UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Speeches

  • John MacGregor – 1978 Speech on Investment Income Surcharge

    Below is the text of the speech made by John MacGregor, the then Conservative MP for South Norfolk, in the House of Commons on 5 April 1978.

    I beg to move,

    That leave be given to bring in a Bill to abolish investment income surcharge.

    This Bill is about jobs, about economic growth and about fair play. Whatever the earlier case for an extra impost, on investment income, the developments on the tax front and the growth in the tax burden over the past four years now mean that the surcharge is having seriously damaging effects in a number of important directions, and I seek this opportunity of drawing attention to them and tackling them. I wish to make six main points in relation to jobs, economic growth and fair play.

    First, concerning jobs, there is now widespread agreement that in dealing with the appallingly high level of unemployment one of the main contributions in the future will have to come from the small businesses, because the public sector and the large and medium-sized companies in this country will be seeking in many cases to shed labour rather than to promote new jobs. Yet the small businesses are quite inadequately encouraged at the present time.

    Much of the evidence to the Wilson Committee on the City has drawn attention to the problems of finance for small businesses. Indeed, the institutions, the banks and so on, are now doing much to assist in that area. But the real gap—and, I suspect, an increasing gap in the future—is for finance in start-up situations, in venture capital, and for the very small businesses, because the banks and institutions naturally do not wish to risk equity capital at that point since they have their own depositors to take care of.​

    Getting the small business off the ground is still one of our major problems. Previously, this used to be done by private investors who knew the locality, knew the people and were prepared to risk some of their spare capital in order to get these businesses going. It is done in this way in America and in other countries where positive fiscal incentives are given compared with the fiscal disincentives that we apply here.

    Even the National Research Development Corporation, in its recent evidence to the Wilson Committee, said:

    “The mortality rate of small companies is high, and this in turn inhibits support for new technology-based firms in general. Special measures, including increased fiscal incentives (or the removal of current fiscal disincentives), may be required to promote the growth of small innovative enterprises.”

    The plain fact is that the risk of losing one’s money in small businesses is high and the reward is virtually nil, especially at a 98 per cent. tax rate. I believe that it will be right—as I believe the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is considering—to introduce relief for losses against other income in order to assist start-ups. But the abolition of the investment income surcharge is also necessary to assist and encourage jobs in small businesses.

    Secondly, turning to the more general aspects of growth, we are all agreed that we want to see more investment in British industry and commerce and, perhaps more important, better use of the investment. I would be the first to admit that encouraging saving is only one part of this problem. There is a need first to see the demand side increasing, as we do not have demand for new investment and for new capital on the scale required as we would all wish to see at the present time, because of the lack of confidence in British industry.

    But at some stage the importance of the saver and the investor will come back into play. We do need to encourage new capital. Again, the investor gets poor rewards for subscribing to equities at present. For the high taxpayer the return is minute and after inflation is often acutely negative. Each year today there is a 5 per cent. decline in the number of shareholdings in British companies, and it is the individual small investor who is getting out. To a considerable ​ extent that is a tax matter because of the fiscal benefits to the pension funds, on the one hand, and the fiscal disincentives of high rates of taxation, especially investment income surcharge to the direct investor, on the other.

    Another worrying aspect of this matter is the ever-increasing reliance on institutional investment in the Stock Market. I believe that this should give us some considerable cause for concern, because it means intensified volatility in the market, possibly less investment in the secondary, middle and smaller public companies and hence greater difficulty for them in raising new capital, and some would also argue the risk of only a small number of investment decision takers in stock market investment tending to concentrate on investment fashions. The abolition of the investment income surcharge would help to redress that balance and to get more investment directly from investors into British industry through equities.

    Thirdly, I want to turn to one particular aspect—growth in farming. About 45 per cent. of agricultural land today is tenanted. Yet the fiscal burdens on the agricultural landlord—unless again it is an institution—are now penal, partly because his returns are treated as investment income. If he is paying between 80 per cent. and 98 per cent. in tax, he is less likely to be willing to invest in improvements to land, buildings and machinery because of the feeble after-tax return at the end of it. This is harmful to agricultural production as well as to all the allied industries which depend on a successful and growing agriculture.

    It also means that many are tending to bring land in hand as soon as they can, for fiscal reasons, which is harmful to future tenant farmers in this country. I believe that we should be seeking a definition of a working landlord and enable him to benefit from current agriculture fiscal reliefs. That is the way mainly to go forward to the benefit of agriculture generally. Meanwhile, the abolition of the investment income surcharge would help.

    My last three points relate to fiscal justice and fair play. Fourthly, we now have an appallingly muddled position in relation to tax on savings. Wins on the pools or on horses are virtually tax-free. Savings through pension funds and life assurance obtain a variety of tax benefits ​ which significantly affect the investment decisions of the saver. Gilts and other forms of Government savings, such as the Trustee Savings Bank, have considerable tax-free advantages which much distort the flow of savings patterns. It is important here to realise that the Government by their tax decisions are greatly benefiting themselves in relation to savings, especially in connection with high-rate taxpayers for whom gilts held for more than one year are enormously more advantageous than any other form of saving.

    Only equities, building societies and other forms of private sector saving have to suffer the whole battery of taxes on savings. Investment income surcharge is one of the significant ones. Its abolition would help to remove distortions—indeed, gross distortions—which fiscal measures have so sweepingly introduced into savings.

    Fifthly, I turn to the international comparisons. Few countries today have an investment income surcharge at all. None among our industrial competitors has rates on earned or on earned and investment income combined anywhere near ours reaching up to the top rate of 98 per cent., nor at the levels of income at which we impose them. I believe that it is no coincidence that we are not only so far out of line with them in our tax measures and tax burdens on direct and investment income but frequently out of line in our success in growth rates.

    Sixthly, and most troubling of all, I want to draw attention to the quite unfair burden that the investment income surcharge now imposes on those with comparatively low incomes and on those aged over 65. Indeed, it is these groups with whom I am most concerned, despite all the other very important arguments, in pushing this measure today. One hundred and sixty thousand of those who pay investment income surcharge—or roughly one-third—have incomes below £4,000 a year. Indeed, this morning I had a letter from a constituent aged 58, who has just been declared redundant and who will have to make use of his redundancy payments and the savings which he has developed over his lifetime. He has an income—which he will expect not to grow from now on because he does not expect to get a job at his age—of about £2,000 a year and is naturally ​ infuriated as he now finds that he is paying a marginal tax rate of 44 per cent. on that income.

    Over 45 per cent. of those paying the investment income surcharge are pensioners. What I find so appalling here is the quite unfair situation where those who are fortunate enough to have occupational pension schemes or self-employed schemes have their savings treated as earned income after the age of 65. But there are those who are not able to be in that position, perhaps because they were in a company which did not operate such schemes or had a small business and were not able to afford the self-employed annuity schemes which were not so generous in the past. Those who concentrated their savings on building up their businesses and get their retirement savings out of that business, or in other ways, find that they have this huge burden at a very modest rate of income of a 49 per cent. marginal tax rate.

    It is scandalous that those who built up their savings in this way should be discriminated against. As the Building Societies Association points out, a single pensioner pays at a rate of 49 per cent. with an income of £3,410, whereas someone single and of working age has to reach an income level of £6,945 before he pays above the tax rate of 34 per cent. That is quite monstrous discrimination.

    What particularly riles these people is that this is not unearned income at all. What they are getting after the age of 65 is income out of savings earned out of a hard working life and out of taxed income during that working life. There is no wonder that there is so little incentive to save in certain directions today, especially after inflation is taken into account. No wonder that the children of so many of these people—[HON. MEMBERS: “Too long.”]—should see themselves what has happened so that they no longer wish to save.

    In conclusion, I recognise that there are many priorities in tax today. I have been among the first to argue for many of them, especially for those on low incomes and many others. I recognise that it may not be possible to carry through this measure exactly in this form at the present time. But I do believe that we should at least have amendments to this Bill to raise the threshold to £4,000 to ​ bring it back in real terms to where it was only a few years ago to help the pensioners, or perhaps to abolish it altogether on the pensioners as the Building Societies Association has urged.

    But it is because I believe that the arguments long term for abolition are so compelling that I have sought to bring the Bill forward in this way today in order to encourage the wealth creators and the risk takers.

  • Anthony Steen – 1978 Speech on Inner City Land

    Below is the text of the speech made by Anthony Steen, the then Conservative MP for Liverpool Wavertree, in the House of Commons on 4 April 1978.

    I beg to move,

    That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make it compulsory for local authorities, nationalised industries, other public bodies and statutory undertakings to dispose of vacant land in their ownership in certain circumstances; and for connected purposes.

    The aim of the Bill is to compel those local authorities guilty of land hoarding either genuinely to develop vacant land in their possession within a limited period or to put it on the open market by way of public auction so that others can do just that.

    The scale of land hoarding by local authorities and nationalised industries is not fully known. Suffice it to say that ​ 250,000 acres of prime land, mostly in the city centres, lie dormant. There are over 16,000 acres of derelict or vacant land in London. There are over 2,000 vacant acres in Liverpool and 1,100 in Birmingham. In Liverpool 60 per cent, of the vacant land in the inner city belongs to the local authority, and a further 20 per cent, is in the ownership of British Rail, the water authority or other public undertakings. Much of this vacant land has come about as a result of massive demolition programmes and the failure of the public authorities to rebuild on it.

    The consequences of this land remaining dormant are far-reaching. It creates an artificial demand for what is left in the inner city. It sends land prices soaring, and rents with them.

    Secondly, as a consequence, new factories and offices are preferred to be built on the green field sites on the edge of the city, where land is cheaper.

    Thirdly, the failure to create jobs or to provide homes in the inner city results in a mass exodus of population. Between 1966 and 1976, Liverpool lost 22 per cent, of its population—150,000 people; Manchester lost 18 per cent.—110,000 people; and Birmingham lost 8 per cent.—85,000 people.

    Fourthly, by reducing the rate base, the city councils have inadequate funds to provide services for the businesses that remain. The small firm is, therefore, penalised by massive commercial rate demands, and often loading on top of it for refuse collection.

    Fifthly, inadequate rate income in the inner areas means that domestic ratepayers in the middle and outer bands of our cities are increasingly subsidising the provision of services in the city centres. If wealth is to be created in our cities, a prerequisite is that the dormant land there must be used to the full. So long as it lies idle, it attracts an artificial value which, as it continues to rise, makes it less and less possible, for anyone to buy.​

    The Bill would therefore force public authorities to make up their minds. Either they can develop their land and build homes and factories on it, creating new jobs and providing accommodation to tempt back skilled workers who left many years ago, or, if they prefer not to develop the land themselves, it will automatically be auctioned at the market value to the highest bidder and with a covenant that the buyer must develop it within a limited period.

    If vacant land remains tied up with public authorities, our cities must continue to die. Small businesses will continue to be driven out and the domestic ratepayer will get less and less value for his money.

    The nation’s attention is focused on the revival of our cities, yet without the release of dormant land there can be no such revival. It is the cornerstone of our return to prosperity, but there is no hint of such a plan in the current Government legislative programme. That is why I seek leave to introduce this Bill.

  • Bill Rodgers – 1978 Speech on Trunk Roads and Motorways

    Below is the text of the speech made by Bill Rodgers, the then Labour Secretary of State for Transport, in the House of Commons on 4 April 1978.

    With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the Government’s policy for the trunk road and motorway system.

    The transport policy White Paper published last June outlined a new approach to the planning and improvement of the national road network. In the spirit of this approach I have now carried out a review of the objectives and methods of the trunk road programme in England and completed the first stage of a reassessment of all the schemes in it The results are brought together in the White Paper “Policy for Roads: England 1978” ​ which I have today presented to Parliament.

    My Department, jointly with the Department of the Environment, has also been reviewing the procedures for public inquiries into trunk road schemes. We have been guided by the Council on Tribunals, with which we have worked closely. The Government’s intentions are set out in the White Paper “Report on the Review of Highway Inquiry Procedures” which I have today presented jointly with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

    Copies of both White Papers have been available in the Vote Office since 3 o’clock.

    To devise and implement the right policy for roads presents many problems and dilemmas. Within the framework of the national transport policy, we need a road system that will support our major national objectives—the industrial strategy, regional development and the regeneration of inner city areas—as well as relieve the serious local problems caused by traffic. The inter-urban road system has been transformed over the last 15 to 20 years but many deficiencies remain. The routes to the major ports are not yet complete. There is an urgent need for an orbital route round London. Certain of the assisted areas still lack adequate communications, and many bypasses are required. Hon. and right hon. Members in all parts of the House continue to urge priority for new roads to serve their constituencies.

    Yet people are now less inclined to take for granted the assumptions on which road planning has proceeded in the past—for example, about future levels of traffic. They are less willing to accept the lengthy disruption caused by major construction projects. They are alert to the possibly damaging consequences, as they see it, of major new roads for the areas in which they live. As a result, there has been some dissatisfaction with the way that my Department and its predecessors have explained their proposals and apparently made their decisions. Public inquiries have on occasions been disrupted.

    I shall not take up the time of the House by detailing all the changes which I propose. But the main elements of the new approach are these. First, in place ​ of a predetermined strategic network, our approach will be selective. Within the planned level of investment on trunk roads and motorways of about £300 million, there will be a more rigorous approach to priorities, with emphasis on vital industrial routes, but also increasingly on schemes with high environmental benefits.

    Secondly, there will be more flexibility in applying design standards in the light of greater uncertainty about future traffic levels and the cost and supply of oil. Greater flexibility also reflects my concern that roads should be fitted into the environment in a discriminating way.

    Thirdly, in the appraisal of road schemes my Department will apply a comprehensive framework for decision, as recommended by the Leitch Committee, whose report was published in January. It will set out the range of factors that need to be taken into account—economic, social and environmental: those that can be quantified and those that cannot. In this way, each can be given its full weight, and a balanced judgment can be made.

    Fourthly, there will be a greater openness at the various stages of planning, from public consultation to the inquiry. In the arrangements for inquiries, my Department will secure that realistic alternatives are genuinely explored. It will make available information covering the range of factors on which road proposals are based and decisions reached so that, as far as possible, there can be equality of information for all those concerned.

    Finally, we need to put beyond doubt the impartiality of inspectors who are appointed to conduct trunk road and motorway inquiries. With the approval of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and I will, in future, in exercising our statutory obligations, ask my noble and learned Friend, the Lord Chancellor, to nominate a particular individual considered by him to be suitable for a particular inquiry.

    On this basis, Mr. Speaker, I believe that we can have a road programme that meets the country’s needs and commands a very wide measure of approval.

    Where there are conflicts of interest, they can be resolved openly and fairly. “Policy ​ for Roads: England 1978” is the first of a new series of annual policy statements which will enable the House, if it chooses, to discuss the principles underlying the decisions of Ministers. I shall also welcome wider public discussion of these important issues.

  • Kenneth Warren – 1978 Speech on Ceefax and Oracle

    Below is the text of the speech made by Kenneth Warren, the then Conservative MP for Hastings, in the House of Commons on 4 April 1978.

    Tonight I should like to raise the subject of Government support for the Viewdata and Teletext projects. These are means of transmitting information by both television and telephone to the public, industry and the community. They are brilliant British inventions. I think that they rank with the inventions of the jet ​ engine and radar in this country and that they are superb examples of British technical genius in action. Of particular importance is that they are two years in advance of any foreign rival. They are now on test and are not only proving that they work but that with good will they will meet the great expectations of the engineers who have developed them.

    I have nothing but praise for the way in which a dozen British companies, including the Post Office, have worked together in harmony but quietly in developing these new communications systems. More is the pity that in the quietness of the House we shall be told a story of British achievement, bearing in mind that the House is so often filled to hear the story of a British industrial disaster. Perhaps it is a reflection on all of us that we have become too used to failure and are not used to success when we see it.

    Our need tonight is to talk of the way in which we can bring this project, which is on the threshold of success, to the reality which I am sure both sides of the House want to see.

    I particularly praise the inventor of the system, Mr. Sam Fedida, who was once in the Post Office, and also the entrepreneurial style of Sir William Barlow and Dr. Alex Reid, who in the Post Office have shown a vigour, enthusiasm and entreprenuerial style which has been too long invisible in the Post Office. Praise also goes to those who worked on CEEFAX and ORACLE in the IBA and the BBC, who in parallel are leading the world—and my superlatives are carefully gauged—in this “first” in information technology. As a technologist myself, from what I have seen to date I believe that we have here a brilliant system, which will be a winner.

    The problem to which I wish to address myself tonight is the role that should now be played by the Government to ensure that the systems developed to date achieve the success that they deserve. For too long this country has failed to harvest the fruits of its own technology. For too long we have suffered industrial policies which have subsidised failure rather than stimulated success.

    The beauties of Viewdata and Teletext are that they are simple and will help ​ all the people of this country, and I hope, the world to gain a new freedom of access to information, not only across their own nations but across the frontiers of the world. They can be signal contributions to understanding between peoples.

    The clever parts of Viewdata and Teletext are translations of the concepts that started off as thoughts, drawings and views in the minds of people which now have been translated into systems that are proving that they are real and reliable. They are—I hope that the Government will recognise this—the first recognition in this country that a world information revolution is upon us. They are both systems which are built by venture capital from private industry and from the Post Office. Ranges of work have been done by companies such as Mullard, GEC, ITT, Rank, Decca—a dozen companies which make up the forefront of British communications technology.

    I have no doubt that the Minister will dispute my view, but I must say that I am delighted that the heavy hand of Whitehall has not been on the motive power of the project. On the other hand, I will be the first to say that if any Government are needed in an industrial project their presence in specific areas where help is required needs to be timely and of sufficient strength to complete the job properly.

    I should like to propose certain ways in which the Government could and should now help. The first is to endorse the systems as viable ways in which information can be conveyed between people. This may sound an unusual proposal to put before a House or to a Government—that all they have to do is to shout “Hurrah”—but this is such a wonderful invention that an endorsement by a British Government would be tremendous, timely and completely fair and reasonable.

    Secondly, I believe that the Government should give leadership in establishing that the viable and reasonable international standards for all these systems can be achieved.

    Thirdly, I ask that the Government should recognise that these systems are means of improving the process of government at all levels of government in the United Kingdom, whether it be at ​ national, county or district level, or within the national corporations of the State.

    To enlarge briefly on each of these proposals, taking endorsement first, a public expression by the Government of good will towards the project would not only be a spur to those who have quietly given so much of their time and their effort but also would be a tremendous help, I understand, to export sales projects. Before I came to the House, I knew what it was like to try to sell electronic goods in a very competitive market in the United States and the difference it makes or does not make to have the support of a British Government. I did not have it and it was like going up the north wall of the Eiger. Why not give these people the chance of a smoother ride round the softer side?

    I understand that the Post Office export division is all ready to go. I think that it should be assisted.

    We must also, I hope, look to the Government to ensure that any necessary legislation—this needs to be examined—is on line on time.

    On the question of leadership, to put it bluntly the French came in two years after we had started, and now, as is too often the case with our French allies, they are unwisely, from a technical viewpoint—I do not think it is my place in the House tonight to give way any technical secrets to which I might have become privy—trying to force through international specifications in favour of their equipment without the authority of technical backing which they should have.

    The Government could give leadership and I believe should give leadership in the relevant international authorities such as the Conference of European Posts and Telecommunications to make our systems and their systems acceptable rather than to find a situation where the French are trying to make our system unacceptable and theirs acceptable. We must speak through the Government with one authority for telecommunications and broadcasting at the debating tables where these international standards are agreed.

    Thirdly, I think that the Government should explore immediately, in collaboration perhaps with the central computer authority of the Civil Service Department which I recognise is another Department ​ from that of the Minister who is kindly replying to the debate tonight, the use of this breakthrough in information processes to improve the process of government.

    I have absolutely no doubt that the Viewdata and Teletext could bring to the Department of the Environment, the Home Office, the Department of Trade, the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Health and Social Security and the Minister’s own Department, new ways in which information could be gathered and exchanged.

    I hope that it would help the market surveys of the Department’s own requirement boards, which, I was told in a parliamentary reply, are unable to carry out their own surveys through a lack of expertise. I hope it would help the Foreign Office in the United Nations debate on direct satellite broadcasting, because these systems provide a means of supporting the British contention that we can supply world-wide freedom of access to information across frontiers.

    However, the Luddites are at work, and it is not unusual with new technologies to find people speaking sourly of something that looks like progress. I understand that the National Union of Journalists is already in dispute over one of the systems about who should get the jobs involved. But this is a new project which offers more than enough jobs for everyone, and everyone should welcome the chance of many more jobs. I hope that all the unions will look upon this development as an opportunity for new employment.

    I understand that the Advertising Standards Association feels that someone should censor what is available. The deputy director of that authority believes that Viewdata could become “a haven for all sorts of crooks and misleading advertisers who could not find a home in the existing media”.

    That Luddite attitude must be dismissed rapidly, so that it does not present an obstacle to what should be a great British venture. To achieve that I should be happy to give Mrs. Whitehouse the chance of acting as a temporary censor.

    In this century we have seen two great revolutions in communications. The first was that of the Wright brothers, who opened the door to Concorde, by which ​ the world can be spanned in a day. The second has been the revolution in communications by which we have literally moved from smoke signals to Viewdata and Teletext. We have changed communications so that instead of people having to travel to find facts they simply use television and the telephone. It would not be going too far to say that here for the first time in 20 or 25 years since the world first saw the computer we can look to a new world of communications which is dawning before us.

    The systems are a world of enterprise for industry. New jobs will replace old and more jobs will be waiting. We are only one year away from the systems being available in the High Streets of Britain, yet their names have never before been mentioned in Parliament. We now need a combined effort by industry and Government to reach out for the international success that these systems truly deserve, and I look forward to the Government tonight meeting me in that request.

  • Victoria Atkins – 2019 Statement on the Gender Pay Gap

    Below is the text of the statement made by Victoria Atkins, the Minister for Women, in the House of Commons on 4 April 2019.

    I am delighted that this urgent question has been called today because we are only a few hours away from the deadline landing for private sector employers to publish their gender pay gap results.

    Last year, the Government introduced groundbreaking regulations that required large employers to publish, for the first time, the difference between what they pay their male and female staff in average salaries and bonuses. For the first time in this country’s history, the boards of large employers have had to have conversations about how they treat their female staff. By making this information publicly available, we have empowered employees to see the scale of the pay gap where they work, and hold their bosses to account. The vast majority of companies are eager to tackle the gender pay gap themselves. That is why the Government have provided guidance to help employers to develop action plans to close their pay gap.

    Reporting is just the start. It is crucial that all employers use this data to identify the barriers that women face and take action to break down those barriers. We are supporting business in doing that by publishing evidence-based guidance on how employers can diagnose the cause of their gap, and the practical actions that they can take to close it. We recognise, though, that overturning structural inequalities in women’s pay cannot be done overnight. Most companies will not see a dramatic reduction this year, but what matters is that they are taking the right action to drive change in the right direction, and progress is being made.

    Beyond reporting, this Government are actively working to support women in the workplace and to close the gender pay gap. We are supporting both women and men who have caring responsibilities, through increased childcare entitlements, promoting flexible working and shared parental leave. We are working with business to support and increase women’s progression to senior positions. We are leading by example, and aiming to make the civil service the country’s most equal and inclusive employer by 2020. We are helping women to access every profession, by working to increase the number of women taking qualifications in science, technology, engineering and maths.

    Change will not be easy, but we have only to compare where we are now with even 10 years ago to see that a future of fair and equal pay is now within reach. That should be a source of pride for us all.

  • Theresa May – 2019 Statement at Serious Violence Summit

    Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May, the Prime Minister, at 10, Downing Street, London on 1 April 2019.

    Good morning everyone.

    Thank you very much for coming here to Number 10 today to discuss tackling the issue that is a top priority for government and for the organisations who are represented here around this table. But perhaps more important, it’s an issue that families, and young people and communities across the country, are concerned about and want to see us tackling.

    And in the recent months we’ve seen an appalling number of young lives that have been cut short or devastated by serious violent crime, including a number of horrifying incidents which took place just over this weekend. And as we look at what’s happened of course what we also see is that in many cases the perpetrators of these crimes are as young as our victims. And this is something that has to be of deep concern to us all.

    It is a challenge that collectively affects us as a society, and it is a challenge that as a society we need to rise up to and to act to deal with.

    And not deal with as individuals in isolation – as single organisations or single politicians or individuals in the community – but actually dealing with it in a great, co-ordinated, wide-reaching and long-term effort. With all of us coming together to address this issue.

    Of course we would always make sure that the resources and tools are there to be able to apprehend and deal with those who are carrying and using knives, and the police have what they need to do – but we cannot simply arrest ourselves out of this problem.

    This is a wider problem. It’s more deep seated and we need to have a more coordinated effort in response to it.

    If you think about it, if it was a devastating disease that was affecting young people yes, we would be treating the symptoms but we would also be asking ourselves the question of what is the underlying cause.

    And that is that in relation to this issue we need to take the same approach to the cancer of serious youth violence.

    It is more than just law enforcement.

    And that is what this week’s summit is about. It’s about bringing together people from different aspects of society, with different responsibilities ,with different experience to ensure that we can build on the work that’s being done as in the Serious Violence Summit, and the Youth Endowment Fund, but also to make sure we come together in this multiagency, whole-community approach to serious youth violence.

    And that’s where of course this approach, often referred to as the “public health approach”, is one of the things we want to be discussing this week.

    That’s where everybody is working together across the system in multiple agencies – sharing information – but crucially making sure that every contact counts.

    And to help make that happen, today we’ve launched a consultation on a public duty that would underpin such an approach.

    I can also announce that we are setting up a new Ministerial Taskforce that will co-ordinate the government’s role and make sure all departments are playing their part. It needs, again, to be a collective approach across government as it is between government and other organisations.

    And there will be a new Serious Violence Team which will be set up in the Cabinet Office as well which will have representatives from across government to ensure join-up, and will also be well-placed to assist local areas as they build operational equivalents in their own Violence Reduction Units.

    In a moment I’ll ask the Home Secretary to talk a little more about the size and scope of the challenge we face and the work we have already undertaken to tackle it.

    But first we will hear from some of the experts who have joined us today.

    I’m grateful to everybody around the table because everybody has come with expertise and understanding and experience of this issue. We have sitting around the table people who have delivered transformational change and real reductions in violence across the UK and the US.

    So let me introduce Professor Mark Bellis, from Public Health Wales, and Dr Jens Ludwig, from the Chicago and New York Data Labs. I know you’ve travelled to be here today so thank you – particularly to Dr Ludwig for travelling as far as you have to be with us here today. We want to be able to learn from you and I know that in the chat that I’ve had with Mark in the past about the different roles and the importance of the work that you’ve done, and we very much look forward to learning from both of you.

    Nothing that is said today of course will bring back the young people whose lives have been so cruelly taken by serious violence.

    But what we can do today is to send a very clear message that “this must stop” and a very clear message that collectively we will do everything we can to make sure that it stops.

    And we can begin to shape this new approach that will meet the scourge of youth violence head on, so that more families are spared the unimaginable suffering that sadly too many families have endured in recent months.

    So with that I’ll pass over to Jens.

  • Jeremy Corbyn – 2019 Statement After Meeting Theresa May

    Below is the text of the statement made by Jeremy Corbyn, the Leader of the Opposition, on 3 April 2019.

    There hasn’t been as much change as I expected but we will have further discussions tomorrow to explore technical issues.

    I put forward the view from the Labour Party that we want to achieve a customs union with the EU, access to the Single Market and dynamic regulatory alignment, that is a guarantee of European regulations as a minimum on the environment, consumer and workers’ rights. I also raised the option of a public vote to prevent crashing out or leaving on a bad deal.

  • Lord Owen – 2019 Speech on Brexit

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Owen, the Independent Social Democrat Lord, in the House of Lords, on 4 April 2019.

    My Lords, I speak at a very difficult time for our whole country. However we see this debate in this Chamber, we have to consider how it will be seen outside of it. For what it is worth, if I had still been a Member of another place, I would have voted in principle against this Bill. It raises serious constitutional implications for another place, and I hope that very soon it will look at its rules of order and conventions and change them, so that this type of legislation can never again be presented either to this House or to the country.

    It is true, in strict terms, that this Bill is not related to the real question before us: the withdrawal agreement and a treaty between 27 other EU countries and the United Kingdom. However, we cannot have this debate without recognising that it has wide implications for that consideration. It seems to me, on the balance of argument which has been presented, that if I were going to vote—but I am not—I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. This is a reasonable way of proceeding, although I know it may seem to some to be a blocking measure.

    I understand the anger and frustration, and the belief that the procedures of the House of Commons have been changed in a way that was almost impossible to foresee for those of us who spent years there—I was there for 26 years. Nevertheless, it has done it; nevertheless, the Speaker has ruled; and, nevertheless, even by one vote, the Bill has been passed. We in this House have to be very careful about stopping this Bill. We may take a long time on it, and we may raise very serious constitutional questions about the way the House of Commons has behaved and urge it to change its procedures for the future, but if the word were to go out that the House of Lords had blocked the Bill, it would raise a very serious question. I have never made any secret of my view that this House needs very substantial reform, and if noble Lords want to bring on the day that this House is changed in a very substantial way, it will happen. Noble Lords need to be extremely careful.

    One thing I urge the House to remember is that, at long last, the Prime Minister of this country and the leader of the Opposition are meeting in what appears to be a climate of compromise with a readiness to try to put the country’s interest first. It may or may not succeed, but it is profoundly to be hoped that it does.

    How will this whole thing look, against that atmosphere and that priority, to the 27 countries that will have to consider this Bill, if it were to become an Act? The Prime Minister has already indicated what she wishes to do, but they are in control of the procedure. Many times in this whole debate about Europe, I warned this House about Article 50, which we should never have used. It is deliberately designed to stop the sort of normal compromise and agreement which has proceeded in both Houses over many years. We are not in a so-called negotiation, and people are now seeing it. In front of us, we have a proposal from 27 countries. It may be that the Prime Minister is ready to go along with it, and perhaps the House will eventually, but it is not a negotiated procedure in the normal sense of the word, and those countries have the right to make the decision about whether to allow a postponement.

    Furthermore, something we should consider is that it has to be unanimous, so just one country can refuse. We know they are thinking very carefully about whether they will allow this. Even if we get around it procedurally, they are worried about its implications for the whole tone and debate in their countries when electing the new European Parliament. The way we debate here and in the other place will go a long way to deciding whether they will wish to accept a postponement, which I profoundly hope they do. Do not think that we are in a little bubble here which has no implications for anything else.

    This country has a long record of accepting international treaties. This country has a long record of sending its Ministers, particularly its Foreign Secretary, out to negotiate under the royal prerogative. It was a great mistake when we changed the royal prerogative and the right of a Minister to go into an international treaty to trade across the table and to come back to Parliament and ask for a yes or no. That is how we have dealt with international treaties. The obligation has been on Ministers—the Foreign Secretary and everyone else—to talk with their opposite numbers throughout a treaty-making process so that there was built-in consideration of the bipartisanship of foreign policy. Do we deny that virtue that we have had over centuries in this House and in another place, whereby international politics was, if possible, conducted under bipartisanship? Are we throwing all that out too?

    Time after time during this process we have failed to understand that our own constitution is a check. Parliament—we here and those in the House of Commons—voted for a referendum, yet what does the country see? It sees an elite in both Houses, and in London, blocking the decision democratically made by the electorate in the referendum. Shame on you if you do anything to let that happen.

  • Mark Field – 2019 Statement on Brunei

    Below is the text of the speech made by Mark Field, the Minister for Asia and the Pacific, in the House of Commons on 4 April 2019.

    With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement about Brunei and sharia law.

    I appreciate that this issue has been of widespread concern in the House and was the subject of two requests for an urgent question earlier in the week by the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine). I apologise, too, that, given how late we sat last night, there are slightly fewer Members in the House today than there might have been, as many of them have an understandable desire to head off. I thought that it was worth making a full statement on this issue. There was no criticism of you, Mr Speaker, that you did not allow the urgent questions, not least because we were able to touch on this matter in the slightly unsatisfactory way that one does during Foreign and Commonwealth questions.

    Brunei introduced sharia criminal law in 2014, to operate alongside the common law system in that country. Implementation of the final phases of the associated sharia penal code was delayed from 2014 until yesterday. These final phases now introduce the possibility of hudud corporal and capital punishments, which may include amputation for theft, and execution by stoning for witnessed adultery and anal sex.

    The sharia penal code requires four witnesses or a confession from the offender for a conviction to be secured. It is a fairly tall ask, but that does not mean it is impossible to achieve. Under the common law in Brunei, homosexuality is already a criminal offence. Whippings are also quite frequently used as a punishment for a variety of offences, and the death penalty remains on the statute book—although it has not been enforced since 1992.

    I want to be absolutely clear about the UK’s position on this: this Government consider it appalling that, in the 21st century, people anywhere are still facing potential persecution and discrimination because of who they are and whom they love. We strongly support and defend the rights of the LGBT+ community here in the UK and all around the world.

    We absolutely oppose the death penalty in all circumstances and in all forms, and we do not believe that amputation or stoning are legitimate or acceptable punishments. Indeed, we consider them to be illegal under international human rights laws relating to torture or cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment.

    We also note that, since the introduction of sharia criminal law in Brunei in 2014, the vast majority of crimes have continued to be brought to justice under the existing common law system, which runs in parallel in that country. However, if implemented, we believe that these extreme hudud punishments would contravene Brunei’s international commitments to respect human rights and individual freedoms. That is why we have expressed deep concerns to the Government of Brunei. I personally raised the matter with His Majesty the Sultan, the Minister of Religious Affairs and the Foreign Minister, Dato Erywan, when I visited the country in August 2018.

    Last week, I wrote to Dato Erywan to re-emphasise our concern about the use of hudud punishments, which contravene the international standards and values that the UK and Brunei both uphold. Earlier this week, our outstanding high commissioner Richard Lindsay also raised our concerns with senior Bruneian Ministers, including the Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Religious Affairs and Finance. He received assurances that common law would continue to be the primary means of administering justice and that the burden of proof under the sharia penal code has been set to be almost unattainably high, and, obviously, we welcome that.

    I understand that the Foreign Secretary will speak with the Bruneian Foreign Minister later today and urge the Government of Brunei to take further steps to ensure that those extreme punishments cannot be used, and to respect the rights and freedoms of all their citizens.

    Colleagues may be concerned about the potential impact of sharia criminal law in Brunei on British nationals, for whom we have a specific consular responsibility. I assure the House that our travel advice has been updated to ensure that all British citizens are aware of the introduction of the new laws under the sharia penal code. Supporting British nationals remains our No. 1 priority, and we will continue to provide consular support for all British folk in Brunei should it be required. As many Members will be aware, we have a specific responsibility towards British military personnel and their families who are stationed in Brunei, including as part of our long-standing garrison agreement that dates from the coming into existence of Brunei as an independent state in 1962. I assure the House that necessary protections are in place with the Government of Brunei.

    For historical and ongoing reasons we have a close friendship with Brunei, and from my experience both in Brunei and with Bruneians in this country, I know that they regard themselves—with good cause—as a generous, friendly and tolerant people, and they are worried to see the tarnishing of that reputation, given recent press in the UK and across the world. We have an important bilateral security relationship with Brunei, of which the garrison agreement is one part, but that has never prevented us from raising difficult issues. Indeed, I believe that the strength and richness of that relationship permits us to share our views and express those concerns—sometimes openly, sometimes more in private, but always frankly—as we seek to work together to address these issues.

    I am sure I speak for the entire House when I say that this Government, our high commissioner and I will continue to urge the Government of Brunei to take all necessary steps to reassure their own people, the United Kingdom and the wider international community that they are fully committed to allowing all citizens and residents of Brunei to live with dignity, and free from violence, discrimination or persecution. As an integral part of our foreign policy work around the world, we will continue to oppose the use of the death penalty in all circumstances and promote the rights of LGBT+ people. Nobody should face punishment for who they are or whom they love. I commend this statement to the House.

  • Robert Goodwill – 2019 Statement on the Agriculture and Fisheries Council

    Below is the text of the statement give by Robert Goodwill, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in the House of Commons on 2 April 2019.

    I represented the UK at the Agriculture and Fisheries Council in Brussels on 18 March.

    The main item on the agriculture-focused agenda was the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) post-2020, covering three legislative files:

    the regulation on CAP strategic plans,

    the horizontal regulation, which is a regulation on the financing, management and monitoring of the CAP,

    the regulation on common market organisation (CMO) of agricultural products.

    Member states highlighted that further discussions were needed in areas such as the delivery model, wine labelling and greening. I intervened to introduce myself and expressed the UK’s interest to share thinking on our domestic arrangements as they develop. During the discussion Ministers also debated the outcome of the congress titled “CAP Strategic Plans – Exploring Eco-Climate Schemes” which took place in Leeuwarden, Netherlands on 6-8 February 2019, as well as the future of coupled income support in the CAP.

    Council also held an exchange of views on the bioeconomy. Commissioner Hogan gave an overview of the implementation of the EU’s new strategy while member states exchanged examples of areas where the bioeconomy is being developed in their countries. ​I intervened on the item, welcoming the EU bioeconomy strategy and pointing to the UK’s national bioeconomy strategy which was published in December 2018.

    A number of other items were discussed under ‘any other business’:

    Slovenia informed Council about small-scale coastal fisheries and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund.

    The Netherlands informed Council about a decision by the Technical Board of Appeals of the European Patent Office regarding the possibility to patent the results of classical plant breeding.

    The Commission provided an update about the outcomes of the workshops organised by the Commission Task Force for Water and Agriculture on 27 November 2018 in Sore, Denmark and on 5-6 February 2019 in Bucharest, Romania.

    Poland provided an update on the potential impact on the meat market considering new trade challenges. As the discussion reflected on the possible impact of the UK leaving the EU, I intervened to set out the reasoning behind our recently published temporary tariff regime for no-deal.