UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Speeches

  • John Stonehouse – 1969 Speech on the Strike of Overseas Telegraphists

    John Stonehouse – 1969 Speech on the Strike of Overseas Telegraphists

    The speech made by John Stonehouse, the then Postmaster General, in the House of Commons on 20 January 1969.

    I very much regret that a strike of overseas telegraphists has started as a result of a dispute over pay and productivity.

    In accordance with an agreement between the Treasury and the Staff Side of the National Whitley Council, civil servants who had not had a pay increase since 1st January, 1966 were granted a pay increase of 5 per cent. from 1st July, 1968, pending a full revision of their salary scales in the light of pay research.

    The Union of Post Office Workers opted out of this agreement. It chose instead to negotiate separately with the Post Office pay claims in respect of the various grades which it represents. It wanted to take account of increased productivity in various spheres of work, and agreements were, in fact, negotiated on this basis for telephonists and postmen.

    In the case of overseas telegraph operators, I have made an offer of 5 per cent from 1st July, 1968—equivalent to the central Civil Service pay increase—plus a further 2 per cent. from an early date conditional upon their accepting changes in practice which will increase productivity.

    The union refused to accept this offer and counter-claimed a 5 per cent. increase backdated to 1st July, 1968, deferring until next July any discussion on productivity measures. In effect, the union is now seeking to opt back into the Civil Service central pay agreement for O.T.O.s, having secured substantial advantages for the telephonists and postmen by opting out.

    The union’s proposal has great disadvantages, because it would mean deferring important improvements in efficiency which we know can be made and substantial improvements in service in a part of the system where service improvement is badly needed. I accordingly rejected the union’s proposal and maintained the offer of 5 per cent. plus 2 per cent., making a total of 7 per cent.

    I have had to close down the overseas telegraph message service and the manually operated telex services. The automatic telex services to the principal countries of Europe, New Zealand and parts of the United States and Canada, and the overseas telephone services will continue to operate, but these services are already fully loaded during normal business hours and any substantial increase in use will cause severe delay.

    I deplore the damage to the commercial life of the country, and particularly to the export drive, which will result from the strike, and I appeal once again to the union to agree to a reference to arbitration, which is the agreed method of resolving disputes of this kind.

    Mr. Carr While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for the full account of the position as it is at the moment, may I ask him to tell the House, in view of the very serious effect of this matter on our foreign trade, what positive steps he proposes to take?

    Secondly, will he consider, in conjunction with his right hon. Friend the First Secretary, in the light of this experience, whether the proposals that she has just made in her White Paper would in due course help in a situation of this kind?

    Mr. Stonehouse I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the serious effects of this strike. This is all the more reason why I hope that the union will take note of the appeal which I have made to it during the last few days and which I have repeated today, namely, that it should allow this dispute to go to arbitration, which is the agreed procedure. I shall, of course, consult with my right hon. Friend the First Secretary about any further steps which we can take.

    Mr. Mendelson In view of the sense of grievance under which this group of officers is working, which is similar to the feeling which was held by many railway-men when there was a railway dispute earlier, would my right hon. Friend consider finding a solution along the same lines as was found on that occasion; namely, that he should call the two sides together and offer to agree to an interim increase, and that the final increase be left in abeyance until such time as agreement is reached?

    Mr. Stonehouse There is an agreed procedure for proceeding to arbitration in the event of a dispute. As the union has been asking to be treated as civil servants, subject to the central pay increase, I believe that it should accept the agreed procedure.

    However, we are very willing indeed to grant immediately the pay increase which it has requested, namely, 5 per cent. from last July plus 2 per cent. for agreed productivity measures which would help to improve the service and substantially improve the conditions of service of these employees.

    Mr. Bessell Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this strike is likely to cost the country millions, if not tens of millions, of pounds? In these circumstances, should not he accept the offer of the union of 5 per cent. now and negotiate the question of a productivity agreement later, particularly as this is a matter of genuine national emergency?

    Mr. Stonehouse I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not expect me to say anything today which might worsen the situation and make an agreement less likely. I will, of course, bear in mind what he has said.

    I believe that the offer which the Post Office has made to this group of employees—it is in line with agreements that have already been reached with their fellow employees, the postmen and telephonists—is one which, in all wisdom, should be accepted.

    Mr. Kitson Would the right hon. Gentleman consider, in the present difficult situation, the possibility of reducing charges during the reduced rate period for international telephone calls?

    Mr. Stonehouse I do not believe that that would be a helpful suggestion. As I said, there is spare capacity at off-peak times. I believe that it would be in the best interest of the members of the business community for them to take advantage of that spare capacity. I do not think that it would be in the general interest to reduce rates.

    Sir Clive Bossom As this is a most vital service, especially to small exporters, would it be possible for the Armed Services to handle the most urgent traffic and also the most urgent compassionate cases?

    Mr. Stonehouse I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman’s second suggestion would be particularly helpful. I am considering ways in which particularly small exporters can be assisted because, as the hon. Gentleman says, they will be particularly affected as a result of this strike.

    Mr. Kenneth Lewis Would my right hon. Friend endeavour to persuade Government Departments to limit their use of the overseas service so that industry may maximise its use?

    Mr. Stonehouse I will certainly consider that suggestion.

  • John Stonehouse – 1975 Parliamentary Question on the Number of Staff in the Cabinet Office and Downing Street

    John Stonehouse – 1975 Parliamentary Question on the Number of Staff in the Cabinet Office and Downing Street

    The parliamentary question asked by John Stonehouse, the Labour MP for Walsall North, on 24 November 1975.

    Mr. Stonehouse asked the Prime Minister what is the current total number of public servants in the Cabinet Office and his secretariat, respectively; what were the totals in 1964; and what is the percentage increase or decrease between the two dates.

    The Prime Minister The total number of public servants in the Cabinet Office is currently 681 compared with 356 at the same point in 1964. This represents a net increase in staff of 91 per cent., due largely to additional functions and services. The number of staff at 10 Downing Street is currently 68, including three who are employed part-time, compared with 45 in 1964, an increase on a full-time basis of 48 per cent.

  • John Stonehouse – 1975 Parliamentary Question on Brixton Prison

    John Stonehouse – 1975 Parliamentary Question on Brixton Prison

    The parliamentary question asked by John Stonehouse, the then Labour MP for Walsall North, in the House of Commons on 11 November 1975.

    Mr. Stonehouse asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish in the Official Report a schedule of deaths of prisoners in the 12 months to 31st October 1975 in Brixton Prison identifying prisoners by age only and specifying the cause of death in each case.

    Dr. Summerskill Five prisoners at Her Majesty’s Prison Brixton died in the 12 months to 31st October 1975. The particulars of four are given below. The fifth death occurred on 28th October last and an inquest has not yet been held.

    CAUSES OF DEATH, AND AGES OF DEATH OF PRISONERS WHO DIED AT HM PRISON BRIXTON, 1ST NOVEMBER 1974—31ST OCTOBER 1975

    Age | Cause

    23 | Natural causes—acute pneumonia and myocarditis.
    27 | Natural causes—status epilepticus.
    39 | Suicide—hanging.
    51 | Suicide—acute narcotic poisoning.

    Mr. Stonehouse asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has caused any internal inquiry into any death of a prisoner at Brixton Prison during the 12 months to 31st October 1975; and with what result.

    Dr. Summerskill No; all five deaths which have occurred in this period were however reported to the coroner.

    Mr. Stonehouse asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many foreign subjects were held in Brixton Prison on 1st September and 1st October, respectively; and for what alleged offences.

    Dr. Summerskill I regret that only an estimate of the number of foreign subjects held in Brixton prison is available. On 1st September and 1st October about 300 prisoners of foreign nationality were held there, of whom about 230 also held British citizenship. More detailed information, and information about alleged offences, could be obtained only by extensive inquiry and at disproportionate cost.

  • John Stonehouse – 1975 Speech on Industry and Trade Unions

    John Stonehouse – 1975 Speech on Industry and Trade Unions

    The speech made by John Stonehouse, the then Labour MP for Walsall North, in the House of Commons on 20 November 1975.

    I do not know any-thing about the Maidstone plant. I am happy to concede the point as the hon. Gentleman, who represents the area, is so well informed about the Maidstone situation.

    We have also had a depressing situation at British Leyland which has resulted in the company having to be bailed out at enormous expense. On the news today there was the announcement that 2,000 workers producing Jaguars, cars which sell extremely well abroad and which are in great demand, have been laid off because of yet another dispute. It does not seem that the lessons are being learnt. I wonder when the Government will speak out frankly on this issue which has been so undermining the performance of British industry.

    Last week we had yet another illustration of the deplorable effect of strikes—namely, the dispute at the Daily Express. Of course we do not read very much about that sort of dispute in the newspapers, because there is an undertaking in the newspaper industry not to refer overmuch to the overmanning problems and the restrictive practices that they have to suffer. We only hear about such matters indirectly.

    I understand that 96 maintenance engineers at the Daily Express were dismissed, many of them being superfluous to requirements. Their reply was not only to put a pistol to the head of their employer in the way that Mr. Riccardo was putting a pistol at the Prime Minister’s head, but to bring out all the engineers of all the other newspapers, who also put their employers against the wall with machine guns at their heads. It was that sort of threat that made the employers collapse. Yet another victory was secured for a minority within a minority.

    That sort of action is not trade unionism: it is a Mafia tactic, a protection-racket tactic. There is too much of that sort of action in British industry and someone some day must say something about it. I believe that the trade unions have developed too much power and that they abuse their power. They do not act in the best long-term interests of their members. Further, they do not act in the best interests of the community. Very often they act irresponsibly.

    Faced with that situation, what action do the Government take? Instead of dealing with the problem of the growth of trade union feudalism within our industrial economy, a feudalism which is partly, if not mainly, responsible for our depressing experience in productivity compared with other industrial States, they announce that they will reintroduce legislation to remove the remaining unsatisfactory features of the Industrial Relations Act 1971. They will waste parliamentary time going through all that again when they could have had a Bill enacted last Session with only one serious point excluded from it from the Government’s point of view. What was that point? It was the provision that sought to establish a closed shop for journalists. When we are faced with the immense problem of trade union feudalism, why is it that we have the Government wasting time on a proposal to reintroduce legislation for that purpose?

    We also have proposals for industrial democracy, with which I agree. However, I hope that that does not mean syndicalism. In many areas in which industrial democracy is applied I believe that there is an attempt by those concerned not to run a viable industry, but to hold others to ransom.

    Regrettably, there are signs of that happening within the Post Office, an industry which I knew quite well a few years ago. At that time we came up against many overmanning techniques by the trade unions. Even today restrictive practices are still preventing the implementation of new ideas and the use of new machinery. I believe that industrial democracy must mean a greater sense of responsibility on the part of workers and those who participate rather than the impression being given that through this technique they will be able to hold on to restrictive practices which are clearly anathema to the progressive improvement of Britain’s economy.

    Reference is made in the Gracious Speech to the Post Office banking system. It is important that the Ministers responsible should come clean about the real cost of Giro. During the period when I was the Minister responsible it was my job to take over the Giro proposals which had already been agreed by my colleagues. It was my task to implement the new service. I did so at the time with some misgivings, and I look back with some dismay on what was done at that time and since. Giro has already cost the taxpayer over £30 million. It is a wasteful system. Even today it is wasting money, because it under-estimates the real cost of the service. In particular, it depends so much on the postal services and there is no accurate costing of the postal factor involved. That disguises the true cost of the Giro service.

    In introducing the Gracious Speech, the Government have taken on more than they can handle during the next year. I believe that the devolution proposals will need a great deal more consideration than even the Government have imagined. I hope that they will turn their attention away from shibboleths and diversions to tackle at least two of the most serious problems that need to be dealt with if we are to get out of our crisis.

  • Selwyn Lloyd – 1975 Comments on the Personal Statement Being Made by John Stonehouse

    Selwyn Lloyd – 1975 Comments on the Personal Statement Being Made by John Stonehouse

    The comments made by Selwyn Lloyd, the then Speaker of the House of Commons, in the House on 20 October 1975 in advance of the personal statement being made by John Stonehouse.

    Before I call upon the right hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Stonehouse) to make a personal statement I want to make one or two matters clear.

    Responsibility for the decision to allow the right hon. Member to make a statement is mine. If the House wishes to introduce a new Standing Order dealing with personal statements I am sure that any occupant of the Chair would be grateful. I certainly have not found this an easy matter to decide. The right hon. Gentleman’s affairs and absence have frequently been referred to in the House. A Select Committee was set up and has reported. I am of the opinion that in those circumstances I should allow the right hon. Member to make a statement about his absence.

    As to the precise contents of the statement, the task of the Chair in this case has been to ensure that nothing should be said in it concerning matters which are sub judice and that it does not involve attacks upon other Members.

    The convention of this House is that a personal statement should be listened to in silence.

  • John Stonehouse – 1975 Personal Statement Made in the House of Commons Following his Disappearance

    John Stonehouse – 1975 Personal Statement Made in the House of Commons Following his Disappearance

    The statement made by John Stonehouse, the then Labour MP for Walsall North, in the House of Commons on 20 October 1975.

    I think I should first explain that the fact that I am speaking from the benches on the Opposition side of the House has no party political significance whatsoever. I am standing here because this is the place that I occupied for most of my time in the House in the last nearly 19 years, and indeed it was from this bench that I made a personal statement when I returned from Rhodesia some 16 years ago on 13th March 1959.

    Mr. Speaker Order. The rules are very, very strict. The right hon. Gentleman must say only what has been passed by me.

    Mr. Stonehouse I simply wanted to say that as there were some inquiries as to why I was at this bench, in particular from some hon. Members who were already sitting here, I felt that I should explain why I chose to speak from this side of the House.

    I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for your agreement to my request to make a statement. It is not easy for me; nor is it easy for the House. The events surrounding my disappearance last November, and since, have created tremendous Press publicity, and everyone’s consideration of my experience has been coloured and influenced by that media treatment. There have been incredible allegations made against me—

    Mr. Speaker Order. The hon. Gentleman must be very careful. He is not now reading from the text which has been agreed with me.

    Mr. Stonehouse I have made a few textual changes.

    Mr. Speaker Let there be no misunderstanding about this. The right hon. Member is entitled to say only what I have passed.

    Mr. Stonehouse In particular—you will see this in the text, Mr. Speaker—I deny the allegation that I was an agent for the CIA. I deny the allegations that I was a spy for the Czechs. I can only regret that the original stories were printed. The purpose of this statement is to explain, as best I can within the traditions of the House, why I was absent from the House for such a lengthy period.

    The explanation for the extraordinary and bizarre conduct in the second half of last year is found in the progressions towards the complete mental breakdown which I suffered. This breakdown was analysed by an eminent psychiatrist in Australia and was described by him as psychiatric suicide. It took the form of the repudiation of the life of Stonehouse because that life had become absolutely intolerable to him. A new parallel personality took over—separate and apart from the original man, who was resented and despised by the parallel personality for the ugly humbug and sham of the recent years of his public life. The parallel personality was uncluttered by the awesome tensions and stresses suffered by the original man, and he felt, as an ordinary person, a tremendous relief in not carrying the load of anguish which had burdened the public figure.

    The collapse and destruction of the original man came about because his idealism in his political life had been utterly frustrated and finally destroyed by the pattern of events, beyond his control, which had finally overwhelmed him. Those events which caused the death of an idealist are too complex to describe in detail here, but in the interests of clarity as well as brevity I refer to them as follows.

    Uganda was a country in which I worked for two years in the development of the co-operative movement. I was active also in developing political progress and became, for instance, a character witness for one of the accused in the Jomo Kenyatta Mau Mau trial in Kenya.

    Later, as a back-bench Member of Parliament, I campaigned vigorously for African independence and became vice-chairman of the Movement for Colonial Freedom. Much of my back-bench activities at that time—conducted, incidentally, from this bench—were concerned with advancing this cause. I believed in it sincerely and passionately. But those ideals were shattered in the late 1960s and the 1970s as Uganda and some other countries I had helped towards independence moved from democracy to military dictatorship and despair.

    The co-operative movement in Britain had been a great ideal for me from an early age. Co-operation was almost a religion for me. It was not only a way to run a business; it was a way of life from which selfishness, greed and exploitation were completely excluded. I became a director and later President of the London Co-operative Society, the largest retail co-operative society in the world, in active pursuit of those ideals. I did not do it for money. The honorarium was £20 per year.

    But I was pursued by the Communists in that position during that period. I was bitterly attacked, and at that time—

    Mr. Speaker Order. The right hon. Gentleman must say only what I have passed.

    Mr. Stonehouse That time was a most traumatic one for me and wounded my soul deeply. It had become cruelly clear that my co-operative ideals were too ambitious, for, in truth, they could not be achieved, given human motivations. I felt as though my religion had been exposed as a pagan rite.

    Bangladesh is a country which I helped to create, and, with my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann), I was one of the first in the House to take up the cause of self-determination for East Pakistan following the terrible events of the military crack-down in March 1971, when 10 million people had to flee for their lives to the safety of India. I became deeply involved as a result of first-hand experience in Bengal during the struggle for freedom. I sponsored several early-day motions concerned with Bangladesh, including one which attracted over 100 signatories, calling for the recognition of an independent and sovereign Bangladesh. That motion, in July 1971, was most significant in the progression of events towards the independence which finally came in December of that year.

    Bangladesh made me a citizen in recognition of my identification with the cause. I was enthused at that time with hope, but the hopes turned to tears as the conditions in that country deteriorated. Another of my ideals had collapsed.

    After the Labour defeat of 1970, I became active in export businesses, a field in which I had been successful as a Minister and one in which I felt I could make a contribution in assisting British exports. I had hoped to establish personal financial security after a few years and then to return to full-time political activity. My enterprises were successful.

    However, early in 1972, I was approached by Bengalis residing in this country who wanted me to assist the establishment of a bank to cement relationships between Britain and Bangladesh. This involved me in very great problems, which could have ruined my career and public standing, and I was left a broken man as a result of the nervous tension I suffered throughout that period. That experience contributed heavily to my breakdown.

    In 1974, with the collapse of many secondary banks and the problems of the British economy, the strains became even worse. There seemed no escape from the awesome pressures which were squeezing the will to live from the original man. Everything he had lived for and worked for seemed to be damned.

    In this House itself, I felt a big weight bearing down on me. It was physically painful for me to be in the Chamber because it was such a reminder of my lost ideals. I was suffocated with the anguish of it all. The original man had become a burden to himself, to his family and to his friends. He could no longer take the strain and had to go. Hence, the emergence of the parallel personality, the disappearance and the long absence during the period of recovery.

    That recovery took time, and in the early stages the psychiatrist in Australia advised that I should not return to England until I had recovered, as a premature return would inevitably do further harm to my health. At the time of the disappearance, no criminal charges were laid or anticipated; they did not come till four months later.

    In view of the facts, I hope that the House will agree that the right hon. Member for Walsall, North had no intention of removing himself from the processes of justice as established by Parliament.

    I am not allowed by your ruling, Mr. Speaker, to refer to what you consider to be controversial subjects, and of course I accept your judgment; but I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that one man’s meat—

    Mr. Speaker Order. The right hon. Gentleman is again departing from the text.

    Mr. Stonehouse Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am simply explaining that I accept your judgment entirely, but a personal statement is a personal statement, and I must advise the House that half of my original statement was deleted by you. However, I fully appreciate your position, and I am deeply indebted to you for your sympathy, understanding and forbearance in the difficult circumstances which I have involuntarily created for you and the House during these past 11 months. I am very grateful to those hon. Members who have extended understanding in my turmoil—especially to my hon. Friends the Members for Mitcham and Morden and for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller), the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), and the hon. Members for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry) and for Horncastle (Mr. Tapsell). I express thanks also to the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) and the then Foreign Secretary who both helped me through a terrible crisis in 1973. I thank the Clerks at the Table and their assistants, who have been exceptionally helpful in recent months.

  • Mark Spencer – 2023 Speech to the Oxford Farming Conference

    Mark Spencer – 2023 Speech to the Oxford Farming Conference

    The speech made by Mark Spencer, the Farming Minister, on 5 January 2023.

    Hello everyone, and happy new year. It’s great to be back at the Oxford Farming Conference.

    It’s good to see many old friends. I’m a farmer before I became a politician. My background is in dairy farming. The family farm up in Nottinghamshire is now mostly a diversified business primarily focused on farm retail with some beef and lamb, potatoes and arable.

    Four generations of my family have lived in the rural constituency that I am proud to represent, in Sherwood, so, I’ve seen first-hand how the challenges we’ve faced in recent years have reminded people up and down the country just how much we all rely on you as farmers.

    Keeping us fed through thick and thin, playing a vital role in our rural communities and our rural economy and taking care of our landscapes, as farmers have been doing for generations.

    I hope you have a sense of the respect that the British people have for all of you and what you do – and our gratitude as well.

    When I first joined the Nottinghamshire Young Farmer’s Club as a young boy, I would never have imagined that I would be up on stage speaking to the Oxford farming conference.

    The last time I spoke here was in the year 2000 – as chair of the Young Farmers, some of you might even remember that. And it’s great to join you now.

    I’m planning to be around for most of the day so it will be good to catch up with some of you – and I welcome the theme that you’ve chosen for the conference.

    Because all the evidence we have, as well as plain common sense, tells us that making the shift towards a more sustainable, resilient food system is critical to feeding a growing population, to meeting our world-leading commitments to halt the decline of nature by 2030 and reach net zero, and fundamentally improving the lives of people across our country and around the world, so we make sure every generation has a better future as well.

    So in other words, we’ve got to keep everyone fed and save the planet. And those things are two sides of the same coin in my book, so we need to recognise the vital importance of the solutions that farmers bring to the table, and we must work together as land managers, farmers and the government.

    It’s as complicated and as simple as that. And, while farming has always been part of my life, I am new to being the Farming Minister so, I appreciate your engagement, your counsel, and your challenge as we crack on and I look forward to working with you hand in hand.

    And here’s how I see it. I want us to be free of the damaging legacy of the bureaucratic Common Agricultural Policy – for good, learn from the past and focus on helping you build and maintain profitable, resilient businesses that produces the food we need and enhances the natural environment at the same time.

    I know that you are feeling the impact of a whole host of pressures at the moment, pressures in the supply chain, avian influenza, and other pests and diseases that threaten farm businesses and food production. Labour supply is also a challenge, and economic volatility we are feeling following Putin’s invasion of the UK.

    That’s why we’re putting in place a range of measures to help. We’re meeting retailers and processers regularly to encourage them to recognise that the burden of those costs is falling heavily on farmers and make sure that it’s shared more fairly, across the supply chain.

    We’ve brought forward BPS payments to twice a year, for the first time ever, we’ve started making payments in our new Sustainable Farming Incentive on a quarterly basis instead of annually – and we plan to extend this approach to all our schemes as soon as we can, making the most of our ability to be more flexible now we’re doing things on our own terms so we support your cashflow, rather than adding to your challenges.

    I’ve been working with colleagues to make sure farmers benefit from a range of measures from across the whole government: increasing the Employment Allowance, cutting fuel duty, taking action on business rates, and this month, through the Energy Relief Scheme you can apply for extra help if your household does not have a direct relationship to a domestic energy supplier.

    I am well aware of the importance of seasonal labour to the sector and to our national food security. In my time in post, I have championed the seasonal workers scheme across Government.

    Just before Christmas, we made an initial 45,000 visas available for seasonal workers to travel to the UK for up to six months – that’s 15,000 more than this time last year, with the possibility of an extra 10,000 more, if we can show that they’re required and needed.

    This is a big statement of the value this Government sees in the farming sector. Looking forward we need a more structured way of providing the industry with the labour it needs.

    That is why we commissioned an independent review into labour shortages in the food supply chain. The review will report later this year and I look forward to ensuring the sector has the labour it needs to thrive.

    And as the Secretary of State has acknowledged recently, we know that recent uncertainty about the Government’s intentions for the future hasn’t helped.

    I was pleased to hear her address that in her speech in December. And now, I want you to hear it from me as well. The review of farming policy was undertaken in good faith.

    We’ve now concluded that review, and we’re going to be cracking on with our planned reforms. We remain as ambitious as ever – for the quality of our services and the huge positive impacts you can make, with the right support – by providing food for our country and improving our natural environment.

    And we are committed to making sure our schemes and services work for all of you.

    So, we will continue to work with you to make sure you have the clarity and certainty you need to plan ahead for your businesses as we move ahead through our transition, towards a much better way of doing things so we help the environment by backing the frontrunners, helping everyone to bring up their baseline and improve it year on year; and tackling the polluters who stubbornly continue to refuse our help, and threaten to undermine everyone else’s hard work on the way so we can focus on helping all of you to take your businesses into the future.

    This month we’ll be publishing detailed information about what we will pay for in our schemes and how you can get involved – this year and beyond.

    And of course, the level of funding available to farmers remains unchanged – just as we committed in our manifesto.

    As we make planned, steady, fair reductions to BPS payments, all the funding from reductions in BPS is being made available to farmers though a combination of one-off grants and ongoing schemes as we pay you to take action through our environmental land management schemes, making sure they work for everyone from commoners to small family farms to our uplands as well.

    And that includes helping landowners and tenant farmers work together in as effective partners, drawing on the insights of Baroness Rock’s Review.

    Everyone has a role to play. And – this is important – we want it to be simple and straightforward for you to succeed. So, I urge you to get involved with the initial phase of the Sustainable Farming Incentive – or SFI. We kicked off the scheme in the summer, starting with soil health.

    There’s no application window. Farmers have told us they they’ve applied in 20 minutes flat, as straightforward as ordering something from an online shop.

    You’ll get your agreement within 2 weeks – often much quicker. Start your agreement the next month and you should start getting paid 3 months later.

    We’ve made the scheme more accessible to tenant farmers by offering 3-year agreements instead of 5-years, and allowing tenants on shorter contracts to enter into the scheme, without the need for landlord consent.

    We’ve made the scheme less prescriptive, giving farmers the flexibility to work out how best to achieve the outcomes we’re looking for, on your land.

    There are no penalties in SFI, and our inspections are now ‘visits’ where we are fair, pragmatic and helpful – rather than looking for reasons to fine you, we are very much there to help and support you.

    And today, I’m announcing a new payment of £20 a hectare for the first 50 hectares – to cover the costs of taking part in SFI, that’s up to £1,000 – in addition to the payments you’ll receive for the work you to do improve your farm and the environment.

    This will be available to everyone joining from the start of our 2023 offer and applied to everyone who is already taking part. So early adopters feel the same benefits, smallest farms feel the biggest difference, SFI is accessible and we stay on track.

    This is a new, additional payment that is designed to support the costs that come with applying for a new offer over the next two years. We will keep it under review between now and 2024, along with all the other aspects of the scheme, to make sure it works farmers, provides value for money and is delivering the outcomes we need.

    Each year, we’ll add more standards to SFI so you can choose more options for your business, including six new standards in 2023 – that’s everything we said we’d do, and more.

    So, if you’ve been considering joining the scheme, in 2023, this is the year to do it – and I encourage you to take a look.

    And we’ll be publishing details of those standards and payment rates in the next few weeks, alongside further details of the additional action we’ll be backing across SFI and Countryside Stewardship as we expand the scope of both schemes in 2023 and 2024 so you can decide what is right for you and plan in terms of the months and years ahead.

    With over 30,000 agreements in our improved Countryside Stewardship scheme – that’s a 94 per cent increase, over the last three years – we’re sticking with it, rather than reinventing the wheel.

    We’ll achieve the same ambitious service improvements and outcomes, but we’ll get there in a smoother, faster and better way that gives you much more clarity and certainty.

    And we know that your costs are rising. So today, I’m pleased to announce, as of today that we have updated our payment rates for Countryside Stewardship for ongoing activities, and for one-off grants for new agreements.

    Those new rates will apply to everyone in the scheme – and they are already live. And the median increase to the value of a CS agreement will be about 10%.

    So we’ve published the full list of prices on GOV.UK today – and we’ll write to all agreement holders to let them know what it means for them.

    I think it’s a good offer and it makes the best use of our available budget and new flexibilities as we phase out direct payments. So take a look at the details online, and make this part of your business plan.

    We will continue to work with you to develop Countryside Stewardship Plus so we evolve the scheme to include a wider range of options and much better service. Better ways for us to target investment to the right places and support farmers and land managers to work together across entire landscapes.

    That’s the right approach, as we develop the markets that will allow us to draw finance from all sources into the sector and with the first 22 Landscape Recovery projects up and running. We’re testing that at scale, with the next round focussing on what we can do when we think big.

    Of course, these schemes are just part of the work we’re doing to secure the future of farming, whether that’s keeping our country at the forefront of precision breeding techniques that are set to have a hugely positive impact on global food security; improving our retention; developing skills and attracting new entrants; tackling more of the things that cause us headaches and sleepless nights, like the way we regulate the traceability of livestock, and the need for better broadband in rural areas; or getting you the support and tools you need to improve productivity, health, and welfare on your farms.

    So everyone receiving BPS is now eligible for free business advice through the Resilience Fund.

    Further rounds of grants through the Farming Investment Fund will be coming up early in 2023 helping you make investments in your business in equipment, technology and infrastructure.

    More visits from vets have started and will be available more widely in the coming weeks, with new animal health and welfare grants to follow in the spring for all sectors and with specific support for improving house infrastructure.

    There’s much more to come as part of our ongoing commitment to getting cutting edge-kit out of labs and on to farms as well, building on the hundreds of projects that are already underway, and the thousands of grants we’ve already made.

    I look forward to seeing the project proposals in to our £12.5 million automation and robotics competition when it opens on Monday.

    And I’m pleased to announce that we’re raising our capital payment rates for tree planting as well for the England Woodland Creation Offer and our Tree Health Pilot, alongside increasing annual payment rates for maintenance.

    This gives you more options for how your business can help us meet our national commitments to halt the decline of nature by 2030, to reach net zero by 2050, and to make sure we’re using every tool in our kit to reduce the impact of flooding on our communities as well as for our neighbours.

    So, I urge you to think about whether planting trees around your farm could be part of your plan for the future of your farming businesses.

    We also need to look forward. Ensuring our farming sector is at the cutting edge of technology, and we are grasping the opportunities of leaving the EU and bringing new technologies into the sector.

    Our Farming Innovation Programme already has over 150 projects underway and we will be investing £270 million in research and innovation that will boost productivity and enhance the environment.

    And the Gene Technology Bill currently going through Parliament will allow us to remove unnecessary barriers to research into new gene editing technology so we can develop new traits more precisely and more efficiently than traditional breeding techniques.

    The potential benefits are huge: resistance to drought, pests and disease, lower costs, more nutritious food and lower environmental impact will of course be some of the benefits we hope to achieve.

    Without a doubt, bringing all of this together is a daunting undertaking.

    So, I want to thank you – thousands of you – who’ve been working with us over many years now. And I encourage everyone to get involved.

    I’m the first to admit that I still have a lot to learn. Any day on the farm working alongside my kids, it takes about five minutes for them to remind that I don’t know everything.

    But like so many young farmers I’m lucky to meet, their passion, commitment, and brilliant ideas give me hope that we can do it. We can achieve it.

    And when I think of the difference we can make to the lives of people now, for our children and their children, for generations to come across our country, and around the world, if we work together to get this done and get this right, by putting our businesses on a footing for the future I am determined that we will see this through.

    That is my commitment to you – I look forward to taking your questions and talking to lots of you throughout the day and all the best for the rest of the conference

    Thank you.

  • Alistair Morton – 2001 Speech to the British Chambers of Commerce National Conference

    Alistair Morton – 2001 Speech to the British Chambers of Commerce National Conference

    The speech made by Sir Alistair Morton, the then Chair of the Strategic Rail Authority, on 30 March 2001.

    The purpose of the SRA is easy to sum up in a few words. I established it at the request of John Prescott to pull together the elements of the private sector railway system we shall need in 2010 to complement our other transport systems. Recent events and your own experiences may make you believe that’s a useful objective. IT IS. I totally agree with Gus Macdonald when he said a few minutes ago that transport, particularly rail, investment is a major ongoing growth area.

    Let’s face it: for environmental reasons – both noise and emissions – and for reasons of landtake and casualties, we are close to the limit of what we can carry by road south of the M62 and in the populous areas north of it. That is a small area – we have to use it efficiently.

    We have a railway system, the SRA’s role is to get it fit for purpose, and to do that in a massive partnership between private enterprise and public funds.

    I took this job, which by the way is structured as a part-time job (my mistake!), because I believed – as the 20th Century ended – that Britain had finally emerged from the ice age of bloated state capitalism – the biggest nationalised industry sector outside the communist world – and that we had passed through the market fires of rampant Thatcherism and reached the saner, more temperate climate in which we could blend public and private capital in market-led structures under private sector management disciplines.

    I can give you a short list of the components necessary to deliver a good partnership between the sectors to develop our rail system.

    How are we doing? In reverse order, the last of those is down to Mike Grant and me and is Work in Progress; the next above is down to the Treasury, who are struggling. They keep suffering relapses into their old ways and resist the obviously necessary, but we are working on them. The first component is definitely still under development in the rail industry – people as well as assets.

  • Michelle Donelan – 2023 Comments on the Privatisation of Channel 4

    Michelle Donelan – 2023 Comments on the Privatisation of Channel 4

    The comments made by Michelle Donelan, the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, on 5 January 2023.

    Channel 4 is a British success story and a linchpin of our booming creative industries. After reviewing the business case and engaging with the relevant sectors I have decided that Channel 4 should not be sold.

    This announcement will bring huge opportunities across the UK with Channel 4’s commitment to double their skills investment to £10 million and double the number of jobs outside of London. The package will also safeguard the future of our world leading independent production sector. We will work closely with them to add new protections such as increasing the amount of content C4C must commission from independent producers.

  • Alastair Morton – 2001 Speech on the Future of UK Rail

    Alastair Morton – 2001 Speech on the Future of UK Rail

    The speech made by Alastair Morton, the then Chair of the Strategic Rail Authority, on 26 June 2001.

    Coming out of the Shadow – the SRA at the heart of the UK rail industry
    An IEA conference at the Liberal Club just after a minor political thunderstorm around the Labour Prime Minister’s declaration that he wants more private enterprise provision of public services is all very ecumenical. Getting a safer, better and bigger railway system in Britain will be the largest Public Private Partnership seen in Europe – if we do it – and there is no doubt cross-party support will greatly facilitate that massive PPP.

    The support was without question available until the latter part of last year. The SRA had made a good start in Shadow form and as at September 2000 had not yet irritated people by deferring publication of a Strategic Plan to tell everyone what to do.

    The Government had published a 10 Year Plan in July which seemed to contain a lot of good news for rail – £63 billion to be expended on capital and on supplementing farebox revenue over ten years.

    And then in mid-October came Hatfield; and as I said at the time the rail industry had “a nervous breakdown”. As I saw it, people inside the industry realised within hours and with horror the awful implications of the rupture between operators and maintenance signalled at Hatfield.

    But in truth our hopes for a PPP-driven new dawn for Britain’s more or less privatised railways were in trouble before Hatfield … at least three months before.

    In physical, everyday terms the advent of trouble was signalled by the deterioration in operating performance against the summer 2000 timetable. Demand and traffic had been rising for six years and now we were running out of room for growth. From June 2000 the ageing pint pot that is Britain’s railway system began to creak and leak under the steadily rising pressure of more trains on the timetable, carrying more passengers and freight per train, where possible at higher speeds. Trouble was developing, resilience was declining, infrastructure and service were deteriorating. At working level trouble showed through in the third quarter of last year.

    At the strategic level the timing was the same: trouble began in July, within days of the publication of the 10 Year Plan. Somehow the Whitehall machine made a serious mess of translating to the Treasury what the SSRA and the Rail Regulator were – very separately – telling them needed to be in that Plan for rail. It was a case of “a billion here, a billion there and soon you’re talking about real money” as Eurotunnel used to say to bankers.

    There was, however, a very important difference. The Regulator is independent: if he says Railtrack needs the money, the Treasury either provides more, or deducts the sum from what the SRA has got for other parts of its Plan, or someone persuades Railtrack to wait for it. The £29 billion earmarked for the SRA over 10 years, modestly supplemented by ministerial contingency or “back pocket” funds, was asked to take the strain – a strain that will not be supportable by any arithmetic if Railtrack does persuade Tom Winsor next year to add another couple of billion over the next five years to the £3.7 billion handed over since the 10 Year Plan in his announcements in late July and late October last year, and in early April this year.

    But Hatfield and its monstrous consequences made all that seem tomorrow’s problem, not last November’s priority. And let’s face it, any Strategic Plan handed down from the lofty heights of the SSRA before Hatfield would have been thrown into confusion by the events at and after Hatfield. Better to come back to those longer-term issues tomorrow, or after.

    Through the winter, the weather and Railtrack’s risk-averse management of risk dominated the railways. The formal establishment of the SRA arrived on 1 February, and we published a Strategic Agenda to launch the run-up to an autumn Plan – knowing that it meant confronting the longer-term issues pushed off to “tomorrow” by Hatfield.

    Well, tomorrow has arrived. You will recall that, like birdsong in the predawn in May, I heralded the dawn a few weeks before the election, in response to questioning from Gwyneth Dunwoody’s Select Committee on the House of Commons. I said the SRA’s funding must be “re-thought and re-shaped to fit the new circumstances.” Asked to clarify that, I said “We must have the money. The emperor has no clothes without money.” Reflect on that, Cap Gemini, as you tell us to provide robust strategic leadership.

    Since the third quarter of last year, since Hatfield, the issues have grown. I believe we must:

    • first, convince ourselves Britain’s rail industry is structured right and in a correctly balanced partnership with the public purse;
    • second, settle down to a generally accepted strategy for achieving the safer, better and bigger public service we want from rail; and
    • third, assure ourselves that it is reasonably possible to fund that strategy in all its phases from concepts to commissioning into service over the coming decade, and beyond.

    After more than two years’ hard labour at the SRA, I am better placed than most to know just how tall an order I have just placed before you and before the parties to that “biggest PPP in Europe”.

    There are voices in the industry saying we should restructure, whether geographically or vertically, because the present structure – built around Railtrack – cannot deliver. Offering us a choice of evils, they feel it will be more painful to struggle on with an under-performing Railtrack than to reorganise into smaller units. That is strong medicine. Conversely, some say change will bring more uncertainty than we can tolerate. I believe the SRA’s task, which is to provide strategic leadership, requires us to assess these choices for the longer term and also to guide Her Majesty’s Government towards a stable balance between the public purse and global capital markets which, together, will fund future improvement. The industry seeking our guidance – as Cap Gemini assures us it does – must work with us to consider solutions either confirming or modifying the existing structure of relationships. Yesterday the Rail Industry Group, the forum which brings the industry’s leading representatives together with the SRA, met to discuss just that. It was a sombre but positive discussion.

    Of course, in the short term there is no choice. Railtrack, its maintenance contractors and the train operators must climb out of the swamps of recent months and deliver a recovery.

    We need to settle our way forward but that is, I am afraid, complicated by the tendency for the public sector side of the proposed partnership to splinter into three streams of activity. Those three streams are:

    • substance, i.e. what the industry needs to do and pay for if it is to provide a safer, better and bigger public service;
    • process, which is the sequence and procedure under which officials in Whitehall are willing to examine propositions; and
    • presentation, which is what our political masters stress, hoping it accords better with public aspirations than the facts do.

    To illustrate this splintering via the saga of our funding: “Presentation” was Gus Macdonald reacting fiercely to my truthful response to the Select Committee that we need more funds. The facts are, of the £63 billion in his 10 year Plan the SRA’s £29 billion is now over-committed without any noteworthy enhancement programme and the private sector’s £34 billion sits under big question marks as the main player, Railtrack, shrinks.

    “Process” on our funding means being told to wait until June 2002 for the outcome of the next Spending Round negotiations between the Treasury and all the government departments. The Treasury’s attitude is understandable, it cannot make ad hoc deals, but ……

    That brings us to “Substance”, the need to fund the public sector side of the big rail partnership adequately to lever in very large sums from global capital markets to get on with improving Britain’s railways via a prioritised approach to a long list of franchises, studies and projects waiting to go ahead. Is it realistic to sit on our hands until next June?

    As I have said, the time until then can be spent by the train operators, Railtrack and their contractors in recovering to a pre-Hatfield level of performance, carrying more passengers and freight. But is that enough?

    The SRA is pretty well on top of listing what needs to be done on the ground:

    • We have published a freight strategy, building on my Strategic Agenda of March.
    • We have published in Birmingham, and then in Manchester, the conclusions of capacity studies undertaken by co-operative working groups, defining what needs to be done in those key hubs, both bottlenecks.
    • We will shortly publish the key elements of a strategy for London and the South East, timed to link up with Transport for London’s presentation.
    • We have taken two key franchises, for the East Coast and TransPennine routes, to a selection of preferred bidders, putting us in a position to design developments over two crucially important segments of the network.

    And so on. We can write a Strategic Plan in physical terms: but, without the funding we would just have to sit on it – unable to upgrade either franchised services or infrastructure.

    The central issues are first resources, of skills, management and funds, and – just as important – structure. A last word about the latter.

    I know two things from experience:

    • if we do not structure and fund things right from the outset, we shall fail; and
    • we must move forward steadily, with adequate funding over a period of years, realising that this is a long-term, costly and slow-moving programme that will serve Britain for decades.

    There is no quick fix. And, since our railways are in trouble, we shall not get it right by putting too much pressure on a structure already in trouble. I always preached that the faulty initial structuring between the parties to the Channel Tunnel project caused huge aggravation and cost over the life of that grand investment programme. We are in danger of doing that here.

    I have reflected on all this in the period since Hatfield, and particularly during March and April, as we put a further deal in place to ease the strain on Railtrack, the cracked principal structure supporting our industry. I concluded, very simply, that at 63 1/2 – as I am now – I cannot hope to see the necessary investment programme through.

    If that is the case, my successor should ideally be in place to “take ownership”, as the saying goes, of the structure of the industry, the balance of the PPP, the long-term funding agreed and thus the SRA’s Strategic Plan, once complete. And he or she should be young, fit, wily and ambitious enough to weld together the three streams of presentation, process and substance to serve the purpose of that Plan, appropriately funded. He or she must be here well before next June.

    Thus I told John Prescott before the election that I would discuss all this with the incoming Secretary of State responsible for Transport, but I planned to go at an appropriate time, no later than the end of my contract next March. In short, I will neither seek nor accept an extension of my contract.

    Meanwhile, I shall bend all my efforts to clarifying the component parts of the SRA’s strategy for passengers and freight at and around the strategic hubs of London, Birmingham and Manchester and in between them (and also the ports) on or near the strategic main routes. I will press forward the definition of the resources of skills and money needed and the structure preferred. I am first and last in the “substance” camp, which puts me sometimes at odds with the process and presentation chaps.