz Truss – 2023 Speech at the Institute for Government

    Liz Truss – 2023 Speech at the Institute for Government

    The speech made by Liz Truss, the former Prime Minister, in London on 18 September 2023.

    It’s great to be here at the Institute for Government today. I’m having a rather more relaxing September than I did last year. And you might well ask, Why am I back talking about the same topic? But it’s one year ago that I launched my government and our economic policy. And I’m speaking here today, not because I want to relive the events of last year. I certainly don’t. It’s not because I’m keen to be back in Downing Street. I’m certainly not. It’s because one year after saying that economic growth was the central issue for our country. Since then, we’ve heard a lot of people say that right across the political spectrum. That still is not agreement, or what has caused the problems of a lack of economic growth, but also what on earth we’re going to do about them.

    And I think these issues are only getting more urgent. The reality is that over time, we’re not bringing in as much money as a country. We have the highest debt interest payments in the developed world. And according to the Growth Commission, the average person in the UK is now £9,100 worse off than the average person in the United States.  I believe the reason that we have this problem is 25 years of economic consensus that has led to a period of stagnation and I believe that we need to shatter that economic consensus if we’re to avoid worse problems in the future.

    The fact is the British public know that the consensus isn’t working, Lord Ashcroft’s poll on the state we’re in released on 4th September. revealed that 72% of people in Britain agree that Britain is broken, people are getting poorer, nothing seems to work. We need big changes to the way the country is run, whichever party is a government. And yet despite the dissatisfaction the poll also reveals that people don’t agree on why we’ve got the problems and what the fundamental cause of the malaise in which we’re living is.

    Now there are some people who claim that this is a crisis of capitalism, that we’ve had too much free markets, but quite the opposite is true. The fact is that since Labour was elected in 1997, we have moved towards being a more corporatist social democracy than we were in the 70s, in the 80s and the 90s. State spending now accounts for 46% of GDP, higher than it was in every year in Britain except for 1975 and up from 34.8% in the year 2000. No other European country has seen this level of growth in state spending, apart from Greece and Spain.

    There’s also a growing burden of regulation. The cost of regulations introduced in 2022 alone is 10 billion pounds according to the government, and I believe that is an underestimate in the sectors that are key arteries of the economy, whether it’s energy, housing and banking, there is less competition or more government involvement than there was 25 years ago. The government still owns a 40% stake in NatWest. The cost of energy in Britain are twice what they are in the United States, and we have a severe shortage of housing.

    The cost of welfare and pensions has ballooned by 50% in real terms, since the turn of the millennium, and even on an income of 50,000 pounds, it’s still possible to claim Universal Credit. Our tax system has become more complicated, with many facing high marginal tax rates when they seek to earn more income. Somebody earning 100,000 pounds with a student loan faces a marginal tax rate of 71%. We’ve had cheap money for over a decade, with nearly 900 billion pounds pumped into the system by the Bank of England through quantitative easing in an era of the near zero interest rates, something that’s completely unprecedented in 300 years of UK central banking. So how on earth did we get to this situation? Well, my view is that after the successful monetary policy, and supply side reforms of the 1980s, and the winning of the Cold War by the West, we were all optimistic and upbeat about our future and we took our eye off the ball.

    Free market economists went off to lucrative jobs in the city, allowing academic institutions and think tanks to be captured by the left. Demand management crept back in alongside Neo-Keynesian dominated monetary policy. And we Conservatives allowed the debate to be framed and led by the left whether it was the anti capitalist arguments of the Occupy movement, whether it was the diversity policies, or whether it was the statist environmental solutions.

    We’ve all got to admit that it’s the left that made the running. And we’ve seen that regardless of which government has been in power, from the energy price gap to the 2050 climate change target to the ESG agenda in companies. There’s been a cultural shift across both business and the public sector. Towards a lot more left wing policies. And despite the long record of failure of industrial policy, it’s back in vogue again, people are talking about it. And at the heart of this was the basic belief by politicians that the good times would go on forever. The discussion was about sharing the proceeds of growth. It was about general well-being and happiness rather than GDP. The only question seemed to be how we will get to redistribute the pie. Not about growing the pie in the first place. But the problem is that 25 years later, we have seen a growing size and scope of the state. And that growing size and scope of the state has slowed down economic growth itself.

    Levels of tax and regulation, are now too high to generate the amount of economic activity we need to help people’s incomes get bigger and to fund government services and that means our economy is now stagnating people talk about the productivity puzzle, but it’s really not a puzzle.

    If there’s not enough incentive to go out and set up a business to take risks to compete, or even work. That’s a problem. People are delaying starting a family because housing is too expensive. And the cost of bringing up children is so high. Public Sector productivity is woeful, and millionaires are voting with their feet. The UK is third after Russia and China for the departure of high net worth individuals. And despite all of the evidence that these incentives have a major impact. There’s been a fatalistic consensus that these levels of growth in Britain are inevitable. And the economic models of the Treasury and the OBR reflect that they’re overly static and short term missed.

    They underestimate the effect the tax and regulation have on people’s behaviour. And they tend to focus on one or two or at most five years of the effects of policy. I call this approach abacus economics. The failure to factor in the dynamic effects of policy stalls out risks and problems for the future. So what we see is parts of the country that need investment don’t get it because the emphasis is on saving time or money now, rather than creating the conditions for growth in the future. We see energy projects being cancelled, because the costings are based on yesterday’s energy prices, not on future energy security. And the Treasury is always allergic to giving up its levers of control, and so objects to more local decision making a more low tax zones.

    This pattern of high spending, high tax and high regulation and low growth isn’t just taking place in the United Kingdom. It is taking place across Western Europe and across the United States, particularly the coastal states. And when we look at the counter examples of high growth in places like Poland, the Baltic states or Florida and Texas, they’re largely places with low regulation and low taxes in Poland Corporation taxes 19% and income taxes are extremely flat. And yet despite all this evidence, the global left wants to double down on this strategy for statism and in fact, they appear to be meeting at the moment in Canada.

    That is what Bidenomics is, it’s about injecting more top down subsidies, increasing debt and trying to reduce competition by levelling up taxes across the West. More regulation through the Environment Protection Agency amongst others. And to fund this federal spending is at 40% More than pre-COVID levels. And it’s set to go up even more this year. Soon the United States will be spending more money financing its debt than it spends on its entire defence budget.

    And Wall Street has just clocked on to this. Just recently they downgraded US debt which is meant to be the safest in the world. And despite the fact that it’s very clear that the West cargo on borrowing forever. The Labour Party have said that they want to copy and paste Biden’s policies onto the UK statute book. They’re calling their version of Biden’s policies. The green prosperity plan is not a green prosperity plan.

    It’s a green de-growth plan. And it’s just a new name for the failed subsidies and high taxes of the past. Real economic security would mean incentives. So oil and gas producers want to come to the North Sea. And so people want to invest in the United Kingdom. And above all, real security means controlling public spending.

    Now last autumn, I sought to take on this consensus and try and get the British economy on a better trajectory through a three pronged approach of targeted tax freezes and reductions, supply side reform and holding down public spending. It was clear that interest rates were going to go up and they would go up further. We’d had artificially low rates for too long, and they were rising across the world.

    Therefore, in order to dampen inflation, and stave off a recession, the only tool we had at our disposal was doing all we could to fix the supply side of the economy and increase our productive capacity. As far as I was concerned.

    This was an urgent task. And the growth plan which subsequently became known as the mini budget, sought to do this through targeted tax cuts supply side reform and spending restraint. I felt we needed to reform our tax system with mothers to make it more business friendly, and to make the UK a more attractive place to invest.

    We needed to reverse the impending hike in corporation tax. We needed to cut the top rate of income tax to show that Britain was open to talent reforming IR35 would cut red tape for small businesses and return to VAT free shopping would make our cities more attractive.

    Independent calculations suggested that cutting the higher rate of income tax and the tourist tax would have increased rather than decreased revenues within five years. Those are calculations by the CEBR. So when people describe my policies as unfunded tax cuts, that is not an accurate description. In fact, quite the opposite of being unfunded these tax cuts could have include increased funding for our public services. The OBR also say for the cost of freezing corporation tax was much less than the Treasury suggested. Their costing of the measures was £25 billion over five years, not £45 billion and regrettably, the static models used by the OBR failed to acknowledge this.

    The second part of the plan was supply side reform, with some of the biggest constraints to growth in the UK economy, being in energy housing and the labour market. On energy there was a risk of household bills going up to 6000 pounds due to decades of short term US energy policy that have failed to ensure our security. That’s what we introduced the energy price guarantee, while we work to open up fracking and the North Sea to make the UK energy independent.

    Again, including by abolishing the windfall tax, again due to static costing, the cost of this was vastly overestimated. It will actually cost 27 billion pounds, less than half the £55 billion forecast by the OBR in the autumn of 2022. On planning we instituted Canary Wharf style investment zones with planning freedoms and tax breaks for a decade that would help drive new jobs and opportunities in left behind areas. And we sought to make property ownership a reality for young people again, by reducing costs on developing the get passed on to renters and buyers. Whether it be through planning reform, reduced regulation, or speeding up planning decision. We also wanted to cut red tape on childcare to make it more affordable for families.

    The third part of the plan was about public spending restraint. Now we were deliberately careful about discussing public spending, given the very difficult politics of it. What I tried to do as prime minister was navigate between the economic reality and what realistically we could get support for in Parliament. Having been chief secretary I know it’s very difficult to cut spending in year and it’s often counterproductive. In the past, we’ve cut things like capital, and then it’s come back to bite us later. Therefore, what I tried to do was change the trajectory of spending by holding spending down now in an inflationary environment, not reopening.

    The Spending Review represents a tough approach. I also wanted as was widely publicised at the time to increase welfare benefits by wages, not prices. These two measures would have meant that compared to what we are spending now, we would have saved 35.5 billion over two years. 18.4 billion in 2023 24 and 17 billion in 2025. But even these modest savings did not command the support of the Conservative parliamentary party. And it’s a very serious issue for us who wants to see smaller government that currently making significant changes to spending simply doesn’t have enough political support.

    So those were the three key parts of the plan: targeted tax reductions, supply side reform and public spending restraint. Of course, the growth plan was a starting point, a signal of direction further changes were needed, given the scale of the challenge we face. CEBR analysis at the time suggests that if those policies have been kept in place, GDP growth would be 2% higher than otherwise by 2030. And investment would have been up 10% and could have been even stronger. These impacts are even greater in the long term. The 20 year GDP impact is normally three to four times bigger.

    I think we can see from the evidence on the ground, the impact the policies would have had. Investment would not have faltered in the North Sea were it not for the windfall tax. We would have got moving on fracking and lower energy bills would have been on the horizon. A more competitive rate of corporation tax would have persuaded the likes of AstraZeneca to locate in the UK and there would have been more duty free shoppers and a boom in the number of self employed.

    The policies are welcomed by business groups and voters like them as well. And since last year, virtually all of the policies in the mini budget have been called for 38 councils want to proceed with full fat investments aims, city firms are demanding more freedom to invest. Companies have called for lower corporation tax. There’s an entire campaign in the Daily Mail for tax free shopping and the self employed want IR35 reforms. So why didn’t it happen? Why didn’t these policies which people wanted and would have resulted in economic growth not happen? Well, the reality is it was the reaction. So although I did get rid of the health and social care levy a new tax which would have no doubt expanded over time.

    Unfortunately, most of the policies weren’t implemented. And they weren’t implemented because there was a reaction from the political and economic establishment, which fed into the markets, markets that were already destabilised by the Bank of England slowness. to hike interest rates and the failure to regulate LDIs. And I was effectively forced into a policy reversal under threat of a UK meltdown.

    Now some people say we were in too much of a rush. And it’s certainly true that I didn’t just try to fatten the pig on market day. I tried to rear the pig, fatten the pig and slaughter the pig on market day. I confess to that. But the reason we were in a rush is because voters had voted for change. They voted for change in 2016 and they voted for change again in 2019. And I wanted to deliver that change, and I knew we had limited time. I knew with the level of resistance or the lack of preparation, that things weren’t going to be perfect.

    However, given the situation the UK was in, it was important to take action and not to do nothing. Because I went into politics to get things done, not to do public relations. And to all the people who said that, if we’d spent more time rolling the pitch or we’d done things in a different way. Or we delayed things, we would have been able to deliver our programme. I asked them to look at what has happened since. By October the seventh through the OBR was already leaking their calculations that there was a 70 billion pound hole in the budget.

    These numbers of course subsequently proved wrong. But the leak would have made delivery of the corporation tax freeze untenable. And since last year, no major supply side reforms or tax cuts have been allowed to happen. Whether it’s on financial services, childcare planning, or on the environment. In fact, 150 Conservative MPs have written to the prime minister saying there should be no change in net zero legislation.

    So although there’s no doubt that the communication could have been better, and the operation better honed I think we all have to acknowledge in the room that this wasn’t just a process problem. There was unquestionably a reaction to the policies themselves. And the fact is that supply side economics and a belief that the size of the state needs to be reduced are ideas that no longer command widespread support and understanding. The anti-growth coalition is now a powerful force, comprising the economic and political elite, corporatist parts of the media, and even a section of the Conservative parliamentary party. The policies I advocate simply are not fashionable on the London dinner party circuit.

    In fact, what is interesting is when you look at the polling evidence, the people who want change and support these policies are less likely to be comfortably off in London and the Southeast. The law of Ashcroft poll shows very clearly, those who want to see lower taxes and smaller government and who are tougher on welfare tend to live in less affluent areas. Many of those are people who started voting Conservative in 2019. And, in addition to that, there are some of the policies I advocate that just don’t have very much public support at all. such as cutting the tax top tax rate, building more homes, of getting or getting rid of process when building infrastructure projects. But frankly, we need to find a way of doing these things. Otherwise, we’re not going to get the prosperity and the opportunity that people want.

    And we can see that policies I advocated working right now, in places like Texas, Florida and the Czech Republic. Even Germany, is now cutting corporate taxes and reducing regulation. If the situation was urgent last year, it’s even more urgent now. The UK is in a serious and precarious position and there is a real risk of a downward spiral. The national debt was £525 billion in 2005. By 2022, it had quintupled to £2.5 trillion, and it’s set to hit £3 trillion within three to four years.

    I believe we can get out of this. But the only way to get out of the debt spiral is to get a grip on public spending while implementing policies to grow the economy. I urge the government to be bold and to set out a clear vision of how the UK can get to sustained 3% annual growth within a decade. This should set out a clear tenure trajectory for reducing the size of the state as a proportion of our economy through a combination of growth and spending control. We should aim to get that ratio we achieved at the turn of the millennium. Before Blair and Brown turned on the spending taps and excess regulation made us uncompetitive and we need to give people hope that things can get better. We need to spell out what 3% growth would mean in terms of improved standard of living and opportunities for an average family. A new car or holiday abroad, more support for your children.

    And ministers need to go out and explain the why as well as the how we need to make the case for free market economics and omit the state has got too big, partly as a result of excess spending during COVID. We need to show an enterprise economy is good for everyone. Conservatives can’t just assume people have read Milton Friedman. We need to spell out our philosophy and that would contrast with Labour’s lack of ideas or force them to defend the stale economic consensus started under Blair and Brown.

    Now in order to deliver this, there’s going to be big change required. We need a new supply side revolution, the supply side revolution in the 1980s was all about taking a long productive industry and the unions, which held the whip hand over the elected government of today of the day. The supply side revolution now has to take on the burden of regulation and an overlarge over powerful bureaucracy which has the whip hand over the elected government. This supply side revolution has to encompass changes to tax regulation and the size of the state. The government needs to take on the OBR over the impact of tax policy, and we need to see much more sophisticated levels of analysis from the Treasury about long term economic growth. This needs a wide variety of thinkers, including monetarists and supply siders. We can’t afford to be uncompetitive internationally. We need corporation tax back at 19%. And we should also refuse to implement the OECD minimum tax agreement which I previously labelled a cartel of complacency.

    It won’t be implemented in the US and even if it was it would make the entire West uncompetitive. We also need to reduce marginal tax rates to make it worthwhile to work at every income level. Further changes like abolishing the tourist tax, abolishing the windfall tax and sorting out IR 35 needs to be made. We also need to get a grip on the ballooning welfare and pensions bill.

    This means slowing the rates of increased benefits and tougher work. Requirements. It means raising the retirement age further. And as a party we have to deal with a difficult issue of the increasing costs of pensions. The current trajectory is not sustainable. We need more competition and less corporatism in key sectors of the economy like energy and finance. I favour a single utilities regulator to get rid of the Balkanization and capture that we’ve seen under organisations like off water and OFGEM.

    The government needs to divest its shares in banks and withdraw from micromanagement in sectors like transport. And in the energy sector, we need to get on with fracking and abolish the windfall tax in the housing market that should be tax breaks in return for having new developments in homes in your area, a much simpler zoning process and speeded up infrastructure projects. That’s what the original investment zones I proposed are about we should diverge properly from the EU. So we can increase competitiveness in areas like financial services. And finally, we should as many other Western countries already doing delay implementing net-zero commitments such as the ban on new petrol and diesel vehicles from 2030. Other environmental regulations which are hiking the cost of living, like enforcing the replacement of gas and oil boilers should also be abandoned. Ladies and gentlemen, in conclusion, there is a growing consensus that we need to grow. But although people will the ends, they don’t necessarily will the means.

    In order to grow, we need to change and that starts with acknowledging that we have a problem. It means abandoning the stale economic consensus. It means politicians doing the right thing even if it’s unpopular. This will not be easy, but it will be worth doing. With determination to turn things around, we can make Britain grow again. Thank you.

  • Oliver Dowden – 2023 Speech on the Strength of UK-Italy Relations

    Oliver Dowden – 2023 Speech on the Strength of UK-Italy Relations

    The speech made by Oliver Dowden, the Deputy Prime Minister, in Italy on 14 September 2023.

    Ladies and gentlemen, at the risk of derailing what The Economist has rightly called the ‘blossoming’ relationship between the United Kingdom and Italy, perhaps you’ll permit me to say:

    Vorrei ringraziare tutti voi di essere qui stasera, in questa bellissima citta, in questa antica e famosa universita.

    Grazie di cuore.

    Thank you to the Rector, for welcoming us to this fine seat of learning.

    Thank you Mayor, for your very warm welcome to your wonderful city, which is so beloved of my fellow Brits.

    Thank you to Lord Willetts and Carlo Calenda, for your leadership of Pontignano… and for all you do to nurture the close friendship between our nations.

    And thank you – above all – to all of you for being here.

    You all believe in the importance of this relationship between the United Kingdom and Italy.

    Important, not just because of our friendship, culture and our long shared history.

    But because you are strong believers in how much more we can achieve together as modern European nations facing the same challenges:

    from supporting Ukraine in its fight for freedom

    to confronting economic and energy security challenges

    to tackling illegal migration.

    And you know that to succeed, we must address them together.

    The number of my colleagues attending this conference demonstrates that this is certainly the view of the British Government.

    (Although it would perhaps be an exaggeration to say that they took a lot of persuading to come to Siena!).

    Their presence is a testament to the United Kingdom’s determination to drive forward a new strategic partnership between London and Rome.

    Now our topic for this year’s Pontignano is ‘Adapting to technological change’.

    But before I say a few words on that, let me take a step back and look at our relationship with Italy – to take stock, as diplomats like to say.

    A turning point.

    My counterpart, Antonio Tajani, said at the start of the year that relations between the UK and Italy were ‘at a turning point.’

    And he was right.

    Look at the situation that confronts us:

    war in Europe

    threats to our energy and our food supplies

    climate change

    irregular migration, across the Mediterranean and the Channel.

    And all of it underpinned by the onward march of technology.

    Set against that backdrop, it is surely no wonder that our two countries – sharing so many interests whose strengths complement each other in so many ways – should seize this moment to work more closely together.

    And that is exactly what we are doing.

    A longstanding friendship.

    We are, of course, building on a very strong foundation.

    The ties between our peoples go back centuries – indeed all the way back to ancient Rome and through the Renaissance.

    More recently – 80 years ago, British Forces landed at Salerno, as part of their central role in the liberation of this country.

    And next year we will mark the 80th anniversary of Anzio and Monte Cassino.

    Today, the bonds between us are thriving and vibrant.

    And there is also a mutual respect and affection between our peoples – epitomised in Italians’ moving reaction to the death of our late Queen a year ago.

    And your enthusiasm at the Coronation of King Charles III earlier this year.

    Indeed our new Monarch loves Italy, as he himself told an Italian television crew in the Mall the night before he was crowned.

    So there is a rich tapestry of ties between us. And that vibrant partnership is an invaluable source of strength, as we face together the most challenging set of circumstances in many decades.

    Until recently, perhaps the defining political moment of my generation was the 9th November 1989 – the date that the Berlin Wall came down and liberty rolled across our continent.

    Now a new date is inscribed in our memories.

    The 24th February 2022 – the date Russian tanks rolled into Ukraine and its missiles rained down on Ukrainian cities.

    The events of that day, and every day since, have reminded us of some old truths.

    The need for strong defence to deter war.

    The need to stand up to aggression today, or risk greater aggression tomorrow.

    The need for friends and allies to stick together and stand up for what we believe in.

    Every day since the invasion, that is exactly what the United Kingdom and Italy have done – as G7 partners and leading members of NATO.

    Let me pay tribute to Italy’s response.

    You have been at Kyiv’s side every step of the way.

    And I am proud of the role that Britain has played and will continue to play, for as long as it takes.

    If anyone doubted Britain’s enduring commitment to European security, you have your answer, not just in our words, but in our actions.

    And as we sit here tonight, in this cradle of European civilisation, let us spare a thought for the people of Ukraine, a fellow European country, who face another night in bomb shelters or on the front line.

    Forging a new relationship between the UK and Italy – real momentum…

    It is not just on Ukraine, however, that cooperation has been galvanised between our two countries.

    There is a real determination to make this relationship between Britain and Italy count for more, to be more than the sum of its parts.

    Take a look at the last nine months:

    In December our Prime Ministers signed – with their Japanese counterpart – the Global Combat Air Programme to build a new generation of combat aircraft together.

    In February, our Defence and Trade Secretaries signed agreements forging ever closer relations.

    And then in April, our Prime Minister was delighted to welcome PM Meloni to Downing Street where they signed an ambitious Memorandum of Understanding – covering issues from national security to cultural ties.

    The agreement also covered another subject on which our countries share the same challenge: illegal migration.

    This is a challenge that is political, societal, criminal.

    Our electorates demand that we deal with it, and we must.

    We both share the same sense of urgency – and albeit at different ends of Europe, we are facing the same phenomenon:

    Large numbers of arrivals by sea.

    Unscrupulous traffickers in human lives.

    The death traps into which they place innocent  women and children.

    The tragedies in the dark waters off the Channel,  off Lampedusa or the Calabrian coast.

    So we are significantly expanding our cooperation together.

    Working together in bodies such as the G7 and the Council of Europe.

    Adapting to technological change.

    In so doing, we will, of course, be taking advantage at every opportunity of new technologies – the theme of this Pontignano.

    I am delighted that British scientists will once again be able to collaborate with those in Italy and across Europe as part of the Horizon programme.

    And, as a Minister from the country that invented the steam engine, speaking in the land of Marconi, I know how well both our countries know the revolutionary power of technology.

    And the list of technologies that have fundamentally altered the course of human history is relatively short: fire, metals, the printing press, the combustion engine, electricity, fission, the internet.

    All of these tools have been bent to achieve a step-change in the pace of human progress.

    And now I believe that we are on the cusp of another such inflection point, one that has the potential to make the pace of progress supersonic:

    Artificial Intelligence, or more specifically, the advent of artificial general intelligence, represents, at once the most exciting and the most daunting challenge of our age.

    Exciting, because there is an opportunity, as our PM has put it, for human progress that could surpass the industrial revolution in both speed and depth.

    For game-changing innovations in all aspects of our lives:

    unthinkable advances in medicine

    cures for cancer and dementia

    growing crops to feed the world…

    or solving climate change.

    But also daunting.

    Not only will AI expedite and intensify the existing threat landscape,

    in Artificial General Intelligence, humans face the potential of a technology that surpasses both the capability of our collective endeavour, and the limits of our understanding.

    We have to accept that the answer to many of our questions about the AI frontier will be ‘we don’t yet know’.

    We do not yet know what these machines might be capable of.

    What we do know is that, to date, the limits of human progress have been capped by the sum of our collective intelligence.

    By adding to that sum with AI – at potentially dizzying scales – we will redraw the bounds of what we previously thought possible.

    But, as scary – and exciting – as that is,

    it should not be a barrier to our exploration.

    But it does mean that we need a new approach to regulation.

    One that iterates to build faith in the systems that will come to underpin so many aspects of our lives.

    This approach will involve active and ongoing collaboration between Governments, Al labs and academics, amongst others.

    Many organisations outside of national Governments, in particular private companies – including those in Italy – have been pivotal to the most recent advances in AI.

    I know that many such companies are taking part in Pontignano this year.

    And these collaborations will be crucial to ensure the safe and reliable development and deployment of frontier AI throughout the world.

    The United Kingdom is acutely aware of the importance of this moment – and of the need to act swiftly and with resolve.

    Domestically, the Prime Minister has asked me to chair a Resilience sub-committee of the National Security Council, which will be taking a methodical approach to assessing the risks of AI.

    And internationally, our forthcoming AI Summit at Bletchley Park in November will aim to agree how we can collaborate on frontier AI safety:

    to agree a shared assessment of the frontier risks

    as well as share some of the best examples from around the world of how AI is being used to improve lives.

    Already, the UK has been working with industry leaders such as Google DeepMind, OpenAI and Anthropic, who will give us unprecedented access to their products and models.

    So that we can mitigate against the risks, and take advantage of the opportunities.

    The importance of their cooperation cannot be overstated.

    We need them to ensure that our frontier systems are aligned with human objectives.

    And we need them to ensure that they are deployed safely,

    Because – ultimately – we need end users to have confidence in these transformative tools.

    The Summit is an important forum to begin to address these questions.

    But it is only one of the first steps in a very long journey.

    We look forward to working with our colleagues in the Italian Government and across the world.

    Together we have a huge stake – for our countries, as for the sake of humanity.

    So my message is a simple one: it is vital that we work together to make AI safe.

    I look forward to discussing this collaboration with you at this conference.

    And to our colleagues in the Italian Government.

    Let me say that the United Kingdom sees Italy as a crucial partner in helping us to achieve this goal.

    We look forward to working very closely with you on this, and on other shared priorities, from migration to economic security to climate, as you assume the Presidency of the G7 next year.

    So, there is plenty here for this year’s Pontignano to discuss.

    This medieval city is famed – not just for its beauty – but for its enduring identity, its spirit and its character through the centuries.

    Famous too for Lorenzetti’s 14th century frescos at the Palazzo Publicco – not far from here – depicting the tenets of good government, and the consequences of bad government.

    So this is an ideal and inspiring place for such discussions – a city which has long stood for humanity’s ability to solve apparently intractable problems.

    A city which centuries ago understood the importance of developing a legal and political framework by which society can be governed in the best interests of the wider community.

    I like to think that if Ambrogio Lorenzetti were here today, he might recognise some of the dilemmas modern democracies are wrestling with as we seek the right way forward.

    A few hundred metres from here, there is the famous pavement in the Duomo – the intricate work of artisans here in Siena many centuries ago.

    At the other end of Europe, in London, there is another pavement – the famous Cosmati pavement, laid by British and Italian craftsmen in Westminster Abbey in 1268.

    One of the earliest examples of what Britons and Italians can achieve together when they put their minds to it.

    It was on precisely that pavement, watched by the entire world, that our new Sovereign was crowned in May.

    Let that be the spirit in which we embark on this Pontignano, and usher in a new chapter of British-Italian endeavour for the good of both our nations, of Europe and for the good of the world.

  • Rishi Sunak – 2023 Message for Rosh Hashanah

    Rishi Sunak – 2023 Message for Rosh Hashanah

    The message issued by Rishi Sunak, the Prime Minister, on 15 September 2023.

    To Jewish families in the UK and around the world, I want to wish you a very Happy New Year.

    British Jews play an integral part in the success of this nation, and I am delighted the vibrant and diverse Jewish faith continues to thrive across the country.

    I have personally seen how Jewish organisations operate to the highest standards in caring for those who may be vulnerable and in need. Over the coming year, I will continue to support you in this valuable work.

    I will always stand with you. You can count on me to keep you safe, to champion the ban on boycotts, divestments and sanctions, and fight antisemitism in any form.

    So as you come together to celebrate Rosh Hashanah, may this coming year be filled with peace and prosperity. L’Shanah Tovah U’Metuka.

  • Kemi Badenoch – 2023 Speech to the Northern Ireland Investment Summit

    Kemi Badenoch – 2023 Speech to the Northern Ireland Investment Summit

    The speech made by Kemi Badenoch, the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, in Belfast on 13 September 2023.

    Good afternoon everyone, your Royal Highness, my Lords, Ladies and Gentlemen.

    I know you’ve already been welcomed several times over the last two days, but I would like to thank you specially this afternoon for being in Belfast for the Department of Business and Trade’s first ever investment Summit, and I believe the first Investment Summit ever of its kind in Northern Ireland.

    This Summit is absolutely swarming with ministers desperate to talk to business and the investment community. So, I’d like to take this opportunity to thank my fellow ministers, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland Chris Heaton-Harris, the Minister of State Steve Baker, Secretary of State for Levelling Up Michael Gove and of course business and trade ministers, Lord Johnson, and Lord offered for all their support on business engagement.

    I’d also like to thank the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to the US Sir Conor Burns for being an excellent sherpa over the last couple of days.

    So at this summit, we’re going to be telling a story of Northern Ireland that’s different from the ones you typically hear. A story of energy, creativity, and innovation.

    But first, for me, a story about growth and how the UK Government and my department will help achieve that.

    When I first became Business and Trade Secretary, I decided our mission was to ensure that our department became the government’s engine for economic growth.

    It was my focus when I was a Treasury minister, and even more so now in a world that is becoming increasingly competitive and increasingly complex.

    So how does government deliver growth?

    The truth is, it doesn’t, business does.

    Our job is to get out of the way and make life easier for all of you to grow. So we’ve been doing this by focusing on five priorities.

    The first is removing the barriers to business and trade, not just in our country, but around the world, cutting through red tape and tailoring regulation to better suit the needs of a dynamic UK.

    The second is maintaining our status as Europe’s top investment destination.

    For three years running, the UK has topped the tables for new foreign direct investment projects in Europe. And since I took up the role, the UK has risen to third in the world for inward investment only behind the US and China, and business investment is up nearly 7% year-on-year.

    And I was particularly delighted just this week that we have overtaken France and are now the eighth largest manufacturing economy in the world.

    We need to attract the capital that transforms homegrown enterprises into global ones. And building on this progress is why we’re here today to help deliver our other priority of growing exports.

    We don’t just want to sell in the UK or even in the EU, but all over the world. Building on this progress is why we’re all here today.

    Another priority is signing high quality trade deals. Earlier this year, we signed our accession to CPTPP – the Comprehensive Progressive Trans Pacific Partnership for those of you who don’t know – that is a deal that is going to give our businesses including here in Northern Ireland greater access to markets that are home to half a billion people.

    That’s where the 21st century’s middle class will be coming from. They’ve got money in their pockets and surging demand for your goods and services.

    The final one, and the one closest to my heart, is defending free and fair trade. Many people hear this and they think it means giving money to developing countries.

    But actually, it is about providing economic security, and defending the rules-based trading system that underpins a lot of the security and safety of how we do business in our country.

    Many people think that the way to do this is to become more protectionist. And I can understand that. There are a lot of countries who are feeling the pain from a whole list of issues.

    The supply chain fallout post-pandemic, Russia’s war in Ukraine, a more assertive China, and when the world feels so unsure, the natural reaction is to want to retreat from it. But slamming down the shutters and putting up a ‘closed’ sign isn’t the solution.

    I grew up in a country that was actually very protectionist, and it can be quite awful. And people continue to bring more policies that make life worse for people that make them poorer, while championing a nationalism that actually doesn’t do anything for anyone.

    What we need is an open economy. And in a ever more connected world, we cannot be economically isolationist.

    But we also can’t be knowingly naive. We need to be smart. We need to be clever, but we also need to be open.

    You can’t put a border on ideas, but you can put a border on opportunity if you have the wrong policies.

    And that brings me back to the story which we want to tell about Northern Ireland at this summit.

    It is about opportunity, and how the UK Government is working to create it here.

    Today, there are more people employed in manufacturing in Northern Ireland than either the Republic or the UK average.

    And we know that long term prosperity requires peace, and the political progress of the last few decades has nurtured business confidence.

    It’s led to billions in inward investment and it’s driven economic growth.

    There have undeniably been some recent challenges. But this government has restored the smooth flow of trade from Great Britain to Northern Ireland and protected Northern Ireland’s place in our Union.

    This certainty and stability makes Northern Ireland an even more attractive investment prospect, given its unique trading position with a seamless land border with the single market and within an internal UK market that is striking trade deals across the world and scrapping hundreds of trade barriers.

    When you back Northern Ireland, you back this country, you are joining a growing list of businesses and investors who also recognise these opportunities.

    From the creators of Game of Thrones – my favourite TV show – who filmed one of the world’s most successful fantasy dramas not far from here, making an enormous contribution to Northern Ireland’s incredible creative industry, to the businesses that are committing £20 billion of investment a year, creating thousands of new jobs in the last few years alone.

    Just today, for example, you would have heard EY announcing 1,000 new jobs in a new hub here.

    Northern Ireland is well positioned to take advantage of the government’s broader work to drive innovation across the UK.

    On new Smarter Regulation Framework also commits to regulation only as a last resort so that we don’t stifle innovation.

    And of course, every nation needs a bedrock of talent and skills to succeed.

    Health and life sciences is just one of the many areas where Northern Ireland is in a prime position, thanks to a combination of expertise, world class research, strong links between industry, clinicians and academia – in Queen’s University and also the University of Ulster.

    But what’s been interesting is listening to all of you over my meetings this morning and at the reception yesterday, telling me about what your personal experiences have been, how you see business and education being a lot better integrated here than in other parts of the UK, for example, and an increasing numbers of businesses are using this skills base as a springboard to diversify into the low carbon and renewable energy sector.

    Local businesses are building expertise in producing green hydrogen, manufacturing hydrogen buses, and developing intelligent systems for carbon capture and storage.

    But I won’t go on because this summit is not about me. It is about you, and I’d like to finish on one final note.

    It is our responsibility to promote all parts of Northern Ireland, especially the Northwest, not just this great city of Belfast where we meet today. And that is something that the government is trying to ensure that we are levelling up across the UK but also across Northern Ireland too.

    I’m convinced that Northern Ireland has an incredible future and over the summit we’ll get a glimpse of all that lies ahead. Please consider becoming more of a part it.

    Thank you so much, and now I’m honoured to welcome our special guest, Her Royal Highness The Princess Royal, to the stage.

  • James Cleverly – 2023 Speech at the International Counter Terrorism Conference in Israel

    James Cleverly – 2023 Speech at the International Counter Terrorism Conference in Israel

    The speech made by James Cleverly, the Foreign Secretary, in Israel on 12 September 2023.

    Thank you for that wonderful, wonderful introduction. After such a glowing introduction, I am tempted not to actually say anything and to go out on our high.

    Thank you very much for those kind words, Jonathan, of introduction and more importantly, thank you for inviting me to speak with you here today.

    The work that this summit is doing is incredibly important, not just your country, not just to the region, but of course, also to the United Kingdom, and by extension to the wider world, because countering terrorism, sadly, remains as much of a challenge today, as it did when this university first dedicated an institute to focus on it just before the turn of the century.

    Yesterday, those of you in the room joined countless others across the world remembering the tragic events of 9/11. It’s, in some ways, hard to believe that that was 22 years ago. But at that terrible time, almost 3000 people, Americans and of course, others lost their lives at the hands of a brutal, vicious, unprovoked terrorist attack, there were 67 British nationals who died on that day, and five Israelis were also amongst those who lost their lives.

    And it was one of those events, I am sure where all of us remember exactly what we were doing when we saw the news. I remember I was in the commercial world, I was in the publishing industry, and I sold advertising in the publishing industry. I worked on a big open plan, sales floor in Soho, full of energy, full of excitement and I came back from lunch and came up with lift, came out onto the sales floor. Silence, the sales floor was almost completely deserted.

    Our sales director had a glass walled office right in the centre of the sales floor, so that he could keep an eye on all the hard working salespeople during the day. His office was rammed with people all staring at the television and I remember going in and saying what’s going on? And someone’s saying, oh, there’s been this terrible accident, a plane has hit a tower block in New York. I said, what is it? Some light aircraft? Someone said no, the news says it’s a jetliner. Of course, with all the lack of information and self-confidence that someone of my age then could muster I said, that doesn’t happen. Commercial aircraft don’t fly into tower blocks or flight plans, that just doesn’t happen.

    And I was in the middle of a heated argument about how that doesn’t happen. When we all watched live, the second aircraft hit the second tower, and all of us fell silent, and I felt numb, and the feeling has never left me. And I think even at that point, before fully understanding the implications of what happened, I realised that that event, changed the world and changed it forever. It is seared into our collective consciousness and it was emblematic.

    It remains emblematic of the savage era of terrorism ranging from highly organised attacks at one end of the spectrum, through to what’s sometimes feel almost to be random acts of violence perpetrated by individuals who’ve been radicalised, whether online or in their communities, and every kind of threat in between.

    I was born and brought up in London and like all Londoners, I remember again, seared into my memory, exactly what I was doing, exactly where I was exactly, what I was thinking when I heard about London’s 7/7 bombing attacks where 52 innocent victims met their death at the hands of Islamist terrorists.

    Terrorists we know pursue a range of goals and they operate across the world and their terrible attacks have plagued the lives of people across this region. For decades.

    The sad truth is that violent attacks like this are nothing new to you and the people of this region. Only a few months ago, the UK and Israel were sadly united in grief following the horrific murder of British Israeli citizens Lucy, Maya and Rina Dee. I’ve had the opportunity to meet with Rabbi Dee on a number of occasions and his stoicism and strength is a genuine wonder to behold but as everybody here knows, that was sadly not an isolated incident.

    And over time, the threats we face have evolved. But so of course, has our response and by acting together, by acting internationally, we have been able to reduce, although sadly not eliminate, the threat of terrorism, and our collective work and cooperation has saved countless lives.

    Terrorist networks are more fragmented than they have been previously, most organised terrorist groups focus their activity now on whipping up discontent and anger, and grooming others to act on their behalf.

    They target individuals who are already present in countries and try to encourage them to act violently on their behalf. But even if the terrorists approach has changed, the fundamental challenge sadly remains the same.

    Terrorists still have capacity, serious capacity to do us harm and they are constantly looking for gaps in our defences that they can exploit. Their methods, of course, have changed, have mutated, but that twisted logic remains timeless, whether it be Daesh or Hamas, or extreme right wing terrorists or revolutionary Marxists.

    They all insist that their political goals matter more than the lives of their innocent victims. They as well as their stooges, accomplices and apologists insist that their anger justifies the spilling of other people’s blood. And that is, sadly, why they are so callous in their disregard for the sanctity of human life.

    That’s why their logic stands in direct, glaring opposition to our values and that is why the UK is unequivocal in condemning all acts of terrorism and we have stood by Israel’s side, in the face of attacks this year and in the past, and we will continue to do so in the future.

    In the UK, we have just proscribed the Wagner group whose attacks against the heroic people of Ukraine seek to advance Russia’s political cause, and whose brutal actions across the continent of Africa have caused widespread harm and horror there.

    We call upon the whole international community to hunt the terrorists down to bring them to justice and create a world where terrorists find no support. Because to tackle terrorism, we need the full range of tools. The strongest of those, the most fundamental of those, is strong relationships. One of the reasons I’m here this week is to celebrate and publicise and shout about the strong bilateral relationship that the UK has with Israel.

    Earlier this year, you celebrated the 75th anniversary of your most modern incarnation. Foreign Minister Cohen and I signed a bilateral roadmap to strengthen our close strategic partnership. I am delighted that we are now also negotiating an upgraded trade agreement and that our tech hub has facilitated hundreds of innovative partnerships.

    Some of you in this room I know are aware of this, many of you will not be aware that Israel supplies one in seven of all medicines used in my country’s National Health Service. So thank you for that as well.

    But I think nothing better illustrates our partnership than the work that we do together to keep our peoples safe. I was incredibly impressed just a few minutes ago, immediately prior to coming here to be shown Israel’s Iron Dome defence capabilities which have made such a vital contribution in saving lives.

    Developing and deploying such capabilities is one way that Israel has been able to defend ourselves but of course, as famous and as visible as that is, it is not the only part of Israel’s defence, which is quieter, more discreet, sometimes invisible.

    Intelligence officers, police officers, diplomats, those who are tackling illicit finance flows. Those who analyse and try and disrupt radicalization online all have an incredibly important role to play, often, unseen, but nevertheless, essential in much of this work.

    The majority of this work relies on close cooperation, both bilaterally between the UK and Israel, and also as part of a network of other partners. I pay tribute to all those striving in both our countries day in and day out to identify and stop those who would do us harm and undermine the democracies in which we both live.

    Sadly, it is not only terrorist groups which have this goal. These groups, as you well know, have enablers in the region.

    The Iranian regime has publicly and regularly called for the destruction of the State of Israel, something that the UK would never countenance. They transfer weapons around the region, they fund terrorist groups, such as Hamas, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. These groups that attempt to rain death and destruction on the people of Israel, they fire rockets into civilian areas, they target children, and civilian infrastructure, they stab and they shoot innocent people, of all faiths, of all nationalities, of all ethnicities. People who are doing nothing more than going about their daily lives in your extraordinary country.

    Iran refuses to take responsibility for their complicity in these attacks. But we in the UK, are under no illusion at all, about Iran’s malign role. Just as our strategic partnership means working together to stop terrorist groups, it must also be to counter Iran’s destabilising actions in the region.

    We must also be careful to avoid a counsel of despair because there have been so many wonderful, positive developments in this region. Last year, for example, in the Negev Summit, building on the 2020 Abraham Accords, we saw light and we saw positivity.

    Just this weekend, Israeli officials took their place at a UN meeting hosted in Saudi Arabia, alongside other delegations from around the world. I hope that the next steps in the normalising of Israel’s relationships with its neighbours will carry us even further forward and even further along the path to sustainable, long term peace in this region.

    We fully support the summit process, as well as all efforts to build regional architecture based on peaceful coexistence, greater understanding, and closer cooperation. We will work with all of those to build on what has been achieved so far, in pursuit of that sustainable peace. Because this will not only help us beat those terrorists that I spoke about, but it will also help us defend ourselves against the hidden backers of those terrorists.

    On that subject, we must be increasingly aware of the military cooperation between Iran and Russia, most clearly illustrated by Iran’s wholesale provision of Shahed drones, to the Russian military.

    That is why all those, like the UK that oppose Iran must do everything we can to help the Ukrainians as they defend themselves.

    As we try to enhance regional cooperation, we cannot ignore the Israel Palestinian conflict, you will know that I feel there is no justification, there can be no excuse for the targeting of civilians. But we do not need to share or endorse the twisted logic of terrorists to understand that a two state solution is the best, perhaps the only, route to a genuinely sustainable peace in the region.

    Tomorrow marks the 30th anniversary of the signing of the Oslo Accords. This year, we also celebrated the 25th anniversary of the Good Friday agreements. Both were moments of hope. Neither was straightforward or easy to negotiate. Both required courage, imagination, perseverance, and demanded all sides to show the same quality to deliver lasting peace.

    In Northern Ireland, the shadow of terrorism has not completely gone and the troubles were not the same as the situation here. But what that example does show me is that the first step is always the hardest. It is only by reconciling with those with whom reconciliation seemed unthinkable, can peace prevail. That first step would be for all sides, Israelis and Palestinians, to recommit and to demonstrate unequivocal support for a two state solution.

    It means that both sides must crack down on activities that flame violence and spread racism and hate. That’s why we come back here to the sanctity of human life and we do need to make sure that there is a respect for law.

    I know that is something which I’ve been able to discuss here with the Israeli ministers and I commend Israel’s taking of legal action against those settlers who have perpetrated violence. Of course, we will always stand by Israel’s right to self defence and the right to self defence belongs exclusively to Israel’s security forces who operate within the line of international law.

    You should know that I will make the same point when I meet with the leadership of the Palestinian Authority, and I will make it clear that rather than spreading disgusting, anti-Semitic tropes, and outrageous distortions of history, they should be clear in their denouncement of violence.

    They should be clear that there is no acceptance for brutality and terrorists. And they should be clear there is no excuse to target Israelis, particularly Israeli civilians, because that is the only way that peace is possible the only way for peace to be sustainable for Israelis and Palestinians to come together, and to work together, and to fulfil the aspirations and hope that underpin the Oslo Accords.

    I am not naive. I know that these are incredibly challenging goals, and that they are exceptionally difficult. But I’ve also seen this country firsthand. I’ve read much of this country’s history. And one of the things that has always amazed and impressed me about Israel is Israel’s ability to seemingly do the impossible to survive in the face of seemingly overwhelming odds.

    75 years of your continued existence is proof that this is a country that can do amazing things. You have stood as a beacon of liberal democracy in the Middle East. And you have proven to be a great friend, and a valued partner to the United Kingdom. That is why I am and will always be proud to be seen as a friend of Israel.

    My good wishes to this country are as sincere as they are heartfelt. Shana Tova.

  • Chris Heaton-Harris – 2023 Speech at the PEACE PLUS Launch

    Chris Heaton-Harris – 2023 Speech at the PEACE PLUS Launch

    The speech made by Chris Heaton-Harris, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, at the Newforge Sports Centre in Belfast on 11 September 2023.

    Good morning everyone, and thank you to Eimear for her very warm introduction, and to Gina and her team for setting up a fantastic launch event.

    It is wonderful to be here today, at the New Forge Community Development Trust, and to be joined by colleagues from the Irish Government, European Commission and the Northern Ireland Civil Service. I think we can all see, from this fantastic complex, just some of the positive outcomes that have stemmed from a series of long-running peace funding packages that have operated since 1995.

    Let me start by saying thank you to everyone here that continues to work on securing the peace that the people on this island enjoy in their everyday lives today and helping to move towards a more reconciled society.

    Thank you too to the Irish Government and the European Commission for your work getting the financing agreement over the line, ensuring funding can flow to those who need it most and delivering those essential projects that promote stability, foster cohesion and build prosperity.

    As we are all aware, over the course of this year, communities across Northern Ireland have marked the 25th anniversary of the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement. This landmark agreement continues to be an extraordinary achievement for Northern Ireland, helping to lay the foundation of the more peaceful, free and prosperous society that we see today. We can be proud to see the huge strides of progress made over the past 25 years.

    Although we have a positive story to tell in-terms of delivering on the promise of the Agreement over the past 25 years, we also acknowledge that there is more to be done to realise other aspects of the Agreement’s ambition for a society that is reconciled with the past and able to look to the future.

    In view of our unyielding commitment to upholding the Agreement, we will continue to work tirelessly to secure an even brighter, more reconciled future for Northern Ireland, thereby enabling it to look forward.

    That is why we continue to support the work of the SEUPB, following the UK’s exit from the European Union. We are providing more than £730 million to the programme (almost 75% of the budget), which includes match funding contributions from the Northern Ireland Executive. Together with contributions from the European Commission and Ireland of over £250 million, this brings the total up to almost £1 billion, a huge investment from across the international stage towards peace and prosperity as we mark the anniversary of the Agreement and look forward to the next 25 years.

    Since being appointed as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I have had the opportunity to visit many of the brilliant people, businesses, social enterprises and voluntary organisations across Northern Ireland who are determined to improve the lives of their families and communities, and just this morning, I have been speaking to some of you about how you’ve been working towards achieving these objectives.

    I can see the great value and impact that you all have in communities across Northern Ireland and the border region of Ireland, and I am proud that this funding is available to support the vital ongoing work to promote peace and reconciliation and contribute to cross-border economic and territorial development.

    This week also signifies an important moment for Northern Ireland. Tomorrow leading investors and international businesses will arrive in Belfast for the Northern Ireland Investment Summit, as we bring together one of the largest groups of investors Northern Ireland has ever seen.

    This in itself is a testimony to the huge progress made over the last 25 years and I am proud that we are able to promote the unique economic strengths and opportunities in Northern Ireland on a global stage. I have no doubt that the partnerships formed in Belfast this week will lead Northern Ireland to a more prosperous future.

    The Windsor Framework agreed with the EU earlier this year also marks a new era of partnership for the UK and EU and a stable framework for the future. The Framework delivers stability for the people of Northern Ireland, protects Northern Ireland’s place in the Union, and preserves the balance in the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement.

    Too often, in politics, we focus on the issues that divide us. PEACE PLUS is there to counter this tendency; to promote peace and reconciliation. I know you will all agree that PEACE PLUS comes at a critical time and, as in previous programmes, will significantly contribute to and support those initiatives aimed at fostering cohesion across all communities.

    I am determined that the PEACE PLUS projects and activities will promote stability while also contributing to the economy; building prosperity and supporting the levelling up of Northern Ireland’s economy with the rest of the UK. A commitment I know is shared across the sponsors of this programme.

  • Wes Streeting – 2023 Speech on the Countess of Chester Hospital Inquiry

    Wes Streeting – 2023 Speech on the Countess of Chester Hospital Inquiry

    The speech made by Wes Streeting, the Shadow Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, in the House of Commons on 4 September 2023.

    I strongly echo the sentiments of the Secretary of State and thank him for advance sight of his statement. I welcome the appointment of Lady Justice Thirlwall to lead the inquiry into the crimes committed by Lucy Letby, and I strongly welcome his appointment today of Baroness Lampard to lead the statutory review in Essex. I look forward to receiving further updates from the Secretary of State as soon as possible.

    Turning to the case of Lucy Letby, there are simply no words to describe the evil of the crimes that she committed. They are impossible to fathom. Although she has now been convicted and sentenced to a whole-life order, the truth is that no punishment could possibly fit the severity of the crimes she committed. With Cheshire police’s investigation having expanded to cover her entire clinical career, we may not yet know the extent of her crimes. What we do know is that her victims should be starting a new school term today. Our thoughts are with the families who have suffered the worst of traumas, whose pain and suffering we could not possibly imagine, and who will never forget the children cruelly taken from them. We hope that the sentencing helped to bring them some closure, even though the cowardly killer dared not face them in court.

    I wish to pay tribute to the heroes of this story: the doctors who fought to sound the alarm in the face of hard-headed, stubborn refusal. This murderer should have been stopped months before she was finally suspended. Were it not for the persistent courage of the staff who finally forced the hospital to call in Cheshire police, more babies would have been put at risk. I am sure the whole House will want to join me in recognising Dr Stephen Brearey and Dr Ravi Jayaram, whose bravery has almost certainly saved lives.

    Blowing the whistle on wrongdoing is never easy, which is why it should not be taken lightly. Indeed, we can judge the health of an institution by the way that it treats its whistleblowers. The refusal to listen, to approach the unexplained deaths of infants with an open mind and to properly investigate the matter when the evidence appeared to be so clear is simply unforgivable. The insult of ordering concerned medics to write letters of apology to this serial killer demonstrates the total lack of seriousness with which their allegations were treated.

    I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has changed the terms of the inquiry and put it on a statutory footing. There must be no hiding place for those responsible for such serious shortcomings. It is welcome that the inquiry will have the full force of the law behind it, as it seeks to paint the full picture of what went wrong at the Countess of Chester Hospital, and it is right that the wishes of the families affected have been listened to. I welcome the fact that they will be involved in the drawing up of the terms of reference.

    I ask the Secretary of State, people right across Government and people who hope to be in government to make sure that, in future, in awful cases such as this, families and victims are consulted at the outset. Can he assure the House that the families will continue to be involved in decisions as the inquiry undertakes its work?

    Mr Speaker, no stone can be left unturned in the search for the lessons that must be learned, but it is already clear that there were deep issues with the culture and leadership at the Countess of Chester Hospital. This is not the first time that whistleblowers working in the NHS have been ignored, when listening to their warnings could have saved lives. Despite several reviews, there is no one who thinks that the system of accountability, of professional standards and of regulation of NHS managers and leaders is good enough.

    Why were senior leaders at the Countess of Chester Hospital still employed in senior positions in the NHS right up to the point that Lucy Letby was found guilty of murder? The absence of serious regulation means that a revolving door of individuals with a record of poor performance or misconduct can continue to work in the health service. Does the Secretary of State agree that that is simply unacceptable in a public service that takes people’s lives into its hands?

    The lack of consistent standards is also hampering efforts to improve the quality of management. I am sure the Secretary of State will agree that good management is absolutely vital for staff wellbeing, clinical outcomes, efficient services and, most of all, patient safety. The case for change has been made previously. Sir Robert Francis, who led the inquiry into the deaths at Mid Staffs, argued in 2017 that NHS managers should be subject to professional regulation. In 2019, the Kark review, commissioned by the Secretary of State, called for a regulator to maintain a register of NHS executives, with

    “the power to disbar managers for serious misconduct”.

    In 2022, the Messenger review commissioned by the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid) recommended a single set of core leadership and management standards for managers, with training and development provided to help them meet these standards. We must act to prevent further tragedies, so I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement that his Department is reconsidering Kark’s recommendation 5. Labour is calling for the disbarring of senior managers found guilty of serious misconduct, so I can guarantee him our support if he brings that proposal forward.

    The Secretary of State should go further. Will he now begin the process of bringing in a regulatory system for NHS management, alongside standards and quality training? Surely we owe it to the families and the staff who were let down by a leadership team at the Countess of Chester Hospital that was simply not fit for purpose.

    Finally, I know that I speak for the whole House when I say that the parents of Child A, Child C, Child D, Child E, Child G, Child I, Child O and Child P are constantly in our thoughts, as are the many other families who worry whether their children have also been victims of Lucy Letby. We owe it to them to do what we can to prevent anything like this from ever happening again. As the Government seek to do that, they will have our full support.

    Steve Barclay

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for the content of his response and the manner in which he delivered it. I think it underscores the unity of this House in our condemnation of these crimes, and our focus on putting the families at the centre of getting answers to the questions that arise from this case. I join him in paying tribute to those consultants who spoke up to trigger the police investigation and to prevent further harm to babies. I note the further work that the police are doing in this case, and also pay tribute to the police team, which I had the privilege of meeting. They have worked incredibly hard in very difficult circumstances in the course of this investigation.

    As the hon. Gentleman said, the families are absolutely central to the approach that we are taking. That is why I felt that it was very important to discuss with them the relative merits of different types of inquiry, but their response was very clear in terms of their preference for a statutory inquiry. I have certainly surfaced to Lady Justice Thirlwall some of the comments from the families in terms of the potential to phase it. Of course, those will be issues for the judge to determine.

    On the hon. Gentleman’s concerns around the revolving door, clearly a number of measures have already been taken, but I share his desire to ensure that there is accountability for decisions. As Members will know, I have been vocal about that in previous roles, and it is central to many of the families’ questions on wider regulation within the NHS.

    The hon. Gentleman mentioned the importance of good management. I am extremely interested in how, through this review and the steps we can take ahead of it, we give further support to managers within the NHS and to non-exec directors. The Government accepted in full the seven recommendations of the Messenger review. The Kark review was largely accepted. There was the issue of recommendation 5, which is why it is right that we look again at that in the light of the further evidence.

    It is clear that a significant amount of work has already gone in. A number of figures, including Aidan Fowler and Henrietta Hughes, have focused on safeguarding patient safety, but in the wake of this case we need to look again at where we can go further, which the statutory inquiry will do with the full weight of the law. I am keen, however, that we also consider what further, quicker measures can be taken. Indeed, I have been in regular contact with NHS England to take that work forward.

  • Michael Tomlinson – 2023 Speech at the Cambridge International Symposium on Economic Crime

    Michael Tomlinson – 2023 Speech at the Cambridge International Symposium on Economic Crime

    The speech made by Michael Tomlinson, the Solicitor General, on 4 September 2023.

    Introduction

    It is a pleasure to be speaking to you today – in this wonderful setting – at what is my first Symposium since being appointed Solicitor General last year.

    It is right to say that this event is held in high regard – and indeed, the fact that the Symposium is celebrating its fortieth birthday is a testament to its enduring value in considering the ever-evolving threat we face from economic crime.

    And I know that Professor Rider has been at the heart of the Symposium since its foundation. I would like to thank him, and his team, for their work in bringing together such a comprehensive and thought-provoking programme.

    I would also like to mention Daniel Zeichner, MP, who spoke about the symposium in parliament recently – and to thank him for his warm welcome to me and his parliamentary colleagues.

    The Law Officers’ role

    Let me start by saying a little more about my own role, which can be something of a mystery – even, on occasion, to my ministerial colleagues!

    As Solicitor General for England and Wales, I am one of the UK Government’s three Law Officers. The others are the Attorney General for England and Wales – who is also the Advocate General for Northern Ireland – and the Advocate General for Scotland.

    Put broadly, the Attorney General and I have three main roles.

    Firstly, we are the Governments’ chief legal advisers.

    Secondly, we are responsible for superintending the work of several public bodies, including the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and the Serious Fraud Office (SFO).

    And thirdly, we have several public interest functions that we carry out independently of government. This includes, for example, considering whether to refer sentences to the Court of Appeal as unduly lenient; or granting consent to prosecute certain offences, such as cross-border conspiracies or under the Official Secrets Act, applying the established principles of evidential sufficiency and the public interest.

    The role the Law Officers is, in many respects, unique. While we are politicians drawn from the ruling party, and are government ministers, we are of course firstly lawyers.

    This dual politician-lawyer role has, over the years, given rise to questions related to the focus of this year’s Symposium: “integrity.”

    Integrity

    As a Law Officer, much of my role is acting quasi judicially and independently of Government – politics simply does not come into it. When considering whether consent should be granted for a prosecution; whether a sentence is unduly lenient; whether a charitable gift in a will is valid; or whether to institute proceedings for contempt of court.

    The public interest function is just that.

    But some have questioned, given our commitment to the political objectives of the Government, whether the Law Officers can maintain the integrity that is required to deliver independent, impartial – and potentially unwelcomed – advice to their colleagues.

    In fact, a number of previous Attorneys have felt challenged by the role. Sir Patrick Hastings said it was his ‘idea of hell’. Francis Bacon ‘described it as the painfullest task in the realm’

    The provision of frank advice, without fear or favour, is fundamental to our role – and that there is enormous value in having at the heart of Government independent lawyers who are trusted by those that they advise – precisely because they are one of them.

    Indeed, this is well captured in the very mission of the Attorney General’s Office which sets itself the task of “making law and politics work together at the heart of the UK constitution”.

    Corruption

    Perhaps a flipside of integrity is corruption.

    While there is no universally accepted definition, it is clear that corruption, in all its forms, has a corrosive effect. It threatens our national security and prosperity – and unchecked, it erodes public confidence in domestic and international institutions – including the rule of law.

    And one just needs to look to the international stage and Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine – fuelled by a kleptocratic regime – to see just how devastating its effects can be.

    Promoting integrity and fighting corruption

    The UK has long been seen as a world leader in dealing with corruption, and we are continuing to take action – for example with economic crimes linked to corruption such as fraud and money laundering.

    I know that my noble friend Baroness Penn may expand upon this theme, but let me just mention the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill, which we will be debating and voting on later today in the House of Commons.

    This will bear down even further on kleptocrats, criminals, and terrorists who target our economy and will help prevent our corporate structures being abused by corrupt actors.

    Disclosure

    Let me also mention integrity in the context of our prosecution system and disclosure.

    As we all know, effective disclosure is critical to a fair trial and supports public confidence in the administration of justice.

    At the same time, the volume of digital material generated in complex case work continues to grow exponentially – particularly in economic crime cases.

    This is posing significant challenges for law enforcement.

    Indeed, we are now dealing with petabytes – that’s a thousand terabytes – of data in some of our cases.

    This highlights the critical importance of ensuring we have a modern disclosure regime, which reflects the realities of our digital age.

    And this is why I have personally been working with colleagues across Government to ensure that the current regime supports effective disclosure in complex cases – whether prosecuted by the CPS or the SFO.

    This includes looking at the Attorney General’s Guidelines on Disclosure to find ways to reduce the scheduling burden on investigators and prosecutors.

    We also announced – as part of the Fraud Strategy we published in May – an independent review of the disclosure regime for cases with large volumes of digital material.

    I look forward to continuing this work with many in this room and the independent reviewer on this important piece of work.

    The work of the prosecutors

    It would be remiss of me not to highlight some of the pivotal successes of the SFO and CPS in our fight against corruption.

    Just last year, the SFO secured the conviction of Glencore Energy UK Ltd, – and the company was sentenced to pay £280m – the largest corporate sentence imposed in the UK to date.

    And I never tire of mentioning SFO’s returns to the taxpayer – especially in front of a Treasury Minister – the SFO brought in nearly 4 times its cost to the taxpayer between 2019/20 and 2022/23, bringing in over £1bn into the Treasury against vote funding of around £280m.

    And I would like to take this opportunity to give particular thanks to Lisa Osofsky, the outgoing Director of the SFO, who leaves post at the end of this month. Over her five-year tenure, she has led the charge in delivering some outstanding outcomes and I wish her the all of the best for the future.

    The CPS has likewise responded robustly in cases of corruption and illicit finance.

    And I know that Adrian Foster, Chief Crown Prosecutor in the CPS Proceeds of Crime Division, will be talking more about this later.

    Conclusion

    In conclusion, I know there will be much lively discussion and debate this week – and there is much in this impressive programme – and I am grateful to have been invited to be a part of it.

  • Steve Barclay – 2023 Statement on the Countess of Chester Hospital Inquiry

    Steve Barclay – 2023 Statement on the Countess of Chester Hospital Inquiry

    The statement made by Steve Barclay, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, in the House of Commons on 4 September 2023.

    With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the crimes of Lucy Letby.

    On 18 August, as the whole House is aware, Letby was convicted of the murder of seven babies and the attempted murder of six others. She committed these crimes while working as a neonatal nurse at the Countess of Chester Hospital between June 2015 and June 2016. As Mr Justice Goss said as he sentenced her to 14 whole life orders, this was a

    “cruel, calculated and cynical campaign of child murder”

    and a

    “gross breach of the trust all citizens place in those who work in the medical and caring professions.”

    I think the whole House will agree it is right that she spends the rest of her life behind bars.

    I cannot begin to imagine the hurt and suffering that these families went through, and I know from my conversations with them last week that the trial brought these emotions back to the surface. Concerningly, that was exacerbated by the fact the families discovered new information about events concerning their children during the course of the trial.

    Losing a child is the greatest sorrow any parent can experience. I am sure the victims’ families have been in the thoughts and prayers of Members across the House, as they have been in mine. We have a duty to get them the answers they deserve, to hold people to account and to make sure lessons are learned. That is why, on the day of conviction, I ordered an independent inquiry into events at the Countess of Chester Hospital, making it clear that the victims’ families would shape it.

    I arranged with police liaison officers to meet the families at the earliest possible opportunity to discuss with them the options for the form the inquiry should take, and it was clear that their wishes are for a statutory inquiry with the power to compel witnesses to give evidence under oath. That is why I am confirming this to the House today.

    The inquiry will examine the case’s wider circumstances, including the trust’s response to clinicians who raised the alarm and the conduct of the wider NHS and its regulators. I can confirm to the House that Lady Justice Thirlwall will lead the inquiry. She is one of the country’s most senior judges. She currently sits in the Court of Appeal, and she had many years of experience as a senior judge and a senior barrister before that. Before making this statement, I informed the victims’ families of her appointment, which was made following conversations with the Lord Chief Justice, the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney General.

    I have raised with Lady Justice Thirlwall the fact that the families should work with her to shape the terms of reference. We hope to finalise those in the next couple of weeks, so that the inquiry can start the consultation as soon as possible. I have also discussed with Lady Justice Thirlwall the families’ desire for the inquiry to take place in phases, so that it provides answers to vital questions as soon as possible. I will update the House when the terms of reference are agreed and will continue to engage with the families.

    Today, I would also like to update the House on actions that have already been taken to improve patient safety and identify warning signs more quickly, as well as action that is already under way to strengthen that further. First, in 2018, NHS England appointed Dr Aidan Fowler as the first national director of patient safety. He worked with the NHS to publish its first patient safety strategy in 2019, creating several national programmes. Those included requiring NHS organisations to employ dedicated patient safety specialists, ensuring that all staff receive robust patient safety training and using data to quickly recognise risks to patient safety. Last summer, to enhance patient safety further, I appointed Dr Henrietta Hughes, a practising GP, as England’s first patient safety commissioner for medicines and medical devices. Dr Hughes brings leaders together to amplify patients’ concerns throughout the health system.

    Secondly, in 2019, the NHS began introducing medical examiners across England and Wales to independently scrutinise deaths not investigated by a coroner. Those senior doctors also reach out to bereaved families and find out whether they have any concerns. All acute trusts have appointed medical examiners who now scrutinise hospital deaths and raise any concerns they have with the appropriate authorities.

    Thirdly, in 2016, the NHS introduced freedom to speak up guardians, to assist staff who want to speak up about their concerns. More than 900 local guardians now cover every NHS trust. Fourthly, in 2018, Tom Kark KC was commissioned to make recommendations on the fit and proper person test for NHS board members. NHS England incorporated his review findings into the fit and proper person test framework published last month. It introduced additional background checks, the consistent collection of directors’ data and a standardised reference system, thus preventing board members unfit to lead from moving between organisations.

    Finally, turning to maternity care, in 2018 NHS England launched the maternity safety support programme to ensure that underperforming trusts receive assistance before serious issues arise. Also since 2018, the Government have funded the national perinatal mortality review tool, which supports trusts and parents to understand why a baby has died and whether any lessons can be learned to save lives in the future. Furthermore, the Government introduced the maternity investigations programme, through the Health Safety Investigation Branch, which investigates maternity safety incidents and provides reports to trusts and families. In 2020, NHS England’s Getting It Right First Time programme was expanded to cover neonatal services. It reviewed England’s neonatal services using detailed data and gave trusts individual improvement plans, which they are working towards. Indeed, Professor Tim Briggs, who leads that programme, has confirmed that all neonatal units have been reviewed by his programme since 2021.

    Let me now turn to our forward-facing work. We have already committed to moving medical examiners to a statutory basis and will table secondary legislation on that shortly. It will ensure that deaths not reviewed by a coroner are investigated in all medical settings, in particular extending coverage in primary care, and will enter into force in April.

    Secondly, on the Kark review, at the time the NHS actively considered Kark’s recommendation 5 on disbarring senior managers and took the view that introducing the wider changes he recommended in his review mitigated the need to accept that specific recommendation on disbarring. The point was considered further by the Messenger review.

    In the light of evidence from Chester and ongoing variation in performance across trusts, I have asked NHS England to work with my Department to revisit this. It will do so alongside the actions recommended by General Sir Gordon Messenger’s review of leadership, on which the Government have already accepted all seven recommendations from the report dated June last year. This will ensure that the right standards, support and training are in place for the public to have confidence that NHS boards have the skills and experience needed to provide safe, quality care.

    Thirdly, by January all trusts will have adopted a strengthened freedom to speak up policy. The national model policy will bring consistency to freedom to speak up across organisations providing NHS services, supporting staff to feel more confident to speak up and raise any concerns. I have asked NHS England to review the guidance that permits board members to be freedom to speak up guardians, to ensure that those roles provide independent challenge to boards.

    Fourthly, the Getting it Right First Time programme team will launch a centralised and regularly updated dataset to monitor the safety and quality of national neonatal services.

    Finally, we are exploring introducing Martha’s rule to the UK. Martha’s rule would be similar to Queensland’s system, called Ryan’s rule. It is a three-step process that allows patients or their families to request a clinical review of their case from a doctor or nurse if their condition is deteriorating or not improving as expected. Ryan’s rule has saved lives in Queensland, and I have asked my Department and the NHS to look into whether similar measures could improve patient safety here in the UK.

    Mr Speaker, I want to take the first opportunity on the return of the House to provide an update on the Essex statutory inquiry. In June, I told the House that the inquiry into NHS mental health in-patient facilities across Essex would move forward on a statutory footing. Today, I can announce that Baroness Lampard, who led the Department of Health’s inquiry into the crimes of Jimmy Savile, has agreed to chair the statutory inquiry. I know that Baroness Kate Lampard will wish to engage with Members of the House and the families impacted, and following their input I will update the House on the terms of reference at the earliest opportunity.

    The crimes of Lucy Letby were some of the very worst the United Kingdom has witnessed. I know that nothing can come close to righting the wrongs of the past, but I hope that Lady Justice Thirlwall’s inquiry will go at least some way towards giving the victims’ families the answers they deserve. My Department and I are committed to putting in place robust safeguards to protect patient safety and to making sure that the lessons from this horrendous case are fully learned. I commend this statement to the House.

  • Richard Thomson – 2023 Speech on the Security and Data Protection Breach in PSNI

    Richard Thomson – 2023 Speech on the Security and Data Protection Breach in PSNI

    The speech made by Richard Thomson, the SNP spokesperson on Northern Ireland, in the House of Commons on 4 September 2023.

    I join the Secretary of State in offering my thanks to Simon Byrne for his service. I believe his decision today, however, is the right one. This represented a shocking breach of confidentiality not just in relation to people’s personal data, but a shocking breach in the confidence that PSNI officers and staff can have in the organisation. I pay tribute to the dedicated PSNI officers and staff who daily protect and serve the people of Northern Ireland.

    The PSNI, as has been alluded to, is already suffering a crisis of funding and therefore resourcing. The officer complement is lower than it has been in the police service serving Northern Ireland than at any point since 1979. The UK Government pay £30 million a year in additional funding to meet the security challenge, but that funding was inadequate even before the breach and is surely even more inadequate now. Will the Secretary of State be a little clearer on exactly how he will give funding guarantees to the PSNI going forward, because I do not believe this is something where the buck can be passed entirely to those who are currently charged with administering devolved budgets?

    Chris Heaton-Harris

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. He talks about the additional security funding that the Government put in. The UK Government’s contribution to the financial year 2022-23 is £32 million in this space. The cost implications of the PSNI response are rightly being discussed with the Department of Justice. Any additional asks for funding would come through an established process. While it would not be right for me to pre-empt that, the Government are clear that security is paramount. Our focus remains currently on the asks that have been made of us, which are to provide specialist support and expertise in response to the latest assessment.