UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Speeches

  • Anne Milton – 2017 Speech on Careers Advice

    Below is the text of the speech made by Anne Milton, the Skills Minister, at the Careers Education and Guidance Summit in London on 7 November 2017.

    I am delighted to be here today.

    It is an opportunity for us to reflect upon the importance of people getting information, advice and guidance that helps them make decisions about their future learning, jobs and training and the role it plays in helping people of all ages to fulfil their potential.

    Everyone in this room is committed to supporting young people and adults across the country to make the most of their talents and pursue a rewarding career. A talk from an inspiring employer that sparks new ideas, a work placement that opens new doors, personal guidance to explore options and develop a career plan. The work that you do is so important in helping people to succeed.

    The importance of careers advice

    Careers advice is the foundation upon which some of our biggest reforms will be built. New T levels will be a gold standard for technical and professional excellence. They are an amazing opportunity for young people to gain the knowledge, skills and behaviours they need to enter skilled employment in a particular occupational area.

    Our apprenticeship reforms are putting employers in control and enabling them to develop their workforces now and for the future. There have been 1.1 million apprenticeship starts since May 2015 and we aim to reach 3 million by 2020.

    This skills revolution is dependent upon people having the best possible advice about the career path they should take. One that makes the most of their talents.

    Careers guidance is central to social mobility. It is about making sure that people from communities in every part of the land can develop the knowledge and confidence they need to progress. And have a clear plan to help them get there.

    Careers Strategy

    I am tremendously grateful for the work that you do. That is why I want to give you a first insight into the Careers Strategy which we will be publishing shortly. I know many of you in this room have been waiting a long time for the Careers Strategy.

    It will be an important document that will set out what Government will do to ensure that everybody has access to the right advice, at the right time. A clear and accessible document, setting out the part we will all play in achieving this vision.

    I am going to talk to you today about the four themes that will shape our Careers Strategy and continue to guide our approach as government works closely with schools, colleges, employers and other organisations to transform the life chances of people across the country.

    Gatsby and Careers Leaders

    First, we need a high-quality careers programme in every school and college. There are some examples of excellent and inspiring provision, but we know that many schools and colleges require more support.

    The Gatsby Charitable Foundation’s excellent report, Good Career Guidance was the result of an 18-month study looking at best practice in the UK and abroad.

    It has resulted in eight Gatsby Benchmarks that define excellence. The benchmarks have had a really positive impact, as many of you have no doubt seen for yourselves.

    Gatsby has been funding a pilot in the North East with 13 school and 3 colleges to look at the impact of putting the benchmarks into practice.

    At the start of the pilot, no school or college fully achieved more than three of the benchmarks and half did not achieve any. Now, two years on, 88% of schools and colleges are achieving 6 to 8 of the benchmarks and three schools are achieving all eight. That is a great success story.

    That is hundreds more young people benefitting from world class careers support to help them achieve their potential. I want many more people to benefit in this way. That is why the Gatsby Benchmarks will be the bedrock of our Careers Strategy. Setting the standard for every school and college to work towards and support announced through the Strategy will be geared towards helping every school and college to achieve the benchmarks.

    To make the Gatsby benchmarks happen in all schools and colleges will require effective leadership. A number of organisations have been looking at models of career leadership. Teach First’s recent report provides an excellent analysis of the skills and attributes required for the role and the steps they suggest we take to embed Careers Leaders in schools and colleges. I have been considering these recommendations carefully for our Careers Strategy

    Encounters with providers and employers

    Second, employers are an integral part of our approach. As Britain prepares to leave the European Union it is crucial to meet the skills needs of our economy, to provide opportunities for people to learn about different jobs and careers and to develop the skills and behaviours needed to thrive in the workplace.

    The Careers & Enterprise Company has made outstanding progress. There are now over 2000 Enterprise Advisers working with over half of the schools and colleges in England providing support to develop a careers programme. They use their networks to help pupils get more experiences of the world of work and provide insight into the key skills needed by local businesses.

    The Careers & Enterprise Company has already invested £1million in the first 6 Opportunity Areas and we will be allocating a further £1million to support the second wave of Opportunity Areas. The investment will deliver activities such as career learning, enterprise activities or careers talks. Every secondary school and college in an Opportunity Area will have an Enterprise Adviser and every student aged 11-18 in these areas will have access to at least four inspiring encounters with the world of work. This will focus support in areas of the country where social mobility is lowest.

    Tailored advice, to meet individual needs

    Third, we want to make sure everyone can benefit from tailored support. Personal guidance from a qualified adviser can have a real impact. I know that the careers profession has experienced many shocks in recent years and that organisations such as Careers England and the Career Development Institute are working tirelessly to raise the profile and status of the profession.

    I very much welcome the CDI’s register which we want schools, colleges and others to use to find a professional who can guide their pupils and students. The National Careers Service is also doing great work to help adults. Last year, more than 50% of adults seen by the National Careers Service moved onto an accredited training course or into employment.

    We have already extended the National Careers Service contracts until September 2018 so this good work can continue. Last week, we announced a new Flexible Learning Fund to support projects that deliver learning in a way that is flexible and easy to access, especially for adults who are in work, or returning to work, and have low or intermediate level skills.

    Data

    Fourth, we want to make the most of the rich sources of information about jobs and careers that exist. We know that there is a vast array of information and data available which has extraordinary potential to help people make informed decisions on the education, training and employment options available to them.

    Yet it is also true that these information sources can be difficult to navigate and those who could most benefit from them are sometimes unable to.

    More people now use data about the destinations of students when considering their options for jobs and training. The government already publishes this data on students’ destinations, but we recognise that more needs to be done to make the data easier to interpret.

    If we are to harness the potential of this data in a way that supports social mobility we need to ensure that everyone is able access and understand this information, including those who are not digitally confident.

    These four priorities will form the bedrock of the Careers Strategy. I know you are eagerly anticipating it being published soon and I am absolutely committed to getting this right because it is so important for the future success of this country.

    Thank you.

  • Amanda Spielman – 2017 Speech at Nursery World Summit

    Below is the text of the speech made by Amanda Spielman, the Chief Inspector of OFSTED, on 8 November 2017.

    Good afternoon and thank you for inviting me here to speak you today.

    It’s great to be part of such a rich programme of speakers and discussions. You certainly pack a lot into a day. Apprenticeships, Brexit, workforce strategies – all before lunch – that’s some work ethic.

    When I took on the role of Chief Inspector, I was clear that every part of our work was of equal importance. I made a commitment to myself, and others, that I would engage with every aspect of our broad remit.

    In particular, I wanted to get a better understanding of the issues affecting early years. After all, you are responsible for the crucial first stage of a child’s development. I am grateful, therefore, to the nurseries that welcomed me as a visitor during my early months in post and the time the leaders in your field took in getting me up to speed.

    So thank you to all of you, particularly members of our National Consultative Forum, for your efforts in educating me. And of course a tribute to Ofsted’s own Gill Jones, our early years supremo, and her team who have helped me immeasurably.

    One of the clearest messages I took away from those early discussions was the importance of the honest dialogue, from both sides, that exists between Ofsted and the sector. Through the work of our consultative forum, grassroots initiatives like the ‘Ofsted Big Conversation’ and the myriad of events like these, it is clearly ‘good to talk’. I know that countless issues have been raised and resolved as a result of these efforts, from concerns about complaint-driven inspections to consistency of inspections. Long may the dialogue continue.

    And in that spirit of openness, I wanted to share with you a bit of my story and what brought me to the post of Chief Inspector. My early career was spent in business and finance, but after 15 years, and having children, I realised that education was my real passion. So I took the plunge and did a Masters in comparative education, and a year or two later got involved in the Ark academy chain, just as it was starting out. A chain, incidentally, that built in primary education from the very beginning.

    The work at Ark was very much focused on turning around tough schools. It was about making sure that children who had been getting a raw deal started to receive a proper education. The education they deserved. The experience of Ark’s primary schools demonstrated first-hand how a solid early education sets young people up for life.

    After Ark, I spent five years at Ofqual, steeped in the reform of assessment and qualifications. And then at the start of this year, I joined Ofsted as Chief Inspector.

    And it has been an incredibly rewarding year so far.

    Ofsted turned 25 this autumn. And although the educational, political and economic landscape is now very different, our mission to raise standards in education and care remains unchanged. Because, despite momentous social and cultural shifts, our work to improve children’s lives is as important today as it was quarter of a century ago.

    As you would expect, much has changed in Ofsted since 1992. Today, we are more focused on what works and far more engaged with all of the sectors we inspect.

    As part of our continuing evolution, at the end of September we published our new corporate strategy, which will guide every area of our work, including early years, until 2022.

    The strategy centres on one fundamental principle: that Ofsted will be ‘a force for improvement through intelligent, responsible and focused inspection and regulation’.

    Being intelligent: that means that our work will be evidence-led, and our judgements will be valid and reliable.

    Being responsible: that means our findings will be clear and accessible, and we will be fair in our expectations of others.

    And being focused: that means our time and resources will be targeted, as far as possible, where they can lead directly to improvement.

    And just like you, we will always put children first.

    I appreciate that talk of ‘corporate strategies’ and ‘fundamental principles’ might seem a bit removed from your daily concerns. You may well ask: ‘all very nice but what does it mean for me and my nursery business?’

    Perhaps I can unpick it a bit for you by relating it to the work we are doing specifically in your area.

    Intelligent

    So starting with intelligent.

    For inspection to be intelligent, it must be led by a professional, highly skilled and well-trained workforce. With our early years inspectors back in house, we are in a better position to ensure the quality of training and support given to our teams. As these teams move into our established regional structures, I am confident that we will see further benefits through the sharing of insight and intelligence with colleagues from schools and social care.

    We will also be using inspection evidence to offer perspective and insight to those we inspect. That doesn’t mean ‘how to’ manuals, but it does mean making the most of our bird’s eye view of the totality of children’s experience in education to help lead improvements right from early years to college. We will publish more research on what we learn about what works so that we can help others to improve.

    Responsible

    Then being responsible. I am, of course, intensely aware of the impact of Ofsted judgments. We must use our power responsibly. In your industry, perhaps more than any other area, a poor judgement can have significant financial consequences. There can be big impacts on funding and the ability to even continue in business.

    Now, as you would expect, I will reiterate that first and foremost our concerns are for the education and welfare of children. We will always report honestly on provision that is not good enough. But our responsibility to you is to make sure that our expectations of you are clear. That they are not constantly changing. And that you have fair recourse when you believe something has gone wrong during an inspection.

    That’s why we recently expanded our successful myth-busting campaign into the early years sector. And why we will carry on being open about any future changes we plan to make to inspection. It is also why I have committed to there being no major changes to the common inspection framework until 2019, so that you can have certainty about what is coming and when. When I say ‘major’, I don’t mean to sound weasely, but simply need to acknowledge that sometimes changes are needed to make sure things are clear or because of new legislation.

    Our duty to act responsibly also lies behind a major revamp of our online registration and payment systems. I know that our current systems aren’t good enough. I appreciate that time and effort of your staff spent on working through these clunky and sometimes impenetrable systems is time away from children. That simply isn’t good enough. That’s why we are investing in a major overhaul.

    The project is only part way through, but I am confident that when complete, your experience will be transformed.

    It is only by learning what you need that we can design a service that is right for you. So we are testing and refining the service as we go, with input from the sector at each stage, to make sure that working with Ofsted and completing tasks online is simpler, clearer and faster.

    Focused

    And thirdly, being focused. Like all public sector organisations, Ofsted faces the challenge of doing more with less.

    This challenge can be met, in part, through greater efficiency but we also have to be honest and realistic about the choices we face about how we target inspection. We have to ask ourselves how finite resources can be put to best use.

    This isn’t just about deciding which nurseries and childminders we prioritise for inspection. It means working out how our models should evolve to match the changes taking place in the sector. As with the growth of multi-academy trusts in the school space, with the trend towards chain operators of nurseries I want to be sure that inspection properly reflects how things work. That it allows us to get the best assurance about young people’s education and well-being, at minimum burden to providers.

    So, over the next year we will be developing our conversation with you about how we can improve our regulation and inspection. And we will use your knowledge and insight to focus our inspections where they will have the most impact. Indeed, that conversation has already started.

    Making sure our work is focused is not just about who we inspect and when. It also means thinking about what we look at during inspection and where the role of an inspector has the biggest impact. We need to ask: what are the elements of provision that are genuinely best explored through inspection?

    As we work towards a new inspection framework for 2019, there are a number of areas that we are reflecting on.

    Risk

    One of these is risk. Earlier this year, I wrote about the importance of achieving the right balance when it comes to keeping children safe. That we must be careful not to deprive children of fulfilling educational experiences for fear of ‘what if’.

    For those of you who saw the piece in the news, I had more feedback, and it’s been positive feedback, about this than anything else I’ve said or written before or since. It is clearly a debate that generates significant interest and passion. I believe it is debate that is just as relevant to the early years as any other part of the education world.

    The welfare and safety of children, of course, are at the very core of all early years provision. For parents, handing over their precious child into the care of strangers is a hugely emotional act. We should never underestimate the level of trust those parents are placing in childcare providers. First and foremost, parents want to be sure that you can keep their child safe from harm.

    And of course you must be able to assure them of that. But my concern is that in doing so, and through the best of intentions, we are creating overly risk-free environments. Young children do need to have the opportunity to explore the world around them, to develop their physical skills or even sometimes just to run around until they are exhausted.

    I am acutely aware that Ofsted hasn’t haven’t always got this right in the past. I want to be sure that our inspections and our inspectors aren’t driving any of the risk-averse behaviour.

    So please understand that of course we expect you to take risk seriously and supervise young children properly. But we don’t expect you to take away the climbing frame in case someone falls or avoid journeys to the park for fear of crossing the road. It goes without saying that children need physical exercise to develop their muscular strength and dexterity but it is also important that their natural instincts to discover and explore aren’t stifled. This is, after all, one of the ways they learn.

    Many of you are already striving to get this balance right. Happily, from what I observe, trends in the sector are also in the right direction. Indeed, I see one of your workshops this afternoon features forest nurseries. I know at least one of my children would have loved to spend their early childhood at one of those!

    In the next few weeks, our inspectors will be doing some refresher training on how we look at safeguarding. And I do expect future inspection frameworks to be more explicit about the balance between risk and safety, always keeping in mind the requirements of the EYFS [Early Years Foundation Stage]. In the short term, we will be continuing our myth-busting campaign to make clear what we look at during an inspection and how we reach our judgements.

    Speaking of myths, there is one that may be helpful for me to debunk right here, also in the spirit of being clear about what inspection does and does not focus on.

    On my travels, I have had a lot of discussions about snack time and what Ofsted expects to see. I believe there are such things as ‘rolling snacks’, ‘self-serve snacks’, ‘free-flow snacks’, ‘continuous snacks’, ‘communal snacks’ – I could go on.

    At first, I was perplexed. Why should the way a nursery organises its snack time be so important to Ofsted? Then I discovered that advice from various sources recommends the sort of snack that Ofsted prefers. That might have been born of a well-intended comment from one inspector to a single setting at some point, but it seems to have escalated into an enormous and pervasive myth.

    So I will say here, inspectors do not expect to see any particular way of organising snacks. Communal snacks may be a useful way to introduce children to good table manners and help them to learn courtesy words, such as please and thank you.

    But it is really a decision for you as providers to make. If children have other opportunities to pour water in play time, then self-service pouring is less important, and vice-versa. Ofsted is more interested in why you choose activities and the effect that they have on children’s development.

    Something else that I’d like to be clear on are my comments to the Education Select Committee last week. As you may be aware, I gave the view to the committee that the quality of care in early years was very good but that of education not quite as good. I certainly was not intending to trash an entire sector, which might be the impression left from some of the follow-up coverage. I also made the point that, in my view, the problem lies, in part, with the EYFS. In the next few weeks, we will be publishing research on this issue which I hope you will find of interest.

    Language development/the vital role of nurseries

    This brings me to the final point I would like to raise today. There is a very important discussion to be had about the role of nurseries and childminders in preparing children for school.

    The curriculum (or, to use EYFS terminology, the programme) that children experience in their early years is vital in this task. We know that young children are especially receptive between birth and age 5, when their brains develop at the fastest speed and they learn more rapidly than at any other age.

    This means that the choices we make for very young children about the play things we provide, the games we play, the words we use, the stories we read and the songs we sing are all hugely important. I know that many of you here will have given the curriculum and the way you provide it much thought and I encourage you to do so.

    I imagine most of you in the room today could stand with me now to recite ‘Sing a song of sixpence’ or ‘The grand old Duke of York’. But I don’t know that we can say that is still the case for children in lots of nurseries today.

    That is a shame, because of the other great joy of nursery rhymes. They are a unifier. Providing a collective memory and experience for young children across the country. And often teaching a little bit of social history to boot. Which is why I would hope that every nursery and childminder would find the time for a nursery rhyme.

    Nursery rhymes also help with vocabulary and we all know the huge value in helping young children develop their language skills. Put simply, the more words a child has heard by the time they start school the better. You have such an important job here, particularly to fill the gaps for those children who might not be exposed to the same range of vocabulary at home.

    Children need to hear new language all the time. It might be taking the opportunity with a child looking at a pretty flower to talk to them about all the different parts of the plant. Or being more basic, talking to them while washing their hands, making suds from the soap, turning on the tap, running the water, oh dear too fast, too slow… I could go on because everything we do with children is an opportunity to introduce them to more words. Children are so open to absorbing new language. I remember when my younger daughter was 4, she had an Australian Reception teacher. I would often hear his voice in what she said – I must confess I wasn’t always thrilled about it!

    So please don’t be afraid to teach them things. And before I get shouted down by the ‘save our childhood’ brigade, of course I don’t mean long lists on blackboards in formal lessons. I mean passing on new words, ideas and skills. Encouraging curiosity and rewarding inquisitiveness. Everything that helps a young child develop and be ready for school.

    Conclusion

    I know every one of you in this room shares the same ambitions that we all have at Ofsted. We all want the very best for young children across the country.

    At Ofsted, we want to give you the space to do the right things. And we certainly don’t want to waste our time and yours inspecting the wrong things. We are on a journey of change, much as you are as you adapt to the new 30-hours programme. There will always be room for all of us to improve, Ofsted included. I hope we can be on that improvement journey together.

  • David Lidington – 2017 Speech on Parole Board 50th Anniversary

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Lidington, the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, on 6 November 2017.

    I think that the Butler Trust has marshalled a star-studded turnout. It’s right that after 50 years we should show our appreciation of the Board’s important work and its strong and inspiring leadership. I want to congratulate both Nick Hardwick and Martin Jones for getting this vital body into good shape as it enters its sixth decade. I think that the Board today is energetic, it’s faster-moving, it’s toned and conditioned. If you like, it’s following the regime that a doctor would wish every fifty year old would undertake.

    Now before I go any further, I know you heard this morning from Mark Johnson about his experience of prisons and probation. And I wanted to start by sharing with you the thoughts of a ‘lifer’ who was talking about the impact on him of a Parole Board oral hearing.

    He said this, he said: ‘I think it’s important that every lifer be given the opportunity to speak to the people that make decisions on their life… A bit of paper is flat and emotionless and expressionless. It’s open to interpretation and anyone can read what’s said, but when I’m here and I’m talking and I’m responding to what you’re saying and if you have any doubt you can question me on that doubt – that is the benefit. ‘

    It also…made me feel a lot better about me, that at least I’ve gone in there and I’ve put my point of view across…And these people now have something more to contend with than a dead bit of paper…it was satisfying in that respect.’

    Now, as is the case with all ‘lifers’, this man had no chance of being freed until the Parole Board had assessed the risk that he posed to the public. The Board’s work is pivotal to the future of offenders and to the wider criminal justice system. It supports the government’s priorities to protect the public and prevent there being more victims, while supporting prison reform by encouraging offenders to turn over a new leaf in the hope of a move to open conditions or release.

    And the Board has made great strides of late, listing more cases each month and bringing down the backlog faster than predicted. I also welcome in particular the additional focus on IPP prisoners, five hundred and seventy-six of whom were released last year – that’s the highest annual figure since IPP sentences were introduced in 2005. HMPPS has been working closely with the Parole Board to help speed up progress, and it’s encouraging to see that release rate at 46 per cent, up from 28 per cent just five years ago.

    Measured, meticulous, public-spirited

    I suppose that if you wanted to characterise the work of the Parole Board it’s a reverse detective investigation, raking through evidence for clues to whether a crime will be committed in the future. And it’s little wonder the Board’s decisions come under public scrutiny. There is a tension inherent in every decision: balancing the need to be cautious with the need to be fair; protecting society while honouring the competing rights of offenders. Those rights are enshrined in the word ‘parole’, which of course comes from the French ‘parol’, or ‘word of honour’. In the 19th century it referred to a prisoner of war’s pledge not to take up arms again in the same conflict, once released. These days the Board has more to go on than just a prisoner’s statement that he will be good to his word.

    Its judges, psychiatrists, psychologists, probation officers and independent members deliberate upon offenders’ behaviour, past and present, to look in to the future. They are not doing so as soothsayers peering at the entrails of a chicken, but with measured, meticulous and forensic care – while recognising at the same time that risk assessment can never by its very nature be an exact science … that there cannot be a crystal ball. When new members sign up, as more than one hundred public-spirited people did last year alone, it’s in the knowledge they will be called upon to make complex judgments that few of us are equipped for or would feel able to make. And for all that those Members do, for their humanity and courage, I salute them and thank them.

    Remembering the early days

    There are now around two hundred and seventy Parole Board members. At the beginning, in 1967, there were just seventeen. In those days they almost never saw an actual prisoner. They made paper-based recommendations for the most part. But change was coming. In a way, the Sixties marked the end of a more innocent era: the crimes that we remember from that time were high-profile and notorious. The Great Train Robbery. The ‘Moors Murderers’, the East End gangster twins Ronnie and Reggie Kray. The perpetrators of those crimes spent decades making multiple parole bids. Each was carefully and properly scrutinised.

    To no one’s great surprise, successive applications were turned down.

    Which are the factors likely to sway the Parole Board towards release? Well, they are factors that happen to chime with our reform goals – qualities that contribute to prisons becoming safer and more purposeful; more likely to support rehabilitation and cut reoffending. A co-operative attitude in custody, coupled with a realistic release plan that involves good support – including positive family contact. A willingness to take responsibility for the original crime, to accept the punishment and to move on. The completion of behaviour courses and health treatment, an appetite for the kind of training that leads to qualifications and work. Staying away from drugs, and not committing serious breaches of discipline.

    Looking ahead, I see the Parole Board playing an ever-more important part in prison reform. It can help create capacity in the estate by ensuring that prisoners suitable for release are not marooned behind bars by delayed hearings (and I should say quickly that I’m conscious too that a smooth-running system depends equally on HMPPS playing its part in making sure that the Board has available to it, at the right time, appropriate evidence of an offender’s progress, and I am determined to make sure that we do our bit to enable the board to do its job more effectively and swiftly.

    The Parole Board’s work can reassure offenders that good behaviour will be recognised, incentivising them for their part to embrace learning and training. It can encourage offenders, particularly IPP prisoners, that they can make progress, and not stay in custody for any longer than Parliament or the courts intended. I would add that as we go forward to the next 50 years, I would like to see the Parole Board’s membership more closely reflect today’s society – an argument I use also about the judiciary, which must hold up a mirror to the people who pass through our courts. And I know that both Nick and Martin share my own desire to increase in particular the number of black and other ethnic minority representatives on the Parole Board – that will help to ensure that it draws members from the widest possible pool of talent, and help maintain public confidence in the system.

    The importance of working together

    Now, while always respecting the judicial independence of the Parole Board, I see its relationship with the MOJ as one of close partners. Few would deny that both the prison and parole system face considerable challenges in the year ahead. Prisons absorb some of the most troubled people in society. There is still too much violence and self-harm in our jails. The abuse of new psychoactive substances has made many offenders more aggressive and prone to sudden mood swings. Growing gang violence in cities is spreading to wings and landings as the police and the courts find and sentence to custody those responsible for gang violence. And of course, reoffending remains stubbornly too high.

    I don’t believe – even after just four months doing this job – that there is a single solution, no magic bullet to bring about an answer to those challenge, so that is why we are working on so many fronts. Beyond improving the performance of both prisons and probation services, we are co-operating more effectively with important bodies that have contact with offenders. And contact also with people who we recognise as likely to commit the kind of crime that typically leads to a spell in custody. The hope being, of course, that we can divert them before it’s too late. And to that end, we are collaborating with colleagues from the Departments of Health, and Work and Pensions, with NHS Trusts, employers, training providers and not least the many hundreds of invaluable third sector organisations and charities focused on offender reform.

    And I believe we can do much more through that kind of partnership in the months and years ahead. We need a plan that tackles the problems of reoffending at source, recognising that many social problems, such as addictions, unemployment and homelessness, affect their lives long before offenders are ever sentenced. Let me share with you two other striking statistics: firstly, that less than one per cent of all requirements started under a community or suspended sentence order are Mental Health requirements.

    This is a remarkably low figure and I think it’s important that both those of us charged with responsibilities for the criminal justice system and our colleagues with responsibilities for the NHS services and for mental health provision find ways in which to address this problem. The second statistic concerns reoffending and the salutary effects of drug or alcohol treatment programmes in the community. Recently published statistics show that offenders who undergo that kind of community-based drug and alcohol treatment programme are 33 per cent less likely to commit further crimes. We all need to learn from that experience.

    A partnership for reform

    In making prisons safer and calmer, the MOJ and HMPPS are well on the way to recruiting 2,500 more staff by the end of next year. That’s more than 10 per cent of the total number of prison officers, a significant increase, and they will make a difference. They will help to bring about the safer, calmer conditions in which reform can prosper, with prisoners more likely to be taken from their cells to be taught and trained. At the same time, our new offender management model – with one officer responsible for about six prisoners – takes us in the right direction and we must use every possible means to ensure that prisoners attend workshops and classes.

    I am determined too to make sure that HMPPS gives prompt and public responses to issues identified by prison and probation inspectors so that recognised problems do not fester. I would urge everyone here to look out for our new online portal, the Justice Data Hub, where figures on purposeful activity and how long prisoners are spending in cells will be freely available, establishment by establishment. Making this information public is itself a discipline – it makes us more accountable, our work more transparent, and will, I hope, lead to swifter progress on prison performance.

    The quality of probation services, and the level of confidence in the supervision of community sentences, also feed into effective offender management. There are many probation officers doing an incredibly professional job. At the same time, the inspectorate’s report on through-the-gate services made it clear that these are not performing in the way that we had hoped. We are now looking at probation with an eye to improving performance and maintaining the confidence of courts and the public alike.

    Prison should be a last resort. That, after all, is what the law requires. People should go to prison because their crime is so serious that custody is the only punishment that can satisfy justice, or because they would be a threat to public safety if they were in the community. I want to see the prison population come down. Reducing the numbers in prison depends on many things, and not all of those come under the direct control of the MOJ. Parole Board decisions and the performance of probation; access to release on temporary licence; the availability and quality of community-based courses and health treatment all have a bearing. As, of course, do sentencing policy and practice.

    If you look at the pattern of sentencing, the number of people placed in custody for 12 months or less has not changed significantly over the past decade – which rather weakens the argument we often hear that the high levels of the prison population is solely due to more people being sent to jail instead of being given community sentences. Rather, the surge in numbers stems from people serving four years or more, often for violent and drug-related crime, and also those sent to prison for sexual offences – many brought to book long after the event thanks to victims feeling brave enough to come forward. It is very difficult to argue that individuals who have committed that kind of offence deserve a shorter sentence.

    IPP prisoners make up a relatively small part of the prison population but as everyone here knows, many remain in custody long beyond tariff. My feeling on IPP sentencing is that as a policy it was flawed from the start, and it was used far more frequently than was ever intended by the Government of that time and by Parliament.

    We have a duty now to ensure that parole applicants receive their rightful hearings in a timely fashion, that the Board has the resources to carry out a full and proper evaluation, weighing up all the evidence at its disposal, and that offenders are released if they are judged no longer to be a risk to society. Those facing undue delays feel acutely the loss of hope and a growing frustration, and this leads them to harm themselves or others and for their conduct in custody in general to worsen. With IPP prisoners, as with all offenders, our goal should be to give them every chance of living a positive life after custody, because this contributes to a safer society overall. But it is right that the Parole Board, in judging individual cases, should always give priority to the protection of the public.

    And that means that looking forward, the big challenge, the question we need to ask ourselves, is whether there is a way to carry on cutting the numbers of IPP prisoners in custody once what one might term the ‘easier’ cases have been dealt with and there remains to us a harder core of very challenging, complex and frankly very risky cases of people still inside prisons.

    Conclusion

    I want to finish with a brief history lesson. While we’re here to mark fifty years of the Parole Board, in penal terms parole has been around a lot longer. It dates to the 19th century, an era when governments were edging away from the corporal punishment approach in favour of a more enlightened vision of offender reform. It may be a stretch to take national credit for this, but one notable parole pioneer was Alexander Maconochie, the warden of a remote English penal colony on Norfolk Island, a dot in the South Pacific between Australia and New Zealand.

    Norfolk Island was supposed to hold the ‘worst of the worst’ – convicts who’d been transported to Australia and then exiled even further away for committing yet more crimes. Its regular floggings and hangings were designed to deter convicts left on the mainland from any thoughts of rebellion. But Maconochie had a different vision and set about changing things. He developed a ‘mark’ system that rewarded good conduct, hard work and study by offenders – is this starting to sound familiar? Marks earned them privileges, and eventually their release.

    You know what they all say about breaking the mould – that it’s better to be a fast-follower than a pioneer. Maconochie was fired in 1844. But he’d sown the seeds of change and the ideas with which he had experimented were taken up around the world – not least here, where they remain firmly rooted in our approach to criminal justice.

    Although no human institution or system is perfect, I remain proud of our justice system – it’s always led the way and it is admired worldwide. The principles and values that run through it are a mark of the kind of country we are. And while we rightly give priority to public protection and we are not afraid of facing up to the need for punishment, we also place a great value on rehabilitation. The great majority of offenders, all but a handful, will one day return to the community. And it is in the interests of everybody in our society – not least potential victims of the future – that we use the time that we have offenders in custody and under supervision to minimise the chance that they will commit again and to add to the possibility that they can make that transition successfully into law-abiding life where they are actually contributing something positive to the wider society in which they live.

    And it is thanks to our parole system that many do make that contribution and they are able to do so only when the Board is satisfied that the individual offender in front of that Board will not cause further risk to the public if released. That work, that exercise of sensitive and important judgements, is key to prison reform, key to safer communities and key to ensuring that our justice system will remain both effective and fair. I congratulate all who have served on the Parole Board, on what has been achieved over the first fifty years, and I am very confident that there are more successes and more productive work still to come. I look forward to working closely with Nick and other colleagues in taking that work forward in years to come.

  • Sajid Javid – 2017 Speech at Urban Tech Summit

    Below is the text of the speech made by Sajid Javid, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, at the Urban Tech Summit on 6 November 2017.

    Thank you Dan, and thank you all for joining us today.

    It’s always good to be here in the West Midlands.

    Yesterday one of my kids saw that I was speaking at The Custard Factory and I think she thought it would be some kind of Willy Wonka wonderland.

    She wanted to bunk off school, stow away in the car…

    I think she’d be the only person here today who was disappointed with what she saw and heard!

    This is a great event with some great people, and it’s a really timely event too.

    Because we’re living through a period of enormous change.

    The most obvious sphere in which that’s happening is technology.

    Now, before I go any further, I know that a politician talking about the digital world can all too easily find themselves wading into dangerous waters!

    I remember when I ran the DCMS, one person told me that every time an MP says “coding”, a programmer dies a little inside…

    So I’m not going to stand here today and read a script that lets me pretend I’m some kind of digital guru.

    I won’t be talking about the finer points of conversion rate optimisation or hybrid cloud brokerage!

    But even to the layman it’s obvious that the technology we use day to day, hardware and software, has transformed beyond all recognition in the past 10 or 20 years.

    And that has had a massive impact on the way we live our lives, in all kinds of different ways.

    To take one, very small, example: when I was growing up in Bristol, if I was a naughty boy and my parents wanted to punish me, they’d take my cricket bat away.

    Say I couldn’t go outside and play.

    Today, I’ve got 4 children of my own.

    And if one of them misbehaves, the most effective punishment I have is to change the password on the wifi!

    Some say that’s excessively cruel.

    I say it gets results.

    It’s just one example of how the way we live our lives is being shaped and changed by the tools that are available to us.

    So technology is changing.

    The way we live is changing.

    And our expectations about all kinds of things, from shopping to public services, they’re changing too.

    Anyone who’s older than about 35 will feel a twinge of nostalgia about the phrase “allow 28 days for delivery”.

    But today, in 2017, it comes as a bit of a shock when you reach the point where you have to print something off, put it in an envelope, stick it in the post and then sit back and wait for a response.

    We expect services to be online, to be accessible, to be instant.

    Technology has changed, lifestyles have changed, expectations have changed.

    But that alone is not news, certainly not to people like you.

    What gives this event its importance, its topicality, is that we’re also in the midst of exciting times for local democracy.

    Just look at one of our hosts here today, the West Midlands Combined Authority.

    The government is absolutely committed to localism, to putting power back in the hands of towns, cities and communities.

    And one of the ways we’re doing that is through the creation of combined authorities with elected mayors like Andy Street

    I know you’ll have the chance to hear from Andy in an hour or so.

    That’s an opportunity not to be missed, because he really is doing incredible work here in the West Midlands, serving as a real champion for the region and showing just what combined authority is capable of.

    Combined authorities are all about bringing communities together, breaking down bureaucratic barriers, joining up people and areas that have common interests – much as the internet does, in fact.

    They’re a great step forward for localism, for devolution and for local government itself.

    And their arrival is not the only change.

    We’re also seeing increasing interest in the use of unitary status.

    We’re seeing smaller councils at parish and town level taking on greater responsibility for local services.

    We’ve got Local Enterprise Partnerships, police and crime commissioners, the Northern Powerhouse and Midlands Engine…

    It’s an unprecedented growth in local democracy.

    And that nexus of change – in technology, in lifestyle, in government – is where we find ourselves meeting today.

    It’s home to incredible range of opportunities for the public and private sector, for councils of all shapes and sizes, for SMEs and big-name companies.

    The good, the bad and the ugly

    As you’ll see today there are some examples of councils doing great work in this area.

    Later on Andy will be setting out his ambitions for the West Midlands.

    I know Camden has also being blazing a trail and that you’ll be hearing from Theo Blackwell about that a little later.

    It’s certainly no surprise that he has been poached by the Mayor of London!

    Manchester and Essex are both taking serious action to get data-led change.

    Networks like LocalGovDigital are helping people come together to share ideas, insights and innovations.

    And adoption of the local digital service standard is providing common expectations around transformation.

    Up and down the country there are examples of small but effective digital innovations that really meet local needs.

    In fact, on the surface, things are pretty impressive.

    Most councils now take online payments.

    I saw a stat the other day that said most contact between residents and councils now takes place online.

    That’s great.

    But peek behind the curtain and the situation starts to look a little less rosy.

    Because once all that data has been received thanks to online contact, half of all councils are manually re-keying more than 50% of it.

    Think about what that means.

    Residents are dutifully providing councils with the data they ask for in the format they request it, and the councils are then employing an army of bureaucrats to type it in all over again.

    Much of that data is then stored in siloed server stacks tucked away in the basement, with no sharing or joined-up analysis to improve the way councils work.

    Want to study the way services interact, or understand how and why different people access multiple services?

    Tough, you can’t!

    Even simple transactional services like applications for school places or residents’ parking permits leave a lot to be desired.

    Councils are too often trying to run modern services on outdated legacy systems, with results that are painful enough for public servants, never mind citizens

    There are more than 350 full councils in England, and literally thousands more at the parish and town level.

    And although they’re all delivering the same services within the same rules, when it comes to digital they’re all too often working to their own standards and doing their own thing.

    All planning authorities have to handle planning applications, yet there’s almost no standardization of how these are handled and presented online.

    Finding details of a specific development without knowing which local authority is responsible is all but impossible.

    It’s not uncommon for one household to receive services from 3 different authorities – parish, district and county.

    In such cases the public don’t care and often don’t know which tier of local government, is responsible, as far as they’re concerned it’s just “the council”.

    Yet if they want to engage, enquire or even just read up on what’s happening, they’ll be faced with 3 different websites, often poorly linked and poorly signposted.

    A couple of years ago we introduced new transparency rules for the smallest councils, ensuring that information about how and what they spent money on was available online.

    And we quickly found that some bottom-tier authorities had sites that – if they existed at all – looked like they’d been produced in GeoCities.

    I know there’s more to digital services than the cosmetic.

    But if your technology still looks like it did a decade or more ago, the chances are your underlying systems aren’t up to speed and the way you use technology is stuck in the past.

    There’s a similar transparency code for larger councils, asking them to make data available online in an easily accessible format.

    To say compliance is patchy would be something of an understatement.

    This is not all the result of willful neglect.

    Rather, it’s symptomatic of a system that, instead of being planned, has grown up organically over time.

    If you were starting with a blank sheet of paper you certainly wouldn’t design it this way.

    But it’s what we have, and incentives to do anything about it are sorely lacking.

    The lack of consumer power certainly doesn’t help here.

    If you don’t like the service levels provided by one online retailer, you can always take your money elsewhere. But you can’t choose to pay council tax to a different local authority.

    You have to take what they give you.

    And of course your council doesn’t face competition from other providers of local democracy, so there’s little incentive for them to invest time and money in doing things better.

    The opportunities on offer

    But do better we must, because the opportunities are enormous.

    Nesta says £15 billion could be saved by councils every year if they make better use of technology.

    That’s a huge amount of money, more than 4 times the revenue support grant.

    But the benefits go much further than that.

    Just think about the potential if we really designed services around user needs, if we personalised services to reduce avoidable contact.

    A consistent approach to gathering data means better analysis of services right across the country, good news for everyone who receives them.

    A more open approach to sharing the data government already holds could do so much to speed up the planning, construction and sale of the homes this country so badly needs.

    Working with local SMEs rather than vast multinationals can provide a welcome boost to the local economy.

    And so on. I talk about these as opportunities.

    But embracing digital is no longer optional.

    It’s not a nice to have, something you can decide not to do.

    Part of that is down to customer expectations.

    As I’ve said, in 2017 people rightly demand digital services, they assume that they will be able to access them online.

    But we also have to recognise that carrying on as we’ve always done is simply unsustainable.

    Demand for council services is growing, the standards we expect are rising.

    You can’t just keep patching up existing models and hoping for the best.

    We need efficient, responsive, joined-up services, and that’s not something you can deliver in an analogue world.

    And we need the right leadership, with the right attitude.

    An understanding and embrace of digital is no longer something that can be safely left to a local authority’s IT department.

    It doesn’t belong in the basement, it belongs in the boardroom.

    What we’re doing about it

    Now, as you can imagine, in this job I give a lot of speeches about the future of local government.

    And what usually happens is that I stand here and set out the problems and talk about how to fix them.

    And the audience nods along and agrees and smiles politely and then we get to the questions and they say:

    “That’s great Saj, but what are you going to do about it?”

    Well, for one thing I’ve appointed a chief digital officer who I’ve asked to focus on ensuring local government makes the most of the digital opportunities on offer.

    My department is working with councils and the Government Digital Service to create a new vision and a call to arms on local government digital.

    That should be ready to share in the spring.

    In the meantime my department will be working with councils and companies alike to help everyone involved in the sector connect and share common components, skills, design patterns and – yes – code.

    But that’s not all.

    Because the people in this room also have a huge role to play in meeting my number one priority as Secretary of State – getting more homes built.

    When Harold Macmillan was overseeing house building back in the 1950s, his biggest challenge was getting his hands on sufficient raw materials – wood, brick, steel and so on.

    Today, it can be equally hard to get hold of the raw material of the digital age: data.

    It’s something that comes up again and again when I speak to builders, councils, housing campaigners and others.

    And it’s an issue I’m determined to get to grips with.

    So, following our manifesto commitment on Digital Land, my department will be leading work to develop a new digital platform on which we can publish the kind of raw data and interactive maps that are useful to builders, innovators and entrepreneurs.

    This government has long embraced the principle of open data, and I want to bring that to the housing sector.

    Releasing data locked away in arms-length bodies like the Homes and Community Agency, and making it easier to access difficult foundational data like geospatial identifiers.

    And, although I can’t make any promises right now, I’ll be working with the Land Registry and Ordnance Survey to see what further datasets they can release.

    The role of the digital sector

    So I’m very much on local government’s side in this.

    I’m not just lecturing from on high, I’m getting down in the trenches and doing everything I can to help.

    But it’s not just local government that can and must do better.

    The tech industry also has to challenge the way it traditionally works.

    Above all, you have to recognise that the public sector, and local government in particular, are not typical clients.

    A business is accountable to its owners, its directors, its shareholders.

    But a council has to answer to every single person it serves.

    Appetite for risk is, quite rightly, lower.

    The “Fail again, fail better” mantra works better with Venture Capital cash than it does with council taxes.

    Councils provide universal services that have to be accessed by literally everyone.

    Moving fast and breaking things is all well and good, but you can’t use social care, education and child protection as some kind of sandbox to try out new ideas.

    I absolutely want to see you disrupt public services – but you can’t disrupt the provision of services to the public.

    To put it bluntly, people notice if their bins don’t get collected!

    Just ask anyone who lives in Birmingham!

    It’s also worth noting that the average age of a local councilor in England is just over 60.

    Many are absolutely passionate about the opportunities that the technological revolution can bring – after all, Tim Berners-Lee is a spritely 62!

    But it’s important to remember that most councilors are not exactly digital natives.

    And that inevitably shapes their views, attitudes and decision-making.

    I want to see more of you supplying services to local authorities.

    But if you’re going to wean them off the safety-first approach that sees them default to 15-year contracts with the same old vendors, it’s so important that you speak the language of local government.

    That you think in terms of outcomes for residents rather than exciting digital inputs.

    That you show them technology as a means, not an end in itself.

    What can you do for the hard-pressed single mum juggling work and childcare while trying to get her kids into a good school?

    What can you do for the elderly resident who lives alone and is about to be discharged from hospital?

    What can you do to get the right homes built in the right place, supported by the right infrastructure?

    What can you do to cut tax bills, to speed up responses, to support lower-tier authorities taking on new responsibilities?

    That’s what councilors are trying to do and that’s what you can help them achieve.

    And let me just thank Dan and everyone at Public for all the work they’re doing to bring councils and SMEs together to make that happen.

    The in-depth report you’ve published today is excellent.

    Conclusion: riding the wave

    It’s almost 23 years since Clifford Stoll confidently – and infamously – used a Newsweek editorial to mock the idea of people reading newspapers online, or shopping at a website rather than on the high street.

    Less noticed in his list of “things that will never happen” was the prediction that “no computer network will change the way government works”.

    Well, the internet came for newspapers.

    It came for retail.

    And now it’s coming for local government.

    We can’t ignore the wave.

    We have to ride it.

    That’s why events like this are so important.

    That’s why I’m making sure my department offers the support and expertise that digital local government needs.

    And that’s why I’ll continue to do all I can to bring together the best partners in both local government and the tech industry.

    There’s a lot of work to do.

    I know it won’t be easy.

    But I also know there is no lack of ambition, passion and potential in the world of digital local government.

    And I’m looking forward to working with you as we turn that potential into results.

    Thank you.

  • Matt Hancock – 2017 Speech on UK and French Digital Strategy

    Below is the text of the speech made by Matt Hancock, the Minister of State for Digital, in Paris on 7 November 2017.

    Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

    I am grateful to the Embassy for organising this event.

    The UK and France have a historic and close partnership and cybersecurity is no exception.

    Whatever challenges we face in the future, with our strong partnership and talent in the UK and France, I know that we will always work to ensure the prosperity of our two countries.

    We are neighbours. Neighbours here, neighbours today, neighbours tomorrow. Always neighbours.

    Earlier this month we in the UK marked the first anniversary of our National Cyber Security Strategy. We have been busy, in securing Britain’s future online.

    Like you, we have appointed our first ever Minister for Digital, and we have even renamed my department to make us the “Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport” to reflects the critical importance of all things digital to the UK.

    Let’s recap on why this is so important.

    In the UK, our tech industry created 3.5 million jobs in past year and 4 in 5 Brits bought something online in the past year – more than anywhere else in the world.

    As jobs are increasingly changed, and as we face up to the fact there are jobs that technology destroys, so we must be at the forefront of the drive to create the new jobs that technology allows. We cannot stop the disruption, but we can help those disrupted, with a clear goal of redeployment, not unemployment.

    And this great digital technology that is made by man, which brings great power and liberation and freedom must be hewn to benefit all mankind. The technology is made by man and it is within man’s gift to maximise its freedom while protecting the freedom of others.

    While this mission is new, the principles that underpin it are old.

    We can find some wisdom in the very founding documents of the French Republic.

    On the internet, we seek nothing less than freedom, fraternity and equality.

    Freedom, that we cherish the unprecedented and unimaginable freedoms the internet brings. This includes:

    Fraternity, that we harness the internet to bring us together not tear people apart

    Equality, that all of us online are treated fairly, that we benefit the same protections online as off, and that each and every one of us can benefit from the technology of tomorrow, equal to the dictum of Sir Tim Berners Lee, the founder of the world wide web, that ‘this is for everyone’

    This need, this drive, to build an online world that cherishes these liberal values, the values of de Tocqueville, as well as Burke, is increasingly recognised around the world.

    The internet is growing up, from a libertarian childhood, in which all connection was seen as a good thing, to a maturity where freedom must be tempered by the need to prevent harm.

    As the great modern British philosopher Sir Roger Scruton has said: “In the libertarian free-for-all what is worst in human nature enjoys an equal chance with what is best, and discipline is repudiated as a meddlesome intrusion.” So what does this mean in practice?

    In the UK, we have set out our approach as a Digital Charter, that will detail how the great freedoms online can be balanced with that discipline, each and everyone’s “important responsibilities”. To protect from harm, from abuse, to terrorist content, to protection of intellectual property.

    And of course a safe internet is one where data is protected, and cyber security is strong. The UK has long identified cyber threats as a key challenge to our nation’s security. The National Cyber Security Strategy committed £1.9 billion for cyber, with the express goal making the UK the safest place to live and work online.

    We have made significant progress towards these goals. We have created the National Cyber Security Centre, to bring together responsibilities, protect our critical services from cyber attacks, manage major incidents, and improve the security of the Internet in the UK. In that year alone, the NCSC dealt with 590 significant cyber attacks. More than one a day.

    We are transforming the advice and guidance on offer to the public, based on ever-improving evidence and technical insight.

    We have launched a range of initiatives to make sure the next generation have the cyber security skills to meet significant growing demand:

    Our first apprenticeship scheme for critical sectors such as energy and transport was inundated with applications (nearly 1,250 people applied for the first 23 apprentice roles)

    The CyberFirst Girls competition saw 8,000 talented 13-15 year olds take part

    Our Cyber Schools Programme will train nearly 6,000 14-18 year olds over the coming years

    We are also showing leadership in other areas, such as investigating security in the Internet of Things, to look at the best way to ensure internet-connected devices are safe, and have security built-in from the start.

    And we can’t do these things alone. Critically, we need to work together with industry, and we have put huge effort into fostering and supporting a strong and vibrant cyber ecosystem.

    The cybersecurity industry & ecosystem

    We are active and restless in developing the whole ecosystem to support growth, innovation and security. I know here in France you are doing many similar things.

    The UK and France both have thriving cyber ecosystems.

    As one of the UK’s closest export markets and allies, France is a perfect partner for the UK in cyber, both in research and at a commercial level.

    The UK’s cyber sector is booming. The workforce has grown significantly and cyber security exports were worth around £1.5 billion to the UK last year alone.

    To stay ahead of the threat, it’s crucial we foster innovation in cyber security. That’s why we’re developing two Cyber Innovation Centres – in London and Cheltenham – to support the development of new technologies and the latest generation of cyber security companies. As part of that, we have established the GCHQ Cyber Accelerator – the first of its kind in the world – combining the world class expertise of the UK’s security and intelligence agency with start-ups to develop new capability, and leading edge academics.

    But we mustn’t be complacent. It’s crucial we work with our international partners: working closely with them, sharing information, and facing challenges together – because our security is inextricably linked.

    We are working to make the UK the best and most secure digital economy in the world. To that end, we will ensure our friends’ and our partners’ cyber safety whenever and however they do business with us.

    And with that, I leave you with a salute, to the enduring values of freedom, fraternity and equality.

    I hope you have a brilliant conference.

    Long live the neighbours!

  • Jeremy Corbyn – 2017 Speech to CBI Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jeremy Corbyn, the Leader of the Opposition, to the CBI Conference on 6 November 2017.

    It’s a pleasure to be with you here for the second year running.

    And a good deal has changed since I came to your conference last year.

    We’ve had a surprise General Election and to many people here, perhaps an even more surprising result. A result that returned a weak and divided Conservative Government and a Labour opposition stronger and more united than before.

    We have also seen the terms of economic debate shift dramatically.

    I put it to you last year that for too many people the economic system simply isn’t working.

    A system that has delivered rising inequality and falling living standards for the majority, when six million of those in work are earning less than the living wage.

    It’s a system in which large numbers of people have lost confidence.

    And it’s not hard to see why. The richest 10 per cent now own 900 times the wealth of the poorest 10 per cent and in recent years half of the increase in personal wealth has gone to the top 10 per cent.

    I put it to you this year that a crucial reason for the surprising election result; the biggest turnaround in polls during an election campaign in British history, is that Labour went to the country with a vision that offered hope and change.

    Our manifesto, For the Many Not the Few, set out a fully costed programme to build an economy which gives everyone the chance of a secure and fulfilling life.

    Since the General Election in June the political establishment has finally begun to catch up.

    Calls to end austerity now come from all sides in parliament.

    Senior cabinet members are taking their lead from Labour and pushing for more radical solutions to the housing and student debt crises.

    Sajid Javid advocates £50 billion of borrowing for investment in housing.

    Jeremy Hunt has broken ranks and called for an end to the public sector pay cap.

    Few would have predicted this a year ago. And of course we’ve yet to see if they’ve convinced the Chancellor.

    It is a measure of the essential pragmatism of business people that so many have changed their outlook too.

    Business people across the country have expressed to me a growing awareness – and acceptance – that things need to change.

    The London Chamber of Commerce recently called for councils to be allowed to borrow freely to build housing.

    We all know an economic model that allows a few to grow very rich while the majority face falling incomes and rising indebtedness; that leaves too many people in unfulfilling and insecure work; that is overly reliant on one sector in one region of our country, is neither stable nor sustainable.

    And in this Living Wage Week, of all weeks, we have to be clear that Britain needs a pay rise.

    When too much of household income is going to pay debts or rent, that’s less money for consumers to spend on productive businesses. That’s why Labour backs a Real Living Wage and sensible controls on rents and debts.

    Because it isn’t good for business either.

    We understand that Labour has changed and you have changed.

    But there is one thing that hasn’t changed.

    A year ago, we were just five months on from the referendum vote to leave the European Union. The Government’s sluggish response to which had already created unprecedented uncertainty for business.

    A year on, Article 50 has been triggered, Brexit negotiations are underway but businesses feel no closer to having the clarity about the direction of travel they desperately need.

    Indeed, watching chaos and confusion grow at the heart of Government and Brexit negotiations stuck in stalemate, many of you probably feel that the situation is more uncertain and precarious than ever.

    Time is running out. We know, as you do, that firms are deciding now whether to continue to invest in the UK, and that guarantees in key areas are needed now to stop firms from cutting the UK out of their business models.

    A few weeks ago, you joined forces with Britain’s other major business organisations, the Engineering Employers Federation, the Chamber of Commerce, the Institute of Directors and the Federation of Small Business, to ask the Government to heed the needs of business as they negotiate our exit from the European Union.

    We agree. We need a Brexit that puts jobs and living standards first and it is Labour that has common ground with you on putting the needs of the economy front and centre stage.

    We have common ground on the need for transitional arrangements to be agreed immediately so that businesses know they won’t face a cliff-edge Brexit when the two year negotiating period is up.

    Because let me be clear: to delay a transition deal until a final deal is agreed as the Prime Minister says she wants to do, is simply not good enough.

    The prospect of sudden changes in the legal and regulatory environment in which people do business is affecting your decisions right now.

    And we have common ground on the threat of “no deal” which, contrary to the claims of the Secretary of State for International Trade, is potentially a nightmare scenario. One that involves tariffs on our food imports and our manufacturing exports, queues at our ports and a hard border in Northern Ireland with all the dangers that could bring.

    The fact that some in the cabinet want “no deal” to re-launch Britain as a race-to-the-bottom deregulated tax haven on the shores of Europe only adds to the risks.

    And we agree on the need to signal that the UK remains open to the rest of the world that Europe is not the “enemy” but our partner in a strong cooperative relationship for the future.

    And that EU citizens living in the UK are our friends and fellow workers, which is why the Government should immediately and unilaterally guarantee them full rights to remain here; in fact they should have done so months ago. And indeed Labour called for that in July of last year.

    Like you, we have always said that we respect the result of the referendum. Like you, we have always said that the economy, jobs and living standards should come first in the negotiations, which means it is crucial that the final deal maintains the benefits of the common market and the customs union.

    I promise you today between now and March 2019, we will use every opportunity we can find to put pressure on the Government to do the same.

    But, as Carolyn has so rightly pointed out, we mustn’t use up all our energies on the Brexit negotiations – there is vital action to be taken at home too.

    What will be determined in the next two years is not just our relationship with the EU, but the kind of economy – and country – we want to live in.

    A bad Brexit deal risks exacerbating existing weaknesses in our economy – low investment, low productivity, low pay.

    We will be letting the country down if we don’t seize on this period of change to tackle those weaknesses at their root causes by working together to give shape to a new economic model that will create a fairer, richer Britain for all.

    I believe we share a great deal of common ground over how this should be done.

    Again, I echo Carolyn; if we are to raise wages and living standards we must solve our productivity crisis.

    And it is a crisis.

    It continues to take a worker in Britain five days to produce what a worker in France or Germany produces in four.

    If the OBR decides that our recent dismal productivity performance is not an aberration but the new normal, and revises down their projections when they report to Parliament later this month it will take a huge toll on our public finances – as the Institute for Fiscal Studies has pointed out.

    It couldn’t be clearer: our productivity crisis is making our country poorer.

    The answer to our productivity crisis lies in investment, in infrastructure, in new technologies and in people.

    Business investment is being held back by creaking infrastructure and a shortage of skilled workers. So Government must act first.

    Yet under the Conservatives, crucial infrastructure investment has been delayed – from rail electrification to the Swansea Tidal Lagoon; the adult skills budget has been slashed. They even went into the election promising to cut per pupil schools funding in real terms.

    The Chancellor should use his Autumn Budget to change direction, and invest for long-term growth.

    That is what Labour has already pledged to do.

    With a National Transformation Fund to upgrade our country’s infrastructure and reverse years of under-investment in the regions; investing in transport, energy and digital infrastructure right across the country.

    We will establish a National Investment Bank with a network of regional development banks that will provide patient finance for firms wanting to adopt and implement existing innovations and to develop new ones. We are a very creative country.

    And we’ll build a National Education Service to ensure that, when businesses create skilled jobs, there are people able to fill them. And when businesses adopt new technologies, there are employees who know how to use them.

    These policies will help create the conditions businesses need to invest… but they will only deliver the improvements our economy needs if they are backed up by a bold industrial strategy.

    Again, this Government is failing to act. We have heard a lot of warm words on industrial strategy, but we are still waiting to hear how they will take it forward.

    Labour’s industrial strategy, built on national missions – for energy transition and to increase R&D spending to 3 per cent of GDP by 2030 – will lay down the challenges to business, and provide the foundations on which they can be met.

    We will invest £1.3bn on R&D in our first two years in Government, to galvanise private investment, set up two new catapult centres for retail and metals, centres of collaboration and innovation, to drive productivity improvement and harness the £200bn spent by the public sector each year to boost local economies and supply chains, to bring prosperity to every region of the country.

    This is how we deliver properly funded public services in the long run, and ensure everyone earns enough to live on.

    If we get this right, it is not just our economy that will be stronger, but our political institutions and our social bonds as well.

    We will, as you know, raise some taxes to pay for it, to ensure that our spending plans fit within the constraints of our fiscal credibility rule.

    But when we do, we will be clear and open about our tax plans, as we were during the general election campaign. We won’t do it by stealth.

    And we will seek to improve the functioning of business taxation wherever possible by uprating business rates in line with CPI instead of RPI, moving to annual revaluations, and exempting new plant and machinery and by looking at staggering tax incentives for investment and innovation.

    We will do this because a fair and functional taxation system is the only way to deliver the investment in infrastructure and skills that are so desperately needed across the country.

    I’m sure everyone here will agree, providing good infrastructure and education is what responsible governments do.

    And it’s not just government that has a duty to be responsible, business does too. From ensuring their suppliers, often small businesses, are paid promptly, to ensuring they pay their taxes in full too.

    The shocking revelations from the Paradise Papers today, yet again of widespread tax avoidance and evasion on an industrial scale must lead to decisive action and real change.

    It is by no means all big businesses but these actions by a few undermine trust in all businesses.

    And businesses are the victim too, not just reputationally but financially.

    Those businesses that play by the rules and pay the taxes they owe are being undercut by those who don’t.

    The vital revenues government needs to fund an industrial strategy, good infrastructure and the world class education system we aspire to; these things can only be delivered by fair taxation.

    So while we mustn’t tarnish all businesses by the actions of the few, we also have a duty to come down hard on those who are avoiding the responsibilities and give HM Revenue & Customs the resources it needs.

    As our Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell has set out this morning, we need a full public inquiry into tax avoidance and evasion, on and offshore, a register of companies and trusts, and who benefits from them, and a new tax enforcement unit in HMRC and an end to public contracts for companies abusing the system.

    And we will look at using a withholding tax where individuals or companies are involved in abusing the system and end public contracts for companies engaged in abusive tax avoidance.

    Please understand the public anger and consternation at the scale of tax avoidance revealed yet again today. We are talking about tens of billions that are effectively being leached from our vital public services by a super-rich elite that holds the taxation system and the rest of us in contempt. We must take action now to put an end to this socially damaging and extortionately costly scandal.

    And there’s another area where we have we all have a duty to act – and act now.

    Faced with the ongoing revelations about sexual harassment we should make this a turning point and a moment of real change. We must no longer allow anyone to be abused in the workplace.

    Such abuse, sexism and misogyny is, sadly, very far from being confined to Hollywood and the corridors of power, but is also widespread in our schools and universities, in our businesses and workplaces, in our newspapers and on our TV screens. It is all around us.

    That must change and business has an essential role to play. All of you need to look hard at yourselves, as we in the Labour Party are doing ourselves, to see how your processes and procedures can be improved. How it can be made easier for women to speak out and for victims to get the support they have a right to expect.

    Businesses can have a vital partner in rooting out injustice in the workplace – trade unions. They are crucial to taking on and rooting out sexual harassment and discrimination. And I would encourage each and every business serious about improving your workplace culture and tackling sexual discrimination at work to engage with trade unions.

    Governments also have other responsibilities – enforcing a fair and transparent regulatory framework so that, for example, businesses aren’t destroyed by the likes of RBS abusing their power, providing for the health of our citizens and, yes, in some cases, running essential public utilities.

    Because every one of you in this room who knows what goes into seeing an idea brought to market or what it takes to survive the cut and thrust of consumer choice month to month, knows that privatised monopoly utilities are not real markets. Where’s the pressure for efficiency and innovation if consumers cannot go elsewhere when they are dissatisfied?

    I know some of you disagree and think that bringing some parts of the economy into public ownership won’t be good for the reputation of business, but it’s not good for the image of business when water companies pay out billions in dividend and interest payments through opaque financial arrangements, while households see their bills go up to pay for it.

    It’s not good for business people if their employees have to spend huge amounts of time and money getting to and from work each day on expensive and unreliable services.

    It is not good for manufacturers to have among the most expensive energy in Europe, or see energy transition held back because the necessary investments to transform our energy grid are not being made.

    And, just as it wouldn’t be good for business to be locked into inefficient funding arrangements that don’t provide finance on the best terms available, or inflexible contracts that don’t adapt to your needs, nor is it good for the public.

    That’s why we will end the Private Finance Initiative – because PFI contracts have over-charged the public to the tune of billions.

    You wouldn’t put up with it and neither will we.

    But we won’t let ending PFI hold up vital infrastructure investment. We’ll end it to make sure that investment happens in a way that gives best value for money for the public, and in a way that better meets user needs.

    This isn’t about being anti-business, anti-enterprise, or about closing ourselves off to the rest of the world.

    It is about deciding to attract business from across the world by creating world-class infrastructure that is efficiently funded, cheap and reliable energy, safe and efficient water and transport systems and a skilled and educated population.

    Not by allowing a select few to make monopoly profits from our essential utilities.

    This isn’t a throwback to a bygone era; it’s entirely in step with what is happening in the rest of the world. Some of the world’s biggest economies – Germany, France, even the United States are deciding that key sectors such as energy and water are better off in public ownership. It’s time for Britain to catch up.

    Building an economy for the many will mean making some big changes.

    But it will also mean an economy that is stronger, fairer and more stable and business people know more than anyone how important that is.

    Common ground on Brexit, common ground on investment, training and industrial strategy and a government that embraces its responsibilities and carries them out for the common good.

    That’s what Labour offers you. That’s what Labour offers Britain.

    Thank you.

  • James Brokenshire – 2017 Speech to European Policy Centre

    Below is the text of the speech made by James Brokenshire, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, to the European Policy Centre on 6 November 2017.

    It’s a great pleasure to be here in Brussels today … and I’m grateful for the opportunity to update you on the current situation in Northern Ireland.

    During my visit today I am taking the opportunity to brief senior members of the Commission along with MEPs as the UK Government continues its negotiations to leave the EU in 2019.

    And of course part of my role … working with the Prime Minister and the Secretary for Exiting the EU … is to ensure that we secure an agreement deal that delivers for all parts of the UK, including Northern Ireland.

    Everyone here knows that Northern Ireland has unique circumstances which need to be recognised in the final withdrawal treaty to leave the EU … and making progress on the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland is essential in moving negotiations to the next phase.

    But before I talk specifically about Northern Ireland in the context of leaving the EU I thought it would be useful to give an overview of the current political, economic and security situations there.

    Because as I stand before you today, nearly a quarter of a century after the terrorist ceasefires and twenty years after the Belfast or Good Friday Agreement, it’s easy to assume that everything in Northern Ireland has been solved.

    And you could easily be forgiven for thinking that’s the case.

    Northern Ireland today is in so many respects unrecognisable from where it was in the early 1990s.

    Until the beginning of this year we had seen a decade of devolved government in Northern Ireland led by the Democratic Unionists and Sinn Fein … the longest such period of uninterrupted devolved government since the 1960s.

    The kind of terrorism that I used to see growing up in the 1970s and 1980s is no longer a daily fact of life … along with the military presence to deal with it.

    Northern Ireland today is the most popular destination outside of London for foreign direct investment into the UK. And of course relations between Northern Ireland and Ireland … and between the United Kingdom and Ireland … are at their strongest ever.

    So there are so many positives to take about Northern Ireland.

    The beautiful scenery and countryside.

    The industrial heritage.

    The exciting new opportunities.

    Our thriving creative industries.

    The quality of life.

    The warmth and friendliness of people who live there.

    And of course the example that Northern Ireland has shown the world as to how it is possible to emerge from a period of terrible suffering and conflict to a new era of peace, stability and greater prosperity.

    In that context I would like to pay tribute to the European Union … including Michel Barnier … for the support you have given to Northern Ireland … backing the peace process, encouraging economic growth and providing vital funding for programmes designed to bring communities together.

    The EU can be very proud of the role that it has played in Northern Ireland over decades … and both the UK and Irish Governments are very grateful for that.

    But for all of this progress significant political, economic and security challenges remain … and I would like briefly to take each of these in turn.

    Politically, Northern Ireland has been without a functioning devolved government since the beginning of this year. Civil servants have been able to spend money but key decisions over local services that require political input have not been taken.

    Crucially, a budget for the current financial year has yet to be set.

    This is putting public services under strain … and very soon both the UK Government and the Northern Ireland Civil Service assess that Northern Ireland will begin to run out of resources.

    Earlier this year I had to step in and legislate to set some local taxes so that local councils could continue to carry out their functions.

    We have now reached the point at which it is unlikely that an Executive could be formed in time to pass a budget for Northern Ireland by the end of this month.

    In those circumstances I am left with no option but to legislate at Westminster to enable the Northern Ireland civil service to continue spending money to already agreed totals.

    This would not be my budget … it would be one prepared by the Northern Ireland civil service on the basis of the previous Executive’s priorities.

    Should an Executive be formed the budget could be amended or changed … and indeed if an Executive were formed with sufficient time left under expedited procedures to pass the budget bill in the Assembly … I would clearly wish to proceed instead with legislation to enable that to happen.

    I’m clear … introducing and passing a budget in Westminster does not mean that we are introducing direct rule, any more than legislating for local taxes did earlier this year.

    And needless to say, the UK Government will only take this step with the greatest reluctance … not because we want to but because we have to.

    But it would be a dereliction of duty to see the public services on which people rely begin to disintegrate before us.

    Of course I still hope we can avoid this step.

    The UK Government … along with the Irish Government … is working tirelessly to bring about an agreement between the main Northern Ireland parties that would enable an Executive to be re-formed.

    And we will stick at it, because . . . as President Clinton’s visit to Northern Ireland last month, nearly 20 years after his key role in the Belfast Agreement, prompted many of us to reflect . . . we have come so far.

    But ultimately we have a responsibility to provide good governance in Northern Ireland … and we will not shirk our responsibilities.

    The next area where we have a great deal more work to do is in strengthening the economy and building a stronger society.

    Northern Ireland’s economy continues to grow.

    Unemployment is still falling … while in the past twelve months employment has hit record levels. As I said earlier we continue to attract significant foreign direct investment.

    And we have some world beating businesses.

    But the economy is still far too dependent on government spending.

    And we need to rebalance the economy in a measured and sensible way.

    Levels of worklessness and welfare dependency are still far too high.

    So we are looking at things like City Deals that have proven very successful in other parts of the UK.

    And we remain committed to the devolution of Corporation Tax so that Northern Ireland is better able to compete for investment with its nearest neighbour, Ireland.

    But for that to happen Northern Ireland needs a functioning devolved government.

    Alongside strengthening the economy, we need to tackle deep seated social divisions.

    In Northern Ireland today over 90 per cent of public housing is segregated along sectarian lines.

    Over 90 per cent of children in Northern Ireland are educated separately.

    It is regrettable that additional so-called peace walls … or interface barriers … have been erected since the signing of the Belfast or Good Friday Agreement in 1998 and still divide communities today.

    Indeed some independent estimates put the cost of division in Northern Ireland at around £1.5 billion.

    So bringing people together … and building a stronger, more shared society has to be an urgent priority.

    Most of the responsibility for tackling this rests in the devolved sphere.

    And the previous Executive had made a start … for example with programmes under its strategy called Together: Building a United Community.

    For our part the UK Government has provided significant financial support … for example in helping to fund schemes to promote greater shared housing and more shared and integrated education.

    But clearly much more needs to be done.

    It requires significant political will and drive if we are to overcome decades … some might say centuries … of division and build a stronger more united community.

    And that needs to come primarily from local politicians working together for the good of the whole community. So there’s another reason why it’s so important to have a functioning Executive back up and running.

    The community divisions that still exist in Northern Ireland can, on occasion, still fuel tensions and public disorder … though on a much reduced scale than in previous years.

    And they can also be exploited by paramilitary and terrorist groups that continue to exist and operate in Northern Ireland.

    The threat level from dissident republican terrorists remains severe in Northern Ireland… meaning that an attack is highly likely.

    Even though they are relatively small in numbers, they retain lethal capability and intent.

    The fact that you don’t hear more about them is primarily down to the superb efforts of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, our security services and An Garda Siochana.

    And the levels of co-operation that currently exist between the PSNI and the Garda … and between the UK and Irish Governments … must be preserved, and where possible enhanced, following Brexit.

    In addition to the continuing threat from terror too many communities in Northern Ireland are held in the grip of paramilitary groups … criminals who prey on society primarily to line their own pockets.

    They engage in gangsterism and carry out brutal attacks … often by appointment … on people within their own community to exert fear and control.

    Following the 2015 Fresh Start Agreement the Executive … working with and supported financially by the UK Government … devised a strategy for tackling paramilitary groups with the aim of putting them out of business for good.

    There was never any justification for the existence of paramilitary and terrorist groups in Northern Ireland … and there is none today.

    But if the strategy for tackling paramilitary activity is going to be at its most effective … and that will only be seen through results on the ground … then it needs to be led locally.

    And that’s another reason why Northern Ireland needs a properly functioning Executive.

    Finally, Northern Ireland needs a fully functioning Executive to ensure that its voice is fully heard as the UK leaves the EU.

    As I have said before … we joined the Common Market in 1973 as one United Kingdom and we will leave the European Union in 2019 as one United Kingdom.

    And as the Prime Minister has made clear … leaving the EU will mean that we leave both the single market and the customs union.

    I find it difficult to imagine how Northern Ireland could somehow remain in … while the rest of the country leaves.

    But as we have made equally clear we are determined to find bespoke solutions to Northern Ireland’s unique circumstances … not least as the only part of the UK to share a land border with an EU member state.

    We need to deliver an outcome that works for all parts of the United Kingdom.

    We fully recognise the extent to which the Northern Ireland economy, while an integral part of the UK economy, is also fully integrated with that of Ireland particularly in areas like the agri-food sector.

    We fully recognise the flow of traffic across the border on a daily basis for people going about their business be it to work, study, shop or simply visit friends and relatives.

    And we fully recognise those ties of family and shared history that exist between people on the island of Ireland as well as between Ireland and Great Britain.

    All of this requires creative and imaginative thinking by the UK and Irish Governments along with negotiating partners in the EU. But I believe solutions can be found … and it is in that positive sense that the UK Government has approached the current phase of negotiations and we will continue to do so.

    And the Northern Ireland and Ireland position paper published by the UK Government in August set out clearly and positively where we stand.

    We want to ensure that the Belfast or Good Friday Agreement is fully protected … including the constitutional principles that underpin it, the political institutions it establishes and the citizens’ rights it guarantees.

    We want to preserve the Common Travel Area … and, yes, ensure that we have as frictionless and seamless a border as possible between Northern Ireland and Ireland with no physical infrastructure at the border.

    We want to protect the single electricity market that operates across the island of Ireland to ensure continuity of supply for the benefit of business and domestic consumers.

    At the same time we need to ensure that nothing is done that undermines the integrity of the UK single market … Northern Ireland companies sold four times as much into Great Britain than to Ireland in 2015.

    And of course no border between Great Britain and Northern Ireland or anything that fractures the internal market of the United Kingdom, which benefits Northern Ireland hugely.

    Of course none of this was ever going to be easy.

    But I believe that with a positive attitude on all sides it is achievable.

    As both the Prime Minister and the Secretary for Exiting the EU, David Davis, have set out to the House of Commons in recent days, significant progress has been made in the negotiations so far.

    Within the Northern Ireland-Ireland Dialogue, we have agreed that the Belfast or Good Friday Agreement should be protected in full, including its constitutional arrangements.

    We have proposed that the UK and the EU seek to agree text for the Withdrawal Agreement that recognises the ongoing status of the Common Travel Area…and have already developed joint principles with the EU on this.

    We have also mapped out areas of cooperation that function on a North-South basis to ensure this continues once the UK has left the EU.

    And we are determined to press on so that we can move to the next phase of negotiations as we deliver on the democratic wishes of the people of the UK as set out in the June 2016 referendum.

    During this speech I have deliberately set out some of the big challenges that face us in Northern Ireland. But I want to end on a positive note.

    Nearly twenty years on from the Belfast or Good Friday Agreement Northern Ireland is immeasurably in a better place.

    Huge progress has been made.

    What have often looked like insurmountable problems have been overcome.

    We’ve seen commitment, courage and above all leadership on all sides.

    And we’ve seen enormous international goodwill and support … including from the EU.

    But we can’t just rest on what has been achieved.

    We need to tackle today’s challenges in order to build a better tomorrow.

    For our part the UK Government … along with our partners in Ireland … are determined to do just that…

    As we strive to build a stronger, more prosperous Northern Ireland for everyone. And a Northern Ireland that can look to the future with confidence and optimism.

    Thank you.

  • Chris Grayling – 2017 Speech on Automated Cars

    Below is the text of the speech made by Chris Grayling, the Secretary of State for Transport, on 6 November 2017.

    Good morning ladies and gentlemen.

    Thank you for that welcome.

    I’m delighted to join you for today’s (6 November 2017) conference.

    To have this chance to talk about how we’re getting ready for automated vehicles.

    And what they mean for you and your businesses.

    You may have seen over the weekend – hundreds of magnificent old cars taking part in the world’s longest running motorsport event.

    The annual London to Brighton Veteran Car Run.

    They were continuing a tradition which goes all the way back to 1896.

    The year of the first London to Brighton.

    Which was known as the Emancipation Run.

    Because it celebrated a recent increase in the speed limit from 4 miles per hour (mph) to an eye-watering 14 mph.

    We tend look back on those early motoring years with nostalgia.

    Pioneering manufacturers like Daimler and Panhard producing cars for an enterprising and extremely rich clientele.

    But 1896 was a landmark motoring year for less romantic reasons too.

    It was the year in which a London woman became the first recorded pedestrian to be killed by a car.

    When she stepped off a curb and was hit by a gas powered vehicle, driven by a certain Arthur Edsall.

    There was no precedent for such an accident.

    So Edsall was released without charge.

    And the coroner was quoted as saying he hoped such a fatality would never happen again.

    Of course it didn’t take long to realise that these new horseless carriages were not just temperamental to drive.

    They were also dangerous – for a society wholly unprepared for their arrival.

    So perhaps it’s not surprising that 1896 was also the year when the first UK car insurance policy was sold.

    Details of those early policies are long lost.

    But the service they provided was fundamental.

    To establishing a framework that protected the victims of accidents, and focused attention on road safety.

    But that also made car ownership viable, and ultimately allowed the market to grow.

    With all the benefits of driving that we take for granted today.

    Since then, of course, motor insurance has grown into a massive industry.

    An industry that’s innovated in response to changing technology.

    Changing legislation.

    And changing driving conditions.

    But despite this progress, we’ve seen nothing in our lifetimes that can compare with the motoring revolution that’s just around the corner.

    A revolution that will transform the way we travel.

    The way we buy, run and power our cars.

    And the way we insure them.

    The autonomous, ultra-low emission vehicles that are in development now will be as different to today’s family saloons as those early vehicles which participated in the first London to Brighton run.

    They represent an unprecedented leap forward in the history of the automobile.

    So much so that future generations will see 20th century motoring with a driver at the wheel controlling a vehicle powered by an internal combustion engine as merely a quaint stepping stone on the journey to cleaner, fully autonomous and more efficient road transport.

    Social and safety implications

    The potential benefits of these new technologies for human mobility – and for wider society – are tremendously exciting.

    Many who can’t currently drive will be able to take to the road.

    Elderly people.

    Or people with disabilities which prevent them from travelling today.

    They’ll discover a new sense of freedom and independence.

    And there is also the potential for us to make much more efficient use of the road network.

    There are currently 6 cars for every 10 people in the UK.

    But they are only used about 3% of the time.

    Connected and autonomous taxis could deliver the same number of trips with just 10% of the vehicles, according to one recent study.

    An autonomous car fleet could reduce delays by 40% on the strategic road network, and 30% in urban areas.

    But just as importantly, there are huge safety implications.

    Self-driving cars should make road travel far safer.

    By eliminating the biggest contributory factor to accidents today – human error.

    Which in 2016, was responsible for over 85% of all reported UK road incidents.

    And these benefits are coming soon.

    Sooner than most people expect.

    In fact, I expect the first self-driving cars to reach the market – and to be used on UK roads – by 2021.

    The government is already taking steps to make this happen and consulting with industry partners for their views.

    Never before have we experienced such a profound change in motoring technology in such a short space of time.

    And there are major opportunities in this fast emerging market for those who are best prepared.

    Exports of low emission vehicles are already worth £2.5 billion to our economy.

    But it is estimated that the market for autonomous vehicles could be worth £28 billion to the UK by 2035.

    That’s why we are so committed to becoming a global leader in the design, development and use of autonomous vehicles.

    The UK code of practice for testing automated vehicles on public roads is recognised as one of the most open in the world.

    Leading manufacturers like Nissan and Volvo have already announced test programmes in the UK.

    And to support further growth, we’re investing £100 million in R&D – match-funded by industry – across more than 50 collaborative projects.

    Such as Pathfinder pods in Milton Keynes.

    We’re also investing £100 million – again match-funded by the industry – to provide a comprehensive range of virtual, yet real-world testing environments for developers and investors to use.

    The scheme will be co-ordinated through MERIDIAN.

    A new government-backed and industry-led hub.

    To co-ordinate and promote connected and autonomous vehicle technology in the UK.

    In October we announced the winners of a £51 million government competition to develop self-driving car testing infrastructure.

    Including new facilities at 2 of the motor industry’s biggest proving grounds.

    And our third open R&D funding competition closed just a couple of weeks ago.

    Meanwhile colleagues at the Centre for Connected and Autonomous Vehicles recently attended the Intelligent Transport Systems World Congress in Montreal.

    Where they were busy explaining why we’re the leading country for the research and testing of new autonomous technologies.

    And the ‘go to’ location for global investors in this field.

    So we’re making real progress.

    Preparing the UK for change.

    Though we can’t be complacent.

    That’s what the Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill is all about.

    Keeping ahead of the curve.

    The bill’s making smooth process through Parliament.

    And I’m sure that will continue through to Royal Assent.

    As you know, one of the key objectives of the bill is to set the legislative groundwork for automated vehicle insurance.

    We have worked very closely with the insurance industry to get it right.

    So I’d particularly like to thank the ABI and its members today for the support we’ve received.

    The measures in the bill will help us provide certainty to the insurance industry – and clarity to the public – about the changes ahead.

    Automated vehicles will make collisions rarer.

    But when cases do come to market, our current compulsory insurance framework might not fully protect the people and businesses involved.

    As things stand, they may not be covered for collisions caused by autonomous vehicles, because only the driver’s use of the vehicle is insured.

    Victims might have to take vehicle manufacturers to court, which would be time consuming and expensive, undermining the quick and easy access to compensation that is a cornerstone of our insurance system.

    If we fail to address this beforehand, we risk jeopardizing consumer protection, and undermining the competitiveness of our automotive industry.

    Having consulted widely, we are creating a new compulsory insurance framework that covers motorists when they are driving, and when the driver has legitimately handed control to the vehicle.

    This will ensure that victims have quick and easy access to compensation.

    And that insurers can recover costs from the liable party, which in the majority of cases is anticipated to be the manufacturer.

    It will allow consumers to buy insurance in the same way they do today.

    And in turn, it could also reduce premiums.

    One of the UK’s largest insurers has said that “as well as making our roads safer, insurance premiums are based on the cost of claims and therefore we expect substantially reduced premiums to follow.”

    So automated vehicles, introduced alongside the effective insurance framework proposed in this bill, could deliver significant financial and safety benefits for ordinary road users.

    We have already had many productive debates when these measures were included in the previous Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill.

    Changes have been made to the current bill that take some of those concerns into account.

    However, we know that there are still wider issues to be discussed.

    Issues that can’t be settled until automated vehicle technology has evolved further.

    Since we do not yet know how the technology will fully work, regulating early could diminish the benefits we want to achieve.

    It is imperative that we do not over regulate – or worse, regulate badly – while the technology is still developing.

    This could potentially result in regulation that is unsafe for the public.

    Or compromise the UK’s position in the market.

    There are a number of important conversations about regulations taking place at an international level, and it would not be in UK interests to act unilaterally before decisions have been made.

    So, our proposed regulatory programme will allow us be flexible and agile in response to future developments.

    On the question of data handling.

    This is clearly a matter for vehicle manufacturers and service providers.

    There is a regulatory framework currently within the Data Protection Act.

    But research projects will help provide evidence of how data should be recorded and shared.

    Where we see barriers, we will act to remove them in a pragmatic manner.

    Where necessary, we will help lead international negotiations.

    As we are doing at the moment on harmonising guidelines, standards and regulation on cyber security for the global automotive industry.

    So to sum up.

    We are well positioned not just to follow changes in motoring technology over the next couple of decades.

    But to lead them.

    And part of our preparation is to make sure our regulatory framework is ready for the arrival of driverless vehicles.

    Just as we saw at the dawn of motoring in the late 19th century, the success of tomorrow’s cutting edge automotive industry will depend on an effective and affordable insurance framework.

    Once again, insurance will be the enabler that helps the vehicle market to grow.

    So millions more people can enjoy the benefits of motoring.

    So we can reduce congestion and harmful vehicle emissions.

    And so we can look forward to significantly safer road conditions.

    There’s still a long way to go.

    And there’s much about the technology we don’t yet know .

    But I can promise you that we will continue to work closely with you.

    To secure a motor insurance framework that is fit for the future.

    Not just for consumers.

    And for the car industry.

    But for you and your businesses too.

    Thank you.

  • Lord Duncan – 2017 Maiden Speech in the House of Lords

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made by Lord Duncan of Springbank in the House of Lords on 9 October 2017.

    My Lords, this is the first time I speak in your Lordships’ House. The phrase “baptism of fire” probably springs to mind. This is indeed one of the most challenging issues that we will face as a country and as constituent parts of that country. But before I go on to that, if I may, this is also my maiden speech so I hope noble Lords will indulge me for a moment before I return to the business in hand.

    I come to the House from another place, not along the Corridor, as many have done—not for want of effort on my part, I hasten to add—but from over the channel, from Brussels and the European Parliament. I represented Scotland, the largest and many would say the best constituency in the European Union. I learned a great deal from watching how that chamber works. Some things worked well and some things did not. I suspect we will be able to look again at how things are developing there with some interest as the Brexit process goes on.

    Just as Charles de Gaulle lamented the challenge of governing a land of 246 cheeses, the challenge is all the greater trying to represent a land of 118 distilleries, as Scotland has. However, the tour is slightly more invigorating than the tour of cheese production in France. I had hoped to bring to this House some experience of events in Brussels and Edinburgh, but given the extraordinary collection of talent on the Benches on both sides, from former Commissioners and ambassadors to distinguished former MEPs, frankly, I just hope to keep up. I recognise that there is a wealth of experience in the debate today, and I hope to try to respond to some of that.

    When the Garter Principal King of Arms asked me to consider which place name I would take as my title, I asked, somewhat tongue in cheek, whether I could take Brussels. He smiled benignly, as is his wont, and explained only if I could claim to have achieved a great military victory there. I fear my success on the non-road mobile machinery directive was perhaps not quite qualification enough. Instead, I chose Springbank in the county of Perth. My grandparents moved to the newly constructed council scheme of Springbank Road in the town of Alyth in 1934. They came from a mill cottage with an earthen floor. My mother was born ​there in 1936 on the kitchen table, as she would often tell me, and thank goodness for Formica. Upon marriage, my father moved into the same house and it was there that my brother and sister were born. Indeed, for the first few years of their marriage that is where they lived, alongside my grandparents and their other son. My parents’ first home of their own was also in the same council scheme. My grandparents lived their whole life in Springbank Road, as did my mother, who passed away only a few years ago. I am the third generation to hail from Springbank and I believe that it is appropriate to take that as my title. I also again commend the notion of council housing, which I believe we are once again looking to improve. It is significant and important and I commend it.

    Before I move on to the substantive elements of the debate, I should give my thanks to my noble friends Lord McInnes of Kilwinning and Lady Goldie for guiding me so expertly through my introduction here only a few weeks ago. I have to admit that it was most nerve-racking experience of my parliamentary career and I would not want to go through it again. None the less, it was an extraordinary thing to find myself here among noble Lords. I also thank the doorkeepers who have guided me more than once up different corridors and helped me to locate toilets, which are not well publicised, in different parts of the building. I thank again the clerks who have guided me through various other elements of my work and my ministerial colleagues who have guided me in so many of the elements of what I am about to speak of today. They have all shown me great kindness and I appreciate that a great deal. It is a privilege to be here.

    Perhaps I may turn to today’s business. Let me begin by commending the approach of my noble friend Lord Selkirk: the union is precious and there is no question about that. Throughout the debate we have heard many noble Lords speaking of that very precious union. Indeed, as my noble friend Lord Lang of Monkton began the debate, he recognised that we must not take this union for granted. We had a close shave not so many years ago, and again the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, was very kind to point out how we worked together to try to move forward and recognise the challenges faced at that difficult time.

    I shall start by addressing head-on the point made by my noble friend Lord Lang. There was a delay in the response to this paper; that is not appropriate and it will not happen again. We must make sure that we address these challenges in good time and we cannot take for granted that time will be given to us to make sure that that happens. It is also important to stress the attitude of this Government, which is to ensure that both the Brexit process and the devolution process work together. A number of noble Lords pointed out the challenge of the piecemeal approach we have adopted to our constitutional evolution, and indeed some of those changes have not always been in the best interests of the entire union. Some have been made in haste and some, I suspect, we regret and would revisit were we to have an opportunity to do so. The challenge with devolution as we understand it is that it is a ratchet that moves in only one direction. The problem is that if we do not get it right the first time, it unfortunately moves on too fast to change it around.​
    The joint ministerial committees were mentioned a number of times by several noble Lords, including my noble friends Lord Lang and Lord Dunlop, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness. I was a clerk in the Scottish Parliament in the early days of the joint ministerial committees and I can assure noble Lords that they were not working well then—long before we had the situation of Brexit and long before we had embraced many aspects of devolution. There were a number of reasons for that. I think that to some degree everyone expected different things from those committees and everyone was slightly disappointed by not getting what they wanted out of them. Let me answer some of the other questions which have been raised. How often have the joint ministerial committees met this year? Not enough—they must meet more often. The times we face now are a challenge and we must embrace that by doing so together, using these committees to help us take the steps forward; of that I am in no doubt whatever. But I should also stress that although these committees have not met as often as perhaps all would have wished, to some degree there were extenuating circumstances such as the election and other elements. None the less, we need to do better.

    However, I would also say that the bilateral discussions have been significant and important at all stages of the process. The noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, was right to point out that we are well served by a Civil Service that is able to continue to collaborate even when politicians cannot always quite find themselves at the same table facing each other in the same direction. For example, in rural affairs, over the past few months of the summer period there have been more than 50 face-to-face meetings to discuss each of the aspects of Brexit as they impact on the rural affairs agenda, and that is not without significance. Again, it is important that we are as open as we can be. The UK Government are committed to being as open as they can and have been so throughout the process. Part of the challenge, however, is that we have not always been able to secure from the others participating the same level of openness, and that in itself can be a challenge. The consent aspect has to work both ways. There needs to be collaboration from both sides; it cannot just be all give on one side and all take on the other. It is important that we recognise that.

    Perhaps I may go into a little more of the detail. Again, I am fearful that I will not be able to do justice to the sheer range and depth of knowledge and expertise that noble Lords have displayed today. Perhaps I may take a moment to say that, as someone who sat in the European Parliament for a number of years, I have probably experienced more serious debate and insight in the past few hours here than was often the case in some of the debates I witnessed there. First, I turn to the reports themselves. There are elements that we must look at in trying to address how we consider the devolution settlement. It is easy to look on it as unfinished business, but the question is: what would finish that business? How shall we bring together each of the constituent parts to create what needs to be a functioning constitution? We cannot simply keep feeding the crocodile and hope that it will eat us last. There needs to be a recognition ​of what we are for. What is our country and what shall be our constitutional settlement? We need also to recognise that each constituent part must play its role in that. We do that against the backdrop of Brexit, which makes the whole process considerably more difficult in terms of trying to achieve progress. However, I am well aware that we have to achieve that progress because without it we will be in a terrible situation.

    The noble Lord, Lord Jay, made a significant contribution to the discussion today. I am under no illusion about some of the challenges the noble Lord has presented to the Government. What I would say as a former Member of the European Parliament is that there is a challenge in how the acquis communautaire functions, how the frameworks within which we exist today have been constructed and how the devolution settlement itself embraced those frameworks. It is true to say that when we witnessed the changes in Brussels, as we have done over the years, they have been negotiated by the United Kingdom with the involvement of the home nations; none the less, the devolution frameworks were established within an established European framework. That was the glue, as the noble Lord rightly put it, but none the less it was there. That is why the Government have no ambition to change in any fashion the powers currently exercised by the devolved Administrations. What we have to do is work out where the frameworks need to be functional. At the moment there are 111 areas in the Scottish legal world and 64 in the Welsh where again, we hope to collaborate to establish exactly where we can find a common framework, a common approach and the right outcome.

    We have no ambition to retain powers that we do not need and do not deserve to hold. We must recognise that the devolution settlement is fixed; we will do so, but we must also recognise that on day 1 after Brexit, each element of our procedures must be legally sound. We can take no risk of there being an upset, stumble or breakdown, and we should take time to echo the points made by so many of my colleagues on these Benches. We must take time to ensure that we get the frameworks settled and sorted and workable. If we get them wrong, we will live to regret it. One problem we face now is that that day is fast approaching, so we need to make sure that on day 1 we have a legally sound system, but that we work out how, as a common people of different nations, we will come together and pull in that direction.

    The noble Lord, Lord Desai, is quite right. England can often be overlooked and it is one of the great challenges that we sit in what many people consider to be one of the Chambers of the English Parliament—and yet, the very nation of England itself can often be overlooked in the wider sense of the word. That is a great pity, and we need to recognise that as each of the other home nations pushes for particular changes to the wider constitutional settlement. I served as a clerk on the committee when my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness was in the Scottish Parliament—not that long ago, it seems, but here we have arrived, apparently for greater things.

    I am aware that we face serious challenges in working out each of the component parts of the overall settlement. I am particularly concerned about the devolution settlement and the replacement for the structural funds and the common agricultural policy, to which reference was made. The Government have given a commitment to 2022. In truth, that is one year more than we would have been able to offer to the wider Welsh, Northern Irish and Scottish farmers and others. That is a year more than we would have had if we had stayed in the EU. We are giving a greater degree of certainty. Each of those elements is up for significant change.

    When I met the Commissioner for Agriculture in Brussels not so long ago, he talked about the fact that the overall sum of money given to farmers will be significantly reduced in certain areas and that farmers will have to tackle that. As a Government, we are committed to 2022 and we will see how we can reform and move forward at that point; but there is still no desire, I hasten to add, to seek powers being drawn back from those Administrations—none at all. It is about trying to recognise where we can work together. To give some examples—I am aware we are often accused of not explaining where those examples may rest—we are currently focusing on the wider question of pesticides. We are conscious of the food and feed law for animals, but we need a common approach. We are aware of the food labelling issue because, as we begin to look at some of the geographical indicators—I was in the Western Isles not so long ago, breakfasting on Stornoway black pudding, a feast of kings—we need to recognise that we need a common approach across the United Kingdom. The final example is infectious diseases—which is more fun to talk about than look into, I hasten to add.

    We face challenges in establishing what the frameworks need to look like. We need collaboration, and that is where the joint ministerial committees will work. It is at such gatherings that officials will sit down and work, because in truth, many of these issues are almost above our pay grade. They are at the level of detail where we need to understand how the law comes together with practical and policy issues. That can be something of a challenge.

    The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, is right to point out the issue of Catalonia. We cannot see such issues being resolved with bloodshed on the continent of Europe. I absolutely agree. I am also fully aware that the Edinburgh agreement, which was brokered between the Government of the United Kingdom and the Scottish Government, is a template for how other nations may embrace the demographic and democratic challenges presented by independence movements. It is a model that many people across Europe should be looking at.

    I hope the Welsh football team are doing rather well right now—I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, is as interested in the outcome of that match as I am—but at the same time, he is right to talk about multiple geometry. Much of our situation today is about the asymmetry of our land. We do not face, as the US does, a number of small, medium-sized and large states all mixed together. We have such asymmetry ​and we need to recognise that. That may be part of the challenge when we start looking at the JMC. How do we contain within the JMC the correct structures to reflect the fact that—as the noble Lord, Lord Desai, pointed out—England is just bigger? How do we recognise that asymmetry, but none the less recognise the obligations we have to the home nations to reflect on the wider settlement of our constitution? It is not as easy as I would like to think.

    My predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, has been very kind to me during my time finding my feet. I have not yet witnessed the tartan hippo, although I have witnessed many other tartan animals, if I may be a little unkind. A challenge in trying to do one’s job is embracing social media—it is not always full of laughter, it is fair to say.

    It is important to stress that there is an existential threat to our nation. There is no question of that. One thing I would note in passing is that there are far too few nationalists in here. There needs to be more. That seems an odd thing, perhaps, for a unionist to say, but if we are to reflect the wider interests of our country, we must recognise that those voices need to be heard in both Chambers, not just in the House of Commons. That is perhaps not for me to create, but for others to look into; none the less, at this time, more than any other, we need those voices as part of the overall discussion that we are looking into.

    Some of the aspects which my noble friend Lord Dunlop was kind enough to point out need to be addressed at the technical level. There are technical deficiencies. There are some issues around subsidiarity which we need to look at and then work out how best to do the job. Certainly in the Scottish situation devolution need not rest in Edinburgh, any more than in Wales and Northern Ireland it need rest in Cardiff or in Belfast. We need to recognise where power needs to be exercised. That is the European concept of subsidiarity. We need to recognise where it works even within the United Kingdom itself. If we can do that, we have a fighting chance of ensuring that our union continues. As someone who comes from outside the central belt of Scotland, I am very conscious that there is a great lament that overcentralisation to Edinburgh can be a huge problem, yet it needs to be addressed.

    My noble friend Lord Lexden is quite right that some of the issues that we are talking of are worthy of note. The long delays in responding are unacceptable, and I am happy to confirm that we will not be moving in that direction again. We will move to address that.

    “Devolve and forget” is not a concept that I wish to see go forward. We cannot simply hope to push things away, particularly during the Brexit process.

    I am conscious that I have several other Members to respond to. Let me make one commitment: if I do not address their questions this evening, I ask them to hunt me down and I will come back to them. I do not wish them to feel that they have been short-changed because I have seemingly glossed over their points.

    In the latter moments of my speech, I need to stress Northern Ireland. That will be one of the intractable aspects of the overall Brexit situation. It is equally a challenge within the wider devolution question. I assure noble Lords that James Brokenshire, the Secretary of ​State, is working very hard, but we have to recognise that the challenge need not rest solely with those inside the would-be Executive or Assembly; it is at all levels within Northern Ireland. They must also be part of the wider question of devolution and Brexit.

    How do I finish off without short-changing other noble Lords who have spoken? Many of your Lordships have raised important issues. We need to recognise that the EU has provided the constitutional glue within which we as a Parliament have been able to operate, but we must also recognise that because of the approach that we have taken—by holding a referendum—that glue will not be as available to us to hold these things together. We must find another glue, something else that works for us as a people but also as a country. I hope that we can do so.

    I am fully aware of how challenging Brexit will be, but I assure your Lordships that, in so far as I can, I will respond to any and all entreaties to co-operate and to collaborate. We will do all that we can to ensure that there is serious dialogue on all aspects, not just with MSPs and AMs but with councillors as well, to make sure that all are part of the process. This is an important time and we cannot get it wrong, because the ratchet is turning in only one direction. If we are not careful, we will turn it too tight and, as with winding up those old-fashioned clocks, the whole thing will unravel in our hands.

    I again thank your Lordships for your forbearance and kindness in listening to my remarks. I assure you that I will do all I can to take forward the issues that we have discussed today in a timely, sensitive and careful manner.

  • Matt Western – 2017 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made by Matt Western, the Labour MP for Warwick and Leamington, in the House of Commons on 12 October 2017.

    Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for the opportunity to make my maiden speech in this important debate. Although I have spoken several times already in the Chamber, questioning the Prime Minister and other Ministers, this is indeed my formal introduction to the House.

    The past five months have been extraordinary, and it is a great honour for me to represent Warwick and Leamington, a constituency that also includes the town of Whitnash and a number of villages. I wish to place on record my thanks to them. I would also like to thank my predecessor, Chris White, for the work he did as a constituency MP, and specifically his support for the charitable sector and the local games industry. He served the community well, and I wish him well. It is work that I will most definitely build on.

    It is a happy coincidence that my maiden speech should coincide with the news, published yesterday in The Independent and by the BBC, that Leamington has been declared the happiest town in the UK. Delightfully, the survey that led to this finding was conducted after 8 June, which doubtless explains everything.

    My constituency is not only the happiest place in the UK. Apparently, it was one of the first provincial towns in England to possess the other key attribute of happiness ​—a good range of Indian restaurants. You do not need to take my word for it: whilst a predecessor, Sir Anthony Eden, liked to quote from Shakespeare, in this instance I am going to quote from the historian, Lizzie Collingham, author of a definitive history of curry:

    “Leamington was one of the first provincial English towns to have a selection of Indian restaurants. The area’s very proximity to Coventry and Birmingham, where many of Britain’s Bangladeshi and Pakistani immigrants found work in the car industry, made it, where Indian food is concerned, one of Britain’s pioneering towns. It still is.”

    As if to underline that, one of our very many local establishments was proclaimed winner of Midlands Curry House of the Year and shortlisted for the national awards. So none of you should need any inducement to visit the locality—and you will be most welcome.

    But good eating is not all it has to offer. My constituency has been home to such luminaries as Joseph Arch, a 19th-century pioneer in unionising agricultural workers and in championing their welfare. Arch also agitated for the widening of the franchise—ambitions that were to some degree fulfilled in the Representation of the People Act 1884. In the ensuing 1885 general election, Arch was returned as the Liberal MP—we can all make mistakes—for North West Norfolk, making him the first agricultural labourer to enter the House of Commons.

    My constituency was also home to Randolph Turpin, who was considered by some to be Europe’s best middleweight boxer of the 1940s and ‘50s, and went on to become the undisputed middleweight champion of the world, in defeating no less than Sugar Ray Robinson. And it was home to Sir Frank Whittle, one of Britain’s greatest inventors, the creator of the jet engine, and indeed once to my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins), the as-yet-unknighted Toby Perkins.

    Warwick is famous for its glorious castle, the seat of the legendary kingmaker Guy of Warwick. It is the medieval county town for a shire that once included both Birmingham and Coventry. Today that would be some county. Leamington, its noisy neighbour, is perhaps now the happiest town in the UK but was certainly not favoured by the late John Betjeman in his poem “Death in Leamington.” Fortunately, Betjeman saved his greater wrath for elsewhere, famously inviting “friendly bombs” to rain down upon a different town. In fact, despite being a major manufacturing centre, the constituency was not the victim of significant bombing in the second world war, unlike neighbouring Coventry, sadly, but during the war it was the seat of an important team of camoufleurs—artists and engineers who played a leading role in developing the art and science of camouflage. It is interesting that one of the constituency’s most significant contributions to the defence of our country back then was through design.

    Design and innovation permeate the recent history of our towns. In the post-war period, the legendary Donald Healey set up his car business on the Emscote Road in Warwick, going on to produce some of the finest sports cars the world has ever seen. Not far away, Malcolm Sayer was designing the E-Type Jaguar. I am proud of my constituency’s impressive contributions to design and technology and its continuing role in developing innovative technologies of all sorts. That continues to this day with the world-leading Warwick Manufacturing Group, which is part of the University of Warwick and has collaborated with industry, Government and other ​universities in developing battery cell technology, new materials, and digital applications. It is therefore no surprise that what is still referred to as the gaming industry finds itself home here. Along with Dundee, it leads the industry with more than 50 local businesses, employing 2,500 people and generating £188 million in turnover, and it is about to grow exponentially. I am proud that it is leading the revolution in not just virtual reality, but augmented reality. I can honestly say that I have seen the future— through a headset.

    The constituency’s relative economic buoyancy is exactly that: relative. It has depended on the single market and the customs union, together with our openness to attract the best in the world. Football clubs, such as my beloved Arsenal, have benefited similarly. Warwick and Leamington is an exceptionally diverse, international and multicultural community. Engineers, designers, academics and working people of all sorts from Europe and around the world have made the area their home. As Leamington’s proud restaurant history reminds us, it has also long been home to distinguished communities originating from the Indian subcontinent, who have played, and continue to play, an important role in the economic and cultural life of the west midlands. By way of example, our magnificent gurdwara is now celebrating its 50th year. That diversity explains in part my constituency’s openness to international business and migration. It voted remain in the EU referendum. Since the vote, residents and representatives of Warwick University, Jaguar Land Rover and other businesses have consistently voiced their concerns to me about the impact of Brexit. They tell me that they simply want clarity and certainty—urgently. Economic matters are critical in their planning, and they expect Government responsibility, not party infighting. I am confident that they would agree with me: no deal, no way. They are right to worry.

    The prolonged lack of clarity over the post-Brexit landscape on the British economy is an issue for the majority of my constituents. Some have already voiced their concerns about potential exclusion from the EU’s data protection framework, which would impede the continued free flow of data among EU and EEA states, without which businesses and the economy will suffer. The Lords EU Select Committee states that we are facing a dangerous cliff edge in that regard. Data is critical in our society and for our businesses, but we need strong safeguards. I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) about what data means, particularly for the younger generation, who, interestingly, can be viewed as a data commodity, but we must not allow our young people to become a commodity.

    My constituents are already noting Brexit’s impact on the region’s ability to attract and retain the talented skilled workers on which it relies, and they are worried about the continuing weakness of the economy overall. The economy is extremely fragile and vulnerable to currency fluctuation and interest rate changes. Since 2015, we have witnessed a surge in unsecured household debt, which has reached levels not seen since 2007-08. Consumption growth—the sole driver of the UK economy for nearly a decade—is faltering, partly because much of that growth was driven by the £35 billion windfall that households received in PPI repayments. That is some economic stimulus by any measure. The effect of ​that short-term windfall is now tailing off. Since 2011, that extraordinary, one-off cash injection helped to fund, for example, higher retail car sales and new kitchens, but for little longer. Car sales have been falling since April 2017, which is as good an indicator as any that consumer confidence is declining significantly. Investment growth—the real driver of wealth—has failed to return to the UK after the financial crash of 2008, but only here. Growth in all other developed nations now exceeds the UK’s.

    Like so many of the Government’s claims, assertions about Conservative economic competence have proven ill founded. UK debt has continued to rise. The Government have failed to meet their own economic targets. Real wages have fallen by 15% for many in the public sector and have been stagnant for most. CPI inflation is rising and will soon exceed 3%. Household budgets are being truly squeezed. Sterling has fallen by up to 20%; by contrast, personal unsecured debt has sky-rocketed.

    Individually, those elements would be concerning enough; together, they augur serious concern. At the same time, the cost of housing is rocketing. In my constituency, average rents have increased by 26% in the past six years. In the past 10 years, only 50 council homes have been built in the area although 2,400 people are on the housing waiting list. Last year, 705 people applied as homeless to the local authority—130% up on 2010, compared with a 29% increase nationally over the same period. Some 3,600 people in my constituency regularly use our food banks. There are several night shelters in our towns and in recent months the numbers attending have doubled. The work there is increasingly important and I place on the record my thanks to Margaret, Chris, Susan, Vishal and all the other volunteers.

    Quite simply, the housing market is broken. As has been confirmed by a Prime Minister not known for her Marxist principles, the energy market is also broken. As with so many Government announcements these days, it is too little, too late. Energy is ripe for revolution and it is vital that we should take this opportunity to democratise it. That will bring prosperity to all, as well as address the urgent crisis of climate change.

    In his maiden speech in 2010, my predecessor stated that Warwick and Leamington had excellent frontline services. He was right: in 2010, we did. Seven years on, we do not. We have lost police—in Warwick, we have lost the police station. We have lost teachers, full-time firefighters, and health professionals from the NHS. Many are demoralised. I will not continue because all hon. Members face the same reality in their own constituencies.

    What can we do? The International Monetary Fund has one suggestion: rebalance the tax system. A report just published by the IMF finds that higher income taxes for the rich would help reduce inequality without having an adverse impact on growth. Perhaps implementing some of the Labour party’s policies would be a good start to getting us on to a more secure economic footing as we face the enormous disruption of Brexit. Perhaps that is an announcement for next week. My constituents, whether residents or businesses, need, now more than ever, a strong Government ready to protect jobs, deliver a shared prosperity and enable all to flourish. Above all, I will speak for them. That is the vision that I will represent in Parliament. I thank hon. Members for their attention.​