Jess Phillips honours femicide victims and says Government will ‘push harder'
Jess Phillips has pledged the Government will 'go further and push harder' as she read in Parliament the names of women killed by men in the past year.
It is the 10th year the Labour MP for Birmingham Yardley has honoured victims of femicide, this year being her first to do so as the minister for safeguarding and violence against women and girls.
Ms Phillips was responding to the annual International Women's Day debate where a number of MPs discussed their own experiences with rape, sexual assault, pregnancy, miscarriage and other issues faced by women.
Prior to reading the names, Ms Phillips said: 'Last year I said that I felt tired and angry and weary. I was sick of the failures.
'But as I stand here today on the front bench, placed here by a Prime Minister inspired to action, who mentioned the reading of the list in the very first ever speech he made from this despatch box as the Prime Minister, alongside a Home Secretary and a flight of brilliant ministers who are totally dedicated to this, I feel hopeful.'
As she read the list of names, those in the public gallery rose to their feet and many in the chamber became tearful.
After commemorating the women, she said: 'This is a fight that demands the very best from all of us, and we must rise to the occasion. Under this Government, this issue will get the attention that it deserves.
'We will keep honouring and celebrating women as we build a society in which they are respected and protected, and we will back up our words with action as we seek real and lasting change, undeterred by those who sit on the sidelines while the list of names grows longer.'
Ms Phillips highlighted that one in five homicides in the UK are domestic homicides, referring to Raneem's Law brought in by the Government in memory of Raneem Oudeh and her mother Khaola Saleem, who were murdered by Raneem's ex-husband in August 2018.
She said: 'We must act now and be relentless in chasing the change. Many have mentioned today Raneem's Law that the Government have brought in to embed specialists in 999 control rooms.
'And I hope that this shows how important this list, the issue of women killed, is to this Government, how it drives our actions because I read out the names of Raneem Oudeh and Khaola Saleem, her mother, on the years that they were killed.'
The minister also said the Government is seeking to 'push forward massively on stalking laws', and that too many women have died 'because we didn't take stalking too seriously'.
'One of the things the Government will do is allow people to know the identity of their online stalkers which currently isn't the case and is based on the case of (former Coronation Street actress) Nicola Thorp,' Ms Phillips said.
'I'm going to call it Nicola's Law because I want to start having laws for women who didn't die.
'We must go further and push harder.'
Opening the debate, Labour former minister Dawn Butler appealed to men and boys at risk of 'turning to the far-right' or becoming incels to change their behaviour and play a positive role in society.
The MP for Brent East questioned how it can still be the case that a woman is killed every three days by a man in the UK, saying: 'Of course there's a place for straight white men and boys and a very important role for them to play in society, and we will hear a lot today that one woman is killed every three days and 97% of them are killed by men, the majority of them white.
'So if we want to protect women we need to reach out to those men – the ones that are informed, the ones that are kind, the ones that are loving – and we need to say that we need you now more than ever before.
'Because right now there are some serious, toxic, misogynistic men and some of them stray and they are harming women, they are harming society, they are harming gay people, they are harming black people and this is the very foundation of which we live and we need to say 'no'.'
Concluding the debate Ms Butler became choked up, saying she felt 'more emotional than normal'.
She said: 'I fear that things are going to get worse. I fear that that list is going to get longer because we are at that tipping point, and if we don't stop what's going on globally around the world, if we don't call it out, it will get worse.'
Ms Phillips has also pledged that the Government's violence against women and girls strategy, expected to be published in the summer, will include action specifically addressing the root causes of abuse including 'underlying behaviours held by some men and boys'.
Earlier this year, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer said 'a line has been crossed' when the safeguarding minister became the target of misogynistic abuse online after US billionaire Elon Musk described her as a 'rape genocide apologist'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
The charts that show why Reeves's spending plans are a fantasy
Rachel Reeves claims she is investing in the country's Chancellor was cheered on by her front benches as she announced more money for the NHS, defence and schools in a move she boasted would lead to 'a national renewal'. In some senses, there were few surprises on Wednesday. We already knew how much Reeves had to dole out in her maiden spending review. The NHS gobbled up most of the money, with day-to-day spending on the Department of Health and Social Care growing by an average of 2.8pc a year over the forecast period. Defence spending has also received a significant boost as pressure from Nato mounts. Other departments, notably the Home Office, were squeezed as Reeves sought to make the sums add up. But while the numbers may tally on paper, economists are already questioning whether they will work in reality as pressures build from a more dangerous world and an older population. There are also fears that Reeves's announcement will pave the way for massive increases in council tax to keep Britain's streets safe. Paul Johnson, the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), says that while health and defence are big winners 'in pounds and pence, even here, one has to wonder whether this will be enough'. There are other pressures elsewhere. The Chancellor once vowed to never make an unfunded spending commitment but this week announced she will restore winter fuel payments to most pensioners with no clues as to how it will be paid for. She has also announced a Fair Pay Agreement for social care, which will set minimum terms across the sector without any clarity on how the proposals will be funded. Welfare spending, which sits outside Whitehall budgets, is poised to keep ballooning over the next five years as the Government prepares another about-turn to planned cuts to disability benefits. And unresolved questions over levies such as fuel duty will also pile more pressure on the Chancellor. While Reeves's statement is meant to set in stone government spending plans for at least the next three years, her £40bn tax raid last year may not be enough to foot the eventual bill. The tax burden is already on course to reach a peacetime high, but JP Morgan and Capital Economics both believe that Reeves will have to raise taxes by more than £20bn in the Budget this autumn to cover her increased spending plans and fend off increasing pressure from Reform. 'The spending review contains few surprises,' says Elliott Jordan-Doak, at Pantheon Macroeconomics. 'The question is only how big tax hikes will be in October.' The Government hinted on Wednesday that council tax would rise sharply to pay for policing after Reeves cut the Home Office budget by 2.2pc. Reeves claimed 'police spending power' would increase by 2.3pc in the coming years, which documents suggest could include more money from council tax. The Liberal Democrats said families in typical Band D households now faced a £395 increase in council tax by the next election. While the NHS is clearly a winner, there are already questions over whether the money will be enough to keep the health service running. Analysis by the IFS shows there have been just two occasions – in 1991 and 2004 – where health spending grew more slowly than envisaged in the spending review. More often, governments have been forced to top up health budgets to boost day-to-day health spending, which is on course to rise from a 26pc share of Whitehall budgets in 1999 to more than 40pc by the end of the decade. Reeves has set out plans to increase the NHS day-to-day budget more slowly than its historical average – by 3pc in real terms compared to 3.6pc – despite growing pressures on the health service. The plan set out by the previous Conservative government assumed real-terms funding increases of around 3.6pc per year. Johnson says: 'Aiming to get back to meeting the NHS 18 week target for hospital waiting times within this parliament is enormously ambitious – an NHS funding settlement below the long-run average might not measure up.' The plans also revealed the front-loaded nature of many of the settlements, with NHS capital spending set to remain flat in real terms for the rest of the decade after this year. The Office for Budget Responsibility, the Government's tax and spending watchdog, believes pressures from an older and sicker population will increase demand for NHS services by 1.1pc per year alone. 'The pressure to spend more on the NHS will still be great even after today's announcement,' says Jordan-Doak. Economists also questioned whether the health department's pledge to find £9bn in efficiency savings by the end of the decade was credible. Labour will unveil a refreshed NHS 10-year plan in the coming months, which is expected to demand more spending on staff and equipment to deal with Britain's demographic challenge. Another winner from Wednesday's spending review was defence, with spending in this area on track to rise to 2.6pc of GDP by 2027. But there was no mention of a 3pc target which Sir Keir Starmer has committed to, let alone the 3.5pc goal Nato is piling pressure on countries to reach. Increasing defence spending from 2.5pc of GDP to 3pc represents an increase of £17bn by the end of the decade. That's the equivalent of an extra 2p on income tax. Johnson says: 'On defence, it's entirely possible that an increase in the Nato spending target will mean that maintaining defence spending at 2.6pc of GDP no longer cuts the mustard.' There are also doubts about whether Reeves will be able to force through the cuts envisioned for the departments that lost out in Wednesday's announcement – including the Home Office, transport, Foreign Office and environment departments, which will suffer cuts in real terms. Even schools will get a real-terms freeze if you strip out the cost of expanding free school meals. In fact, departmental spending to 2028 will on average grow more slowly than under plans Rishi Sunak set out in the Conservatives' last spending review in 2021. 'We think that these real-terms spending cuts will be impossible to deliver given the pressure on public services and voters' demands for increased spending,' says Jordan-Doak. Then there are the Chancellor's investment plans. Capital spending is set to rise by £113bn over this parliament, with money going on everything from transport to green energy, new prisons and housing. Reeves is gambling that this investment blitz can kick-start growth. But as with any gamble, there is a risk it could go wrong. 'If the Government insists on accumulating the extra spending it's planning over the full parliament, it seems only fair to also draw attention to the £140bn of extra borrowing we're forecast to do over the same period,' says Johnson, at the IFS. Extra borrowing will keep Britain's debt pile rising every year until the end of the decade. 'That borrowing incurs a cost in the form of additional debt interest – and one that's bigger than it was a year ago,' says Johnson. The question was always whether the extra investment would bring sufficient benefits to make that worthwhile.' Government borrowing costs rose in the immediate aftermath of Reeves's announcement. Andrew Goodwin, at Oxford Economics, calculates that the Chancellor's already wafer-thin £9.9bn headroom to meet her borrowing rules has already been eroded by £2.5bn as a result of higher gilt yields. And while Reeves boasts about all the extra investment being pumped into the economy, another key question is: will she be able to get all of that money out the door? Previous analysis by the Resolution Foundation shows that successive governments of all stripes have struggled to spend all the money they wanted. Just £1 in every £6 in planned investment spending over the past seven spending reviews since 1998 actually went out the door. Why? Governments are often too optimistic about when projects become shovel-ready. There may be planning hold-ups, and the construction sector may not be able to cope with all that extra demand for engineers, project managers and construction workers to deliver these projects. 'We now know more about what sorts of projects the Government plans to invest in,' Johnson says. 'The focus must now shift to delivery and avoiding the all-too-common project over-runs.' Governments have in the past raided capital budgets in order to make their day-to-day spending budgets add up. New safeguards have been introduced to in theory prevent this from happening again. But this may simply make it harder for Labour to meet spending demands if plans go awry without putting up tax. Ben Ramanauskas, at Policy Exchange, casts doubt on Labour's ability to live within its means. He says: 'While the uplift to the defence and criminal justice budgets are welcome, this is unlikely to go far enough. Instead the Chancellor has chosen to prioritise the NHS by giving it even more money, without insisting on productivity improvements.' All this is expected to keep the size of the state permanently bigger than its pre-lockdown size. Ramanauskas says: 'The Government is yet to set out how it will fund its largesse to the public sector. However, it will almost certainly have to place even greater strain on the public finances by increasing borrowing or adding extra burdens to households and businesses by raising taxes.' Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more. Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Fact check: 2025 spending review claims
On Wednesday Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves delivered the Labour Government's first spending review, outlining its spending plans for the next few years. We've taken a look at some of the key claims. How much is spending increasing by? At the start of her speech Ms Reeves announced that 'total departmental budgets will grow by 2.3% a year in real terms'. That headline figure doesn't tell the full story, however. Firstly, 2.3% is the average annual real-terms growth in total departmental budgets between 2023/24 and 2028/29. That means it includes spending changes that have already been implemented, for both the current (2025/26) and previous (2024/25) financial years. The average annual increase between this year and 2028/29 is 1.5%. Therefore, as the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has said, 'most departments will have larger real-terms budgets at the end of the Parliament than the beginning, but in many cases much of that extra cash will have arrived by April'. Secondly, it's worth noting that the 2.3% figure includes both day-to-day (Resource DEL) and investment (Capital DEL) spending. Capital spending (which funds things like infrastructure projects) is increasing by 3.6% a year on average in real terms between 2023/24 and 2029/30, and by 1.8% between 2025/26 and 2029/30. Day-to-day departmental budgets meanwhile are seeing a smaller average annual real-terms increase – of 1.7% between 2023/24 and 2028/29 and 1.2% between 2025/26 and 2028/29. Which departments are the winners and losers? Ms Reeves touted substantial spending increases in some areas (for example, the 3% rise in day-to-day NHS spending in England), but unsurprisingly her statement did not focus on areas where spending will decrease. Changes to Government spending are not uniform across all departments, and alongside increases in spending on things like the NHS, defence and the justice system, a number of Government departments will see their budgets decrease in real terms. Departments facing real-terms reductions in overall and day-to-day spending include the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (this factors in reductions in aid spending announced earlier this year to offset increased defence spending), the Home Office (although the Government says the Home Office's budget grows in real terms if a planned reduction in asylum spending is excluded) and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Did the Conservatives leave a '£22 billion black hole'? Ms Reeves made a claim we've heard a number of times since it first surfaced in July 2024 – that the previous Conservative government left a '£22 billion black hole in the public finances'. That figure comes from a Treasury audit that forecast a £22 billion overspend in departmental day-to-day spending in 2024/25, but the extent to which it was unexpected or inherited is disputed. The IFS said last year that some of the pressures the Government claimed contributed to this so-called 'black hole' could have been anticipated, but others did 'indeed seem to be greater than could be discerned from the outside'. An Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) review of its March 2024 forecast found an estimated £9.5 billion of additional spending pressures were known to the Treasury at that point in time, but were not known to the OBR as it prepared its forecast. It's true that this review didn't confirm the £22 billion figure, but it also did not necessarily prove that it was incorrect, because Labour's figure included pressures which were identified after the OBR prepared its forecast and so were beyond the scope of the OBR's review. We've written more about how the Government reached the figure of £22 billion in our explainer on this topic. How big is the increase in NHS appointments? Ms Reeves took the opportunity to congratulate Health Secretary Wes Streeting for delivering 'three-and-a-half million extra' hospital appointments in England. The Government has previously celebrated this as a 'massive increase', particularly in light of its manifesto pledge to deliver an extra two million appointments a year. Ms Reeves' claim was broadly accurate – data published last month shows there were 3.6 million additional appointments between July 2024 and February 2025 compared to the previous year. But importantly that increase is actually smaller than the 4.2 million rise that happened in the equivalent period the year before, under the Conservative government – as data obtained by Full Fact under the Freedom of Information Act and published last month revealed. What do announcements on asylum hotels, policing, nurseries and more mean for the Government's pledges? Ms Reeves made a number of announcements that appear to directly impact the delivery of several pre-existing Labour pledges, many of which we're already monitoring in our Government Tracker. (We'll be updating the tracker to reflect these announcements in due course, and reviewing how we rate progress on pledges as necessary). The Chancellor announced an average increase in 'police spending power' of 2.3% a year in real terms over the course of the review period, which she said was the equivalent of an additional £2 billion. However, as police budgets comprise a mix of central Government funding and local council tax receipts, some of this extra spending is expected to be funded by increases in council tax precepts. Ms Reeves said this funding would help the Government achieve its commitment of 'putting 13,000 additional police officers, PCSOs and special constables into neighbourhood policing roles in England and Wales', a pledge we're monitoring here. The spending review also includes funding of 'almost £370 million across the next four years to support the Government's commitment to deliver school-based nurseries across England', which Ms Reeves said would help the Government deliver its pledge to have 'a record number of children being school-ready'. The Chancellor also committed to ending the use of hotels to house asylum seekers by the end of this Parliament, with an additional £200 million announced to 'accelerate the transformation of the asylum system'. When we looked last month at progress on the Government's pledge to 'end asylum hotels' we said it appeared off track, as figures showed the number of asylum seekers housed in hotels was higher at the end of March 2025 than it was when Labour came into Government.
The Verge
an hour ago
- The Verge
FCC's last Democratic commissioner doesn't know why Trump hasn't fired her yet
Every morning, Federal Communications Commissioner Anna Gomez says she checks her email 'to see if I'm going into work.' At a time when the federal workforce has been slashed by Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), Gomez's job appears to be one of the most precarious in the US government. She's the last remaining Democrat at the now two-person FCC and has been touring the country to speak out about actions by President Donald Trump and FCC Chair Brendan Carr, who she says seek to censor and control Americans' speech. Gomez has accused her own agency under Carr's leadership of 'weaponizing' its authority 'to silence critics,' and opening 'sham investigations' into news outlets like NPR, PBS, ABC, CBS, and NBC. The idea that Gomez could wake up one day to an email dismissing her is not unfounded. That's essentially how the two Democratic commissioners at the Federal Trade Commission, another agency of the federal government that was created to be independent, found out that Trump was firing them — even though doing so without cause breached decades-old Supreme Court precedent. Now that it's only Gomez and Carr left at the commission, since Democrat Geoffrey Starks and Republican Nathan Simington both stepped down last week, the agency no longer has a quorum to vote on significant actions. Only three members of the five-person committee can be from the same party, and while Trump has one Republican nominee awaiting confirmation and a second rumored, Gomez isn't confident that Trump will eventually move to nominate another Democrat. 'I have not seen him nominate a single Democrat to the entire administration,' she tells The Verge in a brief interview after an event with the Consumer Technology Association (CTA) in Washington, DC. 'I have only seen him fire them.' One might assume that Gomez's nationwide tour critiquing the agency chair's actions would make for a tense office environment back at the FCC. But, she says, she actually has a 'good working relationship' with Carr. 'It just is what it is,' she says. 'He knows that I need to speak out, and we have a relationship where I can tell him my concerns also.' Does she have any sense of why Trump hasn't attempted to fire her? 'No,' Gomez says. 'I have not seen him nominate a single Democrat to the entire administration. I have only seen him fire them' But the loss of a quorum at the FCC could set up more points of opposition until a third commissioner is confirmed by the Senate. FCC bureaus are allowed to carry out some work themselves on what's called delegated authority, but are not supposed to deal with novel issues meant to be handled at the commission level. Those are the kinds of things Gomez thinks should wait for a quorum so the FCC can vote on them, leading to a final decision that — unlike bureau-level actions — is reviewable in court. Gomez has already critiqued the bureau-level approval of Verizon's $20 billion Frontier acquisition as a 'backroom' deal, and warns that the review of Paramount's proposed Skydance deal should not be handled in the same way. During the CTA event, Gomez gave a tentative response to whether the FCC had adequate guardrails to fend off conflicts of interest with Musk's companies, like SpaceX, which operates the Starlink satellite internet network, that can benefit from certain agency policy. Until recently, Musk had a cozy relationship with Trump, and his involvement with DOGE raised questions about the kinds of information he could access that related to his financial interests (the White House insisted Musk would step back from any potential conflicts). 'I can only imagine our general counsel would be very involved in making those decisions,' Gomez says. 'As a commissioner, I don't have perfect insight into those types of activities, but our chairman is the former general counsel of the agency and is fully aware of those obligations.' Despite the tenuous position she's in, Gomez says she's been encouraged during her First Amendment tour to see support from people of different ideological backgrounds. 'This is not a red or a blue issue. This is an issue of right or wrong. This is an issue of protecting our democracy and the First Amendment,' she says. 'I think it's important that we speak up and push back, because we can't let this become the status quo.'
