UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Andrew Mitchell – 2023 Statement on the 0.7% of GNI ODA Target

    Andrew Mitchell – 2023 Statement on the 0.7% of GNI ODA Target

    The statement made by Andrew Mitchell, the Foreign Office Minister of State, in the House of Commons on 17 July 2023.

    The Government took the difficult decision to reduce temporarily the official development assistance (ODA) budget from 0.7% of gross national income (GNI) to 0.5% from 2021, because of the impact of the covid-19 pandemic on the economy and public finances. The Government will return to 0.7% when the fiscal situation allows.

    The International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Act 2015 envisages situations in which a departure from meeting the target of spending 0.7% of GNI on ODA may be necessary—for example, in response to “fiscal circumstances and, in particular, the likely impact of meeting the target on taxation, public spending and public borrowing”.

    The FCDO’s annual report and accounts for 2022-23, published today, reports that the 0.7% target was not met in 2022, on a provisional basis. As required by section 2 of the 2015 Act, an Un-numbered Act Paper has been laid before Parliament, in the same terms as this statement.

    In a written ministerial statement on 12 July 2021, my right hon. Friend the former Chancellor of the Exchequer confirmed that the decision to reduce the ODA budget is temporary and set out the conditions for returning to spending 0.7% of GNI on ODA. The principles for a return will be met when, on a sustainable basis, the Government are not borrowing for day-to-day spending and underlying debt is falling. The House of Commons voted to approve this approach to returning to 0.7% on 13 July 2021. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary reaffirmed this in his 22 November 2022 written ministerial statement.

    Each year the Government will review, in accordance with the 2015 Act, whether a return to spending 0.7% of GNI on ODA is possible against the latest fiscal forecast provided by the Office for Budget Responsibility. The most recent assessment, set out in HM Treasury’s autumn statement 2022, showed that the principles for a return to 0.7% had not been met.

  • Mark Spencer – 2023 Statement on Fisheries Management

    Mark Spencer – 2023 Statement on Fisheries Management

    The statement made by Mark Spencer, the Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries, in the House of Commons on 17 July 2023.

    Today the UK Government are publishing a number of consultations and consultation responses, and announcing funding to use post-Brexit freedoms to support a thriving fishing sector.

    Seizing the opportunities of being an independent coastal state, the UK is introducing a world class system of fisheries management which draws on the best available science and the expertise of our fishermen and anglers to ensure that our fish stocks are healthy and sustainable long into the future.

    The UK has some of the finest fish stocks in the world. Healthy fish stocks are a vital resource, providing livelihoods, enjoyment, and prosperity to our coastal communities. Since we left the EU, the UK Government have taken important steps for our fishing industry, anglers and marine environment.

    As an independent coastal state, we negotiated significant uplifts in fishing opportunities for UK vessels, valued at around £101 million this year. We are investing in the long-term future of the UK fisheries sector through our £100 million UK Seafood Fund, to drive innovation, support job creation, and boost seafood exports to new markets. We introduced the first Fisheries Act for nearly thirty years and published the Joint Fisheries Statement.

    In replacing the Common Fisheries Policy with our own domestic policy, we aim to maximise our newfound freedoms to introduce a world class fisheries management system.

    Today we take another step in that journey, unveiling proposals for a reform package that will transform how we manage our fisheries. Ensuring a thriving, sustainable industry and healthy marine environment for future generations. These reforms play a crucial role in achieving the goals in our Environmental Improvement Plan and the UK Government Food Strategy as well as levelling up some of our much-loved coastal towns and communities.

    This new system will be underpinned by Fisheries Management Plans—blueprints for how best to manage fish stocks—with the first six published today, including bass, king scallops, crab and lobster.

    Based on the best available science and experience from fishermen and anglers, FMPs assess the fish stocks, and set out actions to manage them sustainably. The first six draft FMPs and associated environmental reports are being published today for consultation.

    We are also consulting on a range of other important changes. These include:

    Expanding the use of remote electronic monitoring (REM) in English waters.

    Introducing a new approach to managing discards in England.

    Establishing a licensed recreational bluefin tuna fishery.

    Permanently lifting the quota cap on licences for small vessels in English waters.

    We are also awarding £45.6 million to modernise and improve infrastructure across the seafood sector, helping to support around 1,500 jobs and ensure we are using the best science, research, and technology in fisheries management as part of our £100 million UK Seafood Fund.

    Finally, we are publishing a response to our consultation on flyseining measures in English waters, noting we will change legislation to make squid fishing more sustainable and will take forward other measures through the FMPs. We will also publish the summary of responses to our consultation on spatial management measures for sandeels. A clear majority of respondents supported a proposal of a full closure of sandeel fishing in English waters of the North Sea.

    This package marks a clear departure from the Common Fisheries Policy and will deliver our ambition to build a modern, resilient and profitable fishing industry underpinned by sustainable fish stocks and a healthy marine environment.

  • Nick Gibb – 2023 Statement on School Funding: Provisional 2024-25 Allocations

    Nick Gibb – 2023 Statement on School Funding: Provisional 2024-25 Allocations

    The statement made by Nick Gibb, the Minister for Schools, in the House of Commons on 17 July 2023.

    Today I am confirming provisional funding allocations for 2024-25 through the schools, high needs and central school services national funding formulae (NFFs). Core schools funding includes funding for both mainstream schools and high needs. This is increasing by over £1.8 billion in 2024-25—from over £57.7 billion in 2023-24 to over £59.6 billion in 2024-25. This is on top of the over £3.9 billion increase in the core schools budget in 2023-24.

    The core schools funding increase for both this year and next year includes the additional funding for schools’ teacher pay costs, through the teachers’ pay additional grant (TPAG). On 13 July, we announced this funding to support schools with the September 2023 teachers’ pay award. The funding is being split between mainstream schools, special schools and alternative provision (AP), early years, and 16 to 19 provision. The part of the additional funding that goes to mainstream schools, special schools and alternative provision is worth £482.5 million in 2023-24 and £827.5 million in 2024-25. This funding will be paid on top of NFF funding in both 2023-24 and 2024- 25. Further information on the TPAG is published here:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/teachers-pay-additional-grant-2023-to-2024.

    Funding for mainstream schools through the schools NFF is increasing by 2.7% per pupil compared to 2023-24. Taken together with the funding increases seen in 2023-24, this means that funding through the schools NFF will be 8.5% higher per pupil in 2024-25, compared to 2022-23.

    The minimum per pupil funding levels (MPPLs) will increase by 2.4% compared to 2023-24. This will mean that, next year, every primary school will receive at least £4,655 per pupil, and every secondary school at least £6,050. Academy trusts continue to have flexibilities over how they allocate funding across academies in their trust. This means, in some cases, an individual academy could receive a lower or higher per-pupil funding amount than the MPPL value. This may reflect, for example, activities that are paid for by the trust centrally, rather than by individual academies.

    The NFF will distribute this funding based on schools’ and pupils’ needs and characteristics. The main features in 2024-25 are:

    We are introducing a formulaic approach to allocating split sites funding. This ensures that funding for schools which operate across more than one site will be provided on a consistent basis across the country.

    The core factors in the schools NFF—such as basic per-pupil funding, and the lump sum that all schools attract—will increase by 2.4%.

    The funding floor will ensure that every school attracts at least 0.5% more pupil-led funding per pupil compared to its 2023-24 allocation.

    The 2023-24 mainstream schools additional grant (MSAG) has been rolled into the schools NFF for 2024-25. This is to ensure that the additional funding schools attract through the NFF is as close as possible to the funding they would have received if the funding was continuing as a separate grant in 2024-25, without adding significant complexity to the formula. Adding the grant funding to the NFF provides reassurance to schools that this funding forms part of schools’ core budgets and will continue to be provided.

    For the first time, in 2024-25 we will allocate funding to local authorities on the basis of falling rolls, as well as growth. Local authorities can use this funding to support schools which see a short-term fall in the number of pupils on roll.

    The 2023-24 was the first year of transition to the direct schools NFF, with our end point being a system in which, to ensure full fairness and consistency in funding, every mainstream school in England is funded through a single national formula without adjustment through local funding formulae. Following a successful first year of transition, we will continue with the same approach to transition in 2024-25. As in 2023-24, local authorities will only be allowed to use NFF factors in their local formulae, and must use all NFF factors, except any locally determined premises factors. Local authorities will also be required to move their local formulae factors a further 10% closer to the NFF values, compared to where they were in 2023-24, unless they are classed as already “mirroring” the NFF.

    Today we are also publishing local authority funding formula data for 2023-24. Following the first year of transition, the number of local authorities that mirror the schools NFF increased significantly from just over half in 2022-23, to just over two-thirds in 2023-24. Of the 72 local authorities that were not mirroring the NFF in 2022-23, 61 chose to move their local formula closer to the NFF than required.

    In 2024-25, high needs funding through the NFF is increasing by a further £440 million, or 4.3%—following the £970 million increase in 2023-24 and £1 billion increase in 2022-23. This brings the total high needs budget to over £10.5 billion. All local authorities will receive at least a 3% increase per head of their age two to 18 population, compared to their 2023-24 allocations, with some authorities seeing gains of up to 5%.

    The £10.5 billion funding includes the continuation of the £400 million high needs funding allocated to local authorities following the 2022 autumn statement, and the £440 million increase is provided on top of that. All special and alternative provision schools will continue to receive their share of that funding in 2024-25.

    Central school services funding is provided to local authorities for the ongoing responsibilities they have for all schools. The total provisional funding for ongoing responsibilities is £304 million in 2024-25. In line with the process introduced for 2020-21, to withdraw funding over time for the historic commitments local authorities entered into before 2013-14, funding for historic commitments will decrease by a further 20% in 2024-25.

    Updated allocations of schools, high needs and central schools services funding for 2024-25 will be published in December, taking account of the latest pupil data at that point.

  • Nick Gibb – 2023 Statement on the Minimum School Week

    Nick Gibb – 2023 Statement on the Minimum School Week

    The statement made by Nick Gibb, the Minister for Schools, on 17 July 2023.

    In March 2022, the Government announced in the Schools White Paper ‘Opportunity for All’ that to give every pupil the opportunity to achieve their full academic potential, all mainstream, state-funded schools would be expected to deliver a minimum school week of 32.5 hours by September 2023.

    Most schools already have a school week of at least this length, and others will have plans in hand to meet the minimum expectation by September 2023. However, in recognition of the pressures currently facing schools, the Government have decided to defer the deadline to September 2024. The Government are encouraging schools that are planning to increase their hours from this September to continue to do so.

    The Government have today published guidance and case studies:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/length-of-the-school-week-minimum-expectation to support those schools that are not yet meeting the minimum expectation.

  • Ben Wallace – 2023 Statement on Camp Bagnold and Gifting to the UN

    Ben Wallace – 2023 Statement on Camp Bagnold and Gifting to the UN

    The statement made by Ben Wallace, the Secretary of State for Defence, in the House of Commons on 17 July 2023.

    I have today laid before the House a departmental minute describing the provision of infrastructure worth £4,226,970 to the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilisation Mission in Mali (MINUSMA) in Gao, Mali.

    MINUSMA is a UN-led, non-combat mission to support the political processes in Mali and to carry out a number of security related task, for which the UK contribution, since December 2020, was the Long Range Reconnaissance Group (Mali) (LRRG(M)).

    The security and political situation in Mali has deteriorated significantly since the UK review of MINUSMA at the start of 2022.There have been two coups in the past two years and the transitional Government of Mali (TGoM), which seized power in 2021, has continued to delay democratic transition and has routinely failed to address the numerous security and humanitarian issues it is facing. The TGoM has also behaved in a way that is constraining MINUSMA’s delivery against its mandate. On 14 November 2022 the Government announced they were withdrawing their forces from Mali.

    The UK Ministry of Defence intend to gift the Camp Bagnold infrastructure, with a value of £4,226,970, for $1(US) to UN MINUSMA. The gifting transfers all ownership rights of the camp to the UN, including any future responsibility for the remediation and disposal of the site.

    On the 16 June 2023 the TGoM asked MINUSMA to leave Mali “without delay”. Despite this, we still intend to gift the Camp to the UN MINUSMA. Given the fast-moving situation on the ground we request special urgency to lay a departmental minute in Parliament for four sitting days before recess. This is necessary to allow us to meet the UN MINUSMA request that any contract to transfer the ownership of the camp must be signed before 31 July 2023.

  • Gareth Davies – 2023 Statement on the South Yorkshire Advanced Manufacturing Investment Zone

    Gareth Davies – 2023 Statement on the South Yorkshire Advanced Manufacturing Investment Zone

    The statement made by Gareth Davies, the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, in the House of Commons on 17 July 2023.

    On Friday, the Government and the South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority announced the creation of a new South Yorkshire investment zone focused on advanced manufacturing, building on the region’s long-standing research strengths and existing commercial operations in the area. Local communities and businesses across South Yorkshire, including in the Sheffield-Rotherham corridor, Barnsley and Doncaster, will benefit.

    The Government also announced that Boeing, Spirit AeroSystems, Loop Technologies and the University of Sheffield Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre (AMRC) have partnered to support the first investment within the zone, leading a portfolio of major new R&D projects into the future of aerospace. This investment will be worth over £80 million partially funded from the joint public-private sector Aerospace Technology Institute programme.

    The South Yorkshire investment zone will be co-designed with the University of Sheffield and Sheffield Hallam University. By harnessing the region’s local sector strengths, significant innovation assets and existing talent, the Investment Zone will catalyse further investment to boost productivity and deliver sustainable growth that benefits local communities. The investment zone will increase commercial opportunities in areas that have historically under-performed economically through a total funding envelope of £80 million over 5 years. It is expected that the investment zone will support more than £1.2 billion of private investment and the creation of more than 8,000 jobs by 2030.

    The Government will continue to work with the South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority, the University of Sheffield, Sheffield Hallam University and other local partners to co-develop the plans for their advanced manufacturing investment zone, including agreeing priority sites and specific interventions to drive cluster growth, over the summer ahead of final confirmation of plans.

  • Kemi Badenoch – 2023 Statement on the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership

    Kemi Badenoch – 2023 Statement on the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership

    The statement made by Kemi Badenoch, the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, in the House of Commons on 17 July 2023.

    Introduction

    The UK officially signed its accession protocol to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-pacific partnership (CPTPP) on 16 July 2023. This trade agreement contains some of the world’s largest and most dynamic economies. Our membership will take the agreement from 11 to 12 members and represents the first expansion of this high-standards trade agreement.

    The agreement will act as a gateway to the wider Indo- Pacific and Americas region, bringing new opportunities for British businesses, supporting jobs across the whole UK and shaping the future of international trading rules.

    The Indo-Pacific region will account for the majority of global growth in coming decades and be home to around half the world’s middle-class consumers. On the UK joining, the CPTPP membership will account for around £12 trillion in GDP, a number which will grow as new members join. Economies including Costa Rica, Uruguay and Ecuador have formally applied, and the Republic of Korea, Thailand and the Philippines have expressed an interest in doing so. As the first acceding country, we have placed ourselves in an ideal position to benefit from future expansion of the agreement.

    Geopolitical benefits

    Accession to the agreement will send a powerful signal that the UK is using our post-Brexit freedoms to boost the economy. It will secure our place as the second largest economy in a trade grouping dedicated to free and rules-based trade while taking a larger role in setting standards for the global economy.

    Becoming a member will see us deepening our multilateral relations and strengthening our trading links in the Indo-Pacific region. We will work closely with our partners to develop the agreement, creating further benefits for all its members.

    As CPTPP grows, the UK will help shape its development to fight unfair and coercive trading practices that threaten the future of international trade. British businesses will benefit from enhanced access to more markets while trading under fair rules that allow them to compete and thrive on the global stage.

    Our status as an independent trading nation is putting the UK in an enviable position. Membership of this agreement will be a welcome addition to our bilateral free trade agreements with over 70 countries.

    Gains for businesses and consumers

    In an historic first, joining CPTPP will mean that the UK and Malaysia are in a free trade agreement together for the first time, giving British business better access to a market worth £330 billion. Manufacturers of key UK exports will be able to make the most of tariff reductions to this thriving market. Tariffs of around 80% on whisky will be eliminated within 10 years and tariffs of 30% on cars will be eliminated within seven years.

    In addition, over 99% of current UK goods exports to economies in the agreement will be eligible for zero tariff trade. The agreement’s provisions will also help facilitate trade by ensuring that customs procedures of CPTPP parties are efficient, consistent, transparent and predictable.

    Beyond goods exports, the UK’s world-leading services firms will benefit from modern rules which ensure non-discriminatory treatment and greater levels of transparency. In key sectors, UK companies will not be required to establish or maintain a representative office in a CPTPP territory. This will make it easier for them to provide services to consumers in other CPTPP countries.

    The deal we have struck will also open up new opportunities in the Government procurement markets of CPTPP members, including in Malaysia, Singapore and Japan.

    Business travel will be easier under the agreement. Britons travelling to CPTPP members for work purposes will enjoy greater certainty on trips for short-term work meetings. Professionals going to Peru and Vietnam for short-term business will be able to stay for six months. That is double the amount of time for previous agreements.

    UK consumers are also set to benefit from tariff reductions on imports. These tariff reductions could lead to cheaper prices, better choice and higher quality. Products such as fruit juices from Chile and Peru, and Mexican honey and chocolate, to name but a few, could all cost less.

    Defending UK interests in negotiations

    We have ensured that joining will not compromise our high animal and plant health, food safety or animal welfare standards. We have also maintained our right to regulate in the public interest, including in areas such as the environment and labour standards. Furthermore, we ensured that the NHS was kept off the table throughout the course of discussions, as in all of our free trade agreement negotiations. We have also ensured that UK producers will be protected. We have reduced import tariffs in proportion to the market access we have received and kept safeguards where necessary. Market access increases will be staged over time for certain products, ensuring that farmers have time to adjust to new trade flows. Permanent limits on tariff-free volumes have been agreed on some of the most sensitive products that can be exported to the UK. This includes on beef and pork.

    Conclusion and next steps

    Following signature, the Government will now take the necessary steps to ratify the agreement. The Secretary of State will write to the Trade and Agriculture Commission to commission its advice on the agreement.

    The Government have now published the accession protocol and related market access schedules, as well as relevant side letters, an impact assessment and a draft explanatory memorandum. With the publication of the accession protocol, the agreement text has now been presented to Parliament, but the Government will not commence the pre-ratification scrutiny process under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 for a period of at least three months. This will ensure there is appropriate time for the relevant Select Committees to consider the agreement in advance. Legislation necessary to implement the agreement will be brought forward, and duly scrutinised by Parliament, when parliamentary time allows.

    Joining CPTPP marks a key step in the development of the UK’s independent trade policy. It will deepen our relations with a strategically vital region and offer exciting new opportunities for British businesses and consumers.

  • Penny Mordaunt – 2023 Statement on the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority and Laura Cox

    Penny Mordaunt – 2023 Statement on the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority and Laura Cox

    The statement made by Penny Mordaunt, the Leader of the House of Commons, in the House on 17 July 2023.

    I beg to move,

    That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that His Majesty will appoint Dame Laura Cox to the office of ordinary member of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority with effect from 1 August 2023 for the period ending on 31 July 2028.

    The Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority has produced a report—its first report of 2023—in relation to the motion. I have no doubt that Members will have studied that report closely and will know of Dame Laura’s background. I note that the recruitment panel considered Dame Laura an eminently appointable candidate.

    IPSA is quite rightly independent of Parliament and Government, but as all Members will know and understand, it has an incredibly important role in regulating and administering the business costs of hon. Members and deciding their pay and pensions. I hope that the House will support this appointment and wish Dame Laura well in this important role, and I commend the motion to the House.

  • Stephen Kinnock – 2023 Speech on the Illegal Migration Bill

    Stephen Kinnock – 2023 Speech on the Illegal Migration Bill

    The speech made by Stephen Kinnock, the Labour MP for Aberavon, in the House of Commons on 17 July 2023.

    On Tuesday, I described the way in which this Government have

    “taken a sledgehammer to our asylum system”.—[Official Report, 11 July 2023; Vol. 736, c. 218.]

    I outlined the massive and far-reaching costs and consequences of 13 years of Tory incompetence and indifference. I described this bigger backlog Bill as a “shambolic farce” that will only compound the chaos that Ministers have created. I urged the Government to accept the amendments proposed by the other place and to adopt Labour’s pragmatic, realistic and workable five-point plan to stop the boats and fix our broken asylum system.

    I set out how the Bill’s unworkability centres on the fact that it orders the Home Secretary to detain asylum seekers where there is nowhere to detain them. It prevents her from processing and returning failed asylum seekers across the channel to their country of origin, instead forcing her to return them to a third country such as Rwanda. However, Rwanda can take only 0.3% of those who came here on small boats last year. The Rwanda plan is neither credible nor workable, because the tiny risk of being sent to Kigali will not deter those who have already risked life and limb to make dangerous journeys across the continent.

    Yet here we are again today, responding to the realisation that, in their typically arrogant and tin-eared fashion, Ministers are once again refusing to listen. They are once again closing their eyes and ears to the reality of what is happening around them and choosing to carry on driving the car straight into a brick wall. But we on the Labour Benches refuse to give up. We shall continue in our attempts to persuade the Government to come to their senses. I shall seek to do that today by setting out why the arguments that the Immigration Minister has made against the amendments from the other place are both fundamentally flawed and dangerously counterproductive.

    Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)

    If the principle of removal to a safe third country is not an adequate deterrent, why was that principle the flagship of the last Labour Government’s immigration policy in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002? What was the point of section 94—its most controversial provision—if it was not about the swift removal of failed asylum seekers?

    Stephen Kinnock

    The crucial point is that for a deterrent to be effective, it has to be credible. A deterrent based on a 0.3% risk of being sent to Rwanda is completely and utterly incredible. The only deterrent that works is a comprehensive returns deal with mainland Europe. If someone knows that, were they to come here on a small boat, they would be sent back to mainland Europe, they will not come and they will not pay €5,000 to the people smuggler. The only way to get that deal is to have a sensible and pragmatic negotiation with the European Union based on quid pro quo—give and take. That is the fundamental reality of the situation in which we find ourselves, but unfortunately those on the Conservative Benches keep closing their ears to that reality.

    Laura Farris

    I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again—I will not take long. Does he not accept that, in reality, there is no such thing as a returns deal with mainland Europe? The reason the Dublin convention was such a disaster and never resulted in us removing more people than we took in was that it was so incredibly difficult to get European countries to accept removals and make that happen. It is just an unworkable suggestion.

    Stephen Kinnock

    Surely the hon. Lady sees the direct connection between us crashing out of the Dublin regulation because of the utterly botched Brexit of the Government she speaks for, and the number of small boat crossings starting to skyrocket. There is a direct correlation between crashing out of the Dublin regulation and skyrocketing small boat crossings. I hope that she will look at the data and realise the truth of the matter.

    Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)

    We have had this conversation before. The hon. Gentleman knows that when we were covered by Dublin—before we came out of it through Brexit—there were more than 8,000 requests for people to be deported back to an EU country, and only 108 of those requests, or about 1.5%, were actually granted. So there was not some golden era when it worked under Dublin; it was not working then, and it certainly will not work now.

    Stephen Kinnock

    The hon. Gentleman is right, we have had this conversation before, and he consistently refuses to listen to the fact that the Dublin regulation acted as a deterrent, so the numbers that he talks about were small. The number of small boat crossings was small when we were part of the Dublin regulation. We left the Dublin regulation, and now the number is large—it is not rocket science. There is a clear connection, a correlation, a causal link between the two.

    Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)

    The hon. Gentleman is being very generous with his time. The reason the small boats problem has grown exponentially is that we dealt with the lorries issue. We closed the loophole when it came to lorries and the channel tunnel in particular, and that is why people are now resorting to small boats. It is nothing to do with Dublin. Surely those are the facts.

    Stephen Kinnock

    I simply say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that last year, we had 45,000 people coming on small boats and goodness knows how many on lorries—of course, those coming by clandestine means in the back of a lorry are far more difficult to detect than those coming on small boats, so the small boats crisis is, by definition, far more visible. It is true that that juxtaposition and the new arrangements have had a positive impact, but we still do not know how many are coming. I have been to camps in Calais and spoken to many who are planning to come on lorries rather than on small boats—not least because it is a far cheaper alternative. The reality is that a very large number of people are coming to our country through irregular means, but it is also clear that that number was significantly smaller when we were part of the Dublin regulation. That is because it was a comprehensive deterrent, compared with the utterly insignificant power of the Rwanda programme as a deterrent.

    Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)

    Will the hon. Member give way?

    Stephen Kinnock

    I will make a little bit of progress, and then I will allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene.

    I will turn first to Lords amendment 1B, intended to ensure that the Bill is consistent with international law, which Labour fully supports. Last week, the Minister deemed the same amendment unnecessary, because:

    “It goes without saying that the Government obey our international obligations, as we do with all pieces of legislation.”—[Official Report, 11 July 2023; Vol. 736, c. 198.]

    That comment was typical of the Minister’s approach. He is constantly trying to calm his colleagues’ nerves by fobbing them off with that sort of soothing statement, but we all know that he does not really believe a word of it. He knows that the very first page of the Bill states that the Government are unable to confirm that it complies with our legal obligations. He also knows that the Government are more than happy to break international law—just look at how they played fast and loose with the Northern Ireland protocol. If the Minister really thinks that we will simply take his deeply misleading words at face value and trust him and his colleagues to uphold our legal obligations, he has another think coming.

    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)

    Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman did not mean to use the phrase “deeply misleading”. Knowing that he is an honourable gentleman, I suggest that he might want to use a slightly different phrase—“inadvertently misleading”, perhaps?

    Stephen Kinnock

    I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Would “misleadingly soothing” work?

    Madam Deputy Speaker

    It will do for the time being.

    Stephen Kinnock

    As always, Madam Deputy Speaker, you are very gracious.

    The late, great Denis Healey famously advised that when you are in a hole, you should stop digging. [Hon. Members: “Quite right!”] Hang on. He would certainly have approved of Lords amendment 9B, which goes right to the heart of the fundamental unworkability of this bigger backlog Bill and seeks to prevent it from becoming the indefinite limbo Bill.

    Let us be clear: the current state of affairs represents both a mental health crisis for asylum seekers and a financial crisis for British taxpayers, who are already shouldering an asylum bill that is seven times higher than it was in 2010, at £3.6 billion a year. Indeed, the mid-range estimate for the hotels bill alone is greater than the latest round of levelling-up funding, and three times higher than the entire budget for tackling homelessness in this country. The only people who benefit from the inadmissibility provisions in the Bill are the people smugglers and human traffickers, who are laughing all the way to the bank. As such, it is essential that this House votes in favour of Lord German’s amendment, which seeks to ensure that inadmissibility can be applied to an asylum seeker only for a period of six months if they have not been removed to another country.

    A major concern throughout the passage of the Bill has been its utter disregard for the mental wellbeing of unaccompanied children. Many of those children will have had to see their loved ones suffer unspeakable acts of violence, yet despite the Government’s concession, the Bill will mean that when they arrive in the UK, they will be detained like criminals for up to eight days before they can apply for bail. We are clear that that is unacceptable, and are in no doubt that the Government’s amendment is yet another example of their liking for performative cruelty. We urge the Minister to accept the compromise of 72 hours contained in Lords amendments 36C and 36D.

    Alexander Stafford

    Will the hon. Member give way?

    Stephen Kinnock

    Sorry, I meant to let the hon. Gentleman in earlier.

    Alexander Stafford

    I thank the hon. Member for giving way. The best thing for any person’s mental health, especially children, is to not put them on a dangerous small boat across the channel. Does the hon. Member agree that the best thing for any child’s mental health is for them to not make that dangerous journey, but instead use one of the many legal and safe routes? This Bill and its clauses will make sure that fewer children make that awful journey.

    Stephen Kinnock

    The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the only people who benefit from the small boat crossings are the people smugglers and human traffickers—that has to be brought to an end. Where we fundamentally disagree is about the means. Labour believes that the deterrence of the Rwanda scheme simply will not work, for the reasons I have already set out, and that the solution lies far more in pragmatism and quiet diplomacy, working with international partners to get the returns deal that I talked about, than in all the performative cruelty that is at the heart of this Bill.

    Likewise, the Government should show some humility and support Lords amendment 33B, which states that accompanied children should be liable for detention only for up to 96 hours. This is a fair and reasonable compromise, given that Lords amendment 33 initially set the limit at 72 hours.

    While we are on the subject of children, how utterly astonishing and deeply depressing it was to hear the Minister standing at the Dispatch Box last week and justifying the erasure of Disney cartoons on the basis of their not being age-appropriate. Quite apart from the fact that his nasty, bullying, performative cruelty will have absolutely no effect whatsoever in stopping the boats, it has since emerged that more than 9,000 of the children who passed through that building in the year to March 2023 were under the age of 14. Given that a significant proportion of those 9,000 would have been younger still, I just wonder whether the Minister would like to take this opportunity to withdraw his comments about the age-appropriateness of those cartoons.

    Robert Jenrick indicated dissent.

    Stephen Kinnock

    No. Well, there we have it. This whole sorry episode really was a new low for this Minister and for the shameful, callous Government he represents.

    We also support Lords amendment 23B, a compromise in lieu of Lords amendment 23, which seeks to protect LGBT asylum seekers from being removed to a country that persecutes them for their sexuality or gender. The Minister last week claimed that that was unnecessary because there is an appeals process, but why on earth would he put asylum seekers and the British taxpayer through an expensive and time-consuming appeals process when he could just rule out this scenario from the outset?

    Nothing illustrates more clearly the indifference of this Government towards the most vulnerable people in society than their treatment of women being trafficked into our country for prostitution. I have already described this Bill as a traffickers charter—a gift to the slave drivers and the pimps—because it makes it harder for victims to come forward and therefore more difficult for the police to prosecute criminals. The Immigration Minister last week repeated the false claim that the UK Statistics Authority recently rebuked him for. It was his second rebuke this year by our national statistics watchdog for inaccurate claims made to this House. Thankfully, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), who is not in her place today, called him out on it. She correctly pointed out that the proportion of small boats migrants claiming to be victims of modern slavery stands at just 7%. This was a profoundly embarrassing moment for the Minister, but I do hope he will now swallow his pride, listen to the wise counsel he is receiving from those on the Benches behind him and accept Lords amendment 56B in the name of Lord Randall.

    Robert Jenrick

    The hon. Member is right that I misspoke when citing those statistics on an earlier occasion, but in fact the statistics were worse than I said to the House. What I said was that, of foreign national offenders who are in the detained estate on the eve of their departure, over 70% made use of modern slavery legislation to put in a last-minute claim and delay their removal. However, it was not just FNOs; it was also small boat arrivals. So the point I was making was even more pertinent, and it is one that he should try to answer. What would he do to stop 70% of people in the detained estate, who we are trying to get out of the country, putting in a frivolous claim at the last minute?

    Stephen Kinnock

    Sir Robert Chote of the UK Statistics Authority said clearly that the figure is only 20%, not 70%. I do not know whether we want to invite Sir Robert to clarify those points himself, but the rebuke the Minister received from the UK Statistics Authority was pretty clear.

    It is vitally important that the Minister’s position on this is not used as the basis for a policy that could cause profound harm to vulnerable women while feeding criminality in the United Kingdom. I therefore urge him to reflect on what he is trying to achieve, the proportionality of his actions and the unintended consequences he may be facilitating. Lords amendment 56B states that victims of trafficking who have been unlawfully exploited in the UK should be protected from the automatic duty to remove and should continue to be able to access the support currently available to them, but only for the duration of the statutory recovery period, which was set by the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 at 30 days.

    On Second Reading, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead argued that the Bill as drafted would

    “drive a coach and horses through the Modern Slavery Act, denying support to those who have been exploited and enslaved and, in doing so, making it much harder to catch and stop the traffickers and slave drivers.”—[Official Report, 28 March 2023; Vol. 730, c. 886.]

    We strongly agree with her concerns and wholeheartedly support Lords amendment 56B, which I remind the Minister goes no further than to maintain the status quo of the basic protections and support currently available to all victims of trafficking and exportation.

    I will now turn to the amendments that are underpinned by Labour’s five-point plan: end the dangerous small-boat crossings, defeat the criminal gangs, clear the backlog, end extortionate hotel use, and fix the asylum system that the Conservatives have spent 13 years destroying.

    Sir Edward Leigh

    Presumably it is the hon. Gentleman’s most devout hope if he takes power in 15 months’ time, but charming as he is, it is a mystery to me why he thinks when he asks President Macron to take these people back, he will do so. Of course he won’t! Nothing will happen. May I gently suggest that, if there is a Labour Government, they will quietly adopt this Bill once it is an Act?

    Stephen Kinnock

    I will come to that in my comments, but as the right hon. Gentleman will know, any negotiation requires give and take, quid pro quo. As I said in response to one of his hon. Friends, to get that deal with the European Union we of course have to do our bit and take our fair share, and that will be the negotiation that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) will be leading on when he becomes Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, following the next general election.

    We are determined that the National Crime Agency will be strengthened so that it can tackle the criminal gangs upstream. Too much focus by this Government has been on slashing tents and puncturing dinghies along the French coastline, whereas Labour has set out its plan for an elite unit in the NCA to work directly with Europol and Interpol. The latest amendment from Lord Coaker, Lords amendment 103B, attempts to strengthen the NCA’s authority, and we support it without reservation. We are also clear that there is a direct link between gaining the returns agreement that we desperately need with the EU, and creating controlled and managed pathways to asylum, which would allow genuine refugees to reach the UK safely, particularly if they have family here. Conservative Members refuse to make that connection, but we know it is in the interests of the EU and France to strike a returns deal with the UK, and dissuade the tens of thousands of asylum seekers who are flowing through Europe and ending up on the beaches of Calais. The EU and its member states will never do a deal with the UK unless it is based on a give-and-take arrangement, whereby every country involved does its bit and shares responsibility.

    Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)

    On his visit to Calais, the hon. Gentleman will have met people who were trying to get to this country. Did it strike him how utterly desperate many of them were, and how they are fleeing from wars in Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq and other places? Does he think that we have to address the wider issue of the reasons why people are fleeing and searching for asylum, not just in Europe but all over the world?

    Stephen Kinnock

    I thank the right hon. Gentleman. As he rightly points out, the key point is that these people are already fleeing desperate situations and have risked life and limb to get as far as they have. The idea that a 0.3% chance of being sent to Rwanda acts as a deterrent is clearly for the birds. In addition, he makes important points about the need for international co-operation, and finding solutions to these problems alongside our partners across the channel.

    Alexander Stafford

    The hon. Gentleman clearly thinks that the Rwanda plan will not work or be a deterrent, but why not give it a go? If he is so confident that it will not work, let it get through. It could have got through months ago, and he could have come back to the House and proved us wrong. At the moment it comes across as if the hon. Gentleman and the Labour party are scared that it might work, and that is the problem.

    Stephen Kinnock

    I suppose the answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is that if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck, and the Rwanda plan is so clearly and utterly misconceived, misconstrued and counter-productive. Labour Members like to vote for things that are actually going to work, which is why we simply cannot support that hare-brained scheme.

    With the Minister last week reiterating a deadline of December 2024—18 months from now—to lay out what safe and legal routes might look like, and by stating that those routes will not deal with the challenges facing Europe directly, he appears to be reducing the chances of getting the returns deal with the EU that we so urgently need. Let us not forget that this Government sent Britain tumbling out of the Dublin regulations during their botched Brexit negotiations, and it is no surprise that small boat crossings have skyrocketed since then. This Government must prioritise getting that returns deal. We therefore support Lords amendment 102B, which demands that the Government get on with setting out what these safe and legal routes might look like, not only to provide controlled and capped pathways to sanctuary for genuine refugees, but to break that deadlock in the negotiations with the EU over returns.

    I note that the Minister loves to trot out his lines about the Ukraine, Hong Kong and Afghan resettlement schemes, but he neglects to mention that there are now thousands of homeless Ukrainian families, and we have the travesty of thousands of loyal-to-Britain Afghans who are set to be thrown on the streets at the end of August. More than 2,000 Afghans are stuck in Pakistan with the right to come here, but they are not being allowed to do so. He simply must fix those resettlement schemes.

    Robert Jenrick

    I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because this is an important point that all Members of the House should appreciate. The No. 1 reason why we are struggling to bring to the UK those people in Pakistan—we would like to bring them here, because we have a moral and historical obligation to them—is that illegal immigrants on small boats have taken all the capacity of local authorities to house them. If the hon. Gentleman truly wanted to support those people, he would back this Bill, he would stop the boats, and then he would help us to bring those much-needed people into the United Kingdom.

    Stephen Kinnock

    It beggars belief that the Immigration Minister says that, when he speaks for a party that has allowed our backlog to get to 180,000, costing £7 million a day in hotels. He should just get the processing system sorted out. The Conservatives downgraded the seniority of caseworkers and decision makers in 2013 and 2014. Surprise, surprise, productivity fell off a cliff, as did the quality of decisions. That is the fundamental problem, but we have to recognise that these Afghans have stood shoulder to shoulder with our defence, diplomacy and development effort in Afghanistan, and we owe them a debt of honour and gratitude.

    Robert Jenrick

    Does the hon. Gentleman know how many asylum seekers are housed in his constituency, or would he like me to tell him? It is none. There are no asylum seekers accommodated in Aberavon. If he would like us to bring in more people, whether on safe and legal routes, or on schemes such as the Afghan relocations and assistance policy, he should get on the phone to his local council and the Welsh Government this afternoon.

    Stephen Kinnock

    The Minister is talking absolute nonsense. I am proud of the fact we have many Syrians in our constituency. We have Ukrainians in our welcome centre. Discussions are ongoing between the Home Office and the Welsh Government. The incompetence of his Government means that they are not managing to house them. Wales is ready to have that dialogue with the Home Office.

    Rachael Maskell

    I find it a shocking admission from the Minister—we are fighting for the relatives of people in Afghanistan whose lives are at risk—that these Afghans are being blocked by him because he is not making available those safe routes to bring them to constituencies such as York, where we welcome refugees.

    Stephen Kinnock

    I completely agree with my hon. Friend. There are real concerns about the safety and security of those Afghans now in Pakistan. It is possible that they will be sent back. It is up to the Home Office to facilitate their transfer to the United Kingdom under ARAP and the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme, but like so many things with this Home Office, it is just a catastrophic failure of management.

    In trotting out the lines about the schemes that I mentioned, the Minister conveniently ignores the fact that none of those schemes help those coming from other high grant-rate countries in the middle east and sub-Saharan Africa. Neither he nor the Home Secretary have been able to answer questions from their own Back Benchers on that precise point.

    The final point of our plan is to tackle migration flows close to the conflict zones where they arise through targeting our aid spending. That is a longer-term mission, but it is no less important than any of the other steps we need to take to meet these migration challenges. I therefore see no reason for the Government not to support Lords amendment 107B in the name of the Archbishop of Canterbury, which would instruct the Government to develop a 10-year plan to manage migration.

    I have lost count of the number of times we have come to the Chamber to debate the Government’s latest madcap Bill or hare-brained scheme. Not one of those Bills has helped to stop a single boat, and the Government have sent more Home Secretaries to Rwanda than they have asylum seekers. They are wasting their own time and the time of the House, and they really are trying the patience of the British people. It really is desperate stuff, and it has to stop.

    In stark contrast to the hopeless, aimless and utterly self-defeating thrashing around that has come to define the Government’s approach to the asylum crisis, Labour recognises that there is a way through: a route based on hard graft, common sense and quiet diplomacy. It comes in the form of the Labour party’s comprehensive plan, based on core principles, with a commitment to returning asylum processing to the well managed, efficient, smooth-running system we had prior to the catastrophic changes brought in by Conservative Ministers in 2013, which downgraded decision makers and caseworkers, leading to poorer results. With that, we have a commitment to go further in fast-tracking applications from low grant-rate countries so that we can return those with no right to be here, and fast-tracking applications from high grant-rate countries so that genuine refugees can get on with their lives and start contributing to our economy, enriching our society and culture. A third, key principle is the need for international co-operation, as I have set out.

    This is not rocket science; it is just sensible, pragmatic, serious governance. It is working in the United States, where the Biden Administration are winning the battle. They have introduced a combination of swift consequences for those who cross the border illegally; orderly paths and controls on which migrants can apply for asylum and where they do so; sensible, legal pathways for high grant-rate nations; and strong co-operation with Mexico. The result is that they are bringing numbers down significantly and quickly. The challenge is not over yet, and we would not see President Biden being foolish enough to go boasting at the border, but that shows that progress can be made.

    The Labour party is not interested in performative cruelty, chasing headlines or government by gimmick. We have a plan that will stop the boats, fix our broken asylum system and deliver for the British people. In contrast, the Conservative party has run out of ideas and run out of road. It should get out of the way so that we can get to work.

  • Keir Starmer – 2023 Speech at Unite Policy Conference

    Keir Starmer – 2023 Speech at Unite Policy Conference

    The speech made by Keir Starmer, the Leader of the Opposition, in Brighton on 13 July 2023.

    Thank you David and thank you conference.

    It’s a privilege to address you at such a pivotal moment for our country.

    And let me start by thanking the General Secretary and the Executive Council for inviting me here today, the first female General Secretary of Britain’s biggest private sector union.

    And look, when she speaks to me, when she speaks to the Government, when she speaks to anyone, Sharon never stops fighting for this union, and that’s right.

    She has a mandate to fight for your jobs, pay and conditions and she’s made it very clear, that’s what she’ll judge me on, as well.

    That’s how it should be, I respect that, and I respect the relationship that Sharon and I have.

    We have different roles, different jobs, different ways of fighting for working people – party and movement.

    But our shared interest is, as it has always been, the economic security of working people.

    That’s our purpose and that’s my political project. To square up to an increasingly volatile world.

    A world where revolutions in climate change, in technology, in the materials we need for prosperity, all ask new questions and through that – to steer my party and this country towards that purpose – a Britain once again, built for and by the solidarity of working people.

    It won’t be easy. It won’t be quick. And, just as in 1945, there’s no magic wand that can wave away the need for economic stability – the rock that any successful Labour project must be built upon. But mark my words, there is an opportunity here, a chance to tilt the direction of this country – firmly and decisively – towards working people.

    Win the battle of ideas, not just next year, but for a generation.

    But look there is one key word there, “win”.

    That’s my job and I make no apologies for pursuing it. Labour’s Clause One is my ultimate duty. We’re nothing without power.

    Look at our country now. The stagnation, the economic pain, the cuts to public services, attacks on working people and this movement – legislation that hits to the very core of trade unions and their ability to organise, your democratic rights.

    Hard-won, over centuries, by the great men and women of this movement, including the important TUC victory in court this morning.

    So I can stand here today and say, we will repeal that legislation.

    And mark my words, we will.

    But that, that is the prize of power. In this era, when the winds of change are blowing so fiercely as they were in the early 1980s, then make no mistake that prize is priceless.

    So we will stay focused. We will stay disciplined and keep our eyes fixed firmly on the future. We will replace the chaos of Tory drift with the stability of Labour leadership.

    The tools remain the same.

    One – dynamic government – unafraid to intervene on behalf of businesses and working people.

    Two – a strong trade union movement that can reshape the rules which govern working peoples’ lives.

    But also – three, higher economic growth – don’t forget that. Don’t surrender it to right-wing politics.

    Yes, we must always be clear who growth serves, but we must never accept that there is a trade-off between growth and security at work.

    Between higher productivity and respect for working people.

    That’s a Tory trap and let me tell you, the British people get it.

    The Tory idea that it’s only the privileged few that can grow our economy, people aren’t going to take that anymore. They know – it’s the cleaners, carers, technicians, warehouse workers, scientists, builders, ambulance drivers, engineers, farm workers, retail and hospitality.

    Who is growth for, where does it come from?

    The answer, the only answer, the Labour answer, is working people.

    Seriously, you can’t grow the economy sustainably with low wages.

    You can’t do it with insecure jobs and bad work and you can’t do it with a stand-aside state that doesn’t fight for the future.

    The evidence is all around us, the wreckage of the past thirteen years. A period where the average British family is now £8,800 poorer than in other advanced economies.

    Economies like France, Germany and the Netherlands. Economies that have better collective bargaining, have stronger workers’ rights, and have a fairer share of wealth across their country.

    It’s common sense.

    Nobody does their best work if they’re wracked with fear about the future, if their contract gives them no protection to stand up for their rights at work, or if there’s no safety net to support them in times of sickness and poor health.

    That’s why we’ll ban zero hour contracts.

    Strengthen parental rights and rights to flexible working.

    Better protections for pregnant women.

    Close the ethnicity pay gaps.

    Fundamental rights from day one.

    Statutory sick pay for all.

    No more one-side flexibility.

    No more fire and rehire.

    And look – this new deal for working people, our deal. It’s not just about individual rights.

    It’s not just about the fairer rules that a Labour government can set.

    No, the history of this country – of democracy around the world – shows you also need strong trade unions.

    That the prosperity of working people, the economic security, the foundation for their aspirations, and their hopes of getting on – all this goes hand-in-hand with worker power.

    So I will never be ashamed to say it. I say it to businesses, I say it to the country: to make work pay, this country needs strong trade unions.

    Now, I know that news about the pay review body recommendations will be in the minds of many public sector workers today, but those recommendations will of course be subject to negotiations and I don’t think it’s helpful for me to wade into that.

    But I will say this, if the next Labour Government cannot break the suffocating hold low wages have on our economy and years of wage stagnation, then yes, we will have failed.

    That’s also why our policy of fair pay agreements for every adult social care worker is so important.

    Fair pay agreements across the country. A country that doesn’t respect care work, can’t call itself a caring country.

    But I also say again: be clear about the argument, be clear about the evidence.

    Our new deal is for security, yes. For social justice, absolutely. But also for growth – higher living standards for all.

    For years, working people have been told that good pay, fair work and dignity are barriers to growth.

    No more.

    A reformed labour market where we finally make work pay – that is part of my mission on growth.

    A new way forward for this country and an argument that is winning.

    Trust me – the dismissal of industrial strategy, the contempt for dynamic government, the complacency that says only the market decides which industries matter for this country – those ideas are finished.

    They can’t cope with a world where other countries simply don’t behave in the way market dogma expects.

    The world now knows that global supply chains can be weaponised by tyrants, that a sticking plaster approach to public investment will only cost us more in the long-run, and that for working class communities – trickle-down economics means power trickles-up and jobs trickle-out.

    The Tories are burying their heads to this – of course they are. They’re standing still, stubbornly clinging on to a mind-set of the past, as the opportunities of the future – the jobs of the future – slip through our fingers.

    But look, most businesses get this. They can see the country before them as well as we can, and they see we need a new approach.

    They’re ready for partnership – and my Labour Party will welcome them. It’s a partnership where, as you would expect, priorities will be contested, debated, negotiated but also where we can come together: worker and business; politics and people; four nations in a union, all committed to that higher purpose, to serve the working people of this country and build, together, a new architecture that delivers on their interests in three distinct ways.

    One – with new investments like in clean British energy, including carbon capture.

    This isn’t just about economic security now, it isn’t just about energy security, this is the security of the future.

    Cheaper bills, not just now, but for the long-term, new jobs tomorrow and protection for jobs today.

    I went to the steelworks in Scunthorpe a few weeks ago, spoke to the workforce there – your reps – some of them here today.

    And they told me, in no uncertain terms, they want clean energy. They’ve got the customers, they just need the technology and a government that stands alongside them.

    That’s why we need number two – new institutions.

    A new Industrial Council – a permanent part of the landscape, an embodiment of that partnership.

    And alongside it – Great British Energy, a new publicly owned company that will turn British power into British jobs and a new National Wealth Fund that can crowd-in private investment alongside the public.

    Make sure that the projects that are critical for jobs and growth: the battery giga-factories; the ports that can finally handle large off-shore wind parts; and yes – the clean steel plants, get the money and stability they need.

    And look – where we invest, we will give the British people a stake.

    You know, some people talk about deindustrialisation as if it’s in the past – but it’s still happening before our eyes.

    Look at British Volt. Look at what is happening to our automotive industry.

    We’ve got to get on this pitch, get round the table on rules of origin, invest in the giga-factories we need and pull together a clear plan for the future of steel in this country – now.

    I don’t suppose they’re listening, but if they are, I can tell the Government exactly what the main points should be.

    It’s British energy, British jobs, British investment and a return for the British people.

    And number three – alongside new investment and new institutions, we also need new incentives, because be under no illusions, the race is on for the jobs of the future and the pace is unforgiving.

    America is leading the way with the Inflation Reduction Act, but our other competitors are gearing up, as well.

    So – with all the investments we plan to make in clean energy, we will set new rules.

    We will make sure our plans deliver jobs as well as investment: good jobs, well-paid jobs, union jobs, we will make sure of that.

    But we will also create a new incentive, a direct response to the quickening pace the world is setting on the jobs of the future, a British Jobs Bonus that will take the procurement tools at our disposal, and use them to make sure our investments in clean energy also create new jobs and supply chains in our industrial heartlands.

    This can be a new foundation for British prosperity – that’s our commitment – a down-payment on our shared purpose.

    The first steps on the road to jobs, to security, to good work, dignity and through that – to hope.

    We have to win, of course we do, but I know that my job is also to restore hope in Britain, if it once again is able to serve working people.

    That’s what we’re fighting for.

    A Britain with its future back.

    United, moving forward, standing tall, that delivers security, backs aspiration, higher living standards for all and commits, truly commits, to the interests of working people.

    Thank you.