UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Speeches

  • Luke Hall – 2019 Speech on Horse Tethering

    Below is the text of the speech made by Luke Hall, the Conservative MP for Thornbury and Yate, in the House of Commons on 20 February 2019.

    I am delighted to have secured this Adjournment debate on the practice of the long-term tethering of horses. Tethering is the practice of attaching horses to a stake in the ground using a collar, or sometimes just a piece of rope around the neck, that is then fastened to a chain. The animal that once defined our great nation is now being left at risk of neglect, cruelty and abuse because of loopholes in the very legislation that was written to protect them. This debate follows the Break the Chain campaign run by the excellent HorseWorld trust, a leading equine rescue charity in the south-west, just next door to my constituency. The Break the Chain campaign aims to amend the Animal Welfare Act 2006 to include restrictions on the tethering of horses.

    Traditionally, tethering has been used as a short-term method of keeping horses, but it has transformed into a method of retaining horses without having to purchase land, by using public or private grassland, often by the side of busy roads, for grazing. Because the tethered animal can be moved quickly, it is easy for people to tether a horse on land that does not belong to them and then move the animal before the authorities can identify the landowner or the owner of the animal. This results in it being virtually impossible to monitor the welfare of these animals, leaving around 3,500 horses in a state of potentially compromised welfare with little or no chance of intervention from charities.

    There are a number of reasons why there has been such a large public response to the public campaign. In my constituency and the constituencies that surround it in the west of England, there is a big problem with tethering. There have been incidents where horses tethered by the roadside have been visible from the council offices in Yate, but despite this being a clear breach of the Animal Welfare Act, it could not be acted upon because the law does not state explicitly that tethering is a welfare concern. Unfortunately, because these horses are not protected by law, most cases of tethered horses that HorseWorld gets called to do not end well. The horses are simply moved before the Control of Horses Act 2015 can take effect. One incident saw a tethered horse break free near a large shopping centre at Cribbs Causeway in south Gloucestershire, next to a major road. By the time the horse was rescued and able to be seen by a vet, the injuries that it had sustained, most likely from having been hit by a car, meant that it had to be put down.

    Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this important subject to the Adjournment debate tonight. The British Horse Society is on record as stating that although many horses will thrive on a diet consisting only of grass, it is vital that tethered horses are moved regularly to ensure a constant supply of fresh food, and that during the winter months or at any other time when grass is scarce, additional work and feeding needs to be carried out. Tethering is clearly not a long-term solution for any horse, and this has to be looked at. Does he agree that the change to the legislation that the Minister has a chance to bring in would be a way of addressing the issue?​

    Luke Hall

    It is a genuine pleasure be intervened on by the hon. Gentleman in an Adjournment debate, and he is absolutely right. I will come on to some examples of how long-term tethering has been detrimental and caused death to animals in a number of cases. The nature of tethering means that it does not require large amounts of land, so horses can end up tethered in inner-city locations. A pony in south Bristol spent years tied to a tree on a grass verge and was harassed by local children and frequently escaped on to roads. The reality is that that was not a one-off.

    Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)

    Do the majority of such incidents involve horses or ponies owned by Travellers who are just moving through?

    Luke Hall

    That can often be the case. If we are looking to change the legislation, we must ensure that we stamp out tethering and animal welfare abuses regardless of who owns the animal, but my hon. Friend is right to highlight that point.

    As I said, such incidents are a regular occurrence. In 2016, a pony was found tethered among fly-tipped rubbish. It was so badly tangled up in a discarded bicycle that it could not even stand. This pony, which had a life-threatening injury, was lost to the authorities after the owner simply moved it and tethered it in another location before they could arrive. Sadly, just before Christmas last year, a member of the public came across a pony that had been tethered in a wooded area. The tether had become tangled around the surrounding trees and, in a desperate effort to break free, the one-year-old pony had strangled himself and lay dead in the mud at the end of his tether. It is therefore clear that the practice desperately requires stricter regulation.

    HorseWorld, the charity that started the campaign, was spurred into action by the alarming case of a mare that gave birth to her foal while she was tethered. Unable to protect her foal from the other horses who roamed free in the same field, the mare became seriously distressed. Of course, protection of the young is one of our most basic instincts. Research into tethered horses in Wales, where tethering is rife, showed that 10% of tethered horses had young foals. Those are just a few examples of the horrors associated with long-term tethering but, because tethering is not restricted by law, people can tether horses unchecked beyond the reach of the law, resulting in tethered horses reaching despicable stages of neglect before they can be rescued.

    I want to touch on the current regulations and legislation surrounding equine welfare and explain why they are not protecting tethered horses in practice. The Minister may refer to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ code of practice, which acts as a guide to safely tethering horses, but the code is not being adhered to in reality, as demonstrated by an investigation conducted in south Wales in 2014 by the excellent University of Bristol’s veterinary school, which gave five main conclusions.

    First, the code of practice states that water should be made available on a regular basis in a spill-proof container, but the research concluded that up to 90% of animals were not given water regularly. Secondly, the code states that animals should, as a minimum, have shelter from the sun and wind and that the area should be well drained in the event of heavy rain, but the research tells us that no shelter was provided in over 80% of cases. ​Thirdly, animals should be given the freedom to exercise off the tether for a reasonable period at least once a day. In reality, however, less than 3% of horses spent more than five minutes a day off the tether, and no one would argue that five minutes is a reasonable amount of time. Fourthly, according to the code of practice, the tethering site should not contain anything that might injure the animal, but the reality is that sites contained potential hazards in 50% of cases. Fifthly, the code states that tethered horses require a high level of supervision, with inspections

    “no less frequently than every 6 hours”.

    However, it was found that only a third of horses were visited that regularly. While we have a code of practice, it is clearly not being adhered to, and the fact that an individual can move an animal before they ever reach the stage of being prosecuted renders the code of practice redundant.

    Bob Stewart

    If a horse is tethered and left, the area around the tether will soon have no grass and will become muddy if it is wet, hugely damaging the horse. That is one of the other problems of tethering.

    Luke Hall

    My hon. Friend is right about damage to the environment, and I urge colleagues to look at some of the photos of horses that have been treated so badly. I mentioned the pony in south Bristol that was tied to a tree, and the surrounding area was a small stretch of grass between a pavement and the road. Yes, there was huge damage to the local environment, but there was damage to the pony, too.

    The code of practice informs us that tethering is not a suitable long-term method of managing horses, as does the RSPCA, the British Horse Society, World Horse Welfare and Redwings, but absolutely nothing can be done legally to prevent someone from tethering a horse for its whole life.

    Further, long-term tethering directly infringes the five freedoms set out by the Animal Welfare Act 2006: the need for a suitable environment; the need for a suitable diet; the need to be able to exhibit normal behaviour patterns; the need to be housed with, or apart from, other animals; and the need to be protected from pain, suffering, injury and disease.

    A tethered horse is not free to express natural behaviours. A horse that is free to roam will, on average, walk or run 10.6 miles a day, and the reality is that a tethered horse can come nowhere near that. As my many colleagues who keep horses can attest to, horses are flight animals. A horse’s most basic instinct is to flee from danger, which tethering does not allow. Tethering restricts a horse’s most natural behaviour.

    Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)

    I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. A large number of my constituents who have seen horses tethered locally have contacted me to express their concern about these issues.

    Luke Hall

    I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. We are seeing horses being tethered all across the country, potentially leaving them open to neglect, cruelty and abuse, and potentially posing a danger to the people around them, too.​

    Tethering is not deemed enough of a breach of the Animal Welfare Act to allow horse charities to intervene. A tethered horse also does not have the freedom to interact with its own species, as the Act says it should. Leaving horses isolated has been shown to increase stress levels and stress-related hormones, which can cause them to display stereotypical behaviours that cause physical and psychological harm.

    Stereotypical behaviours are strongly linked to isolated horses; stabled horses tend to perform behaviours that engage with the stable around them, such as crib biting or weaving. Horses that are tethered long term have a total lack of environmental stimuli, so they are much more likely to develop stereotypical behaviours such as pacing or self-mutilation. This clearly raises questions about the clarity of the existing legislation and regulations on the grounds for removing a horse from a tether and on the capacity of law enforcers to act.

    Long-term tethering is in direct conflict with legislation, yet in many instances authorities have not felt that the Animal Welfare Act is strong enough grounds to rescue horses, despite the obvious suffering. It is therefore my belief, and the belief of the charity that initiated this campaign, that the Act needs to be amended to state explicitly what constitutes inappropriate tethering.

    One of the reasons why this is such an emotive subject is the location of tethered horses. As I said earlier, the main purpose of long-term tethering is free grazing, so horses end up on any strip of grass available, with the roadside, grass verges and even the middle of roundabouts, as we have seen in south Gloucestershire, being popular choices. It goes without saying that this is not remotely appropriate. Horses are easily spooked by traffic, and if the tether were to fail, there would be a loose horse on the road.

    Advances in equine and animal science mean that we are much more able to understand what constitutes poor welfare, but our laws have not caught up with that deeper understanding. When I met HorseWorld staff, who are so passionate about what they do, I was told about a pregnant mare that escaped her tether and got on to a busy A road, where she narrowly avoided being hit by a lorry. Police had to attend the scene to monitor the horse until HorseWorld could assemble a team at 3 am. If the tethering laws were stricter, the lives of the mare and her unborn foal would not have been risked, a lorry driver would not have had to make an emergency stop on a main road and numerous hours of police time would not have been wasted.

    That leads me on to my second point, which has been raised by other equine welfare charities in a number of reports: only appointed animal welfare officers or police constables have the authority to seize an animal. However, councils are in no way mandated to employ an animal welfare officer, so many choose not to do so. Our understanding is that as many as 40% of councils do not employ an animal welfare officer. In these areas, the police are the only organisation that has the power to rescue an animal from a situation where its welfare is compromised. I therefore ask the Minister to update us on what steps he is taking to gain a deeper understanding of the depth of the problem. The result of this situation is that police time is being spent attending horse rescues, which often just involves hours spent holding a horse at the side of the road when it had got on to the road. Only a police constable, once contacted, can authorise a ​charity to remove a horse. It is clear from written parliamentary questions I have tabled that the Government have no idea about the amount of police time that is spent dealing with these incidents. Clearly, police time can be better spent in the community. Having clarity over who should be dealing with equine welfare complaints will reduce the time that it takes to deal with them and will save the lives of animals. The councils that do employ animal welfare officers need to ensure that they are trained to handle horses. That could easily be achieved by collaborating with voluntary organisations.

    Let me now address what needs to change. In the past, DEFRA Ministers have said that the current legislation appropriately meets the needs of tethered horses. The 19,000 people who signed a petition to get the tethered horses rescued from Rovers Way in Cardiff would disagree. The 12,000 people who have emailed their MPs about getting tethering laws tightened would disagree. I also think that all the experts who have been in touch with me and the voluntary organisations calling for stricter laws on tethering would also disagree.

    There are therefore four changes that I would like to see incorporated into the 2006 Act to improve the lives of horses. The first is that there should be a 24-hour legal limit on how long horses can be tethered for. That is important, because DEFRA’s code of practice states that long-term tethering is inappropriate. That needs to be clarified, backed up and given status in law. The second is that there needs to be a complete ban on tethering horses on the roadside or in dangerous locations. The third is that if a tether is someone’s only method of keeping an animal, they should not be allowed to keep that animal. The fourth is to make it a mandatory duty for local councils to employ an animal welfare officer or to ensure that arrangements are in place with neighbouring authorities to ensure that those officers are in place.

    There is currently too much room for interpretation within the legislation. It needs to be clear-cut that long-term tethering infringes on equine welfare, leaving horses at risk of harm and suffering. We need to give the relevant authorities the means and confidence to rescue horses that desperately need protection. We need to step up and take action to protect these most majestic and iconic animals. Making these changes will protect thousands of horses across our country. Minister, please help us and break the chain.

  • John Bercow – 2019 Statement on PC Keith Palmer

    Below is the text of the statement made by John Bercow, the Speaker of the House of Commons, on 21 February 2019.

    I have a short statement to make about PC Keith Palmer, who tragically died on 22 March 2017. PC Palmer was nothing short of a hero, in the way in which he ran towards danger to ensure the safety of us all on that day. He paid the ultimate price for doing the job that he loved, and we owe him a profound debt of gratitude for his bravery. Yesterday afternoon, the Police Memorial Trust placed a permanent memorial to PC Palmer at Carriage Gates. Not only will it serve as a lasting tribute to his dedication and courage, but it will ensure that visitors to Parliament never forget his sacrifice and heroism.

  • David Mundell – 2019 Speech on Devolution

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Mundell, the Secretary of State for Scotland, on 21 February 2019.

    Ladies and gentlemen.

    On August 7, 1885, the Conservative Prime Minister Lord Salisbury wrote to the Duke of Richmond to offer him the newly-created post of Scottish Secretary.

    He said the work ‘is not heavy’ but warned that expectations were high.

    He went on to suggest ‘the effulgence of two dukedoms and the best salmon river in Scotland’ would go a long way to meeting those expectations.

    Thankfully, the qualifications for the job have changed since then.

    I can boast neither a splendid dukedom nor a salmon river.

    I can, however, attest that expectations remain high. So perhaps not everything has changed.

    This year marks 20 years since devolution and the establishment of the Scottish Parliament.

    I believe this is a good moment to take stock.

    It is a good moment to consider what Scotland’s expectations are today, from a system which gives us two parliaments and two governments.

    I don’t intend to provide a detailed chronology of devolution, and certainly not a history of the office of Secretary of State for Scotland.

    The key developments over the past 20 years are familiar to us.

    A referendum in 1997, the Act in 1998 and a parliament up and running barely six months later.

    A further Scotland Act in 2012 gave Holyrood the power to set a Scottish rate of income tax, replace Stamp Duty and borrow more money.

    And in 2016 an even more wide-ranging Scotland Act was passed, creating significant new income tax powers and transferring responsibility for a large swathe of welfare provision.

    So rather than dwell on the detail, I want to consider how devolution works, how it can be strengthened as we leave the EU, and how relations between our two governments must adapt and develop in future.

    But first, let me declare an interest.

    I am a passionate supporter of devolution. I was proud to be elected as an MSP in that first intake in May 1999.

    As an MP and, by then, a minister in the Scotland Office, I played my part in delivering the 2012 Act. As Secretary of State for Scotland, it was an immense privilege to take the 2016 Act through Parliament.

    Two decades on from the first Scotland Act, Holyrood has become one of the most powerful devolved parliaments in the world. Power and accountability are better balanced than ever before. And, to borrow a word bandied more frequently by my political opponents, devolution has a stronger mandate than ever before.

    The vote in 1997 was re-affirmed by our decision in 2014 to remain part of the UK. And in the 2017 general election there was overwhelming support for devolutionist parties:

    …Support for a strong Scottish Parliament within the UK.

    …Where the UK’s strengths – our internal market, our global reach – are Scotland’s strengths.

    …Where decisions affecting only Scotland are taken at Holyrood by MSPs…

    …But where decisions affecting the whole UK are taken at Westminster by MPs, including, of course, 59 MPs from Scotland.

    Devolution is about striking a balance and I believe the balance now achieved is a good one.

    Today, the fiercest debates at Holyrood are about tax decisions; about how to raise money as much as how to spend it. That accountability has to be a good thing.

    I do not support the Scottish Government’s decisions on income tax, making Scotland the most highly taxed part of the UK. I’m not impressed by the idea of taxing people £500 to park at work.

    But I support Holyrood’s power to make these choices, the accountability it brings and the debate it provokes.

    And as the Scottish Government begins to use new welfare powers in the years ahead I look forward to the debate at Holyrood focusing on the difficult decisions that will entail.

    That, then, is my starting point.

    Devolution has proved itself flexible and responsive – a ‘process not an event’ as Donald Dewar said back in 1999. After 20 years I believe the settlement is strong. And I believe the principles that lie behind it are more widely accepted than ever.

    I reject completely the argument put forward by opponents of devolution that it has been crushed by Brexit:

    …That the settlement has been undermined by the return of powers from Brussels.

    …Even, that Holyrood has been victim of a pernicious ‘power grab’.

    Let me tackle these myths head on.

    They rest on two misunderstandings – about the 1998 Scotland Act itself and about one of the early conventions that supports it, the Sewel Convention, which says the UK Parliament will not normally pass legislation in a devolved area without the consent of the Scottish Parliament.

    Firstly, it has been claimed that devolution is broken because the UK’s EU Withdrawal Act 2018 was passed despite legislative consent being withheld by the Scottish Parliament.

    It was claimed that the Sewel Convention was breached or, if it hadn’t been breached, it was not fit for purpose and must be changed.

    Lord Sewel himself answered the first point, judging clearly that the Convention was adhered to.

    And the Scottish Government’s own Brexit minister said “these are not normal times”.

    In fact, the Sewel Convention remains an essential element in the devolution settlement.

    The UK Government continues to seek legislative consent for Bills that interact with devolution.

    We work with the Scottish Government clause by clause in an effort to reach agreement.

    I was pleased the Scottish Government agreed to recommend consent for our Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill – legislation which will allow the UK Government to continue to fund healthcare for Scots who have retired to or are working in the EU.

    I hope consent for other Brexit-related Bills will also be forthcoming – despite the Scottish Government’s stated position to oppose them.

    As things stand, the EU Withdrawal Act is the only piece of legislation in 20 years to be passed at Westminster after consent was withheld at Holyrood.

    I believe that is a sign of Sewel’s success and not its failure.

    The second myth is that of the ‘power grab’.

    Now, to listen to the rhetoric coming from some of my political opponents, you could be forgiven for thinking that Holyrood is being stripped of a whole raft of powers it currently exercises.

    It is complete fantasy; an invented grievance.

    The reality is that more than 100 powers previously exercised in Brussels will transfer to Edinburgh.

    These will transfer directly to the Scottish Parliament on the day we leave the EU.

    Some powers will be exercised within new UK-wide frameworks, where the UK Government and devolved administrations agree to do so.

    They are in areas such as animal health and welfare, food labelling, and chemical and pesticide regulations. Areas where the UK Government and the devolved administrations have already agreed it makes sense to take a UK approach.

    Progress towards establishing these arrangements between the UK and Scottish Governments has been good, as our latest report to Parliament on the issue makes absolutely clear.

    To characterise this process as a ‘power grab’ is nonsense. Holyrood is losing none of its existing powers and is gaining significant new powers as a result of Brexit.

    What these myths amount to is an attempt to undermine devolution – to sweep away the ’98 settlement – by people who do not support devolution because they want independence. We should not be surprised by that.

    We should remain deeply suspicious when opponents of devolution try to present themselves as its champions and protectors.

    Now, to be clear, I’m not arguing devolution is perfect or that it should be frozen in time. Devolution’s adaptability is a strength and will remain so in future.

    The 2016 powers are already having a positive effect at Holyrood and Brexit will bring further responsibility.

    It will also raise fresh questions about intergovernmental relations – how our governments work together.

    As we leave the EU, I believe these questions – more so than powers – will become pressing.

    In the years ahead, our two governments – and the devolved administrations elsewhere in the UK – will need to work more closely than ever before.

    We will need to manage our new UK regulatory frameworks. We will need structures that work – that respect devolution and encourage collaboration.

    I’m pleased to say that work on this is underway.

    Last year a Joint Ministerial Committee, chaired by the Prime Minister and attended by the First Minister, agreed to commission a review of intergovernmental relations. I’m confident this work can point the way to improved joint working. Not least because we have a lot to build upon.

    Sometimes, Scottish Government ministers claim that relations between the UK and Scottish governments are at their lowest ebb. This is simply not true.

    (In my experience, they were at their rockiest in 2014, as the Scottish Government’s former Permanent Secretary, Sir Peter Housden, confirmed.)

    To date there have been 16 meetings of the JMC (EN), a ministerial forum specially created to shape our approach to leaving the EU, with meetings scheduled monthly. This is a crucial mechanism by which we engage with the DAs. The set of principles that will guide the development of UK frameworks were forged in the JMC (EN).

    Behind the scenes, officials from the two governments are working well together on Brexit-related legislation and Brexit preparations on a daily basis.

    Earlier this year, the Prime Minister took the decision to invite the First Ministers of Scotland and Wales to attend meetings of a key new cabinet sub-committee co-ordinating Brexit preparations.

    In addition, our review of intergovernmental relations will look at the principles which should underpin our working relationships; at the machinery of devolution – whether we need new forums or new JMC bodies; and at how we should resolve disputes in future.

    It is very much a live issue.

    I’m pleased that Westminster’s Scottish Affairs Committee at Westminster are conducting their own inquiry into intergovernmental relations:

    …even if, so far at least, it seems to have focused on calls for the role Secretary of State for Scotland to be abolished.

    As you can imagine, I am looking forward to presenting an alternative perspective when I give evidence in due course.

    I actually believe the Office of the Secretary of State for Scotland will become more, not less, important, as we enter the post-Brexit devolution world and a more complex era of intergovernmental relations.

    The role of promoting the work of the UK Government in Scotland, and giving voice to Scottish concerns around the Cabinet table, will be more critical than ever.

    The reasons for that are clear.

    Just as Holyrood will need to adapt to the wealth of new powers at its disposal, so the UK Government will have to consider its changing role in the new landscape:

    …The UK Government must and will remain prominent in Scotland.

    …The UK Government must and will remain central to Scotland’s story.

    We must continually re-affirm our support for devolution and demonstrate our contribution to the lives of those represented by our MPs.

    Failure to do so would be a failure to deliver on the result of two referendums – the 1997 vote in favour of a Scottish Parliament and 2014 decision to reject independence.

    When our opponents try to talk the UK down we should remind them of the things Scots value:

    …The pooling and sharing of resources which support our public services;

    …The finest armed forces in the world. Including a Royal Navy filling the Clyde’s order book until 2030.

    …Pensions they can rely upon.

    …A record on international aid that any country in the world should be proud of.

    The list goes on.

    But the UK Government can and should be doing even more.

    In an important speech in Glasgow, the Prime Minister called a halt to what she described as a process of ‘devolve and forget’.

    …The idea that because health, say, or education, or culture in Scotland are devolved to the Scottish Government, the UK Government no longer cares about them.

    The Prime Minister was very clear. As Prime Minister for the whole of the UK, she said the educational attainment of 10-year-olds in Dundee was as important to her as that of their peers in Doncaster.

    Predictably, this was deliberately misinterpreted in some quarters as another kind of power grab. It was nothing of sort. It was an appeal for more collaboration, for better joint working, for learning from each other. In other words, for more effective devolution.

    I believe she was right to assert the UK Government’s interest in all parts of people’s lives in Scotland.

    And I believe now is the time to build on that. We are already seeing this happen in the UK Government’s £1billion-plus Growth Deal programme in Scotland.

    UK investment is mostly spent in the reserved sphere, on things like research and development. But not exclusively so. Cultural projects, such as Edinburgh’s exciting new concert hall development or Stirling’s national tartan centre, will also benefit from UK Government investment.

    There are already examples of areas where devolved policy areas interact with reserved matters – in foreign trade, for example – where the Scottish Government’s agency Scottish Development International works alongside the UK Government’s Department for International Trade.

    Or, in overseas aid, where Scottish Government support for projects in Malawi augments the UK effort.

    Going forward, I want to see Scotland’s two governments working closely together for the benefit of people in Scotland.

    The UK Shared Prosperity Fund – which will fill the space left by EU structural funds post-Brexit – should provide an opportunity for both governments to collaborate on transformational projects across Scotland, from the Borders to the Highlands and Islands.

    Scotland would be ill-served if one government could not add to the work being done by another. The time is right for this. Scots expect their two governments to work together and politicians on all sides accept the need to work together.

    Twenty years on, devolution is indeed the settled will of the people of Scotland.

    The settlement has proved itself adaptable and is strong.

    Our system of two governments and two parliaments has held up to scrutiny – endorsed by one and then a second referendum.

    The people who claim Brexit has broken devolution are the people who WANT Brexit to break devolution;

    …Who see Brexit not in terms of securing the right deal for Scotland but as an opportunity to tear Scotland out of the UK.

    …A position, of course, that has been rejected by not one but two referendums.

    I do not believe Brexit will damage devolution.

    I want it to strengthen devolution, and I believe that can and will happen.

    Leaving the EU will bring new powers to Holyrood and new responsibilities to the Scottish Government.

    But the UK Government is also being challenged to adapt to the new, post-Brexit era of devolution.

    I’m confident we WILL meet the challenge;

    …That we WILL foster a relationship of mutual respect between Westminster and Holyrood.

    …That we WILL find ourselves using new ways to improve the daily lives of those we serve.

    We’ll do it because, like the majority of Scots, we believe in devolution. And we have a duty to deliver all that it offers for Scotland.

  • Oliver Dowden – 2019 Speech at CBI

    Below is the text of the speech made by Oliver Dowden, the Minister for Implementation, on 20 February 2019 at the CBI conference.

    Thank you for that kind welcome. It is a pleasure to be here at the CBI and to see so many familiar faces. I’ve certainly made it a priority to engage around this agenda and there is a lot of work we can do together, particularly around innovation and the transformation of public services, which is another interest of mine.

    This morning I am here to detail how this government is working alongside industry leaders like yourselves to ensure citizens are benefitting from the delivery of better, smarter and more efficient public services.

    Now, as you all know, the collapse of Carillion just over a year ago affected the public’s trust in government’s ability to deliver services. As a result, it is right that we reflected on whether our service delivery model was fit for the complexities of modern society.

    And over the last eight months the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office, David Lidington, and myself have announced reforms to ensure that the way we outsource services is fit for the future.

    This model rightly includes putting social values at the heart of what we do.

    And the public would expect nothing less.

    Since David last spoke on this issue in November 2018, the Government Commercial Function has worked jointly with industry and senior officials across government, as well as engaging with charities, social enterprises, unions and has finalised the review of our outsourcing processes.

    And crucially, this review has concluded that we are not seeking to abandon our approach to using the private sector to deliver services to government.

    Outsourcing, done well, I firmly believe, can deliver significant benefits.

    It provides greater opportunity, better value and more innovative public services.

    Economies of scale mean services can be provided more efficiently, at lower cost and can provide better value for the taxpayer.

    For example, pensions administration for nearly two million teachers has been outsourced since the 1990s – with administrative costs less than half those of other comparable schemes.

    So the evidence is out there in terms of individual outsourcing programmes but also in terms of the macro picture.

    Research commissioned by the previous government has shown that outsourcing delivers savings of some twenty to thirty per cent compared with bringing services in-house.

    Critics baulk at the idea of a government that reaches out beyond SW1 to harness the talent of firms up and down the country.

    But we are not so naive to think that government is best placed to deliver every public service, nor do we think that we alone have all the solutions to society’s complex challenges.

    While government has considerable resources at its disposal, it cannot do everything by itself. Different government projects require different skills and expertise.

    It is true that collectively we need to work together to make those changes, but we must be bringing in that wider range of skills and expertise.

    So we are making changes to enable our services to be delivered by private and social enterprises, small businesses, charities, mutuals and cooperatives. And as announced last June, the government is committed to putting social values at the heart of service delivery.

    We are also making changes to ensure that critical services continue in the event of a corporate failure – and the work we have done over the past year provides that resilience.

    We previously announced that in early 2019 we would be publishing guidance for officials that would help government to work smarter with industry, set up contracts for success and build a more diverse supplier base.

    As promised, today we have published the Financial Distress Guidance to provide staff with the information they needed in the event of a supplier failure.

    We have also published the Outsourcing Playbook, which we pledged back in June 2018 and which will apply to all government departments.

    You may already be aware of some of the Playbook’s contents that we announced in November. But today I want to detail a further seven new measures that have been developed.

    Taken together this means that from today, will be demanding more of government departments.

    We will expect them to conduct more robust financial assessments and monitoring of high value, complex, high-risk suppliers.

    New financial ratios will need to be considered when assessing the financial and economic standing of bidders during the procurement phase and through the life of a contract.

    All complex outsourcing projects also will be required to undergo a central Project Validation Review (PVR) before any public commitment is made.

    This step-change means that by undergoing an independent peer assessment ahead of the transition from policy to delivery, complex outsourcing projects will benefit from more cross-government expertise to help assure deliverability, affordability and value for money.

    Departments will also be expected to conduct a more thorough, evidence-based ‘Make or Buy’ assessment before services are outsourced.

    We will now expect a detailed analysis of the costs and benefits of each option supported by the possible consequences of outsourcing and a comprehensive evaluation of risks.

    And I am well aware that how government approaches risk allocation has caused some disquiet within the industry.

    I can today provide reassurance that the Playbook makes explicit that when designing contracts departments must seek to mitigate, reduce and then allocate risks to the party best able to manage it.

    A more considered approach to risk allocation makes government a smarter, more attractive client to do business with.

    At the end of the day, you all run businesses, and my colleagues and I are constantly working to balance the needs of everyone in society, from firm owners and investors to families struggling to make ends meet.

    So it is important that in this spirit the Playbook also outlines new guidance on the Pricing and Payment Mechanisms that complements the new balanced approach to risk allocation. It is designed to incentivise the behaviours and outcomes that government wants to achieve from its suppliers and contracts.

    The Playbook also specifies that Departments will now regularly Publish Commercial Pipelines looking at least 18 months ahead.

    This change will help us move forward by helping you gain a better understanding of the government’s demand for services and allow you to better respond to contract opportunities.

    Finally, the Playbook will re-emphasise the need for departments to engage early and thoroughly with the Market and will ask them to produce a market health and capability assessment.

    And these assessments will be kept under review throughout the life of a contract not filed away to gather dust in a digital desk drawer.

    Taken together the eleven key policies that underpin the Playbook are a significant change in the way government undertakes outsourcing decisions and will enable us to make smarter outsourcing decisions that will achieve better value for money.

    But to stress – the future of government outsourcing relies on a new model of reciprocity.

    We are changing to ensure we make smarter outsourcing decisions, but we also need industry to change too.

    In order to put the needs of service users at the heart of public service delivery I want to see suppliers and government working in partnership to ensure that contracts continue to meet the diverse needs of citizens.

    So today I am publishing a revision to the Supplier Code of Conduct which sets out the behaviours taxpayers expect of central government’s suppliers but also what suppliers should expect of government. The Code is designed to build trusting and transparent relationships between government and suppliers.

    The updated code highlights the importance of government departments creating the right conditions for innovation and the right conditions for building collaborative and constructive relationships.

    I want to highlight three key aspects:

    Firstly, the Code requires prime contractors to ensure that they do not pass on risk inappropriately to subcontractors, who are often small businesses unable to manage these risks.

    Secondly, we want to ensure that suppliers across the public sector supply chain are paid promptly – this is so important, particularly for small suppliers. I announced in November that we expect suppliers to pay subcontractors within 30 days on public sector contracts and comply with the standards set out in the Prompt Payment Code on all other contracts. Failure of companies to demonstrate their prompt payment to suppliers could result in them being prevented from winning government contracts.

    The government has a long-standing target of paying 80% of undisputed and valid invoices within five days, with the remainder paid within 30 days. And just last autumn, I announced our ambition to pay 90% of undisputed invoices within five days.

    Thirdly, because we know the importance of robust data from government during procurements we will ensure that we provide data that captures the full scope of the services being procured or build in added flexibility to allow for subsequent validation of data, particularly where new services are being provided.

    The Code is clear that we also expect incumbent suppliers to be forthcoming and prompt with information required for the re-tendering process.

    Finally, I would like to update you on the government’s Strategic Supplier Risk Management Policy. Experience from the past year has demonstrated to us that how we manage risk with suppliers to government needs to be reviewed. A fact also recommended by the Public Accounts Committee.

    Our previous high-risk designation process was designed to deal with poor performance but it proved less appropriate when managing the financial distress of firms who were delivering critical public services.

    So today, I would like to announce that we will be changing our approach.

    We will be introducing a Memorandum of Understanding between the Cabinet Office and Strategic Suppliers.

    This new approach will provide flexibility to government on how it manages risk across its supplier base through the improvement of current tools, and this will be in partnership with industry.

    Better risk management will increase accountability for our suppliers and enhance current departmental relationships.

    Government relies on its suppliers for the delivery of many important public services and while this is underpinned by a contractual relationship, these reliances need to be based on a relationship of trust between government, suppliers and the public.

    Healthy and competitive markets support our ability to achieve value for money for taxpayers and deliver sustainable economic growth.

    And the collaboration with the private sector will continue to live at the heart of how this government delivers public services and prosperity.

    In keeping with best practice in policy-making we will continue to review and refine our approach.

    From the new financial year we will begin an 18 month implementation phase to ensure these new reforms are embedded across government departments.

    I would like to thank you for your engagement and collaboration over the past year.

    Between us, we have collectively contributed over 1,400 hours of our time.

    And as we move into this next phase of work, we will continue to call on you both as partners and critical friends.

    Because only in continuing to work together, and changing “poor” practices of the past, will we be able to achieve our collective goal of delivering world-class public services for all of our citizens.

  • Matt Hancock – 2019 Speech on Carers

    Below is the text of the speech made by Matt Hancock, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, on 20 February 2019.

    I want to talk today about Lauren Phillips.

    Lauren wasn’t always going to be doctor.

    She was a talented violinist. She had been invited to join the Bristol Symphony Orchestra. She had huge talents and amazing opportunities. She had choices.

    She also had a powerful vocation. She came from an NHS family. Her father is a doctor. Her uncle and aunt are doctors. Her mother works for the NHS.

    Lauren’s father, Jonathan, said: “She chose medicine over music because she had a strong sense of social justice and felt she could help people and give something back to society.”

    So that vocation, plus her remarkable talents, led her to becoming a doctor at Southmead Hospital in Bristol, a hospital that I know well.

    But the job took its toll. The hours. The work-life balance. The pressures.

    It wore her down. Gradually, Lauren became more withdrawn, and then one day she didn’t turn up for work.

    Her car was found a 100 miles away on a beach in Devon. Her body has never been found.

    Lauren’s father said:

    During the short time she worked for it the NHS succeeded in sapping Lauren’s strength. Undermining her self-confidence. Attacking her professionalism. And devaluing her commitment.

    It was not there to give her the help and support she needed to stay alive.

    He’s right. And I want to apologise. As Secretary of State, and on behalf of the entire leadership of the NHS, I’m sorry.

    I want to say sorry to Lauren’s parents, and the families of every other member of the NHS family, who we didn’t do enough to help when they needed us most.

    We can never know all the reasons why someone decides to take their own life. But, hand on heart, it’s impossible to say we did enough to care for Lauren.

    Across the NHS, we don’t do enough to care for our carers. And for that I am sorry.

    Now, I don’t want anyone to point fingers and blame people.

    That’s not what Lauren’s father wants either. He knows first-hand the unique difficulties of being on the NHS frontline. But he also believes, as I believe, that “you can’t look after your patients, unless you look after your own wellbeing”.

    Instead, there is something else I want us to take from this tragedy. I want us to take resolve to make the changes needed so we can care for our carers, not just in pockets, but throughout the NHS.

    So I welcome today’s report from Health Education England. And I look forward to working with the NHS to put the recommendations into practice.

    There’s no silver bullet. But just because there’s no one solution, let’s not fall into thinking there’s no solution.

    There are 3 things in particular from the report I want to draw out.

    First, something that Lauren’s father said has really stuck in my head.

    Jonathan believes just being able to play the violin with an orchestra would have made an enormous difference to her mental and emotional wellbeing. But Lauren couldn’t commit to a few hours a week for rehearsals because she never knew what hours she was going to be working.

    I felt that was shocking, and desperately sad. Rota practices like these are antediluvian.

    I have doctors in my family who sometimes can’t make an incredibly important event, not because they’re unexpectedly stuck caring for a patient whose life is on the line – that happens and is an important part of the job – but because the ‘rota says no’.

    Now, we’ve changed the rules at a national level to allow for modern, smart rotas. Well-led trusts have embraced those changes, but they haven’t been rolled out everywhere. And that has got to change.

    Second, the report makes it clear that we need to place as much importance on the care of the carers as the patients.

    I firmly believe this is the right thing to do.

    Adam Kay recently said that working in the NHS: “You’re forced to build an emotional forcefield because no one is caring for the carers.”

    He’s right. I pay tribute to the work Adam has done to highlight some of these problems, using humour to make people listen. I was actually reading Adam’s book when I became Health Secretary, and it’s shaped how I think of things.

    But I didn’t reach the last chapter until after I was in this job. And the anguish and the pain in that last chapter hit me like a kick in the stomach.

    So thank you Adam. Keep fighting the good fight. Because no one should have to build an emotional forcefield around themselves. And no one can do their job properly if they do.

    And the third thing I want to draw out is that, to recruit and retain more staff, we need to change the culture of the NHS.

    Why is it that when 1.3 million people have devoted their lives to caring for others, the collective system is uncaring to some? We need to change a culture of carrying on regardless, not asking for help, not looking for signs of burn-out among our colleagues, thinking everything’s OK as long as someone turns up for work and does their job.

    That isn’t good enough.

    No one, no government, no party owns the NHS. We’re merely custodians, looking after it, to pass it on, fit for the future, to the next generation.

    I feel that duty every morning when I awake. Because I care. I care deeply about the NHS.

    It’s been there for me, and my children. It was there for my grandparents.

    Staff at Southmead Hospital, where Lauren worked, saved the life of my sister.

    The tragedy of what happened to Lauren has a personal poignancy for me, because Lauren could have been one of the A&E doctors when my sister was brought in with a serious head injury. And my whole family owe a huge debt of gratitude to Lauren’s colleagues.

    It horrifies me that those brave doctors and nurses, who face trauma every day, could be going through what Lauren went through.

    So, throughout the NHS we must act, and I promise you, I will do all I can to protect and pass on this great British institution to future generations in a better condition than I found it.

    And the only way we can do that is by caring better for our carers.

    By looking after the people who look after us.

    By making sure that when somebody needs help, there’s someone they can turn to, someone they can talk to.

    By valuing our NHS staff.

    By building a just, caring culture.

    Apologising when we get it wrong, and learning from our mistakes.

    Because the NHS isn’t run by people, the NHS is people.

    And I will do everything in my power to give you the support you deserve.

  • Jeremy Hunt – 2019 Speech in Berlin

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jeremy Hunt, the Foreign Secretary, in Berlin, Germany on 20 February 2019.

    Introduction

    I’m delighted to have this opportunity to speak here at the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung. There are moments in history that remind us that we are all part of something greater than ourselves.

    As I landed at Tegel Airport this morning, I thought of one such moment.

    Seventy years ago, the people of this city were engaged in a daily struggle to keep West Berlin alive through Stalin’s blockade.

    The skies above Berlin were filled with British and American aircraft laden with fuel, food and medicine, landing or taking off every 45 seconds, day and night.

    For 11 months, pilots who had previously dropped bombs on Berlin mounted the greatest humanitarian airlift in history, delivering 2.3 million tons of supplies.

    At first, Berlin did not have enough runways to receive the inflow.

    So the people of Berlin built Tegel Airport with their own hands, taking only 90 days to construct what was then the longest runway in Europe.

    Our countries were just a few years away from a devastating war.

    And yet we were united.

    United by shared values.

    And united in opposition to those who sought to destroy them.

    The people of Berlin overcame their ordeal, transforming this city into what President Kennedy later called a “defended island of freedom”.

    Then, thirty years ago this year, Berlin ceased to be an island when the Wall came down. As the crowds surged through Brandenburg Gate in 1989, Berlin and its people reminded us never to take liberty for granted.

    Those events show that some values transcend individuals, nations or groups of nations.

    And indeed transcend Brexit too – however absorbing or challenging that may seem.

    Alliance of Values

    For whatever treaties or organisations our two countries may join or leave, our friendship is based on something infinitely more important and durable.

    Britain and Germany cherish the same freedoms, defend the same values, respect the same fundamental laws and face the same dangers.

    We are bound together not simply by institutions, but by the beliefs that inspired the creation of those institutions: democracy, openness and equality before the law regardless of race, class, gender or sexuality.

    Karl Popper, the Austrian-born philosopher, defined the distinctive quality of an open society in these words:

    “We ought to be proud that we do not have one idea but many ideas, good ones and bad ones; that we do not have a single belief: not one religion but many, good ones and bad ones….It is not the unity of an idea but the diversity of our many ideas, of which the West may be proud: the pluralism of its ideas.”

    More than anything else, Britain and Germany believe in pluralism as the best way of releasing the nobility of the human spirit.

    There is nothing new about this.

    We shared these ideals in 1972 before Britain joined the European Economic Community.

    And we will continue to share them in 2019 when we leave the European Union.

    Because as I said in my response to the wonderful letter written to The Times last month by Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer, Prof. Dr Norbert Lammert and other distinguished Germans, Britain is not going anywhere.

    We are not relocating our island to the far side of the world.

    Our two countries may no longer be bound by the structures of the European Union, but we will remain part of a wider alliance, an alliance of values.

    Nations united not solely by institutions but by beliefs: in freedom, the rule of law and human rights.

    An alliance that doesn’t just believe in those ideals but is willing to defend them, as demonstrated by my predecessor, Ernest Bevin, when he helped to establish NATO.

    Success of the rules-based system

    He was part of the generation of humane and far-sighted leaders, including Konrad Adenauer, who built an assembly of rules and institutions – including the United Nations, the World Bank and what became the World Trade Organisation – to create an era defined not by bloodshed but by peace and prosperity. The goals of the world order that emerged after 1945 were summarised by the former Mayor of Berlin and Chancellor of Germany, Willy Brandt, who said:

    “I re-emphasise my faith in the universal principles of general international law….They found binding expression in the principles of the United Nations Charter: sovereignty, territorial integrity, non-violence, the right of self-determination.”

    By any objective measure, that international order has been remarkably successful.

    Despite the bloodshed in Syria and elsewhere, the number of conflict-related deaths as a proportion of the global population fell by an astonishing 80 percent between 1984 and 2016.

    Relative peace has allowed millions to raise themselves from destitution.

    When I was born, half of humanity lived in absolute poverty; today, it is less than 10%.

    Life expectancy has shot up and since 2000 alone 1.1 billion people have been connected to electricity for the first time.

    The rules-based system is not some cynical construct designed solely to protect the interests of the West. Nor will the biggest losers be in the West if it is allowed to crumble.

    So when people ask what will Britain’s role in the world be after Brexit, I say this:

    We will put to work the remarkable array of connections across the globe that history has given the United Kingdom.

    Whether through our European friends, our Atlantic allies or the Commonwealth family, we will seek to bind the democracies of the world together.

    Only if we are joined together by an invisible chain or thread of shared values will we be strong enough to withstand the challenges we face.

    And strong enough to uphold an international order that has served humanity so well.

    Threats to rules-based system

    Right now it would be an enormous mistake if Europe were to allow Brexit and other internal challenges to make us introspective.

    Because when we look inwards, our adversaries sense an opportunity.

    Russia has broken the prohibition on acquiring territory by force by redrawing a European frontier and annexing 10,000 square miles of Ukraine.

    Having taken Crimea, Russia then deployed troops and tanks in eastern Ukraine, igniting a conflict that has claimed nearly 11,000 lives and driven 2.3 million people from their homes.

    At the same time the global ban on the use of chemical weapons, dating back almost a century to 1925, has been violated time and again in Syria – and even on the soil of my own country.

    Meanwhile the onward march of democracy that followed the fall of the Berlin Wall has come to a halt and started to go into reverse.

    In the 2 decades after 1989, there were 29 new democracies. This century it has been different: last week Freedom House reported that 2018 was the 13th successive year of decline for political rights and civil liberties around the world.

    We must never assume that the arc of history will automatically bend towards democracy and liberalism.

    Wise decisions made by a generation of leaders in the last century shaped the world as we know it. The question is whether this generation of leaders will do the same?

    Anglo-German co-operation

    Hence the overriding importance of Britain and Germany working side-by-side.

    There is much to celebrate.

    Together we are preserving the Iran nuclear agreement, keeping Iran free of nuclear weapons and the world safer as a result;

    together we are resisting the evil of chemical weapons, from Salisbury to Syria, ensuring the price is always too high for countries to use these terrible weapons;

    together we are upholding the Paris Climate Change Treaty, ensuring future generations will not pay the price of our prosperity today;

    together we are working for lasting peace in the Western Balkans; indeed on my first day as Foreign Secretary I met Chancellor Merkel at a summit in London to discuss that very issue. Chancellor Merkel approached me and said, “Congratulations, if that’s the right word”.

    At the same time, our security services and police are cooperating silently and tirelessly to guard our citizens and our European friends from terrorism and organised crime.

    Our diplomats are training side-by-side; only last week, 76 British and German diplomats were attending joint classes in the Foreign Office in London.

    Our soldiers are serving together in Afghanistan, where yours are the second biggest contribution to the NATO mission.

    Our soldiers are also protecting NATO’s Eastern borders, where UK troops comprise the single largest component of the “enhanced forward presence” in Poland and the Baltic states.

    Some in Germany have seen our decision to leave the EU as a retreat: a retreat from the global stage and from common European security interests.

    Nothing could be further from the truth.

    Britain remains the only European nation to meet the UN and NATO targets of spending 0.7 percent of national income on aid, 2 percent of GDP on defence and 20 percent of our defence budget on capital.

    The Prime Minister has restated that Britain’s commitment to the defence of Europe is immovable and unconditional.

    And I’m delighted that Germany has been elected to serve on the Security Council; later today, Heiko Maas and I will discuss how our missions in New York can best cooperate on areas of common interest, including Libya and Darfur.

    The UK-EU partnership

    So at a time when the global balance of wealth and power is changing with remarkable speed – perhaps faster than ever before – we must not allow Brexit to be all-consuming.

    That means an orderly departure from the EU is of paramount importance.

    Of course when you leave a club you cannot enjoy all its benefits.

    And nor will we: after Brexit, the UK will no longer be part of the councils of the EU. We will no longer have a say or vote in European directives or laws.

    But nor – if we are to stand together against common threats – can Britain ever be just another “third country”.

    The future partnership that Britain seeks to build with the EU starts with the belief that our security is indivisible.

    The Political Declaration sets out a vision of the closest relationship in foreign policy the EU has ever had with another country, something that Chancellor Merkel herself has emphasised.

    It states that where and when our interests converge – as they often will – Britain and the EU will “combine efforts” to the “greatest effect, including in times of crisis”.

    We must also maintain the closest economic partnership, consistent with the spirit of the British referendum and the integrity of the single market.

    The flow of trade between Britain and the EU amounts to one of the biggest economic relationships in the world.

    In 2017, total trade between the UK and the other 27 members of the EU came to £615 billion [Euros 695 billion].

    This is a colossal figure, about 8% bigger than the EU’s trade with China and 12 percent higher than trade between China and the United States.

    Millions of jobs on both sides of the Channel depend on this flow of commerce so everyone has an interest in ensuring that it continues to flourish.

    There are those who say that strategic and security partnerships can continue unaffected by economic relationships. We must remember the lesson of history: trading relations have always been the first link between countries, and they act as the foundation of all other relations.

    So none of us should have any doubt that failing to secure a ratified Withdrawal Agreement between Britain and the EU would be deeply damaging, politically as well as economically.

    In the vital weeks ahead, standing back and hoping that Brexit solves itself will not be enough.

    The stakes are just too high: we must all do what we can to ensure such a deal is reached.

    Last Saturday, Chancellor Merkel delivered a powerful defence of what she called the “classic” world order.

    She urged all countries to “put yourself in the other’s shoes” and “see whether we can get win-win solutions together”.

    I would urge our European friends to approach this crucial stage of the Brexit negotiations in that spirit.

    Because in the future, we do not want historians to puzzle over our actions and ask themselves how it was that Europe failed to achieve an amicable change in its relationship with Britain – a friend and ally in every possible sense – and thereby inflicted grave and avoidable damage to our continent at exactly the moment when the world order was under threat from other directions.

    Now is the hour for the generous and far-sighted leadership of which Chancellor Merkel spoke.

    If we are to secure the future of a world order that has allowed our countries to enjoy the peace and prosperity that eluded our ancestors – if we are to avoid, in Chancellor Merkel’s phrase,falling “apart into pieces of a puzzle” – then achieving a smooth and orderly Brexit is profoundly necessary.

    Conclusion

    It would not be right to end this speech without an apposite quote from Konrad Adenauer, a towering figure in the history of the Federal Republic and the CDU, in whose honour this Foundation is named. He once said:

    “Wenn die anderen glauben, man ist am Ende, so muss man erst richtig anfangen.” (“when others think we’ve reached the end, that’s when we’ve got to really begin”).

    The UK’s departure from the EU is the end of one phase of our relationship. But it’s the beginning of another, and we are determined to remain the best of friends.

    So let me finish by returning to that letter written by Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer and other distinguished Germans to the Times.

    The signatories were generous to Britain.

    So let me say in response, Britain shares the same admiration and warmth for the people of Germany, for your moral courage, your tolerance and magnanimity, and for your towering achievement in building a nation that is, at once, a model democracy and the economic powerhouse of Europe.

    When 2.1 million Berliners were blockaded and besieged 70 years ago, they could not be sure they would withstand the ordeal and eventually triumph.

    They survived because of their courage and resilience, supported by the resolute action of friends who shared their ideals and were determined not to abandon this city.

    Those friends did not come to Berlin’s support because of treaties or formal unions.

    They acted because of something more powerful, though less tangible: the values that united them, just as values unite us today.

    Those values remain constant whatever else changes. Let us remember that as we do our duty in the critical few weeks ahead.

  • Philip Hammond – 2019 Speech at EEF

    Below is the text of the speech made by Philip Hammond, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on 19 February 2019.

    Thank you, for that introduction.

    I am delighted to be here tonight, as you start a new chapter in the history of EEF. And it has been a fascinating history.

    EEF as an organisation was founded in 1896, at a time when the second industrial revolution was just gathering pace; with new technologies being deployed across industry at breakneck pace.

    That was the year the first wireless radio transmission was demonstrated right here in London. I haven’t heard the recording, but I’ve no doubt a then quite young John Humphrys did a good job of grilling some hapless politician.

    As Judith also mentioned, 1896 was also the year the Daily Mail launched. What she was too diplomatic to mention was that the first ever edition carried an op-ed on the front page that confidently asserted that, and I quote: “the motor carriage will never displace the smart trotting pony or the high-stepping team”, and called for the restoration of a “two mile per hour speed limit”. Finger on the pulse – then as now!

    Just in the interest of balance, when I proposed changing the speed limit it was supported by the Mail.

    Today, we are more focused on when the motor carriage driver will be replaced by a computer. But we share with the turn of the 19th century a sense of living through a time of blistering change, as innovations in areas such as robotics, biotechnology, artificial intelligence and blockchain transform our economy – and nowhere is that truer than in the manufacturing and engineering sectors.

    So it is entirely appropriate that you have chosen this moment to change from EEF to ‘Make UK’ – reflecting the diversity of the modern manufacturing sector. And I wish you every success in your new guise.

    Let me first say a few words about last night’s news from Honda. As Greg Clark told the House this afternoon, this is clearly a bitter blow for the 3,500 skilled and dedicated workers at Honda in Swindon, and the many people whose lives will be affected – either because the companies they work for are part of the supply chain, or because they are part of the community around the plant.

    Greg has spoken with the trades unions, the local MP, the Leader of Swindon Borough Council and the Chair of the Local Enterprise Partnership…

    …and will shortly chair the first meeting, in Swindon, of a taskforce he’s put together to marshal government efforts to do everything we can to ensure that the much-valued workforce can find new opportunities to make use of their skills and experience.

    The decision of Honda is, of course, a blow.

    But despite the shock of this announcement, we must not lose sight of the fact that Britain remains a dynamic and open economy…

    …that just this morning we saw record high employment numbers, and ten-year high real wage growth figures…

    …and that we are an economy that has grown continuously for nine straight years…creating 3.4 million net new jobs in the process.

    Our challenge is to maintain that performance, at a time of transformative change in our economy, with the technology revolution changing Britain’s economy, society and, indeed, politics in ways that we can barely predict.

    But as Judith has said, the change uppermost in all our minds is, of course, our future relationship with the EU.

    I understand that the ongoing uncertainty is a challenge for many of you in this room. And that the prospect – however small – of leaving without a deal is already too great, and is having very real consequences as you make difficult decisions about managing supply chains, about hiring people, about where and when to invest.

    I understand the frustration in the business community about the pace and sometimes opacity of the democratic process.

    I cannot make that frustration go away, but what I can attempt to do is to explain what we are doing to resolve this uncertainty.

    Our priority remains avoiding a No Deal outcome, and that will be my unwavering focus. It is clear that leaving the EU without a deal would deliver a damaging short-term shock and would undermine our future prosperity and security – and in my view that would represent a betrayal of the promises about Brexit that were made during the referendum campaign.

    So the solution lies in getting the PM’s deal through Parliament. That is the only way to both respect the referendum result and also supporting the economy, protecting jobs, and allowing us to leave, via an Implementation Period, in an orderly fashion, to a continued close trading partnership with our nearest neighbours.

    Doing so means seeking a route to address the very specific objections that have been raised in the House of Commons. That’s our objective.

    A legally binding change to the Withdrawal Agreement to ensure the backstop could not persist indefinitely would not satisfy all of my colleagues – but it would deliver the core of a majority for a deal in the House of Commons.

    Such a change is not a straightforward task, and will require a spirit of compromise on both sides.

    The so-called “Malthouse” initiative to explore possible alternative arrangements to the backstop, is a valuable effort in that direction.

    It builds on an important concession we gained in the Withdrawal Agreement, in being able to propose alternative arrangements to the backstop – and it should be a major ongoing strand of our work, continuing at pace during the Implementation Period; one in which I hope and expect the EU will take an active part.

    But, however promising as an alternative arrangement to avoid entering a backstop in the future, it is clear that the EU will not consider replacing the Backstop with such an alternative arrangement now, in order to address our immediate challenge.

    The details of this initiative are still evolving, and would require significant changes to EU legislation and Customs practices that would need to be negotiated with the EU member states and others who will be affected by them.

    So over the next few days, Members of Parliament need to think long and hard about the choice before them; Our partners in the EU need to be at their pragmatic best in helping to avoid the mutual calamity of no deal; and you – and we – need to carry on explaining the implications of a no deal exit, no matter who cries “Project Fear”: Because it’s our duty to communicate the reality of the situation, to the people we represent.

    So our most urgent task is to secure a deal that will protect our future relationship with our closest neighbours and most important trading partners.

    But however close that future relationship, it will not be as close as the one we have now. So there will be change ahead.

    Our country has always seen itself as somewhat distinct from our European neighbours; somewhat more global in outlook.

    Brexit will be our chance to show that we can combine a strong and continuing partnership with the EU, with a new focus on building on our historic overseas relationships, and forging new links with the fastest growing economies of the world.

    Because that world is changing around us – a rapidly growing middle class, huge advances in innovation and technology, and a shift in the balance of wealth and power all mean the opportunities have never been so great.

    But these emerging markets are a competitive place, and the key question for the UK will be: how do we establish our competitive advantage in this fast-changing, globalised world? How do we set out our stall in the bustling international marketplace of the 21st Century?

    We have a choice:

    Some people – on both the left and right – would have us fight again the economic battles of the past: at one extreme, an agenda of widespread nationalisation, penal taxation and heavy state regulation; at the other extreme, a slashing of tax rates and shredding of regulation.

    Neither would deliver what is needed for our competitiveness as a 21st century mature economy with an ageing population.

    So, I am clear that as Britain rethinks its competitive advantage in an ever more globalised world, we must factor in the changes happening around us and engage with the world as it is, not as it once was; we must find solutions rooted in the pragmatism for which this country is rightly famous, not in populist rhetoric

    That means building on the distinctive strengths that we already have as a country. And my message to you tonight is that Britain’s modern manufacturing sector is and must remain one of those distinctive strengths and competitive advantages.

    If we can get it right, your sector can prosper under our unavoidably more global outlook in the future – and be a core part of the high-tech, high-skill ecosystem that defines the future economy we want to build.

    I want to say a few words about what we are doing – and what we need to do – to deliver on that ambition, in three specific areas – skills, innovation and infrastructure – and I hope in doing so, I may provide a worthy response to some of the challenges Judith posed in her opening remarks.

    The first priority for any business these days, as all of you know, is skills; making sure you have the right people to make your business grow.

    For too many years, our education system has been too focused on getting people into university, at the expense of other routes into work…

    …focusing on the top level skills of the few, at the expense of the more practical capabilities of the many…

    …and in doing so, we’ve hollowed out our manufacturing skills base…

    …so that all too often the demographic profile of skilled workers inside companies looks even more daunting than the demographic profile of the country as a whole.

    But we are changing that.

    We know that the skillset we need for our advanced manufacturing industry requires us to focus, not just on degree level skills, but also on a wide range of specialist, technical skills.

    That’s why we are reasserting the importance of technical education in our national life – so that we can more effectively train the next generation of engineers, to make sure that employers have the skills they need, and young people are match fit for the labour market of the future.

    To do that, we have committed £500 million a year to introducing a new system of T-level vocational training…

    …We’ve put the first £100 million into the new National Retraining Scheme, to make sure that British workers can face the challenge of technological change without fear…

    …and through the Apprenticeship Levy we are delivering 3 million high quality apprenticeships in this Parliament.

    But, of course, we want to work with industry as we deliver these reforms.

    Judith – you challenged me on progress we’re making with the apprenticeship levy.

    We have heard your concerns loud and clear – and taken action:

    halving the co-investment rate from 10 to 5%
    increased the amount you can transfer to your supply chain to 25%
    we’ve put millions into the Institute for Apprenticeships
    and we’re committed to consulting on how the levy operates in the future through an engagement process, which has already begun
    We’ve conducted a series of regional roundtables with 59 employers attending to date – including an EEF policy advisor – and it’s only the 19th of February.

    And may I also say in response to your plea for a nationwide rollout of the North West pilot of “Made Smarter”, that I am delighted by your enthusiasm for this ground-breaking programme. But it was only launched in November, and the point of piloting is to learn what works and what doesn’t. But I can absolutely promise you that what works will be rolled out in due course.

    As well as making sure that British workers have the skills they need to thrive and prosper, we must also invest in the technologies of the future.

    Our history is one of innovation – we are the nation of Stephenson, Faraday and Whittle. And today, Britain can lead the world again as we exploit a new wave of scientific and technological discovery pouring out of our world class Universities and our industrial research centres.

    I do not need to tell the people in this room about the impact of this technological progress on the economy – just think of the changes you have seen over the last twenty years in automation, materials and manufacturing techniques. And everyone is familiar with the stats that point to Britain’s leading role in scientific research: With just 4 percent of the world’s researchers, but 15 percent of the world’s most highly cited articles.

    But the leap from research lab to commercial product does not happen by accident.

    And for too long, while we’ve been brilliant at invention and discovery, we have been near the bottom of the class in exploiting that home-grown genius to drive our own industry. But I’m glad to say that is changing.

    And the manufacturing sector is at the forefront: you constitute 10% of the UK economy, but provide 66% of all business expenditure on research and development.

    Since 2016 we have committed an additional £7 billion to science and innovation. This 20% increase is the sharpest and most sustained rise in public R&D investment since records began – clear progress towards our ambition for a government-industry partnership to lift economy-wide R&D spending to reach 2.4% of GDP by 2027.

    But although government intervention is important, we understand that private enterprise is the real engine of innovation. So we are also making sure that the conditions are right for you as leaders and entrepreneurs to be able to invest in growing your businesses.

    Support for businesses through R&D tax reliefs has tripled since 2010.

    One of the areas EEF have been rightly challenging us on is capital investment incentives – and we have acted.

    At Budget 2018 I increased the Annual Investment Allowance from £200,000 to £1 million for two years, providing hundreds of millions of pounds more tax relief

    …and I also introduced a new, permanent ‘Structures and Buildings Allowance’, providing billions of pounds of new tax relief for firms investing in new non-residential buildings and structures – delivering a long-standing demand from industry.

    And what is good for individual businesses is also good for the economy and for households – increasing productivity is the only sustainable way to boost real wages – and rising real wages are the sure-fire way to sustain a contented and stable workforce – and a satisfied electorate. A coincidence of objective that business people and politicians can celebrate together.

    Today’s real wage growth figures are good news – but only sustainable if backed by productivity growth. And boosting our productivity also means investing in infrastructure, because even with the best staff and the most high-tech equipment in the world, your businesses won’t succeed without roads to transport your goods, railways to transport your staff, or fast broadband to deliver the digital lifeblood that sustains all modern businesses.

    The cornerstone of our plan to boost productivity is the National Productivity Investment Fund, £37 billion of funding through to 2023-24 on top of the core investment in roads, rail, R&D, housing, and social infrastructure – specifically targeted at raising Britain’s productivity.

    Together, these programmes are modernising our strategic roads network – which carries two-thirds of all freight

    …delivering the biggest rail programme since Victorian times…

    …and bringing our digital infrastructure up to date, with a strategy for delivering a nationwide full fibre network by 2033.

    And we are supporting industry to make the transition to a low-carbon economy, with £315 million for a new Industrial Energy Transformation Fund, which will help businesses with high energy use – like those in your sector – to cut their bills and reduce their emissions…

    …all of which together means over the next five years, total public investment will grow by 30%, to its highest sustained level in 40 years.

    Judith, to return to your challenges, I hope I have shown this evening how government understands its role in supporting UK industry through the coming tech revolution, and in driving up productivity for the benefit of our businesses and our citizens – delivering our vision of a high-wage, high-skill economy.

    The Modern Industrial Strategy encapsulates our clear commitment to play that role.

    And sets out our plan to do it:

    By putting technical skills back at the heart of our education system…

    …investing in new technologies and innovation…

    …modernising our roads and railways…

    …cutting taxes for workers and for the businesses that employ them…

    …reducing your energy costs – and your carbon footprint…

    …doing everything we can, in other words, to make sure that Britain is known around the world as a great place to be a maker.

    And I hope I have convinced you that I understand all too well the scale of the challenge that Brexit uncertainty represents for many of you…

    …and that I am committed, and the whole government is committed, to doing everything we can to dispel that uncertainty as quickly as we possibly can…

    …and that the approach I have set out tonight is the right one for Britain’s economy, regardless of Brexit.

    Laying the foundations for our future prosperity in a world that is going to look and feel very different – for many different reasons beyond Brexit.

    And in 100 years’ time, when my successor as Chancellor of the Exchequer gives a keynote speech to MakeUK’s annual conference, they won’t be talking about Brexit – or, at least, I hope they won’t!

    They’ll be talking about the astonishing transformation of our economy that occurred through the tech revolution of the second quarter of the 21st century…

    …about the remarkable achievement of a small, damp island, off the north west coast of Europe…

    …still, in 2119, a world leader in high tech manufacturing and sophisticated services…

    …a watchword for agile, flexible regulation…

    …a European beacon in an Asian-dominated global economy.

    I know we can do it.

    And I look forward to working with you all, and with MakeUK, to make it happen.

    Thank you.

  • Greg Clark – 2019 Speech at EEF Manufacturing Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Greg Clark, the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, at the EEF Manufacturing Conference on 19 February 2019.

    Thank you Steph for that introduction – it’s always a pleasure to be introduced by a fellow Teessider!

    Honda announcement

    Before I go any further, I just want to comment on the announcement made by Honda this morning that their Swindon plant will close in 2021.

    I am not going to pretend that this is anything other than a bitter blow.

    My thoughts this morning are with the 3,500 skilled and dedicated Honda workers and their families; and the suppliers of what has been a phenomenally successful business and has done so much for UK manufacturing during its time here.

    And with the town of Swindon, whose proud manufacturing tradition, as everyone knows, dates way back to Brunel and the days of the GWR, and which has been home to one of the best car factories in the world during Honda’s time there.

    And so our message to everyone affected by Honda’s closure is that we value intensely your skills; we completely understand the challenges that you face; and we will do everything that we possibly can to support every single person in the community, in the workforce, in the supply chain, to make sure that their skills and their ingenuity will find expression and application in the years ahead.

    Brexit preparations

    Now of course this news comes on top of months of uncertainty that you, as manufacturers, have had to endure about Brexit and about our future relationship with the EU.

    And just spotting in the audience so many people that Richard and I meet during the course of our work – I know how important it is to you that we should find an early resolution of what our relationship with the rest of the European Union is going to be.

    Because you know that every decision that you make – on prices, on cash flow, on logistics and investment – has real consequences for the hundreds of thousands, indeed millions of people that you employ.

    And I’ve been always been quite clear that a situation in which our manufacturers don’t have the certainty that they need about the terms under which over two-thirds of our trade will be conducted in less than 40 days’ time is unacceptable.

    It needs to be brought to a conclusion, and without further delay.

    I am immensely grateful to Stephen Phipson and the EEF, now Make UK, for the advice and the support they have given on your behalf.

    This is a membership organisation, and I want you to know that the views you express to the headquarters are deployed forensically and consistently by Stephen on your behalf.

    Richard and I meet with Stephen every Wednesday morning for a full hour’s discussion of what he’s found from his interactions with you during the previous week.

    And it really makes a difference. I can’t understate the importance of the evidence and intelligence that you supply through Stephen to us in our roles.

    And it’s with the help of the EEF that we made, first of all – and won – the argument for a significant transition period, recognising that you need time to adjust to a new regime, whatever it is. A period during which your ability to trade with the EU remains as now time to adjust to new arrangements.

    It was also based on the evidence. I think there’s been a national education in the realities of just-in-time production and integrated supply chains that the whole country has learned, but very much pioneered through the evidence that you’ve supplied to Stephen and has been deployed through the EEF.

    That shaped the crucial objective of maintaining frictionless trade and that remains front and centre in our aims for the future economic partnership with the EU.

    Richard and I will continue to work with you and to listen to you – the manufacturers and the employers – to make sure that your voice is decisive in this crucial debate.

    And yet – as important as this all is, I can’t stand here today and claim to you that all of your requirements have been resolved.

    To do that we need to have a deal. Because leaving the EU without one would, in my view, be a disaster for the whole country.

    In the survey that EEF – Make UK – published just last week two-thirds of manufacturing employers said that ‘no deal’ would result immediately in price increases on products.

    Whilst almost one-third of manufacturers said that ‘no deal’ has implications for jobs.

    Now some people, when you voice these concerns, describe this as ‘Project Fear. But for me – knowing the familiarity that you have with the reality of running manufacturing operations and employing millions of people around the UK – I think it is better described as ‘Project Reality’.

    Your evidence needs to be acted upon. And I know – from talking to many of you of the consequences from the logistical problems caused by new customs checks. To potential limitations on sending skilled workers to the UK to install, to maintain and service your products.

    There is, I think, a lack of adequate understanding, historically, in this country, as to how intrinsic manufacturing is to the success of our service economy.

    Many of your products, many of your revenues, I know, derive from the service contracts that you have in support of the manufacturing operations that you have in this country.

    And I also know and entirely understand the importance of having this resolved much more quickly than I think has been in prospect.

    The reality is that yesterday the first freighter that will arrive after the 29 March 2019 set off from Felixstowe bound for Japan with no clarity on the terms under which its cargo will be admitted when it reaches its destination.

    That is, I know, unacceptable to you. And it’s unacceptable to me.

    For me this shows how absolutely essential it is to conclude the arrangements with a deal in the weeks ahead.

    And not on the last minute on the 28 March, but as soon as possible.

    Because no one should regard waiting to the last moment, when you are making decisions now that have consequences for many weeks and months ahead, as acceptable.

    I’ve always thought, and my colleagues in government have, that an orderly Brexit – one that implements the outcome of the referendum but in a way that protects prosperity, growth and jobs is what we should insist on.

    No one wants to be poorer at a time when the opportunities that we have in manufacturing specifically are greater than ever before.

    So, we will go on making sure that the argument that manufacturers put for a deal to be concluded swiftly is something that is heard loud and clear.

    The deal that has been proposed is by no means perfect, but it does meet, in the view of many of you here, the needs that you’ve expressed. And in particular, provides more certainty in a time of great uncertainty.

    But of course, decisions like Honda’s this morning demonstrate starkly how much is at stake.

    Honda’s announcement they have described as not being related to Brexit, but to the changes that are taking place in the automotive sector.

    And there are many people in this room that are aware of that and participate in that.

    And that’s why this is such an important time to build on the foundations that we have in our economy to make sure that we profit from the opportunities in areas in which the UK has a stunning reputation.

    Made Smarter

    A few months after the EU referendum I had a conversation with someone known to everyone in this room – the Siemens UK CEO Juergen Maier – which gave birth to the idea behind Made Smarter.

    Making sure that smaller firms have the ability to access the cutting-edge of new technologies that sometimes are taken for granted by the larger OEMs and some of our research institutions – encouraging and helping smaller firms to adopt new technologies that can help them become competitive in this time of global change, and to create more jobs.

    The idea struck a chord and many people in this room are involved with the Made Smarter Commission that resulted from that.

    And based on Jurgen’s work and supported by you we have had a huge response right across the UK from the manufacturing community from companies big and small in every nation of the United Kingdom.

    We’ve made substantial progress already.

    In September, I chaired the first meeting of the Made Smarter Commission attended by many companies in the room today.

    The very next month, in October we announced 120 million pounds to make sure that this diffusion of the technologies that we have in this country to supply chains in every part of industry should be able to be supported.

    And at the heart of Made Smarter will be what I know is manufacturers’ No. 1 priority – skills.

    World-class manufacturing

    There are so many lingering misconceptions that I’m sure you as I are frustrated about, that people have the wrong view of manufacturing.

    The EEF under Stephen asked the British public to guess how UK manufacturing ranked globally the average guess was 56th.

    Actually, we’re 9th in the world, and can rise more strongly. Kazakhstan is 56th.

    But the perception needs to be countered, which is one of the big purposes of Made Smarter. EEF’s Chair Judith Hackitt, who I know is here today, is a formidable leader of that initiative to change perceptions of what manufacturing and engineering are about, to show the reality of modern manufacturing as one of the most exciting vocations that exist in Britain today.

    We should be proud of the world-class manufacturing talent that we produce in this country, and we need to produce more.

    And whenever I meet apprentices – whether it’s at the MTC, the Manufacturing Technology Centre just outside Coventry, the AMRC in Sheffield, or Make UK’s own apprentices in Aston, I’m blown away by the sense of privilege that people have, that have managed to discover what a fantastic career is in prospect if they get into manufacturing and engineering.

    While companies like Lander Automotive – whose Managing Director Peter Tack is with us here today are creating new apprentices – 15 apprentices being recruited every 8 weeks to be embarked on a career that will take them around the world with excitement and discovery every year of it.

    And as more companies embrace new technologies it won’t be about people or technology, but people and technology.

    I was struck at the Manufacturing and Technology Centre looking at the latest application of robots.

    The big question is: are these robots going to replace people?

    Quite the reverse. All of the skills there – and you know it in this room – are about making sure that we learn to work effectively with automation: people working alongside robots, or deciding what to do with data analysis.

    But as new technologies require new skills we must make sure that these opportunities are available to all.

    Through our Industrial Strategy, our new National Retraining Scheme, which is designed to help people learn new skills as the economy changes, including as a result of automation.

    We are also putting significant investment to help SMEs their leadership and management skills that again are often available more easily to larger companies, but to reap the opportunities that we have in the world we want to make sure that the best skills are available to leaders of some of our smaller businesses.

    With a management training programme which could help 10,000 people a year over the next few years.

    And just as no-one should be left behind by the new technologies sweeping this industry, no place should be left behind either.

    I hope that Made Smarter will support small businesses, and small manufacturers right across the UK.

    In pursuance of that goal the first wave is in the North West, working with the towns and cities of the North West – Cheshire and Warrington, Cumbria, Lancashire, Liverpool and Manchester – to make sure that small businesses there are first to benefit to really reinforce what is already a strong cluster of manufacturing excellence.

    We need to make sure the opportunities of the fourth industrial revolution are available to every single firm in the economy.

    But in helping firms understand their data and, where suitable to automate production, we can make a real impact.

    And there’s been a huge response in the North West, with 140 businesses signed up already to learn from the best in the country as to how they can spread industrial digitalisation.

    As well as in automotive – we have a firm looking to use robotic equipment on the production line. We want the applications to be in, for example, food manufacturing – our most important manufacturing business line at the moment.

    We want this pilot to become a beacon for schemes in regions right across the country.

    Conclusion

    So, ladies and gentlemen.

    In the coming days and weeks we are very conscious that your future prosperity in a world of change and opportunity must be at the forefront of our attention in all of the policy decisions that we take.

    Our test of a successful Brexit is that it should work for manufacturing industry at this time of such great opportunity, and through that, the millions of people who depend on you.

    Just as we stand on the cusp of amazing new opportunities for manufacturers, we must retain and create the future possibilities for everyone in this room.

    And we’re conscious that every hour, every pound spent being devoted to Brexit preparations is necessary – I understand. But actually it is not the main focus of your work, which is to create the products, processes and customers that will sustain the UK for many years to come.

    So I look forward to continuing the very effective work that we do with the EEF – and now I hope with Make UK. That we can in a short space of time now agree a deal that brings the certainty that you’ve communicated so clearly that you want.

    And we can make the UK as synonymous with the fourth industrial revolution as we are, through our history books, with the first.

    Thank you very much.

  • Heidi Allen, Anna Soubry and Sarah Wollaston – 2019 Resignation Letter

    Below is the text of the resignation letter sent to Theresa May, the Prime Minister, by Heidi Allen, Anna Soubry and Sarah Wollaston on 20 February 2019.

    Dear Prime Minster

    It is with regret that we are writing to resign the Conservative whip and our membership of the Party.

    We voted for you as Leader and Prime Minister because we believed you were committed to a moderate, open-hearted Conservative Party in the One Nation tradition. A party of economic competence, representing the best of British business, delivering good jobs, opportunity and prosperity for all, funding world class public services and tackling inequalities. We had hoped you would also continue to modernise our party so that it could reach out and broaden its appeal to younger voters and to embrace and reflect the diversity of the communities we seek to represent.

    Sadly, the Conservative Party has increasingly abandoned these principles and values with a shift to the right of British Politics. We no longer feel we can remain in the Party of a Government whose policies and priorities are so firmly in the grip of the ERG and DUP.

    Brexit has re-defined the Conservative Party – undoing all the efforts to modernise it. There has been a dismal failure to stand up to the hard line ERG which operates openly as a party within a party, with its own leader, whip and policy.

    This shift to the right has been exacerbated by blatant entryism. Not only has this been tolerated, it has been actively welcomed in some quarters. A purple momentum is subsuming the Conservative Party, much as the hard left has been allowed to consume and terminally undermine the Labour Party.

    We have tried consistently and for some time to keep the Party close to the centre ground of British Politics. You assured us when you first sought the leadership that this was your intention. We haven’t changed, the Conservative Party has and it no longer reflects the values and beliefs we share with millions of people throughout the United Kingdom.

    The final straw for us has been this Government’s disastrous handling of Brexit.

    Following the EU referendum of 2016, no genuine effort was made to build a cross party, let alone a national consensus to deliver Brexit. Instead of seeking to heal the divisions or to tackle the underlying causes of Brexit, the priority was to draw up “red lines”. The 48% were not only sidelined, they were alienated.

    We find it unconscionable that a Party once trusted on the economy, more than any other, is now recklessly marching the country to the cliff edge of no deal. No responsible government should knowingly and deliberately inflict the dire consequences of such a destructive exit on individuals, communities and businesses and put at risk the prospect of ending austerity.

    We also reject the false binary choice that you have presented to Parliament between a bad deal and no deal. Running down the clock to March 20 amounts to a policy of no deal and we are not prepared to wait until our toes are at the edge of the cliff.

    We can no longer act as bystanders.

    We intend to sit as independents alongside The Independent Group of MPs in the centre ground of British politics. There will be times when we will support the Government, for example, on measures to strengthen our economy, security and improve our public services. But we now feel honour bound to put our constituents’ and country’s interests first.

    We would like to thank all those who have supported us and worked alongside us within our constituencies over many years. We genuinely wish our many friends and colleagues within the Party well, indeed we know many of them share our concerns.

    We will continue to work constructively, locally and nationally, on behalf of our constituents.

    However, the country deserves better. We believe there is a failure of politics in general, not just in the Conservative Party but in both main parties as they

    move to the fringes, leaving millions of people with no representation. Our politics needs urgent and radical reform and we are determined to play our part.

    Yours sincerely

    Heidi Allen, Anna Soubry and Sarah Wollaston

  • Greg Clark – 2019 Statement on Honda in Swindon

    Below is the text of the statement made by Greg Clark, the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, to the House of Commons on 19 February 2019.

    With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on Honda. This morning, Honda announced that future models of its Civic car, which are currently made in Swindon, will after 2021 be made in Japan. The Civic is the only vehicle made by Honda in Swindon, so the result of the decision is that the company’s manufacturing plant will close in 2021.

    I am not going to understate what a bitter blow this is to the 3,500 skilled and dedicated workers at Honda in Swindon and their families, to the many more people and businesses who supply the plant, and to the town of Swindon, which has been proud to be home for 34 years to one of the best car factories in the world. It is a blow to the whole British economy.

    The reason that Honda has given is its decision to accelerate the move to electric propulsion and to consolidate investment in its facilities in Japan. Following the entry into force of the EU-Japan free trade agreement earlier this month, tariffs for cars exported from Japan to the EU will drop from the current 10% to zero by 1 January 2026. Honda will then export from Japan, rather than from Britain, to Europe and the rest of the world. The company has stated that Bracknell will be retained as its European headquarters, that it will continue to base its Formula 1 operation from Britain, and that its research and development centre for electrification and connected and autonomous technologies will continue at Swindon.

    Honda has announced an immediate consultation on the plan with the trade unions and suppliers. I have spoken with the trade unions, the local Members of Parliament, the leader of Swindon Borough Council and the chair of the local enterprise partnership. I will shortly chair, in Swindon, the first meeting of a taskforce, comprising those people and others, to do everything we can to ensure that the much valued Honda workforce in Swindon find new opportunities that make use of their skills and experience. We will work with the local community to ensure that Swindon’s justified reputation as a place of industrial excellence in manufacturing, technology and services is maintained and expanded.

    In our automotive sector, we will work in close partnership with an industry that is going through a period of technological change and adjustment across the world that is greater than at any time in its history—a period of change that is disruptive and even painful for many, but in which Britain’s industry can emerge as a global leader if we back innovation in new sources of power and navigation. That is one of the four grand challenges of our industrial strategy, and the focus of our automotive sector deal.

    I and many other colleagues in the House, of all parties, have worked hard over the past three years to make the case for investing in Britain, to investors in this country and around the world, despite the uncertainty that Brexit has put into the assessments of investors in Japan and around the world. We have secured investments during this time, from Nissan, Toyota, Geely, BMW, PSA, Aston Martin, Williams and many smaller firms. We have an international reputation for being a place to do business, with skilled, motivated staff, with access to innovation, especially in automotive, which is the best on the planet, and with a determination to make those strengths even greater in the years ahead.

    This is a devastating decision that has been made today, and one that requires us to do whatever it takes to ensure that in the years to come Honda will once again, building on its continued presence here, recognise Britain as the best place in the world to build some of the best vehicles in the world.