UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Speeches

  • Michael Gove – 2019 Speech to the National Farmers Union

    Below is the text of the speech made by Michael Gove, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, on 19 February 2019.

    Friends, it’s a pleasure to be here and a particular pleasure to follow Minette’s brilliant speech. It’s particularly reassuring, Minette, to know that at the end of what’s been a highly successful year of your presidency that the NFU meets in good order under your leadership. And, of course, we meet at a time when the world is facing change.

    Our world is at inflection point. Political, technological, social and environmental forces are reshaping the globe more powerfully than ever before, and at an accelerating pace. If we are together to meet, and master, those forces it will require of us – all – adaptability, imagination and clarity of vision.

    A Union That Wins

    And when it comes to adaptability, imagination and clarity of vision this union is fortunate. Your President, Minette, is one of the most impressive leaders in British public life today. In her first year in office, and it has been a busy first year in office, she has already achieved a huge amount – and I know that she will succeed in achieving even more for you in the months and years ahead.

    In the last year, thanks to Minette’s leadership, and the combined efforts of her superb team – Terry Jones, Nick von Westenholz, Guy Smith, Stuart Roberts, John Davis from NFU Cymru among others – the NFU’s voice has been heard at the heart of Government and the changes that you have asked for have, in many cases, been secured.

    Alone among sectors, farming has quite rightly secured special treatment in future migration policy with the establishment of a new pilot seasonal workers scheme which has the potential to expand as the market requires in the future.

    Again, thanks to NFU advocacy, changes were made this summer to rules on abstraction and grazing to help farmers through a particularly challenging time.

    The NFU’s careful deployment of arguments not only shaped our initial Agriculture Bill – the first for a generation – but amendments that your union have been instrumental in designing look set to strengthen it yet further.

    Already, the Bill creates new powers to improve the functioning of the supply chain, to support farmers through extreme market disturbance, to safeguard producer organisations and provide new sources of income for farming business. And we are in new discussion about how to go further to support the sustainability of food production and to protect our high standards that Minette rightly underlined were so important in a competitive trading environment

    We have been clear – across Government, from the Prime Minister down – that we will not lower our standards in pursuit of trade deals, and that we will use all the tools at our disposal to make sure the standards are protected and you are not left at a competitive disadvantage.

    That is why today I welcome Minette’s call to establish a Commission bringing together expertise from across the country and across sectors to ensure that we can maintain the world-class standards which give British food producers their well-deserved global reputation.

    It’s not just on maintaining standards that your voice has been heard. You have won guarantees on future funding too.

    NFU advocacy has helped guarantee consistent levels of cash support for farming until 2022 – a more durable guarantee than any other EU nation currently enjoys.

    And as we, like other nations, move to new methods of support, the NFU’s arguments for a suitable transition period, and appropriate support for productivity investment during that period, have been heard, adopted and will be implemented.

    Minette’s own championing of a new Livestock Information Programme to strengthen animal health protections and give food producers a world-leading platform to compete on provenance and quality has also changed policy decisively and it has resulted in additional Government investment.

    Alongside those changes, the NFU has also been central to establishing a new Food and Drink Sector Council, laying the groundwork for a new Food and Drink Sector Deal and initiating a new National Food Strategy – again the first for a generation.

    We have also listened to the concerns expressed by people in this hall, and articulated so powerfully this morning by Minette, about the need to maintain focus and energy in the fight against Bovine TB. The independent Godfray report confirmed that targeted culling will continue to have an important part to play in tackling this dreadful disease – alongside work to further improve biosecurity – and Minette’s support for the deployment of every tool at our collective disposal to tackle this scourge has been critical.

    There’s another scourge farmers have had to endure where more needs to be done – and that is the environmentally damaging and economically costly practice of fly-tipping. The concerns Minette has articulated on your behalf led to the launch of a waste crime review and new policies to tackle this criminality in our waste and resources strategy. The Environment Agency, the police and magistrates all now know that they need to do more and the powers are there. Fly tippers now face the prospect of unlimited fines for their crimes. And let’s be clear- they should pay the price for their behaviour – not innocent farmers.

    And when it comes to preparing for every Brexit eventuality, Minette’s arguments for special protection for agriculture and food production in every scenario, with particularly robust protections in the event of no deal, have been heard loud and clear within Government.

    So on labour, fairness in the supply chain, support for POs, guarantees on future income, investment in productivity, investment in animal health, support for livestock farmers, support for all farmers facing climate stress, a greater emphasis than ever before in Government policy on food, action to tackle bovine TB, tougher penalties for waste criminals, sensible tariffs, defence of standards.

    Minette has been winning battles for everyone in this hall. She is your champion and there could be none better.

    Whatever the weaknesses in policy or delivery Government is responsible for, and I will turn to some of them in a moment, Minette and the NFU have been dedicated, indefatigable and successful, again and again, in getting things right for Britain’s farmers.

    And one of the critical reasons for that is that Minette, and your leadership team, understand that the future for farming, and food production, requires us all to lean in, to be change-makers rather than reactive or passive in the face of the forces re-shaping our world.

    A World Of Change

    And we should not underestimate – and I know we don’t – the scale of change we all face. It’s not just Brexit, although I shall say much more about our departure from the EU in a moment.

    There are huge demographic changes coming. Our population is increasing, across the globe cities are growing and rural areas are depopulating, the numbers leading increasingly prosperous and middle class lives are mushrooming and all these changes are driving increased demand for food and especially high quality protein, cereals, fruit and vegetables.

    At the same time, global warming and other environmental changes are rendering once fertile parts of the globe increasingly inhospitable for agriculture. The nations of the global north – Canada, the US, Europe and, pre-eminently, the United Kingdom will, inevitably, become more and more important in meeting the needs of a hotter and hungrier world.

    There are huge opportunities for British agriculture to meet this growing demand and provide a growing share of the world’s food supply.

    But in doing so we must lean in to another profound set of changes. Technology is remaking our world and every aspect of our economy. There are – of course – some skills which no technological innovation can ever supersede. The hard-won knowledge of the Lake District shepherd hefting sheep as generations before him or her have done, the careful husbandry of other livestock, the delicate judgements growers make reflecting an understanding of their specific landscapes, they’re are all part of what makes farming such a unique profession.

    But while farming depends on special skills, it is also being transformed by the technologies changing all our lives. AI and machine learning, big data and genomics, drones and robotics, decarbonisation of energy generation and advances in battery technology, biotech and life science breakthroughs, electronic monitoring and smart sensors and so much more are re-making the organisation and economics of food production.

    Which is why we are investing more in R&D, making support available for investment in the technology which will make individual farm businesses more productive and encouraging collaboration and co-operation in the adoption of new technologies.

    Many of these breakthroughs not only increase productivity, they also help us safeguard and improve the natural environment on which not just our future prosperity, but our survival, depends.

    Precision application of pesticides and fungicides, drones rather than ground vehicles, gene-edited crops which require no additional chemical protection, data analytics which can refine and target necessary interventions, sensors which can alert us to animal disease and maximise dairy yields, all of these and more can both make food production more efficient and lighten our environmental foot print.

    Which is all the more necessary given the scale of environmental pressure we are all facing. Last summer, as Minette reminded us, powerfully underlined the impact of climate change on food production. And as the world warms so the impacts, and volatility of those impacts, will only grow.

    As the planet heats up, as oceans acidify, as our rivers and seas become clogged and polluted, as our pollinators become threatened, as the organic content of soil becomes depleted and biodiversity diminishes, the ability of our earth to remain fertile and fecund, to sustain plant, animal and human live, comes under greater and greater stress.

    That is why concern for our environment, and careful steps to steward our natural capital, are not diversions from the business of food production, but as everyone in this hall knows they are – central to the future of our food economy. And no-one has been clearer in the need for food production and environmental enhancement to be twin goals of land use than Minette.

    Her commitment in pledging that we should aim for a net zero target for carbon emissions from farming is precisely the sort of leadership on the environment the world needs to see. And I am delighted today to applaud her for her vision.

    Our changing environment is not the only challenge to which we must rise in preparing our food economy for the future. We need to ensure that we adapt to the growing awareness, and concern, about public health.

    With obesity and related conditions – such as diabetes and heart disease – on the rise we need to think more about how we develop a truly healthy food economy. And here I believe that British farming has a leadership role to play second to none.

    Every critical component of a healthy diet is produced by British farmers – better than anyone in the world. Cereals and pulses, salads and other vegetables, soft fruit and juices, milk, yoghurt and cheese, poultry and red meat – all the essential elements of a balanced and nutritious diet are produced in abundance and to the highest standards by the people in this hall.

    I welcome the increasing public attention paid to the circumstances in which food is produced and the need to make healthy choices in our daily diet. This scrutiny only strengthens the hand of British farmers. A demand for higher standards, for more sustainable production, for high standards in animal welfare and more nutritious choices can only mean a demand for more high quality British produce rather than the alternative.

    But while I welcome, as we all should, a more demanding approach from consumers, because British farmers are best placed to meet that demand, we should not shirk, and I will not shy from, defending every sector of British farming. British livestock and British dairy farmers produce the meat, milk and cheese which provide us with the protein, calcium, vitamins and other minerals which contribute to greater choice for all in meeting our need for high quality food.

    Dairy farmers deserve protection from activists who would undermine their work, they – our dairy farmers, alongside sheep and beef farmers play a critical role in keeping pastures and other vital landscapes resilient and strengthening rural economies and rural society. That’s why I am an enthusiastic supporter of initiatives such as Febru-dairy which remind us how much we owe our dairy farmers and why, at the end of a hard day at Defra, I am always happy to raise a pint – of full cream milk – to thank them for what they do.

    And I am particularly conscious that it is dairy – and even more so livestock – farmers – who face the biggest challenges if we fail, as a government, to secure a good Brexit deal.

    Securing The Best Brexit

    A majority of farmers voted for Brexit – as did I – and I can understand all too well why farmers did.

    The inflexible operation of the Common Agricultural Policy – the three crop rule, the requirement to apply for support by fixed dates after wrestling with the most convoluted bureaucracy, the requirement for mapping and re-mapping which treats honest farmers with grotesque insensitivity, the rigidity with which rules on field margins and hedge cutting have been applied – all these and so much more need to be reformed fundamentally.

    Life outside the EU and the CAP will allow us to apply necessary rules with greater proportionality and flexibility. The work of Dame Glenys Stacey in her outstanding report on farm inspection and regulation shows us how to reduce the regulatory and inspection burden and showcase higher standards.

    That is not the only gain which life outside the EU can secure for British farming. We can re-make the nature of farm support, directing money to the most deserving.

    We can target support for small farmers, upland farmers and innovative active farmers for the goods they generate which are not rewarded in the market.

    We can reward better those who are doing all the right things environmentally. And we can support others to make changes they hanker after but whose upfront costs have so far been a deterrent.

    And we can forge the right sort of new trade deals. We can secure better access to international markets where demand for lamb is rising even as it falls in Europe.

    We can ensure those cuts which UK consumers don’t favour find a bigger share of the market in the areas like the Far East and beyond, allowing better carcass balance and thus equipping domestic producers to meet more of the home demand in areas such as pork and bacon where domestic producers can replace Danish and Dutch production.

    All these gains – and more – are open to us as we take back control of food and farming policy and instead of submitting to an out of date and out of touch one size fits all EU policy we can tailor future policy to our needs.

    But all these potential gains are potentially compromised, indeed put at severe risk, if we don’t secure a deal with the EU.

    The deal the Prime Minister has secured already holds out the prospect of tariff and quota-free access to the European market, with the minimum of friction and the flexibility to operate wholly outside the CAP.

    Parliament has asked the Government to improve that deal – specifically by seeking changes to the Northern Ireland backstop and alternative arrangements to the customs approach envisaged in the backstop. The PM and others are negotiating hard in Brussels this week to secure those changes and I am optimistic we will see progress. And I am also optimistic Parliament will back an improved deal.

    Because if we leave without a deal then there will be significant costs to our economy – and in particular to farming and food production.

    As things stand, just six weeks before we are due to leave, the EU still have not listed the UK as a full third country in the event of no deal being concluded. That means as I speak that there is no absolute guarantee that we would be able to continue to export food to the EU. I am confident we will secure that listing, but in the event of no deal the EU have also said they will impose strict conditions on our export trade.

    If we leave without a deal the EU has been clear that they will levy the full external tariff on all food. That means an increase of at least 40% on sheep meat and beef, rising to well above 100% for some cuts. The impact on upland farmers and the carousel trade in beef would be significant and damaging.

    The vast majority of our sheep meat exports – 90%- go to the EU, France in particular. Tariffs at that level would increase prices dramatically. We know that other nations are hungry for that trade. Other EU nations – from Spain to Romania – would seek to supply French markets. And nations like New Zealand and Australia would still have tariff-free trade for a specified quota of sheep meat to the EU while we would have no such access in the event of no deal.

    Of course, our exports are in demand because of the high quality of our fresh produce – second to none in the world. But if European buyers do switch contracts because tariffs make our exports significantly more expensive it will be difficult to re-establish our market access even if those tariffs come down in the future.

    Tariffs are not the only problem we would face. All products of animal origin entering the EU would face SPS checks. The EU’s current position is that 100% of imports would need to be checked. And, in order to be checked every import would need to go through a border inspection post.

    A huge proportion of our food exports to the EU currently go through Calais. As I speak there are no Border Inspection Posts at Calais. None. The French authorities promise to invest in BIP capacity but with just six weeks to go we face considerable uncertainty over future arrangements.

    The requirement for checks will inevitably slow the processing of exports, and for every lorry that is delayed at Calais there is a knock-on effect for other haulage and the rapid turn-around of roll-on roll-off ferries.

    We can expect, at least in the short term, that those delays in Calais will impede the loading of ferries, constricting supply routes back into Britain and furring up the arteries of commerce on which we all rely. That will only serve to increase transport costs for British exporters.

    In addition, UK exporters will also need to comply with new customs paperwork, we’ll need to work with HMRC for new registrations and we’ll need to supply Export Health Certificates where none have been required before.

    New labelling will be required for UK products of animal origin exported to the EU and some sectors, such as organic food producers, may not have their products recognised as distinct until some time after we leave.

    The combination of tariffs, in some cases doubling or more the price of exports, new checks which will be time-consuming and costly, increased transport frictions and cost, new labelling, customs and SPS requirements will all create significant difficulties for food exporters – small businesses and in particular small livestock farmers would be the worst hit.

    The Government is, of course, doing everything it can not just to secure a deal but also to mitigate the impact of leaving without deal. The NFU and others have made strong arguments about the need to ensure stronger tariff protection for British farming, in particular stronger protection for British farming than any other sector of the economy.

    In particular, you have argued that we need tariffs on sheepmeat, beef, poultry, dairy, both milk and cheese; and pig meat in order to safeguard our valuable domestic production. Your concerns have been absolutely heard and announcement on new UK tariffs in a no deal scenario – with specific and robust protections for farming – will be made shortly.

    And, of course, we also have the power to intervene to provide direct cash support to the most vulnerable sectors and I will not hesitate to provide the support required.

    But while I can and will energetically and determinedly try to deal with the consequences of no deal let no one be in any doubt how difficult and damaging it would be for British farming.

    Of course, Britain is a great and resourceful country and no sector of our economy is harder-working and more resourceful than our farmers and food producers. Over time we would get through.

    But I emphatically do not want to run the risks that leaving without a deal would involve.

    It is critically important that every decision-maker in London, every parliamentarian who will vote in coming weeks, understands what no deal would involve for British farmers and food producers. No one can be blithe or blasé about the consequences.

    Which is why I hope you will make your voices heard, as you have already, in asking our MPs not to undermine or put at risk the potential gains of Brexit by voting for us to leave without a deal.

    Of course, there are many other areas where your voice must also be heard by decision makers in the weeks and months ahead – and other areas where Government can and must do better.

    Reform Starts At Home

    We have to do better in the delivery of countryside and environmental stewardship payments. They are still in a mess, the consequence partly of historic IT procurement decisions and the split responsibility for scheme administration between Natural England and the RPA, which led to inefficiency and confusion.

    Yes, it is the case that the rigidities of EU rule-making made delivery more difficult. But we must take responsibility in Defra for our share of the errors and I do. Which is why we have put in place a new management structure and delivery mechanism for all farm payments.

    We have seen an improvement this year in BPS delivery and we will be making further changes to secure full payment for those whom have waited far too long.

    We have also committed to making payments to 95% of CS 2018 customers by March 31, and to meet this target I can announce today that we will introduce bridging payments of between £24 and 28 million in early April. So no eligible recipient will wait beyond early April to receive the payment that they deserve.

    We also expect to pay 95% of CS final payments by the end of July 2019. And in order to bring down processing times, and speed up completion claims by a month, we will move to making full CS payments straight away.

    On ES, there is still more we want and need to do, and our focus is firmly on making operational improvements. We expect to complete 95% of ES 2017 final payments by the end of July.

    Since the beginning of October, the remaining 18,000 ES agreements have been handled by the RPA; that number will fall to around 13,000 next year as some people are moved over into CS when their HLS agreements run out. The process should become more efficient now that it is being handled by a single body with a clear line of command. And Paul Caldwell and the team at RPA are already beginning to deliver the changes that we all need to see.

    And, of course, as I already mentioned, on BPS claims, 97.4% have been completed this year, with a total value of £1.68 billion. This is the best performance by the RPA since the scheme began in 2015, but any farmers still waiting at the end of March will be automatically offered a 75% bridging payment in early April, in order to secure their future.

    I hope these steps will underline how committed we are to improving the payment system. But I know there is more to do.

    As there is with our Agriculture Bill. You are right, Minette, to demand that the Bill be properly scrutinised, that thoughtful amendments be considered fairly and more changes made. The Agriculture Bill is not the last word in our plans to support British farming – far from it.

    There is much more that we can do to ensure that in procurement policy, trade policy and research investment we strengthen the position of domestic food producers. But we must also use this Bill to create the best possible framework for the future and listen to you as we do so.

    I began by outlining the scale of change we all face – in Government, in industry, in society and in farming and food production especially. My ambition is to manage and channel that change to strengthen British farming and the British countryside.

    I love the United Kingdom and its countryside in all its diversity and beauty. I was brought up in Aberdeen in a family that has been in the food business for generations. My dad ran a small business providing high quality food to consumers across the UK and my first job after school was working in a farming co-operative, so I want to do everything I can to support our food producers and farmers to lead and prosper in the future.

    I believe together we can, if we make change our ally, that if we meet the challenge of improving our environment we can demonstrate global leadership in strengthening our rural economy, if we recognise that economic change provides us with an opportunity to feed more of the world more healthily than ever, we can strengthen rural society and our rural economy. I believe that political change enables us to design policies that suit all of the nations in the UK and all of our rural communities more smartly and sensitively than ever before and I believe technological change allows us to lead the world, as we have in the past, in pioneering a new agricultural revolution that plays to our country’s immense strengths.

    I know we can meet, and master, these challenges of the future and I know we will do so if we stay true to the best traditions of British framing exemplified by all those of you in this hall today.

  • David Gauke – 2019 Speech on Reforming Prisons

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Gauke, the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, on 18 February 2019.

    Since the early 1990s, we’ve seen the prison population almost double, from about 45,000 in 1993 to just over 83,000 in 2008. Since then, it has been broadly stable and currently stands at a little below 83,000.

    This is the highest rate of imprisonment almost anywhere in western Europe.

    For every 100,000 people…

    … in the Netherlands 61 are behind bars

    … in Denmark 63

    …in Germany it’s 76

    …in Italy it’s 99

    and

    …in France it’s 104.

    In England and Wales our incarceration rate is 139 people per 100,000.

    Why do we have such high rates of imprisonment – both by international standards and our own historic standards?

    Part of this is about our society and government rightly recognising and responding to the rise in certain types of crime.

    More offenders are being jailed for violent crime for example. And last year, over a third of people sentenced for crimes involving knives or other weapons were given immediate custodial sentences. That’s up from 23% in 2009.

    And the length of sentences is increasing – sentences for sexual offences for example have gone up from 43 months in 2007 to just under 61 months in 2018.

    It’s also about changing expectations about the kinds of crimes for which we expect perpetrators to be more severely punished.

    Look at sexual offences where we’ve seen more victims feel able to come forward, more people brought to justice, and with many more convictions and much longer sentences than a decade ago.

    But it’s not just about violent or sexual offences. Prison sentences, in general, have been getting longer.

    Even for offences which aren’t violent or sexual, the average sentence length overall has increased. Take fraud: the average custodial sentence for that has gone up from just under a year in 2007 to over 18 months in 2017.

    Now, whatever your own views on what should happen, as a matter of fact it is clearly not true that sentences overall are getting shorter or justice is somehow getting softer – as some argue.

    When it comes to the length of prison sentences we are now taking a more punitive approach than at any point during Mrs Thatcher’s premiership.

    Let me be clear…

    …I do not want to reverse the tougher sentencing approach for serious offences. But equally, we should be extremely cautious about continuing to increase sentences as a routine response to concerns over crime. We have to recognise that such an approach would lead us to becoming even more of an international and historical outlier in terms of our prison population.

    Instead, we need to take a step back and to ask ourselves 3 questions:

    …Is our approach to sentencing actually reducing crime – when reoffending remains stubbornly high, creating more victims and putting the public at risk?

    …Are we running our prisons in a way which maximises offenders’ chances of turning their lives around, of going on to gainful employment and re-joining society as a responsible citizen?

    …And should we be seeking opportunities in the coming years to find better and alternative ways of punishing as well as rehabilitating offenders?

    It is these questions – how we punish people for their crimes – which I’d like to talk about today.

    I think now is the time for us as a society, as a country, to start a fresh conversation, a national debate about what justice, including punishment, should look like for our modern times.

    Because as I see it, there is a false choice between the narrow and often polarising discussion about ‘soft’ justice versus ‘hard’ justice.

    In my view, we should be talking about ‘smart’ justice.

    Justice that works.

    Now, for most of us in society, the very idea of going to prison for even a short amount of time, and the loss of liberty that entails, is a real deterrent.

    But that thinking fails to get into the mindset of many of today’s criminals –who are either reckless, or who don’t fear prison because they have friends and family who have all done time. Perhaps their lives are so chaotic that prison, in the scheme of things, might not seem so bad.

    That is true of no group more than those serving the shortest sentences.

    In the last five years, just over a quarter of a million custodial sentences have been given to offenders for six months or less; over 300,000 sentences were for 12 months or less.

    But nearly two thirds of those offenders go on to commit a further crime within a year of being released.

    27% of all reoffending is committed by people who have served short sentences of 12 months or less.

    For the offenders completing these short sentences whose lives are destabilised, and for society which incurs a heavy financial and social cost, prison simply isn’t working.

    The most common offence for which offenders are sentenced to less 6 months – some 11,500 offenders – is shoplifting.

    We know that offenders who commit this kind of crime often have drug or alcohol problems, and many are women. Almost half of women sentenced to a short custodial sentence are there for shop theft.

    The impact of short custodial sentences on women generally is particularly significant. Many are victims, as well as offenders, with almost 60% reporting experience of domestic abuse and many have mental health issues.

    For women, going into custody often causes huge disruption to the lives of their families, especially dependent children, increasing the risk they will also fall into offending.

    And for many offenders, both men and women, who may not have a stable job or home, and who are likely to have alcohol or drug problems, a short stay in prison can result in them losing access to benefits and drug or alcohol support services and treatment. Coming out of prison, they find themselves back at the start of the process and feeling like they have even less to lose.

    That’s why there is a very strong case to abolish sentences of six months or less altogether, with some closely defined exceptions, and put in their place, a robust community order regime.

    Let’s be honest. The public will always want to prioritise schools or hospitals over the criminal justice system when it comes to public spending. But where we do spend on the criminal justice system, we must spend on what works.

    Why would we spend taxpayers’ money doing what we know doesn’t work, and indeed, that makes us less safe?

    We shouldn’t.

    The reception of a new offender into custody – that first night inside – is one of the most resource heavy moments in an offender’s journey through the system.

    Every offender must have their property logged. They must be issued with their prison essentials – toothbrushes; clothing; bedding. They must be risk assessed for self-harm risks and the risks they pose to other offenders. There are full security procedures including a strip search for many.

    And then once these offenders are set up inside, there’s no time for the prison service to do any meaningful rehabilitative work with them.

    In 2017, almost 50,000 offenders were sentenced to immediate custody for 6 months or less. By abolishing these sentences we’d expect also to reduce the number of receptions carried out.

    Just think how much better we could use the prison officers’ time and resources, whether focusing on security, whether looking after those at risk of self harm, or whether spending more time on running regimes which really will make a difference – those built around temporary release for work, education, and tackling drug addiction.

    And offenders are less likely to reoffend if they are given a community order, which are much more effective at tackling the root causes behind criminality.

    Now, I do not want community orders which are in any sense a ‘soft option’. I want a regime that can impose greater restrictions on people’s movements and lifestyle and stricter requirements in terms of accessing treatment and support.

    And critically, these sentences must be enforced.

    That’s why on Saturday I announced the rollout of our new GPS tagging programme which will allow offenders’ movements to be more effectively monitored.

    Working with our justice partners, I hope that GPS tags will be available across the country by April.

    It will be an important new tool in controlling and restricting the movement and certain activities of offenders.

    It will also help manage offenders safely in the community and strengthen the protection available for victims by monitoring exclusion zones.

    Other new technology and innovations are opening up the possibility of even more options for the future too.

    For example, technology can monitor whether an offender has consumed alcohol, and enables us to be able to better restrict and monitor alcohol consumption where it drives offending behaviour.

    We are testing the value of alcohol abstinence monitoring requirements for offenders on licence, building on earlier testing of its value as part of a community order.

    Underpinned by evidence of what works to reduce reoffending, we are also increasing the treatment requirements of community orders.

    Our research shows that nearly 60% of recent offenders who engaged with a community-based alcohol programme did not go on to reoffend in the two years following treatment. Offenders given a community sentence including mental health treatment have also shown to be significantly less likely to reoffend.

    That’s why we have worked with the Department of Health and Social Care, NHS England and Public Health England to develop a Treatment Requirement Programme which aims to increase the number of community sentences with mental health, drug and alcohol treatment requirements.

    The programme is currently being tested in courts across five areas in England –Milton Keynes, Northampton, Birmingham, Plymouth and Sefton.

    It dictates a new minimum standard of service, with additional training for staff to improve collaboration between the agencies involved – all of which is increasing confidence among sentencers to use them.

    I look forward to seeing the outcomes of those trials shortly.

    Many offenders in prison have mental health problems, but often struggle to engage with treatment on the same terms as they could in the community. That is why the Health Secretary and I want to explore how innovative digital technologies can be put to use to serve the mental health needs of our prisoners.

    We also know stable accommodation is a key factor in reoffending. As part of the Government’s Rough Sleeping agenda, we are investing up to £6.4 million in a pilot scheme to help individuals released from three prisons – Bristol, Leeds and Pentonville – who have been identified as being at risk of homelessness into settled accommodation, while providing them with wrap around support for up to two years.

    This is part of a cross-government action necessary to cutting reoffending and tackle the root causes of criminality.

    But if we want to successfully make a shift from prison to community sentences it is critical that we have a probation system that commands the confidence of the courts and the public.

    I will return to the subject of probation in much greater depth later this year. But, in thinking strategically about the future of our justice system I believe in the end there is a strong case for switching resource away from ineffective prison sentences and into probation. This is more likely to reduce reoffending and, ultimately, reduce pressures on our criminal justice system.

    I am determined to strengthen the confidence courts have in probation to ensure we can make this shift away from short custodial sentences towards more punitive and effective sanctions and support in the community.

    However, as I mentioned earlier, prison will continue to be right for some.

    My second question was about what sort of prison regime we want.

    For those who are serving longer sentences, we need to ensure that prisons are humane, safe and secure. Much good work has been done over the past year, led by the excellent Prisons Minister Rory Stewart.

    But in prison, to reduce the chances of reoffending on release, there needs to be a positive outlook for the future and a sense that there is light at the end of the tunnel so long as an offender wants to turn their back on crime.

    That’s why I have spoken before and we have consulted on a new approach to incentives and privileges that better incentivises prisoners to abide by the rules and engage in education, work and substance misuse interventions, whilst ensuring poor behaviour can still be tackled through the loss of privileges.

    It means maintaining a link to the outside world – for example with work and family – so that prisoners don’t get institutionalised and lose hope.

    If, at the end of a prison term, our objective is to release into the community a responsible citizen, we must first ensure that we have a responsible prisoner.

    An important way we can do this for some prisoners is release on temporary license – or ROTL.

    Research last year shows the more ROTL a prisoner gets, the less chance there is of them reoffending.

    It provides purposeful activity and experience while in prison so that they have the right attitude for work, can get a job when they’re released, prepare for re-joining their families and society and turn their back on crime for good.

    We are currently consulting on loosening some of the barriers to using ROTL for some prisoners. Our plans will encourage using ROTL more often to get prisoners off the wings and into the workplace by removing blanket restrictions on when governors can consider ROTL, particularly those who have progressed to open conditions.

    Rather than blanket bans, the focus will rightly be instead on how safe it is for a prisoner to be released on ROTL, enabling them to go out to work sooner, and helping them to prepare for eventual release.

    I am pleased to say that three prisons, HMPs Drake Hall, Ford and Kirkham, are currently testing out new arrangements for ROTL, giving their Governors more discretion over temporary release for men and women. This will be a great opportunity to learn from their experience, and explore the best ways to safely and more quickly get prisoners out for work.

    Our other reforms will also make reoffending less likely on release. Whether that’s our £7 million investment for new in-cell telephones to maintain family links or looking at how we categorise the risk prisoners pose so they are put in the right type of category prison.

    This brings me to my third fundamental question. Is it time to begin to think again about how we punish offenders in future.

    Historically, for many offenders our earliest prisons were little more than holding pens ahead of transportation or indeed capital punishment. Of course, those sanctions are no longer available to us. And, for the avoidance of doubt, I am not advocating their return.

    But for the past couple of centuries, we have – almost by default – come to accept the view that punishment essentially means prison.

    Looking at reforming short sentences by providing a robust community orders regime is a near term initiative that will help us tackle the problem of reoffending.

    But thinking about effective punishment for different crimes isn’t limited to those that currently get short sentences.

    I believe we are nearing a time when a combination of technology and radical thinking will make it possible for much more intensive and restrictive conditions to be applied in more creative and fundamental ways outside of prison.

    I think for some offenders we need to revisit what effective punishment really means.

    Home curfew, driving bans, alcohol bans and foreign travel bans are just some of the options that already exist and which might play a bigger role.

    I believe the biggest potential comes from being able to better target someone who makes large profits from committing a financial crime like fraud. Or the kingpin drug baron who makes his money one step removed from the violence and misery this illicit trade creates.

    Fraud, for example, is a serious offence. It is far from victimless and the consequences for innocent people can be devastating. So, it needs a serious punishment.

    And the criminals who commit these offences are calculating. They are premeditated. And they are motivated by greed.

    In recent years, the custody rate has increased from 14.5% in 2007 to over 20%, and the average custodial sentence going up from under a year to over 18 months. But once fraudsters have sat out their sentence, they may be able to return to their comfortable lifestyle as soon as they get out.

    Indeed, serving a 2 year prison sentence but knowing your illicit cash is still hidden from the authorities, is not an effective punishment.

    I can see us being able to take a different approach. For example, this kind of fraudster or kingpin would still need to spend time in prison. And we will continue to pursue relentlessly to confiscate the proceeds of crime.

    But we could go further. I want to look at what happens after prison – whether our more effective punishment and deterrent for these criminals might involve jail time and more lasting and punitive community interventions.

    After serving part of their sentence behind bars, we could, for example, continue to restrict an offender’s movement, their activities and their lifestyle beyond prison in a much more intensive way.

    And that could also mean a real shift in the standard of living a wealthy criminal can expect after prison.

    I want to look at how, once a jail term has been served, we can continue to restrict their expenditure and monitor their earnings, using new technology to enable proper enforcement.

    They would be in no uncertainty that, once sentenced, they wouldn’t be able to reap any lifestyle benefits from their crimes and would need to make full reparation to the community as part of the sentence.

    I’m keen to get industry working with us to develop the necessary technology. Our banks are looking more and more at their social responsibilities, and they could look at what part they can play in investing to help us to deliver this vision.

    Community sanctions like this won’t be soft options, but they will be smart ones.

    They will enable us to impose an unprecedented level of punitive sanctions outside of a prison, with punishment hitting closer to home and hitting criminals where it always hurts – the pocket.

    It will allow us not only, as the old adage goes, to ‘let the punishment fit the crime’, but to let the punishment properly hit the criminal in a more tailored and targeted way outside of prison.

    Prison will always play a part in serving as punishment for serious crimes and in rehabilitation, and our reforms will deliver that. But we need to think more imaginatively about different and more modern forms of punishment in the community. Punishments that are punitive, for a purpose.

    As with our approach to short sentences, ultimately, it’s about doing what works to reduce reoffending and make us all safer and less likely to be a future victim of crime.

    In that sense, I believe the choice – and the debate – isn’t one of soft justice or hard justice. It’s a choice between effective justice or ineffective justice.

    I know that there will be some who argue that the only problem with our criminal justice system is that it isn’t tough enough, that the answer to short sentences is longer sentences, that the best way of stopping recently released prisoners from reoffending is not to release them. And that the endless ratchet effect of higher sentences is giving the public what it wants.

    But I believe that those in positions of responsibility have a duty to show leadership. To confront difficult issues, be led by the evidence and pursue policies that are most likely to deliver for the public.

    That, I hope, is the approach I have set out today – thank you.

  • Gavin Williamson – 2019 Speech to the Munich Security Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Gavin Williamson, the Secretary of State for Defence, to the Munich Security Conference on 15 February 2019.

    It’s a huge privilege to attend my first Munich Security Conference.

    While you have heard this message before many times, we will continue to repeat.

    Whilst the United Kingdom is leaving the European Union, I want to start by saying our commitment to European security remains steadfast.

    We have delivered European security long before the creation of either the European Union or NATO and we will continue to deliver it when we leave the EU. Britain will remain an outward looking nation. We will look for new opportunities, enhance our bilateral relationships and take Brexit as an opportunity to do more on a global stage. Delivering the leadership that the world turns to Great Britain to actually provide.

    For me, one of those key bilateral relationships is with Germany.

    GERMANY AND THE UK PARTNERSHIP

    We are proud, very proud, of our deep friendship with Germany.

    260 years ago we fought side-by-side at the battle of Minden. Since then, it is fair to say, our partnership has greatly evolved. The odd ups and downs. Today, we are both defending the borders of Eastern Europe as part of NATO’s Enhanced Forward Presence. We are taking on Daesh in the Middle East. And, we are working together in Afghanistan, Lithuania and Mali.

    With the signing of the UK-Germany Joint Vision Statement (JVS) last October it is obvious to both that there is much more to achieve as two nations.

    The fact both our nations are increasing their defence budgets reflects the growing threats we are facing. And, we must not forget what can be achieved by working together.

    As the world becomes darker and more dangerous, allies must stand together.

    RECOGNISING THE IMPORTANCE OF THE EU

    And, I know this is something Ursula very clearly recognises. She has spoken of her determination to take forward greater EU defence co-operation. This is something we welcome, European countries combining to develop capabilities that are available to the Alliance.

    The EU’s role in stabilisation and capacity building is also important for the future.

    But it is important that an EU which shuts out non-EU NATO allies from capability development will only weaken its own industry base and capabilities it wishes to develop.

    AND NATO MUST STEP UP TOO

    NATO must remain the bedrock of our security in Europe. Since 1949 it has stood the test of time. It is combat proven. It deters the most serious threats.

    So, let’s support the world’s most successful military Alliance. Let’s deal with Russia’s breach of the INF Treaty and the threat of new Russian missiles.

    Let’s be ready to handle their provocations.

    Russian adventurism must have a cost.

    The US has been stepping up its commitment to NATO. But, as Ursula and I agreed with Pat Shanahan when we met at NATO earlier this week, Europeans should not be spending two per cent of GDP on defence for America. We should be spending it for ourselves and our security. And, I applaud Ursula’s personal efforts to drive investment in German defence.

    It is a genuine and real privilege to be able to work side-by-side with a colleague who is not only so personally inspiring but a lady of deep compassion and a real sense of duty, not just to her nation, but to her friends and allies as well.

    And, it is that sense of duty which means all European nations must take responsibility for the security of our continent.

    THE UK WILL CONTINUE LEADING IN NATO

    This is something the UK is continuing to do, as we step-up our efforts in NATO.

    In NATO, we are ready to defend what’s right. Ready to fight what’s wrong. And, ready to lead.

    At the recent Defence Ministers meeting, I announced the increased commitment to Alliance readiness in Estonia, adding to our presence with Apache attack and Wildcat reconnaissance helicopters.

    In NATO’s 70th anniversary year, we are also hosting a NATO Heads of State Meeting at the end of December.

    Significantly, in the next few months our UK-led nine-nation Joint Expeditionary Force…will conduct its first deployment in the Baltic Sea…delivering reassurance to our allies and deterrence to those who wish to do us harm.

    And, we continue to increase our defence budget, creating a new Transformation Fund to boost our nation’s global presence, and the armed forces’ mass and lethality.

    RUSSIA THREAT

    NATO matters more than ever because an old adversary is back in the game. 30 years since the Berlin Wall fell and five years since the illegal annexation of Crimea – Russia remains a threat to our security.

    Russia’s illegal activity continues unabated on land in the Donbas, and, at sea with the seizure of Ukrainian naval ships and the imprisonment of their sailors.

    We’ve seen Russian recklessness and disregard for life on the streets of Britain. With Russia degrading its reputation with such blatant disregard of international borders and sovereignty.

    Meanwhile Russia, despite its denials, has clearly breached the INF treaty. It has made clear it is developing more missiles and nuclear-capable weapons that break this agreement. Trying to goad the West into a new arms race it simply is not interested in and does not want. Making the world a less safe place. They claim they want greater security on the one hand. While undermining trust on the other.

    The Kremlin is also taking the fight into the ‘grey zone’. Operating without rules using espionage, military, political, cyber, economic and even criminal tools to undermine its competitors. Russian Governmental subversion of Western elections through disinformation, online trolling and persistent cyber-attacks has become its new norm.

    Their clandestine use of proxies…mercenary armies… like the infamous and unaccountable Wagner Group…allows the Kremlin to get away with murder while denying the blood on their hands.

    But, as a nation who hold dear the values of democracy, tolerance and justice we must not be cowed or intimidated.

    That’s why our military continues asserting its legitimate freedom of access and action across the globe…deploying our forces in a measured and resolute way.

    And, we all continue to work together to lift the veil on this behaviour and always deliver a clear response – for actions must have consequences.

    THE UK WILL ALSO CONTINUE TO LEAD OUTSIDE NATO

    And, we will not abandon countries Russia seeks to undermine, like Ukraine and those in the Western Balkans. In the Cold War those behind the iron curtain saw us as a beacon of liberty. Now they have achieved their freedom the UK will continue to help them defend their right to choose their own destiny.

    But, let me be clear this is not the relationship with Russia that we want.

    We remain open to a different kind of relationship and options of dialogue remains on the table. It is vital that we always work to avoid escalation and avert risks of miscalculation.

    And, we encourage Russia to start acting within the rules-based international order. Step back from the path it has been taking and look to a new and different way.

    This very conference has long honoured those with the vision and courage to bring an end to the Cold War – inspirational people such as, Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, George Bush, Helmut Kohl and, of course, Mikhail Gorbachev.

    These were patriots. Figures who understood strength. Leaders who fought for their country’s interests. And, they understood the value of being open to different kinds of relationships. As we are today. We hope Russia chooses a different way. Being inspired, not by those who wish to bring fear and hate, but, be inspired by those who wish to bring hope and peace.

    But, as we continue to face threats in an increasingly dangerous world we know that NATO is the best guardian of our security.

    CONCLUSION

    So, for the sake of our values, allies and friends we will continue to lead in NATO.

    We will continue to build our alliances with close friends like Germany.

    We will continue to deliver European security.

    We will continue to step out into the world protecting our friends, defending our interests and standing-up for our values.

    And, let us never forget that the reason that we will invest in our defence is to deliver a more peaceful, a more prosperous, and more just world.

  • Jeremy Corbyn – 2019 Speech to Make UK

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jeremy Corbyn, the Leader of the Opposition, to Make UK on 19 February 2019.

    It’s a pleasure to be speaking again to the artists formerly known as the EEF, or Make UK as you have now become.

    Hailing from a family of engineers, I always look forward to coming here and meeting many of you.

    I take a very close interest in manufacturing. It’s the beating heart of our economy.

    For those employed in the sector, manufacturing doesn’t just offer a good job that pays well, it offers creative and satisfying work.

    But manufacturing needs the right environment to flourish: high quality infrastructure, a skilled workforce, and open and stable trading relationships.

    I’m going to talk about each of these in turn because it’s clear that something is going badly wrong.

    Last week’s GDP figures confirmed that our manufacturing sector is mired in recession.

    Output has fallen for six consecutive months – the worst run since the depths of the financial crisis in 2008-9.

    No doubt the uncertainty generated by the government’s shambolic handling of Brexit has had an impact, as has weaker global demand.

    But it’s too convenient for the Chancellor, Philip Hammond, to brandish these as excuses for the Tories’ woeful economic record.

    The truth is, the prolonged slump in manufacturing is part of a broader story: a weak economy limping through the most feeble and protracted recovery in British history.

    And the blame for that lies squarely with the government.

    Nine years of unnecessary austerity have caused untold damage to our economy and strangled investment, leaving us with crumbling infrastructure, a productivity crisis, and anaemic growth.

    This is all the more painful because there is another way.

    A government prepared to invest in our economy and pursue an active industrial strategy could bring about a renaissance in manufacturing.

    And that is what the next Labour government will do.

    It starts with infrastructure. Our dilapidated transport, communications, and energy infrastructure is desperately in need of an upgrade.

    Labour will unleash a massive programme of investment with a National Transformation Fund delivering £250 billion of direct capital expenditure on infrastructure and R&D.

    We will ensure this investment benefits every region and nation of our country, not just London and the South East.

    And we will establish a National Investment Bank to make available a further £250 billion over 10 years in the form of patient capital lent to small and medium-sized enterprises in line with the priorities of our industrial strategy, providing funding for green industries and the technologies of the future.

    The current government’s failure to invest has left us poorly equipped to deal with the profound changes that are already upon us.

    Where is the industrial strategy to prepare our economy for life outside the EU?

    What’s being done to harness the benefits of automation without threatening the livelihoods of millions?

    How can we mobilise industry to help avert the destruction of our climate?

    The government has no answers to any of these questions.

    Let me give you an example of the change we need.

    To avoid climate catastrophe we have to reduce our net emissions to zero by 2050 at the latest.

    That’s not going to happen by itself.

    It requires large-scale public investment into renewable energy and home insulation, which will in turn create new opportunities for private enterprise.

    This is not a burden. It’s an opportunity to kick-start a Green Jobs Revolution.

    Labour’s plans will create at least 400,000 skilled, unionised jobs and bring about a seven-fold increase in offshore wind, double onshore wind, and triple solar power.

    And these new manufacturing and engineering jobs will bring skills and opportunity to parts of the country that have been held back by decades of neglect.

    As our Shadow Business Secretary Rebecca Long-Bailey has said, this is about the jobs at the end of your road, from the Clyde to the Humber to the Mersey.

    Technology and manufacturing don’t have to be a threat to the environment. Our responsibility is to develop the next generation of technology that will help us preserve our natural world.

    Labour is committed to investing on a scale that will transform our economy. Those policies won huge public support at the general election 18 months ago. I’m disappointed that a small number of MPs yesterday decided to take a different path.

    But this is an agenda which unites half a million Labour party members inside and outside parliament, along with millions of people across the country.

    And we’ve been up front in saying that in return for that investment we will ask the largest businesses that can afford it to pay a bit more towards the common good.

    Because the government’s corporation tax cuts haven’t increased investment and growth.

    Indeed, the Conservatives have had nine years to fix the fundamentals of our economy, but have left it weak and unprepared for the future.

    And just as they have failed to invest in infrastructure, so too have they failed to invest in skills.

    I travel around the country all the time and I visit many manufacturers and other employers.

    I’ve been struck by how often they tell me about the difficulty of recruiting skilled labour.

    Of course, there are organisations and companies doing good work. Make UK’s own training and apprenticeship programmes are excellent.

    I’ve visited Make UK’s training centre in Aston twice and I’ve been extremely impressed at the way young people are helped to get the best start to their working lives.

    But as a country we are moving in the wrong direction. University fees, the scrapping of grants, and cuts to training have made education less accessible just when we need a highly skilled workforce more than ever.

    So a great legacy of the next Labour government will be to reverse this trend with the creation of a National Education Service that makes education freely available to everyone whatever their age, from cradle to grave, just like the NHS is there for all of us.

    I pay tribute to our Shadow Education Secretary, Angela Rayner, for the work she’s doing to drive this forward.

    My great friend Tony Benn used to say that education should be like an escalator going alongside you throughout life that you can get on and off whenever you want.

    What a wonderful way of putting it.

    So today I am proud to announce the appointment of our Commission on Lifelong Learning to help make the principle of lifelong learning a reality.

    The Commission will bring together 14 experts from across education – top names in their fields – including Make UK’s very own Chief Economist Seamus Nevin.

    It is co-chaired by the former Education Secretary, Estelle Morris, and the General Secretary of the Communication Workers Union, Dave Ward.

    And I want to thank Gordon Marsden, Shadow Minister for Higher Education, Further Education and Skills, whose passion for lifelong learning has been crucial to bringing this together.

    The Commission’s task is to devise an inclusive system of adult education to be implemented by the next Labour government that will transform the lives of millions and reskill our economy.

    Lifelong learning will be available to everyone no matter their background, employment status, or previous education.

    The Commission will make detailed proposals on how to integrate qualifications, introduce a credits system to make qualifications transferable, and make it as easy as possible for people to pick up or pause their studies at times that work for them.

    It will break down barriers between different types of education.

    The opportunity to retrain at any point in life will help close the gap between the skills people have and the skills our economy needs.

    We know that new industries evolve and old industries collapse, technological advance can create great anxiety for people.

    So for me, the National Education Service and its commitment to lifelong learning is a form of social security.

    Under a Labour government workers will never again be left feeling discarded because there will be an industrial strategy creating good, well-paid jobs and training to help workers learn new skills.

    It makes no sense for people to only be educated for the first quarter of their life and then work for the rest of their days with outdated or insufficient qualifications.

    It’s a waste of talent and a waste of potential. Let’s give people the skills to flourish.

    And I strongly believe there should be genuine parity between vocational education and academic education. We have to end the outdated grammar school mentality of looking down on someone who does a vocational course and looking up to someone who does an academic course. I see the skills of electrical work of computer work of design work learned through vocational courses as just as valuable as academic courses taken at university.

    We need all of those skills in our society.

    I remember from my own school days, being told by my art teacher who didn’t appreciate some of my more abstract painting “You’re no good at art, you can do woodwork instead”, as if woodwork was inferior. In Germany, where they really value engineering, they say: “You’re a clever kid – get down the metal workshop.’’ So education must be designed to get the best out of everybody and available to all, delivered through colleges, universities, trade unions and directly via employers.

    If a Labour government is going to make this big investment in skills that will have benefits for business, then we do ask something in return: that as employers you step up to invest in your workforce too.

    Last week I visited the gear manufacturer Beard and Fitch in Harlow, and met Carol, a supervisor who is partially sighted. She was doing the final checking and polishing of the gears, and she had been provided with big screens to help her do her work. That’s a sensible employer who has made an investment in someone who was very good at her job. And it was paying off.

    I said earlier that as well as a skilled workforce and high-quality infrastructure, manufacturing needs a stable trading relationship to thrive.

    Which brings us on to Brexit.

    Earlier this month I wrote to the Prime Minister laying out Labour’s alternative plan based around a permanent customs union with a British say in future trade deals, a strong relationship with the single market and full guarantees on workers’ rights, consumer standards and environmental protections.

    Later this week I will travel to Brussels to discuss it with Michel Barnier and others.

    It’s a plan we are convinced could win the support of parliament, be negotiated with the EU and help bring the country together. It has been widely welcomed as a way of breaking the impasse. So I call on the government and MPs across parliament to end the Brexit uncertainty and back Labour’s credible alternative plan.

    It’s regrettable that so far the Prime Minister has instead chosen to stick with an approach that has already been rejected, refusing to move from her divisive and damaging red lines. Business investment is falling and confidence is evaporating due to the uncertainty she has created.

    And let’s have no pretence that if the Prime Minister could only get her deal through parliament then certainty would be restored. The Political Declaration she negotiated talks of, and I quote, “a spectrum of different outcomes for administrative processes as well as checks and controls.”

    “A spectrum of different outcomes.” What use is that when making investment decisions?

    If the Prime Minister is unable to adopt a sensible deal because it would split the Tories, then there needs to be a general election. Without it we will keep all options on the table, including the option of a public vote.

    The country cannot be taken over the cliff edge for the sake of Tory party unity. The government is running down the clock in an attempt to blackmail MPs with the threat of crashing out without a deal. This is extraordinarily reckless. It puts our manufacturing sector your industries at risk.

    Labour has consistently advocated a comprehensive UK-EU customs union to deliver frictionless trade and protect supply chains that stretch across the continent. Disrupting those supply chains would threaten good businesses and skilled jobs that we can’t afford to lose.

    Just take the car industry.

    The decision by Nissan to pull investment from its Sunderland plant was just the thin end of the wedge. Jaguar Land-Rover is said to be stockpiling parts in preparation for a ‘no-deal’ Brexit, but can only prepare for days, not weeks of disruption because the company uses 25 million separate parts a day. Ford has reportedly warned the Prime Minister that it could cease production in the UK, entirely threatening 13,000 jobs, and has said that ‘no deal’ would be, quote, “catastrophic for the UK’s auto industry.”

    And although not directly linked to Brexit today we learn that Honda is planning to close its plant in Swindon at the cost of 3,500 jobs. That is devastating news for those workers, their families and for the local economy. It’s bad news too for all the small and medium sized businesses in the supply chain. And while the Government is boasting it has secured a trade deal with the Faroe Islands, it is doing nothing to protect skilled jobs and industry here in Britain.

    Of course concerns about a ‘no deal’ crash go well beyond the car industry. Take food and drink, which is actually the UK’s largest manufacturing sector. It needs frictionless trade for perishable goods, where time is of the essence. Or steel. Half the steel we produce is exported most of it to the EU. A disastrous ‘no deal’ Brexit would mean trade restrictions on virtually all steel companies’ export markets.

    And while the big household names get all the media attention, it’s the small and medium-sized manufacturers who will find it most burdensome to adjust to new customs arrangements.

    Brexit has crystallised a choice about the kind of economy we want. On the one hand, the harsh economic environment fostered by the Conservatives: low investment, low productivity, low growth and a damaging trade deal with Donald Trump. On the other, Labour’s investment-led approach, underpinned by a close relationship with our European neighbours, in a rebalanced economy that no longer privileges those who lend and speculate over those who make things.

    These are anxious times for manufacturers. But the future doesn’t have to be one of decline. With a government that believes in and supports industry, manufacturing will be the engine of innovation in the green economy of the future.

    Infrastructure skills certainty. That’s what manufacturing needs. That’s what only Labour will deliver.

  • Mims Davies – 2019 Speech on UK Sport’s Funding

    Below is the text of the speech made by Mims Davies, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Sport and Civil Society, on 12 February 2019.

    It is fantastic to be here today to speak to you all and to set out my priorities as Minister for Sport.

    Before I begin, I wanted to express my condolences to the friends and family of Gordon Banks. I am sure we’re all very sad to hear about his passing today. His contribution towards the 1966 World Cup victory and THAT save against Brazil in the 1970 World Cup have already cemented his place in history and he will be remembered as one of football’s greats.

    But today is an exciting day as UK Sport unveils its future strategy beyond Tokyo.

    The capacity for long-term planning has been instrumental in ParalympicsGB and Team GB’s continued success, so it is right that UK Sport review how their funding is targeted and resources are deployed, as we move towards Paris for 2024.

    Now, let’s talk about Atlanta 96 saw us place 36 in the medal table. I remember watching some good stuff – including Steve Redgrave and Matthew Pinsent battle their way to what was to be our only gold medal of the games. A not so memorable moment was where we hit the headlines for athletes selling kit on the streets to raise money… and that’s not a good thing, so I am glad that times have changed since then!

    Fast forward twenty years and we finished second in the medal table at the Rio Olympics. That is absolutely because of the right investment, the right strategy and unparalleled commitment from talented athletes and coaches. But imagine what further investment and planning would achieve? We want to maintain our status as an Olympic and Paralympic powerhouse.

    2015 saw us publish our Sporting Future strategy, which set out a bold new direction for sport.

    It reassessed how we value and measure the impact of sport and physical activity on the nation’s health and well-being. It prioritised tackling inactivity and engaging people from underrepresented groups.

    Crucially, it placed five outcomes at the heart of everything we do – physical wellbeing, mental wellbeing, individual development, social and community development, and economic development.

    It is a good moment to pause and look back at the progress we have made. But, far more importantly, it is the time to look ahead, to raise the bar and to set ourselves new challenges and new ambitions.

    Now, I had the privilege of addressing the House of Commons to speak on a debate on sport. I was struck again, as I have been many times over the last three months, by the power of sport. It impacts lives in the most varied and positive of ways.

    However, there are also some very serious issues in sport that we must tackle.

    This is why I took the opportunity to announce that I will be holding a summit on racism in football with key partners. There is absolutely no place for discrimination in sport and I will address this head on. And we saw that today with Joe Root and I promise to tackle this.

    Today I want to use my time with you to set out my three big priorities as minister for sport:

    Harnessing the power of our sporting excellence to maximise our international impact and inspire a nation

    Fostering a culture of sport based on the very highest levels of integrity and fairness

    And increasing engagement in sport and physical activity for absolutely everyone.

    So, how are we going to do this? Well firstly, I want to thank you, for all the hard work you do to support our athletes to be the best they can be – we are right behind them as they seek again to inspire us all.

    When John Major introduced the National Lottery almost 25 years ago, few would have believed that our Olympic and Paralympic heroes would have delivered over 860 inspirational medal moments for the nation and created the term ‘super Saturday’; a day few of us will ever forget.

    The breadth of success at the Rio Games demonstrates how the elite sport system has evolved. Team GB won more gold medals across more sports than any other nation – a sure sign that the system is working, that success breeds success and that the UK has truly cemented our place as a nation capable of succeeding on the global stage.

    But we should not take the undoubted success of our elite system for granted. Long-term investment from the Government and the National Lottery are the foundations upon which the strength of British elite sport has been built.

    And here we should acknowledge the valued contribution of National Lottery players, without whom none of this would be possible.

    As we approach 25 years of the Lottery, we must take the opportunity to connect with players and to remind them what is possible. They should know that our athletes hopes and dreams rest on people continuing to play.

    We currently offer levels of support to our athletes that are the envy of many competitors – I want this to continue.

    UK Sport’s future strategy will help our wonderful athletes to deliver further world-class performances beyond Tokyo and to inspire the country once more.

    The new three million pound Aspiration Fund, is another extremely positive step in opening up opportunities to all. The Fund will support those sports who do not currently receive full UK Sport funding to help teams and athletes.

    Our athletes are representative of society, coming from all walks of life and backgrounds – disability is no bar to medal success. They are part of the fabric of our national identity – a true British success story.

    As we look to fund a wider range of sports, over a longer period of time it is important that these sports inspire and represent our diverse society. Let’s not be afraid to invest in the potential reach and success of currently unfunded sports too.

    I am going to mention it… as we leave the European Union, we continue to work closely with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and the Department for International Trade, to make the most of the incredible contribution sport gives to our international profile and our vision for Global Britain.

    And we continue to deliver major, world class sporting events. Next week, it will be just 100 days until we host the Cricket World Cup, which will have an expected global audience of around one and a half billion. How exciting!

    And it’s not just cricket – over the next year there will be absolutely something for everyone – from the World Wheelchair Curling Championships in Stirling that is happening next month, to the Netball World Cup in Liverpool – a trip up there may be on the cards – and Yorkshire hosting the World Road Cycling in September.

    Our Sport is Great. Our investment in major events delivers opportunities for everyone, everywhere, to see this first hand.

    And of course we’re looking forward to hosting the 2022 Commonwealth Games in Birmingham which, with an estimated TV audience of 1.5 billion – that number is just rolling off the tongue – will showcase the city, the whole of the West Midlands and the UK to the rest of the world. It will demonstrate our country as a destination for sport, business, leisure, tourism and education.

    Having such a huge audience for this kind of event is amazing. It means that we have the opportunity again to inspire people across the world. This is also why it is so important that there is a wide range of sport on TV.

    So, we’ve seen the popularity of women’s sport on TV grow since 2012 – England’s victory in the 2017 Women’s Cricket World Cup Final was seen by over a million people, and more than the number of people that usually tune in for a Premier League match. So congratulations to them!

    I recognise the progress that has been made – and a huge thank you to Channel 4’s innovative and engaging coverage of para-sport broke new boundaries. But women’s sport on television still remains too much of a novelty. Sometimes we are still surprised to see it appear on terrestrial channels and while I recognise that progress has been made – further change is needed.

    Equality means visibility. Whoever we are, we have the right to be inspired by diversity in sport that shows the best in all of us. I urge sports bodies, broadcasters, and the wider print media to that bit better. It’s 2019 and it’s time we had more coverage of women’s sport on television and in the wider media.

    We all want our children to grow up appreciating great sporting success, regardless of who is playing it and where.

    But what’s important is not just that we win medal and succeed on a global stage – but that we do it the right way.

    Events like the Commonwealth Games are fantastic occasions. 2022 will be an opportunity to showcase the values of our great nation, ten years on from London 2012 – just showing how much we have improved in terms of inclusivity and equality for all.

    We must continue to have robust anti-doping and governance regimes, both domestically and internationally – we must continue to lead the way. This is not just a message from me. It’s a message from the athletes I’ve spoken to since I took up this role.

    I have had discussions with UK Anti-Doping, UK Sport and the World Anti-Doping Agency after hearing these messages strongly from athletes.

    I am clear that we need to see long-term, strategic change to increase transparency in the anti-doping system, and that we all have confidence in WADA’s future work and the integrity of sport.

    It is so important that our top athletes are treated fairly, with respect. And it goes as well for tackling doping.

    I’m delighted to see the steps UK Sport have taken around the mental health of those involved in elite sport for instance. It is absolutely right that they have strengthened and clarified standards and processes around behaviour and resolving disputes. It is important that we support our athletes not just when they are competing, but as they move into retirement and start thinking about the next stage of their lives.

    This is vital work, and I give UK Sport my backing as they continue to make our elite sport system stronger.

    Now, people also need to feel safe when they take part in sport. Ensuring children and those at risk are protected as much as possible is a top priority for me. I have been talking to my ministerial colleagues in the Ministry of Justice about the positions of sports coaches and “position of trust” to give additional protection to 16 and 17 year olds – this work continues.

    We also want people to be safe when they play or watch live sport.

    I know there is continued interest in our stadiums, stadium safety and the longstanding commitment to the all-seater policy in football. I am expecting a report which reviews existing evidence on this topic very soon, and will, together with the Secretary of State, consider its findings extremely carefully.

    Watching live sport brings communities together and it encourages people to spend quality time with friends and families and unites strangers behind a common goal.

    So it is really important that everyone has the chance to watch and to take part – and this takes me onto my final priority – to increase engagement in sport for all.

    Any why is this important?

    Because absolutely everyone should be able to enjoy the benefits that taking part in sport and physical activity can bring.

    It should be fun, inclusive and there should be no barriers to taking part.

    We want half a million people to be more regularly active across England by 2020 – yes that’s only a year – with at least half of these being women. And we are making good progress.

    Over 470,000 more people are already active compared to when we launched the strategy in 2015 – but delivering long term change in habits requires persistence. We must do more to encourage people to get – and above all stay active.

    I want to help “harder to reach” groups get active:

    More women.

    More people from BAME backgrounds.

    More disabled people.

    More of the many people who have a hard time finding spare cash for exercise and wellbeing.

    More who struggle to find family activity time.

    Let’s make sport something everyone can do and something that brings people together. These are often the people who have the biggest hurdles to overcome to be active, and who need our support the most.

    We know that physical activity has a massively positive impact on our nation’s health and well-being.

    Physical activity can reduce the risk of chronic diseases and health conditions, like diabetes and heart disease.

    It can help with the ever increasing pressures on our health and social care systems.

    Evidence shows that referrals to exercise classes, sports groups or even ballroom dancing can help with their physical and mental wellbeing.

    I am keen that future spending decisions should take into account the huge benefits that sport and physical activity and all it can bring.

    I will be working closely with my ministerial colleagues in the Department for Health and Social Care on this very important area.

    In order for people to get – and stay active – they need to find the right sporting opportunity that appeals to them. It has to be enjoyable. It has to be affordable. It has to fit in with people’s busy days.

    It sounds simple, but I know many of us will have experienced the frustration of not being able to find and book a swimming lesson or badminton court in the right location, at the right time, can be simply off putting.

    This is why we are working with Sport England and the Open Data Institute to make it as easy to book onto a sporting activity as it is to book a holiday or order a take-away.

    However, this is not something that we can do alone. Today I am issuing a call to action for ALL organisations, big and small, across the sport and physical activity sector.

    Work with us. Consider how you can open up your data to make it easier for people to find the right opportunity to be active. This work is incredibly important and an area I will be focussing on in the coming months.

    I want to make sure that all children, and their families, can enjoy sport and physical activity and that they reap the benefits of an active lifestyle.

    Late last year, Sport England published the first set of data from the Active Lives Children survey. These results MUST be a wake-up call for the sector. Our children are not active enough and we need to do something about it. Again, we need your help.

    We need all physical activity providers, National Governing Bodies of sport, schools, community clubs, leisure operators and others to play their part. We need to make sure we are maximising use of facilities, including opening up more facilities owned by schools.

    We need to build on the learning from the Sport England Families Fund which has committed up to £40 million pounds for families with children to be active together.

    As the Secretary of State for Education said in his speech last week, sport is one of five key foundations in building character and resilience.

    As a minimum schools must ensure children are physically literate. It is just as important that parents encourage kids to be active, as it is to read them books or do times tables. Children need to learn how to run, jump, throw, catch. All of these things are absolutely fundamental to building a sporting habit for life. And maybe come an elite!

    To achieve this we need schools to deliver high quality sport and physical activity before, during and after the school day. We must ensure that all children have a positive first experience of sport at school.

    To get more kids active, both in and out of school we will be publishing a new cross-government plan. I particularly want to focus on building children’s confidence and enjoyment of sport – and that’s something the Department for Education Secretary of State discussed at our recent roundtable. They need to learn the fundamentals of movement but most importantly they need to have fun.

    I also want to ensure the after-school period provides the opportunity for children to be active in safe, enjoyable environments after school.

    And this means all children – but especially those from under- represented groups; girls, certain BAME groups and those with a disability, or indeed hidden disabilities.

    It is time to put sport and physical activity on a par with reading and writing. It is essential in giving our kids the tools and the confidence they need to live healthy and physically active lives.

    I want to thank you all for being here today and for the opportunity to set out my vision in my portfolio for sport. Thank you to the clubs, volunteers and mentors for what you’re already doing week in and week out to inspire people to get active and enjoy sport.

    I am ambitious – because we all should be – where I think the sector needs to be and about striving for excellence at both the grassroots and the elite level.

    And I need your continued support to deliver this.

    We need you to work with us on opening up data and facilities, on providing the right offers that will get people active, on supporting our athletes and upholding our sporting values.

    I want our children to be inspired by sport. I want them to see as many sports as possible, and understand that sport is for everyone. I want them to discover new sporting heroes and be caught up in the excitement of top level sporting action. Together we can achieve all of this.

    Thank you. And thank you UK Sport for leading the way – I look forward to working alongside you and everyone in this room.

  • Chris Skidmore – 2019 Speech at the UPP Foundation

    Below is the text of the speech made by Chris Skidmore, the Minister of State for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation, at the UPP Foundation launch on 13 February 2019.

    Thank you for inviting me to speak at the launch of the UPP Foundation Civic University Commission report this afternoon. I’d like to thank the Commission for all its work on this important topic. The Commission’s findings provide an invaluable opportunity to showcase some good examples of universities’ civic activity, as well as highlight some ideas for how universities can make further progress in this area.

    As many of you know, since becoming Universities Minister, I have made it a commitment to get out and visit as many universities and colleges as possible. I’m now well into double digits, having visited around a dozen different providers so far. And, already, it has become abundantly clear to me just how much our universities contribute to the UK – not just through their invaluable global relationships, but also through their national and local activities.

    At a basic level, universities are often one of the largest employers in a local area. They are particularly important employers within deprived communities, and can play a significant role in regenerating regions. I know, for example, that Coventry University has opened a new facility in Scarborough as part of a £45million development in the Weaponess area of the town. This is a great illustration of the transformation that can occur when a strong, civically-minded university creates jobs and raises aspirations in a local community.

    In my own constituency city of Bristol, I’ve also recently visited the Temple Quarter Quays development, where the university is finally taking action to remove the derelict former Royal Mail sorting office – a building which David Cameron once said made the city look like a “war zone”. The site is set to become a new £300million campus for the University of Bristol – proving that if you want something doing, you have to look to universities to get things moving.

    The skills universities deliver to local people are absolutely vital for our government’s Industrial Strategy – to allow us to succeed in our long-term plan to boost productivity and earning power across the country. These skills can be technical and vocational, but crucially they are also transferable. Not surprisingly, demand for highly-skilled graduates shows no signs of decreasing in an economy that is increasingly becoming a knowledge-based one.

    This is why a key part of our Industrial Strategy includes a truly place-based approach, and we see universities’ contribution to their local areas as being an increasingly important part of this. Manchester was, in fact, the first city I visited outside London in my role as Universities Minister, where a joint initiative by Manchester Metropolitan University and the University of Manchester, called ‘The Works’, has helped over 5,700 local residents from the most deprived areas of the city to find jobs, develop skills and access training. I want to use this occasion today to express my commitment to working with universities across the country to ensure that they are able to play pivotal roles in their local economies.

    I know as well as you do that universities are crucibles of their local communities and are best-placed to help set up coordinated plans for local industrial strategies. Just last week, I was pleased to read about Keele University’s commitment to its ‘New Keele Deal’, designed to deliver a local industrial strategy for Stoke-on-Trent and the wider Staffordshire area, in partnership with Staffordshire University, local authority partners and the private sector.

    Universities can, and already are, using their resources to help local businesses in a diverse range of ways. One way of doing this is via Skills Advisory Panels to pool knowledge on skills and labour market needs with local employers. I welcome initiatives such as the University of Nottingham’s free ‘Languages for Business’ service, which provides language skills and cultural expertise for small to medium-sized businesses (SMEs) in Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire, to help them succeed in the global marketplace.

    Too often universities are not given the credit they deserve for the innovations they have stimulated. In this respect, the ‘Made at Uni’ campaign, initiated by Universities UK, is a really important intervention to show the UK public just how pivotal universities have been to the life-changing developments that we often take for granted. The research that universities undertake can be civic in so many ways: some of this research has obvious impacts on our health and wellbeing, such as the major role played by the University of Plymouth’s research into health education across the South West of England. Other research can also support local economies, like the University of Lincoln’s Institute of Agri-Food Technology, which focuses on research into greater productivity in agriculture and food production.

    This government has continuously looked to put university research at the heart of regional growth. Schemes like the Leading Places Programme and the Strength in Places Fund take a place-based approach to research and innovation and encourage partnerships between universities and other public and private sector bodies. One great example of what can be achieved is in the North-East of England, where a collaboration between Gateshead Council, Newcastle City Council, Newcastle University and Northumbria University is actively exploring ways, using digital technologies, to tackle obesity through the promotion of healthier environments.

    As a government, we have always been committed to encouraging universities to make the most of their civic engagement. The Research Excellence Framework (REF) was the first sector-wide exercise intended to help universities assess the impact of their research outside academia by rewarding institutions delivering research with significant local relevance. As part of the last REF (REF 2014), over 6,600 individual Impact Case Studies were submitted by higher education institutions to evidence the wider impact of their work. With all eyes now firmly fixed on the REF 2021, I look forward to seeing just how much this impact has developed and increased. I am also hugely encouraged to see the emphasis that the REF 2021 panels have placed on local impact, alongside national and international impact, in their recently published guidance.

    To further encourage universities in England to enhance their contribution to cities and regions, we have also introduced the Knowledge Exchange Framework (KEF) to support our Industrial Strategy and equip higher education providers with new ways to benchmark and share their knowledge and expertise. As the Minister overseeing the roll-out of the KEF pilots, I am pleased that so many universities have expressed an interest in taking part – with a total of 21 universities now in the KEF pilots.

    The consultation on the KEF metrics is also currently underway, giving all English higher education institutions a say in how the KEF could work. The consultation is open until 14th March and I encourage all universities and the Commission to complete the survey and make their views heard. This is your chance to help co-create an exciting moment in the history of the English higher education sector and show how you want to help shape it for the future.

    As a Minister in BEIS as well as the DfE, I understand the power of knowledge exchange and that it is not just about universities transferring their resources to local communities, but about universities absorbing lessons from their communities and embracing their expertise. As a new Minister, I want to be the Minister demonstrating and delivering why the KEF matters, and how it can help to publically communicate the value of our universities going forwards into the future.

    With both the REF and the KEF defining the impact of universities broadly – from the local to the global – there is no reason that either Framework should be seen as barriers to a university contributing to their local area. As a government, we believe both these Frameworks should be wide-ranging in terms of what they are assessing. Universities know their local regions and areas of expertise better than anyone else, so it is not up to us to be overly prescriptive about what activities they should undertake and how they should approach them.

    Instead, our role in government is to enable universities to best meet our broader ambitions to improve productivity and social mobility. In my first HE speech last month, I outlined a vision for higher education by 2030 moving towards a unity of purpose. To make this vision a reality, it is important the relevant sector agencies also move towards a unity of purpose when it comes to supporting place-related developments. To this end, I welcome on-going cooperation and unity of purpose across Research England and the Office for Students (OfS). Between them, they can play a major role in improving our understanding of how students and teaching contribute to knowledge exchange activities and inform future strategies, including the Higher Education Innovation Funding (HEIF).

    I recognise universities do not operate in a vacuum, and I welcome measures which allow them to highlight their particular local contexts – such as the provider submission element of the Teaching Excellence and Student Outcomes Framework (TEF), through which providers can detail wider civic activity, their local mission and regional engagement. As a historian by background and someone who understands the importance of narrative, I believe these provider submissions are key to emphasising geographical differences, and are likely to help universities reflect their individual contexts more accurately than any more formulaic approach.

    Widening participation is a priority for this government. As I said in my first HE speech last month, I recognise that going to university might not be right for everyone. But I also recognise that anyone with the capability to benefit from it and succeed should have the opportunity to go.

    Universities can play a key role in raising aspirations. Through their access and participation plans many higher education providers are working with schools, colleges and other local partners to raise awareness of the benefits of higher education. In addition, the OfS provides funding for the National Collaborative Outreach Programme (NCOP), comprising 29 consortia delivering sustained and progressive outreach in local areas. And I also know there are many other examples out there of good practice – such as the ‘South Yorkshire Futures’ programme, led by Sheffield Hallam University, which is committed to improving education and raising aspiration for young people in the South Yorkshire area.

    Universities make a real difference to local communities, not just by getting people into higher education, but enabling them to progress into meaningful work afterwards. The Challenge Competition, administered by the OfS, specifically helps providers develop projects to support graduate employability and improved outcomes for graduates who choose to remain in their local area. I look forward to working with the OfS and the Director for Fair Access and Participation over the year ahead to consider what more can be done to recognise and appreciate the many ways universities contribute to social justice and mobility in their individual regions.

    As for the UPP Foundation Civic University Commission report launched this week, we, in government, will be sure to study the report’s recommendations in detail and look at how some of the proposals can be integrated into work that is already being planned or undertaken – either by Research England, the OfS, or wider government departments.

    I’m truly grateful to the UPP Foundation for commissioning this important project, and I hope that the Foundation will continue to lead the agenda and debate on the civic university going forwards. I particularly welcome the suggestion for new initiatives such as civic agreements, which aim to encourage universities to take a more strategic approach to their civic activity. It will be important that universities do not create these in isolation, and that we consider further how universities can be encouraged to join up with other key actors in their local areas to create agreements that best serve their entire community.

    As a Minister across two Departments, I’ve asked officials in both the DfE and BEIS to work further with the Commission and the UPP Foundation to look at how we can take their work forward into the future. For now though, I want to thank all of you again in our universities and colleges for your truly transformative work in our cities and regions across the country. And I look forward to working with you in the year and months ahead to help enhance your positive impacts on the ground.

  • Alok Sharma – 2019 Speech on Unemployment

    Below is the text of the speech made by Alok Sharma, the Minister of State for Employment, made at the STIR Conference on 13 February 2019.

    Ladies and gentlemen, it is a pleasure to be here.

    The last time I spoke to the BritishAmerican Business group was actually back in 2013. It was in Reading, you were on a roadshow and I was thinking what did we talk about because that was before Brexit.

    But I did look through the agenda and the agenda was trade – all about trade between the UK and the US. And TTIP. So it was current then and it is current now.

    Anyway, I probably shouldn’t digress from my speech so let me deliver the speech and then I am very happy to take questions on Brexit or anything else you would like.

    So let me start by saying there are 3.4 million more people in work today than in 2010, and around three quarters of all the jobs created over the last 8 years have been full-time, permanent roles and in what we refer to as higher level occupations which ultimately attract higher wages.

    All the increase in employment in the last year has been driven by full-time and permanent jobs. And I think from my perspective I want to thank all of you here because you are very much the people who have made this happen – so a huge thank you from me and the rest of the government.

    Actually people have been benefiting across every region of the country.

    Employment growth has been strongest in regions where it has historically been low. And this point was reinforced in the Resolution Foundation’s report which I helped launch last month as it set out how record employment has changed the United Kingdom.

    Across society, all groups are benefitting as well.

    In fact, it is those who previously found it harder to find jobs who are benefitting most from the jobs growth we have seen over the last 8 years.

    More women are in work than ever before; the ethnic minority employment rate is at a record high; youth unemployment has almost halved since 2010; a million more people with disabilities have entered the jobs market since 2013; and there are more than 10 million people over the age of 50 still in work.

    Now I’m not going to ask how many of you are over 50 – you all look very young to me. But I have just got over 50 so I am now an older worker, as we class it.

    And this is the group that we are going to be looking at today.

    As we live longer, healthier lives many people are extending their working life.

    But it may surprise many to know that, despite our increased longevity, men are actually leaving the labour market at an earlier age than in 1950, with women leaving at the same age.

    Whilst there are those who have planned and saved to retire early, there are lots of people exiting the labour market before they would really want to.

    Analysis of the British Social Attitudes survey which looked at working later in life showed that just 39% of those who had already retired did so because they wanted to.

    So that means 61% of people who retired did so not wanting to but wanting to work longer, or indeed because they had health conditions or were unable to work. And that’s quite a powerful statistic in my view.

    And while employers have long been making arrangements to enable parents to look after their children – which of course is a very good thing – there is also an increasing need to support their older workers who are caring for parents or partners. And I will return to this theme.

    It is widely accepted of course that boosting the number of older workers in employment has benefits.

    I want to focus on 3 in particular.

    The first are the rewards for an individual who enjoys a fuller working life; second is the boost for employers; and third is the benefit to the national economy.

    So firstly, I do think we are too quick to forget the impact that the routine and social nature of work has on our individual health and wellbeing. For most people, being in what they consider to be good work can be good for their health, both physical and mental.

    Secondly, at an employer level, I know from my conversations with businesses that you yourselves recognise the value of keeping hold of your talent or bringing their experience into your workforce.

    And not only that: we are all familiar with the productivity challenge we face in this country. Armed with more experience, the efficiency of older workers could be part of that solution.

    And thirdly at the national level, according to PwC analysis, if the UK could reach the employment rate for 55 to 64 year olds that Sweden currently enjoys, it would boost our GDP by £80 billion. This of course would mean boosting our employment rate for this co-hort to around 76%. This will take effort from all us – but we have made progress. Since 1984 we’ve lifted the employment rate for 55 to 59 year olds from around 60% to just over 74%.

    And it is with those 3 benefits in mind that I am convinced that improving employment rates for older workers is a collaborative process – requiring business, government and individual action.

    Around 2 years ago we launched our Fuller Working Lives strategy which was written by business, for businesses.

    It made recommendations about how businesses can retain, retrain and recruit older workers – with a strong business case alongside each.

    I won’t repeat the detail of it – you will have read that – but we have made progress since we set out that plan.

    As part of the recommendations there were a number of ideas around engaging with workers to support them on changing their working pattern and reshaping the end of their careers.

    Since then, much work has gone into what we are calling mid-life MOTs – a moment to take stock of your career and your finances, and to plan for the future with support from your employer.

    Last summer a number of organisations including Aviva, L&G and the Pensions Advisory Service ran pilots with their employees.

    And as we advocate for mid-life MOTs amongst business it is important that we in government set the pace on this.

    So last year my department ran our own pilots with just under 300 staff. It was voluntary and involved a personal review with their line manager and the opportunity to sit down with the Civil Service pension team.

    The initial feedback that we have got is that people found it a really useful exercise. What we are evaluating now is what impact those conversations have had on changing behaviour.

    And as the results of all the pilots are shared, ours as well as the private sector pilots, we will start to see how the midlife MOT can be used to ignite a cultural shift in how people plan for their later career.

    We now also have the Flexible Working Taskforce, and there may well be people here who are represented on that, which includes a range of government departments and business stakeholders.

    The theme of flexible working is also something that comes through in the government’s Good Work plan. I have to say that often flexible working is seen as a response to working parents, which I’ve said is a very good thing.

    But flexible working must also be seen through the prism of older workers.

    They are group who so often carry a range of responsibilities – caring for grandchildren, parents or indeed for their partners.

    They are often woefully undervalued in these roles, and their needs have not been voiced loudly enough in the debate about flexible working.

    Bringing their cause to the fore is something that we can make sure is achieved through this taskforce.

    While action has been taken and progress is happening, older workers are continuing to take on employment, there is more to do.

    And there are 2 areas in particular that I am looking at to boost the employment rates for older works. The first do with our jobcentres.

    Almost all are already paired with the National Careers Service and our Older Worker Champions are working actively on behalf of the older jobseekers we support.

    But on a recent visit to the jobcentre in Birkenhead I met a jobseeker in his fifties and a jobseeker in her twenties – and they sparked an interesting thought.

    While the older jobseeker had navigated the working world – with all its workplace politics – the way that employers recruit today was very new to him.

    Conversely, the younger jobseeker was far more comfortable with rigorous recruitment processes, detailed application forms and online testing, but actually welcome real-life insight into how to get-on once she had the she job wanted.

    At the moment, our jobcentres often working with jobseekers in clusters – young people, ethnic minority jobseekers, older workers and so on.

    To me it makes sense that in many ways to bring people with a shared experience together – building up their confidence and addressing specific barriers.

    But if we take down the divides between these groups, rather than just supporting each through shared experience they can help one another by sharing their different experiences.

    Just as employers value older workers as mentors, jobcentres should too – with the added benefit that the mentoring can be mutual.

    And of course it’s interesting in the context of the discussion we have just had about reverse mentoring – this is something that is as applicable in jobcentres as it is in the workplace more widely.

    The second area I am looking at is enrolment in our Work Experience Programme and Sector Based Work Academies.

    Currently, over fifties are in the minority of the people who start these programmes making up around just 10% of those who have taken up the opportunities since we launched these initiatives in 2011.

    But for those who have been out of work for a while or who are looking to change their job as they grow older, these are the bridges to the work that they are looking for.

    There needs to be a cultural shift in the opportunities we think older workers are open to. For example, apprentices are often thought of as fresh-faced, inexperienced workers.

    But increasingly employers are successfully opening up their schemes to older applicants, in some cases specifically targeting older workers.

    Jobcentres should be doing just the same with the opportunities they have on offer.

    So I have my to-do list on improving the employment prospects for older workers – I hope as you leave this conference later on today you will have your own.

    But before I conclude, I want to make the point that whilst the interventions I’ve talked about today focus on the over fifties, we must also get on the front foot with the young generation of workers coming in.

    There needs to be a resetting of the dial when it comes to how people plan their careers.

    A job for life is no longer a certainty – nor is it what many people want today.

    That does not need to be alarming – there is a sense of freedom in that.

    But to make the most of it, people setting out in their working life must be prepared to adapt.

    Adapt to how their job needs will change as their personal circumstances change over time.

    And, particularly for the new generations, how they adapt as the world of work changes as technology is replacing as well as creating jobs.

    People coming into the workplace now have a different attitude to their parents.

    They are starting to understand that lifelong learning is more crucial than ever. And that one’s legacy can be in 2 or 3 careers, not just in one.

    And I will repeat myself here. This doesn’t need to be alarming.

    Much has been said about concerns for the future of work – particularly in the face of automation.

    But each industrial revolution has created more jobs than there were before.

    So I am confident that we will continue to see a strong labour market. Bringing more people into the workplace – for our collective and individual benefit.

  • Jeremy Wright – 2019 Statement on the Cairncross Review

    Below is the text of the statement made by Jeremy Wright, the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, to the House of Commons on 12 February 2019.

    Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker.

    With your permission, I would like to make a statement about the publication of the Cairncross Review.

    I would like to thank Dame Frances Cairncross for leading the Review, along with the expert Panel and officials who have worked with her to develop it.

    Context

    Madam Deputy Speaker, this Review comes at an important time. In her report, Dame Frances paints a vivid picture of the threat to high quality journalism in this country.

    There are now around 6,000 fewer journalists than there roughly a decade ago.

    Print circulation of daily national papers fell from 11.5 million in 2008 to 5.8 million in 2018.

    And in this same time period, circulation for local newspapers has halved.

    As the Review makes clear, there are many reasons for this.

    But the main driver is a rapid change in how we consume content. The majority of people now read news online, including ninety-one percent of 18 to 24 years olds.

    And as this shift takes place, publishers have struggled to find ways to create sustainable business models in the digital age.

    As the Review sets out, between them, Google and Facebook capture the largest share of online advertising revenue and are an increasingly important channel for the distribution of news content online.

    They also hold an array of data on their users that news publishers cannot possibly hope to replicate, which further strengthens their position in the digital advertising market.

    This combination of market conditions threatens to undermine the future financial sustainability of journalism. Even publications that have only ever been online are struggling.

    And this should concern us all.

    Dame Frances notes that while high quality journalism is desirable, there is one type of journalism that society and democracy cannot do without, and that is public interest journalism.

    That is the type of journalism that can hold the powerful to account and is an essential component of our democracy.

    It helps us to shine a light on important issues – in communities, in courtrooms, in council chambers and in this Chamber.

    This type of journalism is under threat, especially at the local level.

    The Review cites numerous examples of what happens to communities when a local paper disappears.

    So Dame Frances’ report comes at a vital time, and I welcome her focus on public interest journalism.

    Madam Deputy Speaker, this is clearly an important issue and I wanted to set out to the House today how the Government intends to respond.

    There are many substantial recommendations in this Review. There are some areas where we can take them forward immediately.

    And other, more long-term recommendations, where we will be consulting with stakeholders about the best way forward.

    Immediate actions

    Firstly, the recommendations we are able to progress with immediately.

    Online advertising now represents a growing part of the economy and forms an important revenue stream for many publishers.

    But this burgeoning market is largely opaque and extremely complex, and therefore it is at present impossible to know whether the revenue shares received by news publishers are fair.

    The Review proposes that the Competition and Markets Authority conducts a market study into the digital advertising market.

    The purpose of this study would be to examine whether the online marketplace is operating effectively, and whether it enables or prevents fair competition.

    It is right that policy-makers and regulators have an accurate understanding of how the market operates, and check that it is enabling fair competition, and I have today written to the CMA in support of this study.

    I will also urge Professor Jason Furman to treat the Cairncross Review as additional evidence as part of his ongoing inquiry into digital competition in the UK, which is due to be published in the Spring.

    I also recognise that online advertising has given rise to a wider set of social and economic challenges. My department will therefore conduct a review on how online advertising is regulated.

    Madam Deputy Speaker, the Cairncross Review also cites concerns from publishers about the potential market impact of the BBC on their sustainability.

    They argue that the BBC’s free-to-access online content makes it harder for publishers to attract subscribers.

    The Review also questions whether the BBC is straying too far into the provision of ‘softer’ news content, traditionally the preserve of commercial publishers, and suggests this might benefit from the scrutiny of Ofcom.

    Let me be clear that Government recognises the strong and central role of the BBC here. As the review states, “the BBC offers the very thing that this Review aims to encourage: a source of reliable and high quality news, with a focus on objectivity and impartiality, and independent from government”.

    However, it is right that the role of the BBC, as a Public Service Broadcaster, is appropriately transparent and clear.

    The Review recommended that “Ofcom should assess whether BBC News Online is striking the right balance, between aiming for the widest reach for its own content, and driving traffic from its online site to commercial publishers, particularly local ones.”

    Of course, some of these questions were addressed as part of the Charter Review process.

    But I have written today to ask Ofcom to look carefully at the Review’s recommendations, and identify if there are any new concerns deserving attention.

    For instance, there may be ways in which the BBC could do more to drive traffic to commercial sites, particularly the local press.

    Another recommendation from the Review was a proposal for two separate forms of tax relief for news publications, one of which is intended to bolster the supply of local and investigative journalism by enabling it to benefit from charitable status.

    The Review noted that in the USA, philanthropic donations provide on average 90 per cent of the total revenues of non-profit news publishers.

    Although we have a different media landscape, as the Review sets out, charitable status could reduce the costs for those producing this essential public interest reporting, and pave the way for a new revenue stream through philanthropic donations.

    I recognise that this avenue has been explored previously, and that some hurdles will have to be cleared, but I believe we should pursue it.

    So I have written to the Charity Commission and look forward to hearing how they can help move this forward.

    Longer term work

    Madam Deputy Speaker, as I set out earlier there are also areas where we will need to consult further, and respond in further detail.

    First, Dame Frances recommends the establishment of an Institute for Public Interest News, to promote investigative and local journalism.

    The Review proposes that this Institute would act as a convener for those organisations with the means to support public interest news, including the BBC and online platforms.

    It would also be tasked with generating additional finance for the sector, driving innovation through a proposed new fund, and supporting an expansion of the BBC’s Local Democracy Reporting Service.

    This BBC funded scheme is a shining example of what can be done. The first of its kind in the industry, it is embedding 150 journalists within local publishers to produce local democracy reporting, particularly relating to local councils.

    I met some of these reporters last week and they have produced 50,000 stories so far between them, all stories that may not otherwise have been heard.

    The Government will explore, with others, what more can be done here.

    The Review also calls upon Government to do more to incentivise the publishing industry’s transition to digital.

    It proposes the introduction of an extension of the current scope of VAT exemptions so that they apply to online payments for all news content and not simply print news content, and new tax relief for public interest news providers.

    I am aware that there is passionate support for this within the publishing sector and we share their ambition for a healthy and sustainable industry.

    As this House knows, the Government always keeps taxes under review, and any decision to amend the UK tax regime is of course a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer as part of the annual fiscal cycle.

    I will be discussing this matter further with industry and my colleagues at the Treasury.

    I also wanted to highlight two recommendations in the Review that cover similar ground to work already taking place within Government.

    One is the Review’s sensible proposal that the Government develops a media literacy strategy, working with the range of organisations already active in this space.

    Evidence suggests that there is also a correlation between media literacy and greater propensity to pay for news. So, improving media literacy will also have an impact on the sustainability of the press.

    Making sure people have the skills they need to separate fact from fiction is the key to long-term success in tackling this issue and I welcome the focus that Dame Frances has placed on it.

    We welcome this recommendation, which relates closely to the Government’s ongoing work to combat disinformation.

    My honourable friend the Minister for Digital and Creative Industries last month hosted a roundtable on media literacy and the Government is actively looking at what more we can do to support industry efforts in this area.

    The other is the Review’s call for the creation of new codes of conduct between publishers and the online platforms which distribute their content.

    These would cover issues relating to the indexing of content on platforms, and its presentation, as well as the need for advanced warning about algorithm changes likely to affect a publisher.

    The development of these codes would be overseen by a regulator.

    The Review also proposes that regulatory oversight be introduced as part of a ‘news quality obligation’ upon platforms.

    That would require that platforms improve how their users understand the origin of an article of news and the trustworthiness of its source. Dame Frances recognises that platforms are already starting to accept responsibility in this regard.

    These two proposals deserve Government’s full consideration, and we will examine how they can inform our approach. That includes our work as part of the Online Harms White Paper, due to be published shortly.

    Conclusion

    Madam Deputy Speaker, this report sets out a path to help us put our media on a stronger and more sustainable footing.

    However, Dame Frances is clear that her Review is just one contribution to the debate.

    We cannot turn back the clock and there is no magic formula to address the systemic changes faced by the industry.

    But it is the role of any responsible Government to play an active part in supporting public interest journalism.

    We will consider this Review’s contents carefully, and engage with press publishers, online platforms, regulators, academics, the public and members of this House, as we consider the way forward.

    And I remain open to further proposals that may go beyond the recommendations or scope of this Review.

    Madam Deputy Speaker, I know that this is an issue that is of great concern to honourable members all across this House. And today’s Review is an important milestone.

    At the heart of any thriving civil society is a free and vibrant press.

    The Government, and I, have no doubt the House, is committed to supporting it through changing times, and ensuring it can continue to do its job.

    I commend this statement to the House.

  • Theresa May – 2019 Speech on Brexit to House of Commons

    Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May, the Prime Minister, to the House of Commons on 12 February 2019.

    With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the Government’s ongoing work to secure a Brexit deal that honours our commitments to the people of Northern Ireland, commands the support of Parliament and can be negotiated with the EU.

    On 29th January, this House gave me a clear mandate and sent an unequivocal message to the European Union. Last week, I took that message to Brussels.

    I met President Juncker, President Tusk, and the President of European Parliament, Antonio Tajani – and I told them clearly what Parliament wanted in order to unite behind a Withdrawal Agreement: namely, legally binding changes to the backstop.

    And I explained to them the three ways in which this can be achieved.

    First, the backstop could be replaced with alternative arrangements to avoid a hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland.

    Yesterday, my Rt Hon Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union met with Michel Barnier to discuss the ideas put forward by the Alternative Arrangements Working Group comprised of a number of my Hon and Rt Hon Friends.

    I am grateful to that group for their work and we are continuing to explore their ideas.

    Second, there could be a legally-binding time limit to the existing backstop.

    Or third, there could be a legally-binding unilateral exit clause to that backstop.

    Given both sides agree we do not ever want to use the backstop, and that if we did it would be temporary, we believe it is reasonable to ask for legally binding changes to this effect.

    Mr Speaker, as expected, President Juncker maintained the EU’s position that they will not reopen the Withdrawal Agreement.

    And I set out the UK’s position, strengthened by the mandate that this House gave me, that this House needs to see legally-binding changes to the backstop and that can be achieved by changes to the Withdrawal Agreement.

    We both agreed that our teams should hold further talks to find a way forward, and he and I will meet again before the end of February to take stock of those discussions.

    So our work continues. The Secretary of State and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster are today in Strasbourg and last week the Attorney General was in Dublin to meet his Irish counterpart.

    And following my own visits to Brussels, Northern Ireland and Ireland last week, I welcomed the Prime Minister of Malta to Downing Street yesterday and I will be speaking to other EU 27 leaders today and throughout the week.

    The Right Honourable Gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition, shares the concerns of this House on the backstop. I welcome his willingness to sit down and talk to me and I look forward to continuing our discussions.

    Indeed, Government Ministers will be meeting with members of his team tomorrow.

    I think there are a number of areas where the whole House should be able to come together.

    In particular, I believe we have a shared determination across this House not to allow the UK leaving the EU to mean any lowering of standards in relation to workers’ rights, environmental protections or health and safety.

    I have met Trade Unions and with members from across the House, and my Rt Hon Friend the Business Secretary is leading work to ensure that we fully address all concerns about these vital issues.

    We have already made legally-binding commitments to no regression in these areas if we were to enter the backstop – and we are prepared to consider legislating to give these commitments force in UK law.

    And in the interests of building support across the House, we are also prepared to commit to asking Parliament whether it wishes to follow suit whenever the EU changes its standards in these areas. And of course we don’t need to automatically follow EU standards in order to lead the way – as we have done in the past under both Conservative and Labour Governments.

    The UK has a proud tradition of leading the way in workers’ rights, whilst maintaining a flexible labour market that has helped deliver an employment rate almost 6 percentage points above the EU average.

    Successive governments of all parties have put in place standards that exceed the minimums set by the EU.

    A Labour government gave British workers annual leave and paid maternity leave entitlements well above that required by the European Union.

    A Conservative-led government went further than the EU by giving all employees the right to request flexible working. And I was proud to be the Minister for Women and Equalities to introduce shared parental leave so that both parents are able to take on caring responsibilities for their child – something no EU regulation provides for.

    When it comes to workers’ rights this Parliament has set a higher standard before and I believe will do so in the future.

    Indeed we already have plans to repeal the so-called Swedish derogation, which allows employers to pay their agency workers less, and we are committed to enforcing holiday pay for the most vulnerable workers.

    Not just protecting workers’ rights, but extending them.

    As I set out in my statement two weeks ago, the House also agrees that Parliament must have a much stronger and clearer role in the next phase of the negotiations.

    Because the Political Declaration cannot be legally binding and in some areas provides for a spectrum of outcomes – some Members are understandably concerned that they cannot be sure precisely what future relationship it would lead to.

    By following through on our commitments and giving Parliament that bigger say in the mandate for the next phase, we are determined to address those concerns.

    The Secretary of State has written to all Members of the Exiting the EU Committee seeking their view on engaging Parliament in this next phase of negotiations.

    And we are also reaching out beyond this House to engage more deeply with businesses, civil society and trade unions.

    Everyone in this House knows that the vote for Brexit was not just about changing our relationship with the EU, but changing how things work at home, especially for those in communities who feel they have been left behind.

    Addressing this and widening opportunities is the mission of this Government that I set out on my first day as Prime Minister, and I will continue to work with Members across the House to do everything we can to help build a country that works for everyone.

    But, Mr Speaker, one area where the Rt Hon Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and I do not agree is on his suggestion that the UK should remain a member of the EU Customs Union.

    I would gently point out that the House of Commons has already voted against this. And in any case, membership of the Customs Union would be a less desirable outcome than that which is provided for in the Political Declaration.

    That would deliver no tariffs, fees, charges or quantitative restrictions across all sectors, and no checks on rules of origin.

    But crucially, it would also provide for the development of an independent trade policy for the UK that would allow us to strike our own trade deals around the world, something the Labour Party once supported.

    On Thursday, as I promised in the House last month, we will bring forward an amendable motion.

    This will seek to reaffirm the support of the House for the amended motion from 29th January – namely to support the Government in seeking changes to the backstop and to recognise that negotiations are ongoing.

    Having secured an agreement with the European Union for further talks, we now need some time to complete that process.

    When we achieve the progress we need, we will bring forward another meaningful vote.

    But if the Government has not secured a majority in this House in favour of a Withdrawal Agreement and a Political Declaration, then the Government will on Tuesday 26 February make a statement and table an amendable motion relating to the statement; and a Minister will move that motion on Wednesday 27 February, thereby enabling the House to vote on it, and on any amendments to it, on that day.

    Mr Speaker, as well as making clear what is needed to change in the Withdrawal Agreement, the House has also reconfirmed its view that it does not want to leave the EU without a deal.

    The government agrees. But opposing no deal is not enough to stop it.

    We must agree a deal that this House can support. And that is what I am working to achieve.

    I’ve spoken before about the damage that would be done to public faith in our democracy if this House were to ignore the result of the 2016 referendum.

    In Northern Ireland last week, I heard again the importance of securing a Withdrawal Agreement that works for all the people of this United Kingdom.

    In Belfast I met not just with politicians but with leaders of civil society and business from across the community.

    Following this House’s rejection of the Withdrawal Agreement, many people in Northern Ireland are worried about what the current uncertainty will mean for them.

    In this House we often focus on the practical challenges posed by the border in Northern Ireland.

    But for many people in Northern Ireland, what looms larger is the fear that the seamless border between Ireland and Northern Ireland that helped make the progress which has followed the Belfast Agreement possible might be disrupted.

    We must not let that happen and we shall not let that happen.

    The talks are at a crucial stage. We now all need to hold our nerve to get the changes this House requires and deliver Brexit on time.

    By getting the changes we need to the backstop; by protecting and enhancing workers’ rights and environmental protections; and by enhancing the role of Parliament in the next phase of negotiations I believe we can reach a deal that this House can support.

    We can deliver for the people and the communities that voted for change two and half years ago – and whose voices for too long have not been heard.

    We can honour the result of the referendum.

    And we can set this country on course for the bright future that every part of this United Kingdom deserves.

    That is this Government’s mission. We shall not stint in our efforts to fulfil it.

    And I commend this statement to the House.

  • Matt Hancock – 2019 Speech on Technology

    Below is the text of the speech made by Matt Hancock, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, on 11 February 2019.

    This place has always looked to the future. Charles Darwin, Edward Jenner, Alexander Fleming: all fellows of this great institution, all coming together to “share knowledge” to “benefit society”.

    I’d like to thank another great fellow – Dr Eric Topol – for the amazing work he, and his team, have done to benefit the NHS.

    They’ve looked to the future. They’ve looked at genomics, digital medicines, AI and robotics. They’ve looked at the potential of new technology to save lives and improve the nation’s health and wellbeing.

    And they’ve looked at how tech can help staff, make their lives easier, and what we need to do to help our NHS workforce prepare for a digital future.

    The Topol Review is a forensically thorough analysis of what we need to do and how we should do it. But I’d like to take a moment to focus on the why.

    Why do I care about getting the right tech in the NHS? Why should we all care about getting the right tech in the NHS?

    It’s not about having the latest gizmos. It’s because the right technology saves lives. Every major technological leap, from penicillin, to vaccination, to MRI, has meant more lives saved.

    I’m confident that our children and grandchildren will look back at genomics, AI and robotics in the same way. They’ll be the ones asking us why, if we fail to seize this opportunity.

    As Dr Topol says, we’re 10 years behind in some fields. If we just made better use of today’s tech, we could save more people.

    So I care about tech because I care about people. I care about our NHS staff and our NHS patients. And I care about getting this right. Because I know the consequences when we don’t.

    There’s something that Dr Umesh Prabhu said that has stayed with me. It’s the reason why he devoted his career to becoming an NHS medical director and an expert in patient safety.

    When he was a consultant, he made a mistake. There were 2 babies with the same name on his ward. His junior doctor picked up the wrong case notes and when Dr Prabhu was brought the wrong x-ray, he discharged the wrong baby.

    Two days later that baby boy was admitted to another hospital with severe brain damage. The baby’s step-father had stamped on his skull. X-rays showed the baby had multiple rib fractures, some of which were old.

    As you can imagine, Dr Prabhu was devastated. Here was a man who cared deeply about his patients, who had made helping people his life’s mission.

    That tragedy had a profound effect on him. He vowed to change the system, to put in place safety protocols and ways of working that would mean a simple mix-up couldn’t lead to such devastating consequences again.

    Thankfully, thanks to his efforts, much has changed in the NHS since that happened. But it hasn’t changed enough.

    Dr Prabhu says human beings make 5 to 7 mistakes every day. Everybody makes mistakes. Doctors and nurses will make mistakes, despite their best efforts and intentions.

    That’s why, for me, getting the right tech ‒ tech that works, tech that helps our medical staff, that makes their lives easier, that reduces the chance of human error leading to human tragedy ‒ is so important.

    I care passionately about giving our medical staff the right tools to do their jobs. I understand their frustration at systems that make their jobs more difficult. I get how a tough day becomes even tougher because something won’t work like it’s supposed to.

    Digital tech has the potential to transform our health service in the future, but the right tech, right now, will improve lives, and save lives. So the work must begin now.

    We’re going to have a chief information officer or a chief clinical information officer on the board of every local NHS organisation within the next 3 years.

    Getting the right leadership, people who understand tech, who have tech skills themselves, involved in management decisions is vital to getting the right mindset in place. It’s the first step to training up staff, building up digital capability in hospitals and GP surgeries.

    So I’m delighted to launch the Topol programme for digital healthcare fellowships. This programme will give clinicians the skills to make a practical difference to their local NHS organisations and start them on a career path to become CCIOs and CIOs. That way, those leaders can help train and prepare our workforce for a digital future.

    And here I’d like to quote from the report: “There is a need to raise awareness of genomics and digital literacy among the health and social care workforce. This requires development of the skills, attitudes and behaviours that individuals require to become digitally competent and confident.”

    So, the Prime Minister and I have asked Baroness Dido Harding to take forward a ‘workplace implementation plan’. She will build on the recommendations in the Topol Review:

    all healthcare professionals should receive core training in genomic literacy to help them understand the basis, benefits and ethical considerations involved

    we need to create a career pathway from undergraduate to specialist, a digitally enabled health system with a culture of continuous learning, and we need to support the educators, and the development of the whole workforce

    Of course, we want the NHS to be world leaders in digital healthcare, so we need to attract the brightest and the best into our health service, we need to increase the number of clinicians, scientists, technologists and specialists.

    But if we want to see transformative change in the NHS, then we need to embed digital skills into every level, and every part of it.

    We must invest in training up the existing workforce. Staff must have the opportunity to learn about digital technologies and develop the necessary skills. They must have ongoing training.

    The government is putting a record £20.5 billion a year into the NHS – the longest and largest cash settlement in its history.

    It’s a once-in-a-generation opportunity. To seize that opportunity and build a better, more sustainable health service for the future, we must ensure our NHS workforce have the right tech and the right tech skills.

    Because, thirdly, and finally, I’d like to bring it back to why – why we’re here today.

    That’s not a metaphysical question ‒ I’m afraid I can’t answer that one for you ‒ but why I’m here today is because I want us to harness the power of digital technology, to shape it as a force for good, because I want to help the NHS cut costs and save lives.

    When we talk about the importance of data management and inter-operability, most of the public won’t know what we mean.

    This is what I mean: right now, Tesco has more sophisticated and more efficient systems than the NHS. They know who you are through loyalty cards, where you shop through store IDs, and what you buy through the items scanned at the checkout.

    That wealth of information means they can run their operations with just-in-time deliveries and market their goods to shoppers with personalised discount vouchers.

    In the NHS, we don’t have anything like that. We don’t use common identifiers to identify patients, we don’t know which hospitals a patient has been to, we don’t know which medicines have been put into them. We don’t even know what we already know!

    Of course, there are security and privacy concerns over sensitive medical data and that data has to be managed carefully and with consent. But the NHS is missing out on valuable information. Information that could make NHS services more efficient and safer.

    A world in which a hospital can’t pull up a patient’s GP record to see the reason for stopping and starting medications is downright dangerous. True inter-operability means having the right systems and the right standards.

    We have learned the lessons of the past. We don’t need the same system across the NHS, but we need the same standards so machines can talk to each other and data can be exchanged.

    Six acute NHS trusts have taken up ‘Scan for Safety’, a standard methodology using standardised naming conventions and proven technology to identify and monitor patients, and track products and places.

    I want to see this taken up by the entire acute sector. As the review says, we can have the most advanced tech, but we won’t see the benefits unless we have real inter-operability. So staff have to make scanning a routine part of their working day.

    It takes seconds, but saves hours. If adopted across the NHS, the time saved would equate to almost 400 extra nurses.

    As Dr Topol says in the report: “Wherever possible, the adoption of new technologies should enable staff to gain more time to care, promoting deeper interaction with patients”.

    Because, ultimately, this is about people. It’s about doctors like Dr Prabhu. It’s about babies like that little boy.

    For tech to succeed, for tech to fulfil its potential and deliver on its promise, then human beings are absolutely critical to making it happen. We need a culture change as much as we need a technological change.

    So, let’s work together towards a digital future that works for people, that puts people first, that helps the NHS do the job it is there to do, ensures the NHS is always there, for all of us, for generations to come.