UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Speeches

  • Claire Perry – 2018 Speech on Gas

    Below is the text of the article written by Claire Perry, the Minister of State for Energy and Clean Growth, on 18 May 2018.

    Developing our North Sea oil and gas has been a Great British success story.

    Since the first wells started producing in the 1960s we have created a secure domestic energy supply, created thousands of high quality jobs, delivered billions to the economy and driven the growth of a huge engineering sector that we have exported to the world.

    Even with the amazing improvements in North Sea production, volumes are declining and we are now importing almost half of our gas supplies.

    Although we are in no way reliant on Russian gas despite what the Russians would have you believe.

    Because gas is so important for our economy we know that we will need it for decades to come.

    It also fits with our world-beating climate goals as it generates less CO2 than oil and coal.

    That is why every estimate of our 2050 emissions reductions targets from the independent Climate Change Committee includes gas in our energy mix and why it is right to continue to look for gas that can be safely extracted from the potentially huge reserves hundreds of metres beneath our feet.

    And there are other benefits too.

    Shale gas extraction could provide a big clean growth boost for local communities as part of our modern Industrial Strategy – bringing thousands of high quality jobs, local investment and financial benefits to many parts of the country.

    And our world-leading environmental regulations mean we could create even more investment and export opportunities from innovations like recycling waste water.

    There are those who argue strongly against shale gas, using the most colourful and scaremongering language they can find and intimidating local communities and decision makers with lots of protesters from out of town.

    In my experience, most of these arguments are made by people who actually just don’t want us to use gas at all – now or ever.

    While we should all be hugely proud of our huge progress on renewables that delivers almost 30 percent of our electricity needs, we cannot meet our energy and heat needs now, or for many years to come, at a price we can afford, without using the gas that geography has gifted us.

    That is why we committed to support the development of onshore British shale gas and to deliver a clean safe and affordable energy supply for the country.

    It is why I have set out these changes to the planning and regulation regime to make sure there is support available for all involved in this process.

  • Tom Watson – 2018 Speech on Gaming Machines

    Below is the text of the speech made by Tom Watson, the Labour MP for West Bromwich East, in the House of Commons on 17 May 2018.

    Good morning to you, Mr Speaker. I am grateful to the Minister for advance sight of her statement, and I refer hon. Members to my entry in the register.

    At the outset, let me warmly congratulate the Minister on her decision today. I am not going to be mealy-mouthed about it: we are absolutely delighted that the Government have decided to deliver a Labour party manifesto pledge. Today, we have had this on FOBTs and yesterday we had the railways taken back into public ownership—it is just a shame we could not make it three with the Leveson inquiry earlier in the week. I genuinely believe this is a great moment; it is the right decision and I applaud the Minister for making it. Having been in government, I know how tricky it is to reach a consensus on these complex regulatory issues, and she deserves recognition from those in all parts of the House for getting this through. We should also recognise that this is a victory for the many people in this House who have led this campaign, particularly my friend, colleague and fellow deputy leader, my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), who has fought tirelessly for this, alongside other Members, including the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith), whom I also regard as a friend.

    During this process, we have seen how some parts of the gambling industry have stood in defiance of Ministers, civil servants, parliamentarians, clinicians and other professionals, and have sought to delay at every turn common-sense decisions that would have given comfort to those who have been afflicted by these machines. ​There is a lesson in this: if the UK is to retain its reputation for innovative, light-touch regulation and responsible gambling, the wider industry needs to start taking its responsibilities and obligations to players seriously. Any Government, whatever their political hue, will be deeply concerned about the situation we find ourselves in: we have 430,000 gambling addicts; 2 million vulnerable players at risk of developing an addiction; and 25,000 young people who gamble every week. It is incumbent on the industry now to show the Government and Parliament its progress on how it shoulders these responsibilities and uses its £13.8 billion a year yield to deal with harms created by gambling. Across the industry we have global leaders in innovative online gambling products who are seeking solutions to these issues through investment and technology. However, too many household name companies have belligerently denied the facts in front of their noses, so our message today is clear: clean up your act or a future Labour Government will do it for you.

    In that spirt of unity and cross-party co-operation, I would like to make a few suggestions to the Minister, if I may—[Interruption.] I say that genuinely; there is no need to laugh. We understand there are concerns about revenue reduction, and the Minister has suggested she will increase remote gaming duty to cover this. Would it not be more appropriate to close the loophole that allows British online gambling companies based in Gibraltar to avoid paying tax? Secondly, the Government have chosen not to implement a statutory levy for research, education and treatment at this point, but there was a significant call for that, including from some gambling industry leaders. So will she think again on it, in order to guarantee that resources are available for treatment? Thirdly, we all want addicts to access the most appropriate treatment, so will the Government please start to collect proper data in that area? I have asked a number of questions to Ministers about how many addicts are receiving treatment on the NHS and how much treatment costs the NHS, but we have been told time and time again that the Departments do not hold or collect that data. I am sure we all agree that if we are to understand and better treat this problem, we need better data.

    Fourthly, some of the largest companies affected by this decision have argued for restrictions on betting advertising for football in particular. Given that that is also the No. 1 concerned expressed by parents, it seems to me that the Government have been hasty in ignoring it.

    Finally, our view is that the 2005 Act is no longer fit for purpose. We need a new gambling Act that is fit for the digital age. How draconian that new Act might be is dependent on how the industry chooses to engage with Parliament. We call on the innovative and responsible new leaders of the gambling industry to show us that they take their obligations seriously, and to work with us to alleviate problem gambling.

    In conclusion, cutting the maximum stake on FOBTs is a big step in the right direction, but it is just one part of the puzzle. In praising Ministers, I urge the Government to use the new spirit of consensus to introduce a new gambling Act, fit for the purposes of the digital age.

  • Tracey Crouch – 2018 Speech on Gaming Machines

    Below is the text of the speech made by Tracey Crouch, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Sport and Civil Society, in the House of Commons on 17 May 2018.

    With permission, I will make a statement on the gambling review and the publication of our response to the consultation on proposals for changes to gaming machines and on social responsibility requirements across the gambling industry.

    In October 2016, the Government announced a review of gaming machines and social responsibility measures to ensure that we have the right balance between a sector that can grow and contribute to the economy and one that is socially responsible and doing all it should to protect consumers and communities from harm. Underlying that objective was a deep focus on reducing gambling-related harm, protecting the vulnerable and ensuring that those experiencing problems are getting the help they need. Following a call for evidence, we set out a package of measures in a consultation that was published in October last year. The package included social responsibility measures to minimise the risk of gambling-related harm, covering gambling advertising, online gambling, gaming machines and research, education and treatment.

    The consultation ran from 31 October 2017 to 23 January 2018. We received over 7,000 survey responses from a wide range of interested parties and more than 240 submissions of supplementary information and evidence from the public, industry, local authorities, parliamentarians, academics, charities and faith groups. We welcome the responses to the consultation and, in preparing our conclusions, we have reflected on the evidence, concerns and issues that have been raised. We considered the responses alongside advice that we have received from the Gambling Commission and the Responsible Gambling Strategy Board, and we have set out measures on gaming machines, as well as action across online, advertising, research, education and treatment and, more widely, the public health agenda in regard to gambling.

    Before I set out the detail of the package of measures, let me say that we acknowledge that millions of people enjoy gambling responsibly and that we are committed to supporting a healthy gambling industry that generates employment and investment. However, over the course of the review I have met many people who have experienced gambling addiction and those who support them, including relatives of those who have sadly lost their loved-ones to suicide as a result of the impact of gambling. In addition, I have visited the incredible treatment services that are there to support addicts. We are clear that gambling can involve a serious risk of harm to individual players, as well as to their families and to the communities they live in, and we must ensure they are protected.

    The Government are satisfied with the overall framework of gambling regulation but, as part of our action to build a fairer society and a stronger economy, we believe that when new evidence comes to light, we need to act to target any gambling products or activities that cause concern. It is important to acknowledge that, although gambling-related harm is about more than one product or gambling activity, there is a clear case for the Government to make targeted interventions to tackle the riskiest products, with the objective of reducing harm.​

    One product in particular, B2 gaming machines or fixed odds betting terminals—FOBTs—generated enormous interest throughout the review process. At consultation, we set out the evidence for why we believe targeted intervention is required on B2 gaming machines, and we set out the options for stake reduction. Although overall problem gambling rates have remained unchanged since the Gambling Act 2005, it is clear that consistently high rates of problem gambling remain among players of these machines. Despite action by industry and the regulator, a high proportion of those seeking treatment for gambling addiction identify the machines as their main form of gambling.

    According to the latest available data, across Great Britain 11.5% of players of gaming machines in bookmakers are found to be problem gamblers, and a further 32% are considered at risk of harm. In England, 13.6% of players of FOBTs are problem gamblers—the highest rate for any gambling activity. We are concerned that such factors are further amplified by the relationship between the location of B2 gaming machines and areas of high deprivation, with players tending to live in areas with greater levels of income deprivation than the population average. We also know that those who are unemployed are more likely to most often stake £100 than any other socioeconomic group.

    Following our analysis of all the evidence and advice we received, we have come to the conclusion that only by reducing the maximum stake from £100 to £2 will we substantially impact on harm to the player and to wider communities. A £2 maximum stake will reduce the ability to suffer high session losses, our best proxy for harm, while also targeting the greatest proportion of problem gamblers. It will mitigate risk for the most vulnerable players, for whom even moderate losses might be harmful. In particular, we note from gaming machine data that, of the 170,000 sessions on B2 roulette machines that ended with losses to the player of over £1,000, none involved average stakes of £2 or below, but losses of that scale still persist at stakes of £5 and £10.

    The response to our consultation has been overwhelmingly in support of a significant reduction in B2 stakes. The majority of respondents to the consultation submitted opinions in favour of a £2 limit, indicating strong public approval for this step. I am grateful for the cross-party work on this issue, and I pay particular tribute to the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith), the latter having been a very strong supporter of change when he was in government.

    Elsewhere in the industry, we are, for the time being, maintaining the status quo across all other gaming machine stakes, prizes and allocations. We have, however, agreed to an uplift for stakes and prizes on prize gaming, which we consider to be sufficiently low risk.

    We are aware that the factors that influence the extent of harm to a given player are wider than any one product, and include factors around the player, the product and the environment. The response therefore also sets out action on: increasing player protection measures on other gaming machines on the high street; increasing protections around online gambling, including stronger age verification rules and proposals to require ​operators to set limits on a consumer’s spending until affordability checks have been conducted; doing more on research, education and treatment of problem gambling, including a review by Public Health England of the evidence relating to the public health harms of gambling; enhancing protections around gambling advertising, including a major multimillion pound advertising campaign led by GambleAware on responsible gambling, to be launched later this year; and filling the gaps in evidence on advertising and harm, with substantial new research commissioned by GambleAware on the effects of gambling advertising and marketing on children, young people and vulnerable groups.

    Looking ahead, we will also be considering the issue of 16-year-olds playing national lottery products as part of the next licence competition for the national lottery. We aim to gather evidence on this issue with sufficient time to consider it fully ahead of the next licence competition. Changes to the B2 stake will be effected through regulations in Parliament. The move will need parliamentary approval and, in recognition of the potential impact of this change for betting shops, we will also engage with the gambling industry to ensure it is given sufficient time for implementation.

    In conclusion, we want a healthy gambling industry that contributes to the economy, but also one that does all it can to protect players and their families, as well as the wider communities, from harm. We will work with the industry on the impact of these changes and are confident that this innovative sector will step up and help achieve the necessary balance. I commend this statement to the House.

  • Adam Afriyie – 2018 Speech on Lakeside Energy

    Below is the text of the speech made by Adam Afriyie, the Conservative MP for Windsor, in the House of Commons on 17 May 2018.

    We have just witnessed a wonderful debate on International Day against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia that showed both passion and insight into the modern world. I am equally passionate about that subject, but this evening I wish to talk about the Lakeside Energy from Waste plant in my constituency. I am grateful for the opportunity to address the House on this important issue.

    Lakeside Energy from Waste is not just a local energy provider in Windsor; it is an establishment of local, regional and national significance. I have concerns about the plant’s viability and longevity if the third runway should go ahead at Heathrow, or even if it is threatened that the third runway should go ahead at Heathrow, and I will explain why.

    The Lakeside Energy from Waste facility is situated on the proposed site of the third runway at Heathrow. The plant is the largest facility of its kind in England and has been in operation for just six years. The cost of relocation is estimated at between £500 million and £700 million and, from what I can see, with all the potential delays and all the other issues surrounding it, the cost could well run to as much as £1 billion. Those are large sums of money.

    The site is of local significance because of the number of people it employs—around 300, plus others—so it provides local jobs. Regionally, it deals with 450,000 tonnes of waste each year, which is more than the non-recyclable waste produced in a year by the people of Birmingham and Manchester combined. It is a major national plant.

    Some 90,000 tonnes of waste come from west London, 45,000 tonnes of waste come from south London and 30,000 tonnes of waste come from Surrey. Lakeside’s impact is one of national significance because it deals with 40% of the country’s hazardous waste, much of it medical waste. Seventeen NHS trusts, 500 GP surgeries and other medical establishments rely on Lakeside Energy from Waste.

    The plant also provides electricity to the grid, powering up to 50,000 homes in the area, and of course Slough Borough Council enjoys the fruits of its labours in providing services to Lakeside Energy from Waste. I will not name the exact figure for commercial reasons, but a very large sum of money is taken in business rates by Slough Borough Council.

    The hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) was keen to be here for this debate, and he wants me to say that it is clear to him that the jobs and the economic and environmental benefits of Lakeside Energy from Waste are incredibly important to Slough Borough Council and the local area. He points out that 4% of UK waste is processed through the plant. Like me, he is concerned that there will be a detriment to the local area unless there is a clear and orderly plan, with clear responsibilities, for a replacement plant if the third runway goes ahead. My right hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening), who spoke so passionately in the previous debate, has been consistent and clear in asking the ​Government about who is responsible for ensuring the continuity of service if the third runway goes ahead and if the deadline for replacing the plant is missed.

    My first concern is that, if the facility is demolished and not replaced—if there is a gap in service—the effects locally, regionally and nationally will be enormously harmful due to the inability to process the levels of waste that it is contracted to process. The second problem lies in the timeline for Heathrow’s decisions about the third runway, because a replacement plant must be in place before the current plant is decommissioned to avoid a break in operations. Relocating the plant will take a minimum of five years, including one year alone for planning permission, three years for construction and another year for decommissioning the current plant. We can see how tight the timeline is, and the consequences will be enormous for waste processing if there is any gap in operations.

    All that makes Heathrow’s target of having a new runway operational by 2023 pretty much unachievable as things stand, and that assumes there will be no objections to people having an incinerator and a waste processing plant located near their homes. As Members of Parliament, we know that there is always an enormous number of objections from local residents whenever a new operation of this nature is promised. As far as I can see, no sites for new incinerator and waste processing plant have been identified, so it is hardly surprising that I am concerned that a site may not be available.

    The delays and uncertainty are undermining the fantastic business that Lakeside Energy from Waste represents. How will it be possible for people to sign long-term contracts with the plant if there is uncertainty about its future? I am sure that that is having enormous consequences for its operations. Given that the relocation costs are perhaps likely to be in the region of £1 billion—the current estimate is £500 million to £700 million, but it could run towards £1 billion—that is an enormous amount in the context of the overall cost of developing a third runway.

    Where is the money coming from? Airline charges are currently £22.53 per passenger, and rather than Heathrow Airport Ltd conjuring up the money to relocate the plant, passengers will bear the risk of the debt repayments on any secured loans and of ensuring a return on shareholder equity. Having the customers pay the enormous costs of something that does not necessarily benefit them directly does not seem like a good way to proceed with a national project of this nature. If Heathrow Airport Ltd raises the landing fee per passenger, it will probably have to go up to around £30 or £31, making Heathrow the most expensive airport in the world at which to land. If we are looking to become a more competitive nation, particularly as we head towards Brexit, it does not seem a good idea to proceed with a project that causes enormous challenges for waste recycling and processing and creates a white elephant when it comes to the price.

    When considering the plant’s relocation, Heathrow’s financial viability is also called into question. As I said, the cost of relocation looks like it will be about 5% of the cost of the entire project. Looking at the gearing ratio of assets against borrowing, Heathrow is in a parlous position, so I worry that it will not be able to afford to proceed in the first place. We have become ​incredibly concerned because Thames Water’s gearing ratio is 81%, and it has been told that it must be reduced.

    In 2012, the Civil Aviation Authority said that the National Air Traffic Services gearing ratio should be restricted to just 65%, yet Heathrow’s gearing ratio is already at 87%, before it has even begun the third runway project. If it goes ahead, Heathrow’s gearing ratio will end up somewhere around 91%. This is very worrying. Were I an investor, I would be worried, but as a Government I would be even more worried. As a user of the services of Lakeside Energy from Waste, I would be exceptionally worried that this would create enormous troubles for me, with a lack of continuity in waste processing.

    Overall, my main concern is that there could well be a lack of continuity of service for waste disposal. I am also concerned that Heathrow’s viability in coming up with the money to finance the relocation of the operation, particularly without a site having already been identified, is in question.

    I have two core questions for the Minister; he will have heard them before, but I want to reiterate them. First, will the Government confirm that they unconditionally accept the Transport Committee’s recommendation that

    “a condition of approval”—

    for the third runway—

    “be specified in an updated”

    national policy statement

    “that provides the Lakeside Energy from Waste plant with equivalent recognition as the Immigration Removal Centres and that the replacement of its facilities be accounted for”

    in the development consent order process?

    Secondly, is there a way in which the Government can guarantee that there will be no break in service? If they maintain that

    “the planning and costs of moving the Energy from Waste Plant would be a matter for the airport to take forward with the owners of the site”,

    I fear that that responsibility may well be placed on a private limited company, when we are talking about a waste processing plant that is an asset of national significance. Although I hope this will not be the case, let us say that it turns out that Heathrow Airport Ltd is responsible for relocating the plant; who then is going to pay for the necessary local infrastructure—the roads and perhaps even some rail—for the heavy goods vehicles that will need access to the plant?

    In summary, I have huge concerns. It is no great secret that I think the third runway is a bit of a mistake. I hope the decision will be changed at some point. In the meantime, I simply emphasise this: if we are going to have one more runway, would it not be far simpler, greener, less costly and, more importantly, quicker to proceed with the runway at Gatwick, which would not encounter these problems? Even the Government’s updated figures show that Gatwick gives a better net present value than Heathrow. A third runway at Heathrow would affect 2.2 million people more than they are affected today, and perhaps 300,000 people would begin to experience significant noise.

    The Government have an opportunity to change their mind. When it comes to Lakeside Energy from Waste operations in Colnbrook, I urge the Government and the Minister to think carefully about continuity ​and who is responsible for this national asset, which provides such good services to the NHS, local authorities and others.

  • David Lidington – 2018 Speech to CBI Scotland

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Lidington, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, to CBI Scotland on 11 May 2018.

    Thank you Paul for that kind introduction – and thank you everyone for that very generous welcome.

    Before I start, and on behalf of everyone here, can I pay tribute to Paul, your tenure with the CBI, and for everything you have done on behalf of the thousands of businesses across the UK.

    Leading this organisation through two general elections and a referendum on our membership of the European Union would be a tall ask for anyone, but you have kept the CBI at the forefront of our national debate – and it is fair to say you have kept the UK Government permanently on our toes.

    And so for that I thank you, and wish you all the success in the future.

    It is a pleasure to be with you today, and to have the great privilege of addressing CBI Scotland. And it is also a pleasure to be back here in Edinburgh.

    Whenever I visit this great city, I am constantly reminded of the weight of history that is all around us.

    Edinburgh isn’t simply a thriving, modern capital within our United Kingdom.

    It is the cradle of so much that our country, and indeed Europe, can celebrate in terms of philosophy, literature, architecture, poetry and political thought.

    It is the birthplace of the Scottish Enlightenment, a period in our history when pragmatism, reason and freedom of thought rose to the fore.

    And so it is the proud home of many of our finest intellectual figures, such as Adam Smith, whose statue stands proudly just a few streets away from here, and whose legacy continues to remind us of that virtue of choice that is so integral to our economic way of life and wellbeing.

    That is what I want to touch on very briefly with you this lunchtime: the importance of making choices – not just in the economic sense, but in the political sphere too.

    The choice to leave the EU

    Because politics is ultimately about having preferences and making choices.

    Left or right; conservative or socialist; liberal or protectionist; Unionist or Nationalist; I guess Hearts or Hibs; even Celtic or Rangers – it is the virtue of having different choices which makes democracy something we must always cherish and respect.

    I am sure there are many of you here who voted to Remain in the European Union nearly two years ago. As many of you will know, I also fought hard for such an outcome.

    But on June 23rd 2016, the British people made a clear choice to leave the European Union and forge a new and different path for ourselves in the world.

    Now it is incumbent all of us, both individuals and governments, not just to accept that choice as democrats – and not merely to understand why the British people made that choice – but to minimise the risks and seize the opportunities that this choice presents.

    Now there will be those here in this room who, for perfectly understandable reasons, have concerns about the challenges we face – and want nothing more than certainty and clarity as negotiations proceed.

    But you should be in no doubt of the resolve of the UK Government to respond to those concerns and deliver a Brexit that prioritises certainty and clarity for businesses and consumers in all four parts of our union.

    Update on negotiations

    And as negotiations proceed, that is precisely what we are doing.

    We have already agreed a fair deal on citizens’ rights, ensuring that EU citizens in the UK and UK nationals can get on with their lives broadly as they are now.

    We’ve agreed a good financial settlement for British taxpayers, made in the spirit of our future partnership with the EU.

    We’ve agreed a Joint Declaration with the EU that makes clear our mutual determination to preserve the Common Travel Area, avoid a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, and uphold the totality of relationships embodied in the Belfast Agreement, both East-West and North-South.

    And we’ve reached agreement with the EU on an implementation period, providing that certainty and clarity for people and businesses so they will only see one change when we enter into a new relationship with the EU in the future.

    So while these are real achievements we have made in the interests of businesses and individuals across our country, we must now look to build our future economic partnership with the European Union.

    In her speech at Mansion House in March this year, the Prime Minister set out her aim for a deep and comprehensive partnership in which:

    trade between the UK and the EU would be as frictionless as possible

    UK regulatory standards remain at least as high as the EU’s

    and in which there is no hard border on the island of Ireland

    She also made clear that one important objective in building that partnership would be to seek a new customs arrangement with the European Union.

    At Lancaster House in 2017, the Prime Minister said that we will be leaving the EU’s customs union, its Common Commercial Policy, and the Common External Tariff.

    But she also said that we do want to have a customs agreement with the EU. As she said, we have an open mind on how: it is not the means that matter, but the ends.

    And that is why last year, we set out two potential options for what this new customs arrangement might be.

    Option one was a customs partnership between the UK and the EU, in which the UK would mirror the EU’s requirements for imports from the rest of the world, applying the same tariffs and the same rules of origin as the EU for those goods arriving in the UK and intended for the EU.

    The other option was a highly streamlined customs arrangement, in which we would jointly agree to implement a range of measures to minimise frictions to trade.

    This would include waivers for goods moving between the UK and the EU, “trusted trader” schemes, specific exemptions for small businesses, and online systems – such as for customs declarations to be made far from the border, as is already the case with VAT declarations when VAT regimes between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland are different.

    But whatever option we are discussing, our objectives remain the same:

    for trade at the UK-EU border to be as frictionless as possible

    with no hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland

    and for us to conduct our own trade policy and sign free trade agreements that will benefit businesses and consumers here in Scotland, as well as those in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland too

    And I am pleased to say that, despite what you may have read, this work is now nearing completion.

    So as negotiations continue, these are choices that will have the best interests of Scottish businesses and consumers at their heart, and the need to provide clarity and certainty as soon as possible for you all.

    Importance of the UK common market

    Because this is a long road that has many different twists and turns, as we together journey out of the European Union.

    But as negotiations continue on that future deep and special partnership we all want to see, we must not forget the need for certainty and clarity here at home as well.

    It is why the UK has a responsibility, through our modern industrial strategy, to improve living standards, spread prosperity and promote growth around all parts of our country, and ensure we are match fit for the next wave of technological change that is fast approaching.

    For example, our Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund is providing £795 million for potential innovators, and we are working to ensure as many Scottish bidders as possible are successful.

    And we are investing in new City Deals – which have been committed to or agreed for all seven of Scotland’s cities – as well as a Borderlands Growth Deal to help secure prosperity in southern Scotland. We have also opened formal negotiations for the Ayrshire Growth Deal.

    But it is also why the UK has a deep-seated responsibility to maintain the integrity of our union.

    When I spoke in North Wales earlier this year about the value of our union, I emphasised the importance the UK Government places on preserving the common market of the United Kingdom – what many of you may refer to as the “internal market” or the “UK single market” that comprises Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

    I also emphasised why it is so crucial that our businesses and consumers face no new internal barriers to conducting their business on the day of our exit in March next year.

    For it is only by maintaining the coherence of that common market – and keeping barriers to trade within it to an absolute minimum – that businesses and consumers in all parts of our union can continue to benefit.

    Preserving that common market is exactly what the EU Withdrawal Bill, currently making its way through Parliament, will do.

    It will make sure that, as we carry out the delicate process of transferring European Union law back onto the UK statute book, we do so as smoothly as possible…

    The current regulatory and legal framework will remain in place, but on a UK rather than an EU legal footing.

    If and when we wish to move away in future from the current rules, we can do so in a considered and deliberate fashion, taking account of consultation with business.

    So it will make sure that when we leave the European Union in March next year, we do so in a way that avoids a damaging cliff-edge for businesses, firms; factories, industries and consumers alike – so that businesses have certainty from day one of our exit.

    And on devolution, the Bill will make sure that, as this process is carried out, we retain the ability to keep common and temporary UK frameworks where necessary, while we work on the long term solution – such as one set of package labelling and hygiene rules, instead of four different ones.

    The Bill respects the devolution settlement – but stops short of giving any part of the UK a veto over that temporary mechanism.

    This has always been a red line for us.

    For if one part of the UK has a veto over the ability to establish a common framework across the rest of the UK, it could be used to undermine this common market we all, everyone in this room, prospers from.

    And the message we have from business is that the UK common market is vital to their growth and prosperity.

    For Scottish businesses trade four times as much with the rest of the UK as they do with the EU.

    And as businessmen and women you want to be sure that your factories in Paisley and farms in Perthshire will be able to continue selling their goods freely to customers in Preston and Swansea and Londonderry.

    And not only will the temporary preservation of common frameworks guarantee certainty for businesses trading within the United Kingdom – it will mean that, with a clear set of commonly-recognised standards, we can agree those new trade deals with the global growth markets of tomorrow as well.

    Indeed, when I visited China just last month, I saw first-hand how hard our network of embassies around the world work to promote both UK and Scottish exports, such as the finest Scotch Whisky, of which 61 per cent of exports go to countries outside the EU.

    I even had the pleasure of seeing the First Minister during my visit to China, who was also using the network of UK embassies to promote Scottish goods overseas.

    And just this morning I was visiting Diageo here in Edinburgh hearing about the breadth of ambition the industry has to reach new and emerging markets and build on the strength of the internationally renowned quality of Scottish food and drink.

    And during my last visit to Scotland in January, I also visited a Marine Harvest factory in Rosyth, specialising in salmon sales and learned that not only do they sell to every part of the UK, but export the fish heads to China and the skins to Thailand, where they are made into crisps.

    That is why having a successful domestic market and competitive global markets are complementary to one another, and why the UK Government is committed to delivering directly for Scottish businesses and consumers.

    Put simply, respecting and preserving the United Kingdom common market is to uphold one of the fundamental expressions of the constitutional integrity that underpins our existence as a union.

    But put even more simply, any attempt to undermine that common market would represent a self-inflicted blow to the thousands of firms who owe their prosperity to its success.

    Clause 11 negotiations

    Now I am well aware from the conversations I have had with Scottish and Welsh businesses that what they care about is what all this means for business – and whether it provides the certainty they need.

    That is why all of us – Westminster, Cardiff and Holyrood – have worked hard to identify only those absolutely essential areas where we agree that UK-wide frameworks are needed.

    And of course it is worth underlining that we already have UK-wide frameworks in all these areas right now.

    Our approach as we leave the EU however, is to see the vast majority of powers returning from Brussels bypass Westminster entirely.

    Indeed, we have moved a considerable distance in the spirit of compromise and collaboration so as to ensure we reach a deal with the Scottish and Welsh Governments that not merely respects the devolution settlements and improves upon them, but also upholds the Sewel Convention and provides the certainty that businesses require.

    That is why I was pleased that the Welsh Government, in this spirit of pragmatism, recently agreed to our approach, and to recommend the Welsh Assembly give legislative consent to the Withdrawal Bill.

    As the Welsh CBI, the Federation of Small Business in Wales, and the Farmers Union of Wales have all made clear, this deal is very good not only for the Welsh economy and its people, but for the whole of the UK too.

    And as the First Minister for Wales himself said this week: “the nature of an agreement is that you come to ground that you believe to be common ground”.

    I am glad that thanks to the joint work of the three governments there is now far more common ground between all.

    The door is still open

    But it is also why it is disappointing that the Scottish Government still does not feel able to sign up to our proposals and deliver that certainty for businesses.

    Of course, it is now for the Scottish Parliament to decide what view it wants to take on the compromise we have reached, and that we have now agreed with the Welsh Government.

    So that is why I say to the Scottish Government – and to the Scottish Parliament – the door is still open.

    At a stroke, they can join the Welsh Government – who have also put so much into getting us to this stage – and recommend to the Parliament here in Holyrood that we should end any lingering question of legal uncertainty for businesses in all parts of the UK.

    Indeed, just a couple of weeks ago, the Food and Drink Federation Scotland, Scottish Bakers, and the Scottish Retail Consortium all emphasised the importance of the UK common market.

    How it benefits Scotland’s businesses enormously by lowering costs and increasing efficiency and how it also benefits Scotland’s consumers by providing more choice and keeping prices down.

    And as the Scottish Government themselves have agreed, it makes sense for there to be frameworks applying across the UK in some areas.

    But no matter what the Scottish Government decides, I want to reiterate that the UK Government is committed to acting in accordance with the Intergovernmental Agreement that – even now at this late stage – is open to the Scottish Government to sign up to.

    Scottish businesses can see this in black and white: our Intergovernmental Agreement is public for all to see.

    You can have that certainty and clarity that we will work to agree the approach needed to protect our vital common market, and that we will respect – in full – the devolution settlements as we do so.

    Conclusion

    So as we all face choices, the Scottish Government also faces a choice.

    But I am confident that, if we work together, we can and will forge a path that fully respects the democratic choice the United Kingdom made two years ago while maximising clarity and certainty wherever we can for our families and businesses not just here in Scotland, but across our whole country.

    For our union is strongest when each of its constituent parts is strong and working together.

    As I have said before, the unity that exists between our four nations gives us a scale of ambition that none of us could possess alone.

    But this ambition can only be realised if we do work together, and make those choices that are truly in the national interest.

    For together, we are a union that is greater than the sum of its parts.

    A country that can remain a strong, global leader.

    A United Kingdom at home.

    And an active, force for good in the world.

    Thank you very much.

  • Liz Truss – 2018 Speech at Spectator Housing Summit

    Liz Truss

    Below is the text of the speech made by Liz Truss, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, to the Spectator Housing Summit on 17 May 2018.

    For me, it’s personal.

    As Virginia Woolf said: A woman must have money and a room of her own.

    What she was talking about was having the power to shape her own life.

    So, as a 21-year-old graduate from Leeds, I followed that advice.

    I headed for the bright lights, big city for my first job as an accountant.

    We want the next generation to have the chance to better themselves, to be able to move where there are the best jobs and the best opportunities.

    Young people are at the forefront of a huge shake up of the economy.

    They are the freest generation ever: the Uber-riding, Deliveroo-eating freedom fighters.

    They’re not just hungry for pizza, they’re hungry for success.

    They have the desire to shape their own future.

    But at the moment they’re spending too much time as frustrated flat hunters.

    According to the CPS, the cost of living and housing are the most important issues.

    Renters face high housing costs, with nearly half of income going on rents in London on average.

    The average London house price is 12 times higher than the average London wage – when you can only get a mortgage at four or five times your salary.
    To paraphrase Norman Tebbit, the new generation want to get on their bikes, hit the road, and find the best jobs in the best cities.

    But even though this generation are keen cyclists, they’re not getting in the saddle.

    Because it’s no use getting on your bike to find a job, if you end up with nowhere to lock it up.

    It doesn’t matter where you want to go – Norwich, York or London, if you want to go there and get the best job, you should be able to.

    I want everyone to be able to move house to get a better job, so they can get on in life.

    And accepting the status quo is bitterly unfair.

    We also need to make sure that the record number of new businesses we have in the UK get access to the best talent.

    For the sake of society, we need to make sure our villages are viable – that they have the houses, schools and shops to thrive.

    And for the sake of our economy, we need to let our most successful, towns and cities expand.

    In Medieval times, Norwich was the second-largest city in England, agriculture’s answer to Silicon Valley.

    Then, during the industrial revolution, the country marched to the beat of the North, and workers flocked upcountry.

    It was not so much a gold-rush as a cold-rush.

    The point is that when towns have their moment, people move to the places where the wages are highest. That’s resulted in Britain’s economy growing faster.

    Today, London is as productive as Germany, while cities like Oxford, Cambridge and York are bursting with potential.

    These are towns calling out to workers everywhere, desperate for more hands to the pump.

    But according to the Resolution Foundation, the share of working age people moving for jobs has gone down by 25 per cent since 2001, with the most significant decline among young graduates.

    What’s more, the typical person would have been £2000 better off getting on their bike.

    So we need to need to let these towns off the leash, because we all stand to benefit, in our wages and in our quality of life.

    A recent study in America by Hsieh and Moretti showed that freeing up housing regulations in New York, San Jose and San Francisco to median levels could increase the US’s GDP by 3.7 per cent, which would mean an extra $3,500 in wages for all workers.

    But the most productive cities are being held back by zoning requirements.

    And it’s much the same story in the UK – restrictions on building are holding cities up.

    Analysis shows that opening up planning is one of the fastest things we could do to boost our country’s productivity.

    This is why reform is so urgent.

    It’s restrictions that are causing problems, but there are some out there who say that the solution is more restrictions, more control, more state interference.

    This is the opposite of what we need.

    Others are calling for a £10,000 bung to 25-year-olds – which they’ll all end up paying back in higher taxes.

    I think it’s a myth that young people want free things. The fact is they want free-dom – to work and live where they choose, and that will take radical action.

    Because all of these are attempts to cure symptoms.

    None aim to tackle the underlying issue, which is supply.

    The answer is not top-down meddling, but encouraging disruption.

    We need to open up more land to build on.That means challenging the vested interests.

    We need to challenge the NIMBYs, comfortable in their big houses in suburbia.

    The fact is that flats and houses need to be built where they are needed.

    We all want somewhere for our children to live – not least because that means they don’t have to live with us until they are 30!

    We need to make better use of the land that we have.

    We are introducing minimum densities for housing development in city centres, and have extended freedoms to convert certain types of property into housing.

    We also need to encourage more creative tools that give more power and freedom to the individual.

    We modernised outdated estate agent legislation in 2013, making it easier for excellent websites such as Zoopla to provide the information that renters and house buyers need when deciding where they want to move – including whether their garden is south facing.

    Meanwhile Airbnb and Spareroom have helped people find – like Harry Potter and his friends – a room of requirement.

    We need to liberate business planning in high-growth, free enterprise areas.

    I would like to see more of the development model used to build Canary Wharf – A Canary North!

    And we also need to look at those councils around the country who are not delivering.

    Last November, we singled out 15 other councils that are holding back people who want to develop land and create new opportunities, and the government has started intervening in 3 of these cases.

    I’m pleased to say, though, that this government allowed local people to make their own neighbourhood plans, so that they can do what’s best for their villages.

    That’s why our reforms, put forward by Sajid Javid, and taken forward by James Brokenshire, are so important.

    We’ve removed stamp duty for first-time buyers purchasing a house under £300,000 – that’s 4 out of 5 cases. This will save people £1,700 on average, and help over a million first time buyers getting onto the housing ladder over the next five years

    And we’re streamlining the Byzantine planning system, to make it easier for the small firms to compete, to disrupt the market and, through fierce competition, build the houses and offices and factories that will make Britain successful.

    In the 1930s, before planning system was introduced, there were ~265k houses built by the private sector a year – which goes to show we can do this!

    We’re cutting through bureaucracy and, since overhaul of planning act in 2012, we’ve gone from 200k to 350k planning permissions per year.

    And last year, there were 217,000 net additional new homes in Britain, which shows massive progress.

    We are also making plans for the future, including the corridor between the bright lights of Oxford and Cambridge – we have concluded a deal targeting 100,000 new homes by 2031.

    This goes alongside our investment in infrastructure – a 40-year-high – which will connect all these new homes with the modern roads and railways people need to get around.

    Britain should be an opportunity nation where you can get on your bike and find a job where you want.

    This is what I mean by freedom of movement.

    It’s part and parcel of a free enterprise economy, which is what drives growth and prosperity.

    Our job in government is to help achieve that.

    With better and more affordable housing, we can improve social mobility, address wealth inequality, and make sure our country’s opportunities are open to everyone – big or small, north or south, man or woman.

  • Theresa May – 2018 Speech in Macedonia

    Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May, the Prime Minister, in Macedonia on 17 May 2018.

    Thank you, Prime Minister, thank you for the warm welcome.

    I’m delighted to be here in Skopje as we mark the 25th anniversary of diplomatic relations between Macedonia and the UK.

    I’m proud to be the first British Prime Minister in almost 20 years to visit this beautiful country.

    As Prime Minister Zaev has just mentioned, today we both attended the first EU Summit with the Western Balkans since 2003.

    Here leaders from across Europe and the region were working together to discuss the next steps we could take to help deliver stability, security and prosperity for the Western Balkans.

    I know that the conflicts of the past can sometimes seem almost impossible to overcome.

    Many difficult questions remain unresolved, including internal conflicts in the region, serious and organised crime, illegal migration and extremism.

    We must be alive to the challenges of the past, yet remain ambitious in securing the peaceful, prosperous and democratic future that your citizens and communities deserve.

    With the right political will, progress can be rapid and far-reaching – just look at what has happened here in Macedonia.

    Just 18 months after Parliamentary elections, we’re already seeing significant changes and a government that is working hard to uphold the rule of law, reach out to its neighbours and make progress in negotiations on the Name Issue.

    I know that both Macedonia and Greece are working closely to find a solution and this requires political courage and a willingness to make difficult decisions. Resolution will bring clear benefits to both countries and also to the region as a whole. And you can rely on the UK’s full support in this.

    We want to see Macedonia continue on this positive path. That’s why the UK has quadrupled the support we give to Macedonia to contribute towards this government’s reform programme.

    It’s why we are sharing our military expertise and are assisting Macedonia’s Strategic Defence Review, as you aim to adapt the Macedonian Army to NATO standards.

    And it’s why we took the decision to host the next Western Balkans Summit in London in July – as part of the Berlin process.

    Here we will look to strengthen regional security cooperation in the Western Balkans, improve economic stability, and foster greater political cooperation and overcome legacy issues stemming from the struggles of the past thirty years.

    Prime Minister Zaev, your country is an integral part of Europe. And we know that a strong, stable and prosperous Western Balkans region benefits all European countries.

    Our friendship, our relationship will continue to deepen, even as the UK embarks on a future outside of the European Union.

    We are all Europeans. And as Macedonia’s response to the Salisbury attack shows, we share the same values and we face the same challenges that are better tackled when we work together.

    So, today after 25 years, we’ve never been closer.

    And, Prime Minister Zaev, I look forward to welcoming you to London in July to continue this important discussion.

    Thank you.

  • Matt Hancock – 2018 Speech at Launch of Tech Nation

    Matt Hancock

    Below is the text of the speech made by Matt Hancock, the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, on 17 May 2018.

    Good morning.

    It’s a great pleasure to be here and it’s a very exciting day to mark Tech City UK and Tech North evolving into Tech Nation and the launch of this fourth Tech Nation report .

    The name says a lot. This rebranding shows Tech Nation’s commitment to being the sort of dynamic organisation that we’ve got used to round here in east London, but also spreading the benefits right across the country as a whole.

    I warmly welcome this move and the progress you have been making in recent years.

    Today’s milestone is a great opportunity to step back and think about what we’re doing, and to keep up this momentum for the UK as a place to start and grow a tech business.

    Because it is as vital now as it’s ever been. The impact over the last decade has been huge.

    The tech sector has been growing over two-and-a-half times faster than the rest of the economy; but there is much more to do. There are challenges we must face and people snapping at our heels.

    And along with Tech Nation, we are working regionally, nationally and globally so the UK is ready for these challenges that lie ahead.

    Regional

    Tech Nation and its predecessors, have been championing regional tech clusters since 2014.

    And I am thrilled with the ambitious plans to help 40,000 entrepreneurs and 4,000 start-ups to scale and to deliver this support directly into a dozen key cities around the UK.

    And the crucial Government aim, stated clearly in our Digital Strategy, is making sure that the benefits of growth and the tech sector work for everyone in our country.

    We are committed to encouraging investment and developing tech clusters right across the UK.

    It is easy, especially here in the centre of London, to focus on the prosperity that we see here in London, and of course this is mission critical. Nobody gains by doing down our world beating capital.

    But we need to have a full-spectrum approach, so everybody can participate and get the benefits. And so far, there have been some brilliant results.

    London is a fantastic haven for European tech investment. But did you know this? Nearly 70 per cent of investment into the UK tech sector last year was in regional clusters beyond the capital.

    The benefits of digital for local economies are incredibly clear – 16 towns now show a higher proportion of digital tech employment than the UK average.

    And over 1.5 million people across the country belong to more than 3,000 informal tech meetup groups.

    That’s people up and down this country working together to develop their businesses, and as they do so, powering their local economies.

    So I’m really encouraged that Tech Nation is going to take this work to the next level and provide some of that entrepreneurial juice to expand their programmes even further, to truly connect right across the cities of the UK.

    National

    As a nation, our digital tech sector is in great shape, supported by the fantastic work Tech Nation has done and the engagement with all of you here.

    But to attract more investment and support, we need to fly even higher in the future, and we need to shout loud about this success.

    After all, the tech sector nationally is booming and the numbers speak for themselves.

    Over £100 billion added to the UK economy in 2016 and real opportunities for investment. After Silicon Valley, London ranks as the second most connected place for tech in the whole world.

    And you can rest assured we are firmly committed to maintaining this thriving tech sector and this energy.

    Because we want the UK to be the location of choice for tech innovation and investment – so we can build our world-leading digital economy.

    Our Digital Strategy, launched about 15 months ago, sets out the key pillars of how we are putting that into practice.

    It’s about making sure that nationally there’s great infrastructure. This means rolling out the existing infrastructure, but also unlocking the potential of full fibre and 5G.

    Second, making sure the skills needed are there to fully engage with the digital world.

    A full spectrum approach, from people getting on the internet for the first time, which now includes over 90% of the population, all the way through to the highest end skills and capabilities and beyond.

    From making coding in the curriculum compulsory at school age, through to supporting a more flexible labour market and expanding digital training for adults, so we have a far-reaching programme to support digital skills.

    Third, making sure the UK is the safest place to live and work online. Not least through the National Cyber Security Programme and it is great to see people from the upcoming London Cyber Innovation Centre here.

    All of these things mark us out as an incredible destination for tech.

    Part of our task is to pull off the tricky balance between ensuring we make the UK a safe place to be online, whilst also being unambiguous about our enthusiasm and support for innovation.

    And for making sure that we use the freedoms that this amazing technology brings.

    And I want Tech Nation to be both conveners and cheerleaders – encouraging investment and also telling the world what our tech sector can do.

    I want everybody here to talk to the Government about what more we can do to make the UK a great place to grow a digital business.

    As someone who started in a tech company, I know that answers to this questions are not only to be found in Whitehall but are to be found in conversations with you as you grow your businesses.

    Asking the questions. What can we do to make your lives easier? And how can we help you to expand?

    Global

    The Tech Nation report has quickly been established as an invaluable industry resource.

    And this year’s report confirms we are well placed to achieve our goal of making the UK the best place in the world to start and grow a digital business.

    It has also been helpful in identifying where our strengths lie.

    One of those important strengths is in Fintech and AI. We and Tech Nation are doing a huge amount to cultivate AI.

    And travelling to America and India in the last couple of weeks, people have already noticed the effort and cold hard cash we have put into driving its development.

    The nature of tech is collaborative. But having said all that I still want the UK to be the leader…

    So we’ll work with you and Tech Nation to make sure this happens.

    I’m sure you all know that research already ranks the UK as the most AI ready country in the world.

    That’s to say we’re the best prepared to seize and exploit the amazing potential of this transformative technology.

    But we are a medium sized country and the US, China, India and other larger countries are working hard to make sure they too are leading.

    This is not an opportunity we are prepared to let slip. The investment from Government is deadly serious and crucially it can only be done in partnership, with you, in the private sector.

    You may have seen last month brought the fantastic news that the British cybersecurity company, Darktrace, whose “immune system” is powered by AI, have become the latest unicorn, when they hit a valuation of over a billion dollars.

    We should all take confidence from Darktrace and its success.

    And we are seeing this dominance in FinTech too. There are now more people working in UK Fintech than in New York – or in Singapore, Hong Kong and Australia combined.

    We have real strengths in bitcoin, cryptocurrencies and in crowdfunding.

    And this spirit of innovation and enterprise is exactly what we need. To work with other nations at a time when agreements and frameworks on new technologies will become more important than ever.

    And especially as we leave the EU, we are determined to seize many opportunities around the world, as part of becoming a truly Global Britain.

    Open and outward looking. Engaging with the world and gregarious.

    And to do that, we need the best tech talent from home and abroad. Making sure that we train people here at home, but also attracting the brightest and best.

    We have doubled the number of exceptional talent visas. We have met with technology experts to make sure the processes are as efficient as possible.

    While we are updating immigration rules so that world-leading scientists and researchers endorsed as ‘exceptional talent’ can apply for settlement after three years in this country.

    The countries and economies that succeed in this digital world are those that are outward-looking and forward-looking and that is the approach we will take as we leave the EU.

    Conclusion

    I am determined that the UK will be the best place in the world to become a digital citizen.

    Because tech is a real force for good.

    It makes our services better and our products faster.

    It creates wider benefits for communities across the UK.

    We can’t do this alone in Government, just as private companies can’t do it alone either.

    The answer lies in working together to create the conditions for success and that’s why Tech Nation is such an asset.

    You’ve been driving the creation of jobs. The development of skills and improvement of productivity.

    It’s great for our economy and it is great for our society too.

    And every single person in this room has their part to play.

    You’re part of a Great British renaissance and it’s a joy and honour to be part of it too.

    Thank you very much.

  • Harriet Baldwin – 2018 Speech on International Law

    Below is the text of the speech made by Harriet Baldwin, the Minister of State for Africa at the Foreign & Commonwealth Office and Minister of State for International Development, on 17 May 2018.

    Thank you very much Mr President, and your excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of the United Kingdom, I also would like to thank the Polish Presidency for arranging today’s important discussion and also add my thanks to our distinguished briefers this morning.

    Mr President, there are few values more important to the United Kingdom than upholding international law. It is the very foundation of peace and security.

    Today, conflicts and tragedies in Syria, Burma, Ukraine and elsewhere have shown us the importance of this commitment and the consequences of the failure to do so. In Syria, appalling violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law by the regime and its backers continue. Russia’s veto in this Council, which stopped the work of the Joint Investigative Mechanism, means that there is currently no means available to properly investigate the use of chemical weapons against Syrian civilians. In Burma, the authorities have yet to begin a credible domestic investigation into the clear violations of human rights law in Rakhine State. Yet it is imperative that there is a route to hold the perpetrators of these crimes to account. And in Ukraine, the illegal annexation of Crimea four years ago represents an egregious assault on international law. The enduring conflict in eastern Ukraine continues to destroy lives.

    Mr President, when armed conflicts break out, it is vital that all parties respect international humanitarian law and act in accordance with their obligations under it. As members of the international community, and members of the Security Council, we are all responsible for upholding international rules and norms. Today we must ask ourselves how we discharge that responsibility. The ‘Strengthening Respect for International Humanitarian Law’ initiative facilitated by the International Committee of the Red Cross and the Swiss government has the significant potential to aid this effort. It is a valuable first step and I encourage all states to engage with that process – but this alone is not sufficient.

    Enabling the meaningful participation of women in decision-making is also key to upholding the rule of law. We know inclusive decision-making processes are critical in preventing the escalation of conflict and in maintaining and supporting peace in post-conflict societies. I call on states to act upon the commitments agreed in Security Council resolutions on Women, Peace and Security and recognise these to be an integral part of our effort to maintain peace and security.

    Mr President, there will, sadly, be times when violations of international humanitarian law or international human rights law do occur. There must be no impunity in such instances. It is, of course, states themselves that have the primary responsibility to ensure that perpetrators are brought to justice. But we, as the international community, also have a role in helping states meet their responsibilities.

    A year ago, this Council voted unanimously to adopt Resolution 2379 (2017) setting up an investigative team to assist efforts to hold Daesh accountable for crimes committed in Iraq. That team will collect, preserve and analyse evidence of Daesh’s heinous crimes and will work closely with the Government of Iraq and organisations already collecting such evidence. We hope that all states will support this important mechanism by contributing to the UN Trust Fund.

    Mr President, the UK has strongly supported resolutions at the Human Rights Council aimed at increasing accountability. We welcome the efforts of the Secretary General and UN Secretariat to mainstream the promotion and protection of human rights in all United Nations activities. The UN’s human rights tools such as monitoring, reporting and analysis, can provide key early warning systems, and help to identify and address the root causes of conflict, as a means of prompting an effective and early United Nations response.

    The International Criminal Court also has a key role to play restoring peace and security. It ensures accountability, acts as a deterrent, supports victims, and helps to establish an historical narrative of accountability. However, for it to succeed, the Court requires the full cooperation of states. Its inability to act directly against those it seeks to arrest, makes it entirely reliant on states to execute the arrest warrants it issues, but for too long and too frequently those indicted by the Court have been able to travel freely, without fear of arrest and prosecution. We therefore urge all states to honour UNSCRs 1970 and 1593 by cooperating fully with the Court and its Prosecutor.

    The ad hoc international tribunals set up by the Security Council were crucial in bringing to justice those most responsible for the terrible crimes committed in Rwanda and the Balkans during the 1990s. We are so grateful to President Meron and his colleagues for taking forward this important work in the Residual Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals. We hope that states will continue to ensure that the Mechanism has sufficient resources to fulfil its mandate. We note also the important role played, over many years, by the International Court of Justice in ensuring the maintenance of international peace and security.

    In summary, the UK believes we must continue to work together to deliver accountability, justice, and reaffirm our commitment to the core tenets of international law.

    Thank you.

  • Jonathan Ashworth – 2018 Speech to Hospital Caterers Association

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jonathan Ashworth, the Shadow Secretary of State for Health, at the Hospital Caterers Association on 12 April 2018.

    Can I begin by saying what a pleasure it is to be here, in the 70th anniversary of our National Health Service, but a very special pleasure to be here to congratulate you on your 70th anniversary as the Hospital Caterers Association.

    And as we look back over the last 70 years of the NHS and pay tribute to the millions who have cared for the sick, thank those who have helped bring babies into the world and pay tribute to those who attend to us in our final moments, we are reminded that it is the care, dedication and compassion of our NHS staff that always has done and still does make the NHS the pride of Britain.

    I was so keen to be here in your 70th anniversary year because I know, just as you do, that quality care is about so much more than medicines, bandages, dressings, treatments and surgical procedures, extraordinary as they all are.

    Quality care is dependent upon good nutrition and hydration.

    So today let me thank hospital caterers for your service to the NHS, for your care, compassion and dedication and for your work as part of the healthcare team in caring for the sick, injured and elderly.

    Just like all members of the NHS staff, you have played your part in every illness defeated, in every bout of suffering relieved and in every life saved so today I not only thank you but join with you in readily endorsing your mantra that food is indeed the best form of medicine.

    I’ve witnessed this myself when earlier this week I spent time with catering staff working out of the in-house central production unit at the Nottingham City Hospital part of University of Nottingham’s Hospital Trust. Chris and his team working closely with Nicola the Chief Dietetic Technician produce 8,000 meals a day cooked on site with food sourced from local farms and suppliers.

    Here the catering team work with nursing staff, dieticians, speech and language therapists to put together nutritional fare that helps and supports the recovery of patients.

    This is a very real implementation of the Power of Three initiative that the HCA has championed in recent years emphasising that quality healthcare delivery isn’t about fragmentation and silos but about seamless collaboration where catering staff work alongside nursing staff and dietician staff.

    But Nottingham has gone even further too in developing a new memory menu following consultation with the local community offering patients the healthy nutritional meals they want.

    And because the catering team at Nottingham recognise that the NHS’s responsibility for the health and wellbeing of patients doesn’t simply end when the patient walks out the door, so they ensure the most vulnerable patients leaving to go home are offered a discharge parcel of food basics – bread, a pint of milk, tea, coffee, tinned soup – to help them in the first few days out of hospital.

    This is exactly the sort of in-house, high quality service offering nutritional meals to a high standard that I believe is integral to the future of the NHS and one I want to see developed across the service as Labour’s shadow Health Secretary.

    I opened my remarks by reminding you this is both the 70th anniversary of the National Health Service and the 70th anniversary of the Association.

    In 1948 the overriding endeavour of a National Health Service universal in scope was both to relieve the suffering of those who otherwise would have to pay for a surgeon to come to their bedside but also to wage war on the great infectious diseases that stalked the land and took far too many so early in life such as polio and diphtheria.

    70 years later the world is very different and so the challenges facing our National Health Service have changed fundamentally too.

    In 1948, life expectancy for men was 66 and for women it was 71.

    Today it is 79 and 82 respectively and over the coming years is expected to become 83 and 86 respectively by 2041.

    By 2024 the number of over 75s will have increased by around two million compared to 2014.

    So today our first big challenge is how the NHS supports those who live longer. And if we are all living longer our second challenge is how the NHS supports living with complex needs, as well as those across all ages living with chronic conditions whether from diabetes, to arthritis to heart conditions.

    I think we have a further challenge too.

    Health inequalities are widening not narrowing. Sir Michael Marmot, the world-recognised authority on public health, has warned that this country has, since 2010, stalled in the task of improving the life expectancy of our population.

    Added to this, he also points out that differences in life expectancy between the poorest areas in the country and the English average has started to widen again.

    Just look at what that means for someone born today in the poorest areas. They are likely to live for fewer years than someone born in wealthier areas. Ill health is more likely to blight their childhood. And a child born into poorer areas is more likely to leave school obese than a child growing up in the most affluent area.

    Across the population we face an obesity crisis with hospital admissions where obesity is a factor more than doubling in England during the last four years. The UK is spending about £6 billion a year on the medical costs of conditions related to being overweight or obese and a further £10 billion on diabetes. That means British taxpayers are spending more on treating obesity-related conditions than on the police or the fire service

    But as just as we face an obesity crisis in society we are on the verge of a malnutrition crisis too.

    Child poverty is increasing, with an extra million children predicted to be pushed into poverty by 2022. Across our communities more and more charities and faith groups are forced to open food banks and The Trussell Trust report in the last year they have handed out over 1 million three-day emergency food parcels.

    A recent All Party Parliamentary Group Report into Hunger estimated there around 1.3 million elderly people suffering from or at risk from malnutrition in society.

    We have seen a 122 per cent rise in admissions to hospital for malnutrition since 2010. There has been a 20 per cent increase in the number of pregnant women admitted to hospital with primary or secondary cases of Vitamin D deficiency over the past year

    Not only should it offend our sense of decency, indeed I would even go further because I believe these rates of malnutrition shame us a society for a nation that is the sixth biggest economy in the world.

    And it makes no economic sense either. Rising malnutrition is predicted to cost our health and social care services £13 billion by 2020. For example an increase in malnutrition amongst the elderly means an increase in hospital admissions, longer recovery times with longer hospital stays.

    So the reason I highlight all of this is because my burning ambition as hopefully the next Labour Health Secretary is to lead an all-out assault on unacceptable heath inequalities in society by beginning to tackle some of these wider determinants of ill health.

    That means a strong commitment to investment in public health provision in the wider community; it means investment in social care provision with an extra £8 billion across a Parliament, as well as supporting elderly people to live independently in their communities.

    It means prioritising child health and focusing support to improve the health and wellbeing of every child.

    It means improving the quality of air that we breathe, the fabric of the housing we live in and the economic conditions in which our society is ordered, to encourage the eating of a healthy diet.

    Because we know a healthy diet means healthy body weight and reduces the risk of developing major health problems like high blood pressure, heart disease, diabetes, certain cancers and osteoporosis.

    And we also know eating a healthy diet positively impacts our mental health. Following a healthy balanced diet reduces the risk of developing specific mental illnesses such as depression, schizophrenia, Alzheimer’s disease and Parkinson’s disease.

    So yes we must take much bolder action to fight obesity.

    So while we welcome the sugar tax we would want to see it extended to milk based sweet drinks, we want to end the advertising of junk food on family TV viewing and we would ban the sale of high energy drinks to under 18s.

    And so when we focus on improving the quality of care across our NHS we must also focus relentlessly on improving the quality of food we offer patients, visitors and staff as well.

    Because what sense does it make to offer patients the very best medicines, treatments by the very best clinicians and surgeons, to offer patients access to some of the very best cutting edge technology and yet deny them the best quality nutritional food that will help them make a full recovery.

    And when we know that poor diet is a major driver of ill health across the nation then surely it should be our obligation to support patients with their diet when in hospital.

    Indeed all of us who are passionate about securing the future sustainability of the NHS have a responsibility to ensure the NHS promotes healthy eating in order to reduce the chronic conditions that poor diet is contributing to in wider society which in turn are increasing the pressures on the NHS.

    In the last year across the NHS in England 144 million inpatient meals were made at a cost of £560 million.

    Some hospital trusts according to the Estates Return Information Collection – and I appreciate not everyone accepts this data, believing it puts a rosier tint on the reality on the ground, but nonetheless it is the only official data set we have – suggests that some hospitals are spending as little as around £3 per meal per patient.

    Of course cost does not necessarily equate to quality but I was shocked to learn from Jeremy Hunt’s own data that nearly half of hospitals failed to meet the food expectations as outlined in the NHS Standard Contract.

    Nearly half of hospitals did not meet dietician guidelines outlined by the British Dietetic Association. And despite one third of people aged 65 years or over being at risk of malnutrition on admission to hospital, yet only half of hospitals screened every patient for signs that they were struggling to get enough to eat.

    It is quite simply unacceptable that the standards in the contract are not enforced and I believe this fails patients and NHS staff alike.

    Given we all accept that good food is important to our health, it’s time to apply the very highest standards to hospital food across the board.

    So today I can announce that the next Labour Government will put hospital meals on the same legal basis as school food standards, and ensure hospitals mandatorily meet minimum standards for the food served to patients, staff and visitors.

    We will be setting new, higher quality standards for hospital food so it is nutritious and made with care by highly trained staff using the best sustainable ingredients

    I can also confirm these standards will be independently monitored and enforced.

    We believe over time this will increase the numbers of freshly cooked meals served, reduce the amount of hospital food uneaten and wasted and most fundamentally of all help us start the addressing malnutrition in our hospitals helping staff nurse patients to recovery quicker.

    And because the NHS is and must continue to be the trusted authority on health and well-being, I strongly believe all food served on NHS premises should be healthy food.

    As far as I am concerned hospital is no place for junk food, super-sized confectionery and sugary drinks. So I praise those hospitals like Tameside and Glossop Care Trust who have taken all sugary drinks and fizzy drinks off their menus in Tameside General.

    But when we have junk food burger bars in the forecourts of Addenbrooke’s Hospital I believe we still have a long way to go. So if trusts don’t move speedily in implementing national guidelines then the next Labour government will look at mandatory legal requirements on the sales of junk food and supersized confectionery products as well.

    But of course I don’t want to be a Health Secretary who keeps expecting those who work across the service to deliver more and more on less and less.

    I’m not going to place upon our NHS staff unrealistic demands while refusing the NHS the investment it needs.

    We are now in the eighth year of severe underfunding alongside deep cuts to social care budgets in England.

    Today the impact of this sustained underfunding has been revealed. Across England we’ve seen the worst A&E figures for March on record and the impact of a blanket cancellation of elective operations has seen waiting list rise by nearly 5 per cent compared to last year.

    With more patients turning to private sector provision through ‘self-pay’ arrangements, the old fears of a middle class flight of people who can no longer tolerate waits for treatments from the NHS is returning, leaving a two tier service for the rest of us.

    It’s now clearer than ever that we face a year-round crisis in our NHS, which places the very future of our NHS at risk and requires a sustainable long term investment plan.

    At the last General Election my party offered the country a new approach.

    We said we were prepared to increase taxation for the wealthiest in society, the top five per cent and allocate the yield from that tax change to the NHS.

    It would have meant this year spending an extra £5 billion on the NHS itself plus around an extra £1 billion to invest in staffing such as bringing back the training bursary and an extra £1 billion as the first stage of our plans to stabilise social care.

    And because too many of our hospitals are crumbling, because too often our IT systems are slow and vulnerable and in too many places equipment is out dated we would allocate an extra £10 billion across a Parliament for infrastructure investment too.

    This is the sort of financial package our NHS in its 70th year needs and the challenge for Theresa May as we approach the NHS’s July birthday is as to whether she will offer the NHS this level of support.

    But we know a funding package is desperately needed. The ongoing underfunding has in many areas forced trusts to outsource in the belief a better deal can be found by not delivering in-house. It’s often a false economy.

    I can tell you we are opposed as a Party to the current moves towards wholly owned subsidiaries which many trusts are currently pursuing in order to gain a VAT advantage.

    We fear this will create a two-tier workforce amongst facilities management staff and we are calling on the government to close down this loophole and block this practise.

    And I was struck by the quality offered when I visited Nottingham this week. That’s a service that has been brought back in-house when previously Carillion ran the contract. I’m told since coming back in-house staff morale as improved.

    The current Government has too often left valuable public services like hospital catering exposed to the risk of failing companies like Carillion.

    The Labour Party has said it will introduce a new presumption that public sector contracts will come back in house across the public sector. So today I want to begin a dialogue with you about what that means for your sector and how a Labour government could meet its ambitions on out-sourcing.

    Where catering managers and hospital management want to bring services back in house because it serves the best interests of patients and taxpayers then a Labour Government will want to give them the support and the resources to do so.

    So in closing let me reiterate under a Labour Government high quality hospital catering will be at the heart of our vision for the NHS with legally enforced standards for hospitals meals, fully resourced and given the support from government to be delivered in-house.

    And as we celebrate 70 years of the NHS this July and as you celebrate 70 years as an Association you can be proud of all you have achieved and you have my commitment to working together in the coming years to improve and support the high quality care every patient deserves.

    Thank you.