UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Speeches

  • Kelly Tolhurst – 2019 Statement on Smart Data Consultation

    Below is the text of the statement made by Kelly Tolhurst, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, in the House of Commons on 11 June 2019.

    Today I will be placing a copy of a consultation document entitled: “Smart Data: Putting consumers in control of their data and enabling innovation” in the Libraries of both Houses. This outlines the conclusions of the Smart Data Review that was announced in the Modernising Consumer Markets Green Paper and consults on future action by the Government.

    The consultation sets out our vision for an economy where consumers’ data works for them and not against them. Data needs to be smart: easily and instantly accessible to consumers and be able to be safely and securely transferred to third party services who can use this data to provide innovative services for consumers. This is what we mean by smart data.

    The consultation focuses on introducing new smart data initiatives to improve consumer outcomes and promote innovation in regulated markets. The key proposals we are consulting on include:

    Accelerating the development of innovative data-driven services through the establishment of a new cross-sectoral smart data function to support, manage and govern the delivery of smart data initiatives

    Introducing an open communications initiative in the telecoms market to require communications businesses to provide consumers’ data to third party providers at the consumer’s request to increase switching and stimulate innovation

    Establishing a vulnerable consumer challenge to encourage data-driven innovation to improve outcomes for vulnerable consumers

    Introducing strong data protection requirements and a cross-sectoral approach to regulation of third-party providers using smart data to build trust and minimise burdens on business.

    These initiatives build on the approach in open banking, which is enabling consumers to ask their bank to share their current account transaction data securely with third parties. We have seen an explosion of new services that seek to make life easier for consumers—for example, through bringing together their current accounts into one platform or finding new ways to help consumers build an accurate credit score.

    As announced by the Prime Minister yesterday, we are also signalling our agreement with the recommendation of the digital competition expert panel’s recommendation to establish a new digital markets unit to promote, among other things, data mobility and data openness across all sectors. As we take forward proposals on smart data, we will work closely to co-ordinate and integrate the recommendations as appropriate.

  • Tom Watson – 2019 Speech on Free TV Licences for Over-75s

    Below is the text of the speech made by Tom Watson, the Labour MP for West Bromwich East, on 11 June 2019.

    We found out yesterday just how little a Tory manifesto promise is worth. I have read these words in the Chamber before, but I will read them again:

    “We will maintain all…pensioner benefits, including free bus passes, eye tests, prescriptions and TV licences, for the duration of this parliament.”

    No ifs, no buts, no wavering—a promise made in 2017 to voters by the Conservative party.

    Today, 3.7 million over-75s find that promise in tatters. They have been betrayed, and it is shameful. The Government have the breathtaking gall to blame the BBC for this mess, but passing the buck will not work. The BBC is not the Department for Work and Pensions. ​Public broadcasters should never be responsible for social policy. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) warned in 2015 that this was a “smash and grab raid” by the Government on the BBC. He was right, and now older people are paying the price. There are 1.8 million over-75s who live completely alone, and they will lose their TV licence because of the announcement. How can the Secretary of State justify that? We cannot means-test for loneliness or social inclusion.

    What about the very poorest in our nation who are eligible for pension credit but do not claim it? How will the Secretary of State protect them? Two of the Tory leadership candidates—the former Leader of the House and the Home Secretary—have committed to overturning the decision. Perhaps they know how it will look to the rest of the world when we start jailing pensioners who cannot or will not pay the licence fee.

    I would like to share some figures with the House: 4,240 older people in Uxbridge will lose their TV licence; 5,970 people in West Suffolk will be affected; and 6,730—the number in South West Surrey. The right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) wants to give a tax cut to the very richest, but he will not lift a finger to defend pensioners. The Health Secretary says he cares about social care, but he will not defend pensioners either. The Foreign Secretary tells us that he cares about the chronically lonely, but he will not defend even the loneliest pensioners. Is it therefore any surprise that the country’s pensioners are asking whether the leadership candidates will honour their word and keep their promise, or break it?

    This is a test not just of leadership, but of honour, integrity and truthfulness. Does the Secretary of State agree that someone who cannot keep a promise is not fit to be Prime Minister? It is as simple as that.

  • Jeremy Wright – 2019 Statement on Free TV Licences for Over-75s

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jeremy Wright, the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, in the House of Commons on 11 June 2019.

    The BBC is a fundamental part of the social and economic fabric of this country. It is important for people of all ages, but particularly for older people, who value television as a way to stay connected with the world.

    The Government recognised the importance of the licence fee when we agreed a funding settlement with the BBC in 2015 to provide the BBC with financial certainty to plan over the long term. We agreed to take action further to boost the BBC’s income by requiring iPlayer users to have a TV licence, and we unfroze the licence fee for the first time since 2010 by guaranteeing that it will rise each year in line with inflation.

    In return, we agreed that responsibility for the over-75 licence fee concession would transfer to the BBC in June 2020. We agreed a phased transition to help the BBC with its financial planning as it did so. This was a fair deal for the BBC. At the time, the BBC director-general said the settlement represented

    “a strong deal for the BBC”,

    which provided “financial stability”.

    The BBC is operationally independent, so the announcement yesterday is very much its decision, but taxpayers want to see the BBC using its substantial licence fee income appropriately to ensure it delivers for UK audiences, and that includes showing restraint on salaries for senior staff. In 2017-18, the BBC received over £3.8 billion in licence fee income—more than ever before. The BBC is also making over £1 billion a year from commercial work, such as selling content abroad, which can be reinvested. So we are very disappointed that the BBC will not protect free television licences for all viewers aged 75 and over.

    The BBC received views from over 190,000 people as part of its broader public consultation, which sought opinions on a number of options. With a number of proposals on the table, the BBC has taken the most narrowly defined reform option. I firmly believe that the BBC can and should do more to support older people, and I am now looking to it to make clear exactly how it will do that.

  • Mark Field – 2019 Speech at Singapore Bicentennial Business Summit

    Below is the text of the speech made by Mark Field, the Minister of State for Asia, on 13 June 2019.

    Senior Minister, Mr Tharman Shanmugartanam, Ministers, Lord Mayor, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen.

    As Minister of State for Asia and the Pacific, the Member of Parliament for the Cities of London and Westminster, and the son of parents who married in Singapore, it is a particular pleasure for me to be here and to reflect on the abiding relationship between our two nations in this, Singapore’s bicentennial year.

    We may be separated by 7000 miles, but we are close in so many ways: among them, our shared values and perspectives on many issues, our shared commitment to peace and prosperity, the rule of law, and free trade; our use of the English language, and our membership of the Commonwealth, whose seventieth anniversary we also celebrate this year.

    Crucially, we are also connected in many personal ways, as I am – through family, friends, or time spent living in each other’s country.

    In fact I am told that around 1 in 100 Singaporeans are in the UK at any one time, and I am pleased to say that 8,000 Singaporeans are studying at our excellent universities.

    Likewise, the 45,000 Brits in Singapore make up a substantial part of your expatriate population.

    These ties between our people not only mean we have a deeper understanding of each other’s culture and values; they also underpin and strengthen our close economic relationship.

    The UK’s total trade with Singapore is worth £15 billion – we export more to Singapore than to the whole of India.

    Our economic ties go far beyond trade. Our collaboration in science, technology and innovation is also prospering, and genuinely changing the world.

    Last year we launched a £10 million space programme, to build and fly a quantum key distribution test bed – I won’t try to pretend I fully understand the science but suffice to say it’s about using quantum mechanics in cutting-edge secure communications.

    We have established the world’s first FinTech Bridge, to help UK firms and investors access Asian markets and vice versa.

    We are also working together to deliver on the Commonwealth Cybersecurity declaration – the world’s largest inter-governmental cybersecurity agreement.

    Together, we are promoting international standards and boosting the capacity of Commonwealth countries to respond to cyber security incidents.

    Of course, in addition to our trading links and our collaboration in science and technology, the UK and Singapore remain close security partners as parties to the Five Power Defence Arrangements.

    I think you would agree that this impressive range of cooperation demonstrates a close and thriving bilateral relationship.

    However, we are not resting on our laurels. We know that we can and should do even more together.

    That is why, in January, our respective Foreign Ministers launched the Singapore-UK Partnership for the Future, an exciting new framework that will guide and stimulate our ongoing cooperation in four key areas:

    The Digital Economy
    Sustainable Business and Innovation
    Security and Defence
    Education, Culture and Youth.

    We are very much looking forward to the opportunities this will bring to expand and deepen our bilateral cooperation with Singapore, across a wide range of sectors.

    At the same time, we are also continuing to develop and strengthen our relationships right across South East Asia, and to build on our cooperation with ASEAN.

    That cooperation already ranges from scientific research to counter terrorism, and from climate change to economic reform.

    As we prepare to leave the EU, we look forward to strengthening these ties even further.

    I know that Her Majesty’s first Trade Commissioner for Asia Pacific, Natalie Black, will be at the forefront of this work, together with our new UK Mission to ASEAN in Jakarta, the latest addition to our network of diplomatic missions in every ASEAN country.

    In conclusion, Senior Minister, ours is a partnership of equals, rooted in a shared history and the trust and understanding that come with true friendship.

    Your bicentennial year is an opportunity to celebrate and strengthen those bonds of friendship.

    And it is an opportunity to build our Partnership for the Future – a partnership that makes the most of our mutual strengths – in education, in science and in technology – to position us as leaders in the economy of the 21st Century.

    It’s an exciting prospect, and one I look forward to pursuing with you. In the meantime, I offer my warmest congratulations, to all our Singaporean friends, on your anniversary.

  • James Brokenshire – 2019 Statement on Building Safety

    Below is the text of the statement made by James Brokenshire, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, in the House of Commons on 6 June 2019.

    As we approach two years since the fire at Grenfell Tower and prepare to mark in respect and remembrance that devastating event, I wish to update the House on work we are doing to ensure people are safe and feel safe in their homes.

    Today we are publishing a consultation seeking views on our proposals for a new system of building and fire safety which puts residents’ safety at its heart.​
    Soon after the fire at Grenfell Tower, we commissioned the independent review of building regulations and fire safety, led by Dame Judith Hackitt.

    Dame Judith concluded that the current system for ensuring fire safety in high-rise buildings was “not fit for purpose” and had lost public confidence and residents’ trust. We accepted Dame Judith’s diagnosis of the system and in December 2018, we published our implementation plan that committed to take forward the review’s recommendations as part of a fundamental reform of the system for “higher-risk residential buildings”.

    The consultation we are publishing today, titled “Building a safer future: proposals for reform of the building safety regulatory system—a consultation”, outlines how we propose to take forward meaningful legislative reform and is seeking views on five areas of the new regime.

    The first is the scope of the new regime. We propose the new regime applies, from the beginning, to all new and existing multi-occupied residential buildings of 18 metres or more, broadly in line with the ban on combustible materials which we brought into force last year. We propose that the system has flexibility to include other building types over time, based on evidence of risk and further research.

    Secondly, we are proposing a comprehensive duty holder regime which means that at each stage of a building’s life—through design, construction and occupation, including those buildings already occupied—there will be clearly identified people who are directly accountable for the safety of residential buildings 18 metres or more. The duty holder regime will mean that for the first time there will be clear accountability on who owns building risks and clear responsibilities for managing the risks to ensure buildings are safe for residents. These responsibilities, which include creating and maintaining the digital records of a building and producing a safety case that will be approved by the new building safety regulator prior to issuing a building safety certificate, will be set out in law.

    Thirdly, we are seeking views on giving residents a stronger voice in the new regime and ensuring their concerns are heard and acted on. We propose that residents should receive better information on their buildings so that they can participate in decisions about safety, as well as providing clear and quick routes of escalation for their concerns if things go wrong.

    Fourthly, we have outlined plans for a new building safety regulator to provide oversight of the new building safety regulatory regime. This regulator will also oversee the wider building and regulatory system, incorporating and improving on the functions currently undertaken by the Building Regulations Advisory Committee (BRAC). We are also proposing to strengthen the oversight and regulation of construction products.

    Finally, the system proposed will be underpinned by strengthened enforcement and sanctions to deter non-compliance with the new regime. We believe that this will help to drive real culture change across the industry.

    Alongside this consultation, we are also publishing:

    A “quick read” version of the consultation document to ensure that the content is accessible to everyone.

    The summary of responses to our call for evidence on engagement with residents.

    The report from the industry-led competence steering group setting out their proposals for oversight of competence​

    The Government are also launching a call for evidence on the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. We want to ensure that the Order is fit for purpose for all buildings it regulates. The call for evidence is the first step to updating the evidence base on the effectiveness of the Order, since this gives an opportunity for fire safety professionals and businesses or individuals regulated by the Fire Safety Order to share their views and experience on how the Order works in practice.

    But we have not waited for legislation to make change. While successful, fundamental, real-world change on this scale, and across a complex market and regulatory landscape, will take time, we are acting now to reform the system. We have:

    identified over 400 high-rise buildings with unsafe Aluminium Composite Material (ACM) cladding, like the type used on Grenfell Tower, working with local authorities and fire and rescue authorities, ensuring that there are appropriate interim safety measures in place;

    made £600 million funding available for the replacement of unsafe ACM cladding on high-rise residential homes in the social and private sectors;

    made expert advice available to building owners on a range of other safety risks and taken action to remove unsafe products from the market;

    laid regulations and guidance to ban the use of combustible materials during building work on the external walls of new buildings of 18 metres or more in height and containing blocks of flats, hospitals, residential care premises, dormitories in boarding schools and student accommodation;

    consulted on a clarified version of the building regulations’ fire safety guidance (approved document B) and issued a call for evidence as the first step in a full technical review of the guidance. We are currently reviewing responses and will publish the clarified statutory guidance and response to the call for evidence in the summer; and

    launched the social landlords resident engagement best practice group, to develop and share ways to better engage residents in keeping their buildings safe.

    We have also established a joint regulators group to help us develop and pilot new approaches. Some of the proposals set out in the consultation are being tested and piloted voluntarily by construction firms and housing associations who have joined our Early Adopters work. Today also sees the launch of the Early Adopters’ Building Safety Charter. I welcome their leadership in this area and encourage others to follow them.

    Our reforms are being developed to complement other important changes we are making elsewhere, such as those outlined in our Green Paper on social housing —“A new deal for social housing”— and reforms in the leasehold and private rented sectors.

    The consultation opens today for eight weeks until 31 July. We will continue engaging with residents, industry and the wider sector as we develop these proposals further. The documents are published at: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/building-a-safer-future-proposals-for-reform-of-the-building-safety-regulatory-system

    The publication of the consultation I have announced today is essential for restoring trust in the building safety system and making sure that residents are safe now, and in the future.

  • Alan Duncan – 2019 Statement on the Foreign Affairs Council

    Below is the text of the statement made by Alan Duncan, the Minister for Europe and the Americas, in the House of Commons on 6 June 2019.

    The High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HRVP), Federica Mogherini, chaired the Foreign Affairs Council (FAC) and an eastern partnership Ministerial on 13 May. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs attended the eastern partnership Ministerial. The meetings were held in Brussels.

    Eastern partnership Ministerial meeting and lunch

    Foreign ministers highlighted the importance of the eastern partnership on its 10th anniversary and took stock of the commitments made at the last summit in November 2017. They discussed the implementation of the 20 deliverables for 2020 programme, which was adopted at that summit. They also reflected on future co-operation and discussed political priorities for the coming period.​
    Foreign Affairs Council—Current affairs

    The High Representative and Foreign Ministers had an exchange of views on a number of pressing issues. On Iran, they recalled their full commitment to the preservation and full implementation of the JCPOA and expressed concern at recent declarations by Iran. Ministers also expressed regret at the re-imposition of sanctions by the US and underlined their commitment to achieving full operationalisation of the special purpose vehicle, INSTEX.

    Ministers touched on the situation in Venezuela. The High Representative debriefed Ministers on the most recent international contact group (ICG) meeting on 5-6 May. Ministers reiterated their support for the ICG and its work.

    Foreign Ministers noted the positive signals from the incoming Ukrainian administration, in particular its intention to continue and strengthen the reform implementation process. Ministers expressed concern at the Russian decree simplifying the issuing of passports in certain areas of Ukraine’s Donetsk and Luhansk regions.

    The High Representative also referred to the situation in Sudan and to the US decision to discontinue the waiver on title 3 of the Helms-Burton Act.

    Libya

    UNSG Special Representative for Libya Ghassan Salamé joined Ministers for an exchange of views on possible next steps to avoid further escalation in the conflict.

    Sahel

    Foreign Ministers discussed the political framework and prepared for the exchange of views between EU Foreign and Defence Ministers on 14 May and with the Foreign and Defence Ministers of the G5 Sahel countries (Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali, Mauritania and Niger).

    Council conclusions

    The Council agreed a number of measures without discussion:

    The Council adopted conclusions on the Sahel.

    The Council adopted a statement on Libya.

    The Council adopted the EU annual report on human rights and democracy in the world for 2018.

    The Council adopted conclusions on EU relations with Latin America and the Caribbean, following the joint communication by the High Representative and the Commission on the “EU, Latin America and the Caribbean: Partnering for prosperity, democracy, resilience and global governance” of 17 April 2019.

    The Council transposed into EU law an update issued by the UN on 19 April 2019 related to a person designated under the Central African Republic sanctions regime.

    The Council adopted the EU’s common position with a view to the EU-Tunisia Association Council, which took place on Friday 17 May.

  • David Morris – 2019 Speech on Morecambe

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Morris, the Conservative MP for Morecambe and Lunesdale, in the House of Commons on 6 June 2019.

    I will give a very condensed history of my beautiful Morecambe and Lunesdale seat, and particularly of Morecambe itself. According to the excellent book, “The Lost Resort?” by Roger Bingham, Morecambe gets its name from the Vikings—it means “pleasant view” or “pleasant bay.”

    Morecambe has seen its fortunes ebb and flow over the past 100 years. It is fair to say that Morecambe was on the decline 20 years ago. After the two nuclear power stations were built—the tourism industry was kept buoyant by the workers building the power stations—there was a sudden collapse in the local economy. Fast forward to 10 years ago and the dilapidated Midland hotel was bought and completely rebuilt by Urban Splash, which did a fantastic job. That art deco gem still has three iconic Gill murals, one on the ceiling.

    Adjacent to the Midland hotel are the Winter Gardens, a beautiful Edwardian theatre that, again, has seen worse times but is now back on the mend due to the efforts of the sadly late Evelyn Archer. She was a leading light in keeping the doors of the Winter Gardens open, despite it having no heating system.

    The Friends of the Winter Gardens have restored the theatre to a point where it can put on shows again. A great thanks should go to Professor Vanessa Toulmin, who took over from the legendary Evelyn Archer. The group has raised money over the years and, dare I say it, I enlisted a couple of my friends, David Hasselhoff and Bernie Marsden from Whitesnake, to give their support.

    Fortunes are increasing due to the copious Government funding that has been pumped into Morecambe since 2010, but we need more. Opposite the Winter Gardens, and at the side of the iconic Midland hotel, is an area that we refer to as the Bubbles site, which is where the lido used to be a long time ago. The site has attracted the attention of Cornwall’s Eden Project, which wants to make a marine-based project in Morecambe to rival anything that Europe and the Eden Project itself have to offer.

    Since becoming an MP, my intention has always been to bring Government investment into Morecambe, which was previously starved of investment. People could not get to Morecambe directly, so they had to go through Lancaster. I am grateful to the Government for helping me to secure £130 million, or thereabouts, for a link road that completely transformed the area. It is estimated that for every £1 that has gone into the link road over the past few years, £6 has been put into the local economy.

    Such infrastructure programmes have to pay a dividend somewhere. Although I secured the funding to sort out the Greyhound bridge from Lancaster to Morecambe and the bypass coming in from the M6, we need something to bolster the area’s fortunes and reinvigorate Morecambe.

    Morecambe used to have what I loosely call “kiss me quick” tourism. Since we have sorted out the sea wall defences with £40 million of Government funding, we have started to see a renaissance of tourism. We have ​started to see new hotel chains, including Best Western. That was unheard of only a few years ago. In fact, Morecambe is now starting to move above Lancaster in the league of prosperity, but we need something to secure Morecambe’s future.

    Unbeknown to me until chamber of commerce manager John O’Neill told me, the quickest way to the seaside anywhere from the M6 is the Heysham bypass or the bay gateway—the link road that was recently built. Because of that, the Eden Project wants to come along. So we have to look to the future. What would Eden bring to Morecambe? Eden is a unique visitor attraction of regional and national significance. If it comes to Morecambe and it is planned, and if we can get Government funding, it can open in 2023. Following the Treasury approval of £100,000 in the autumn Budget in 2018, an additional investment of £40 million to £60 million is needed. This has been sought and is closely linked to the wider industrial strategy of the region—not just Morecambe, but the whole north-west region. Eden north will be a catalyst to drive the regeneration of Morecambe and transform the local and wider north-west regional economy. We will want to have school visits coming to Morecambe to see the Eden centre, but by law you can only put a child in a car or a bus for two hours. If the Eden centre is in Morecambe, we will have a catchment area going from Manchester to Glasgow to York, as it would be quite central. Therefore, we would have an educational attraction that would benefit future generations and all generations coming along for the unique eco-tourism of the area. Since opening in 2001, the Cornwall Eden project has contributed £2 billion to the local economy of Devon and Cornwall—that is a huge local investment. As I have said, Eden north is an exemplar seaside town regeneration project for not just Morecambe, but the north-west; it will help out other coastal communities, leading the way for new projects.

    Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)

    From looking at the plans, it seems as though the Eden project north will be substantially better than the Eden project south; obviously, it will be much more modern, as 18-plus years have passed. I swam in that lido, so may I ask whether there will be a swimming pool at the Eden project for people such as me to go to?

    David Morris

    That is a lovely thought and I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention.

    Bob Stewart

    Is that a no?

    David Morris

    I cannot say, but we will put the plans forward to Eden for my hon. Friend.

    Eden north is compatible with, directly supports and is coherent with the recommendations made by the House of Lords Select Committee on Regenerating Seaside Towns and Communities, which was published on 4 April 2019 and so is extremely recent. Eden will be ​a high-quality, year-round attraction and wet-weather destination. It will be a crowd-puller that engages all ages and all generations, as my hon. Friend alluded to.

    Bob Stewart

    I was young then.

    David Morris

    He was young when he swam there.

    Bob Stewart

    I am not old.

    David Morris

    He is still a young man at heart; I know him very well and he is my good friend.

    Importantly, market analysis has identified a catchment of 10.6 million people within two hours, as I have alluded to. This will support a visitor attraction where 760,000 people go to the project annually, with consequent direct and indirect economic benefits. It is a financially sustainable revenue-generating social enterprise that is an employment anchor for the region, with 518 long-term, direct and indirect jobs, helping unemployment in Morecambe to go down even further. It is a long-term project with a long-term value, and it is the economic answer to the £130-million investment from central Government on the M6 link road.

    Eden will be a mixture of tourism and education to engage the public so that they feel a part of nature, not apart from nature. In particular, it will bring in a focus on the life and wildlife in the bay. Eden north will celebrate the unique scientific ecosystem of Morecambe bay. Eden in Morecambe will be an icon of health and wellbeing, and of regional culture—a natural wonder and curiosity. As my hon. Friend said, the proposals make the Eden centre look very impressive indeed: like glass mussel shells overturned and spreading out into the bay. It will be phenomenal and will create activities and facilities that will increase the understanding of Morecambe bay as an internationally significant site. It will bring back to Morecambe tourism the prestige that it richly deserves.

    Eden will also bring with it an education offer that directly supports a place-based curriculum, in close partnership with all levels of education. A high degree of commitment has already been secured from educational professionals in Lancashire for a long-term education vision. Eden went to Lancaster University with this proposal nearly a decade ago, and here we are talking about it in the House of Commons. It is an accolade for Lancaster University as well as the Eden Project. The college has already struck a memorandum of understanding to provide educational facilities for future generations of the workforce, so that Eden will be equipped. I believe that will lead to the Aberdeen effect: our youngsters in Morecambe will be able to go to the Eden centres that are springing up all around the world, such as in China and America, as well as the one in Cornwall. The integration of research facilities and activities and the pioneering model of partnership between the community and academia can only be a good thing in my area, because we are moving from the old form of tourism into high-tech industries, as well as into a low-carbon economy with the power stations, and there is an eco-friendly jobs boost in the area.

    At this stage of development, it is estimated that the proposal will cost circa £85 million to build, and £1 million has already been committed by four commissioning partners, with equal parts of around £250,000 each from Lancaster City Council, Lancashire County Council, Lancashire local enterprise partnership and Lancaster ​University. Of course, there is also the £100,000 coming directly from the Treasury. The work carried out by the Eden Project to date has been commissioned by Lancaster University, and has been supported by the Chancellor, Lancaster City Council and all the other partners I just mentioned.

    As I alluded to earlier, the site will be located in a site of international environmental importance. Morecambe bay is designated as a Ramsar site, as it is the largest continuous inter-tidal area in Britain. It is also an area of special conservation and is in a special protected area.

    My community needs Eden. This is a game-changer for us: it will make Morecambe the envy not only of the north-west but of all seaside resorts in the United Kingdom. I have already mentioned the prosperity that it would bring. Although we have had a lot of central Government money, we need more—around £40 million to £60 million. I know that it is a big ask in a time of austerity, but we have already had hundreds of millions from the Government, in a time of austerity, to produce an economic turnaround in Morecambe that is unrivalled in the north of England. I would like to see the money come from Treasury salami slicing. Ideally, it would come directly from the Treasury, although I am not sure that the Chancellor would see eye-to-eye with me on that. I thank him, though, for the £100,000 that he personally allocated to the project. The money could come from the budgets for the environment, education, communities, transport—from across the whole Whitehall sphere.

    My constituency is beautiful—as the House knows, I am very proud of it. Morecambe is on the up, and has been for the past 10 years. Regeneration by this Government has fuelled a lot of miracles in Morecambe, but I am here in the Chamber looking for help. Help me to help my community, which deserves this. Help me to secure the jewel of prosperity that is Eden, to be fitted rightly back into the crown of the north-west that is my beautiful constituency, and my home: Morecambe.

  • Theresa May – 2019 Speech at London Tech Week

    Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May, the Prime Minister, on 10 June 2019.

    Thank you. I am delighted to be at Here East to launch London Tech Week.

    Of all the events I go to as Prime Minister few I think have the energy and excitement of the week ahead – and few tell us so much about the power of technology to transform the very world we live in.

    How we harness that technological change and how we support you as pioneers of that technology is fundamental not only to the future of our entire economy – but the vision that I set out on my first day as Prime Minister – to build a country that works for everyone.

    I profoundly believe that technology can change people’s lives for the better.

    And indeed over the course of my own lifetime I have seen extraordinary advances.

    A year after I was born, the first ever satellite – Sputnik 1 – was launched into orbit around the earth, and several years later President Kennedy declared the US mission for man to land on the moon. Now, we have left the outer edges of our solar system.

    In the 1960s, computers were the size of rooms and not very fast. Now we all walk around with an incredibly sophisticated computer in our hands.

    And when I was working at the Association for Payment Clearing Services in the 1990s, I remember we were looking at how great it would be, rather than cash, to use a single card to pay for everything.

    It took a while for that technology to catch on – but last year there were 7.4 billion contactless transactions, up nearly a third from the year before.

    As Bill Gates once said: “We always overestimate the change that will occur in the next two years and underestimate the change that will occur in the next ten.”

    And we should not underestimate the scale of change over the next ten years, and the dramatic ways in which it is set to transform our world.

    It will bring opportunities for high-skilled and high-paid jobs in new sectors and new industries – the like of which we can only begin to imagine.

    And I am determined that we should seize these opportunities and spread the benefits of this future growth to every part of our country.

    But along with the opportunities that technological change will bring, is also uncertainty.

    We face profound challenges over the changing nature of work and what it will mean for the jobs of the future and the skills our young people will need to do them.

    We face profound questions about how we generate our future energy supplies in a sustainable way; how we travel; and how we harness new technologies such as Artificial Intelligence while ensuring that it cannot be exploited by those with malevolent intentions. So that technology is the force for progress that we all know it can be.

    And the only way to build an economy and country that works for everyone is to be at the forefront of working to answer those questions.

    That’s why I have put harnessing the power of technology to seize these opportunities and meet these challenges at the heart of our modern industrial strategy.

    It is a strategic long-term commitment – a partnership between business and government to make Britain the best place in the world in which to start or grow a business.

    It gets the fundamentals right – investing in infrastructure at local and national level, delivering the biggest ever long-term increase in R&D in our history. With a 2.4% of GDP target for R&D that is not about a single parliamentary term, but rather a decades-long commitment meant to transform the whole economy, and harness the opportunities presented by emergent technologies and new industries.

    It invests in equipping people with the skills they need – and the skills you need as dynamic tech-driven businesses – so you can succeed in an ever changing and ever more competitive global economy.

    And crucially it seeks to get us on the front foot in seizing the opportunities of technology and meeting the four grand challenges of our time – driving clean growth, breaking new ground in methods of future mobility, meeting the needs of an ageing population, and leading the world in Artificial Intelligence and Data.

    And that is why we have set defining missions:

    To use new technologies and modern construction practices to at least halve the energy usage of new buildings by 2030.

    To put the UK at the forefront of the design and manufacturing of zero emission vehicles and for all new cars and vans to be effectively zero emission by 2040.

    To establish the world’s first net-zero carbon industrial cluster by 2040 and at least one low-carbon cluster by 2030.

    To ensure that people can enjoy five extra, independent years of life by 2035.

    And to use Artificial Intelligence and Data to transform the prevention, early diagnosis and treatment of chronic disease by 2030.

    And we are backing these ambitions with action. Take Quantum as an example.

    It is set to have a profound impact on our everyday lives.

    Quantum devices might be able to see round corners.

    Quantum processors could model chemical reactions that would be beyond any existing supercomputer. This technology could transform computing, imaging and communications. We cannot put a limit on its potential – just as we could never have estimated how far and fast the Internet would transform our lives.

    The UK is already a global leader in Quantum, but I want to do more.

    So today we are investing over £150m towards this new technology, including how we can unlock its commercial value, and secure the benefits for the UK economy.

    In areas like this where the UK leads, we must also promote what we do around the world, and strike partnerships in research and best practice with key international partners.

    Because while we are not alone in identifying the Challenges that every other country will also have to grapple with – we can be at the forefront in finding answers.

    Delivering our Industrial Strategy internationally can have a real impact at home. It will drive UK exports, secure inward investment and mean local companies can expand into new global markets.

    To support this, we will launch future economy trade and partnership missions to world regions, each focused on one of our Industrial Strategy Grand Challenges. The first four of these will take place this year and act as a catalyst for sustained engagement on issues of trade, cutting edge research and the future of public policy.

    Because strengthening our knowledge networks will ensure we stay on the front foot.

    This is about backing Britain for the long-term.

    With Government playing an active role: working to provide the eco-system in which innovation can flourish.

    There is no part of that vision for our future success that does not involve the people in this room. Because even now it seems an anomaly to talk about a “tech” sector, as something separate from the rest of the economy. Digital technology – like earlier revolutions such as the printed word, or electricity – is rapidly becoming integral to everything else we do.

    And I am incredibly proud that the UK is at the heart of that revolution.

    Already we are one of the best places in the world to start and grow a tech business. British Tech is growing over one and a half times faster than the rest of the economy, adding more than one hundred and thirty billion pounds to our economy every year.

    We have a first-rate financial sector eager to invest, and last year tech venture investment was the highest in Europe. Our regulatory environment is second to none.

    We are home to extraordinary talent with the largest tech community in Europe. And when WhatsApp recently announced it will be opening a London office – it referenced the cosmopolitan nature of our workforce as a major reason in this decision.

    One of the great attractions of our business environment here in the UK, is that our consumers are innovative and always keen to try new things out. That is why we lead the world in online commerce, and why contactless payment in this country has grown so quickly.

    And of course, while we are here to celebrate London Tech Week, you can find tech thriving up and down the country: from gaming in Dundee and “Silicon Suburb” in Edinburgh, to fast-growing clusters in Manchester, Bristol, Bath and beyond.

    Oxford and Cambridge have outperformed Paris in producing ten unicorns, while Manchester – with five – has produced as many as Barcelona and Madrid combined.

    And it is fantastic that tech companies around the world are backing Britain today, with news of further investment totalling £1.2 billion. I am looking forward to meeting a number of these key investors later on, as well as the leaders of some of the UK’s biggest tech start-ups.

    British tech is thriving.

    But if we are going to maintain our position as a global leader, our challenge is how we develop British Tech and make it even better.

    We want this to be the place everyone thinks of – and comes to – first when they want to develop their world-changing tech ideas.

    This is a challenge shared between industry and Government.

    You tell us what matters most is building a competitive environment where you can thrive, and access to talent.

    I want to make sure Britain stays the best place in Europe to launch and grow a start-up.

    So I am delighted that leading figures from the tech community – including Cindy Rose – have agreed to undertake an industry-led Tech Competitiveness Study, reporting later this year.

    It will consider how to build on the UK’s competitive advantage, and what we can do better.

    I’ve heard from businesses that we should set up a major new hub, or series of hubs, for tech – one-stop shops where international investors and UK businesses can connect effectively with the sector.

    And the study will look closely at the case for this too.

    On talent, we want the brightest and the best to come to the UK.

    Our future immigration policy will clearly be at the heart of this.

    So that’s why in the immigration White Paper, we committed to looking at how ambitious start-ups can bring in skilled workers, taking into account the particular needs and circumstances of the tech industry.

    The Immigration Minister will use her roundtable this week to engage with you further on this issue, and we are also talking directly to countries like Canada and Denmark to understand best practice.

    We also know that delays to hiring skilled migrant workers can hold back business – so that is why in the White Paper we set an ambition to significantly improve the overall processing time to 10-15 working days, up there with the best systems in the world.

    But talent is more than just about mobility – it’s about home-grown skills too.

    And that’s why we’ve made coding compulsory at primary school.

    And it’s why we have invested £100 million for up to one thousand new AI PhDs and launched a new prestigious fellowship scheme for top AI researchers.

    Today, I can announce we are going further.

    We are creating up to 2,500 places in AI and data masters conversion courses around the country, starting next year.

    These courses will help people who have originally trained in other degree disciplines to contribute to the ongoing AI revolution.

    As part of this, we will fund up to 1,000 scholarships to ensure we open up these opportunities to everyone, no matter what your background.

    And as Government opens up doors for people across the country, I want to see the sector do more to reach out to diverse groups, where I believe there is huge untapped potential.

    Getting talent right is crucial for the future of the sector.

    But, to be truly competitive globally, we need to look wider than talent too.

    Creating the right conditions for growth also means we have a framework that inspires confidence. I firmly believe the right regulation is what makes capitalism work.

    It’s been true of previous technological revolutions.

    Both Government, and the sector as it becomes more mature, now see smart regulation as part of a thriving digital economy, rather than a threat to innovation.

    There are two ways in which we need to make this technological revolution work in the UK – how we create a fair market, and how we protect citizens.

    I want to thank Professor Jason Furman for his excellent work showing how we can boost competition in digital markets.

    And I am pleased that Professor Furman has today agreed that he will advise on the next phase of work on how we can implement his recommendation to create a new Digital Markets Unit.

    Building a strong environment for business also means ensuring we maintain the public’s trust in a rapidly changing environment.

    We all agree there are legitimate concerns about how technology is used, and Government has a role to play in setting standards for industry.

    Our Online Harms White Paper, published earlier this year, sets out our approach to protecting citizens, while maintaining an environment where business can thrive.

    And to get it right, we want to work with you – and I am pleased that industry has been working thoughtfully with both the Digital and Home Secretaries on the details.

    Our response to online harms, though, is not just about how Government and business come together.

    It’s also about how you work together as an industry.

    I was struck at last month’s Extremism Summit in Paris at how powerful it was to have the world’s top companies coming together with a joint statement of action.

    And I want to see this spirit of cooperation continue as we face both the opportunities and challenges ahead.

    Because today as we sit on the cusp of the next great industrial revolution, we have the opportunity to work together and ensure that the advances we see transform our world for the better, and for the benefit of everyone.

    Government will back you all the way.

    But it will also take your talent.

    And if ever we needed any more evidence of the energy and creativity that exists here in the UK – then we only need to take a look around us at where we are today.

    A home to exciting businesses and innovative enterprises – at the very place which broadcast to the world the amazing success story of the 2012 Olympics.

    Your ingenuity, your expertise and your vision are what are going to propel us to Britain’s success stories of the future.

    You are the reason why Britain is home to some of the most exciting tech businesses in the world.

    So let us work together, and create a Tech Nation that truly is worlds apart.

  • Chris Skidmore – 2019 Speech at Launch of Smart Export Guarantee

    Below is the text of the speech made by Chris Skidmore, the Minister of State for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation, on 10 June 2019.

    Ladies and gentlemen – good afternoon. It’s great for me to be here with you during London Tech Week – an event which I’ve been looking forward to since I took the job of Science Minister back in December.

    And it’s even more exciting for me now, because as well as my usual brief – which covers science, innovation, higher education and agri-tech, among many other topics – I’m currently looking after the energy and clean growth portfolio.

    And all of these things, I think, fit together in a very real, and very important way.

    Just under a year ago we received the landmark report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on the impact of global warming of 1.5 degrees; a report which provided the clearest picture yet of the catastrophic impacts of rising global temperatures.

    We immediately sought the advice of the Committee for Climate Change, asking what we needed to do to accelerate our own decarbonisation, and how we could make this benefit bill-payers and businesses alike.

    We received the Committee’s response in May. The report is comprehensive and authoritative and the advice is clear: limiting climate change is achievable. But it will take a tremendous effort – across all sectors of the economy, in all corners of the country – to meet our goals. And a huge surge of innovation to ensure that we can continue to prosper through this transition.

    Recently, I’ve been making a series of speeches on our national R&D investment, and our plans to increase spending on innovation to 2.4% of GDP, rising to 3% in the longer term – an increase that will affect every area of our lives. We’re putting two-and-a-half billion pounds into our efforts to decarbonise across the board, giving us a great chance to be at the cutting edge of the technologies of the future.

    Many people say that we’re in the early years of a fourth Industrial Revolution, a change just as profound as the birth of the steam engine and mass production, or the dawning of the digital age. But my colleague the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Michael Gove, has rightly identified that we’re entering into an agricultural revolution too – how we use our land will have to change, just as everything else will.

    Farmers of course know this all too well, having been on the front-line last summer when temperatures were extraordinarily high, and food production became particularly challenging.

    It might be this understanding that has inspired our agricultural sectors to embrace innovation, whether that’s exploring vertical farming to reduce waste and preserve our soil, using AI to monitor the relationship between bees and their environment to keep both in better health, or adopting precision agriculture techniques to improve crop yields and reduce fertiliser use. We have even begun using robots to plant, grow and harvest crops – as successfully trialled by Harper Adams University with its ‘Hands-Free Hectare’ project, which has attracted global interest.

    I think that this gives us a glimpse into how we’ll be producing food in the future. These are all crucial developments, and each can make a major contribution to reducing our carbon footprint. But today, I want to focus in on another area where we could see real change: energy.

    Of course, you don’t have to look very hard to see that, over the years, there has been a great deal of change here.

    Go back 50 years or so and you’d find the landscape unrecognisable – literally so, for anyone who can remember the smog and soot of the mid-20th century. In fact, a hundred years ago, and just a few meters away from here, the Coal Drops – which are now being converted into a retail quarter – would have been filled with piles and piles of pitch-black coal, delivered from South Yorkshire and dispersed into London by narrowboat and horse-drawn cart.

    Nor is it just the fuel that’s changed. Back in the 1960s and 70s, electricity was provided by your local electricity board – and that was about all you knew. If more energy was required, someone would phone someone, who would in turn phone someone else, until, eventually, someone in a power station was tasked with increasing the flow of coal into the furnace.

    Coal was king, while solar power and offshore wind were considered curiosities – or even fantasies – if they were ever considered at all.

    But today, the story is entirely different. In 1970s and 80s – and even into 1990 – to power our nation we burned through 70 million tonnes of coal each year. Just last week we saw an 18-day run of coal-free days – something we haven’t seen since the dawning of the first industrial revolution. And this morning, none of our power was being generated by coal.

    This is a real testament to our flourishing renewables sector. In 2010 we had just under 10 gigawatts of renewable electricity. But at the end of last year, we’d more-than-quadrupled that. Last quarter, 54% of electricity generation was from low carbon sources, and on the 14 May this year a quarter of our power came from solar – these are the best results we’ve ever seen.

    In the wider green economy, we’re employing some 400,000 people in green jobs, and we’re aiming to see that number increase to as many as 2 million over the next decade.

    And these are jobs throughout the country:

    In Hull, Siemens Gamesa have employed over 1,000 people at their turbine blade factory

    On the Isle of Wight, MHI Vestas have installed a new blade mould in their factory, creating 1,100 jobs and adding more than £40 million to the local economy. While in Fawley the same company have turned a decommissioned oil-fired power plant into a state-of-the-art painting and logistics facility for their 80-meter turbine blades

    And in places like Grimsby and Barrow-in-Furness, people are seeing the economic benefits of new investment in operations and maintenance facilities for offshore wind.

    The Offshore Wind Sector Deal, launched on 7 March, has committed to looking at the technologies of the future, working across the R&D sector and institutions, which will provide the UK with significant export opportunities, including digital and robotic technologies for surveying and operations and maintenance, and next generation technologies contributing to cost reduction and grid integration.

    So not only are we decarbonising, we’re also diversifying – bringing these new technologies in, alongside natural gas and nuclear, to modernise our approach to energy. At the same time, we are building flexibility and reliability into a new, digitalised, decentralised system, through the rollout of smart meters and the deployment of technologies such as batteries and smart appliances, as outlined in our Smart Systems and Flexibility Plan.

    We are already seeing more generation located closer to people’s homes, an increase in energy demand as electric vehicles begin to take off, and a huge passion for climate-conscious policies and green products among the British people.

    Our citizens want to do the right thing, and to be trusted to make their own decisions – exactly what this government wants to see too. Crucial to this effort is empowering both individuals and businesses to take control of their energy use; ensuring that people have the means to do what works for them, and are rewarded for their efforts.

    So today, I’m really pleased to announce our new plan to develop small-scale, low-carbon electricity generation here in the UK. Supplier led and subsidy free, we’re calling it the Smart Export Guarantee, or SEG for short, and its legislation has been laid in Parliament today – meaning it will be implemented before this year is done.

    At its most basic, the SEG is a guarantee that those homes and businesses that supply their own low-carbon electricity – through solar panels on the roof, for example, or an anaerobic digestion plant on a farm – will have the chance to sell their excess electricity to the grid through a market mechanism. They’ll be known as ‘exporters.’ Most electricity suppliers – any with more than 150,000 UK customers – will be required offer at least one ‘export tariff’, which will be the means through which this low-carbon electricity is bought and sold.

    The precise details of the tariff – such as length and level – will be for suppliers to determine, but there are a few core conditions, not least that exporters must be paid for what they produce, even when market prices are negative.

    We expect to see these suppliers bidding competitively for electricity to give exporters their best market price, while providing the local grid with more clean, green energy. Indeed, since we first consulted on the SEG we are seeing great signs that the market is gearing up to rise to this challenge, with some suppliers, such as Bulb and Octopus, offering or trialling export tariffs to small-scale generators.

    As the Secretary of State has set out previously, it is now time to move away from deployment through subsidy – paid for through a levy on bills – and towards a more market-based approach. This will benefit consumers, and will spur the sector to take advantage of innovation in technology and processes to reduce costs.

    In line with our Industrial Strategy, our aim is to enable the small-scale low-carbon generation sector to fairly access the wider energy market and deliver clean, smart and flexible power. This will extend the benefits of a smarter energy system more widely, which will aid ambitions to further reduce emissions.

    And perhaps most exciting of all, the SEG will benefit from an overlap with other parts of the low carbon transition, from electric vehicles to home storage and smart tariffs.

    A key motivation for the SEG is enhancing the role that generators can play in driving forward a smarter energy system, using smart meters and time of use tariffs, which will allow more consumers to benefit from flexible electricity prices.

    Under the previous Feed-in Tariffs scheme, exported electricity was largely unmeasured, flowing back to the grid without metering. Under the SEG, exports will be metered, supporting the roll-out of smart meters and ensuring compatibility with the rise in use of both electric vehicles and storage batteries.

    So In the home of the future, customers could generate solar power, use that power to charge their car and go for a drive; then, when they came home, they could sell the power left in the car’s battery back to the grid at a time of peak demand – so at a better price for them, while taking some of the load burden off national generation.

    All of this will mean that there has never been a better time for innovative, low-carbon products and services to come to market. And with this legislation, we will ensure that we achieve that smart, green, flexible future we all want to see.

    This is an evolving field – one that is welcoming to any business or individual that is ready and willing to develop new ideas and new technology. As I often say to the young people I speak to – whether I’m wearing my University Minister hat or my Science Minister goggles – great ideas can come from anywhere.

    That’s why as well as talking to all of you, this London Tech Week I’m pleased to announce the winners of our Energy Entrepreneurs’ Fund.

    Since first running in 2012, the EEF has been one of the pillars of our Energy Innovation Programme. So far it’s supported 133 projects, leading to more than 300 new jobs being created, more than 100 patents being filed, and more than £100 million of private sector investment.

    And I’m delighted to say that we’re maintaining this excellent record, with today’s announcement of the 19 winners of Phase 7 of the fund.

    These winners, whose details we’ve published today, will be receiving a share of over £8 million to support the development of their technologies in energy efficiency, power generation, and storage – technologies which will, of course, be essential to the SEG, and to that home of the future.

    Maybe it’s because I’m coming to this portfolio with fairly fresh eyes, but it’s been a revelation for me to see the terrific progress we’re making, and the many, many reasons we have to be optimistic about green growth in this country.

    As I said back at the beginning of my speech, we all know that we’re facing down a huge challenge, but I’ve seen a tremendous level of engagement from businesses and individuals throughout the UK, and as much as I know the enthusiasm is there, I want to make sure it spreads to every single person in this country.

    It’s one of the reasons that we’re so keen to host COP26, which we’re negotiating at the moment. Of course there are other countries that have a great story to tell, and have every right to host, but I think what we’re doing here is truly exceptional, and is setting a precedent for the rest of the world to follow. After the success of Green GB Week, I have no doubt we’d do an excellent job with COP.

    But that’s something for the future. For the time being, I’m delighted by the Smart Export Guarantee, and I’m really excited to see the difference it will make in the years ahead. There are benefits in this for consumers, and plenty of opportunities for the sector and its suppliers too.

    We’ve seen the energy landscape change over the centuries, and I think we’re about to see it change again for the better. A cleaner, leaner system – with the British people at its heart – is on its way.

    So I hope you’ll take that optimism with you into the rest of this week, and I want to thank you all for listening today.

    Thank you.

  • Austin Mitchell – 1985 Speech on the Televising of the Commons

    Below is the text of the speech made by Austin Mitchell, the then Labour MP for Great Grimsby, in the House of Commons on 20 November 1985.

    The basic reason why the House should be televised is to bridge the gulf between us and the people. After all, we are the people’s Parliament. We are not a closed debating society. We are the representatives of the people. We are not speaking for ourselves. We are discussing the issues that matter to the people and making decisions that affect their lives. Therefore, we should be available to the people on the medium from which they now get the bulk of their information about news and current affairs. Lament it how some will, that is the fact. If we are not on that medium, we relegate ourselves to a backwater that is irrelevant to the people and their lives.

    Arcane abstractions have been dredged up from the 18th century via South Down, but we are not a ​ 19th-century debating Chamber. We are not influencing and persuading each other. We cannot control the Executive, because we cannot bring it down. We have a system of government by party in which the people choose the Executive, and the people alone can bring it down. In that situation, the House of Commons is the open part of the system, where decisions become public for debate. It is the forum of the nation where the issues are discussed. It is the stage for the battle of ideas where the case for and against what the Government are doing is put before the people. All that is done to inform and educate the people. Yet what a farce it is if we do not reach the people.

    The popular papers do not report us. The qualities give bald summaries for a small readership. The radio, which is a minority channel, carries noisy extracts of our debates, but television, the only genuine mass medium, carries only sound radio with still pictures. We are the weaker for that. We can be effective and reflect the public’s concerns only if we have firm roots outside. We should be involved in a two-way communication process with the people outside, because it is the people who are the root of our power.

    All the arguments against televising Parliament have one common characteristic—they are all defensive. There is a strange coalition of opponents. We have hon. Members who feel that their inadequacies in performance, or the lack of it, should not be exposed to the gaze of the public. We have hon. Members who feel that the House is so awful—

    Mr. Faulds

    Will my hon. Friend give way?

    Mr. Mitchell

    No.

    Mr. Faulds

    Will my hon. Friend give way?

    Mr. Mitchell

    No, I am sorry, I am not giving way.

    Mr. Faulds

    He is frightened of the argument.

    Mr. Mitchell

    Some hon. Members feel that the House is so awful that the public should not be allowed to see it. Some feel that the public are so stupid and ill-informed that they will not understand what we are doing. Over the past few days journalists, men of the written word, have been bitterly hostile to television coverage, which will cut down their importance, their job as self-appointed middle men mediating between us and the people at inordinate profit to themselves. Both the Charles Moore article in the Daily Telegraph and the Hugo Young article in yesterday’s edition of The Guardian showed contempt for politicians and television.

    In the Chamber, two fears are paramount. There is fear of change in the Chamber and fear of television itself. To those who fear change in the Chamber, I say that, with television, the lighting will be somewhat brighter than it is now, but the House can be unconscionably dim at times, can it not? If we bring in the cameras straight away, they will be operator cameras. If we wait until the start of the next Session in November, the broadcasting organisations will be able to supply wall-mounted remote-control cameras that are unobtrusive.

    It is up to us in the House to define the terms of the coverage. We could go for the Canadian style of coverage or that in the United States House of Representatives, where the Speaker is shown in mid-shot and there are no cutaways, no shots of disturbances, no shots of people rushing like lemmings to jump from the Gallery almost as fast as nationalised industries have been flogged off—no ​ sensationalism, just straight, neutral coverage. We could go for the same coverage as the House of Lords, which allows cutaways. The decision is for the Select Committee and the House, and it has to be taken predominantly in the light of what the House wants rather than what the television people want. That is the important thing. The decision is ours. When we are televised, what will come over is what is effective now—serious, straightforward Chamber debate.

    Mr. Faulds

    How gullible.

    Mr. Mitchell

    The speech of the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell), unlike the interventions of my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds)—

    Mr. Faulds rose—

    Mr. Mitchell

    That speech would come over—

    Mr. Faulds

    If my hon. Friend has the guts to give way—

    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong)

    Order.

    Mr. Mitchell

    I shall not give way.

    The speech by the right hon. Member for South Down would come over extremely well on television, wrong as it was, because it was compelling argument. That is the truth of the matter. It is not the histrionics of the demagogue or the subtle lying of the studio, but straightforward Chamber debating that comes over effectively. It is striking from the Hansard Society report on the House of Lords coverage how little the House of Lords has changed because of the advent of television.

    There are those who fear change. We have conducted ourselves like a closed debating society for many years. What good has that done us? What respect is there for the House of Commons? The public are increasingly alienated from parties, politicians and politics. They do not respect or hold hon. Members and the House of Commons in esteem. The public are not in awe—they are bored and alienated and believe that we are remote. We must reach out to the public, and we can do so through the media from which they get their news and information.

    In this closed debating society, for much of the day the Chamber is dying on its feet, which may be especially true when I am speaking. The Chamber is badly attended and uninspiring for large chunks of the day. The only way to remedy that is to make it once again the focus of attention by putting it on television and making it available to the people. Through television we have the chance to make the Chamber important and a focus of interest and concern once again. We should seize that chance.

    I never understand the fear of television—a fear that has been so manipulated tonight.

    Mr. Wilson rose—

    Mr. Mitchell

    Television is essentially a mirror of reality. It has faults, but reality has faults. If we object to reality—

    Mr. Wilson

    On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you enlighten me? Under which code of practice are we debating? Is it the pre-television one, when one gives way to interventions, or is this the post-television age when we do not?

    Mr. Deputy Speaker

    That is not a matter for me.

    ​Mr. Mitchell

    The interventions have been so repetitious and so absurd—

    Mr. Faulds

    My hon. Friend has not listened to them. I am so grateful that he has at last been overcome by embarrassment and is prepared to listen to a moment of contradiction of some of his arguments. I rose first—I made many attempts later—to make the point that my hon. Friend seemed to be basing his attack on some of us on the fact that we were defensive about television. I happen to like the medium. I am rather good on television. If, unfortunately, the cameras come in, I will probably benefit from it.

    Mr. Deputy Speaker

    Order. I hope that this is an intervention, not a speech.

    Mr. Faulds

    What I wanted to say to my hon. Friend when he refused to let me intervene is that we are not defensive about proper television coverage of this House. If there were a continuous programme, I would vote for it. What we are defensive about is the selective presentation that the media boys will give to televising the Chamber.

    Mr. Mitchell

    I thank my hon. Friend for making it clear why I did not give way in the first place. I did not want his speech to punctuate mine.

    The critics of television are getting it both ways. They say that the House is too dull to be covered, and that it will be reduced to a form of entertainment. They say that people will not be interested, but also that 10 million people will be watching for every flaw, every absentee Member and every aberration. If they are influenced by those fears, they can only suck it and see. The experiment gives us a chance to see whether the fears are realised. That is what an experiment is about.

    Mr. Faulds

    Jump off the cliff and see where you land.

    Mr. Mitchell

    It is no use listening to abstract fears of people who have not seen the proceedings on television and who are defensive about it. The best way is to watch the experiment and see how it works.

    The critics of television must not forget that we already appear on television and in the least appetising, most inadequate way—a voice-over radio broadcast with irrelevant pictures. Why should not the reality be shown through the television cameras? We should be clear that the coverage will be different for each level and channel. Television will have several forms of coverage of our proceedings. Eventually, we shall have full-time coverage on cable. Cable is coming. In Canada, there is full-time coverage by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and the United States has such coverage on C-Span. They attract small but devoted, interested and involved audiences.

    There will occasionally be full debates on important issues, as there have been on the radio. There will be daily and weekly edited summaries of what has happened in Parliament on BBC 2 and on Channel 4. There will be extracts of speeches and statements in Parliament in the news and in the current affairs programmes. There will also be regional coverage by the regional companies of regional matters and Members of Parliament.

    Each channel will make its own decisions and choices. There is enough evidence that, within that range of choice, everyone will see something.

    However, those who wish to see more and to pay continual attention to the House will ​ be able to follow their interests, and why not? It could be a long debate, or simply a reminder on the news that Parliament exists. In contrast to the experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), some of my constituents have telephoned me in Grimsby during the week and, when told that I am in London, respond by saying, “What is he doing in London?” There is an amazing ignorance of Parliament.

    The fear of television is unrealistic. The debate has moved on more recently to an argument about which party will have the advantage, and whether Front-Bench or Back-Bench Members will benefit. The Prime Minister is reported to have changed her mind yet again. I hope that she is not, as The Guardian put it, “uncharacteristically dithering”. She has everything to gain by appearing on television, as does the leader of the Labour party. Both will come over brilliantly, because ability comes over well on television. That is what people will be looking for. If ability comes over well, it is not a matter of which party wins or loses. The whole Chamber will gain, because we shall have shown that we are doing a serious job. We shall allow the public to judge our ability, performance and how we get on in this testing ground. We shall not leave that judgment to the insiders—to the sketch writers who relay their views in their theatre criticisms, peddling small doses of what happens here, at inordinate profit to themselves.

    The experiment in the House of Lords has shown how successful television can be. It was not naturally the most exciting television, it was not naturally the most propitious experiment that could have been conducted, but at the end of the experiment, 81 per cent. of a representative sample of 200 peers wished the experiment to continue. In a sample of the public interviewed by BBC audience research, 72 per cent. believed that television gave them a good insight into what was happening in the House of Lords. Moreover, audiences were good. There was an average reach of 1·5 million for the afternoon and of 300,000 for the late night programmes.

    Indeed, when the ITN programme “Their Lordships’ House” went out late at night, the audiences were one fifth higher than they had been for the programmes in the preceding four weeks. That is the test. The consumers liked it, and those who participated liked it and wished it to continue. That 19th century institution down the corridor has shown us the way into the 20th century. It is a success story that should give us the confidence to take the plunge. If we do not, that House will continue to get the prestige of being on television.

    The House of Commons should go ahead on a similar basis. We could do so by voting today in principle and then allowing the Select Committee to agree the coverage that will be most acceptable to hon. Members. Then we should put it to the test of an experiment, preferably as long as possible and as late as possible, so that we can install remote-controlled, wall-mounted cameras, which are less obtrusive, and decide the matter on the basis of reality, not the hypothetical fears that have been projected today by those who are scared of television.

    Only when we have seen how it works will we have to take a final decision, and power will remain in our hands throughout that process. I hope we will decide not on fears, either of ourselves or of television, or on the kind of quibbles that have been paraded before us, but on what ​ is in the best interests of the people who have a growing desire to know, to see, and to be involved. All the evidence is that people want the House to be televised.

    Secondly, we must decide on the basis of what is in the best interests of this House. We are the last major Chamber to allow television in, and it is television alone that will enable us to do our real job, which is to put arguments before the people. We have dithered, delayed, hesitated and hovered. Enough is enough, and it is well past the time to reach out and talk directly to the people.

    We can do it through this experiment, and if we go ahead we shall be moving into the 20th century instead of cowering in fear of the world outside, pretending we are still living in the 19th century, doing a job that is dead in a Chamber that is half alive.