UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Speeches

  • Theresa May – 2017 Statement on Robert Mugabe’s Resignation

    Below is the text of the statement issued by Theresa May, the Prime Minister, on 21 November 2017.

    The resignation of Robert Mugabe provides Zimbabwe with an opportunity to forge a new path free of the oppression that characterised his rule. In recent days we have seen the desire of the Zimbabwean people for free and fair elections and the opportunity to rebuild the country’s economy under a legitimate government.

    As Zimbabwe’s oldest friend we will do all we can to support this, working with our international and regional partners to help the country achieve the brighter future it so deserves.

  • Mark Field – 2017 Speech at the Asian-European Meeting

    Below is the text of the speech made by Mark Field, Minister of State for Asia and the Pacific at the Foreign & Commonwealth Office, at the Asian-European Meeting held in Myanmar on 20 November 2017.

    Introduction

    It is an honour to represent the UK at this ASEM Foreign Ministers’ meeting. It is a particular pleasure to see a democratically-elected leader of Myanmar in the Chair.

    Myanmar’s path towards peace and democracy has been long and difficult. Major challenges remain. The UK is proud to have been a consistent advocate for human rights and democracy in Myanmar over many years. We continue to work with the civilian government to promote peace, sustainable development and fundamental rights for all communities in Myanmar.

    We are particularly grateful to you, Madam Chair, for your willingness to address the issue of Rakhine in the margins of this meeting. We welcome your inclusive vision for Rakhine and commitment to the right of return for refugees.

    I would also like to pay tribute to the generosity of Bangladesh for taking in more than 610,000 refugees over the past 3 months – a huge burden for any country. The UK has given some £47 million in humanitarian support and we stand ready, along with others here, I trust, to contribute further.

    UK-Asia

    The UK’s links with Asia run deep. They include some of our closest commercial, political and people-to-people links. As we prepare to leave the European Union, our commitment to ASEM and to Asia will endure.

    Rules-based System

    ASEM brings together countries with a deep commitment to the rules-based international system. Peace and sustainable development in both our regions depend on that system. So I want to highlight two threats to the rules-based system, and four global challenges that can only be addressed through strengthening that system.

    North Korea

    As many have mentioned, the first regional issue is the threat posed by North Korea‘s reckless nuclear and ballistic missile tests. The unanimous Security Council vote to strengthen sanctions sent the strongest possible signal of international resolve.

    We all have a duty to enforce UN sanctions urgently and rigorously.

    South China Sea

    The second regional issue concerns the South China Sea. We are committed to a Rules-Based Maritime order. European states have a legitimate interest in peace, stability and security even as far away as the South China Sea. The UK’s position remains that all states must respect international law, as reflected in UNCLOS, and seek to settle disputes peacefully, without coercion or the threat of force.

    Global Challenges

    Turning to the global challenges:

    The UK has shown that it is possible to cut emissions while pursuing economic growth. And I hope others will be able to follow that lead. The Illegal Wildlife Trade not only harms biodiversity but also fosters corruption and undermines the rule of law. I congratulate China on its domestic ivory ban, and Vietnam for hosting the 2016 conference. London hosts the next conference on this issue in 2018. I urge ASEM to support work to combat this criminal trade.

    Finally, digital connectivity can and will help enhance the links between Asia and Europe. The internet is increasingly a principal driver of our prosperity and social well-being. To ensure this continues, we must work together to tackle cyber-crime, protect online freedoms and abide by the norms of responsible state behaviour. Innovation, R&D will also ensure cyber security for us all.

  • Alistair Burt – 2017 Speech on Yemen

    Below is the text of the speech made by Alistair Burt, the Minister of State for International Development and Minister of State for the Middle East at the Foreign & Commonwealth Office, in the House of Commons on 20 November 2017.

    With permission, Mr Speaker I would like to make a statement to the House on the humanitarian and political situation in Yemen and the implications of the conflict for regional security.

    Her Majesty’s Government remains deeply concerned by the humanitarian situation in Yemen and the impact recent restrictions are having on what was already the worst humanitarian crisis in the world and largest ever cholera outbreak.

    We recognise the risk of a severe deterioration of the humanitarian situation, if restrictions are not quickly removed and call on all parties to ensure immediate access for commercial and humanitarian supplies through all Yemen’s land, air and sea ports.

    But we should be clear about the reality of the conflict in Yemen. The Saudi-led Coalition launched a military intervention after a rebel insurgency took the capital by force and overthrew the legitimate Government of Yemen as recognised by the UN Security Council. Ungoverned spaces in Yemen are being used by non-state actors and terrorist groups to launch attacks against regional countries, international shipping lanes and the Yemeni people.

    As my Rt Hon friend the Foreign Secretary has made clear, we strongly condemn the attempted missile attack against Riyadh on 4 November. This attack, which has been claimed by the Houthis, deliberately targeted a civilian area and was intercepted over an international airport.

    The United Kingdom remains committed to supporting Saudi Arabia to address its legitimate security needs.

    We are therefore deeply concerned by reports that Iran has provided the Houthis with ballistic missiles. This is contrary to the arms embargo established by UN Security Council Resolution 2216 and serves to threaten regional security and prolong the conflict.

    I understand that a UN team is currently visiting Riyadh to investigate these reports. It is essential that the UN conducts a thorough investigation. The UK stands ready to share its expertise to support this process.

    But Mr Speaker, we recognise that those who suffer most from this conflict are the people of Yemen.

    We understand why the Saudi-led Coalition felt obliged to temporarily close Yemen’s ports and airports in order to strengthen enforcement of the UN mandated arms embargo. It is critical that international efforts to disrupt illicit weapons flows are strengthened.

    At the same time, it is vital that commercial and humanitarian supplies of food, fuel and medicine are able to reach vulnerable Yemeni people, particularly in the north – where 70% of those in need live.

    Even before the current restrictions, 21 million were already in need of humanitarian assistance and 7 million were only a single step away from famine. 90% of food in Yemen is imported and three quarters of that comes via the ports of Hodeidah and Salif. No other ports in Yemen have the capacity to make up that shortfall.

    Our NGO partners in Yemen are already reporting that water and sewerage systems in major cities have stopped operating because of a lack of fuel. This means that millions no longer have access to clean water and sanitation, in a country already suffering from the worst cholera outbreak in modern times.

    The current restrictions on access for both commercial and humanitarian shipments risk making an already dire situation immeasurably worse for the Yemeni people. We have heard the UN’s stark warnings about the risk of famine.

    We call on all parties to ensure immediate access for commercial and humanitarian supplies to avert the threat of starvation and disease faced by millions of civilians.

    We also call for the immediate reopening of Hodeidah port and the resumption of UN flights into Sana’a and Aden airports, as the Foreign Office statement on 15 November made clear. Restrictions on humanitarian flights are causing problems for humanitarian workers, including British nationals, who wish to enter or exit the country.

    We have been urgently and proactively seeking a resolution of this situation. Our Ambassador in Riyadh has been in frequent contact with the Saudi Foreign Minister. My Rt Hon friend the Foreign Secretary has discussed the situation in Yemen with the Crown Prince, with whom we have emphasised the urgency of addressing the worsening humanitarian crisis. My Rt Hon Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has spoken to both the UN Secretary-General and the Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs since about the situation in Yemen since her appointment on 9 November.

    We are also continuing to work closely with other regional and international partners, including the UN. On 18 November, my Rt Hon friend the Foreign Secretary spoke to the UN Secretary-General. Central to this discussion was how the security concerns of Saudi Arabia can be addressed to enable these restrictions to be lifted. It is vitally important that the UN and Saudi Arabia enter a meaningful and constructive dialogue.

    More broadly, we will continue to support the people of Yemen through the provision of lifesaving humanitarian supplies. The UK is the fourth largest humanitarian donor to Yemen, and the second largest to the UN appeal – committing £155 million to Yemen for 2017/18. UKaid has already provided food to almost two million people and clean water to over one million more.

    Mr Speaker, the only way to bring long-term stability to Yemen is through a political solution. That is why peace talks remain the top priority. The Houthis must abandon pre-conditions and engage with the UN Special Envoy’s proposals.

    The UK has played, and continues to play, a leading role in diplomatic efforts to find a peaceful solution. This includes bringing together key international actors – including the US, Saudi, Emirati and Omani allies – through the Quad and Quint process. We intend to convene another such meeting shortly. It is vital that we work together to refocus the political track.

    The UK will also continue to play a leading role on Yemen through the UN. In June, we proposed and supported the UN Security Council Presidential Statement which expressed deep concern about the humanitarian situation in Yemen. The statement called for an end to the fighting, a return to UN-led peace talks and stressed the importance of unhindered humanitarian access. It is vital that the words of the text are converted into action. The international community’s unified and clear demands must be respected.

    I commend this statement to the House.

  • Sajid Javid – 2017 Speech to County Councils Network Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Sajid Javid, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, to the County Councils Network Conference on 20 November 2017.

    Good afternoon everyone, many thanks to Paul [Carter] for that kind introduction.

    And thank you also for everything you’ve done as Chairman of the CCN.

    You’ve shown tireless leadership and endless enthusiasm for the task, and it has been a real pleasure working with you.

    The last time I spoke at a major local government conference, it was the LGA’s one back in the summer.

    And I think it’s fair to say the reception was a little mixed.

    Views were diverse.

    Some said it went down like a bucket of cold sick.

    Others disagreed – they liked it even less!

    I know you’ve had a great day today.

    I’ve been looking at the agenda and it looks like a brilliant programme.

    I’m sorry I’m not able to join you for this evening’s festivities.

    Sadly I’ve got to rush back for votes, which is a shame as I see Gyles Brandreth is tonight’s after-dinner speaker.

    He’s certainly worth sticking around for.

    I’m sure you all know that Gyles used to be a Conservative MP, from 1992 to 1997.

    A very different time, when a minority government was beset with sleaze allegations and facing divisions over Europe…

    Less well-known is the fact that, in 1978, Gyles was European Champion at the board game Monopoly.

    True story.

    So he certainly knows how to get houses built.

    And in central London too, not on the green belt!

    It’s a pleasure to be here in lovely Marlow, on the edge of the Chiltern Hills.

    It’s a very historic town.

    Mary Shelly lived just down the road when she was writing Frankenstein.

    The story of a well-meaning individual who wants to do the right thing but ends up unleashing a monster.

    Kind of like me with that LGA speech, actually…

    With so much focus on the outcome of June’s General Election, a lot of people seem to have forgotten about May’s county polls.

    Well, a lot of people outside this room, anyway!

    Congratulations to everyone here who got elected or re-elected.

    Paul, for example, he won 66% of the votes in his ward and leads a group that holds more than 80% of the seats in Kent.

    80%!

    I think it’s fair to say us Conservative MPs are a little envious!

    I know it’s not easy to ask your fellow residents to judge you, put their faith in you, vote for you.

    I’ve done it 3 times myself now and it’s certainly a humbling experience.

    But a great many men and women did just that back in May, with thousands winning the backing of their local communities and proudly taking their seats on county councils.

    In the weeks before the vote I travelled the whole country, talking with and listening to county councillors, candidates, officials and residents and hearing about what really mattered to them.

    I often talk about councillors as being on the frontline of democracy and my tour of the counties really reinforced that.

    What you do matters.

    The decisions you make matter.

    The people you serve rely on you to get things right. Time and again – you deliver for them.

    You don’t do it for fame or riches.

    You certainly don’t do it for an easy life.

    You do it because you want to make a difference.

    Because you want to make life better for the people of your counties.

    You represent the very best aspects of public service and of British life.

    And it’s an honour, an absolute honour, to represent you as Secretary of State.

    The topics being debated here today and tomorrow show just how important our county councils are.

    Social care, children’s services, transport, jobs and more.

    These are the building blocks of daily life, relied on by millions of people.

    And of course the thread that runs through all of them is the thread that runs through all of politics and government.

    The thread alluded to by my Labour Shadow just a few minutes ago.

    Funding.

    I know that I could stand here all night and make any number of announcements and pronouncements and promises…

    …and you’d all nod along politely and then say “that’s great, Saj, now show me the money”.

    With the Budget happening on Wednesday and the local government finance settlement to come, it wouldn’t be right for me to get into specifics right now.

    But, whatever the Budget brings, whatever the finance settlement brings, I remain totally committed to speaking up for the needs of local government.

    Twelve months ago I stood in front of you and promised to fight for county councils in the year ahead.

    To speak for you, lobby for you and be an advocate for you at the Cabinet table and beyond.

    Twelve months on, that’s a promise I’ve worked hard to keep.

    Over the past year, Marcus Jones and I have never stopped fighting to secure finance agreements that work for everyone.

    For Whitehall, for the counties, and above all for the people we all serve.

    That’s why we announced an extension of the business rates retention pilots.

    That’s why we secured sizeable amounts of fresh funding for adult social care and just last week announced plans for a new green paper.

    And that’s why we’re continuing to push ahead with our work on Fair Funding.

    I recognise this is still a difficult financial climate. I know the pressures that you face, particularly with respect to adult and children’s social care.

    I’m also not naïve enough to think there’s a single magic bullet that will instantly solve all of the issues you face.

    I’d advise you to raise a sceptical eyebrow at anyone who claims to have one.

    I’m interested in the long-term, not the quick fix.

    Sustainable change, not an easy win.

    And that’s why I will keep working with you to better understand these challenges so I can continue to fight your corner.

    With many of your councils dating back to Victorian times, it’s easy to characterise counties as the dusty old relatives of the local government world…

    …especially when compared with the shiny new unitaries, combined authorities and so on.

    But that stereotype couldn’t be more wrong.

    Because this is an exciting time for anyone involved with county councils.

    A time of new opportunities, new roles, new ways to better serve the people you represent.

    I know that in some corners of local government there’s still this outdated attitude that says councils should stay in their lane.

    “We’re responsible for this, the districts are responsible for that and never the twain shall meet”.

    You don’t need me to tell you that such thinking is woefully out of date.

    The future – not to mention the present – is all about joined-up thinking, working together strategically to get things done.

    Look at housing, the single biggest challenge of our age.

    Most counties are not planning authorities, directly responsible for delivering homes.

    But you’re all responsible for transport.

    For schools.

    For roads.

    For creating an environment in which homes can be built, in which communities can be created.

    I know that tomorrow you’re going to hear from Ed Lister about the role of counties in getting homes built.

    And it’s great that you’re discussing it, because the only way we will build the homes this country needs is if we all roll up our sleeves and do our bit.

    There are also opportunities for closer working across county lines.

    There was a time when most peoples’ lives extended no further than a day’s walk from their home, but such days are far behind us.

    In 21st century Britain, people are mobile.

    Their work is mobile, their lives are mobile.

    They are not constrained by lines on a map, and nor should you be.

    No man is an island and – with a handful of literal exceptions – no council is either.

    All local authorities are intrinsically linked with their neighbours on issues such as transport, housing and the economy…

    …even the Isle of Wight with its links to Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton.

    Earlier this month I was in China, where interest in the Northern Powerhouse and Midlands Engine was pronounced because potential investors want to look at opportunities on a regional level, not just individual towns, cities and counties.

    That’s why strategic co-operation between councils has never been so important.

    Sometimes that will be an informal process, sometimes more official.

    We already see a great many Local Enterprise Partnerships crossing local authority lines, recognising the flows of people and money in the modern economy and the need for strategic decision-making.

    And of course combined authorities, with a directly elected mayor, are already delivering results right across the country.

    Up to now relatively few county councils have been involved in devolution deals.

    Devolution has been seen as something for the big cities, the metropolitan centres.

    This government remains absolutely committed to the devolution agenda, but I see no reason why its benefits should be limited to the cities.

    That’s particularly important given our Industrial Strategy, which is built around the goal of sharing the benefits of growth right across the country – north and south, urban and rural, cities and counties.

    Devolution and localism, for me, is all about making decisions at the most appropriate level.

    Some things, matters of national importance, will always be best decided at Westminster.

    But for everything else, there are all kinds of opportunities to redistribute power in all kinds of ways.

    Just look at Transport for the North, set to become a statutory body in the spring, and recognising the benefits of looking at transport on a regional level.

    What does this mean for counties?

    Well, if you have an idea for making local government work better, one that serves the interests of local people, then please come and tell me about it.

    If local people want it, if local businesses want it, I’ll do what I can to help you make it happen.

    And that could include non-mayoral combined authorities in, for example, rural areas where a single figurehead isn’t necessarily suitable.

    To help with that process we’re looking at how to design a devolution framework.

    As promised in our election manifesto it will be a common set of guidelines.

    Rules that everyone plays by, so that everyone involved in the process…

    …local authorities, businesses, residents…

    …knows where they stand and what is expected of them.

    Work is still in the early stages – and I’d welcome your support in shaping the final product.

    But I want a framework that, above all else, provides clarity and consistency about what a successful devolution agreement looks like.

    What standards will need to be met, what outcomes will need delivered, what red lines there are for the whole process.

    Expectations about leadership, scope and levels of local support.

    With a clear position on how devolution negotiations should proceed, authorities at all levels will much better placed to develop and put forward proposals that suit the unique needs of their residents and businesses.

    It will help ensure that the right decisions are made at the right levels, so that local people get the services they deserve.

    Of course, devolution and combined authorities aren’t the only changes that counties are talking about right now.

    I’ve now received two proposals setting out competing visions for the future of Buckinghamshire – whether that should be as one unitary or two.

    These show councils at their best – ambitious, innovative, and ready to come forward with exciting ideas for the future.

    We’re now going through both sets of plans very closely and will be making an announcement on next steps as soon as we can.

    And, earlier this month, I announced that I’m minded to support the plan for a pair of unitary authorities in Dorset.

    I know that’s a decision that was welcomed by the CCN, it’s great to be on the same page as you.

    But, more importantly for me, it’s a decision that was also supported by two-thirds of Dorset residents.

    By the Dorset Local Enterprise Partnership.

    By the vast majority of local businesses.

    By 6 of the 9 local councils.

    By most of the county’s MPs.

    I’ve always been clear that any change to council structures should not be dreamed up or imposed by Whitehall, but led by local councils and local people.

    And that’s exactly what we’ve seen in Dorset.

    Yes, some people disagree with the move.

    That’s what happens in a democracy.

    And that’s why, when I announced that I was minded to support the change, I made it very clear that further steps are needed to try to secure local consent before a final decision is made.

    Last year I told you that I wasn’t going to force all of you to go unitary.

    That’s still very much the case.

    But if councils want to come to me with proposals that will improve local government, improve public services, and give better value to local taxpayers…

    My door is always open.

    And if, as in Dorset, those plans are built on a foundation of local support, it will make any decision I have to make a great deal easier!

    Speaking of councils coming to me with ideas, let me take this opportunity to thank the CCN and Respublica for the fascinating report you’ve just published.

    At a time when opportunities and challenges are plenty, it’s great to see you proactively looking at innovative ways of dealing with them.

    In Budget week in particular, it’s very easy for politicians who aren’t in power to offer blank cheques they know will never be cashed and empty promises they know will never be kept.

    Actually coming up with workable, practical ideas is much harder.

    So this report is a welcome addition to the debate.

    It certainly provides food for thought, and my team and I will be looking at it closely.

    And I’ll also be asking Paul to sign a copy so I can give it to Marcus Jones in the Secret Santa next month!

    All ministers have annual fixtures in their speaking diaries – the CCN conference is one such example.

    But, because I’ve run 3 departments in less than 4 years, this conference today is actually the first time I’ve managed to speak an annual event 2 years in a row!

    I think it’s fitting that the CCN is where I break that particular duck.

    Because local government is very, very important to me.

    I talk about housing a lot, everyone knows it’s my number one priority, but that doesn’t mean I’m not full of admiration for what you do.

    So it’s great that I’m able to come back year after year to build relationships, reflect on progress, and work together on the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead.

    That’s why, rather than talking at you for an hour, I’m going to give over the rest of this slot to Q&A.

    I want to hear your views, your concerns, your ideas.

    I want a conversation with local government, not a lecture.

    County councils have roots that go back through the centuries.

    They are a significant part of this country’s history.

    They play a vital role in its present.

    And, when I look around this room, I see no shortage of ambition for the future.

    I’m looking forward to working with all of you to turn that ambition into results.

    Thank you.

  • Damian Green – 2004 Speech on British Hauliers

    Below is the text of the speech made by Damian Green to the Road Haulage Association’s Spring Conference in Portugal on 21 May 2004.

    “I was struck in my early weeks in this job that, for politicians, too often transport consists entirely of the railways, when rail provides only 6% of the journeys taken, and for most people road transport is much more important in their lives. All politicians are obsessed by polls, and it is instructive that MORI, in their regular polls about public attitudes to the parties in relation to the big permanent political issues, only ask about the parties’ policies towards public transport—no mention of roads and motoring. So I want to take a balanced and unemotional approach to transport planning.

    Having said which, of course rail and bus policies are vital. If we don’t get the railways right, for freight as well as passengers, then increasing numbers of people will take to their cars, or their trucks, in despair, adding to the congestion we all suffer from. John Prescott notoriously said “I will have failed if in five years time there are not fewer journeys by car.” Well traffic is up 7%, and motorway congestion is up 250%. So you can’t make our roads more effective without making the railways more effective as well.

    So with that as the background I want to set out three principles which will act the basis for our policies.

    First, Governments should give people genuine choice about the mode of transport they choose.

    Secondly, Long-term transport success will come from steady and predictable investment policies, sheltered from incessant political interference.

    Thirdly, The necessary investment levels will require private sector money, and this is as important for roads as it is for railways.

    Those are our guiding principles. What do they mean in policy terms? Indeed, what do they mean for your industry and its reliance on the road network. My basic pitch is that the Government should call off its war on the motorist—not least because making driving miserable for private motorists also inevitably means making it miserable for commercial motorists—including all of your drivers.

    We have already made some proposals, including an audit of the positioning of speed cameras to make it clear that every one is contributing to road safety and not just acting as a silent tax collector for the Chancellor. We believe speed limits should be revisited, with higher maximum speeds possible on motorways and lower speeds necessary on some other roads.

    All of these ideas are designed to make our roads flow more freely, so that no one is holding up your trucks unnecessarily, and that your trucks are not holding up other drivers unnecessarily.

    Our second principle, recommending steady investment, is designed to avoid the stop-start nature of big transport investment in Britain. You will all have seen the full page adverts in papers this week arguing for more and better transport investment—the RHA was one of the bodies placing them. They laid particular emphasis on the most serious pinch points: the M1, the M4 near London, the M6 north of Birmingham, the M62 and the M25. And it is very often schemes to relieve these bottlenecks that take an age to come to fruition. There will always be planning issues, and genuine environmental issues, which cause delays. But what is most frustrating is that such schemes are often delayed further after we have gone through all the planning delays, because the Government finances of the day don’t permit large-scale blocks of extra expenditure. It applies on the roads, it’s applying to the Crossrail Scheme in London at the moment.

    This is where our third principle comes in; that if we are to have a steady, well-planned flow of big transport projects, we will need to use private money more than in the past. The details of this are being worked on at the moment, and we will be coming out with announcements later this year, but I am absolutely convinced that unless we change our attitude towards the use of the private sector in building, operating and maintaining roads, we will keep suffering the same problems.

    For more than 50 years, under every type of Government and through good economic times and bad, our road system has been inadequate. There is no sign that this is changing. The last progress report on the Government’s Ten Year Plan said that although we were promised less congestion when it was launched in 2000, supply chains will have to cope with growing congestion and unreliability. So even under a government that is committed to taxing and spending, the current system shows no sign of improvement. The figures are depressing. The Ten-Year Plan promised a 5% reduction in inter urban congestion, and an 8% reduction in large urban areas. The result has been a predicted increase in journey times of 30% by 2010.

    The solution won’t be a single magic bullet. We will need to use our roads, especially in urban areas, more intelligently—using some of the methods I spoke about earlier. We will need more by-passes. We will need more dualling, and possibly more motorway routes. To fund these new roads, we will need more private finance.

    So we need a complete change in the way we deal with transport policy. It is obvious that the life-cycle of any particular big transport project is very likely to be longer than one particular Parliament, or of one particular Party’s period in power. We need to be grown up about this. In particular we need to set up funding systems so that the temptation for new Governments or new Ministers to drop existing ideas in favour of their own pet projects is minimised.

    So those are the principles. Let me turn now to the specific issue of fuel prices. No one expects the British Government to be in complete control of the oil price. But what the British Government can control is the level of fuel taxes. The Conservative Party voted against Gordon Brown’s increase of 1.9p a litre which he is due to bring in this September. At Prime Minister’s questions this week, shortly before we were all interrupted by noises off and powder on, Michael Howard asked the Prime Minister whether he would reverse this increase. There was a good deal of bluster but no answer. So we have to wait and see what the Government will do. But let me put on the record once and for all that we think this extra imposition should not happen.

    On over-regulation Europe, and specifically the Working Time Directive, I am conscious that later this morning you will be hearing from Philip Bushill-Matthews, my colleague from the European Parliament, and I don’t want to tread too hard on his territory. Apart from anything else, it is bad enough to have to cope with European Directives without having to listen to two different speeches about them in the course of one morning.

    So I will simply set out the main lines of our proposals. We want to get rid of at least a quarter of all existing EU regulations and directives and introduce sunset clauses for new ones. And by this we mean 25% of the total number of regulations and directives, not just a quarter of the pages in the current Acquis, which is the limit of the Commission’s ambition.

    Now you will have heard politicians talk about the desirability of deregulation before. And it’s just possible you may be a little cynical. It’s even possible that I would not blame you for being cynical. You need to know how we would do it. So here goes. There are five points.

    · We want a designated Commissioner with explicit responsibility for meeting deregulation targets.

    · We will use the confirmation hearings for new Commissioners this autumn to test their individual commitments to the deregulation agenda

    · We will use the European Parliament better for the deregulation agenda by initiating pre-legislative scrutiny of legislation, and the impact on competitiveness made explicit in every proposal.

    · We would introduce the right of repeal of legislation to the European Parliament, which would mean the Commission would lose its exclusive right to delete existing laws.

    · We would allow national parliaments to block proposed legislation if the thought it infringed the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.

    So these are practical measures which my colleagues in the European Parliament will pursue, and the more of them we elect on June 10th the more likely they are to be effective.

    Moving on to one of the worst accusations against British Governments, Are they guilty of gold plating European Regulations? Yes they are. Gold plating is a very difficult concept to pin down, but it often means simply making a regulation more detailed and prescriptive in English law than it was when it left Brussels. One way of measuring this is the simple number of words used to transpose a directive into the country’s own legal document. On this basis, the UK adds a staggering two and third times as many words to the average regulation as it had in the original. This is much more than France, and overwhelmingly more than Portugal and Germany, the three countries where these comparisons have been made.

    Changing this requires a change in the culture of Whitehall, which will only come about from a Government committed to deregulation as a central part of its economic thinking. The next Conservative Government will do that.

    Moving briefly onto the Working Time Directive, our desired outcome when we were considering it was the minimum amount of regulation compatible with safety and reasonable comfort. I urged the Government to lobby for extending the reference period over which average working time is calculated. I agreed that a 17-week reference period would be too short, and would damage businesses that have a seasonal focus.

    There has been much progress in the past few weeks. The six-month reference period for calculating the average week is an improvement. So is the definition of night time working. But I still think the omission of a definition of periods of availability is worrying. I hope it simply means that the Department is trying its best to find a definition that will be most helpful to those trying to run a business in difficult circumstances. I know there is a strong case for saying that driving time should be the key measure, and I would be interested to hear your views on this.

    As a final specific point I should address the vexed subject of Road User Charging for lorries. It is good to know, looking at the Austrian example, that this kind of system can be made to work technically, especially when you look over the border at Germany and their problems. And certainly the current situation when British hauliers are put at a competitive disadvantage to other European companies by our own Government because of our fuel duties is neither sensible nor sustainable.

    But the Chancellor’s latest delay in implementation means that the original idea, that UK hauliers deserved a more level playing field, has been forgotten until 2008 at the earliest. I know that many of you believe that the level playing field argument was always a convenient front for introducing technology that would lead to all-out road pricing. That may be true.

    What is beyond argument is that we should be looking for other ways of levelling the playing field between now and 2008, if it can be done in a revenue-neutral way. I have been investigating thoughts of charging lorries that come into Britain on the basis of the mileage used when they are using our roads. So far, all the schemes I have looked at would be effective, but would also be illegal under competition law. So I am still searching. I am sure that many of you will be able to help me in this quest, and I am very receptive. UK hauliers deserve a better deal than the one they currently get from the Government, and I want to work with you all to make sure they receive it.

    One last observation on the Ten Year Plan as a whole. It was, frankly, over-hyped as a solution to our transport problems. The slow progress of the Multi-Modal studies has meant that the implementation of specific road improvements has remained a weak area in the plan. Congestion charging seems to create at least as many problems as it solves. Rail planning is back in the melting pot. Tax incentives for cleaner vehicles are offered with one hand and taken away with the other.

    So the degree of certainty that many people in your industry hoped for when the Plan was unveiled has not happened. There is an alternative vision, where politicians step back from the detail of industrial planning and set the framework for companies and individuals to make their own decisions. That is the vision that I and my colleagues are developing, and I am sure that it can contribute to the long-term health of our the road haulage industry—an industry which itself is absolutely essential to the long-term health of our economy.

  • Theresa May – 2004 Press Release on Family Needs

    Below is the text of a press release issued by Theresa May, the then Shadow Secretary of State for the Family, on 24 August 2004.

    Labour’s plans to improve access arrangements for children whose parents split up will prove to be a big disappointment, Theresa May has warned.

    The Shadow Secretary for the Family accused Government ministers of “papering over the cracks” rather than addressing the real problems at the heart of Britain’s family justice system.

    In a Green Paper being published by the Department for Constitutional Affairs, Labour is seeking to encourage separated parents to embark on a mediation process to find agreement on access and control over their children, rather than going to court. However, the Government has rejected the idea that parents should be guaranteed 50-50 access to their children, claiming that offspring cannot be divided up “like property” after a marriage founders.

    Commenting on the proposals, Mrs May described the package as “a huge disappointment for families up and down the country”, and declared: “Rather than address the real problems at the heart of our family justice system, this Government would rather attempt to paper over the cracks. This is just another false dawn for all those many heartbroken parents and grandparents trapped for years in the courts and denied contact with their children.”

    Highlighting the absence of a presumption in favour of equal rights for parents to have an influence on the upbringing of their children, Mrs May said: “This has meant that parents with residence have found it far easier to obstruct the other parent’s access to their children and their ability to have a say in how those children are brought up. Government must redress that imbalance.”

    She added: “The Government has failed to grasp the real problem at the heart of the current system. What parents want is proper quality parenting time with their children, not the availability of more contact centres and warm words about ‘parenting plans’. Children need to have contact with their mothers and fathers if at all possible. The best parent is both parents. We need to ensure that children grow up with mother and father, and where ever possible Grandparents playing a full and active role in their upbringing.”

  • Ken Livingstone – 2004 Speech on Housing

    Below is the text of the speech made by Ken Livingstone, the then Mayor of London, on 25 May 2004.

    I am delighted to have this opportunity to speak at the second conference the Guardian has organised about housing for key workers. So much is now not just being written and said, but actually done about this important issue that it is easy to forget that just four years ago it was hardly on the agenda as a priority for policy makers.

    I would like to pay tribute to the work of Chris Holmes, the former Director of Shelter, who chaired the London Housing Commission I established immediately after the first Mayoral election. It was Chris’s Commission and their report which identified just how critical this issue was for London.

    The Commission rightly said: “The economic importance of London to the whole country means that the capital’s housing problems are not just a parochial matter. If London begins to fail economically there will be serious implications for the national economy…..The evidence in the Commission’s report demonstrates that there is not just a housing justification for a major increase in the rate of provision of affordable homes but also an economic justification and a public service justification.”

    Another central conclusion of the Commission was that “the definition of affordability must work both for people in traditional housing need and for people on moderate incomes who cannot afford market housing.”

    Over the last four years since the publication of that report we have carried that analysis through into the statutory London Plan. This now sets a requirement for new developments to contain not just traditional affordable housing, but also what has become known in the jargon as “intermediate housing”, catering precisely for the needs of those on moderate incomes up to £40,000 who are priced out of London’s housing market.

    And we have secured new backing from Government for this policy approach. Government has endorsed and agreed the London plan and its housing targets; they have accepted my view that we need to support homes for rent as well as for sale for the intermediate market; and most importantly of all they have backed the policy with the funding that it – needs especially the new £700 million programme announced in March. This programme will give new affordable homes to more than 8,000 key workers in London in the next two years alone. And we have secured 62% of the national pot of resources for London.

    A vital element in the approach has been to set new, higher targets for affordable housing. When I gave my backing to the Housing Commission proposal for an overall 50% target for London there was a predictable outcry from some in the housebuilding and development industry. It was claimed that setting higher targets would hold back housing production and supply.

    Well now we are getting the evidence which shows that the Jeremiahs were simply wrong. The latest ODPM figures for housebuilding completions released this month show that overall housebuilding in London is up 52% since 1999/2000 and private sector housebuilding up by 55%. These welcome increases have coincided precisely with the period in which tougher affordable housing policies have been put in place because of my London Plan. And we have achieved this with the support of greatly increased public resources secured for London from government – the Housing Corporation programme up from £260 million in 199/2000 to £886 million. At the same time the housebuilders have been earning more than reasonable profits.

    And we are on course to deliver 10,000 new affordable homes this year up from 6,000 in 1999/2000. More to do, of course, but we have built a really solid track record of progress. Now there is much more widespread acceptance of the policy approach from the private sector.

    Given this record it is remarkable that during the current election Steve Norris should now be suggesting cutting back on the 50% target. The only consequences of this would be fewer affordable homes for Londoners and higher windfall profits for developers.

    Steve is also completely wrong to claim the target is inflexible. I am inflexible about getting the maximum possible number of affordable homes for London But I promised that site by site the new policy would be implemented flexibly to ensure development was not held back. And that is what I have done on the major developments that come to me, such as on Greenwich Peninsula where we agreed 41% as part of an overall package of transport and other social infrastructure.

    Had our policy starting point at Greenwich been Steve Norris’s 35% rather than 50% we would have lost at least 600 affordable homes on that one site alone. And over the next four years we would lose 20,000 affordable homes right across London.

    One other important lesson from the Housing Commission is that key workers are not just nurses, teachers and police, vital though they are. The people who clean and porter at London’s hospitals are just as essential as the doctors; the people working in hotels who keep London’s tourism industry going are key workers; and so are the lower paid office workers who support London’s back office finance sector.

    I agree with the Commission that our longer term objective must be to create an intermediate housing market in London that caters for the needs of all these people on moderate incomes, not just for narrowly defined occupational groups. And, of course, many of London’s key workers on the lowest incomes need more social housing. The idea that you help key workers by cutting social housing is an illusion.

    But it is good news that we are now creating more low cost home ownership opportunities in London than ever before. And I am delighted that many of these schemes are also at the cutting edge of high quality design and the best environmental and energy efficiency standards.

    There are fantastic examples of this built or being built in London by the private sector and by housing associations. One of the earliest housing schemes to come to me for a planning decision was the Grand Union Village scheme on the canal on the borders of Ealing and Hillingdon. When I first saw the scheme I asked my planning officers couldn’t we get more homes on the site while still having a really well designed and attractive development. If that could be done, the scheme should be more profitable which would allow the developer to provide more than the 25% affordable housing on offer.

    The GLA planners were able to negotiate successfully for more homes and an increase in the amount of affordable housing to 35% with a big key worker component. I was delighted to go and open the scheme and see how not only were we housing local teachers and newly recruited police community support officers. But the scheme also met the highest standards of energy efficiency and recycling provision and had created new high quality open space and restored the canal basins.

    As so often the quality of the scheme which is low rise – and the experience for people living there – was so much better at the higher density.

    This month has also seen two London shared ownership schemes built by housing associations winning awards. in Haringey Circle 33 have worked with the Council and Primary Care Trust to turn an unpopular local eyesore into another award winning scheme of 71 shared ownership and rented homes, a healthy living centre and a CAB.

    And in Barking Tower Homes won the national Affordable Home Ownership award for its top quality scheme of 69 shared ownership and rented homes which again meets my aspirations for more sustainable housing – photovoltaic cells in roof panels, low energy fittings, all meeting the lifetime homes standards now required by the London Plan and all with private rear gardens. This was also a scheme which tackled affordability in the right way – the average share bought was 41 per cent and the average income of the main owner £18,850.

    Right across London there are more and more schemes like this underway – showing it is possible to produce genuinely mixed tenure developments – market and discounted sale, shared ownership and housing for rent – and with all the tenures pepper-potted, indistinguishable and built to the same standard. This is the right and only way forward for London’s new homes programme.

    So for the future we need to keep up the pressure to hit the targets for supply and affordable supply – this year a minimum of 10,000 new affordable homes; next year closer to 15,000 and keeping at least at that level. Maintaining the overall 50% target is absolutely vital; and delivering the target will mean that we need to achieve more than 50% on some sites. Obviously housing association developments will help with that – and so will the exciting new initiative by English Partnerships to assemble land for affordable homes, especially for key workers. This should produce at least another 4,000 affordable homes over the next two to three years.

    Another approach I want to encourage is securing more key worker housing without the need for public subsidy. More developers and builders are now coming forward with schemes of this sort and these should be encouraged through planning policy. On suitable sites particularly in areas where there are already high levels of social housing we should encourage developments of 100% key worker housing for rent and shared ownership. Increasingly there are signs that big financial institutions are interested in investing in this type of development opening up a minor new sources of finance for more key worker homes in London.

    And we must continue to be imaginative in the way we use land – encouraging high quality mixed use development and looking for new capacity to build more homes. We have worked with the major supermarket firms to encourage them to build more housing above and around their new stores. Again this month we have seen another big scheme coming forward with Tescos planning to build 104 new homes above a new store in Clapham.

    I believe there is further major potential to build new homes – and especially affordable homes – on and around rail and Underground stations and I will be asking London Underground to work with partners such as English Partnerships, housing associations and house-builders to develop a strategy to maximise these opportunities.

    I will continue to work with and support other new initiatives to provide more key worker homes. Later at the Conference you will be hearing about the ‘More than Halfway There’ scheme which brings together big employers and trade unions in London to support building more key worker homes in London. I was delighted that the GLA was able to work with Britannia Building Society and other partners to support this scheme with feasilbility money, and look forward to these and other similar initiatives bearing fruit and housing London workers.

    The other major challenge we face is to make sure that we deliver the new infrastructure that is essential for building London’s new homes and communities. New public transport schemes are vital to connect new homes to jobs and allow better quality and more intensive development. Cutting back on proposed transport schemes would seriously damage the drive for new homes for Londoners.

    Just as important as transport is delivering more high quality schools, health care and other community facilities. These are needed for London’s growing population but will also improve services and facilities for existing residents. I have been working closely with the NHS and the Department for Education to plan together how to make these extra investments in London’s public services.

    We now have much better co-ordinated policy to support the new homes Londoners need – and we have started to make real, demonstrable progress on delivering more homes and serving a much wider range of people in housing need, especially key workers. The new office of Mayor has made a decisive difference in bringing planning, housing and transport policies together, securing extra resources, supporting new initiatives and setting the right targets for new affordable homes.

    The Barker Review – on the heels of the Sustainable Communities Action Plan – was the latest and perhaps most significant sign of the greater political priority the government is now giving to building new homes. Particularly significant because it comes with the backing of the Treasury.

    The Treasury have accepted Kate Barker’s important recommendation about the need to bring together responsibility for strategic housing and planning policy at the regional level. We have already made big strides in that direction in London and shown the approach delivers real results, more homes. I will work with government to implement the Barker proposals in London which should mean giving the Mayor important new responsibilities for strategic housing policy and investment.. Given the right powers, more public and private investment, working in partnership, but not relaxing our targets we can deliver more and more of the high quality affordable homes London’s public and private sector workers aspire to.

  • Paul Maynard – 2017 Speech on Travel for Disabled Passengers

    Below is the text of the speech made by Paul Maynard, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Rail, Accessibility and HS2, on 15 November 2017.

    Introduction

    I welcome the publication of these three pieces of important research today. I am grateful to the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) for carrying them out.

    And I am grateful to those in the rail industry who assisted in the research.

    Many of whom are here today.

    I take that as a sign of your commitment to learn from this research and to take action where it’s needed.

    Because it is through research of this kind that we gain the hard evidence we need to improve services for passengers.

    We learn what is being done well.

    For instance, we learn how much of a difference can be made by helpful, caring, considerate staff.

    And it’s right that we recognise those members of rail staff who not only fulfil their formal obligations to disabled passengers, but do so with a smile, with kindness, while allowing passengers to sense that their custom is valued.

    And I know that later you’ll be hearing some case studies of good service provided by Network Rail, Virgin Trains East Coast, and the work of the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee.

    But we also learn from research of this kind what is not being done so well.

    And in this research we do learn rather a lot.

    And, again, it’s right that we recognise what’s not working – and the need to improve.

    So I’d like to spend a little more time discussing these areas.

    Awareness of support

    For me one of the most striking features of the research is that today disabled passengers are not sufficiently aware of their rights to access help.

    In fact, over 71% of those eligible to use passenger assist don’t know anything about the scheme.

    Of those who did know about their right to help, most learned through word of mouth.

    Either from helpful rail staff, or from friends and family.

    That’s not a bad thing in itself.

    But word of mouth isn’t enough.

    After all, if you don’t know about help available in the first place, how can you tell others?

    Greater awareness must come from better communication by train operating companies themselves.

    Reliability of service

    The next striking finding of the research is that customer satisfaction is most commonly linked with 3 elements.

    The first is whether passengers actually receive the help they request.

    Now, I understand that things can go wrong.

    But if there’s one thing train companies need to be good at, it’s getting people to the right place at the right time.

    But at the moment, most of the explanations put forward by passengers for assistance failures include:

    – staff not arriving to meet them at agreed points

    – staff being late

    – trains not arriving on time, so staff or equipment to help with alighting are not available as they should be

    – or stations at either end not being aware of their journey.

    These should be easy things to fix.

    Getting people to the right place at the right time, and communicating information down the line; this is the bread and butter of any rail company.

    But for a variety of reasons, disabled people aren’t getting the service they are owed.

    Staff attitude

    Then there’s the second big concern of passengers – the attitude of staff.

    I’ve already said what a positive difference caring, considerate staff can make.

    And the overwhelming majority of staff on the railway are exactly that – often going above and beyond the call of duty to deliver a quality service to vulnerable passengers.

    But it is equally true that it can only take one disappointing interaction to rob someone of their confidence in using the transport network.

    Passengers have talked about being made to feel an inconvenience.

    When a disabled passenger turns up at the station, they are maybe asked “have you booked?” – in what can seem like accusing tones.

    Staff may be unable to spot or react properly to hidden disabilities, such as learning difficulties.

    Or they may seem sceptical whether help is really needed.

    Yet as the prevalence of hidden conditions such as dementia increases in our society, the ability of the railway to respond properly must increase accordingly.

    Again, this shouldn’t be too difficult to remedy.

    A lot of it is about good and thorough staff training.

    Of the kind that should elementary for anyone working in a customer-facing role today.

    In my own constituency, I’ve seen the superb work done by Jane Cole of Blackpool Transport to improve the understanding of bus drivers of the needs of disabled passengers; work informed by Jane’s previous role in setting up Virgin’s original passenger assist programme.

    Jane is now the government’s Champion for Accessible Transport working with the Disabilities Minister, and I hope we can tap into her undoubted expertise.

    Facilities

    The third major influencing factor – after whether requested help is received, and staff attitudes – is whether facilities are up to scratch.

    General accessibility, toilets, lighting, seating, lifts and everything else.

    Now I recognise that, of the 3, in some circumstances this can be the most challenging to get right.

    That’s one legacy of operating the oldest rail network in the world.

    Built to Victorian standards.

    And I am glad that Network Rail and others have worked hard to find creative ways to fit accessible solutions within historic architecture.

    But while getting it right may be challenging, it’s still essential.

    We need to do more to ensure more toilets on board trains are in service more of the time.

    But where they are out of order, we need to fix them, and do it fast.

    And until they’re fixed, inform passengers in sufficient time before they board.

    No one should suffer being caught short while trapped on a train.

    Just as no one with vision or spatial awareness challenges should find themselves on a dark platform, illuminated only by a flickering light.

    I could go on, but you don’t need me to spell out all the possible scenarios in which things can go wrong.

    The research is already quite clear on what the issues are, and what needs to be done about them.

    Need for enforcement

    And all of the above explains why enforcement of these duties is so important, and why the ORR has such an important role to play.

    Not only is it the railway’s economic regulator, but it is also the passenger’s champion when it comes to the handling of complaints, the provision of information during disruption and the provision of services to disabled passengers.

    These duties are not in conflict, but rather are complementary.

    At the same time, each duty requires a very different mind-set.

    I know the ORR has always fought to make sure operators do the right thing for passengers – including holding train operating companies to account for their finances.

    And I strongly believe there is no-one better positioned to influence operators, to re-balance the railway in favour of the passenger.

    In this role, I see ORR having a visible presence, upholding the legitimate expectations of the fare-paying passenger.

    ORR cannot do this alone.

    It needs to bring the industry with them on the journey towards higher standards.

    But just as justice delayed is justice denied, so is justice in the shadows justice denied.

    My inbox and postbag overflows with complaints from those who have not received the level of service they are entitled to when seeking passenger assistance on the railway.

    People need to see the strong hand of the ORR guiding these improvements.

    ORR holds many enforcement powers that it could be using right now to deliver justice.

    As the ORR builds up its evidence base, and negotiates improvements by consensus, I would like to see them wielding these powers.

    To become an earnest advocate for passengers who need them the most.

    To think creatively about how its consumer-facing role requires an outward-facing advocacy on behalf of disabled passengers.

    To seize the opportunity presented by the impending arrival of the Passenger Ombudsman to complement that work by ensuring that the consumer duties it has are explored to their fullest extent.

    And by challenging the industry at each and every opportunity.

    So as a next step, I would welcome the thoughts of the ORR on how it intends to respond to complaints about levels of accessibility on the railway.

    Whether through published league tables, through examples of bad and good practice, or through naming and shaming the very worst.

    With creativity, I know that the ORR can truly make a difference.

    Conclusions

    So, thank you again for this vital work.

    It gives us the evidence and the information we need to make things better.

    It give us a new opportunity.

    So let us be the ones who seize that opportunity.

    And make travelling better for everyone.

    Thank you.

  • Edward du Cann – 1956 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made by Edward du Cann, the then Conservative MP for Taunton, in the House of Commons on 23 April 1956.

    I have the honour to represent the ancient and historic constituency of Taunton, in the County of Somerset, which comprises not only the Boroughs of Taunton and Wellington but also their rural districts and the rural district of Dulverton, and which includes some of the most beautiful countryside in Somerset, if not in the whole country.

    The industries in my constituency are many and varied. They range from the production of cider—fortunately not affected by the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or perhaps I should make a speech rather different from that which I am now about to deliver—to the textile trade; from the manufacture of gloves, shirts and collars to the manufacture of precision instruments; from engineering to withy growing.

    Taunton market is the finest in the West, and the largest single industry in the constituency is farming. Therefore, not only do we earn foreign currency by our work in this constituency, but we also save foreign currency as well. Perhaps I may say, in parenthesis, that one must recognise that for all the support which the farming industry is receiving at the moment from the taxpayer, small farmers and hill farmers particularly eke out a not very satisfactory living.

    The division has been represented in this House by many distinguished men, although it failed to elect the great Mr. Disraeli when he stood as a Tory candidate at a by-election in 1835. Not least among those distinguished men has been my immediate predecessor, Lord Colyton, to whom I owe a great deal—far more than I shall ever be able to repay. I see the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Collins) in his place, and perhaps I may say that both he and my predecessor the noble Lord represented Taunton with distinction and rendered great service to their constituents. They have both set me a hard example to follow, and I shall do my best to follow it.

    I confess to being in some difficulty in addressing the Committee today because, on the one hand, I understand that by the tradition of this House a maiden speech may not be contentious, but, on the other hand, I recall the turbulent history of the West Country. Names like Monmouth and Judge Jeffreys come to my mind. Perhaps it is just as well that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) is not in his place. So we in the West Country are rebels yet, and suffer no Government gladly, particularly when they have their hands in our pockets in which we keep our loose change.

    For all that, it is true to say that my constituents and the majority of the people of this country support my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his grand design and aim to contain inflation, to encourage private, and more particularly Government, saving, to keep Britain solvent and to build up our reserves and keep us paying our way. We recognise, too, that if these things are done we are certain to maintain our standard of living and, perhaps, in the future to build it up. If these things are not done, we shall perish and the result will be tragedy for our people.

    It is with regard to the methods by which my right hon. Friend seeks to attain these aims that there may be differences of opinion. As to the detail of his Budget, I wish to refer, first, to the sensational announcement—for it is that—about the new Premium Bonds and then later to other matters.

    We shall have to wait for details of the Premium Bonds scheme, but it is is, perhaps, appropriate to make four points. The first is, that it is clear that the public imagination has been caught by the idea. That augurs well for its success. It seems to me important, if it can be arranged—as I have said, we do not know the details at the moment—to start the scheme as early as possible. I hope very much that we shall not be kept waiting for as long as my right hon. Friend suggested.

    Secondly, when we have secured the interest of the people, we surely want to maintain it. It occurred to me that it would, perhaps, be better to draw these bonds every month instead of every three months.

    Thirdly, my right hon. Friend announced that the bonds would have a par value of £1 and that the maximum holding would be limited to £250. I agree with the figure suggested for the holding, but I am not so sure about the par value. At a time when investments tend to be cheaper so far as their par value is concerned in order to encourage working and middle-class people to buy them, it seems to me that it would be better to reduce the par value to 10s. or 5s. One recognises the difficulty when a great investment company like Cable and Wireless has to do that in order to attract investors. Therefore, it seems to me important to make the point here today.

    Lastly, bearing in mind a letter in The Times on Friday last which quoted a precedent in Queen Anne’s day, it seems to me that my right hon. Friend might be able to get over the objections of some people—one can sympathise with and understand them—to the speculative nature of these bonds if some small rate of interest were paid on them. The net rate to be paid is 4 per cent. and if we gross it up it is about 7 per cent., which is a very high yield when compared with the ordinary share yield index quoted in the Financial Times, which is just about 5½ per cent. Surely 1 per cent. could be paid on these bonds, since my right hon. Friend has said that registers are to be kept.

    Leaving the subject of the Premium Bonds, I should like to say that I have—and I know that my constituents have—followed the Chancellor’s reasoning when he says, in effect, that this is to be a “hold-the-fort” Budget and that there could be no tax concessions this time. We are also pleased that no severe increase in taxation has been imposed either.

    I should like to register a point for the next time, and talk about two sections of the community, those who receive the most and those who receive the least—the Surtax payers and the old-age pensioners. I am, clearly, not an old-age pensioner, though, pray God, I may be one day, and neither am I a Surtax payer.

    The present initial level for Surtax is the same as it was in 1928–29, and if we take account of the fall in the value of money, it would appear, bearing in mind current values, that Surtax begins at a level of about £600 or £700. In these days, when the middle-class is expanding so fast—and we welcome that expansion—it is surely illogical and out of date to keep the lower limit at that figure.

    I am not suggesting that one should not recognise the social purposes of taxation, as the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) mentioned in his speech, nor am I suggesting that we should not keep the upper limits of Surtax high. I am talking about the middle ranges of Surtax. We must surely recognise that Income Tax and Surtax discourage the people with special skills and trades. They discourage, too, the young and rising managers and executives. They stultify endeavour and kill incentive, and they are morally bad in the sense that they encourage the payer of Income Tax and Surtax to look for his remuneration in indirect ways.

    As to the old-age pensioners—I am sure that my right hon. Friend bears their needs very much in mind—much has been done for them, not least by the present Administration. I think that is a fair point to make, but much more needs to be done for them. On the subject of the tobacco concession, I have found among my constituents dissatisfaction, not because the concession has not been increased by 2d., but because the concession exists at all. Many think that it would be much better to give all old-age pensioners an extra 2s. 6d. a week rather than give one section an extra benefit. Although 50 per cent. of old-age pensioners take advantage of the tobacco concession, one does not know how many of them are habitual smokers. It would be fairer to give the 2s. 6d., or whatever the sum may be, to all of them.

    Another point which has been put to me very strongly, and with which I strongly sympathise, is that it would be a great aid for the old people if something were done to raise the earnings limit for them. I know that that is a matter which is being investigated at the present time.

    Finally, I hope and believe that my right hon. Friend’s language in his Budget speech gives great cause for hope that his second Budget may implement the promise of his first, and that when inflation is mastered and our trade position in the world improves, as we pray may be the case, we may look forward to enjoying the great tax reforms and reliefs of which our heavily burdened nation stands so sorely in need.

  • Gwyneth Dunwoody – 1966 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made by Gwyneth Dunwoody, the then Labour MP for Exeter, in the House of Commons on 8 July 1966.

    If that riveting opening phrase, “I rise to make my maiden speech and to beg the indulgence of the House” causes you to sink a little lower in your august Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope that you will forgive me.

    I warmly welcome the Bill as a step in the right direction. With the greatest respect, I welcome it also since I rather feel that I might not always find myself in such wholehearted agreement with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) during the rest of my Parliamentary career.

    I represent a very beautiful city. It is one for which I have great affection. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet), I represent a city that has many historic associations and many beautiful buildings. To anyone who has the opportunity to sit, as I do, on a local authority planning committee, it is sometimes a little disheartening to discover how easy it is to destroy the beauty that men have left us over the years. Although we are able to preserve individual houses, it has in the past been only too easy to destroy the entire character of streets and cities by not considering an area as a whole.

    I am delighted that a Clause is provided in the Bill to deal with that aspect. I have had the slightly disheartening experience of taking part in a discussion on how to preserve a very beautiful view on one of the most beautiful rivers in Devon. Had it not been so tragic to me, I should have been amused at the sort of solution arrived at. It was decided that it was possible to leave a gap between two large sheds; and that this would preserve a very beautiful amenity.

    We have various other problems in Exeter on which I hope to have a chance to address the House on other occasions. We face the thorny problem of what is known as development. We desperately need to marry the best of the old with the best of the new. I always feel that beautiful cities, rather like beautiful women, require a certain amount of judicious preservation—I was about to say that they do better to be lived with; but perhaps that might be misinterpreted.

    If we are to provide the sort of environment in which people can live their lives to the full, we must be able to preserve the best houses and the best architectural points of interest. We certainly must do something about the rage we sometimes seem to have in modern society only to destroy and not to preserve. I have been startled by the number of ways in which it is possible to, shall we say, evade some of the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Acts.

    If it is true to say of people Thou shalt not kill, but need not strive Officiously to keep alive it is also true of trees. I welcome the provisions for the preservation of trees because there is here one aspect that we have not considered. Trees are living things, and can be easily destroyed.

    One can judiciously find that their branches are in need of lopping, one can destroy their roots, or find perhaps that they are a danger to new developments it is necessary to do away with them. In those circumstances, it is all the more important for local authorities to have the kind of provisions contained in this Measure to require developers or builders to replace trees in areas from which they have been removed.

    Those of us who have served on local authorities want to see our cities made not merely utilitarian and as a sort of background against which can be produced better jobs and a better future for our children, but a warmer, livelier and more beautiful environment. As this island becomes more and more crowded it becomes more incumbent upon us to protect areas such as the South-West which have great natural beauty where cities have grown up in very pleasant juxtaposition one to another, but which, if they are to live and not merely to be developed, must be developed in such a way that they will provide even greater beauty than in the past.

    I know that I do not need to draw the attention of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl), to some of the problems we have in the South-West. I live in what is called a gem town. The problem for this particular gem is that the setting is one which we are very anxious to preserve. We look to the future to provide opportunities for better planning of growing towns. It is important that they should be the sort of towns which provide the environment we want for our children.

    I most warmly welcome the Bill.