UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: European Union

  • Dehenna Davison – 2023 Speech on Replacement of Funding from EU programmes in Northern Ireland

    Dehenna Davison – 2023 Speech on Replacement of Funding from EU programmes in Northern Ireland

    The speech made by Dehenna Davison, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons on 1 February 2023.

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Robertson. I sincerely thank the hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) for securing this important debate, and for the constructive way in which she has engaged with the Department and I on the UK shared prosperity fund. I know that she is and has long been a committed champion for the many voluntary groups, businesses and communities in her constituency that have previously benefited from, if not relied heavily on, EU funding. She has been a keen advocate to ensure that that support continues under the UK shared prosperity fund.

    The hon. Member mentioned the NOW Group, and I am pleased that she did. As she knows, the NOW Group has been in receipt of ESF funding, and has also recently accessed the community renewal fund as well. We have worked with Maeve Monaghan, the CEO of the NOW Group, to help to design the UK shared prosperity fund planning as part of that partnership group. Hopefully her feedback there has definitely been helpful, and she feels that it has been taken on board as we have designed the programme.

    In my response, I hope I will be able to provide some clarity on the next steps regarding the roll-out of the UKSPF in Northern Ireland; the steps we have taken so far to engage charities and community groups currently in receipt of Government support; and the progress we are making in our ambition to level up communities in Northern Ireland and, indeed, across the whole of the United Kingdom. I will make reference to the levelling-up fund and address as many of the questions she raised as I can. I am not sure my hand was working fast enough to write them all down, but if I have missed any I will follow up in writing following the debate.

    As hon. Members will know, we published the prospectus for the UK shared prosperity fund back in April last year. It sets out how the fund and its £2.6 billion of funding will work on the ground. Effectively, it will replace the European regional development fund and the European social fund with a simpler, smoother and less bureaucratic approach to supporting communities right across the UK. We all know that bureaucracy is something that community groups have raised with us, so as a Government we have very much taken that on board.

    In that sense, it is fair to say that the UKSPF is a central pillar of the Government’s levelling-up agenda and our ambition to bring transformative investment to places that have gone overlooked by successive Administrations for too long. We want to use the funding to support people in skills, helping the unemployed move into high-skilled, high-wage jobs—I know that is something specifically mentioned by the hon. Member for Belfast South in her speech. We also want to use the funding to help the growth of local business and invest in communities and places to help to build pride in place. We know that having pride in the place that someone lives and has grown up in is a crucial part of the wider levelling-up agenda.

    For Northern Ireland, that means £126.8 million of new funding for local investment and local priorities up to March 2025. Crucially, that fulfils the promise we made that the UKSPF would match the funding allocated to Northern Ireland through EU structural funds.

    I know we have set out how the approach will work in some detail already, both in the prospectus and previous spending rounds, but I will quickly recap it for everyone here. The UK shared prosperity fund is set to ramp up over the coming years, so that total domestic UK-wide funding of the ERDF, ESF and UKSPF will at least match receipts from EU structural funds. It will reach £1.5 billion per year across the UK in 2024-25, when Northern Ireland will receive £74 million. It is important to note that before that date, when ERDF and ESF funding is still being delivered—albeit in smaller amounts—the UK shared prosperity fund tapers in for Northern Ireland and in England, Scotland and Wales too.

    I need to put on the record that the Government fully recognise the need for the funding to be properly tailored to the projects and organisations that add real economic and social value in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Belfast South mentioned some of the projects in her own constituency, and I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for talking about how one of those organisations, the NOW Group, has helped his own constituents. We all know that a good, local charitable organisation can do wonders for our communities, and that is specifically why we are so keen to support them through this funding.

    To ensure that we tailored the funding appropriately, we ran a comprehensive programme of workshops and engagement with Northern Ireland partners last year. That included businesses, voluntary and community groups and councils, so that we could collect the widest possible views on the priorities for the fund and how it could best work in concert with other opportunities in Northern Ireland. We also established a partnership group comprised of all the organisations I just mentioned, along with the higher education sector and the Northern Ireland Office, to advise us on how the fund could be best utilised. We have built further on that engagement since then.

    Throughout the process, we have offered the Northern Ireland Departments the opportunity to formally participate in shaping the fund, but, sadly, that has not proven possible.

    Claire Hanna

    Does the Minister know why that has not proven possible? It is because under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which is essentially the constitution of Northern Ireland, the Department is not equality-screened—unlike the Northern Ireland Office and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. It is not able to legally operate and to run equality impact assessments, which are the law in Northern Ireland. That problem was telegraphed, but the Department has not taken adequate steps to address it. That is why those Departments have not been able to be involved.

    Dehenna Davison

    I will follow up in writing on that point. Having spoken to Sue Gray, one of our super officials, who has been outstanding in her engagement, I know how closely officials have been working with the Northern Ireland Finance, Economy and Communities Departments, maintaining regular contact as our plan has developed. That engagement continues.

    Where have we got to? Drawing on insights from the partnership group, and from wider engagement, we published an investment plan just before Christmas last year. That sets out how Northern Ireland’s allocation will be spent and the impact we expect it to have. It supports the leading needs and opportunities in Northern Ireland, addressing high levels of economic inactivity, promoting entrepreneurship and innovation and strengthening pride in place. I am pleased to say that the plan has been given the seal of approval by our partners on the ground and is now being implemented.

    Our first competition, for £42 million, which is roughly a third of the total UK SPF allocation, is focused on helping more economically inactive people into work. Many MPs, Assembly Members and other stakeholders have rightly made the case for prioritising this funding and the voluntary and community organisations that deliver it. I am sure the hon. Member for Belfast South welcomes this provision and the benefits it will bring not just to the organisations that receive it and the individuals they will help, but to Northern Ireland’s wider economy.

    We are also working with councils in Northern Ireland to bring forward early communities and place projects, as well as a joined-up service for entrepreneurs seeking to start a business and create jobs. Pending further discussion with the Northern Ireland civil service, we may also commission Northern Ireland Executive Departments, or their arm’s length bodies, in the design and delivery of the fund. I am sure hon. Members will join me in encouraging their fullest involvement.

    Part of this work is about ensuring that we mitigate issues for organisations as the European programmes we have discussed draw to a close. That issue has been raised with me by organisations not just in Northern Ireland but all around the UK; it is something that our Department and Ministers in other Departments have been incredibly focused on. With that in mind, we have been able to reprofile the SPF by moving funding from 2022-23 to 2023-24, so that it betters reflects funding needs. I know that this is an issue that my predecessors were asked to consider by many partners in Northern Ireland, and I am pleased we have been able make real progress in this area. It demonstrates something crucial, which is that SPF is not a fixed fund; it can and should flex to meet the evolving needs of the people of Northern Ireland—and it has been designed to do so.

    It goes without saying that we will continue to engage with partners, including the Northern Ireland Departments and hon. Members on both sides of this House, on the design and operation of the fund, so that it delivers for businesses and communities in Northern Ireland and throughout the Union.

    If we take a step back from the UK SPF to talk about other funding, which the hon. Member for Belfast South did with regards to the levelling-up fund, Members will know that Northern Ireland Departments have always provided funding alongside the European regional development fund and the European social fund. While we recognise the challenging budget circumstances Northern Ireland faces, the funding provided by UK SPF is only ever part of the answer. It is right that the Northern Ireland Departments continue to invest in provision that they have previously supported; that is something I think all of us would encourage.

    The Government also want to play their part, making sure we are contributing towards building a brighter Northern Ireland. That is why, alongside the UK shared prosperity fund, we have used a wide range of other funds to spur growth, regeneration and investment. Those include: the community renewal fund, which backs 30 locally led, innovative projects to the value of £12 million, and the community ownership fund, which has so far supported six local communities in Northern Ireland to take ownership of assets at risk of loss, with a spend of £1.3 million. There are other important schemes and investments, such as £617 million for city and growth deals covering every part of Northern Ireland, and our new deal for Northern Ireland providing £400 million to help boost economic growth, invest in infrastructure and increase competitiveness. We are also investing £730 million into the Peace Plus programme, ensuring a total budget of almost £1 billion—the biggest peace programme to date. Through that package of investment, we will achieve significant, visible and tangible improvements to the places where people work and live.

    Jim Shannon

    The Minister mentioned £400 million. I do not expect an answer today—it might not be possible—but how much of the new deal money has been used or set aside?

    Dehenna Davison

    I do not have an answer to hand, but I will commit to follow that up and provide that information.

    I will touch on the levelling-up fund, because we do not have much time left. Questions were raised about the shortlist, rankings and considerations. Much of the information around the considerations has been set out in the technical note that has been published. That will provide some information, and I am happy to provide a link.

    The hon. Member for Belfast South asked about consistent application. Ministers were keen to ensure there was consistent application of the decision-making framework to ensure that they were not cherry-picking the winners. It was designed to reflect the scores and value of the projects that were selected. She also asked whether the decision was made by me alone, as a Minister. She knows that the fund is a joint fund across multiple Departments, ergo that was not the case. Various Departments are involved in the decision-making process.

    The hon. Lady asked about round 3 of the levelling-up fund. We have indeed committed to a round 3, but I am not yet able to provide more details about that fund, because the conversations are ongoing and decisions are yet to be made. However, as soon as we have made the decisions and announced how round 3 will work, I will share that information with her.

    I want to conclude by saying a huge thank you to the hon. Lady for securing this important debate. I hope this is the start of more constructive engagement between us as we both fight for what is best for the people of Northern Ireland.

    Claire Hanna

    I have been kept right on the Standing Orders, but I thought I would get back in. I appreciate the Minister’s approach and her enthusiasm. As I said, I do not doubt that the projects and other things that are being funded are laudable, but they are not additional to what we had. They are less than what we had, which was less again than what we needed. They are not equality-screened in Northern Ireland’s traditional way, so people do not have confidence in that regard. Ultimately, the fundamental question is: who decides, and on what basis? Frankly, I am none the wiser after this discussion, and that is what is concerning people.

    Even if the shortlisting is not published, we all know the 10 projects that got the results. However, there are concerns that the published criteria were not applied in a very direct way overall, as the Minister will be aware. I know these things are not always straightforward, but the metrics are clear—they are in the public domain. I am sure most Members have poked around in the Bloomberg data about different constituencies and how they are performing relative to 2019 and relative to one another, and that will show that, in most cases, Northern Ireland constituencies continue to fall behind, including those that did not receive any levelling-up funding, while constituencies that were ahead are staying ahead. I am none the wiser, and I hope we can have a follow-up meeting, but it is not just a case of me being satisfied about transparency; it is also about those who have applied and invested hours and thousands of pounds in producing good applications. We are no more confident that detached Ministers’ have not decided.

    Dehenna Davison

    I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. I should have said that, as part of my package on the levelling-up fund, full written feedback will be provided to all applicants, which I hope will provide some guidance on where bids perhaps fell short. There is also the option of follow-up meetings with officials from my Department to go through that in more detail, which I hope will satisfy some of the concerns around the scoring.

    I will quickly wrap up now. Again, I thank the hon. Lady for her commitment to helping to improve the prosperity of not only her constituents but the whole of Northern Ireland. As the Minister for Levelling Up, I am committed to that. If all parts of the UK are not firing on all cylinders, the UK as a whole is suffering. Ultimately, we need to make sure that every region and every community is levelled up and can benefit from the maximum opportunities and value of that community for the sake of our entire nation.

  • Claire Hanna – 2023 Speech on Replacement of Funding from EU programmes in Northern Ireland

    Claire Hanna – 2023 Speech on Replacement of Funding from EU programmes in Northern Ireland

    The speech made by Claire Hanna, the SDLP MP for Belfast South, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons on 1 February 2023.

    I beg to move,

    That this House has considered replacement of funding from EU programmes in Northern Ireland.

    I am grateful to have the opportunity to discuss this issue and, I hope, get clarity for a number of third sector partners and other groups in Northern Ireland and, potentially, areas of opportunity for them. It feels like a very long time ago, but during the EU referendum campaign there were assurances that Northern Ireland would not lose out, doing well, as we did, out of the EU funds, which were based on need. We know that the phrase “take back control” resonated with many people, but it appears to mean taking back control from some of the funds that have traditionally underpinned progress in Northern Ireland and from local decision makers, and handing it directly to London, without any sense of a strategy that local groups can try to support.

    In March last year, in the early stages of the community renewal fund, I had a Westminster Hall debate, in which various eyebrow-raising allocations from that scheme were addressed. I am afraid that several of the reservations that people had about process, strategy, co-ordination and transparency have been borne out. It is worth saying that these concerns are not held just by groups that are applying for funding or by my party. The Northern Ireland Executive, as was, adopted the position that the best delivery mechanism for the shared prosperity fund would be via existing structures. Invest Northern Ireland, our economy arm, was very clear that it believed that the funding would be best delivered in conjunction with the programme for government. And the think-tank Pivotal and other respected commentators and business voices made the same point. People are up for change. They understand that it is a reality, and they roll with the punches. But it has to feel transparent, and there has to be a sense of fairness and coherence and that there is more to these allocations than just the whim of Ministers in London.

    As I said, Northern Ireland was a net beneficiary in the EU. That is not a secret and is not anything to be ashamed of. Those allocations were made on the basis of need and, in many cases, were a counterweight to the obvious challenges that Northern Ireland faced and to decades of capital underinvestment. That is not just a historical issue: in 2021, the average capital spend per head in Northern Ireland was £1,325, compared with a UK average of £1,407. Of course, all that has contributed to a failure to attract quality investment and foreign direct investment, and decent jobs. That is reflected in our rates of economically inactive people, which are substantially higher than those in other regions.

    The founder of our party, John Hume, said many times that the best peace process is a job: the best way to enable people to have hope in their futures and see beyond the things that have divided us in our region is to have meaningful employment—a reason to stay, to get up in the morning and to work together. Those were the opportunities that we saw in European participation, and that is why we continue to work so hard to protect our access to political and economic structures. Funds beyond the block grant, the EU funding as was and the promised successor funds, have been billed and are needed as additional, and they should be an opportunity to realise some of those ambitions, to remove barriers to employment and, in particular at the moment, to allow people to take advantage of the opportunities that the current very tight labour market offers. Unfortunately, that is not what we are getting.

    Time is obviously short, so I want to focus on the loss of the European social fund and the European regional development fund and on the replacement, the SPF, and to touch on the levelling-up fund. It is worth clarifying that, as well as those assurances back in 2016, during the referendum campaign, the Conservative party manifesto in 2019 committed to replacing the ESF in its entirety. Northern Ireland got an average of £65 million a year from the ESF and ERDF in the period from 2014 to 2020, with Northern Ireland Departments having the power to manage that in line with UK strategy. That allowed them to align projects that they funded with regional and local strategies, ensuring complementarity and targeted outcomes.

    The scenario now is that the UK Government and Northern Ireland Departments are essentially two players on the same pitch, in the same space, delivering the same sorts of projects. That has a built-in inefficiency and means that the results are less than the sum of the parts. That overlapping inevitably applies to monitoring, too. How are we supposed to measure the impact of different interventions in areas like skills if the scheme is only one part of an equation in which all the other Departments are trying to do similar things? It seems that it will be impossible to disaggregate that. The governance is sub-par and the quantum is less, too.

    By comparison with the ESF and the ERDF averages, the allocation for the shared prosperity fund in Northern Ireland is £127 million over three years, so we are losing on average £23 million per year from that scheme. That has created this massive gap for funded groups, many of whom just cannot hold on. It is not like in the civil service; people have to be put on protected notice or face closure. Again, there is nothing co-ordinated about any of this. It is not even the survival of the fittest—that the strongest and best organisations will continue—because it is largely the luck of the draw on where organisations are in their funding cycle. Again, this is one more downside of the abandonment of devolution. Engaged and responsive local Ministers could monitor the situation and be flexible and creative with in-year allocation, match funding and bridge funding. They could, in short, protect us from the deficit created by Brexit and this devolution override.

    I want to touch on how all this affects specific groups. The NOW Group is a highly regarded project that works across Belfast and further afield, supporting people who are economically inactive because of a disability get into employment. It has 17 years of ESF funding and runs high-profile facilities. If anyone has been in the café in Belfast City Hall, they will have seen NOW Group workers. They help hundreds of people with disabilities into all sorts of sectors, including leading corporates and the knowledge sector. It is a safe bet that any credible funder will keep backing a project like this, but the assurances are just not there. Reserves cannot last forever and, of course, smaller organisations will not have such reserves. In that project, 52 people are at risk of being put on notice and another 800 people with disabilities will be left with no service.

    Mencap in south Belfast and far beyond has run ESF projects on social inclusion for decades and was well on track to exceed the target set by ESF of supporting 13,000 people by 2023. It is concerned by how limited the scope of SPF is compared to what they were able to do under ESF. The East Belfast Mission described well what is at stake:

    “Our programmes have a long track record of being more successful than government initiatives”.

    Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

    I thank the hon. Lady for bringing the debate forward. I work with the East Belfast Mission regularly in my office, so I understand its work and its success rate from the people it helps in my constituency. The mission tells me, as I told the hon. Lady, that without this funding stream it will not be able to continue to have the success stories it has and that that will hurt individuals and families. Like the hon. Lady, I look to the Minister for some assurance that the funding it has received over the past few years can be continued. With that, we can help more of our people over the long term.

    Claire Hanna

    The mission itself captured that. It talks about its staff being based in local communities with lived experience that helps them understand the specific difficulties people face. It says:

    “Many of the people we work with have faced societal and generational barriers to employment, through illness, trauma or other issues. Our projects help break the cycle and raise up our host communities.”

    It says that if it loses the fund, it will not be able to provide certainty and will

    “lose irreplaceable experience which has been built up over decades.”

    This is not just a Belfast issue by any stretch of the imagination. Dozens of projects across Northern Ireland, particularly those supporting younger people, women and minorities, are at risk. First Steps Women’s Centre is a vital part of the community sector in Mid Ulster, working to integrate new and minority ethnic communities, providing crèche facilities to support women back into work and signposting people to other partners who can help them with the multitude of issues they may face.

    I want to specifically ask the Minister how the Department ensures that the projects it is funding are aligned with Northern Ireland’s democratically agreed priorities—agreed by the Executive with all five parties—absent a formal role for those Departments. How do the Government propose that groups, such as those I have described, that are facing this essentially bureaucratic gap are supposed to address it? If the gap is not going to be addressed, what are the people who use those services supposed to do instead?

    I want to address the widespread concerns about the levelling-up fund. It is a mighty slogan—who does not want to see things levelled up?—but unfortunately, like a lot of slogans of the last few years, it struggles a bit when it comes into contact with implementation. People perceive it as pitting communities against one another, with distant Ministers picking winners seemingly at random. Again, the initiative started badly for us. The initial allocations fell short of the promised 3% of the UK pot. That target was laid out in the strategy document, which seemed to acknowledge the traditional capital shortfall in Northern Ireland but has failed to address it. The fund was initially conceived as a scheme for England with a Barnett consequential, but it has evolved to be more centralised than was promised.

    The same paper highlighted the issues that there would be given the fact that local governance structures in Northern Ireland are different from those in Britain, but it has failed to develop a more collaborative approach to mitigate those issues. The same overlap and duplication issues with the SPF pertain here, despite requests from me and others to consider the north-south dimension and co-ordination on this issue. That misses real opportunity to maximise value by co-ordinating with the Irish Government, who have, for example, a £400 million capital fund in the Shared Island unit.

    Lessons from the first round of levelling up, which were very well telegraphed, do not appear to have been taken on board for round two. Although the projects that got the nod last week are no doubt good news for the relevant communities, nobody has any clue about what the winning ingredients in those bids were, or how others might have similar success in future applications. We are advised that the Northern Ireland bids were assessed against three of the four criteria set out in the prospectus, namely strategic fit to the economic case and deliverability.

    The winning bids are in the public domain, but the other applicants are not. In the interests of transparency, reassurance and learning for future schemes, will the Minister therefore share details of the original Northern Ireland shortlist of projects and their ranking, as presented after the assessors’ moderation meeting? Will she also advise what, if any, additional considerations informed the Minister’s decision? Can she clarify whether the funding decisions were taken by the Minister alone? It has been suggested by some applicants—I have struggled to confirm this—that the gateway pass mark that was used in England, Scotland and Wales was 75%, and that that was dropped, after applications were submitted, to 57%. I hope that the Minister can confirm whether that is the case.

    Jim Shannon

    The hon. Lady is absolutely right. In my constituency of Strangford, an application was put in for the Whitespots park, an environmental scheme at Conlig. It is shovel ready—the boys could start it tomorrow —but we have missed out on two occasions. She is expressing her concerns over what is happening in her constituency; I echo those and support her in what she says.

    Claire Hanna

    That again illustrates the confusion that people have about what was selected. Will the Minister confirm whether any criteria additional to those specified were applied? Were they applied consistently to all projects? Will the transparent list that she will publish include any changes in ranking that occurred as a result of new criteria?

    Again—for future learning—it was announced that there will be a round three of levelling-up funding. An enormous amount of work goes into the applications, including, as people will know, many thousands of pounds on proposals and engaging the strategy board. Will the Department therefore develop a reserve list from round two applications? That could prevent some groups from having to run up the same professional fees and pouring in the same time, particularly when they are being left in the dark about the criteria. Further, can the Minister clarify what consultation was held with the Northern Ireland Departments and other funding bodies to address the overlap in applications under levelling up and other schemes? Finally, does the Minister think that the spread of applications in Northern Ireland is appropriate?

    A lot of these issues are very technical, but they are vital to achieving the things that we all want to achieve for Northern Ireland and for progress. They are also vital to people having some faith in this progress—that they have not had their eye wiped, essentially, by funds being promised, removed and not adequately replaced. That is not the case at the moment. People see this as a net loss from what we enjoyed before Brexit, and that should concern the Department.

  • Sadiq Khan – 2023 Speech on Brexit at the Mansion House

    Sadiq Khan – 2023 Speech on Brexit at the Mansion House

    The speech made by Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, at the Mansion House in London on 12 January 2023.

    I’d like to align myself with the Lord Mayor’s words on levelling-up… he is of course entirely correct – London both requires levelling-up and is required for levelling-up to be successful across the country.

    The Lord Mayor is already proving a tireless champion for the City of London – both here at home and across the world – and I’m looking forward to working more closely with him in future. As the Lord Mayor said, London’s diversity of thought, cultures and backgrounds has long given our city a competitive edge, as I can see looking around Mansion House this evening. As Mayor, I’m committed to harnessing the thinking and talent to deliver a better London, a city that is fairer, and more prosperous for everyone. Now we know, that neurodivergent Londoners have so much to offer our city, from innovative thinking to creative approaches. City Hall is proud to already be working closely with Neurodiversity in Business and tonight, I’m committed to making London the neurodiverse capital of the world.

    I’d also like to pay tribute to everyone from local government here with us.

    As someone who began my time in public life as a councillor, I can’t imagine a more difficult period to serve in local government.

    Terrible pressure on budgets.

    Covid.

    And now the worst cost-of-living crisis for a generation.

    You play a critical role supporting the welfare and wellbeing of our communities.

    And you don’t get anywhere near the recognition you deserve.

    So, I want to express my sincere gratitude to all the council leaders, councillors and officers here tonight from across the political spectrum – not only for continuing to deliver vital public services, but for standing up for Londoners in the most challenging of circumstances.

    My Lord Mayor, Ladies and Gentlemen, I want to use this opportunity to speak mostly about a phenomenon that occupied our TV screens, newspapers and Twitter feeds for many years.

    But which seemingly has now vanished without trace from our national political discourse.

    No, not Boris Johnson…

    But Brexit.

    Given a sizeable number of politicians seem to have taken a vow of silence on its damaging impact, I’m conscious that breaking the Brexit omerta makes me somewhat of an outlier.

    I understand the genuine apprehension many share about this issue.

    No one wants to see a return to the division and deadlock that dominated our body politic for 5 long years.

    I certainly don’t want to re-open old wounds.

    However, the inescapable truth is that this unnecessarily extreme, hard-line version of Brexit is having a detrimental effect on our capital and country – at a time when we can least afford it.

    We can’t – in all good conscience – pretend that it isn’t hurting our people and harming our businesses.

    As Mayor of this great city, choosing not to say anything would be a dereliction of duty.

    We’re gathered in one of the great financial districts in the world – supporting millions of jobs and generating billions in tax revenue – but the reality is that the City of London is being hit by a loss of trade and talent… because of Brexit.

    So, my message is this:

    Trying to will Brexit into a success, or simply ignoring its impact, is not a strategy that will deliver prosperity for London or a brighter future for Britain.

    If we’re not honest about this problem we cannot ever hope to fix it.

    Raising Brexit this evening is not about trying to make a partisan point.

    Or just a chance to moan about the past.

    What I’m interested in is the future – doing what we all know is right for London – and looking at how we can sensibly and maturely mitigate the damage that’s being inflicted.

    Let me share three short examples: First, our national economy.

    We’re facing an economic downturn.

    Yes, we’re not alone – the economies of the US, EU and China are all forecast to contract – but the UK is predicted to face the worst recession and weakest recovery in the G7.

    In fact, UK GDP is set to shrink by 1 per cent this year, compared to 0.1 per cent for the eurozone.

    What makes us exceptional?

    Well, Brexit has already reduced our GDP by 5.5 per cent…

    It’s reduced investment by 11 per cent…

    And reduced goods and services trade by 7 per cent.

    The hard mainstream? Brexit we have is a drag on growth, investment and trade.

    Fixing it would mean the recession would be less painful and less prolonged.

    This is what businesses are telling me across our city – and I have a responsibility as Mayor to speak up on their behalf.

    Second, the cost-of-living emergency…

    The London School of Economics found that Britons are paying an extra 6 billion pounds to eat because of Brexit.

    That’s 210 pounds added to the average household’s supermarket bill over a two-year period.

    Food inflation is now running at more than 13 per cent and its poorer families – who spend a higher proportion of their income on groceries – who are being hit the hardest.

    A Brexit tax on life’s essentials is the last thing they need right now.

    So, putting right the wrongs of Brexit would mean we can ease the pain on those less able to shoulder the burden.

    Third, our public services…

    Many are now in a desperate state, most acutely our NHS and I want to pay tribute to all of those who work in our national health service.

    The estimated cost to the Treasury in lost tax revenues due to Brexit is 40 billion pounds.

    With more than one million Londoners currently waiting for treatment…

    With nurses on strike for the first time in history… and doctors, paramedics, 999 call handlers, physiotherapists soon to join them..

    With patients needlessly dying because of unprecedented delays…

    We simply cannot forgo 40 billion pounds of potential investment in our health service.

    So, repairing our relationship with Europe would mean we can better support our NHS.

    After two years of denial and avoidance, we must now confront the hard truth:

    Brexit isn’t working.

    It’s weakened our economy…

    Fractured our Union…

    And diminished our reputation…

    But crucially… not beyond repair.

    A New Year brings new opportunities.

    And political leaders must now seize the opportunity, and with renewed purpose set out the need to reform our relationship with Europe.

    Not with a return to the interminable Brexit wars of the past.

    But with a sincere, considered, civil debate about Britain’s future that has at its core a clear-eyed view of the national interest.

    Let me be clear:

    We need greater alignment with our European neighbours – a shift from this extreme, hard Brexit we have now to a workable, softer version that serves our economy and people.

    That includes having a pragmatic debate about the benefits of re-joining the Customs Union and the Single Market.

    If the government wants to get the ball rolling on fixing Brexit, the perfect place to start in London would be addressing our labour and skills shortage.

    The number of businesses in our city experiencing at least one skills shortage has now risen to almost 7 in 10.

    Meanwhile, the number of jobs in our city held by EU-born workers has fallen by over 80,000 – putting huge strain on crucial sectors such as hospitality and construction.

    Devolving powers to London and allowing us to create a regional shortage occupation list would be one way to give businesses the ability to attract and retain talent in the areas they need it most.

    But another option would be a fundamental rethink of the existing Brexit deal.

    Securing a better Brexit would mean more trade, higher investment and stronger growth.

    It would mean a boost to both exports and living standards.

    It’s key to unlocking London’s full potential and, in turn, helping us to power the national recovery.

    More broadly, the government needs to entrust communities with the power to control their destiny.

    Devolution improves our economy and politics.

    Even in the face of huge challenges, we’ve shown what can be achieved from City Hall…

    We’re building more council homes than at any time since the 1970s.

    We’re taking huge strides to clean up London’s toxic air.

    We’re offering free skills training to anyone who’s unemployed or in low-paid work.

    We’ve delivered the Elizabeth Line and much, much more.

    But fixing Brexit will mean we can accelerate our efforts to build a better London for everyone – moving faster to achieve a city that is safer, fairer, greener and more prosperous for all.

    Let me just end by saying this:

    While it’s true that the twin nightmares of the pandemic and Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine continue to cause great harm, we cannot continue to hide under the covers from the damage being done by Brexit.

    We are no longer in 2016 or 2019.

    The landscape has shifted.

    More and more Londoners are worried about the impact of Brexit on our city.

    Our business community is increasingly speaking out and in growing numbers.

    It’s time the government caught up.

    Ministers seem to have developed selective amnesia when it comes to one of the root causes of our problems.

    Brexit can’t be airbrushed out of history, or the consequences wished away.

    Europe was, is and will remain our most important relationship, but it’s in desperate and urgent need of repair.

    So, let 2023 be the year we summon up the political courage to rebuild those essential bridges and tear down those needless walls standing in the way of our businesses and our people.

    The future prosperity of our capital and country depends upon it.

    Thank you.

    Finally, can I ask everyone to join me in raising a glass… to the Lord Mayor and the Lady Mayoress.

  • Sadiq Khan – 2023 Statement after Three Years of UK Leaving the European Union

    Sadiq Khan – 2023 Statement after Three Years of UK Leaving the European Union

    The statement made by Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, on 31 January 2023.

    Three years on from leaving the European Union, we must all now face the inescapable truth: that this unnecessarily hard-line version of Brexit is having a detrimental effect on the London and UK economy – at a time when we can least afford it.

    While Whitehall has taken a vow of silence on the damage Brexit is causing, businesses across the country are drowning under the weight of increased bureaucracy, staffing shortages and supply chain challenges. London is being hit hard by the loss of trade and talent to our global competitors.

    It is time to abandon the hostile mentality of the referendum years and open a dialogue with our European neighbours about greater alignment.

  • Nusrat Ghani – 2023 Statement on EU Retained Law

    Nusrat Ghani – 2023 Statement on EU Retained Law

    The statement made by Nusrat Ghani, the Minister for Industry and Investment Security, in the House of Commons on 18 January 2023.

    It is a pleasure to be here, and I thank all Members who have tabled new amendments and new clauses and who will speak in the debate. I also thank the members of the Public Bill Committee for their work.

    I will address the Government new clauses and amendments first, but I will say more about them in my closing speech when other Members have had a chance to contribute. I will also address some of the concerns that have been raised, and some of the misinformation about the Bill.

    The Government new clauses and amendments are minor and technical. They cover four areas. The first is updating the definition of “assimilated law” and how it should be interpreted, and, in the case law provisions, ensuring that the High Court of Justiciary is covered in all instances. I thank the Scottish Government for their engagement: there has been engagement between our officials and those in the Scottish Government, and with the Advocate General. Our new clauses also clarify the fact that the use of extension power also applies to amendments to retained EU law made between the extension regulations and the sunset, and clarify the application of clause 14 to codification as well as restatement. These are technical drafting measures, and I ask the House to support them.

    Let me now explain why the Bill is crucial for the UK. My explanation will directly cover many of the new clauses and amendments. The Bill will end the special status of retained EU law on the UK statute book by the end of 2023. It constitutes a process. Considerable work has been done with officials across Whitehall and with the devolved authorities; that work has been proportionate, and has been taking place for over 18 months. I cannot stress enough the importance of achieving the 2023 deadline. Retained EU law was never intended to sit on the statute book indefinitely. It is constitutionally undesirable, as some domestic laws, including Acts of Parliament, currently remain subordinate to some retained EU law. The continued existence on our statute book of the principle of supremacy of EU law is just not right, as we are a sovereign nation with a sovereign Parliament.

    Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)

    We all accept that the status of EU law must change and that it will have to be reassimilated into domestic law in due course. No one argues with that. Will the Minister not reflect that it is constitutionally unacceptable to create what the Law Society—which might know a little more about the law than politicians and civil servants—described as a “devastating impact” on legal certainty and business confidence? To do so by means of Henry VIII powers so wide that all scrutiny is, in effect, removed from this House is not taking backing control but doing the reverse of what the Government seek to do.

    Ms Ghani

    I always respect my hon. Friend’s opinion, but he is fundamentally mistaken. We have undertaken a considerable amount of consultation with our courts and have worked with them consistently. It is absolutely right that we deliver Brexit by ensuring that laws made here are sovereign over EU laws.

    Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)

    My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) is fundamentally wrong. The Bill is providing legal certainty. Rather than having a flow of EU law interpreted according to EU principle, from now on we will have a single set of laws within this country. That must be certainty rather than otherwise.

    Ms Ghani

    Having a single set of laws across the UK will provide far more certainty.

    Several hon. Members rose—

    Ms Ghani

    Before I take any more interventions, I want to address the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) about the Henry VIII powers. That is a misrepresentation of what is happening. Each Department will review and then amend, assimilate or revoke EU law. Each Department’s Secretary of State will be responsible for the decisions they take. All the laws are on the dashboard, which will be updated once again, and we will be codifying the retained EU law. In the absence of the application of supremacy, restating a rule in primary legislation could lead to the same policy effect as the rule itself currently has. The Bill just sets out a process to allow each Department to take a decision. Why would we not want to review the EU law that is out there and assess what needs to be assimilated? If we can amend and update it, why would we not do that?

    Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)

    Notwithstanding the charmingly innocent faith in lawyers of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), the key thing about our decision to leave the European Union is that sovereignty lies in this place and with the people to whom we are accountable. The point about this measure is that it will allow exactly that sovereignty to be exacted in practice with regard to retained EU law.

    Ms Ghani

    Absolutely. When decisions are taken either to amend or to revoke, the usual channels will be followed in Parliament. Committees will be put in place and decisions will be reviewed the Leaders of both Houses. Decisions can be taken openly and transparently. We also have the dashboard, which will be updated and already has thousands of EU laws on it.

    Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)

    The Minister is right that the whole point of Brexit was to take control of our own laws. She is also right that there needs to be a single set of laws across the United Kingdom. But the Bill makes it clear that we will not have a single set of laws across the United Kingdom, because a wide range of laws in Northern Ireland are exempt from the provisions of the Bill. Furthermore, in future when EU law changes and applies in Northern Ireland, the gap between the laws in the rest of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland will get ever wider. Does she accept that unless the protocol is dealt with, there is a real danger that Northern Ireland will be treated differently and be constitutionally separated from the United Kingdom?

    Ms Ghani

    My right hon. Friend raises a very important issue. As it is sensitive, he must allow me a moment to ensure that my response is accurate. The UK Government are committed to ensuring that the necessary legislation is in place to uphold the UK’s international obligations, including the Northern Ireland protocol and the trade and co-operation agreement after the sunset date. The Bill will not alter the rights of EU nations that are protected, or eligible to be protected, by the relevant provisions in the Northern Ireland protocol. The Bill contains provisions that, when exercised appropriately, will ensure the continued implementation of our international obligations, including the Northern Ireland protocol.

    It is our preference to resolve the Northern Ireland protocol issue through talks. The Government are engaging in constructive dialogue with the EU to find solutions to these problems. I must put on record that officials have been working with officials in Northern Ireland for the last 18 months. We know how important and sensitive this issue is.

    Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green) rose—

    Ms Ghani

    I will just make a little progress before I take more interventions.

    I cannot stress enough the importance of achieving the deadline. The retained EU law was never intended to sit on the statute books indefinitely. On 31 January last year the Government announced plans to bring forward the Bill, which is the culmination of the Government’s work to untangle ourselves from decades of EU membership. It will permit the creation of a more agile, innovative and UK-specific regulatory approach, benefiting people and businesses across the UK.

    It is a priority of the Government that the United Kingdom will be the best place to start and grow a business. The Bill contains powers that will allow us to make good on that promise. It will allow outdated and often undemocratic retained EU law to be amended, repealed or replaced more quickly and easily than before. It will remove burdens on business and create a more agile and sustainable legislative framework to boost economic growth.

    Sir James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)

    I am sure that my hon. Friend will remember being on the Back Benches and sitting in statutory instrument Committees in which we had no ability whatsoever to change the legislation going through, because it was driven by the European Union. This is about taking back control by giving democratic authority to this place. Furthermore, on things such as maternity leave, minimum wage, annual leave, product safety and international regulations we are already doing better than the EU minimum standards. This Government will promise to keep those standards and, in many cases, increase them.

    Ms Ghani

    My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There has been a lot of misinformation about the environment. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has committed to maintain or enhance standards. He is right that we had very little say over positions taken in Brussels, but now, in the Bill, those decisions are taken by the devolved authorities. That will remain devolved and they will have a say, so why would they want to give away that power?

    Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)

    The Minister spoke of taking back control, but the harsh reality is that the Government are taking back control from the Scottish Parliament. Yesterday we heard about the UK Government enacting section 35 to strike out a Bill of the Scottish Parliament. The Scotland Act 2016 contains the Sewel convention, which requires the UK Government to obtain the consent of the Scottish Parliament when they are acting in devolved matters. The Scottish Government are not giving their consent. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Why should the Scottish Government not have the right to veto this Bill, which tramples over devolution and our laws in a way that we do not consent to?

    Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)

    Order. Could I gently say to the Minister that in order to facilitate Hansard and hon. Members seeking to hear, it would be helpful if she could address the microphone rather than the Back Benches?

    Ms Ghani

    My apologies, Mr Deputy Speaker.

    The question is, why would the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) not take the power that the Scottish Government will be given through this Bill when it comes to devolved matters, to look at the EU laws and see whether they want to maintain them or enhance them for their own people? Why would they want to reject the power that they have been offered through this Bill? We remain fully committed to the Sewel convention. It is an essential element of the devolution settlement. The UK Government continue to seek legislative consent for Bills that interact with devolution. The right hon. Member’s argument does not make any sense. My worry is that Scottish Government do not want the powers because then they will have to exercise them. I know it is a little bit of work, but it is worth doing.

    This Bill provides the opportunity to improve the competitiveness of the UK economy while maintaining high standards. It will ensure that the Government can more easily amend, revoke or replace retained EU law, so that the Government can create legislation that better suits the UK. This programme of reform must be done. The people of the UK did not vote for Brexit with the expectation that nearly a decade later, politicians in Westminster would continually rehash old and settled arguments, as those on the Opposition Benches so love to do. We must push on and seize the opportunities that Brexit provides. That will ensure that our economy is dynamic and agile and can support advances in technology and science.

    Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)

    On agility, the Minister will know that the majority of the thousands of rules that need to be changed are in the environmental area. Does she think it is a good idea that civil servants are completely distracted and focused on the changes to these rules when we have one in four people in food poverty, 63,000 people dying a year due to poor air quality, sewage pouring into our seas and crabs dying off the north-east coast? Would it not be better if the civil servants and the Government tackled those problems rather than going down a rabbit hole and inventing worse standards than the EU, such as trying to get to World Health Organisation air quality standards by 2040, which the EU is trying to get to by 2030?

    Ms Ghani

    I think many people coming into the debate today think that this is the start of something, but this process has been in place for more than 18 months, and DEFRA has committed to maintain or enhance standards. The constant misinformation given out over what is happening on the environment is simply incorrect. DEFRA has already taken decisive action to reform areas of retained EU law and it already has flagship legislation on our statute book, including the Environment Act 2021, the Fisheries Act 2020 and the Agriculture Act 2020, all on powers that the SNP wants to give back to Brussels. The Environment Act strengthens our environmental protections while respecting our international obligations. It is simply incorrect to suggest that the Government will be weakening any of those protections. The Environment Act has set new legally binding targets, including to halt and reverse nature’s decline. Those targets, with oversight from the Office for Environmental Protection, will ensure that any reform to retained EU law delivers positive environmental outcomes. DEFRA will also conduct proportionate analysis of the expected impacts, so it is absolutely incorrect to misrepresent this Bill.

    Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)

    The hon. Member for Rochford and Southend East (Sir James Duddridge) talked about statutory instrument Committees. I think all of us have sat on statutory instrument Committees, where we know that it is a question of like it or lump it when it comes to what is being proposed. Under this Bill, Ministers will have powers over key issues that our constituents care about. The Minister talks about the dashboard and admits that it still needs to be updated. As a matter of good democratic practice, will she give us, here and now, today, the exact number of laws covered by this Bill, so Members of this House can at least have some sense of the task that they are voting for? If she cannot tell us how many laws are covered, it is definitely not clear to us how any of us can influence them.

    Ms Ghani

    The hon. Member was very astute in Committee, and we spent many hours together discussing this. The dashboard is public. It has had more than 100,000 views to date. I was on it only last night. It has thousands of laws on it, and it will be updated again this month. There is a process within each Department, which is why a unit has been established to work with each Department across Whitehall. Every EU law that is identified will be put on the dashboard. So it is public, it is accessible, and all the information is out there.

    I must just respond to another point that the hon. Member raised, once again, about scrutiny in this place, because it is being misrepresented—[Interruption.] Unfortunately, it is. The Bill will follow the usual channels for when laws are being either amended or revoked. The Leaders of the two Houses will meet and the business managers will take a decision. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the House of Lords has already said that it is comfortable with the way the Bill will progress and the laws will be scrutinised, and the European Statutory Instruments Committee has said that it is comfortable with the way the laws will be scrutinised and assessed. So there is a process in place, as there was for a no-deal Brexit. The crunch is: if you do not like Brexit and if you did not like the way the Brexit vote that took place, you are not going to like any elements of this Bill.

    Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)

    Just before that intervention, the Minister was talking about the environment. Is it not the case that Members on this side of the House have delivered the Environment Act, that we are perfectly capable of making our own laws and delivering for the British people and that we do not need guidance from the European Union, unlike those on the Opposition Benches?

    Ms Ghani

    Absolutely. We on this side of the House have done a tremendous amount of work that did not require us to be directed by bureaucrats in Brussels. This gives me a great opportunity to point out all the fantastic work that we have achieved.

    First of all, I must just say again that we will be maintaining and enhancing environmental standards. I want to touch on a list of things that we have achieved, especially on animal welfare, which has been a huge priority for Government Members. We have had the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021 and the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022. Since 2010, we have had new regulations on minimum standards for meat and chickens, banned the use of conventional battery cages for laying hens, made CCTV mandatory in slaughterhouses in England, made microchipping mandatory for dogs in 2015, modernised our licensing system for a range of activities such as dog breeding and pet sales, protected service animals via Finn’s law, banned the commercial third-party sale of puppies and kittens via Lucy’s law, passed the Wild Animals in Circuses Act 2019 and led work to implement humane trapping standards. Our Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill will further the rights of animals outside the EU, including the banning of export of live animals for slaughter and fattening. It is remarkable how much we can achieve when we are left to our own devices.

    Caroline Lucas rose—

    Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab) rose—

    Ms Ghani

    I will just make a little bit of progress.

    As I have said, the sunset clause is necessary and is the quickest and most effective way to pursue retained EU law reform. It is only right to set the sunset and the revocation of inherited EU laws as the default position. It ensures that we are proactively choosing to preserve EU laws only when they are in the best interests of the UK. It ensures that outdated and unneeded laws are quickly and easily repealed. It will also give the Government a clear timeline in which to finish the most important tasks. Some retained EU laws are legally inoperable, and removing them from the statute book easily is good democratic governance. Requiring the Government to undergo complex and unnecessary parliamentary processes to remove retained EU law that is no longer necessary or operable, and can more easily be removed, is not good governance.

    Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)

    Surely parliamentary sovereignty is giving Members of Parliament control, not the Executive or bureaucrats in Whitehall.

    Ms Ghani

    The reality is that Ministers take decisions all the time, and there is a process in place where laws are amended or updated if there is a significant policy change. The same policy process will be in place. If the hon. Member is not comfortable with Conservative Ministers taking those decisions or with the SI process that is already in place, fundamentally he is just not comfortable with the decisions we are taking because we are taking these rules from Europe and placing them here on our UK statute book. That is a different argument altogether.

    Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)

    I want to react to what I think I heard the Minister saying when she suggested that those of us who did not support Brexit in the referendum would not support this Bill. That is not the case. As someone who did not vote for Brexit but who absolutely recognises that democratic choice and respects the referendum, I do support the premise of the Bill. We need to look at the EU law, although there are elements of the Bill we could improve on to give some certainty, and I hope that I will be called to speak later.

    Ms Ghani

    I would not want to misrepresent my right hon. Friend’s position. The point I was making was that Opposition Members who have complained about the Bill have a particular position that has been long held because of the outcome of the vote that took place.

    We believe it is right that the public should know how much legislation there is derived from the EU, and know about the progress the Government are making. For that reason, we have published a public dashboard—perhaps colleagues would like to go on to the site for a moment—containing a list of UK Government retained EU law. The site will also document the Government’s progress on reforming retained EU law and will be updated regularly to reflect plans and actions taken. It will be updated again this month. I was slightly inaccurate earlier: there have in fact been 148,727 visitors to that site. It is not as if people are in the dark. There are many opportunities to be aware of what we are doing.

    Caroline Lucas rose—

    Ms Ghani

    I will give way to the hon. Lady because she has been so patient.

    Caroline Lucas

    I am grateful to the Minister for finally giving way. She is suggesting that those of us who oppose the Bill are opposing it for some kind of ideological reason. I draw her attention to the words of the chair of the Office for Environmental Protection, who herself said:

    “Worryingly, the Bill does not offer any safety net, there is no requirement to maintain existing levels of environmental protection”.

    Not only that, there is actually a requirement not to go on and make the legislation stronger. That is written into the Bill.

    On the issue of certainty, I do not know how the Minister can stand there and pretend that this is about certainty when businesses have no idea which laws will be in or out and when she does not know how many laws are on her dashboard.

    On democracy, when we were in the European Union we at least had Members of the European Parliament who had a say over these things. When the laws come back here, we have no say over them at all; it is all with Ministers. Is that what she means when she says this is supposed to be a good Bill that is full of opportunities from Brexit?

    Ms Ghani

    The hon. Lady has got the meme for her Facebook page. Unfortunately, she wholly misrepresents what the Bill is doing. Environmental standards will be maintained or enhanced. At the moment, the laws that come down from Brussels on the environment and land cover everything from the Arctic to the Mediterranean. This Bill is a great opportunity to maintain, to enhance and to review what more we can do to make things better for our environment across the UK. We already have flagship legislation in place: the Environment Act 2021, the Fisheries Act 2020 and the Agriculture Act 2020. The Office for Environmental Protection has been fully established to enforce those elevated environmental rules and standards. The water framework directive covers our water. Instead of misrepresenting what the Bill does, why not take the opportunity to ensure that we enhance provision for what we are not maintaining?

    Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)

    Listening to the Opposition, we might think that the EU is the land of milk and honey when it comes to the environment. This is the same EU that put fossil fuels and gas in last year’s green taxonomy. Getting out of the EU allows us to have our own taxonomies and to make far greener efforts than naming gas as a green technology, which it is not.

    Ms Ghani

    We can make sure that we have a better focus on renewables, and we can take the decisions that work best for our communities. Fundamentally, we are maintaining and enhancing. We must not forget that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has been able to introduce substantial law on water, animals and land. I have covered the dashboard, and I assume colleagues will now be pouncing on it.

    Departments have been actively working on their retained EU law reform plans for well over 18 months to ensure that appropriate action is taken before the sunset date. Additional work to lift obsolete laws will inevitably be slow, but that work will continue. We cannot allow the reform of retained EU law to remain merely a possibility. The sunset provision guarantees that retained EU law will not become an ageing relic dragging down the UK. It incentivises the genuine review and reform of retained EU law in a way that works best for the UK. What reforms are desirable will differ from policy area to policy area.

    As my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Dean Russell), the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, said on Second Reading, the environment is one of the Government’s top priorities. We will ensure that environmental law works for the UK and improves our environmental outcomes. As I said, we will be maintaining and enhancing. The Bill does not change the Environment Act, and we remain committed to delivering our legally binding target to halt nature’s decline by 2030.

    Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)

    Many constituents have been in touch with me with their concerns about habitat protection, maternity leave protection and other issues. The National Archives says that 1,300 additional pieces of legislation are not necessarily in scope. Can the Minister give more clarity on how many pieces of legislation this Bill will cover?

    Ms Ghani

    We are working across Departments to cover laws that will either be assimilated, amended or revoked. We are finding that a number of those laws are obsolete, and the fact we are still identifying them is good. We are putting them on the dashboard as soon as we can, and we will update the dashboard again this month. It is right that we conduct this exercise to know where we are and to ensure that we refer to UK law where we assimilate, and that we amend it to improve the situation for our communities and businesses. If the laws are not operable in the UK, we can revoke them.

    The hon. Lady mentioned maternity rights, which is one of the unfortunate misinformation campaigns on this Bill. I struggle with the fact that colleagues are sharing misinformation, as people who may be vulnerable are made more vulnerable by such misinformation. The UK has one of the best workers’ rights records in the world, and our high standards were never dependent on our membership of the EU.

    Indeed, the UK provides far stronger protections for workers than are required by EU law. For example, UK workers are entitled to 5.6 weeks of annual leave compared with the EU requirement of four weeks—we are doing better here. We provide a year of maternity leave, with the option to convert it to shared parental leave. The EU requirement for maternity leave is just 14 weeks—we are doing better here. The right to flexible working for all employees was introduced in the UK in the early 2000s, whereas the EU agreed its rules only recently and offers the right only to parents and carers—we are doing better here. The UK introduced two weeks’ paid paternity leave back in 2003. Who can remember then? The EU legislated for this only recently—once again, we are doing better here. I ask Members please not to hold up Brussels as a bastion of virtue, as that is most definitely not the case.

    Stella Creasy

    Will the Minister give way?

    Ms Ghani

    I will make a little progress.

    Significant reform will be needed in other areas, which is why the powers in the Bill are necessary. The people of the UK expect and deserve positive regulatory reform to boost the economy. Via this Bill, we will deliver reform across more than 300 policy areas. We cannot be beholden to a body of law that grows more obsolete by the day just because some in this House see the EU as the fount of all wisdom.

    Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)

    My hon. Friend is setting out a very powerful case. On the one hand, she is making the case that in Britain we have many laws that are superior and offer greater benefits and protections to residents, and on the other hand, she is making the self-evident point that we should unshackle ourselves from laws that will become increasingly historical, some of which were assimilated into British statute without scrutiny.

    Will the devolved Administrations be able to preserve retained EU law where it relates to devolved areas of competence?

    Ms Ghani

    My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If the law is already devolved, the devolved Administrations have the ability to assimilate, amend or revoke, which is why some of the interventions from Opposition Members are slightly absurd. Why would they not want the opportunity to have a review? If the devolved Administrations want to assimilate the law, they can. If they want to amend it, they can. If they wish to revoke it, they have that choice. Why would the devolved Administrations not want to embrace the powers this Bill will give them?

    Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)

    The Minister talks about the devolved Administrations hanging on to their powers. Will she ensure that the dashboard on retained EU law is updated to identify which legislation is reserved and which is devolved, as well as how legislation in Wales might be affected?

    Ms Ghani

    Yes. The hon. Gentleman may have missed the earlier part of my speech. Government officials have been working with devolved Administration officials for more than 18 months, and that work will continue. When we discover an EU law, we put it on the dashboard. Of course, there are conversations with officials in the devolved authorities, and it is important that we continue to work closely with them.

    I was going to say more about the UK’s tremendous work on the environment, because I saw some dreadful, inappropriate coverage in the press, including nonsense about marine habitats. I have just had some information from DEFRA about its fantastic work in Montreal on marine. We have done more work on environmental standards and status outside the EU, including in protected areas such Dogger Bank, to enhance protection by 2030. We are also integrating our ocean and coastal mapping.

    Unfortunately, colleagues who are uncomfortable with the Bill have also peddled misinformation about our water bodies and water standards. There is an assumption that the target is being moved, which is absolutely incorrect. Targets are not being moved. It is incorrect to say that the target for the good state of England’s water bodies has been changed—it is still 2027, as outlined in the water framework directive. Hopefully that will cancel out any other misinformation on this stuff being shared on social media sites.

    Reform will be needed in other significant areas, which is why the powers in the Bill are necessary. It has been suggested that the Bill will somehow be a bonfire of workers’ rights. We are proud of the UK’s excellent record on labour standards, and we have one of the best workers’ rights records in the world. Our high standards were never dependent on our membership of the EU. Indeed, the UK provides far stronger protections for workers than are required by EU law. I have already spoken about maternity rights, but we can also look at maternity cover, holiday pay and other rights for employees.

  • Keir Starmer – 2023 Speech in Belfast on the Northern Ireland Protocol

    Keir Starmer – 2023 Speech in Belfast on the Northern Ireland Protocol

    The speech made by Sir Keir Starmer, the Leader of the Opposition, at Queen’s University Belfast on 13 January 2023.

    Thank you Ian for that introduction.

    It is always an honour to speak at Queen’s – so I’d like to thank the President and Vice-President for the invitation today.

    This is a special place. A first-class university for research, technology and innovation, business and health.

    An institution that has always been rooted in its communities here in Belfast and in Northern Ireland, but which also enjoys a huge global reach.

    A reach never more on display than in the appointment of your Chancellors and we can see them on the walls here today.

    After all, who better to carry the message of peace this city embodies around the world, than Hillary Clinton?

    I’ve been here to Queen’s many times. In fact, I remember the last time clearly because I was half way through my speech, the United Kingdom announced a vote on Article 50…

    What a relief that’s all behind us now.

    That day, I came here to reflect on the success of the Police Service of Northern Ireland…

    And my role as the Human Rights Advisor to the Policing Board which oversees it.

    I’m immensely proud of the work of the board, of that whole period in my life.

    It’s given me a lasting love of Northern Ireland. Friendships that have endured, including people in this room here today, memories I’ll always cherish.

    And you know – after we were married, my wife and I took our first holiday here, because I wanted to show her Northern Ireland, the people and the communities that I’d met.

    I was in love with this island and that love has stayed with me.

    It’s also taught me so much about politics, about change, about the power of hope.

    And this year is a moment of reflection for Northern Ireland and, speaking for myself, standing here in 2023, It’s hard to describe just how different it feels to the Northern Ireland of 20 years ago, when I first came to take up my role here. How raw the emotions were back then, in a country still coming to terms with its hard-won but fragile peace.

    I wanted a chance to serve – because it felt like a huge moment.

    A chance to turn the page on decades, if not centuries, of pain, and I wanted to make a contribution. Help create a lasting institution.

    One that could reach out to all communities, hold the police to account, and in doing so help preserve that peace for future generations. I think we did that.

    Accountability, transparency, human rights, the framework we put in place was critical for both communities to have a degree of faith.

    That the Police Service of Northern Ireland was new, was different, was worth those risky first steps.

    We were tested of course – every day.

    As Tony Blair said at the time – every advance made in the name of the Belfast Good Friday Agreement has to be “ground out”.

    But over time, policing in Northern Ireland did change. The PSNI did become an institution which enjoys cross-community support, Catholics did sign-up to serve.

    Not enough – in Northern Ireland, you can always point to the work that still needs to be done, but, if you’d said to us then, in 2003, that in 20 years we’d have the PSNI we have today.

    That one day, a Sinn Féin leader would stand shoulder to shoulder with unionist leaders, in a campaign to help recruit new officers, yes – that would have felt like an achievement worth celebrating.

    And there are people here today who deserve huge credit for helping make that happen.

    This year, should be a year we celebrate achievements like that.

    All the achievements – big and small – of the Good Friday Agreement.

    25 years of relative peace, prosperity and a better Northern Ireland.

    It’s a proud moment for me, reflecting on the small role I played in that.

    And it’s obviously a huge moment for my party. The Good Friday Agreement is the greatest achievement of the Labour Party in my lifetime, without question.

    But of course, the real achievement – the real pride – belongs to the people and communities here in Northern Ireland.

    It’s your bravery, your determination, your courage, resilience and yes, your willingness to sacrifice, to compromise, to stand, despite everything, in the shoes of other communities.

    And above all – to keep doing so when there were bumps in the road, provocations, outbreaks of violence. That’s what won this peace.

    It’s why I fell in love with this place – I’d never seen anything like that spirit, that hope.

    I talk a lot about hope at the moment.

    About how hard it is for people to get through the challenges we face without the real possibility of something better.

    How, as we lurch from crisis to crisis, we’re losing our faith that the future will be better for our children.

    Some communities in the United Kingdom might once have taken that for granted – but not here.

    Because what I saw in Northern Ireland 20 years ago, were people and communities experiencing that hope for the first time.

    It’s what powered the Good Friday Agreement – drove the communities of this country on towards the history they made.

    And we’ve got to get it back.

    Because I get the sense – with the protocol, with the political situation at Stormont, not to mention the other problems we see here: the NHS, the cost-of-living, an economy on its knees.

    That the thought of April being a true celebration feels a little on ice.

    I understand that.

    Anniversaries are hard in Northern Ireland, looking back is hard.

    Even when we do so with pride, as we should in April – it’s tough.

    The past is a painful place for so many people, so many communities.

    People have suffered a lot. And with that comes a fear.

    Fear that if we stop trying to move forward – if things grind to a halt – then we could yet go backwards.

    It’s why, here more than anywhere, you always need that hope of a better future.

    That’s the spirit of 1998, that’s what the Good Friday agreement asked of people.

    It wasn’t to forgive, or forget – they were demands that could never be made.

    It was only to look forward. To commit to a journey. Walk, step by step. Each stride difficult, each stride precious, towards a better future, together.

    The anniversary this year should be a true celebration – people deserve that.

    History was made here, hard-won.

    But to respect that history, people also deserve action on the issues which currently hold Northern Ireland back. For politics to do its job and give people the chance to look forward with hope.

    There is a small window of opportunity before April – we’ve got to use the anniversary to fix minds.

    Get the country and its political process moving forward again.

    Deliver for the people of Northern Ireland.

    I see two key priorities for this.

    They’re both urgent, both need to happen now, and so of course they rely on a change of direction from the Prime Minister.

    But in each priority, I also want to show the values I will bring to Northern Ireland, if I have the honour to serve as Prime Minister.

    First – the British Government must normalise and strengthen relationships with Dublin.

    The Taoiseach held out an olive branch in recent weeks – we must take it.

    But honestly, relations should never have been this strained.

    Brexit was a rupture in the UK’s diplomatic stance, a call to change, in every area of our society, which had to be recognised.

    I’ve been very clear about this – my Government will make it work, will take on the mantle of that vote, will turn its slogans into practical solutions.

    Yet throughout the last seven years, nothing has been more self-defeating than the determination of some Conservative ministers, to see our friends in Dublin as adversaries on Brexit.

    That has damaged the political process here in Northern Ireland – no question.

    And it’s certainly not the spirit of 1998.

    We should never lose sight of what binds us together on these islands – our shared commitment to peace here above all other considerations.

    So I encourage the Prime Minister, as the Taoiseach has said, to recognise past mistakes.

    It will help him with the second priority, the obvious one – the protocol.

    Look – there’s no point varnishing the truth, to get beyond the current stalemate we have to make the protocol work.

    Nobody wants to see unnecessary checks on goods moving between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

    We just need to find a solution.

    And I want to commend the recent agreement on trade data-sharing, commend the EU, commend the Government.

    If they are finally serious about a deal, there will be no sniping from us – I can promise you that.

    I go back to the Good Friday Agreement – the pride we feel in the Labour Party towards it, has no bounds.

    But we know the political effort didn’t come just from us, from Tony Blair and Mo Mowlam, it didn’t come just from Bertie Ahern and Mary McAleese, from the unwavering support of the US – of Bill Clinton and George Mitchell, or the tenacity and brilliance of John Hume and David Trimble.

    It was also built on the work of John Major and Albert Reynolds, and afterwards by Lord Patten – whose commission led to the PSNI and the Policing Board, in the first place.

    My point is this – the spirit of 1998, on both islands, is not one of tribal politics.

    This is the process which brought Ian Paisley and Martin McGuinness together – and they made it work – there can be no clearer example than that.

    So I say to the Prime Minister, if there is a deal to do in coming weeks – do it.

    Whatever political cover you need, whatever mechanisms in Westminster you require, if it delivers for our national interest and the people of Northern Ireland – we will support you.

    The time for action on the protocol is now.

    The time to stand up to the ERG is now.

    The time to put Northern Ireland above a Brexit purity cult, which can never be satisfied – is now.

    We can find ways to remove the majority of checks – a bespoke SPS agreement, a monitoring system that eradicates checks on goods that will only ever be sold in Northern Ireland.

    The opportunity for these reforms is there – and they would deliver for communities and businesses across these islands.

    Northern Ireland can be prosperous under the protocol.

    But it requires leadership from you, Prime Minister.

    And look – I enjoyed my dialogue with the DUP and unionist parties yesterday, so I want to reach out on this, speak to all unionist communities.

    There are legitimate problems with the protocol and these must be recognised in any negotiations.

    And as for the process that got us here, to this point, I think your anger about that is more than justified.

    I said this yesterday, I will say it here and I want every community in Northern Ireland to hear it – the Labour Party will always be a good faith guarantor of the constitution and the principle of consent.

    That commitment is written in to the agreement we want to celebrate in April – it stands above politics, it should stand above Brexit negotiations as well.

    I think people know we would have done things differently, and that we will stand by those values when in Government.

    But I also say this – in the coming weeks, it’s possible there will be siren voices in Westminster that say again, there is another path, a path that doesn’t require compromise on the protocol.

    In fact, it’s possible those siren voices will include – may even be led by – the very people who created the protocol.

    That were cavalier with the constitutional settlement of this United Kingdom.

    That came to this island and acted – to be blunt – in bad faith.

    You can listen to those voices, of course, it’s not for me to determine the interests of any community here.

    But I would counsel that the example to follow is not theirs. But the spirit of negotiation, of conciliation, of courage, that, in the end, is always the force which moves Northern Ireland forward towards the future.

    That’s what I want to do in April – look forward.

    Northern Ireland is personal to me, the Good Friday Agreement is personal to me.

    The drift, the lack of momentum, the elevation of ideological politics above the constitutional settlement – that would never happen with my Labour Government. Wouldn’t happen with any Labour Government.

    It’s not how we approach politics on this island.

    It’s not how my predecessors helped broker peace.

    My ambition as Prime Minister would be to give the people of Northern Ireland the hope I saw here in 2003, the sort of hope you can build your future around, that aspirations are made of.

    And which can – as we’ve seen for 25 years – bring communities together.

    Ordinary hope and ordinary politics – that’s what the people of Northern Ireland deserve.

    And we will govern by their example.

    When things get tough, we will persevere.

    Embrace the spirit of 1998.

    Keep our eyes fixed firmly on the future.

    A future of peace and prosperity.

    Partnership between Britain and Ireland.

    And a politics which delivers for every community in Northern Ireland.

    Thank you.

  • Gordon Brown – 2008 Joint Press Conference with David Miliband at the EU Council Meeting

    Gordon Brown – 2008 Joint Press Conference with David Miliband at the EU Council Meeting

    The press conference with Gordon Brown, the then Prime Minister, and David Miliband, the then Foreign Secretary, in Brussels on 16 October 2008.

    Thank you very much for joining us at the end of the European Council meeting.

    Can I start by saying that yesterday the G8 group of countries called for a meeting of world leaders to agree the necessary and urgent reforms to the international financial system as a result of events of recent months. Today the European Union in its communiqué has welcomed this leaders meeting, and has also agreed the principles and the priority areas for global action that we believe should be agreed at the meeting.

    The five principles we have agreed for the financial system are that there should be transparency, sound banking, responsibility, integrity and global governance.  And we have also agreed that, based on these principles, we should move to early decisions about transparency, global standards of regulation, cross-border supervision of financial institutions, crisis management, the avoidance of conflicts of interest – included in that are executive remuneration packages – and the creation of an early warning system for the world economy.

    The reform of the international financial system is not only necessary to prevent a crisis happening again, it is essential to end the current crisis.  People need to feel confident that their institutions cannot act irresponsibly.  So we must ensure that off-balance sheet vehicles are brought back on to balance sheets and fully declared, we must have total transparency in the activities of banks, we must set up immediately the 30 major financial institutions with their colleges of supervisors by the end of the year, we must remove the conflicts of interest, executive remuneration packages must reflect the values of hard working families, that you reward hard work and enterprise and effort and responsible risk-taking, but you do not reward excesses and irresponsibility. And we also agreed we must reform the International Monetary Fund and the Financial Stability Forum for a more effective early warning system to prevent future crises.

    The other major subject of discussion at the Council last night and this morning was the energy and environmental package.  We agreed that we would make our final decisions in December.  We also agreed that faced with high and volatile oil prices it was more essential than ever that we end our dependency on oil.  We discussed the impact that these high oil prices have had on our economies.  Although the price of oil is still too high, it has fallen in recent weeks and months to around $80 a barrel from a peak of around $150 a barrel in the summer.  It is encouraging that we have seen petrol prices fall in the UK in recent days with some supermarkets reducing their prices below £1 a litre, but I would like to see other retailers following that lead. The average price is still £1.07 a litre and there is still too much variation in price across our country.  In some areas the petrol price is still as high as £1.20 a litre.  That must change.

    You will have before you in the next few minutes all the conclusions of the Council, but David Miliband and I are very happy to answer any questions that you have in detail on the issues that I have raised and the other issues of the Council.

    Question: Prime Minister while obviously what you have done here has been greeted on the world stage, surely back home you must be feeling particularly anxious that your bank bailout scheme effectively doesn’t seem to be working.  Markets again are in freefall today.

    Prime Minister: I think markets are reflecting not just events in one country, but what is happening in every part of the world and there will be uncertainty until we finalise many of the decisions that have been made in other countries as well as ours.  I notice that Switzerland has announced measures today to refinance their banking system.  I am pleased that not only the Euro Group but other countries have followed the lead that has been taken, and obviously we are pleased that in America changes are taking place for the recapitalisation of banks.

    Look, the issue for me is what we can do to help hard working families in our country, what we can do to help people facing the high petrol prices, with high gas and electricity bills, people looking for mortgages and not able to get them, small businesses worried about the finance that is available to them.  I have said that Stage one is to make sure that we have stability in the financial system, and that we have worked upon with measures over the last few days, that will take time to come through but will show a difference in the way the financial institutions are acting; and Stage two, to restore confidence that people’s savings will always be safe and to ensure that people have trust in the banking system are the reforms that we are going to be making over these next few weeks.  And I think you have got to look at the programme of activity that we have settled on together and [indistinct] see that reflected in prices coming down for hard working families for petrol, I want to see the mortgage market resume in our country and that is something that we are working on at the moment, and obviously I want to help people who are worried about their jobs or are facing redundancy, to help them get jobs for the future.

    Now these are the issues that we are working on every day and I believe that we will see changes as a result of the work that we have done.  But let us remember this is a hard time for the whole world economy, these are difficult and troubled times for many countries in other parts of the world, we will see this through by being fair to hard working families in our country.

    Question: Prime Minister two questions really, the first about what you said about transparency and bringing off-balance sheet vehicles on to balance sheets, do you think there is a need in our national finances in terms of private finance initiatives and the rest possibly to clarify our own national books as well as far as debt?  And secondly, even if you stabilise the banking system there seems to be  a view that there isn’t the confidence out there in the markets, so do you feel we are now approaching a situation akin to the United States in the ‘30s where we do need to see a Keynesian boost in our public sector spending to keep the economy going?

    Prime Minister: Well we are spending more to get the economy moving, we are spending more obviously on our work programmes, we are also continuing our high levels of investment in transport, in schools, hospitals and infrastructure, and we have said because we have got low national debt we are in a position to borrow to keep the economy moving forward and to move the economy forward where it has been falling behind.  So we are doing that already.

    As far as off-balance sheet activities are concerned, we conform to all the international standards.  The decision about what is on balance sheet is made by  the Office of National Statistics, which is independent of the government, and at the same time they conform to the international standards of accounting practice in these areas.  So everything that we do is related to international standards that we are happy to follow.

    Question: Prime Minister, again two questions.  First, the Japanese Prime Minister this morning has come out against the idea of a world leaders summit to discuss Bretton Woods II saying very specifically that this would be just one step away from the worst case scenario, our honest feeling is that we want to prevent a situation where we need to hold such a summit.  And secondly, several of your Ministerial colleagues are getting very excited about the way you are handling the financial crisis. When they suggest you should hold a snap general election, how tempted are you?

    Prime Minister: I am getting on with the job of trying to take us through these difficult times and that is the only thing that is on my mind, it has got my undivided attention and the whole attention of the government.  Having created this new Economic Council, on which David and other Ministers sit, we are working hard on all the issues that worry people:  the mortgage market, what can happen to their jobs and employment, what we can do about that, and how we can help small businesses in particular.  These are the issues that are concerning us at the moment.

    I think there is a growing international consensus for the leaders meeting that we talked about yesterday.  It is interesting that in the G8 communiqué which was signed by all members of the G8 the proposals for the leaders meeting was included, and it also said that we had to come to quick decisions about reforming the international system.  You see the reason why I am interested in making these changes that make for proper disclosure and transparency and avoid conflicts of interest is that people need to know now that the institutions in which they are saving, in which their life savings are often held, in which their pension is being invested, in which their hard earned money is being put, they need to know that these institutions are acting responsibly and to make the changes that we are proposing is a necessary element of building confidence that we will solve these problems and that all the irresponsibility that has happened in the past is rooted out.

    So I think these changes are not academic, they are not some side-show, they are not something to look at once you have got through the difficulties of today, they are a means of solving the problems of today by assuring people that they can have trust and confidence in the financial institutions of our country, and indeed of all countries round the world.

    And I think, as I said, that there is a growing consensus that we need to formulate proposals that can be implemented quickly.  What the European Council has actually done today is set out the principles that we should follow and I am pleased that these are the five principles that we have talked about over the last few weeks, they have also set out the priority areas for action, and if people are sure that institutions are acting in a transparent way, if people know that conflicts of interest are being avoided, if they know that everything is on balance sheet instead of off-balance sheet, then people will be far more confident about the future, we are investing and saving in these financial institutions.

    So these are changes that I think are needed now and I believe we can build international support for them.

    Question: You talk about the markets, there is a view in the markets that actually shares are falling because of concerns about the real economy.  Now we appreciate that you make your detailed economic forecasts in the pre-budget report, but given the growing concern about some of these things do you feel under any pressure to look the country in the eye, to level with families and businesses and say we now ought to prepare at least for the possibility of the British economy entering a recession?

    Prime Minister: Well I have said very clearly to people, and other government members have said exactly the same, that these are very difficult times, they are difficult times because of two shocks to the global economy.  The reason that people’s standards of living have been hit is because oil prices have gone up and food prices have gone up and that means that the price at the petrol pumps, the price of gas and electricity, all these things have gone up, and at the same time you have had the price of basic essentials like bread and milk and eggs, they have gone up as well.  So people have suffered that hit on their standards of living as a result of the rise in global oil prices and food prices. And at the same time we have had this credit crunch.

    These are both what you might call the problems of an economy that is now global, so we have seen the first resources crisis of the global economy when oil demand has been higher than supply, and we have seen the first financial crisis of this new age of globalisation and that is what we are trying to deal with at the moment.

    I think people know that these problems did not start in Britain, that they started in America as far as the banking system is concerned, I think they know that every government round the world is trying to deal with them.  It is my aim to take the British people through these difficulties and do so in the fairest possible way so that we can help people such as pensioners facing fuel bills with a higher winter allowance than last year, so that we can help people on low incomes with their gas and electricity bills, as we are doing with the special tariffs that are available to them, and so that we can expand the new deal to help people who are facing difficulties in employment.

    Now these are all the things that government can do.  Yes, these are hard and difficult times for everybody in every country of the world, but our intention is to take the British people through this and I believe we are entering these difficulties with a far sounder economy than before because we have low interest rates, we have the corporate balance sheet of firms outside the financial sector in a good position, and we have at the same time of course low national debt which allows us to borrow at times of difficulty to enable the economy to be pushed forward.

    Question: It would appear that at least one of the banks involved in the government’s bailout scheme is insisting on paying dividends to its shareholders.  Is that acceptable?  And just secondly, on climate change it would appear that last night’s discussion has set things back rather than push things forward vis a vis December, could you comment?

    Prime Minister: Well I think first of all we are obviously shareholders of both these banks that we have invested substantial amounts in and we are talking to them day by day about how we can help improve the position, but we have already stated what our position is and we will continue to look at it with the banks.

    On the question of climate change, I think it was a very full discussion last night and then a very full discussion this morning, but we have agreed that the principles on which the Council decisions were made last year and this year are the principles that we are following, and we have also agreed that we have got to come to decisions in December.  Now we will have a new American President in January.  Both candidates in the American Presidential elections are proposing major changes in America’s climate change policy.  Europe must have its own climate change policy to go to the negotiations in Copenhagen to reach the successor of the Kyoto agreement.

    So it is very important that Europe comes to an agreement about what the detailed measures are to deal with climate change. And I am confident after this morning that everybody understands the importance of reaching that agreement, and of course there is intricate work that has got to be done with the Presidency and with the Commission over the next few weeks so that we can make these decisions in December.

    David, you have been following this, haven’t you?

    Foreign Secretary: Well I think it is very clear when you see the Council conclusions, there has been no step back.  But what you are right to point out is that in a number of countries there is a bit of what you might call buyer’s remorse about the agreement in March 2007.  What I think is significant about the discussion over the last 24 hours is that the Presidency and then the whole Council insisted there was no going back on the agreements of March 2007 and March 2008, no going back on the determination to have an agreement by the end of this year, and no going back on the determination for Europe to set a lead on the connected issues of climate and energy.

    And I think there is going to be some very hard talking over the next couple of months, led by the Presidency and by the Commission, but what is clear is that we will ensure that Europe hits its 20% target and is in a position to hit the 30% target if other countries come to the Copenhagen negotiations with appropriate offers, and that is the very important basis on which we can then share out the national allocations and the national effort as part of the coordinated European plan.

    Question: I think there was some discussion overnight about the idea of some sort of European industrial policy to supplement the financial package you have already announced and I suspect that Britain and some of the other liberal countries were reluctant to sign up to some of the language originally in Paragraph 10.  Could you just give us a bit of the flavour of the discussions?

    Prime Minister: I don’t know whether you have got the old paragraph 10 or the new paragraph 10.

    Question: The old one.

    Prime Minister: But there have been changes made in the discussion.  Outside the financial sector the European Council underlines its determination to take the necessary steps to support growth and jobs in the economy, and then it requests the Commission to make appropriate proposals by the end of the year, and then it mentions the need to preserve the competitiveness of industry.  And I think that is where we are, but there are structural reforms that are going to continue to be necessary, the competitiveness of industry is important and we have got to look at all aspects of the real economy during this difficult period.

    Foreign Secretary: It is also worth pointing to paragraph 5, which you will be very interested in, which has a commitment to support the Commission’s implementation [indistinct] of the rules of competition policy, particularly state aids, continuing to uphold the principles of the single market and the state aid regime.

    Question: Two questions for the Prime Minister.  Prime Minister do you have an idea of how the International Monetary Fund should be reformed in order to meet the principles that the European Union has set out for a sound international financial system?  And the second question is when do you expect the European Union to be able to resume its negotiations with Russia on the partnership agreement?

    Prime Minister: I will ask David to deal with the Russia question because he has been intimately involved with it.

    As far as the International Monetary Fund is concerned, this all sounds very abstract, but it is very important that we have an international organisation that is capable of being an early warning system for the world economy so it can spot these problems in advance and spot what is happening in one continent before it affects other continents.  It is also very important that we have an organisation that can deal with crises that can take place in the world economy, and it is also important that we have the surveillance of what is going on all the time so that we know how growth is proceeding in different continents and countries and what needs to be done to improve the functioning of the world economy. And we need, as you know, the transparency and the disclosure in the financial markets that have been a problem in recent months and recent years and we need someone at an international level monitoring what is happening.

    Now we have the Financial Stability Forum and we have the International Monetary Fund. The Financial Stability Forum is a group of countries that are the main financial centres that have come together and they have made a number of recommendations.  The IMF of course represents all major economies in the world and I think what we are looking for is an International Monetary Fund that is more independent, more like an independent central bank in the way it operates, which was by the way the original proposal for the International Monetary Fund made by Keynes in the 1940s, but also one that is capable of bringing countries together to deal with crises as they arise.

    So these are quite fundamental reforms, what some people call a new Bretton Woods, reflecting where the first Bretton Woods agreement came in America, and I think we are ready to move towards decisive action in creating a global framework to deal with what are essentially, as everybody now knows, global flows of capital that can affect every continent but where at the moment we only have national supervision.

    Foreign Secretary: On Russia, all 27 welcomed the withdrawal that has happened from the buffer zones around South Ossetia and Abkhazia, while recognising that … complete finish of the Russian commitments under the agreements that took place in August.  There is an audit going on of EU-Russia relations which will be complete by the time of the next General Affairs Council on 10 November and I don’t want to spoil all your anticipation of the conclusions that will be coming out, but you will see in paragraph 21 that it makes clear that the decision on the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement should be dependent, in part, on that audit and on continuing Russian compliance with those commitments that it made in August.

    Question:Prime Minister you mentioned that some oil companies are not passing on the reduction in oil price at the petrol pumps.  Is there anything that you can actually do about that?  Will you summon the oil companies to Downing Street?  And is there anything that the government itself can do in terms of cutting fuel duty?

    Prime Minister: Well we have got, as I understand it this morning, two supermarkets that have reduced their price below £1 a litre, and given that the average price was about £1.18 at its peak that is a considerable cut in prices.  But that should be a cut in prices to reflect that the barrel of oil which was once $150 is now nearer $80 a barrel.  And I want to see the competition between the supermarkets reflected, and the oil companies, in lower prices at the pumps. And I think you will see over the next few days people giving a great deal of attention to what the price is that is being charged by different companies.  So let me say that the first thing we want to do is to see retailers following the lead that has been taken by some people.

    I think the public know that when oil prices go up it is reflected very quickly in the petrol pump price, what they want to know is that when oil prices come down, that is also reflected in the pump price.  So over these next few days we will be monitoring what is happening, but I expect other companies to follow the lead that has been taken by two supermarkets in the last day.

    I think we have also got to remember, and we have had a number of reports done on this by the Office of Fair Trading and others, that the petrol price is high in some parts of the country and it is still at a price of £1.20 a litre in some areas, and that we will continue to look at that as well.  We have had reports done on this before to look at what is happening in the market place, we will continue to examine these things but I believe that also must change.

    Question: You mentioned during one of your answers that you want the mortgage market to resume, what can you tell us about the moves that the government is taking specifically to get the mortgage market going again?

    Prime Minister: Well as you know we have had the Crosby report which is looking at the features of the mortgage market that may need to change, but in the last few days the agreements that we have signed with the major banks is a commitment on their part to resume lending and to offer lending at 2007 levels.  Now that is the first stage to the resumption of the mortgage market.  Obviously we continue to look at other things that we can do.  As you know, we have brought forward our house building programme for local authorities and housing associations, we have entered the market ourselves with some of them actually buying up some of the surplus houses in the market place, and we will continue to look at other things that we can do to help people, both hard pressed mortgage payers in instances where we want to see action to prevent repossessions, but at the same time to get the mortgage market moving so that in Britain it can move quickly again.

    We do not have the problem that some other countries have.  If you go to America or Spain there has been an over-building of houses, or that is how the market is interpreted by people, so there is a surplus amount of houses in these countries and it may take longer to resume both the building and the sales that have happened in the past.  In our case we know that there is a high demand that is latent for new housing, lots of young couples not able to get houses, lots of people wanting to move and not able to do so, and obviously we can help in that, but that is the banks resuming normal lending that is going to make the biggest difference.  So we are taking action and we will consider any further measures that are necessary.

    Question: Are you specifically considering tax cuts in the UK to stimulate the economy, and what is the EU as a whole discussing in order to avoid a deep and prolonged economic recession?

    Prime Minister: Well as you know we have got an income tax cut for basic rate payers that is coming through at the moment, it is £120, we froze petrol duty and of course we have raised the winter allowance for pensioners in our country.  But any other decisions are a matter, I can say on this occasion, for the Chancellor.

    Question: And for the EU as a whole?

    Prime Minister: There is no proposal for the EU to involve itself in either tax raising or tax cutting.

    Question: Prime Minister was there further discussion of closing down tax havens today?

    Prime Minister: This is a major subject of discussion usually at the Finance Ministers meeting.  I must say that today what we were trying to lay down were the principles that will guide our approach to international financial sector reform.  Obviously what is happening in different parts of the world will be reflected in our discussions, but the principles have been laid down and some of the priorities.  And I think disclosure and transparency in the conduct of different countries round the world is a big issue and that is at the heart of some of the concerns that you raise.

    Question: You had bilateral meetings this morning with Mr Zapatero.  You told him, or we have been told that you told him that you want Spain to go to this international summit. Can you please tell us why do you feel it is important for Spain to go to that meeting?

    Prime Minister: Well Spain is a big economy and it has got a government that has been making proposals about how we reform things internationally.  I have very good relations with Prime Minister Zapatero and some of the proposals that he has been putting forward are very interesting.  If there is, let’s say, a G20 meeting, and Spain is not a member of the G20, I think, and I have said to President Bush that Spain should be represented at this meeting.

    Question: Mr Zapatero has invited you to visit Spain, do you know when you are going?

    Prime Minister: I am hoping to visit Spain soon.  I don’t know if that is a very detailed answer.

    Question: As we see the regulation coming in that is probably we are not seeing the City as it used to be over 200 years, that is flexibility, [indistinct] a German bank and other banks across Europe do business in the city which they couldn’t do back at home … this is a big contribution to the GDP of the UK.  How do you think this will affect the overall GDP growth and will you ask Brussels one day to help out with these regulations to bring down the City?

    Prime Minister: Let’s be absolutely clear, we see the City of London and our financial services industry as not only a strong industry but one that will be a leader in the world for many, many years to come.  Indeed in many, many areas we are the global centre, we are the leading financial centre in the world and we will continue to be so.  I said a few days ago we are not going to take the over-hasty action, such as [indistinct] Oxley in the United States of America after Enron and other cases.  We are going to have a considered view about what is the best thing to do to match what is the need for competition to be strong, and at the same time standards to be upheld.  So I see no reason why by leading this debate about how we can improve financial services and the way we have transparency, the City of London will be enhanced by this, not diminished.

    Question: Various people have commented on how you have very much dominated the agenda at this summit.  Could I ask you to describe what you believe your own role and influence is in the discussion to get Europe and the world out of this economic crisis?

    Prime Minister: I think we are all doing what we can.  I think President Sarkozy chaired this summit with a great deal of brilliance.  These were very difficult discussions on climate change, as David and I have reflected, and very detailed discussions on the world economy.  And I do want to praise his leadership and that of President Barroso in this set of discussions which are important not just for Europe but for the rest of the world.  And I also have worked very closely over the last few days with Jean Claude Trichet and with Jean Claude Junker, the President of the Euro Group, and their leadership has been very important also to what we have managed to agree at this summit.

    I think the important thing is that everybody contributes to what they know is a problem that has got to be dealt with.  The G8 statement yesterday talked about deficiencies that we had found in the financial system.  If we can deal with these deficiencies quickly then people’s confidence and trust in the system will be not only restored but enhanced. And I think it is very important to see this as Stage one and Stage two, Stage one was the stabilisation of the banking system, that is measures that we have taken over the last few days;  Stage two is to build the confidence in the future of the financial system that will make people feel, rightly so, that their savings and deposits are safe.  And if we can play a small part with some of the proposals that we have been working on now for some years for the global financial system, as well as learning the lessons of what has happened in the last year or two, then I think that is all to the good of the world economy.

    And I think you should regard this as a cooperative effort where different countries, as with Prime Minister Zapatero, where different proposals are now coming together, and know now that you cannot leave this until the next crisis, or you cannot treat the reforms as abstract academic points of discussion, you have got to take the action now so that people are convinced that we have done everything in our power to deal with the problems in the financial system, to clean it up where it needs to be cleaned up, and we will continue to look at every area where there are problems, and then to agree not just nationally but globally on the common standards that are necessary for the future.

    Question: You attended the Euro Group meeting a few days ago, I was wondering if your thinking on the UK joining the euro has changed at all in the last few days?

    Prime Minister: Our position on joining the euro has not changed.  We continue obviously as we have said before to review it but we have got no plans to join the euro.

    Question: You have been talking about who is going to be invited to the leaders’ conference, can you say when and where it will take place?

    Prime Minister: I can’t make that decision, many people have got to be consulted on what is the appropriate time that suits their diaries and their programmes.  What I do know is that there is an agreement now from the G8 that we will discuss not only the current issues about recapitalising the banking system, we will also discuss the problems that people have in their day to day goals, with what has happened to the price of oil, we will be discussing the reform of the international financial system and we will be discussing how we can get a trade agreement, a world trade agreement which will be a signal that protectionism is completely unacceptable.

    Now various proposals have been made, I think President Sarkozy and others are talking about this summit in New York, but that date is still to be agreed.  And obviously there are going to be discussions this weekend, President Sarkozy is meeting President Bush, I am in regular contact with President Bush, I have talked to all the other European leaders over the last few days, I have talked also to Premier Wen in China and I have talked to President Lula in Brazil.  I think it is very important that all the different players in the world economy are involved in the making of decisions that affect not just one or two continents, but every continent round the world.

    Question: Can you tell us whether an agreement has been reached on this reflection group, or the group of wise men, and whether the UK is sending a member and what do you expect from this group?

    Prime Minister: On the reflection group, Richard Lambert is indeed our member, and I think you will find in the communiqué a reference to the continuing work of the reflection group.  Richard Lambert, for people who may not know him, is the Director General of the Confederation of British Industry, I don’t want to single out one newspaper, but formerly Editor of the Financial Times, and he has been a member of the Monetary Committee of the Bank of England, so he has a great deal of experience to bring to this group.

  • Gordon Brown – 2008 Speech to the House of Commons on the European Union

    Gordon Brown – 2008 Speech to the House of Commons on the European Union

    The speech made by Gordon Brown, the then Prime Minister, on 20 October 2008.

    With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the European Council held in Brussels which I attended with my Rt. Hon Friends the Chancellor and the Foreign Secretary on 15th and 16th October – the main business of which was to consider European actions to stabilise financial markets and how we can work together to reform our international financial systems. The council also welcomed the co-ordinated interest rate cut by central banks around the world.

    But at the heart of our considerations was our shared understanding that the massive reduction in global financial activity and the fracturing of the global financial system has been the result of irresponsible and often undisclosed lending that started in American sub prime markets.

    And while national action is necessary, the root problem can only be dealt with by changes in our financial systems – to recapitalise banks and to reform supervision around the principle of rewarding hard work enterprise and responsible risk taking but not irresponsibility and excess.

    Market estimates suggest that in recent years some $2 trillion of us originated loans – many of them toxic – were bought by ED banks. So to strengthen our banks the council welcomed the comprehensive action on liquidity, capital and funding guarantees of our government and of the euro zone countries under the leadership of President Sarkozy, President Barroso and, ECB President, Jean-Claude Trichet.

    The council also welcomed the joint commitment from the leaders of the G8 countries to hold a leaders’ meeting and agreed the principles and priority areas for global action.

    Mr Speaker, stage one to recovery has been to stabilise financial markets thereby securing a resumption of lending.

    In Britain almost 50 billion pounds has been injected as capital into our banks.

    The government alone has taken shares worth 37 billion in two of our largest banks. And across the world more than 300 billion pounds has now been approved from public funds to recapitalise banks.

    At the heart of the British decision was that medium term funding was conditional on bank recapitalisation. And we also welcome the agreement of the council that EU countries will provide medium term state guarantees for new interbank loans.

    And I particularly welcome the decision of the European investment bank, following my initial proposals at the G4 summit in Paris earlier this month, to mobilise and frontload 30 billion Euros to support new lending to Europe’s, and Britain’s, small businesses.

    However, confidence today depends also on there being confidence about the future. So we agreed on the need to achieve a reform of the global financial system based upon five principles – transparency, integrity, responsibility, sound banking practice and global governance with coordination across borders.

    Mr Speaker, we will submit a detailed set of proposals to the international leaders meeting. I will be putting these proposals to all countries – including emerging countries. And I have already put them to president bush and will be putting them to both presidential candidates in the US.

    I can tell the house today that these include:

    • Insisting on openness and disclosure, with off balance sheet vehicles brought back on to balance sheets, greater transparency around the use of credit derivatives and a rapid adoption of internationally agreed accounting standards so that value-impaired assets can no longer be hidden.
    • Removing once and for all the conflicts of interest which have distorted behaviour and undermined trust so that credit rating agencies no longer act as advisers to the companies they rate and executive remuneration rewards not excessive or irresponsible risk taking but hard work, enterprise, effort and responsible risk taking.
    • Ensuring board members have the competence and expertise to manage the risks for which they are ultimately responsible – and cannot walk away from their obligations.
    • Regulation which looks at both solvency and liquidity and ensures the financial system supports wider economic stability.
    • And a new international architecture for the global financial sector
    for the years ahead.

    So we want to move to early decisions with our international partners about:

    • Reform of the international monetary fund and financial stability forum, including the creation of an early warning system for the global economy
    • Globally accepted standards of supervision applied equally and consistently in all countries.
    • Effective cross-border supervision of global firms – starting with establishing 30 international colleges of supervisors by the end of this year.
    • Cross border co-operation and concerted action in a crisis

    And we also want to see greater global macroeconomic co-ordination and to prevent the return of protectionism we want to see the reopening of the world trade talks. And I welcome the proposals from Australian Prime Minister Rudd.

    Mr Speaker, the events of the last few days have demonstrated that we need urgently to deploy in Eastern Europe and emerging markets the IMF’s facilities and resources to the fullest extent – and also those of the multilateral development banks:

    • To prevent capital flight;
    • To engage in and support counter cyclical policies;
    • And to finance domestic growth where exports are declining and capital has flown outwards.

    And we need urgently to consider creating a new IMF facility for emerging economies in the current crisis.

    Rescuing eastern European countries is particularly urgent and I have asked the European bank for reconstruction and development, the European investment bank and the World Bank to consider what they can do.

    Mr Speaker, the council also discussed in detail how each of our economies was being affected by the global economic downturn that started in America.

    Had we not acted to stabilise the banking system the effect on households and businesses would have been even more severe; but notwithstanding the action that has been taken the world is facing a severe global economic downturn with negative growth already seen in France, Germany and Italy this year and in the US last year.

    The UK cannot insulate itself from this global downturn, but with interest rates low and falling and inflation expected to come down over the next year, our underlying economic indicators are stronger than at any other previous downturn and debt has been considerably lower than a decade ago and lower than all G7 countries except Canada – enabling the government to increase borrowing at the right time to support the economy.

    The Government will do whatever it takes for mortgage holders, for small firms and for employees to help families and business through what will undoubtedly be a difficult period ahead.

    Like all governments across the world we are considering how fiscal policy can support the economy at this time, carefully targeted rigorously worked through investments that help people fairly through the downturn and lay the foundations for stronger growth in the future. And in Britain’s case we start from the position of low public debt. So we will bring the same focus and determination to the task of safeguarding jobs and homes and small business as we did to avert the threatened meltdown of financial systems.

    Mr Speaker,this will be the central mission of the government over the coming weeks and months. And I welcome the support in the national interest of all prepared to give that support. And let us be clear: it is also action that we take globally to get to the root of the problem in global banking that will make the biggest difference.

    Mr Speaker, the council also reached important conclusions on energy and climate change; on Russia and Georgia and on the European pact on immigration and asylum.

    Next year in Copenhagen, the world has an historic opportunity to secure prosperity for generations ahead with international action on climate change.

    While there are those who will seek to use current global financial problems as an excuse to pull back from change, to pull up the drawbridge and renege on commitments, in fact, it is now more essential than ever before to push forwards with our ambitious agenda on energy security and climate change.

    As the Stern Report showed, weak or delayed action will cost us all more in the years to come, both financially and economically.

    The council reaffirmed its commitment to reach agreement by December on its energy and climate change package for 2020. We made clear the importance in doing so of achieving a fair balance – with all member states accepting new commitments; that there must be flexibility for member states to meet targets in the most cost-effective way; and that Europe’s package must send the strongest possible signal to encourage the rest of the world to aim high at the Copenhagen summit next year.

    Mr Speaker, as last week’s statement from my Rt. Hon Friend, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change made clear, this government is committed to the most ambitious targets – cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by the middle of this century. Not just for the future of our environment – but as a crucial part of our strategy for energy security.

    But we cannot fulfil our aspirations for climate change without nuclear power and European and international co-operation. And that is why we will fully engage with the European Union on the environment and not pursue a policy based on unilateralism and detachment.

    Faced with historically high and volatile oil prices, it is more essential than ever before that we act to end our dependency on oil.

    The council looked for:

    • Greater diversification of energy sources
    • The completion of fully functioning EU energy markets
    • And improved critical energy infrastructure, for example, in the southern corridor. Our London energy meeting in December will seek to drive forward progress in the critical dialogue between oil producing and oil consuming nations.

    And today I would urge OPEC at its meeting on Friday to work through dialogue with consumer countries to stabilise the energy market as a whole. Mr Speaker, the council has expressed its grave concern over Russia’s actions in Georgia and called on all sides to implement in full the six-point plan agreed with European leaders.

    The council therefore welcomed the withdrawal of Russian troops as an essential additional step in the implementation of the agreements of 12th August and 8th September; and the launching in Geneva of the international discussions provided for by those agreements.

    Mr Speaker, the council and commission will continue to make a full in-depth evaluation of relations with Russia ahead of the EU-Russia summit in nice next month.

    The council also resolved to continue to support its eastern neighbours in their efforts to achieve democracy and economic modernisation and to consider a future EU “eastern partnership.”

    Finally, the council considered the European pact on immigration and asylum, underlining the importance of ensuring coherence between union policies, including free movement.

    Mr Speaker, Britain and Europe benefits economically from free movement – but free movement cannot be an unfettered right. It must bring with it clear responsibilities – with failure to meet them carrying clear consequences including, where appropriate, the loss of that right entirely.

    I discussed this point in further detail with a number of European leaders in the margins of the council, building considerable support across member states and agreement to look further at the responsibilities associated with free movement where crimes are committed by EU residents in the EU but outside their country of origin – and to return to this issue in December.

    Mr Speaker, this summit showed that in facing global challenges, whether the credit crunch, climate change or energy security, we succeed best not in isolation but in co-operation, not with unilateralism and separation from our European neighbours but in active partnership with them. And that is why our policy will rightly remain one of being fully engaged at the centre of Europe.

    And I commend this statement to the House.

  • Gordon Brown – 2008 Press Conference on EU Council Meeting

    Gordon Brown – 2008 Press Conference on EU Council Meeting

    The text of the press conference with Gordon Brown on 7 November 2008.

    Good Morning. Well thank you very much for joining me this morning.

    I go to Brussels today for the important meeting of the European leaders, and over the last few days I have been talking to world leaders from every continent.  This morning I have spoken to Premier Wen of China, yesterday I spoke to Kevin Rudd, the Prime Minister of Australia.  I have spoken this week to President Medvedev of Russia, I will be meeting President Sarkozy and Chancellor Merkel and Prime Minister Berlusconi in Brussels later today, as well as President Barroso.  I also spoke yesterday to President Bush and President-elect Obama to discuss how we will work with the US administration in the weeks and months ahead.

    This is a decisive moment for the world economy.  The decisions that we make now will affect our world for a decade or more to come. And people now recognise that this is a global crisis that requires a global solution. That is the reason why I have been speaking to other world leaders to build agreement on what we can do together to solve the problems, and that is why this is not a time for business as usual.  If we are to solve the economic crisis and get our economies moving, then we need as a world community to take action together on a number of different fronts.

    We have seen cuts in interest rates yesterday.  I believe that it is important that these cuts in interest rates are passed on to mortgage holders and to small businesses.  I believe that we have seen also cuts in interest rates in the European Union and will see cuts in interest rates around the world, and I believe that cooperative action on interest rates should be complemented by action on fiscal policy with monetary policy supported by fiscal policy.  We have already cut taxes this year, with the £120 tax cut for basic rate taxpayers, we have got a stamp duty holiday for a large number of people and a fuel duty freeze, and we have made it clear that this is the wrong time for short term cuts in investment in public spending. And I look forward to discussing with other colleagues around the world how fiscal and monetary policy can work together to make sure that the world economy can begin to grow again.

    I also am sure that there is a growing consensus about rooting out the abuses in the financial system where irresponsibility and excess has caused many of the problems we have had to face. And I believe there is now increasing agreement on the need for greater transparency, integrity, responsibility and sound banking principles and increased agreement now also about the international coordination that has got to be adequate to deal with a global economy with global flows of capital.

    And there is agreement also about two other things:  that we need an international support  mechanism to stop the spread of contagion, particularly from eastern Europe and an enhanced facility that will enable us to support economies in distress. And we need to back up the proposals on world trade by rejecting protectionism and hopefully moving forward to a world trade deal over the next few weeks and months.

    Now these are proposals that I am putting to world leaders, these are proposals that will be discussed in the European Union today.  I believe that when we go to Washington next Friday and Saturday for the meetings that will include twenty of the world’s leading countries, there is a growing consensus that the world must work together to solve the problems we face and the proposals that we have put forward, starting with the recapitalisation and strengthening of the banking system, are gaining support in many other countries.

    I will continue my efforts over the next week to enlist support for proposals that I hope will be common to every continent as we reach Washington next weekend.

    Question:

    Prime Minister can you explain to people struggling to pay their mortgages, what is your Plan B if the banks do not pass on the interest rate cut in full?

    Prime Minister:

    We have done two things already:  we have given liquidity to the banks so that they have if you like the money to keep their normal operations going;  we have now recapitalised the banks and that is to provide strength to the banks so that their capital base, their shareholdings are being taken, in some cases by the government.  £50 billion is being injected into the banks, that is part of a conditional agreement we have with these banks that they will have lending at the same level through the availability and marketing of it as 2007.

    And so we are determined not only that the interest rate cuts are passed through, we are also determined that lending resumes so that home owners looking for mortgages, small businesses looking for cashflow, families looking for the normal practices of banking to help them as they go through their lives, that that is properly resumed by the banking system.  We are having talks today with the bankers, we will continue to press our case upon them, and I think there is now an understanding that the government has done what it can, the Bank of England has done what it could yesterday by reducing interest rates, and it is now up to the banks to take their lead seriously in what they have to do to resume lending and to do so at rates that are appropriate, and not rates that are excessive.

    Question:

    Prime Minister there are reports this morning that British troops, the majority of British troops, will be withdrawn from Iraq by April.  You have said there will be a fundamental change in mission in the early part of next year, when can British soldiers and their families expect to hear the details of that plan and will they be out of Iraq by April?

    Prime Minister:

    Well I want to be absolutely clear that there is no change in our policy.  Our policy was set out in July, it is to continue and to finish the work that we have agreed to do in Iraq, that is training the Iraqi troops, we are training thousands of Iraqi troops and thousands of Iraqi policemen and women, we are pursuing a strategy to give people in Basra, the area in which we are involved, a stake in the economic future of that area and we are involved in a great deal of economic development there.

    We are trying to make sure that local elections take place so that local leaders are in place, and that is the task that we are carrying out at the moment and there is no change in our position from what I announced last July that until we have done these things there will not be the fundamental change in mission.  Once we have done these things, there will be that fundamental change in mission.

    Question:

    You have talked about the need to have a fiscal stimulus as well as a monetary solution to the downturn, how important as part of that stimulus are tax cuts as well as borrowing increases?

    Prime Minister:

    Well interestingly enough we have already made a tax cut, we made sure that the personal allowance delivered people £120 for basic rate taxpayers, money that some people have already received, £60, another £60 to come.  We froze fuel duty, we changed the basis of stamp duty so that half the houses in Britain, if they are sold, don’t face a stamp duty rise, and we have also made it clear that this is the wrong time to make cuts in public spending and investment projects that are necessary to build for our future.

    So I think we have shown, as other countries are now showing, that we will take the necessary action in monetary policy with cuts in interest rates and in the action we have taken on taxes and spending to ensure that we can come through this downturn. And all the decisions we are taking are to be fair to hard working people.  In other downturns, working people, hard working families, people on middle and lower incomes have not had the support that we are now prepared to give, and trying to give over this difficult period of time. And I repeat, my undivided attention is on taking people through this difficult downturn, but taking people through it fairly by giving real help to people in tough times.

  • Keith Vaz – 2000 Speech on the Europeanisation of South East Europe

    Keith Vaz – 2000 Speech on the Europeanisation of South East Europe

    The speech made by Keith Vaz, the then Minister for Europe, on 7 July 2000.

    Your Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen, good morning.

    This conference comes at a key moment for South East Europe. One year after the Kosovo crisis democracy is spreading throughout the region. People have exercised their right to vote in free and fair elections in Croatia, many parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina and in Montenegro. There will be elections this autumn in Kosovo, Albania and Bosnia and we hope that Serbian local elections and FRY state-level elections later this year will allow democracy to flourish there too.

    We want to see a new EU Balkan agenda to encourage this trend, one which will show the practical benefits of living up to European standards and ideals which will strengthen support amongst ordinary people in the region for what Chris Patten has described as the road to Europe. As President Clinton said during his visit to Europe in June, our goal must be to de-Balkanise the Balkans. Relations with the European Union are already growing stronger.

    EU ENLARGEMENT

    Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania and Slovenia are negotiating to join the European Union. Macedonia and Croatia are well on the way to EU Stabilisation and Association Agreements. The European Union has set a clear path for Albania and Bosnia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is also eligible once they meet the European Union’s conditions.

    The prospect of closer EU relations and eventually EU membership is an important incentive for change. We welcome the growing evidence of commitments to European ideals and standards and to genuine intra-regional co-operation and I look forward to the summit hosted by the French Presidency in Croatia this autumn, which will be an opportunity to reinforce that message. The Stability Pact is reinforcing this process of Europeanisation, encouraging the countries of South East Europe to work together for shared goals. It has provided 2.4 billion euros for a variety of projects starting in the next twelve months. Britain has particularly supported the pact’s investment compact of which several of you must have attended yesterday’s meeting.

    OVERCOMING LEGACIES OF THE PAST

    Nevertheless there are significant challenges ahead for the region, including for Serbia. The West can and should help, but the real work has to be done by the people of South East Europe themselves. Overcoming the legacy of nationalism, extremism and war is a huge task, but South Africa, Northern Ireland and the Middle East show how old enemies can set aside their quarrels and work together for everyone’s benefit. France and Germany were at war for much of the first half of the last century, yet a common European destiny has made them and the rest of Western Europe firm allies and friends.

    Constructive leadership is crucial. Look at the example of Croatia. The Croatian Government and people have witnessed a dramatic turnaround in their relationship with Europe since the beginning of the year. The same path, the same opportunities, are open to the people of Serbia, but not while they are held back from their rightful place in the European family by a selfish corrupt regime whose leaders refuse to be held responsible for their past actions. Milosevic has presided over the ruin of his country. The cost of Milosevic may have been as much as a hundred billion dollars, the difference between actual national income since 1991 and what that income might have been if Serbia too had embraced economic and democratic reform. Only when Milosevic has gone to The Hague can Serbia’s reconstruction begin in earnest and there should be no doubt of our willingness to help when that happens.

    TRADE AND INVESTMENT

    I hope the conference today will build links between us and the region in the areas where the European Union can really make a difference. Trade and investment, it is time for the EU to be bold, imaginative and generous. We should open its markets to South East Europe’s products and South Eastern Europe in return needs to attract investors by creating a favourable climate for investment. That is why I am so delighted to see here today so many leading members of the private sector. The private sector’s involvement of the reconstruction of the Balkans is absolutely crucial. We shall hear more from Sir David Wright on this point later. Secondly, civil society, people to people links between NGO’s, universities, towns, cities and other civic groups will help spread awareness of Europe.

    The Lisbon Economic Council highlighted the importance of the information society for the EU. We want South East Europe too to exploit the opportunities of e-commerce and the Internet in increasing economic growth, breaking down ethnic barriers and facilitating freedom of information.

    CONCLUSION

    Finally, the European Union has committed over fifteen billion euros to South East Europe over the last decade, but Europeanisation is not just about a transfer of resources, but a transfer of vision, including the people of this corner of our continent and in our common European destiny. The European Union has just such a vision for the people of Central Europe and over the last decade tremendous change has already happened there. I hope for the same for South East Europe. Following this seminar we shall be establishing a UK-Balkans Task Force to build on what we have achieved here and to monitor progress. I shall be calling on some of you to take part in that Task Force.