UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Michael Ellis

  • Michael Ellis – 2022 Statement on the Platinum Jubilee Civic Honours Competition

    Michael Ellis – 2022 Statement on the Platinum Jubilee Civic Honours Competition

    The statement made by Michael Ellis, the Minister for the Cabinet Office and the Paymaster General, in the House of Commons on 23 May 2022.

    I am pleased to announce that Her Majesty the Queen has commanded that city status has been granted to Bangor, Colchester, Doncaster, Douglas, Dunfermline, Milton Keynes, Stanley and Wrexham and a Lord Mayoralty to Southampton to mark Her Majesty’s platinum jubilee.

    Her Majesty’s Government have been delighted over the number of places across the United Kingdom, Crown dependencies and overseas territories which entered the competition. Irrespective of the final outcome, this is a celebration of not only the rich and diverse communities which make up the United Kingdom, but of communities all across the undivided realm which the UK, Crown dependencies and overseas territories constitute.

    City status, Lord Mayoralties, and Lord Provostships are civic honours granted by Her Majesty acting on the advice of Her Ministers under the Royal Prerogative. The granting of these honours is rare and they continue to be highly sought after.

    The competition received an extremely high standard of applications, and those unsuccessful applicants should not be disappointed. All valid entries received individual consideration on their merits and, for the first time, applications were also assessed by an expert panel, before Ministers made final recommendations to Her Majesty the Queen.

    I offer my congratulations to Bangor, Colchester, Doncaster, Douglas, Dunfermline, Milton Keynes, Stanley, Wrexham and Southampton which have been granted these prestigious honours from an exceptional and vast field of applicants.

  • Michael Ellis – 2022 Speech to the Inaugural UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly

    Michael Ellis – 2022 Speech to the Inaugural UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly

    The speech made by Michael Ellis, the Minister for the Cabinet Office, at the inaugural meeting of the UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly on 12 May 2022.

    Introduction

    I am delighted to be here at this inaugural meeting of the UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly, which of course couldn’t come at a more critical moment for European democracy.

    This forum is an important part of the governance that supports the new UK-EU relationship, but it is also a link between democratic representatives and the people that we serve. I hope that the following couple of days will provide an opportunity for Parliamentarians across the English Channel to exchange ideas on how we can get the most out of our new relationship – to the benefit of course of our respective citizens and businesses. Ukraine

    Because right now, in Europe, as we all know, there is another parliament which has continued to meet even as rockets and artillery shells fall around it.

    And today, members of Ukraine’s Parliament, the Verkhovna Rada, are representing fellow Ukrainians and carrying out the functions of Ukrainian democracy.

    They have continued to meet throughout Russia’s illegal invasion, even as Russian troops occupied the outskirts of the capital Kiev, even as their members trained to use weapons to defend their city. So it is all the more vital that our collective support for Ukraine – parliament to parliament, has been included on the PPA’s agenda.

    The European Parliament’s resolution on the 1st of March, calling for defensive weapons for Ukraine and punitive sanctions against Moscow, led the call on many of your governments to act. The UK Parliament has also been united in support of our action on Ukraine, and the UK has worked closely with the EU to take that action, including:

    six waves of punitive sanctions against the Russian economy, cutting off funding for its war effort;

    military, humanitarian and economic assistance for Ukraine; and

    measures to reduce our reliance on Russian hydrocarbons.

    These are significant steps, but we must be prepared to go further. And the UK will be working with our international partners to ensure freedom and democracy are strengthened through a network of economic and security partnerships around and across the globe.

    Trade and Cooperation Agreement

    While Putin has sought to sow division among Western alliances, the war in Ukraine has instead drawn the UK and EU together. That is welcome after the inevitable strains which the change in constitutional relationship brought since 2016. We see the EU as an essential partner in a global alliance of shared values – and we want success for the Union and we hope the EU wants that for us too.

    And our Trade and Cooperation Agreement has now been operating for a year and a half. And our economic relationship is generally working well. The TCA – the world’s largest zero-tariff, zero-quota FTA – is helping businesses adjust to the new commercial environment.

    And the governance of the TCA is running smoothly. The Partnership Council, and all of the Specialised Committees, successfully convened last year. And through these channels, we have ensured effective implementation of the agreement and we’ve engaged in technical discussions on matters ranging from intellectual property to road transport.

    And where we have identified issues regarding compliance for example, or opportunities to reduce unnecessary barriers to trade – such as EU import restrictions on SPS products or the VAT and debt protocol – we have used these committees to formally register our concerns.

    And some positive steps have also been taken by both sides outside of the structures of the TCA. Data adequacy decisions have been adopted for example.

    We have concluded bilateral aviation agreements on all-cargo rights with 19 EU Member States.

    And the UK as COP president continues to engage closely with Commission Executive Vice-President Timmermans on climate change priorities.

    And while these positive steps are welcome, we have also faced some challenges on the TCA. And it’s right to say that two stand out in particular.

    We are deeply disappointed that the EU countries continue to delay formalising the UK’s participation in Horizon Europe (and Copernicus, Euratom Research and Training). There is no practical reason for this delay – the EU is not fulfilling the commitments they made when the TCA was agreed. It is frankly disheartening that a number of countries have now successfully associated to Horizon, including for example Israel and Kosovo, while the EU continues to delay the UK association. And this is purely political – the EU have drawn links to the Northern Ireland Protocol, an entirely separate issue. And the EU’s approach is putting long term collaboration – on what are shared challenges – at risk.

    Now we have done literally everything that is required on our side – all that is required is for the EU to complete its formal processes, and to give its delegates in the Specialised Committee a mandate to agree to adopt draft Protocols that were agreed under the TCA. The UK stands ready to become a significant financial contributor to Horizon, and that would be for the benefit of UK and EU scientists, researchers and business alike – and it is the EU which is preventing this.

    Now, the greatest challenges we face, like tackling global pandemics, reaching net-zero or finding new sources of energy, they all require cooperation across our borders.

    Whatever our other disagreements, holding back the ability of UK and EU scientists to work together benefits no one and sends an unfortunate message about the politicisation of cooperation, which risks making it harder frankly for third countries to rely on cooperation with the Union. So we continue to press the EU to resolve this issue, but have been clear that we cannot wait forever; we will be ready to deliver domestic alternatives. Now the second area, we need to accelerate the development of new efficient electricity trading arrangements which were due to come into force last month. The UK has set out its significant concern about these delays and remain clear that we expect this work to proceed at pace. Efficient electricity trading will catalyse the development of renewables in the North Sea – supporting our shared net zero ambitions and plans to reduce reliance on Russian hydrocarbons.

    So I welcome the fact that both of these points will be considered by the PPA over the coming two days. And Her Majesty’s Government will consider carefully any recommendations this forum may wish to put to the Partnership Council.

    Withdrawal Agreement

    Now the UK and EU have worked closely together on implementing the Withdrawal Agreement since 2020 of course, and there have been positive examples of good cooperation, including on agreements related to the Sovereign Base Area in Cyprus and in Gibraltar.

    Citizens’ Rights continue to be a priority for the UK Government. We take our obligations very seriously and we have implemented the arrangements we agreed under the Withdrawal Agreement and we have done so in good faith. The EU Settlement Scheme has been an overwhelming success, with over 6.5 million applications and almost 5.8 million grants of status made so far. The Government’s approach to the Settlement Scheme is long standing and there is no ‘legal uncertainty’ for EU citizens in the UK. Whilst cooperation with the EU has been constructive, the UK continues to hold some concerns. Outstanding issues include ongoing reports of UK nationals facing difficulties accessing their rights in declaratory Member States, non-compliant resident processes, insufficient safeguards and a lack of detail on appeals processes. These issues are having a concrete impact on the lives of UK nationals in Member States, and we call on the EU to take proactive and immediate action to resolve those issues.

    On Northern Ireland, our overriding priority has been, and continues to be, preserving peace and stability. The situation as it stands, following the election, is clearly undermining the Belfast Good Friday Agreement and creating an unacceptable situation in Northern Ireland.

    Peace in Northern Ireland is based on respect between all communities, and it’s based on the consent of those communities – current arrangements with the EU are undermining that. We will not allow this to continue, we must fix the domestic impact of the Protocol, we must stabilise the situation in Northern Ireland and form an Executive – thereby protecting the Belfast Good Friday Agreement.

    The current situation with the Protocol is not working – it has created a two tier system where people in Northern Ireland are not treated the same way as everyone else in the UK.

    I want to take this opportunity to be clear about a few things. Firstly, we have never actually proposed scrapping the Protocol and we do not intend to – because there will always have to be a treaty governing the UK-EU relationship in respect of Northern Ireland. However we do need to see significant changes to it. We believe in the founding objectives of the protocol – to protect the Belfast Good Friday Agreement, to ensure Northern Ireland remains an integral part of the UK and the UK internal market, and to provide assurance to the EU that the single market is protected. But clearly, in its current form, the Protocol is not delivering on those internal objectives.

    Now, ladies and gentlemen, we have engaged in negotiations with the European Union in good faith. Vice President Šefčovič has tried to find solutions within the narrow mandate he has been given. But I regret to say that it is our clear view that the European Union’s proposals would take us backwards from where we are today. It’s therefore hugely disappointing that the EU have confirmed that they will never change their mandate, and because of that, the situation is now very serious.

    We have gone out of our way to ensure none of our proposals risk undermining the integrity of either the EU or the UK’s single market. We have created new systems to provide the EU with commercial data they have been asking for – giving them confidence no goods are being smuggled into either market.

    And we will continue to talk with the EU, but we will not let that stand in the way of protecting peace and stability in Northern Ireland. As both the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary have made clear, we will take action to protect the Belfast Good Friday Agreement if solutions cannot be found.

    Conclusion

    From the Palace of Westminster to the Verkhovna Rada – many parliament buildings across Europe, ladies and gentlemen, have been repaired or rebuilt from damage in wartime. This building here stands as a testament to the peace Europe has largely enjoyed for most of our lifetimes.

    As that peace is threatened by Putin, and it is all the more vital that parliamentarians work together in defence of our shared democratic values.

    Whilst these past years have not been easy for UK-EU cooperation – perhaps unavoidably so – I think these recent months have been a reminder that there is a bigger picture. And in that geopolitical bigger picture the UK and EU are not only natural, but we’re essential partners.

    We will, of course, have differences of view, as we do today on the Northern Ireland Protocol, where we are asking the Union as friends and allies to understand our primary responsibility to protect the peace and stability of our country. But there is far more that does and should unite us.

    And I very much hope that this inaugural meeting of the UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly can make progress on these issues, and show that we elected representatives can be the driving force of a new era of UK-EU partnership. To benefit all of the people we proudly represent. Thank you very much.

  • Michael Ellis – 2022 Comments on the UK Resilience Forum

    Michael Ellis – 2022 Comments on the UK Resilience Forum

    The comments made by Michael Ellis, the Minister for the Cabinet Office, on 4 May 2022.

    Continuing to bolster the UK’s resilience from domestic and global threats is vital, and the Forum provides space for a range of crucial organisations and partners to provide insight so we can ensure our emergency preparedness remains effective and aligned.

    We continue to identify key challenges on the horizon in order to effectively pivot resources to tackle risks, and to prioritise preparedness accordingly, working collaboratively to protect the UK.

  • Michael Ellis – 2022 Speech on Lord Lebedev Joining the House of Lords

    Michael Ellis – 2022 Speech on Lord Lebedev Joining the House of Lords

    The speech made by Michael Ellis, the Paymaster General, in the House of Commons on 29 March 2022.

    Let me first address the situation in Ukraine. President Volodymyr Zelensky has spoken of the Prime Minister and people of the United Kingdom as being among his greatest allies, and the Kremlin has spoken of the United Kingdom as a leading opponent. I am proud of that position, and we will continue to support Ukraine—as I know will the whole House—and the courageous people of that sovereign and independent country.

    The motion before the House calls on the Government to release advice provided by or to the House of Lords Appointments Commission, and relevant communications thereto. The Government regret today’s motion for any number of reasons—I will come on to those—but particularly because, for the first time in many decades there is a war in Europe, and there are many pressing domestic concerns and issues. It is somewhat surprising that the Opposition have brought forward for discussion this afternoon an ad hominem attack on a single individual.

    Although Parliament has unlimited power to call for papers, persons and records, historically the House has exercised restraint in the use of that power, and for good reason. That the motion seeks not to show restraint is, in my submission, unfortunate. I accept that Parliament has a vital scrutiny role and should use its power to facilitate it, but that does not extend to making use of the procedures of this place to single out an individual by making unsavoury and ad hominem attacks of the kind we have heard and will be hearing this afternoon.

    Several hon. Members rose—

    Michael Ellis

    Before I give way, which I will be happy to do, may I gently point out to the Opposition that—and I say this in all candour—they ought to be careful of intolerant messaging? Not all Russians are our enemy. Many British citizens of Russian extraction came to this country with a view to an opposition to President Putin. People cancelling Tchaikovsky concerts is not appropriate, and Labour seeking to whip up anti-Russian feeling or casting all persons of Russian extraction in a negative light is wrong.

    Furthermore, the disclosure of the information sought here today would undermine the very role of the House of Lords Appointments Commission. Labour is asking for something that would break the appointments process in the House of Lords. It would chip away at the careful vetting procedures and the exchange of information that necessarily has to be discreet.

    Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)

    Will the Minister give way?

    Michael Ellis

    If I may, I will just finish this thought.

    Let us not forget that the commission of which we are speaking is independent, expert, advisory, and cross-party, with Labour, Liberal and Conservative members, and it was set up by Tony Blair and the Labour party in the year 2000—more than 20 years ago.

    Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)

    On the Minister’s point about Labour being Russophobic, I lived and worked in Russia for three years as director of the British Council in St Petersburg, and we worked every day with ordinary Russians—good people—who want that country to be a normal country connected to the rest of the world. The people we are talking about today are not ordinary Russians. We are talking about a former KGB spy and the woman who was married to a former deputy Finance Minister who has given millions of pounds to the Conservative party. I humbly ask the Minister to withdraw the comment about Russophobia. We have no problem with the Russian people; we have a big problem with what he is talking about today.

    Michael Ellis

    No, I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says. In fact, the noble Lord who is the subject of this debate is not a Conservative party donor and never has been, so the hon. Gentleman is quite wrong on all those fronts. The motion before the House today is what I have said it is.

    Shaun Bailey

    Further to the point of the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), I wonder whether my right hon. Friend and learned Friend could give me his thoughts on this tweet that has just come through, which contains this from the Leader of the Opposition:

    “Congratulations on your elevation to the House of Lords. All best wishes, Keir”?

    Is what is good for the goose good for the gander? What does the Minister think about that?

    Michael Ellis

    It has been mentioned that Lord Lebedev has been tweeting this afternoon, and I understand that he has tweeted in the past few minutes that the Leader of the Opposition congratulated him on his appointment as a peer. That must be rather embarrassing for the Labour party.

    Matt Western

    I sometimes think that the Minister must be the Derek Underwood of the Front Bench in that he is the nightwatchman defending the indefensible.

    As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) just said, we are clearly talking about someone with huge influence who has worked closely with the Prime Minister and collaborated in delivering certain election victories for him as the Mayor of London.

    Michael Ellis

    Lord Lebedev is a British citizen of Russian extraction who, I understand, had his primary and secondary education in this country. I see no logic in the Labour party’s assessment.

    In order to put this issue in its true context, it is necessary to remind hon. Members of the process for nominations for peerages. The power to confer a peerage, with the entitlement to sit in the House of Lords, is vested in Her Majesty the Queen and is exercised on the advice of the Prime Minister. It is a long-established feature of our constitutional arrangements. The Prime Minister is ultimately responsible to Parliament, as he is in all matters, and to the people of the country for any nominations he makes.

    Two events have served to shape that process. First, the House of Lords Act 1999 ended the right of hereditary peers to pass membership of the other place down through their families. Secondly, the House of Lords Appointments Commission was created in May 2000—under Labour, which now wishes to break it—and it recommends individuals for appointment as non-party political life peers, such as those on the Cross Benches, and has political representation from the three parties within its members. The vetting process is at the heart of its work. The commission seeks to ensure the highest standards of propriety, and I include party political nominees within that.

    It does not apply in the instant case, but it should not be a matter of opprobrium that somebody be a party political supporter. Labour has hundreds of peers in the House of Lords. The Liberal Democrats have some 83 peers despite them having barely enough Members of Parliament to fill a minicab. There is nothing wrong with having a political affiliation.

    The House of Lords Appointments Commission seeks advice from a number of sources during its deliberations. Any time we ask any independent advisory body to obtain advice, and it does so discreetly and in confidence, if we seek to break that process, said body will not be able to function. Once all the evidence has been considered, the commission will either advise the Prime Minister that it has no concerns about an appointment or will draw its concerns to the Prime Minister’s attention. It is a long-standing position that it is for the Prime Minister of the day to recommend appointments to the House of Lords. For that reason, the Prime Minister continues to place great weight on the commission’s careful and considered advice before making any recommendations. That arrangement has served successive Prime Ministers of both parties but, as in other areas, they must carefully balance a range of evidence.

    Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)

    I am grateful to the Minister for giving way to a Liberal Democrat, few as we are. Nevertheless, I draw his attention to another tweet from Lord Lebedev:

    “Openness and transparency are pillars of our democratic system, so I welcome the call for security advice about me…to be released. I have nothing to hide.”

    The Minister is highlighting the fact that the appointment was questioned by that commission, so I do not see his argument, because it sounds like there were concerns. If Lord Lebedev has nothing to hide and the commission made its recommendation, that prompts the question: what do the Government have to hide?

    Michael Ellis

    I thank the hon. Lady for asking that question. This is not about any one individual. The Opposition are seeking it to be about one individual who cannot answer for himself in this House, which is wrong. The Government are seeking to protect the system, so even if Lord Lebedev has said that he does not mind, it is not, with the greatest respect, only about him; this is about protecting the system, because the House of Lords Appointments Commission would not be able to function.

    The Leader of the Opposition wrote to the commission earlier this month and received a reply a week or two ago, which I believe is in the public domain, in which it outlined the process and did not highlight any problems. The reality is that the Government are seeking to protect a system that has worked well for 22 years, so I ask the House to bear that in mind.

    Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)

    The Minister has said that the House of Lords Appointments Commission takes a variety of information from a variety of sources and organisations. That is perfectly reasonable. Is he suggesting, however, that the opinions or information of the intelligence services should somehow be of less importance than information from another body?

    Michael Ellis

    No, I am not suggesting anything of the sort. In fact, I have no personal knowledge of those from whom the commission obtains its information. It is for the commission, which has Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat and independent members, to make its own judgments, and we heard from the commission in the letter I mentioned, which I think was from Lord Bew.

    Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)

    Quite rightly, we should be concerned about Russian money coming into our political system, but my right hon. and learned Friend at the Dispatch Box is right in what he says. We really should point out who the Prime Minister was who let the fox into the chicken coup. Who was it, for instance, in 2003 when Roman Abramovich bought Chelsea football club? It was none other than the new Labour Prime Minister, Tony Blair.

    Michael Ellis

    Yes, well, I will leave the House to draw its own conclusions about that.

    I have to say that the individual who is the subject of this debate is a British citizen. He happens to be of Russian extraction. I understand that he has been in this country since primary school age. It is important to emphasise that this is about British people whose ancestry and heritage should not be relevant. As the owner of a regional newspaper, I understand that the London Evening Standard has raised £300,000 for its Ukraine appeal, £3 million for its AIDSfree campaign, and £13 million for its Dispossessed fund for persons in poverty in London and the Grenfell tragedy. I think that is something to be applauded.

    Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)

    Let us just get this right: this Lord Lebedev is educated here at primary school and senior school, he does not donate to political parties, he donates to charities and he is a good citizen. That lot over there on the Opposition Benches do not want to be involved in democracy. Is it the case that they just do not like foreign names? [Interruption.]

    Michael Ellis

    Well, I will invite the House to draw its own conclusion. [Interruption.]

    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)

    Order. I did say at the beginning that we must have good temper in this debate. Shouting at the Minister or anyone else does not help.

    Shaun Bailey

    On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In a bit of chuntering from the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), she referred to this as the most xenophobic Conservative party. Can I just say to the hon. Lady that I am certainly not a xenophobe and I take real exception to that? I invite her to withdraw those comments. [Interruption.]

    Madam Deputy Speaker

    Let me make this absolutely clear: nobody in this Chamber is calling anybody xenophobic. If anybody has used phrases like that, stop it now. I am not having it repeated. I am taking it that these things have not been said, because it would be better if they have not. Now, let us keep this at the right level. There is no need for superlative insults to go from one side to the other.

    Michael Ellis

    To return to where I started, there are so many issues that affect people’s lives that we could be debating today, for example: my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s income tax cuts, the first in 16 years; the 5p cut in fuel duty; or my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary’s plans to make sure that any child who falls behind in English or maths gets the support they need to get back on track. I find it surprising, at the very least, that the Opposition have chosen this particular motion, one that, at best, would compromise the ability of an independent body, which is respected for its independence, to fulfil its mandate simply to make a short-term political point. At worst, it would be negligent of the long-term consequences to the key role of the House of Lords in scrutinising the Executive and being a revising Chamber, and the valued expertise and specialist knowledge and experience of its Members.

    Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)

    I think lots of my colleagues would say that we have tabled the motion because it gets to the heart of who we are as a country and a democracy. Given the Prime Minister’s long-term relationship with the Lebedev family, what does the Minister think it looks like not to have published the Intelligence and Security Committee report before the 2019 general election?

    Michael Ellis

    That is not relevant to this debate. I will tell the hon. Lady what this debate looks like: it looks like the Labour party is focusing on an individual because of who he is. It is doing so unfairly and improperly, and it is seeking to break a process. The reality, as we have heard, is that Labour Members have also supported this individual, socialised with him and sent him messages of support. There is nothing wrong with that. I do not criticise Labour Members if they have sent supportive text messages to Lord Lebedev. I do not criticise anyone in this House for doing so. As the owner of newspapers, no doubt he interacts with a large number of individuals, even though he is a Cross Bencher. What I criticise, and what I urge the House to exercise with considerable caution, is how it looks to attack an individual because of his heritage or because of his extraction. That is the key point.

    The other key point to make here is that confidentiality in respect of the process ensures that it operates in the interests of the Labour party and the Conservative party, and that the process of appointing peers of this realm is a fair and dutiful one. The probity and the confidence of the system would be compromised if we broke it. If we said that henceforth we cannot ask people to send in confidence their opinions of individuals whom the Leader of the Opposition or the Conservative party have put forward for a peerage, anyone would know in future that if they wrote to the commission in confidence it could then be out in the public domain. They would not do it and that would damage the process. I would have thought that is rather obvious.

    The Government believe that to ensure the ability of the commission to conduct robust vetting and to provide advice that is not compromised, the process should continue to be conducted confidentially, with disclosure at the discretion of the Prime Minister, who is ultimately responsible for making recommendations to Her Majesty on appointments to the Lords, or of the commission, as a body independent of Government and responsible for the vetting of nominations.

    Before I sit, I would like to address, if I may, the use today of the Humble Address procedure. The House itself has recognised the need for this process to be used responsibly. The Government response to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee’s 15th report said:

    “The Government therefore agrees with PACAC that this device should not be used irresponsibly or over-used.”

    The Procedure Committee observed in its May 2019 report:

    “The House, by its practice, has observed limitations on the power: it does not use the power to call for papers which Ministers do not have the authority to obtain, nor does it use it to obtain papers of a personal nature.”

    That is a fundamental point. Today’s motion is a breach of that process. It demonstrates why the motion is unwise and irresponsible. Motions such as the one before us today crystallise the potential tension between the use of the Humble Address procedure and the responsibility of Ministers not to release information where disclosure would not be in the public interest. We have heard it said that the particular peer himself does not mind whether that information is released, but I submit that that is irrelevant. What we seek to do is protect the process, more than the individual, and that verifies that. The responsibility of Ministers, which I take very seriously, is carefully to balance and weigh up the need for the transparency and openness that we all try to achieve against the equally important, long-standing and competing principle in respect of data protection legislation, which the motion challenges. The Government reiterated, in our response to the Procedure Committee report, the principle of restraint and caution in recognition of the importance of ensuring that the wider public interest is protected.

    Matt Western

    I thank the Minister for giving way a second time; he is being generous. I am sure we all agree how critical transparency is to our democracy. Would that in part of the process there had been any transparency in the origin or source of Lord Lebedev’s wealth, which is particularly pertinent today and has been for the past five weeks since the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The Minister may refer to a message texted to Lord Lebedev 18 months ago, but that was before the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

    Michael Ellis

    Were the hon. Gentleman to look into the matter, he would find that Lord Lebedev has, through his newspapers, publicly criticised the Putin invasion of Ukraine, as one would expect him to do. He has done so on the record.

    The motion provides a saving in respect of national security considerations, in that it would allow for the redaction of material

    “for the purposes of national security.”

    For that reason, I shall not dwell on the national security considerations in depth. I remind the House that Ministers do not comment on national security issues; nevertheless, I stress that weighty public issues are in play that should not be treated lightly.

    As I say, when we balance a commitment to transparency against the protection of information when disclosure is not in the public interest, national security is one consideration that the Government must weigh up. Rather than engage in insinuation and speculation—I am afraid that is what has been happening—in respect of matters of national security that must be handled with care and caution, I emphasise that it is and always will be Her Majesty’s Government’s absolute priority to protect the United Kingdom against foreign interference.

    It is easy for those in the media or on the Opposition Benches to cast aspersions and invite people to draw assumptions. We cannot answer points about national security in detail, but I emphasise that we in the Government will always give absolute priority to the protection of the United Kingdom from foreign interference. As proof of that, I remind the House that, as announced in the Queen’s Speech, we will introduce new legislation to provide the security services and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to disrupt state threats.

    In conclusion, the passing of the motion would have long-term and damaging consequences for the system of appointments to the peerage. It would breach the principles of confidentiality that underpin the process; impugn the reputation of an independent body and damage its ability to undertake its role; and impact on the right of individuals not to have their private lives splashed across the media at the whim of the Opposition Front-Bench team.

    Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)

    If the motion is as potentially damaging as the Minister says it is, why will Government Members not vote against it this afternoon?

    Michael Ellis

    It is quite normal practice to ignore Opposition motions; they are given the careful attention they deserve. That is common practice.

    The Government regret the fact that the official Opposition have sought to use the procedures of the House to call for the release of information which, if released, would have lasting consequences and undermine the established system of appointments to the peerage. That system has served successive Governments and it is vital to preserving the commission’s ability to undertake its role.

    Shaun Bailey

    In her speech, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) articulated quite an interesting point. I tried to prise an answer out of her in my intervention, when I asked about the idea of the commission perhaps having a veto. Whether or not we disagree with that idea, does my right hon. and learned Friend not find it interesting that the Labour party will not state its definitive position on that? What is his opinion of that? Perhaps it is because Labour wants to use the existing system at some future point to benefit itself.

    Michael Ellis

    I have the feeling it will be a very long time before the Labour party is in a position to do that from the Government Benches.

    The broader point is that the privacy rights of individuals need to be protected. The information shared to facilitate the vetting process is and must be handled carefully. It would be unwelcome for this House to set a precedent that such information is released, because, as I have said, to do so could deter individuals from putting themselves forward for such positions. I urge the House to reflect on whether the motion before us accords with the principle of restraint that Parliament has characteristically applied to the use of its powers. The passing of the motion would risk compromising the ability of an independent body to perform its role and, constitutionally, would impede the role of the Prime Minister in advising the sovereign on appointments. The process is necessarily confidential and the Government think it is unwise for the House to call for such information.

  • Michael Ellis – 2022 Comments on Future Biological Security

    Michael Ellis – 2022 Comments on Future Biological Security

    The comments made by Michael Ellis, the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, on 16 February 2022.

    Ensuring that we are responding to the changing global security landscape and taking reasonable steps to ensure public safety is of critical importance. COVID-19 shone a light on the significance of biological security and ensuring we have robust plans in place to protect the public from threats here in the UK and overseas.

    That’s why, following the Integrated Review, the Government will be looking into how we are protecting the country and its interests from significant biological risks. This will include considering the evolving priorities since the pandemic and rapid advances in science and technology across all aspects of biological security.

    Tackling future challenges effectively requires evidence-based policy and decision-making and a collaborative science base. I urge experts to inform our discussions and provide further insight and best practice to ensure the best minds and talent across the UK are feeding into our Strategy.

  • Michael Ellis – 2021 Statement on Review of Retained EU Law

    Michael Ellis – 2021 Statement on Review of Retained EU Law

    The statement made by Michael Ellis, the Paymaster General, in the House of Commons on 9 December 2021.

    My noble Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, the right hon. Lord Frost CMG, has today made the following ministerial statement:

    On 16th September 2021 I announced a review of “retained EU law” (REUL). This refers to the very many pieces of EU legislation which have flowed into the UK legal system during our EU membership, through the European Communities Act 1972 as an obligation of membership and without any ability for Parliament to change them. It also covers EU case law and principles. To ensure continuity and certainty immediately after Brexit, REUL was taken onto our own statute book through the European Union (Withdrawal) Act of 2018.

    However, while this was an important short-term bridging measure, it does not represent the right long-term end point for the UK and our statute book. Many laws that were retained are not necessarily right for the UK as an independent country, and there are anomalies and uncertainties which remain over the precise status of REUL as part of the UK’s domestic law. Accordingly, we have now launched two reviews: the first into the substance of REUL, and the second into its status in law. This statement sets out the progress that has been made so far and the next steps.

    Our overall intention remains, in time, to amend, replace, or repeal all the REUL that is not right for the UK.

    On the substance review, I have directed Government departments to establish the content of REUL in policy areas for which they are responsible, and to consult stakeholders as necessary. There is no authoritative assessment by Government of which policy areas are most affected by REUL. This first review will deliver such an assessment, and enable us to establish which sectors of the economy and which departments are most affected by REUL.

    On the second review, into the legal status of REUL, we have identified the following seven areas where EU law concepts, retained by the EU Withdrawal Act, still affect the UK even though we have left the EU:

    Under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act, rights under treaties and directives which had direct effect in UK law whilst we were a member state have been incorporated into domestic law. Many of these rights—like respect for human rights and equal pay for men and women—replicate rights that were already part of UK law, separately from our EU membership. We want to ensure, to the extent appropriate, that the UK law-derived rights relied on in our legal system are not confused or overlaid with EU-derived rights. If required, we will also clarify the scope of directly effective rights in directives, saved as REUL under section 4 of the Act, to make it clear that only those rights which have already been recognised by the CJEU or the UK courts are incorporated.

    Even though we have left the EU, the UK courts are still required to interpret REUL in accordance with retained general principles of EU law, such as proportionality and the protection of legitimate expectations, so far as those principles are relevant. These general principles have developed in the EU over the years to apply to the laws as they exist in the EU system. But REUL is now UK law derived from EU sources, so we need to consider whether this new body of UK law should be interpreted under UK principles of interpretation, or under those that apply to the EU treaties and legislation developed for member states.

    Currently, under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, REUL has a special and unusual status in UK law. Whatever its original EU legislative form (for example, a regulation or treaty article), for some purposes REUL is treated as UK primary legislation, and in other cases its status depends on its original form (with a significant number automatically accorded the status of primary legislation). Accordingly, we will be revisiting the legislative framework in the European Union Withdrawal Act and the operation of such REUL, so that it is given a more appropriate status within the UK legal system for the purposes of amendment and repeal. That status should reflect the fact that Parliament had no ability to block or amend such legislation once agreed in Brussels, indeed it often had no meaningful democratic scrutiny in the UK at all. Accordingly, this aspect of the review will consider whether, and if so, how, REUL could be amended or repealed by an accelerated process, with appropriate oversight, given the unsatisfactory nature of its original incorporation.

    The EU concept of the ‘supremacy of EU law’—which forces all other UK legislation to be interpreted so as to give way to EU law where there is a conflict (even if EU law was overridden by subsequent non-EU sourced UK law)—has been preserved by the 2018 Act so far as relevant to the interpretation, disapplication or quashing of domestic law passed or made before the end of the transitional period. This interpretative concept is alien to the UK legislative principles, whereby later parliaments (and their laws) can override earlier parliaments. This concept never sat well with our long established democratic and parliamentary traditions, and now we have left the EU is clearly no longer appropriate. We will consider the issue and it is likely that we will propose removing the concept from the statute book.

    Under the 2018 Act, in interpreting REUL, UK courts remain bound by EU courts and their decisions issued before the transition period ended. Only the Supreme Court or certain appellate courts have the power to depart from such case law. REUL is UK law which is derived from a (now) foreign source. In all other cases, when UK legislation draws on foreign models, its courts are not bound by foreign case law, although it may be persuasive. Accordingly, we need to consider the anomalous status of EU case law, and we will be revisiting the issue of which UK courts should be able to depart from retained EU case law, and on what basis.

    The Court of Justice of the EU may, from time to time, declare an EU instrument invalid under EU law. In addition to the general process for addressing REUL which is no longer right for the UK, we propose to ensure that the retained version can be swiftly removed when the original EU law measure has been declared invalid under EU law.

    The review will also consider any consequential actions, such as updated guidance relating to the courts (for example, on the treatment of EU case law) and the place of EU law in legal education.

    We will continue to develop policy proposals at pace. My officials will be consulting widely with internal and external stakeholders, including from the judiciary, legal practice, academia, and industry to ensure that any proposed legislative and non-legislative solutions are thoroughly tested.

    We will incorporate Parliament’s views, including through targeted engagement with select committees, to ensure the outcomes of the review into REUL status are robust. Our aim will be to issue proposals in the spring, and legislate as soon as parliamentary time allows.

    Any individual or group with relevant expertise that wishes to be involved in this review should contact the Brexit Opportunities Unit in the Cabinet Office.

  • Michael Ellis – 2021 Statement on Public Procurement

    Michael Ellis – 2021 Statement on Public Procurement

    The statement made by Michael Ellis, the Paymaster General, in the House of Commons on 6 December 2021.

    My noble Friend the Minister of State for Efficiency and Transformation, Lord Agnew Kt, has today made the following written statement:

    Public procurement accounts for around a third of all public expenditure. Now that we have left the EU we have a huge opportunity to reform how this money is spent so that it better meets the needs of this country. We can create a new, simpler procurement regime that will reduce costs for business and the public sector by reducing bureaucracy and improving commercial outcomes. Such a huge amount of Government spending must be leveraged to play its part in the UK’s economic recovery from the pandemic and unleash opportunities for small businesses and social enterprises to innovate in public service delivery.

    This Government intend to put in place a new regime that will ensure we remain compliant with our international obligations. This includes the World Trade Organisation’s Agreement on Government Procurement which gives British businesses access to £1.3 trillion in public procurement opportunities overseas. This two-way street allows us to maximise value for money for UK taxpayers, whilst ensuring that UK companies are able to compete abroad.

    In December 2020 we published the Green Paper on Transforming Public Procurement which set out the proposed new regime. We received over 600 responses with feedback from procurement professionals in central and local government, the education and health sectors, small, medium and large businesses, the charity and social enterprise sectors, academics and procurement lawyers. This, in addition to feedback from a series of workshops attended by almost 1000 stakeholders, provided us with a range of views and insight from contracting authorities, suppliers to the public sector and other interested parties.

    The analysis of feedback has been completed and I am now announcing the publication of a detailed document that summarises responses received to the consultation and provides the Government’s response to each individual question. We have considered carefully all of the comments received. Overall, levels of support for the proposed reforms were high and many responses recognised the ambition and breadth of the package of proposals. The majority of answers to individual questions were positive. In many instances, there is no change to the proposals set out in the Green Paper, however in others the Cabinet Office has clarified or amended the proposals based on the consultation feedback. I am grateful for all those who took the time to respond.

    In summary the proposals will:

    Simplify and consolidate the current legislation as far as possible into a single, uniform regulatory framework, which will remove duplication and make procurement more agile and flexible;

    provide a number of sector-specific features where necessary, including tailored rules to better suit defence and security procurement in order to protect our national interests;

    ensure that procurement supports local and national priorities, allowing public sector buyers to give more weight to bids that create jobs and opportunities for communities, and support action on climate change;

    strengthen the approach to the exclusion of suppliers from procurements, making it simpler, clearer and more focused on suppliers who pose an unacceptable risk;

    give much greater transparency throughout the procurement lifecycle;

    give new rights for subcontractors experiencing payment delays in public sector supply chains;

    put in place a new Procurement Review Unit to oversee the integrity of the public procurement system.

    We are working closely with all the devolved Administrations on the development of the new regime. On 18 August 2021, the Welsh Government published a written statement confirming that provision for Welsh contracting authorities is to be made within the UK Government’s Bill.

    The publication of the consultation response is a key milestone in delivering the ambition to create a procurement regime that better meets the needs of our country. We are currently finalising the Bill to implement these proposals and intend to introduce it as soon as parliamentary time allows.

  • Michael Ellis – 2021 Statement on the Standard for Algorithmic Transparency

    Michael Ellis – 2021 Statement on the Standard for Algorithmic Transparency

    The statement made by Michael Ellis, the Paymaster General, in the House of Commons on 29 November 2021.

    My noble Friend the Minister for Efficiency and Transformation (Lord Agnew Kt) has today made the following written statement:

    The Cabinet Office’s Central Digital and Data Office (CDDO) has today published a cross-Government standard for algorithmic transparency. This move makes the UK one of the first countries in the world to make progress on developing a national algorithmic transparency standard. The CDDO was established in January 2021 as the new strategic centre for digital, data and technology for the Government.

    Several leading organisations in the field, such as the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation (CDEI), Ada Lovelace Institute and Alan Turing Institute, as well as renowned academic and international institutions, including the Oxford Internet Institute, AI Now Institute and OECD, have called for greater transparency to help manage the risks associated with algorithmic decision making, bring scrutiny to the role of algorithms in decision-making processes and help build public trust.

    In the National Data Strategy, the Government committed to working with leading organisations in the field to explore what an effective mechanism to deliver greater algorithmic transparency would look like. It reiterated this commitment in the response to the National Data Strategy consultation, and announced that it was developing a public sector algorithmic transparency standard in the National AI Strategy.

    While designing the first version of the standard, CDDO has worked closely with the CDEI. It has convened stakeholders from across Government, civil society and academia, and conducted a deliberative public engagement exercise with the CDEI and BritainThinks, to ensure that a diverse range of views have been taken into account.

    Proactive transparency in this field is a natural extension of the UK’s long-standing leadership in data ethics and open data. Several public sector organisations will trial the standard in the coming months, and provide user feedback to CDDO. CDDO is also seeking further feedback from stakeholders outside of Government. Following the pilot, CDDO will iterate the standard based on feedback gathered and seek formal approval from the Data Standards Authority in 2022.

    This development comes after the Government have consulted on a proposal to introduce transparency reporting on the use of algorithms in decision making for public authorities, Government Departments and Government contractors, as part of the wide-ranging consultation on the future of the UK’s data protection regime. It sought views on the role that such reporting would play in building public trust, as well as what the key contents of mandatory transparency reporting should be and whether any exemptions should apply.

    I have deposited a copy of the standard and accompanying guidance in the Libraries of both Houses, and published both on www.gov.uk.

  • Michael Ellis – 2021 Statement on Infected Blood Compensation

    Michael Ellis – 2021 Statement on Infected Blood Compensation

    The statement made by Michael Ellis, the Paymaster General, in the House of Commons on 23 September 2021.

    On 20 May my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), announced the appointment of Sir Robert Francis QC to carry out an independent study to look at options for a framework for compensation for victims of infected blood. The study will make recommendations for compensation, before the infected blood inquiry reports. Terms of reference of the study were to be finalised following consultation between Sir Robert and those infected and affected. The consultation period concluded in August, and Sir Robert wrote to my predecessor with his recommendations.

    Sir Robert’s consultation received a positive response from the infected and affected community. A total of 447 formal responses were submitted (including from many of the legal representatives of infected and affected core participants of the inquiry), along with over 150 further representations, primarily personal accounts from the infected and affected on how this tragedy has affected their lives. These accounts were of great assistance to Sir Robert in reviewing the draft terms of reference. Sir Robert wishes to express his gratitude to the many individuals who contributed to the consultation, in many cases having to relive the awful experiences they have suffered over so many years, and I would like to echo his gratitude.

    Sir Robert’s recommendations identify the key issues that the study should consider. They offer assurance to the infected and affected communities that the matters of most concern to them will be considered by the study. I am therefore happy to accept Sir Robert’s recommendations in full, and I am today publishing the following terms of reference without amendment:

    Rationale for compensation

    To consider the rationale for compensation as a matter of general principle and in relation to any particular classes of compensation, recognising that it is not for the study to pre-empt the determination by the infected blood inquiry as to what, if any, rationale is supported by the evidence it has received;

    Independent advice to the Government

    Give independent advice to the Government regarding the design of a workable and fair framework for compensation for individuals infected and affected across the UK to achieve parity between those eligible for compensation regardless of where in the UK the relevant treatment occurred or place of residence. While the study is to take into account differences in current practice and/or law in the devolved Administrations, it is not asked to consider whether delivery of that framework should be managed centrally or individually by the devolved Administrations;

    Scope of compensation

    To consider the scope of eligibility for such compensation (including the appropriateness or otherwise of any conditions such as “cut-off” dates), and whether it should be extended beyond infected individuals and their partners, to include for example affected parents and children, the wider affected family (e.g. siblings), and significant non-family carers and others affected, either because of the impact of caring responsibilities or the effects of bereavement or some other impact; to include consideration of former and new partnerships/marriages; and whether the estate of any individual who has died should be eligible for compensation;

    Categories of injury and loss

    To consider the injuries, loss and detriments that compensation should address, in relation to the past, present and future, including:

    (a) the physical impact and consequences of infections (including the effect of any treatment, and potential future adverse effects);

    (b) infections that cleared naturally; and the risk of any significant or long-term side effects of treatment (such as liver damage, increased risk of cancer) even if they are yet to materialise;

    (c) the mental health, social and financial impacts (including access to financial services)—both actual and in terms of loss of opportunities—suffered by both the infected and affected; and

    (d) other types of loss if appropriate;

    Types of award and method of assessment

    To consider:

    (a) the extent to which any framework should offer compensation on the basis of an individualised assessment and/or fixed sums or a combination of these (including consideration of the position of an individual who was both infected, and affected by another individual’s infection);

    (b) whether awards should be by way of final lump sums, periodical payments or both;

    (c) whether an individual should be required to prove matters (if so what types of matters, by what means, and to what standard);

    (d) whether there should be any limitation by way of time or other bar on entitlement or claim, and whether any existing time bars should be maintained;

    (e) the extent to which compensation should be limited to matters currently recognised by the law (taking into account any differences in the law across the UK) on damages and evidence as recoverable for the purposes of compensation, or, if not, the basis on which broader matters should be taken into account;

    Measures for compensation

    To consider the measures for compensation, looking at other national schemes (for example, the compensation tribunal established in the Republic of Ireland) to examine their merits or otherwise, and experiences, both as to form (i.e. administration/process) and the substance of compensation;

    Relationship with current schemes

    To consider the relationship between a compensation framework and other receipts and payments by individuals, including: (a) the pre-existing financial support schemes; (b) legal claims; (c) welfare benefits and tax;

    Options for administering the scheme

    To consider options for administering the scheme (including but not limited to what bodies, organisations or tribunals might need to be established to facilitate such administration); what principles, aims or criteria etc might underpin the development of an appropriate scheme; and any ancillary matters which should be considered such as interim payments, publicity of the scheme, outreach to potential claimants, and support;

    Other issues

    To consider other issues that, in the course of his investigations, Sir Robert considers relevant; and

    Reporting to Government by February 2022

    To submit to the Government its report and recommendations as quickly as possible and no later than the end of February 2022, to provide the Government with advice on potential options for compensation framework design.

    Sir Robert and his team will now begin the more detailed conversations and analysis to look into the detail of the issues raised by the infected and affected community. This will allow him to produce a set of comprehensive recommendations to the complex issues involved.

    I, like my predecessor, am deeply committed to ensuring that Sir Brian Langstaff’s independent public inquiry has all the resources it needs to complete its work; in Sir Brian’s words, “as quickly as thoroughness permits”. The infected blood scandal continues to claim the lives of infected people, and those directly affected have waited too long for answers, and for justice.

  • Michael Ellis – 2021 Statement on Brexit Opportunities

    Michael Ellis – 2021 Statement on Brexit Opportunities

    The statement made by Michael Ellis, the Paymaster General, in the House of Commons on 16 September 2021.

    With permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement, which is also being made in the other place, on the opportunities the country has now that we have left the European Union.

    While we were a member of the EU some of the most difficult issues that Governments of both main parties faced were to do with regulations, such as services directives, REACH—the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals—reforms of agricultural policy, and very many pieces of financial services legislation. Often such laws reflected unsatisfactory compromises with the other EU members. We knew that if we did not rescue something from the legislative sausage machine, as it were, we would be voted down and get nothing. These laws were designed to lock every country, no matter its strengths or weaknesses, into the same uniform structures, and they were often overly detailed and prescriptive. Moreover, the results usually either had direct legal effect in the United Kingdom or were passed into our law through secondary legislation; either way, that involves very limited genuine democratic scrutiny. This Government were elected to get Brexit done and to change this situation, and that is exactly what we will do.

    Much has already been changed of course but, given the extent of EU influence over nearly half a century, the task is a mammoth one. To begin it, we asked my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) to lead a team to examine our existing laws and future opportunities. They reported back earlier this year and since then my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and my noble Friend Lord Frost have been considering that taskforce on innovation, growth and regulatory reform—TIGRR—report in some depth. Lord Frost is today writing to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green with our formal response to his report and, more importantly, our plans to act on the basis of his report. Lord Frost is sharing the Government’s formal response with Committee Chairs and will deposit it in the Libraries of both Houses; it will also be available shortly on gov.uk. I will now highlight some of the most important elements of our plans.

    First, we will conduct a review of so-called retained EU law; by this, I mean the many pieces of legislation that we took on to our own statute book through the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. We must now revisit this huge but anomalous category of law, and we have two purposes in mind. First, we intend to remove the special status of retained EU law so that it is no longer a distinct category of UK domestic law but is normalised within our law with a clear legislative status. Unless we do that, we risk giving undue precedence to laws derived from EU legislation over laws made properly by this Parliament. The review also involves ensuring that all courts in this country have the full ability to depart from EU case law according to the normal rules. In so doing, we will continue restoring this sovereign Parliament and our courts to their proper constitutional positions, and indeed finalise that process.

    Our second goal is to review comprehensively the substantive content of retained EU law. Some of that is already under way—for example, our plans to reform inherited procurement rules and the plan announced last autumn by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to review much financial services legislation. But we will make this a comprehensive exercise, and I want to make it clear that our intention is eventually to amend, replace or repeal all retained EU law that is not right for the UK. That is a legislative problem, and accordingly the solution is also likely to be legislative. We will consider all the options for taking this forward, and in particular look at developing a tailored mechanism for accelerating the repeal or amendment of retained EU law in a way that reflects the fact that laws agreed elsewhere have intrinsically less democratic legitimacy than laws initiated by the Government of this country.

    We also intend to begin a new series of reforms of the legislation we have inherited on EU exit, in many cases as recommended by the TIGRR report. Let me give some examples. We intend to create a pro-growth trusted data rights regime that is more proportionate and less burdensome than the EU’s GDPR—general data protection regulation—and the previous Culture Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Oliver Dowden), on 10 September announced a consultation that is the first stage in putting new rules in place.

    We intend to review the inherited approach to genetically modified organisms—GMOs—which is too restrictive and not based on sound science. My right hon. Friend the Environment Secretary will also shortly set out plans to reform the regulation of gene-edited organisms. We will use the provisions of the Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021 to overhaul our clinical trial frameworks, which are based on outdated EU legislation, giving a major boost to the UK’s world-class research and development sector and getting patients access to new life-saving medicines more quickly. The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency is already reforming the medical devices regulations to create a world-leading regime in this area.

    We will also unleash Britain’s potential as a world leader in the future of transport. My right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary will next week set out ambitious plans including modernising outdated EU vehicle standards and unlocking the full range of new transport technologies. We also intend to repeal the EU’s court services regulations, a good example of a regulation that was geared heavily towards EU interests and frankly never worked for the UK. We will drive forward our work on artificial intelligence, where the UK is already at the forefront of driving global progress. We will shortly publish the UK’s first national AI strategy, setting out our plans to supercharge the UK’s AI ecosystem and set standards which will be world leading.

    As recommended by TIGRR and the Penrose review and promised in the current consultation on reforming the better regulation framework, we will put in place much more rigorous tests within Government before taking the decision to regulate. Now that we have control over all our laws, not just a subset of them, we will consider the reintroduction of a one in, two out system, which has been shown internationally to make a significant difference.

    Finally, Brexit was about once again giving everyone in this country a say in how it is run, and that is true in this area, too; we aim to tap into everyone’s ideas. Accordingly, we will create a new standing commission under visible and energetic leadership to receive ideas from any British citizen on how to repeal or improve regulations. The commission’s job will be to consider such ideas and make recommendations for change, but it will only be able to make recommendations to us in one way: in the direction of reducing or eliminating burdens. I hope in this way we will tap into the collective wisdom of the British people and begin to remove the dominance of the arbitrary rule of unknown origin over people’s day-to-day lives.

    Let me finish by being clear that this is just the beginning of our ambitious plans. I will return to this House regularly to update Members on our progress and, more importantly, to set out further intentions. Brexit was about taking back control: the ability to remove the distortions created by EU membership and to do things differently in ways that work better for this country and promote growth, productivity and prosperity. That is what we intend to do.

    I recognise Brexit was not a choice originally supported by all in this country, or even by some in this House, but Brexit is now a fact. This country has now embarked upon a great voyage. We each have the opportunity to make this new journey a success—to make us more contented, more prosperous and more united—and I hope everyone will join us in achieving that. I commend this statement to the House.