UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Speeches

  • Rebecca Long Bailey – 2019 Speech on British Steel

    Below is the text of the speech made by Rebecca Long Bailey, the Shadow Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, in the House of Commons on 22 May 2019.

    I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement.

    This is indeed very worrying news for the workers, their families and the communities who rely on British Steel directly in Scunthorpe, Skinningrove and Teesside and all the way through the supply chain. At least 25,000 people will be worried sick this morning, wondering whether they will have a job this time next week.

    As the Secretary of State knows, however, the sector is critical to our manufacturing base and is strategically important for Government procurement from rail all the way through to defence. It is therefore imperative, given that the Government now have some control via the official receiver, that this business is stabilised and confidence is given to customers, workers and businesses right across the supply chain. The message from the Government today must be that British Steel is one of the linchpins of our industrial strategy and to that end they will move heaven and earth to ensure business as usual continues.

    It is reported that the owner, Greybull Capital, was asking the Government for a loan of £30 million. The shadow Minister for steel, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss), asked for more information yesterday, but we were given none. Can the Secretary of State confirm today what the asks of British Steel were in the negotiations? Were they just the reported £30 million or was that part of a wider package of measures to support steel production?

    I welcome the publication of the accounting officer’s assessment, but can the Secretary of State confirm Greybull Capital’s reasoning in asking for a loan, while reportedly being unwilling to put money on the table and simultaneously investing over £40 million in a French steelworks last week?

    The Secretary of State has said in his press statement today that he will

    “pursue remorselessly every possible step to secure the future of the valuable operations in sites at Scunthorpe, Skinningrove and on Teesside”,​
    and I welcome that. I also welcome the indemnity he has referred to, but can he outline exactly what other possible steps he will be pursuing in the coming days? Do they include bringing British Steel into public ownership as Unite the union and the Labour party have called for? Do they include discussions with other interested stakeholders to examine options for saving the company, including with Network Rail, which procures 95% of its rails from the Scunthorpe site? It is clear that we simply cannot countenance warm words and no real action as was the case with the SSI steelworks almost four years ago.

    The truth of the matter is that the cost of British Steel collapsing is far greater than any short-term outlay the Government must make now. The Institute for Public Policy Research has estimated that British Steel’s collapse could lead to £2.8 billion in lost wages, £1.1 billion in lost revenue and extra benefit payments and that it could reduce household spending by £1.2 billion over 10 years. This is a significant economic disturbance, if the Secretary of State would like to dust off his state aid handbook.

    We know Network Rail sources 95% of its rails from Scunthorpe. Last year, Network Rail signed a £200 million contract with the company. The loss of this supply could have serious consequences for Network Rail’s cost base and the quality of the steel used to maintain and upgrade the British rail network. Notwithstanding the great commitment by Network Rail to British Steel, however, we also know the Government’s wider public procurement of UK steel has been disappointing, with only 43% of steel used in Government projects traced to firms based in the UK, according to UK Steel analysis. So will the Secretary of State confirm today what steps he is taking to positively procure British steel for more of our key infrastructure projects?

    Finally, there is no doubt that the UK steel industry is in a difficult place. Uncertainty about future trade with the EU and the dangling prospect of no deal are having a severe impact. Domestic issues like uncompetitive electricity prices, business rates and lack of support for steel in the so-called industrial strategy are also undermining the sector’s ability to compete, but UK steel has a proud history in the UK and there is no reason why this cannot continue. The ball is in the Government’s court: they can take action now to save British Steel and support the wider industry, or they can accept that their legacy will, yet again, be industrial decline. We in the Opposition know which side of history we want to be on, and I hope the Secretary of State wants the same thing.

  • Greg Clark – 2019 Statement on British Steel

    Below is the text of the statement made by Greg Clark, the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, in the House of Commons on 22 May 2019.

    With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about British Steel.

    It was announced this morning that the court has granted an application by the directors of British Steel to enter an insolvency process. Control of the company will now pass to the official receiver, an employee of the Insolvency Service, who will run a compulsory liquidation. The official receiver has made it clear that British Steel employees will continue to be paid and employed, and the business will continue to trade and to supply its customers while he considers the company’s position. In fact, employees were paid early, with the May payroll being run yesterday through cash being advanced by the company’s lenders.

    As the House will recall, I made a statement on 1 May setting out details of a bridging facility that the Government agreed to provide to ensure that British Steel was able to meet its obligations under the EU emissions trading scheme, which fell due on 30 April. The Government provided the facility to purchase allowances worth £120 million against the security of 2019 ETS allowances, which are currently suspended pending ratification of the withdrawal agreement.

    Without this facility, British Steel would have faced a financial pressure of over £600 million—the ETS liability, plus a £500 million fine. This would not only have placed British Steel in an insolvent financial position, but the charge attached to its operational assets would have been likely to prevent any new owner from acquiring these assets in the future. This transaction demonstrated the Government’s continuing willingness to work closely with all parties to secure the long-term success of this important business.

    Following this agreement, the Government have worked intensively with the company for many weeks to seek solutions to the broader financial challenges it has been facing. The Government and individual Ministers can only act within the law and this requires that any financial support to a steel company must be made on a commercial basis. In the case of the ETS facility, this was based on the security of future ETS allowances.

    To provide liquidity to the business in the face of its cash-flow difficulties the Government were willing to consider making a cash loan to the company and worked hard to investigate exhaustively the possibilities. However, the absence of adequate security, no reasonable prospect that any loan would have been repaid and the shareholder being unwilling to provide a sufficient cash injection itself meant that this did not meet the required legal tests.

    I am placing in the Library the accounting officer’s assessment of these proposals, drawing on professional and legal advice, which concludes:

    “It would be unlawful to provide a guarantee or loan on the terms of any of the proposals that the company or any other party has made or any others we have considered. You must note that such an offer cannot be made legally and that by making it you would be in breach of the Ministerial Code.”

    The insolvency removes Greybull from day-to-day control of British Steel. Given the Government’s willingness to help secure British Steel’s future, demonstrated in the ETS facility, and the discussions that have taken place ​in recent weeks, the Government will work closely with the official receiver and prospective new owners to achieve the best outcome for these sites.

    The Government have provided an indemnity to the official receiver, who is now responsible for the operations. We will take every possible step to ensure that these vital operations can continue, that jobs are secured and that the sites at Scunthorpe and Skinningrove and on Teesside continue to be important centres of excellent steel-working. During the days and weeks ahead, I will work with the official receiver, the special managers and a British Steel support group of trade unions, management, suppliers, customers and the local communities to pursue remorselessly every possible step to secure the future of these valuable operations.

    This is a very worrying time for everyone associated with British Steel. Each one of British Steel’s sites has a proud record of steelmaking excellence, and I am determined to see it continue. Britain and the world will continue to need high-quality steel, and British steel is among the best in the world. Today is a very big setback for these operations, but it is far from being the end and we will take every step possible to secure a successful future for these vital assets, both people and plant.

  • Ian Blackford – 2019 Speech on Brexit

    Below is the text of the speech made by Ian Blackford, the SNP MP for Ross, Skye and Lochaber, in the House of Commons on 22 May 2019.

    It is customary to thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of her statement. It was some surprise that we all saw the statement being delivered not in the House of Commons but elsewhere yesterday. Why was the usual protocol of Parliament being the first to hear such statements from the Prime Minister not followed?

    Let me give the Prime Minister some friendly advice: this deal is dead. Stop the charade, and let us get on with putting the decision back to the people once and for all. The headlines this morning cry of doom. Conservative Members are concentrating on ways to mount a leadership coup. Where are they? That is exactly what they are doing this afternoon—they are not here to support the Prime Minister.

    This is no way to run a Government. The Prime Minister is asking MPs to vote for a deal that takes Scotland out of the single market and eventually out of the customs union. That simply cannot be allowed to happen. This is a rookie Government attempting to blackmail MPs. If we look behind the smoke and mirrors, we see a new, revised deal that has not even been negotiated with Brussels; a second EU referendum, but only if we vote for the Bill; a possible temporary customs union that a future UK Government could change and the European Union has dismissed; and a trade tariff arrangement that the former UK representative to the EU has described as “the definition of insanity”.

    None of what the Prime Minister announced yesterday was discussed with the devolved Government in Edinburgh. This goes to the heart of the problem. In December 2016, the Scottish Government published a compromise position, which was rejected without discussion. Scotland’s voice has been ignored time and again. Brexit has meant powers being stripped away from the Scottish Parliament. There is no respect for the devolved Administrations by this Government. Westminster has ignored Scotland.

    This is a sorry mess. Look around—there is no support for the Prime Minister’s deal. This deal faces an even bigger defeat than the last vote. Tomorrow, communities will make their voices heard in our democratic European elections. A vote for the Scottish National party is a vote to stop Brexit, a vote to stop this economic madness and a vote to respect Scotland’s decision in 2016. The Prime Minister has lost the confidence of her party. Parliament will not support her, and she has lost the trust of the people. It is time to go, Prime Minister. Will you do it?

  • Jeremy Corbyn – 2019 Speech on Brexit

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jeremy Corbyn, the Leader of the Opposition, in the House of Commons on 22 May 2019.

    I thank the Prime Minister for an advance copy of the statement. In fact, I received it yesterday when she made an appeal entitled, “Seeking common ground in Parliament”. Where did she make that appeal? Not in Parliament, but in a small room just down the road.

    It is now clear: the bold new deal that the Prime Minister promised is little more than a repackaged version of her three times rejected deal. The rhetoric may have changed, but the deal has not. I thank the Prime Minister for her letter, but it offers no change on a customs union, no change on single market alignment, and no dynamic alignment on environmental protections. This Government are too weak, too divided, to get this country out of the mess that they have created. For more than two years, the Prime Minister bullishly refused to consult the public or Parliament.

    She did not seek a compromise until after she had missed her own deadline to leave, and by the time she finally did, she had lost the authority to deliver. That became evident during the six weeks of cross-party talks that ended last week—talks that were entered into constructively on both sides to see if a compromise was possible.

    But while those talks were going on, Cabinet Minister after Cabinet Minister made statements undermining what their colleagues in the room were offering. The Foreign Secretary, the Leader of the House, the International Trade Secretary and the Treasury Chief Secretary all made it clear that they would not tolerate a deal that included a customs union, while Tory leadership contender after Tory leadership contender took it in turns to make it absolutely clear that any compromise deal would not be honoured. Therefore, no matter what the Prime Minister offers, it is clear that no compromise would survive the upcoming Tory leadership contest. The multiple leaks reported from the Cabinet yesterday show that the Prime Minister could not even get the compromise deal she wanted through her own Cabinet, and it is clear that the shrunken offer that emerged satisfied no one—not her own Back Benchers, not the Democratic Unionist party and not the Official Opposition either. No Labour MP can vote for a deal on the promise of a Prime Minister who only has days left in her job.

    Even if the Prime Minister could honour her promises, the deal she is putting before us does not represent a genuine compromise. Her 10-point plan is riddled with contradiction and wishful thinking. First, the Prime Minister pretends she is delivering something new with a temporary customs union. This is not a compromise— ​it is just accepting the reality. Under the withdrawal agreement, we will already be in a temporary customs union through the transition period, which can last up to four years, and if not, we will enter the backstop, which, in effect, keeps us in a customs union, too, without any say.

    Secondly, why would this House legislate for a plan that has already been comprehensively rejected by the European Union? The Government want to align with the European Union on goods to keep frictionless trade, but they also want to pursue trade deals that would undermine this process. It is simply not compatible. The technology they need to continue to pursue their Chequers plan simply does not exist. It has already been ruled out by the EU as illegal, impractical and an invitation to fraud. The Government have failed to provide any economic analysis to show that this would make us better off. Why would the House support such a chaotic and desperate approach?

    Labour set out a sensible compromise plan over a year ago, including a comprehensive and permanent customs union with the EU that gives us a say, which would allow us to strike trade deals as part of the world’s biggest trading bloc, bringing investment, while maintaining the highest standards. It is credible and achievable, and the best way to protect industry, manufacturing and jobs—something that this Government are woefully indifferent to, as the latest crisis in the steel industry shows today. The Government must be prepared to step in and take a public stake to save thousands of high-skilled jobs at British Steel—a foundation industry for any major economy. Instead, the Tory obsession is for striking trade deals with the likes of Donald Trump. They prioritise chlorinated chicken, further NHS privatisation and deregulation over protecting supply chains and jobs in this country.

    On workers’ rights, we have yet to see the full package the Government intend to bring forward, but many people in the trade union movement remain very sceptical. As Frances O’Grady of the Trades Union Congress said yesterday:

    “This reheated Brexit deal won’t protect people’s jobs and rights.”

    On environmental protections, it is clear that the Prime Minister is not offering dynamic alignment and that under her proposals the UK would fall behind in a number of areas, with only a toothless regulator under the control of the Environment Secretary in place of binding international commitments to protect our environment.

    Finally, on a confirmatory vote, I am sure that nobody here will be fooled by what the Prime Minister is offering. Will she tell us now, if this offer is genuine: will she give her party a free vote on this issue or will she, as before, whip against a confirmatory referendum? If the Government truly believe this is the best deal for the economy and for jobs, they should not fear putting that to the people.

    For too long, our politics has been seen through a prism of leave or remain. This is dividing our society and poisoning our democracy. It means that vital issues are being neglected—the crisis in our schools and hospitals, the housing crisis and the cruelty of social security policy and universal credit. Our country needs leadership to bring us together. However, this Prime Minister is ​not the person to do that. Throughout the last three years, she has made no attempt to unite the country. She has been focused only on keeping her divided party together—and it has not worked. Her time has now run out. She no longer has the authority to offer a compromise and cannot deliver. That is why it is time for a general election to break the Brexit deadlock and give the country a say.

  • Theresa May – 2019 Commons Statement on Brexit

    Below is the text of the statement made by Theresa May, the Prime Minister, in the House of Commons on 22 May 2019.

    Before I make my statement, may I too recognise the work of Yvonne Marie Blenkinsop and others, and indeed all those who have campaigned over the years to ensure that those in the workplace can have the degree of safety and security that they need?

    With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the Government’s work to deliver Brexit by putting forward a new deal that Members of this House can stand behind.

    We need to see Brexit through, to honour the result of the referendum and to deliver the change the British people so clearly demanded. I sincerely believe that most Members of this House feel the same—that, for all our division and disagreement, we believe in democracy, and that we want to make good on the promise we made to the British people when we asked them to decide on the future of our EU membership. As to how we make that happen, recent votes have shown that there is no majority in this House for leaving with no deal, and this House has voted against revoking article 50. It is clear that the only way forward is leaving with a deal, but it is equally clear that this will not happen without compromise on all sides of the debate. That starts with the Government, which is why we have just held six weeks of detailed talks with the Opposition—talks that the Leader of the Opposition chose to end before a formal agreement was reached, but which none the less revealed areas of common ground.

    Having listened to the Opposition, to other party leaders, to the devolved Administrations and to business leaders, trade unionists and others, we are now making a 10-point offer to Members across the House—10 changes that address the concerns raised by right hon. and hon. Members; 10 binding commitments that will be enshrined in legislation so they cannot simply be ignored; and 10 steps that will bring us closer to the bright future that awaits our country once we end the political impasse and get Brexit done.

    First, we will protect British jobs by seeking as close to frictionless trade in goods with the EU as possible while outside the single market and ending free movement. The Government will be placed under a legal duty to negotiate our future relationship on this basis.

    Secondly, we will provide much-needed certainty for our vital manufacturing and agricultural sectors by keeping up to date with EU rules for goods and agri-food products that are relevant to checks at the border. Such a commitment, which will also be enshrined in legislation, will help protect thousands of skilled jobs that depend on just-in-time supply chains.

    Thirdly, we will empower Parliament to break the deadlock over future customs arrangements. Both the Government and the Opposition agree that we must have as close to frictionless trade at the UK-EU border as possible, protecting the jobs and livelihoods that are sustained by our existing trade with the EU, but while we agree on the ends, we disagree on the means. The Government have already put forward a proposal that delivers the benefits of a customs union but with the ability for the UK to determine its own trade and development policy. The Opposition are sceptical of ​our ability to negotiate that and do not believe that an independent trade policy is in the national interest. They would prefer a comprehensive customs union with a UK say in EU trade policy, but with the EU negotiating on our behalf.

    As part of the cross-party discussions, the Government offered a compromise option of a temporary customs union on goods only, including a UK say in relevant EU trade policy, so that the next Government can decide their preferred direction. We were not able to reach agreement, so instead we will commit in law to let Parliament decide this issue and to reflect the outcome of this process in legislation.

    Fourthly, to address concerns that a future Government could roll back hard-won protections for employees, we will publish a new workers’ rights Bill. As I have told the House many times, successive British Administrations of all colours have granted rights and protections to British workers well above the standards demanded by Brussels. I know that people want guarantees, and I am happy to provide them. If passed by Parliament, this Bill will guarantee that the rights enjoyed by British workers can be no less favourable than those of their counterparts in the EU—both now and in the future—and we will discuss further amendments with trade unions and business.

    Fifthly, the new Brexit deal will also guarantee that there will be no change in the level of environmental protection when we leave the EU. We will establish a new and wholly independent office of environmental protection, able to uphold standards and enforce compliance.

    Sixthly, the withdrawal agreement Bill will place a legal duty on Government to seek changes to the political declaration that will be needed to reflect this new deal, and I am confident that we will be successful in doing so.

    Seventhly, the Government will include in the withdrawal agreement Bill at its introduction a requirement to vote on whether to hold a second referendum. I have made my own view clear on this many times—I am against a second referendum. We should be implementing the result of the first referendum, not asking the British people to vote in a second one. What would it say about our democracy if the biggest vote in our history were to be rerun because this House did not like the outcome? What would it do to that democracy and what forces would it unleash? However, I recognise the genuine and sincere strength of feeling across the House on this important issue. To those MPs who want a second referendum to confirm the deal, I say that you need a deal and therefore a withdrawal agreement Bill to make it happen. Let it have its Second Reading and then those MPs can make their case to Parliament. If this House votes for a referendum, it would require the Government to make provisions for such a referendum, including legislation if it wanted to ratify the withdrawal agreement.

    Eighthly, Parliament will be guaranteed a much greater role in the second part of the Brexit process: the negotiations over our future relationship with the EU. In line with the proposal put forward by the hon. Members for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) and for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), the new Brexit deal will set out in law that the House of Commons will approve the UK’s objectives for the negotiations. MPs will also be asked to approve the treaty governing that relationship before the Government sign it.​

    Ninthly, the new Brexit deal will legally oblige the Government to seek to conclude the alternative arrangements process by December 2020, avoiding any need for the Northern Ireland backstop coming into force. This commitment is made in the spirit of the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady), passed by this House on 29 January. Although it is not possible to use alternative arrangements to replace the backstop in the withdrawal agreement, we will ensure that they are a viable alternative.

    Finally, tenthly, we will ensure that, should the backstop come into force, Great Britain will stay aligned with Northern Ireland. We will prohibit the proposal that a future Government could split Northern Ireland off from the UK’s customs territory, and we will deliver on our commitments to Northern Ireland in the December 2017 joint report in full. We will implement paragraph 50 of the joint report in law. The Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive will have to give their consent on a cross-community basis for new regulations that are added to the backstop. We will work with our confidence and supply partners on how these commitments should be entrenched in law, so that Northern Ireland cannot be separated from the United Kingdom.

    Following the end of EU election purdah, the withdrawal agreement Bill will be published on Friday so that the House has the maximum possible time to study its detail. If Parliament passes the Bill before the summer recess, the UK will leave the EU by the end of July. We will be out of the EU political structures and out of ever closer union. We will stop British laws being enforced by a European court. We will end free movement. We will stop making vast annual payments to the EU budget. By any definition, that alone is delivering Brexit. By leaving with a deal we can do so much more besides: we can protect jobs, guarantee workers’ rights, and maintain the close security partnerships that do so much to keep us all safe. We will ensure that there is no hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland, and we can bring an end to the months—years—of increasingly bitter argument and division that have both polarised and paralysed our politics. We can move on, move forwards, and get on with the job that we were sent here to do and what we got into politics to do. That is what we can achieve if we support this new deal.

    Reject the deal, and all we have before us is division and deadlock. We risk leaving with no deal, something that this House is clearly against. We risk stopping Brexit altogether, something that the British people would simply not tolerate. We risk creating further division at a time when we need to be acting together in the national interest. We also guarantee a future in which our politics becomes still more polarised and voters increasingly despair as they see us failing to do what they asked of us. None of us wants to see that happen. The opportunity of Brexit is too large and the consequences of failure too grave to risk further delay. In the weeks ahead, there will be opportunities for MPs from all parts of the House to have their say, to table amendments, and to shape the Brexit that they and their constituents want to see.

    In time, another Prime Minister will be standing at this Dispatch Box, but while I am here, I have a duty to be clear with the House about the facts. If we are to deliver Brexit in this Parliament, we will have to pass a ​withdrawal agreement Bill. We will not do so without holding votes on the issues that have divided us the most. That includes votes on customs arrangements and on a second referendum. We can pretend otherwise and carry on arguing and getting nowhere, but in the end our job in this House is to take decisions, not to duck them. I will put those decisions to this House because that is my duty and because it is the only way that we can deliver Brexit. Let us demonstrate what this House can achieve. Let us come together, honour the referendum, deliver what we promised the British people, and build a successful future for our whole country. I commend this statement to the House.

  • John Glen – 2019 Speech at the Building Societies Association Annual Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by John Glen, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, on 23 May 2019.

    Thank you, Stephen [Stephen Mitcham, Chairman].

    It’s a pleasure to be asked to speak at your Annual Conference, particularly in this 150th Anniversary year.

    A century-and-a-half is quite an achievement for any organisation.

    Throughout this time the Building Societies Association has been keeper of the flame, for the movement and its members.

    Over the years you’ve weathered all sorts of economic storms and existential threats. In more recent times, you survived de-mutualisation in the 1990s and the Global Crash of 2008, and today you represent almost a quarter of the mortgage market.

    And I think it’s worth taking a moment to consider why it is that the building society movement has endured.

    In answering that question, it’s perhaps fitting if I start by quoting the man who was Prime Minister back at the time of your founding.

    It was Benjamin Disraeli who said that “the secret of success is constancy of purpose.”

    For all the changes we’ve seen in our society and our economy, the building society movement has remained true to its original values.

    In 2019, as in 1869, building societies continue to put the interests of their members first.

    They continue to be rooted in the communities they serve.

    And they continue to ensure our financial service sector caters for everyone in our society.

    This is borne out by the strength of the sector today, with more than 40 different organisations, serving 25 million members in 1,500 branches across the United Kingdom.

    As I will explain in a moment, this diversity and competition in high street lending has never been more necessary than it is today.

    But first I should also add a special word on credit unions.

    It’s good to see so many represented here today, including BSA’s newest member, Scotwest.

    I know how vital credit unions are to the people and communities you serve.

    This was reflected in the Parliamentary debate I responded to on Tuesday this week, with many members from across the House speaking up for credit unions.

    As some of you know, the government is developing a prize-linked savings scheme to encourage individual savers, and help raise awareness of credit unions more widely.

    It’s a first step…because whether you can trace your pedigree back to 1869 or not, I want to see mutuals of all types prosper and grow.

    I’d like to use my remarks to set out why I think it’s so vital that building societies and credit unions keep on innovating and adapting…

    …so they can continue to apply their values and principles in a changing society.

    Of course, given the changes we’ve seen over the past 150 years, who can predict with any certainty what the next 150 may bring?

    Here in Westminster it’s difficult to see past next week…

    And yet despite the short-term political uncertainty, I’m in no doubt of the forces that will shape the future of our financial sector.

    I refer to the ‘three Ts’ – Trust, Technology and Talent.

    Let’s take each of them in order, starting with Trust.

    A decade on from the financial crash, I know how hard the sector has worked to rebuild public trust.

    But the task of making our financial services work in a way that is sustainable and responsible is an unending one.

    And we must never stop working to ensure our economy is sufficiently broad and inclusive to serve everyone in our society.

    This challenge is particularly acute when you consider the demographic pressures we face as a country.

    We have a generation of young people starting out in life, for whom the traditional expectations about job security, home ownership and pensions seem to be slipping further into the distance.

    At the other end of the financial journey, we have more people living longer. One in 3 children born today will live to see their 100th Birthday, with all that entails in terms of financial security and social care.

    Balancing the two is not easy – but balance them we must.

    Because if we are to maintain people’s faith in our financial system, then it must evolve to serve their changing needs and expectations.

    I know the building society movement is in the vanguard of these efforts.

    Take housing.

    In November, I was pleased to speak at the launch of BSA’s report on Intergenerational Mortgages.

    I know that Saffron has launched a guarantor mortgage, while Marsden is the latest building society to offer a ‘joint borrower, sole proprietor’ mortgage.

    These two schemes take into account the financial circumstances of family members in order to give first time buyers a leg up onto the property ladder.

    I recently met the Ecology Building Society, which offers Green Mortgages for self-build properties and discounted borrowing for home improvements.

    That’s another great example of how the mortgage market can respond to the needs of society, and of the generations to come.

    As for retirement lending, it’s hugely encouraging to see regional building societies like Leeds, Nottingham and Loughborough offering retirement interest-only mortgages.

    And we’re starting to see this on a national level, with Nationwide offering a retirement interest-only mortgage alongside traditional equity release and capital repayment products – all backed by a joined-up advice service.

    These examples are proof that regulation and innovation are not mutually exclusive.

    It is possible to be a responsible lender while remaining accessible to people at every stage of their financial lives.

    And fresh thinking can transform even the most traditional areas of business.

    The subject of fresh thinking naturally leads to the second ‘T’ – Technology.

    You don’t need me to remind you of the extent to which technology is changing the market, particularly for high street lenders.

    But the question is – Do we sit back and let technology do its work? Or do we seize the opportunity to meld and align this revolution in a way that works for society?

    It probably won’t surprise you to hear me say I choose the second option.

    Yes, technology can provide more sophisticated and more convenient services, to the benefit of customers and businesses alike.

    But it’s true financial potential is to be found in being a catalyst for a smarter, more resilient and inclusive system.

    And that requires us to come together, roll-up our sleeves and get to work.

    First, to ensure that the benefits of technology can be harnessed across the sector, from the big national institutions to the smallest community cooperative.

    And second, to ensure that the benefits are felt throughout society: not just the wealthy or comfortable, but those who struggle with complex financial circumstances.

    I’m really pleased that you have Conference sessions planned for tomorrow under the theme of ‘Digital Mutual’.

    Meanwhile, our Financial Inclusion Forum brings government, business and civil society together to help find new solutions.

    Nationwide is one of the institutions that have picked up the baton.

    It’s ‘Open Banking for Good’ Challenge offers £3 million to FinTech companies that can come up with new apps and services to help financially squeezed households in this country.

    Fifty applications have been whittled down to 7 start-ups, which are now taking their ideas forward.

    At a time when many see Open Banking solely through a commercial lens, this is a much-needed demonstration that it can offer a social purpose too.

    The third and final ‘T’ is Talent.

    The single most critical element in the future of financial services – and our wider economy – is the availability of skills in the sector.

    We need people with the courage to think differently; the agility to move with the times; and the ambition to grasp the opportunities before us.

    To find these people, we must look to society in all its breadth and diversity.

    All the research shows that a more inclusive workforce is better for employees, better for businesses and better for customers.

    But across the financial sector – including building societies – there are sadly too few women represented in senior leadership roles.

    As some of you know, HM Treasury published the Women in Finance Charter three years ago.

    It asked financial service companies to commit to greater representation of women in senior leadership roles in the near term, with the long-term goal of an equal gender balance.

    BSA has shown real leadership by signing the charter.

    It sends a signal to the rest of the sector that this is the right thing to do.

    Twelve individual building societies have also signed up and I would encourage the 35 BSA members who haven’t yet done so to do likewise.

    The next step for everyone is to turn that public commitment into tough, tangible, action.

    I congratulate those who have met their first round of targets for increasing female representation in senior management this year –

    …Capital Credit Union…and Leeds, Market Harborough, Nottingham, Progressive and West Bromwich Building Societies.

    It’s good to see progress.

    But we still have a long way to go.

    And I do intend to hold your feet to the fire on this matter.

    As a sector, you pride yourself on being locally-focused and community-minded.

    In so many areas, your ethos is in line with public frustration and sentiment.

    So, frankly, I find it difficult to understand why this matter should be any different.

    Gender balance is a business imperative as well as a moral one.

    It’s not about displacing current leaders – it’s about creating a talent pipeline by thinking about who you recruit and how you nurture them over the course of a career.

    Because in a world that is increasingly global, increasingly competitive and increasingly digital, we simply cannot afford for people with the talent and skills we need to pass the sector by.

    Nor can we afford for experienced and capable individuals to be prevented from rising to the top.

    Let me begin to draw this together.

    I’ve highlighted some of the ways the Building Societies Association is leading the sector to innovate and adapt.

    Of course, there are plenty of other examples I could have chosen.

    Like Yorkshire Building Society’s workplace saving scheme.

    Or Nationwide’s not-for-profit house building programme.

    Or Newcastle’s leadership in signing up to the alternative dormant assets scheme for smaller building societies and banks.

    All of which represent the innovation that is found across the sector.

    So my closing message to you today is to keep on doing all the things you do.

    Keep on serving local communities.

    Keep on bringing forward new ideas for greater collaboration – building trust, harnessing technology and sharpening talent.

    And, most importantly, keep on putting people first.

    Because like Disraeli said, constancy of purpose is the key to success.

    So, to end, I’d like to congratulate the Building Societies Association for all that you have achieved, and all that you will achieve.

    Because I have confidence that you have as much to contribute to our country in your next 150 years as you have in your first.

  • Andrea Leadsom – 2019 Resignation Letter

    Andrea Leadsom

    Below is the text of the resignation letter sent by Andrea Leadsom, the Leader of the House of Commons, to Theresa May, the Prime Minister.

    Dear Prime Minister

    I am proud to have served in your government since 2016, first as your environment secretary and for the last two years as leader of the House of Commons, and pay tribute to the excellent work of my civil servants in both roles. More recently, setting up the new complaints procedure, putting in train the restoration of the Palace of Westminster, introducing proxy voting for MPs, proposing a new strategy to support early years, and ensuring the timely delivery of our legislative programme, my role as leader of the Commons has been highly rewarding, and I am grateful to have had these opportunities.

    I stayed in cabinet to shape and fight for Brexit. There have been some uncomfortable compromises along the way, but you have had my determined support and loyalty in your efforts to deliver Brexit as our shared goal.

    I no longer believe that our approach will deliver on the referendum result, for the following reasons:

    1. I do not believe that we will be a truly sovereign United Kingdom through the deal that is now proposed;

    2. I have always maintained that a second referendum would be dangerously divisive, and I do not support the government willingly facilitating such a concession. It would also risk undermining our union which is something I passionately want to see strengthened;

    3. There has been such a breakdown of government processes that recent Brexit-related legislative proposals have not been properly scrutinised or approved by cabinet members;

    4. The tolerance to those in cabinet who have advocated policies contrary to the government’s position has led to a complete breakdown of collective responsibility.

    I know there are important elections tomorrow, and many Conservatives have worked hard to support our excellent candidates. I considered carefully the timing of this decision, but I cannot fulfil my duty as Leader of the House tomorrow, to announce a bill with new elements that I fundamentally oppose.

    I fully respect the integrity, resolution and determination that you have shown during your time as prime minister. No-one has wanted you to succeed more than I have, but I do now urge you to make the right decisions In the interests of the country, this government and our party.

    It is therefore with great regret and with a heavy heart that I resign from the government.

    Andrea Leadsom.

  • Tom Watson – 2019 Speech on the WhatsApp Data Breach

    Below is the text of the speech made by Tom Watson, the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, in the House of Commons on 15 May 2019.

    Here we are again: another day, another major data breach from a Mark Zuckerberg company. I am glad that the Secretary of State is with Facebook today, because we can suggest a number of questions for him to put to Facebook.

    First, what has happened? Spyware called Pegasus, created by the Israeli security company NSO Group, has been used to hack the phones of lawyers and human rights activists. The news reports read like a nightmare: a dystopian world of tech-enabled total surveillance. The spyware transits malicious code via a WhatsApp call. The target does not even need to answer the call for the phone to be infected. According to ​The New York Times, once the spyware is installed, it can extract everything: messages, contacts, GPS location, email and browser history. It can even use the phone’s camera and microphone to record the user’s surroundings. That is terrifying.

    About 1.5 billion people worldwide use WhatsApp and millions are here in the UK. Many of them will have been drawn to the service for its unique selling point: end-to-end encryption that ensures user privacy. Now we find that a gap in WhatsApp’s defences has enabled complete violation of that privacy. What is the Minister doing to work with GCHQ, the National Cyber Security Centre and tech industry players to protect the UK’s digital communications and privacy?

    Media reports say that WhatsApp contacted the US Department of Justice earlier this month when it found out about the hack, but when was the Minister notified about it? When was the Information Commissioner informed? How many users in the UK are affected? Have those affected been notified? If the Minister does not know the answers, will she commit to updating the House when she does?

    The spyware was licensed for export by the Israeli Government. What assurances can the Minister provide to social media companies that any digital surveillance products that the UK exports will not be misused to track and monitor human rights defenders? The particular vulnerability of WhatsApp was the voice over internet protocol—the process for receiving calls over the internet. As telecoms companies modernise, they are all moving away from calls over copper lines and phasing in calling via the internet. What is the Minister doing to ensure that those companies do not have vulnerabilities such as those we are discussing today?

    The attack looks as if it was carried out by malicious actors, possibly other state actors, trying to close down journalists, dissidents, human rights activists and lawyers seeking justice, but exactly that kind of surveillance was given legal basis in the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, which the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) and I fought in the courts and won concessions on. The Government want tech companies to build back doors into their services, but this is an example of what happens if malicious actors find those doors: those who are fighting for justice and what is right come under attack. The Government must not allow that to happen.

  • Philip Hammond – 2019 Speech at CBI Annual Dinner

    Below is the text of the speech made by Philip Hammond, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, at the CBI Annual Dinner on 21 May 2019.

    Thank you, John, for that introduction.

    It is a pleasure to be here once again in the old Whitbread building.

    And if the CBI is trying to make a cheap point by literally organising your annual piss up in a brewery, I am going to pretend I haven’t noticed it!

    Actually, this building has a fascinating history.

    For more than a hundred years, the Speaker of the House of Commons’ carriage was kept here.

    If you haven’t seen it, it is a spectacularly grand, gilded and polished affair – I am talking about the coach, not the Speaker.

    This was a working brewery until 1976. The year before I started my first job, and a time when the UK economy was fast-approaching its post-industrial revolution nadir…

    … dominated by state-owned industries; crippled by unbridled Union power and incessant politically-motivated strikes and protected by rigid exchange controls and managed exchange rates…

    …where credit was rationed by the government, and the top marginal tax rate on investment income was 98%.

    Visibly falling behind the other Members of the EEC, which we had just joined.

    And with our politics polarising to reflect the radically different solutions of left and right to the nation’s challenges.

    We have come a long way since then.

    Our economy is transformed. Our manufacturing sector once again boasts global champions;

    British design and innovation, derided back then, is now respected throughout the world;

    Our services sector has been liberated from stifling regulation and short-sighted protectionism to soar ahead as a powerhouse of the new economy;

    And the UK has become a magnet for investment, for entrepreneurship and for talent from across the globe.

    Our recovery from the fiscal consequences of the financial crisis a decade ago has reached a turning point: our deficit is now lower than it was before the crisis and our national debt is falling sustainably for the first time in a generation.

    Meanwhile, the UK has grown continuously for nine straight years, and despite domestic uncertainty and a slowing world economy, the OBR is forecasting growth for the next five as well.

    Judged against our peers, the UK economy is robust: Since 2010, we have grown as fast as Germany, and faster than France, Italy and Japan.

    On jobs, we have a remarkable story to tell,with the employment rate at a record high and unemployment at its lowest rate since 1975.

    Over 3 ½ million net new jobs since 2010. And of the nearly half a million net additional people in work over the last year, virtually all are in full time jobs.

    And there’s good news on pay, too – with the OBR forecasting wages to rise by 3% or more in each of the next five years…

    …while inflation is forecast to remain at, or very close to, the target of 2% throughout the forecast period.

    This robust economic and fiscal performance is the result of nearly a decade of hard work by the British people, and of a clear economic strategy by the government.

    My predecessor’s number one focus was, quite rightly, on fixing the public finances, inheriting, as he did, a record peacetime fiscal deficit.

    But when I became Chancellor in 2016 I recognised that, as well as getting Britain’s debt down, our continued success as a nation depends on investing in our future, supporting our public services, and keeping taxes low to attract talent and investment.

    This ‘balanced approach’ is now delivering, with the highest sustained levels of public capital investment in 40 years…

    …a Modern Industrial Strategy to respond to the long-term challenge of low productivity;

    Income tax cuts for more than 30 million people;

    …and over £150 billion of new spending commitments since 2016, including a £34bn a year increase for the NHS…

    …the single largest cash commitment ever made by a peacetime British Government…

    …but all of it anchored in a framework of fiscal responsibility, with our deficit now just1.2% and our national debt falling sustainably for the first time in a generation.

    Fiscal responsibility is a proud boast of Conservative Governments, and I know that, over the coming months, my colleagues will want to protect that reputation – and so will resist the ever-present temptation to write cheques the country cannot afford.

    Because we must not undo a decade of hard work by the British people by making unfunded commitments that would send our national debt soaring; leave the economy vulnerable to future shocks; burden future generations; and waste billions on interest payments.

    People must know they can trust Conservatives with the public finances.

    So our economy and our public finances are in far better shape than they were 40 years ago.

    Wages and living standards are dramatically improved since then.

    And yet, there are worrying echoes of the 1970’s in the re-polarisation of the political debate today.

    Populism is on the rise.

    Globalisation – which has transformed the lives of hundreds of millions across the planet, and driven rising living standards here in the UK, has become something of a dirty word;

    Free trade is under attack from all sides and the multilateral institutions which have upheld the post-war international system are challenged as never before;

    Trade tensions and the rise of protectionism are now a real threat to world trade and economic growth.

    On the left and right of politics, at home and abroad, the allure of superficially easy answers to complex problems – the political equivalent of the “free lunch” – fills the vacuum created by frustration with the politics of the centre ground.

    And Brexit continues to wrap our economy in a cloud of uncertainty – with the continued possibility of a “No Deal” exit remaining a real threat to our future prosperity.

    So I want to say a few words tonight about how we can meet this growing challenge.

    But it is worth noting that doing so today will be more complicated than it was in the 1970s.

    Because underpinning, and to some extent driving, the political malaise in Britain – and in many other developed economies, are four major, unavoidable, structural changes that are shaping the context for this debate:

    1) The inexorable shift of economic power from the West towards the Emerging Economies of Asia, and its inevitable long-term consequence for the balance of strategic power as well.

    2) The need for rapid de-carbonisation of our economy, with huge implications for the allocation of capital and the sustainability of current business models;

    3) The ageing of our populations and the implications for our economies, for migration policy and for intergenerational equity;

    4) And finally, the unparalleled scale of the technological revolution on which we are embarked – a revolution that will profoundly change our lives, our jobs, our economy and our politics.

    And all of these will be happening at once; all imposing huge demands for resources and attention – both in terms of political bandwidth and in terms of business management-time.

    So the background is challenging, to put it mildly. And against that background, we face real and present dangers to our economic well-being from populists of left and right.

    On the populist right, there are those who now claim that the only outcome that counts as a truly legitimate Brexit is to leave with No Deal.

    Let me remind them: the 2016 Leave campaign was clear that we would leave with a Deal.

    So to advocate No Deal is to hijack the result of the referendum, and in doing so, knowingly to inflict damage on our economy and our living standards.

    Because all the preparation in the world will not avoid the consequences of No Deal.

    So I will continue to fight, in the face of this polarisation, for a negotiated Brexit…

    …an outcome that respects the British people’s decision to leave, while recognising that there is no mandate for a “No Deal” exit; and that we have an absolute obligation to protect Britain’s jobs, businesses and future prosperity.

    But we need to be clear, that if we do not resolve this issue in the next few weeks, there is a real risk of a new Prime Minister abandoning the search for a deal, and shifting towards seeking a damaging No-Deal exit as a matter of policy…

    …in order to protect an ideological position which ignores the reality of Britain’s economic interests and the value of our precious Union.

    And we need to be clear, too, that lurking ever larger behind this immediate challenge of right-wing populism, is the even greater danger of left-wing populism…

    …manifest in John McDonnell’s increasingly brazen policy assault on the fundamental fabric of our modern, open, economy…

    …with proposals for nationalisation of businesses without compensation; appropriation of equity shares; direction of investment; and ruinous levels of taxation and borrowing to finance yet another experiment in market manipulation and social engineering that is doomed to fail, as it predecessors, at home and abroad, have always done…

    …and which must surely lead to capital flight and, ultimately, exchange controls.

    Both approaches offer a disaffected electorate temptingly simple solutions to the complex problems that drive their discontent.

    Neither will deliver.

    Those who believe that they can make Britain better off by increasing barriers to trade and those who think that greater prosperity and a better society can be delivered by subverting the market rather than harnessing it, are both wrong – as history will confirm.

    But the truth is that a gap has opened up – in Britain and in other developed countries – between the theory of how a market economy and free trade creates and distributes wealth, and the reality experienced by many ordinary people…

    …creating a dissatisfaction that is fertile ground for populism to grow in.

    And since populism cannot be defeated by confronting one set of simplistic, undeliverable solutions with another…

    …we have to be prepared to eschew simple answers…

    ….and make again the complex, and to some, counter-intuitive, case for well-regulated open markets, free and fair trade, fiscal discipline and market economics;

    Explaining how, as we tackle the great challenges of our economy in the 21st century – ageing, technology, climate change and productivity…

    …the mechanisms of the market and the benefits of openness will allow us to create enduring, sustainable solutions.

    Solutions that deliver real results, not empty promises.

    But defending the market economy means demonstrating how, specifically, it can meet the challenges that matter most to a generation who may be pre-disposed to believe that it cannot.

    And it means showing by doing, not by telling.

    It means delivering rising real wages and living standards year after year;

    Building the homes that the next generation needs – at prices they can afford;

    Supporting people of all ages to embrace technology change through retraining and re-skilling, so that technology means higher living standards, not higher unemployment;

    It means closing the gap between our regions through sustained investment in infrastructure, including strategic projects like HS2;

    Demonstrating that higher productivity can provide the answer to the challenge of an ageing population;

    And harnessing market-based solutions to show that de-carbonisation and rising living standards can go hand-in-hand.

    In short, it means validating the open, free-trading market economy system as “fit-for-purpose” for the challenges that we face in the 21st Century

    That’s necessary to re-build confidence in the politics of the Centre ground…

    …and it’s necessary to “re-licence” business to play the vital role that it must in our society.

    And it can only be done by Government and Business working together to deliver prosperity and opportunity in every part of Britain.

    The immediate priority must, of course, be delivering a solution to the Brexit impasse.And we made a great step forward today.

    Because the Government’s, and Parliament’s seeming inability to do so is undermining confidence in our political system…

    …and because continued uncertainty is now having a real and damaging impact on our economy.

    When I accepted this invitation to speak, back in January, I planned to speak about Britain’s future in the context of a Brexit deal that had been done!

    And I didn’t even focus on the juxtaposition with the European Elections later this week!

    The threat of “No Deal as Policy” should unite all those who reject it as reckless and dangerous.

    I was an early advocate of seeking to reach a compromise agreement with other parties and factions to break the impasse in the House of Commons.

    So, I was disappointed, but not surprised, when the Leader of the Opposition ended the formal discussions last week.

    The truth is, the incentives in our political system discourage such initiatives.

    But both of us have learned a great deal about each other’s positions from those talks…

    …and I believe that the case for compromise remains as strong as ever.

    If we are to have any hope of re-uniting our country and repairing our politics after the divisions of the last three years, we cannot have half the country feeling they have completely won and the other half, that they have completely lost.

    Britain needs a Brexit that feels like a compromise; a Brexit that delights no-one, but one that everyone, or nearly everyone, can live with.

    And in a Parliamentary democracy, which this country is, the only sustainable Brexit solution is one that can command a majority in the Parliament.

    So the right way forward is to build on what we have learned of the concerns and aspirations on the Labour side…

    …and add it to what we already know of the concerns and aspirations of our colleagues on the Government side, and others across the House who are open to a negotiated exit…

    …to craft a compromise that can deliver Brexit and settle this question, once and for all,in a Withdrawal Agreement Bill that will represent a bold, new proposal addressed to MPs on all sides of the House of Commons.

    But let me be clear on one thing: that is where the attempt at consensus with the Opposition ends.

    Because beyond Brexit, we can and must challenge head-on the anti-market, anti-business ideology of the left…

    …with its false promises and easy answers…

    …and promote instead a clear plan to build on the strengths of the British economy as we tackle the challenges and harness the opportunities of the future…

    …working in a partnership with business…

    …using the authority of Government to set the direction of travel…

    …but with the private sector as the front-line agent of change – mobilising private capital and harnessing the power of the market to ensure effective delivery.

    Working together to raise productivity as the only sustainable path – not only to higher wages and rising personal living standards…

    …but also to delivering our social objectives, and our strategic goals, such as decarbonisation.

    That means capital investment, both public and private, in infrastructure and technology…

    …and it also means a partnership to deliver the home-grown skills and training that Britain needs to prosper…

    …and a genuine collaboration to ensure a future immigration regime that supports the needs of business and the economy without unnecessary bureaucracy.

    That’s why we embarked on an unprecedented year-long consultation on the post-Brexit migration regime: we said we want to hear the views of business, and I am sure you are not going to disappoint us!

    There is no doubt that we are facing an unprecedented period of challenge in our public life.

    Uncertainty over Brexit.

    Anxiety over our economic model.

    Anger about our politics.

    All set against the backdrop of a long, and sometimes apparently conflicting list of urgent imperatives:

    Decarbonising our economy; rescuing our environment; housing our population; adopting new technology; increasing our productivity, and adapting to demographic change.

    No wonder the British people are concerned,and it would be an insult to ignore them.

    The populists do not have the answers – but they are pretty good at identifying the grievances.

    To trump them, we need an optimistic vision for the future – but one that is grounded in reality…

    …with solutions that work with the grain of our society and harness the power of markets, the energy of business and the resource of private capital…

    …to deliver answers to these multiple,simultaneous, challenges.

    And to allow us to harvest the tremendous opportunities that lie within them.

    Solutions that address the future…

    …not hark back to the past;

    That promote unity, not further division;

    That deliver real change, not simply rhetorical shift;

    And that speak to our ambition for a country whose best years, we firmly believe, lie ahead of it.

    Thank you.

  • Margot James – 2019 Statement on WhatsApp Data Breach

    Below is the text of the statement made by Margot James, the Minister for Digital and the Creative Industries, in the House of Commons on 15 May 2019.

    I am responding to this question from the shadow Secretary of State because the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is in Paris for the G7 Digital Ministers meeting. He is meeting political and digital leaders from across the world, including senior representatives of Facebook, which owns Whatsapp, to ensure that the technology that is an increasing part of our daily lives is developed and managed in a safe and ethical manner.

    I share the concern of all Members of the House about WhatsApp’s announcement of this vulnerability and the steps that it is taking to address it. In this instance, the National Cyber Security Centre has acted quickly to assess the risk to UK users and to publish guidance for our user base here in the UK. The NCSC has recommended that users protect their devices by installing updates as soon as they become available, and I would encourage any users with concerns to check the NCSC website. It is right that people should have confidence that their personal data will be protected and used fairly and lawfully.

    The Data Protection Act 2018, which the Government passed last year, imposes strict obligations on organisations to ensure that UK citizens’ data is processed safely, securely and transparently. Organisations that fail to comply with the legislation may be investigated by the Information Commissioner’s Office, which received extra resources and more powers last year during the passage of that Bill. WhatsApp has designated the Irish Data Protection Commission as its European national regulator, and the ICO will work with and support its Irish counterpart so that the data of UK citizens is protected.

    Cyber-security is of paramount importance to this Government, and our cyber-security strategy, which is supported by £1.9 billion of investment, sets out ambitious policies to protect UK citizens and businesses in cyber-space. Trust is the foundation of our digital economy. Cyber-security is absolutely vital in providing the stability and certainty that businesses need to thrive, and the public must have confidence in it.