Below is the text of the speech made by William Hague, the then Foreign Secretary, on 4 September 2013.
Good evening ladies and gentlemen. It gives me great pleasure to join the Business Secretary and our distinguished guests to launch the UK’s Action Plan on Business and Human Rights, and I can think of no better place to do it than here at the Institute of Directors – an organisation which does a great deal to promote the corporate integrity which is at the heart of this Plan.
You are here because we all share the same goal, which is to ensure that British companies succeed and that they do so in a manner that is consistent with this country’s deeply held values of human rights and individual dignity.
In 1948 the UN General Assembly called on “every individual” and “every organ of society” to respect the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Today, the duty to uphold those rights cannot be the responsibility of governments alone. We live in a world where open markets and more equitable trading rules mean that British companies – large or small, public or private – are increasingly transnational; where it’s not unusual for our companies to purchase materials from Bangkok manufacture products in Bangalore, sell them in Bogota; and we live in a world where legal standards and practices for working conditions and the treatment of staff may differ from country to country.
Today, business and government have to work together. The vast majority of companies, I believe, understand the moral imperative of respecting human rights, and they are active in ensuring that they do exactly that. This isn’t about imposing burdensome bureaucracy on them; it’s about Britain leading the way and the British Government helping our businesses to enhance their international reputations even further.
The truth is that incorporating human rights properly into business operations across the world matters:
It matters to companies, as weaving human rights deeply into corporate cultures not only protects and enhances reputations, but it also reassures shareholders, attracts investors, and increases the attractiveness of their brands.
It matters to the reputation of this country and the prosperity of its people.
And, perhaps most of all, it matters to the health, safety and livelihoods of employees, and the communities to whom they belong.
That is why I believe that promoting business and respecting human rights are two sides of the same coin, and which determined that the UK will show leadership on this issue, and which all the ambassadors here will be telling their countries we did so, I am sure.
So I am proud that we are the first country to present a National Action Plan for implementing the UN Guiding Principles developed by former Special Representative of the Secretary General, John Ruggie, who I am delighted to have with us this evening.
This Action Plan responds to calls from business for greater clarity by setting out explicitly what the Government’s position is on business and human rights.
It details this Government’s plans to implement our obligations to protect against human rights abuse by business enterprises within UK jurisdiction; to support our companies in meeting their responsibility to respect human rights throughout their operations at home and abroad; to provide access to effective remedy for victims of human rights abuse; to promote understanding of how addressing human rights risks can help build business success; and to ensure policy consistency across the British Government and all its departments But the plan also outlines the Governments expectations of business, such as complying with all applicable laws; honouring the principles of internationally recognised human rights when faced with conflicting requirements; adopting appropriate due diligence policies; consulting those who may be affected at all stages of project design and implementation; emphasising to supply chains in the UK and overseas the importance of behaving in line with the UN Guiding Principles; and participating in effective grievance mechanisms that are transparent, equitable and predictable.
Launching the Plan today is just the beginning. We now need to take on the more challenging task of ensuring that it’s implemented with consistency.
To do this, we need business leaders to work with us and to highlight challenges, and I urge companies to use the expertise that we have in our Embassies, High Commissions, and Consulates, who are standing ready to help you enact the Plan.
We need those civil society groups who have contributed so much to developing this Action Plan to continue holding us to account and to lend your expertise to the companies that need it.
We need our partners overseas to follow the UK’s lead and to develop their own Plans, so that we can generate real international momentum behind improving the rights of all people affected by business activity in all countries.
And, for our part, we are determined to continue showing leadership by lobbying and influencing other states to follow this example, and by working together with British businesses to ensure that we achieve nothing short of comprehensive implementation of the UN Guiding Principles.
That’s our objective, and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, its Ministers, and its overseas network will do everything to ensure that this Action Plan lays a strong foundation for the long-term success and sustainability of British business.
Below is the text of the speech made by Nicky Morgan, the Secretary of State for Education, at King’s College in London on 2 February 2016.
Thank you Professor Byrne [Professor Edward Byrne, President and Principal, King’s College] for that warm welcome and to King’s College too for hosting us today.
My lords, ladies and gentlemen, what a pleasure it is to be here at the Lord Glenamara Memorial Prize giving, to honour amazing young people from the north-east of England.
Honouring them for their excellent academic achievement and outstanding contributions to their schools and communities – things really embodied by the man for whom this prize is named – Edward Short, the Lord Glenamara – one of my predecessors as Secretary of State for Education.
And I am so pleased that we have with us this afternoon Lord MacGregor and Baroness Williams – two former Secretaries of State for Education; and we are also joined by Lord Beecham, another famous son of the north-east and friend to the Short family.
It was in the north-east that Lord Glenamara was a student at the Venerable Bede College, Durham University; a teacher and head at Blyth; a councillor on Newcastle City Council; a Member of Parliament for Newcastle Central; and later named a Member of the House of Lords, taking Glenamara of Glenridding in the county of Durham, as his title.
I think it is fair to say that the prize is awarded in the very spirit of a man who loved the north-east and worked tirelessly throughout his life on behalf of the region.
As Lord MacGregor, Baroness Williams and I can tell you, being the Secretary of State for Education is a huge honour but an enormous responsibility too.
Lord Glenamara was the first former headteacher to take up the role and is said to have regarded leading the Department for Education as his greatest achievement.
He displayed a high regard for academic rigour and early years provision as well as a commitment to education as a tool to achieve social justice – all things on which we agreed, despite hailing from different political traditions.
He was a deft politician, helping to steer his party through times of tribulation and was, at one time, regarded as a potential leadership candidate.
That wasn’t to be, but as a parliamentarian he gave us Short Money and the Register of Members’ Interests – 2 things which are now ingrained in our modern legislature.
I think it is fair to say that he was one of the north-east’s most famous sons and a true giant of British politics.
His commitment to academia, his contribution to the region and his huge presence in the mainstream of British public life are undeniable.
When he passed away in 2012 at the age of 99 this memorial prize was established to celebrate his achievements and to ensure that his legacy inspires younger generations to come.
Now in its fourth year, the number of high-quality candidates this time made it really tough for the judging panel to pick a winner.
The nominees’ hard work and commitment to their communities make them shining examples to their peers and they should all be congratulated.
And I believe there is something that sets these young people apart.
During my tenure as Secretary of State for Education I’ve talked a lot about character.
I think there are many attributes that make up great character, including perseverance, determination and having a strong sense of community – to name just a few.
These traits so often set apart the people who succeed in life from those who don’t.
I believe it is vital that our young people are helped to grow and develop their character and I think Lord Glenamara would have agreed with me on that.
What is obvious is that the young people here today have character in bucket loads.
I’m talking, of course, about the school councillors, the charity volunteers and fundraisers, the prefects, the head girls and head boys, the Members of the Youth Parliament, the mentors and coaches, the youth group leaders and so much more.
It takes great character to offer so much to your community knowing that often there will be little thanks or praise for it.
It’s clear that all the nominees have exciting futures ahead of them and that the north-east will be enriched by the many things they will no doubt go on to achieve.
And our winner – George Hunter – President of his school, elected by his peers and his teachers from a strong field of candidates.
A volunteer, willing to give up his free time, not just to 1 but 2 charities.
A campaigner, taking on one of society’s most taboo subjects, mental health, and encouraging people to engage with it.
An academic, so committed to learning that he has not only won awards himself but tutored other students too.
So it comes as no surprise that despite his heavy workloads both in and out of school, he was able to achieve As and A*s across the board in his GCSEs.
What an exciting future he has ahead of him.
I look forward to welcoming him to my department for his work experience placement very soon.
It has been a delight to be here today – to celebrate these amazing young people from across the north-east.
I would like to thank all of the schools who nominated their students and I really look forward to next year’s prize.
Professor Byrne will now read out the runners-up in alphabetical order and I will present them with their certificates.
Then we will ask the winner to come up so I can present the Lord Glenamara trophy.
Below is the text of the speech made by Matt Hancock, the Minister for the Cabinet Office, on 2 February 2016.
Today, I want to talk about inequality in the public sector – and beyond – and why it matters for building a society in which all can reach their potential.
We meet as guests of Mary Ward House – in the room that a hundred years ago was the site of the famous debate on women’s suffrage between Mary Ward and Millicent Fawcett.
And while we celebrate the advances they secured – we are still very far from being the fair society we need to be.
A hundred years later indefensible inequalities still exist in this country.
Inequalities of income, inequalities of opportunity, inequalities rooted in prejudice, inequalities imposed by social injustice and we see the consequences of these inequalities in the professions, the media, the arts, sport – and in public service.
The specific nature of the problem we face in public service is laid out in the Bridge report into inequality in the Civil Service Fast Stream published today. The Bridge report is a call to action on my part as Paymaster General.
But the fight against inequality is a struggle that engages us all across government.
The brute facts of inequality demand a strong and united response.
In Britain today around 13% of people are from an ethnic minority.
Yet only 7% of judges, 6% of FTSE 100 leadership, and just 4% of the Senior Civil Service are.
On another measure, only 4.4% of successful applicants to the Civil Service Fast Stream are from working class backgrounds, in comparison to the third of the population in employment who are working class.
Money can’t buy me love, but it still buys a golden ticket into the heart of the establishment. And that’s just not fair.
And why am I speaking out about this?
After all, I’m white and male, I went to both Oxford and Cambridge, I’m from the north, and even then I’ve lost my accent.
But the reason I’m in public service now is because I believe that everyone should have the chance to reach their potential, whatever their background.
That no one should be defined by the circumstances of their birth, no one should be held back by poverty, or ethnicity or culture.
And that each individual has something precious to give, and it is our task to unlock that gift.
For me, a commitment to making opportunity more equal isn’t just an ethical imperative. It makes sound business sense.
All the evidence shows that organisations work better when they are diverse.
Publicly traded companies with male-only executives perform worse than those with both male and female executives, and higher ethnic diversity is linked to increased earnings.
We need to think about diversity not just in terms of legally protected characteristics – gender, sexual orientation, race, disability – but in terms of making sure institutions are full of people from different backgrounds, experiences, and attitudes, who approach the same problem in different ways.
That way you get better decisions, more interesting solutions, and ideas you simply don’t have in a monochrome team.
In the most dynamic societies, there is a fluidity between bottom and top, and talented, hard-working people have the chance to get on, whoever they are and wherever they come from.
So should inequalities – of race and gender and income – should they bother us?
My answer is emphatically yes. We should care about people getting filthy rich. Why?
First of all, because we care deeply about social mobility, and there is clear evidence that countries with higher income inequality have lower levels of social mobility.
As Miles Corak has eloquently put it, there is a ‘Great Gatsby Curve’ that links inequality and social mobility.
It’s harder to climb the ladder of opportunity if the rungs are further apart.
We’ve got to put more rungs in that ladder.
Second, because we should care that rewards for effort are fair. When 2 people with the same talent work just as hard, isn’t it fair they get the same reward?
Fairness, of course, is different to equality. The pursuit of equality of outcome alone can be deeply unfair, and lead to an unjust, something-for-nothing system.
Rather, fairness is about just rewards: the idea that what you get out should be proportional to what you put in. After all, society rests on consent, and social solidarity is good in itself.
Everyone should get a fair crack of the whip.
But even on this basis, inequality matters, because, yes, in a fair society individuals should face the consequences of their choices and efforts; but, no, people should not be punished or held back for circumstances beyond their control.
And we are making progress.
In Britain, according to the ONS, looking at the numbers, inequality is falling.
Our relentless focus on supporting people who want to work hard and get on – with 2 million extra jobs and apprenticeships, nearly 4 million of the lowest paid taken out of income tax altogether, and incentives to make sure it always pays to work – has helped to ensure inequality has fallen. In fact the Gini coefficient, the standard measure of inequality, went down from 33.2 to 32 over the last Parliament.
And our radical reforms to drive school standards up will help in the longer term.
Across the world, the story is the same.
In his inaugural speech, President Kennedy said that “man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life”.
Much of Kennedy’s presidency was taken up with trying to avoid the latter, but more recently we have been making extraordinary progress on the former.
In the last quarter century, the number of people living in extreme poverty around the world has fallen by half, from almost 2 billion to less than a billion, and the proportion of the world’s population in absolute poverty has collapsed by 3 quarters in my lifetime.
The proportion of the world’s population that are illiterate has fallen from around half in Kennedy’s time to just 18% today.
In fact, the extension of the free market economy and the extension of free education has brought billions of people out of poverty. It is the most progressive policy with the biggest impact on the well-being of humanity in history.
But while incomes between the bottom and the middle have become more equal, asset price rises and increased returns on skills to mean the gap in wealth between the very top and the rest have risen.
When Kennedy entered the White House, the share of income going to the top 1% in the UK was around 3.5%.
By the time of the financial crisis in 2007 to 2008, it had reached 8.3%.
In the UK, we have taken steps to make sure the broadest shoulders bear the greatest burden. Our overhaul of the Stamp Duty system ensures those at the very top pay their fair share. And we are abolishing permanent ‘non-dom’ status.
The top 1% of earners now pay a higher share of income tax – projected to be 27.5% this year.
But there is more to do. So we should continue to act, in a way that tackles injustice and protects people’s economic security from those who would use this concern to practice the destructive politics of envy.
I want to see an end to inequalities in the public sector too.
The Civil Service
The Civil Service is engaged in a mission to improve the lives of the entire country.
In my very first speech as Minister for the Cabinet Office, I said that to govern modern Britain, the Civil Service must be more like modern Britain.
The Bridge Group report we commissioned then pulls no punches.
Yes, the Civil Service has improved. And it compares favourably to many other organisations in the public and private sectors.
The proportions of people from ethnic minorities or declaring a disability are at historic highs; and women represent 54% of the Civil Service.
But the representation of all these groups at senior levels is still far too low.
And when you look more broadly at social background, this is where we find the most glaring inequality.
It finds the Civil Service Fast Stream – still the most prestigious route in – is ‘deeply unrepresentative’ of the lower socio-economic groups in our society.
One in 3 people employed in Britain today are working class.
But only 8% of applicants to the Civil Service Fast Stream are from working class backgrounds, and only 4% actually receive offers.
This makes the Fast Stream less diverse than Oxbridge, where the equivalent figure is 7.2%.
In fact in every group of universities from which the Civil Service recruits, Fast Steam applicants are less likely to come from lower socio-economic groups.
This amounts to a huge pool of talent that we are not tapping into. And this must change. As the report says, we are ‘losing out on many other talented individuals, who would flourish if given the opportunity’.
We need to cast the net wide – not fish in a small pond.
The Civil Service can set this example for others to follow.
It would not be the first time it has done so.
Until 1855, access to the Civil Service was riddled with cronyism and corruption. Following the blunders of the Crimean War, the case for reform was unanswerable.
So in 1855 the Civil Service Commission was set up to oversee recruitment on the basis of fair and open competition, and drag Whitehall kicking and screaming into the 19th century. It would oversee a new system of recruitment based on fair and open competition. This was the beginning of a permanent Civil Service: a meritocracy, guided by the vital principles of integrity, honesty, objectivity and impartiality that have sustained it ever since.
If that was the birth of the modern Civil Service, then another modernisation is long overdue.
We have to deal with the perception that the passport to public service is stamped with privilege.
So what are we going to do about it?
The report
The independent research by the Bridge Group was commissioned by me and Jeremy Heywood, the Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Civil Service.
We commissioned it because we, and the whole senior leadership of the Civil Service, are determined to tackle the issues it exposes – head on.
I think it’s a tribute to the Civil Service that far from being defensive about these concerns, the Civil Service is embracing the challenges it faces.
The response
We will be setting out our full strategy on boosting social mobility in the Civil Service in the spring, but I want to sketch out some of the action we are taking.
The report calls for a root and branch overhaul to the way the Civil Service recruits talent.
And we need to make promotion fair and based on talent not time serving.
I want to end inequalities of access and progress.
Some of this has started, and needs rocket boosters.
Other parts will be new.
First, we need to measure the problem.
We will collect postcode and school-attended data so we can measure the problem real time.
And from this year we are giving permanent secretaries specific social mobility objectives within their single departmental plans.
Next, whether we are recruiting from outside or promoting from within, we need to make the selection process as transparent and fair as possible. There must be no barriers that might exclude talented people from underrepresented groups.
So, we are tackling bias, conscious or otherwise. We have this autumn introduced name-blind recruitment across 75% of the Civil Service, on the way to name-blind as standard across the public sector.
We want a more porous boundary between public service and private endeavour, so it becomes the norm not the exception to have a career switching between.
Today we commit to publishing pay ratios in the Civil Service for the first time.
And crucially, we’re changing the way people apply to join the Civil Service, so we spot potential not polish.
The report finds barriers in the application process, including its intimidating length and London-centric focus. Yes, our grand buildings in Whitehall are splendid and spectacular, but they aren’t exactly designed to make you feel comfortable. So we’ll change how and where selection is done. We are shortening the application process and wherever possible, aligning apprenticeship and graduate recruitment.
The report finds a lack of adequate outreach on university campuses. We’re going to send out existing Fast Streamers to campuses across Britain, so we look for talent at a wider range of universities.
The report also finds ‘minimal outreach to schools’. So we will radically increase mentoring.
Earlier this month, the Prime Minister announced the launch of a new national mentoring campaign in schools.
We’ll lead by example, sending people to mentor pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds over an academic year. They aim to raise aspirations, increase confidence, inform and encourage. We’re already supporting in 20 schools, but I want to see that expanded to at least 200.
Apprentices too are central to our task.
In 2013 we launched the Apprenticeship Fast Track. It has proven hugely successful. Almost 1,000 have come through so far, with all the verve, diversity and energy that apprentices represent.
In the Civil Service I want to see, future leaders are as likely to come from the ranks of Fast Track Apprentices as they are from Fast Stream graduates.
I want the Cabinet Secretary of 2050 to be someone who came into the service as an apprentice. You may be sitting in this room.
So I can announce today that we will radically expand our apprenticeship scheme. We will recruit at least 750 new Fast Track Apprentices in September – and 200,000 across the public sector – by 2020.
All these measures together add up to the most significant shake-up of Civil Service recruitment in a generation.
Yes, the public sector can provide leadership. But as the Bridge report says, its findings ‘have implications for the way all professional firms could recruit for diversity and excellence’.
So today, I’ve written to the 200 companies who signed up to our social mobility business compact, and I’ve urged them to read the Bridge research and consider its lessons for their own businesses.
Conclusion
This is our goal: a Britain, fair to all, where effort is rewarded.
Where all have the chance to succeed, and to serve their country.
Where we fulfil that dream held by the seekers of equal opportunity here a century ago.
That every one of the citizens we serve has the opportunity to reach their God-given potential.
Below is the text of the speech made by Patrick McLoughlin, the Secretary of State for Transport, at the Rail Delivery Group annual conference on 2 February 2016.
Opening remarks
Thank you.
And good afternoon everyone.
It’s a pleasure to be here – and to have this opportunity to address an expert rail audience.
20 years ago this Thursday, the 05.10 early morning service pulled out of Twickenham station on its way to London Waterloo.
As far as train journeys go, it was unremarkable.
But it was in fact a landmark in the history of the British railway.
The first scheduled service run by a private operator in this country for almost half a century.
Looking back, not even the most fervant advocates of privatisation could have predicted its impact on the railway.
20 years in which passengers have doubled.
Investment’s increased.
Costs come down.
And in which standards have improved to such a degree that we now have the safest railway in Europe.
Something we never take for granted.
And something we always have to guard and watch.
Continued progress
But as you’ve heard this morning, things are going to change even faster over the next 20 years.
We’re only at the start of a unprecedented construction and modernisation programme, which will make Britain the leading rail investor in the western world.
Who would have thought that a few decades ago.
And it’s in this Parliament when we really get cracking with that programme.
Finishing Crossrail.
Starting HS2.
Completing Northern Hub.
Getting rid of old train like Pacers.
And introducing new ones – like Intercity Express on the Great Western and East Coast lines.
All evidence of how we’re investing to transform journeys for passengers.
But building a better railway is not just about investment.
It’s also about changing poor public perceptions.
Being more transparent.
And treating passengers as valued customers, like the very best service providers do.
The challenge is to create a culture that’s relentlessly focused on the customer.
It’s also about controlling costs more effectively.
Delivering more for less.
Like industries across the economy were forced to do in one of the longest and deepest recessions in our history.
And it’s about joined up thinking.
The railway coming together.
Speeding up and improving long term planning.
Setting clear objectives.
And being accountable for achieving them.
The industry is at a stage in its evolution where there are huge opportunities to do all these things.
But it needs better leadership and direction.
And the Rail Delivery Group is absolutely fundamental to that process.
The Shaw Report may provide some answers.
But we need to face up to the fact that there may still be challenges ahead.
And we need to be ready to meet them.
Learning lessons
Some of these issues came to a head last year.
For example when we had to pause the electrification of the Midland Main Line and Transpennine.
But then we worked together, with particular credit going to Sir Peter Hendy and his team, to get Network Rail’s infrastructure programme up and running again.
Delivery of that full programme on time and on budget is crucially important.
Not just for rail users.
But for the industry itself.
This is about making the railway more professional and answerable.
If challenges crop up, then the industry must confront and tackle them.
My first job as Secretary of State was to sort out the West Coast franchise mess.
The first step was to accept responsibility on behalf of the department.
The next was to take swift action.
And 3 years on, franchising is in a much better place.
In fact it’s at the heart of improving our railway.
So the key objective now for us all I hope is to learn lessons, and make the railway more resilient.
That’s why we’re looking at regulation and structure.
Network Rail has a capability plan, which reflects the changes made to the enhancement programme.
And which will take into account feedback from Colette Bowe’s review, and the ORR.
We’re currently consulting on that.
And in the light of the Bowe Review, it’s also a timely chance to consider the duties of the ORR again, to make sure they’re appropriate for regulating Network Rail – so improvements can be made reliably.
We’ll consult with the industry again on options for structural change after the Shaw Report is published.
And we’ll provide clarity on our plans as early as possible.
Supply chain and skills
Improving resilience takes many forms. But there are 2 I’d like to highlight today, which I believe are immensely important to Network Rail’s programme, and in which the Rail Delivery Group has a direct interest.
First, the supply chain.
Yesterday I attended the launch of the Rail Supply Group’s sector strategy, the first agreed plan for how the supply chain will grow as we modernise the railway.
I know the RDG has excellent links now with the Rail Supply Group and the wider supply chain.
And that relationship is going to get stronger as we progress.
Second, the skills challenge.
Training the workforce is the single biggest construction and engineering challenge of this age, with huge implications for the railway.
We need a new generation of rail engineers, designers and construction professionals.
And highly skilled people to operate the networks once they’re open.
That’s why last week we announced our transport skills strategy.
Led by Terry Morgan, chairman of Crossrail, the strategy sets out how we’ll provide 30,000 apprenticeships in roads and rail up to 2020, and I hope leave a legacy of skills for the next generation.
We’re also investing in new training centres like the National Training Academy for Rail and the National College for High Speed Rail as well.
And in 2018, to coincide with the finishing of Crossrail, we’re going to have a period of celebrating engineering, to excite a new generation of brilliant minds.
Franchises and ticketing
I’ve spoken mainly about the big rail issues today.
But we must also keep focused on the things that matter most to passengers in their daily journeys.
And one of the areas where’s there’s massive potential for improvement is ticketing.
Frankly, the process is still impossible to fathom out.
The railway is still light years behind other industries on this issue.
Though some good progress has been made.
For example on smart ticketing through the South East Flexible Ticketing programme.
What’s important is that we’ve now reached a point where future development can be led by the private sector.
Now we need to see more operators coming together.
Getting different IT systems to talk to each other.
Providing a seamless travel experience across boundaries.
That’s why we made smart ticketing an integral part of franchise competitions.
So we can expect to see some exciting proposals from bidders in the months and years ahead – starting with the competition for Southwestern and the West Midlands in the spring.
We cannot claim to have truly modernised our railway if we don’t also transform ticketing.
And I know that’s something the Rail Delivery Group is working on.
Conclusion
So to sum up.
Two decades since the railway entered a new era of enterprise and competition – yet also 2 decades in which rising demand has tested the capacity and resources of the industry like never before – we are now in a position to complete the job of modernising the railway.
For an industry that was in decline for so long, our objective is to make Britain’s railway the equal of any in the world.
It will take several Parliaments to achieve.
But it will be this Parliament.
And this period of opportunity.
When the future course of the railway is irreversibly set.
So now is the time to show the industry is changing.
Controlling costs.
Putting customers first.
Conquering problems every day.
Uniting as one industry, but serving the public in different areas.
In partnership with government. Inspired by the leadership of the Rail Delivery Group.
Below is the text of the speech made by Eric Pickles, the then Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, at the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre in London on 5 September 2013.
I want to start by thanking you for work most conscientiously done.
This is a unique group to be addressing – as senior officers and senior councillors many of you have direct experience of walking the streets of your city or town, not knowing if you would be there the next day. Or whether it would have gone up in flames. Whether just one careless incident would undermine years of painstaking work.
If you’ve experienced that I don’t think it ever leaves you.
As councillors you instinctively understand the importance of the clean up operation: sweeping up the glass and cleaning up the graffiti to minimise the impact.
But you also understand the effect such incidents have on individuals and the community.
These are attacks on our very way of life.
We are fighting something entirely un-British – something utterly alien – and for me there is a fundamental test. If a woman cannot pop down to the shops for a pint of milk or a bag of rice because she’s worried about getting lewd threats; because she’s afraid she might be jostled and jeered; because she’s scared she might be spat on – no matter how many committees we set up or programmes we run or reports we write, if there are people in our communities too frightened to venture beyond the doorstep, hesitating simply because they are wearing a headscarf, then we have failed.
Before the election I had great pleasure in going to Paris with Caroline Flint, Vince Cable and Rita Chakrabati to address a conference of European students.It was around the time the French were debating banning face veils in public. I said to the students that this was an absurd thing to do.
I can see circumstances in which covering the face might be unsuitable to the situation, but people going about their private business should be left to do so.
I have to say that many of these young people including the French were rather shocked by my view and wanted me to justify it.
I can be a little blunt sometimes and I simply said, look, we’re not far from the Champs-Elysees and it’s not so long ago that the Gestapo strode through the streets of Paris seeking out Jewish people.
How can the nation of liberty, equality and fraternity have forgotten where intolerance leads and be prepared to contemplate such a restrictive view?
Here in Britain tolerance, decency and respect for others are embedded deep within our psyche.
Our warmth and hospitality, our willingness to welcome other views and embrace other ways of life are what has made Britain a beacon of hope around the world.
Now a few voices from the fringes try and challenge those values:
– whether Islamist preachers of hate peddling a twisted and distorted version of a peaceful faith
– or whether malicious trouble makers on the far left – a rent-a-mob only interested in stirring up trouble
– or those on the far-right who try and claim that being a Muslim and being British are incompatible
Each in their own way attempting to corrode and destroy from within with lies, aggression and violence.
These purveyors of hatred are anti-British.
We try in various ways to counteract their efforts and I think the work of this group has been very helpful in trying out new ideas:
– going online to challenge the myths being spread on social media
– using the legal powers you’ve got to stop marches disrupting people’s lawful business
– and on a couple of occasions rightly sending the EDL a bill to clean up the mess they make
We also undermine them by encouraging communities to come together around solemn occasions such as Remembrance Sunday or what we’re about to do to commemorate next year, and honour those from around what was then the Empire who fought and died for our country.
Or to work together to tackle local social problems as in the near neighbours programme or Together in Service.
Because when people work collectively together the emphasis is on what we have in common – shared values and shared goals – not on difference or division. And we also undermine the extremists by encouraging our fellow Muslim citizens to engage in the wider community, ensuring that everyone has the English they need to play a full part in their community. And through initiatives like the Big Iftar where mosques threw open their doors.
After the horrific murder of Drummer Lee Rigby in Woolwich – a young man in the prime of life wearing a ‘Help for Heroes’ t-shirt – Muslim communities were united in revulsion and shouted the loudest of all of us to say not in my name.
In the wake of this senseless death there were a number of attacks on mosques, but still the community was resilient. Still they refused to be cowed or put in the corner – instead they said firmly: we will open our doors, we will welcome in our neighbours and we will work with our community to build a better nation.
We saw that in York where the Muslim community responded to EDL provocation as any Yorkshireman would do – with a cup of tea.
Showing compassion and courage and generosity – a very English gesture and an act of pure genius.
Meeting hatred and anger with friendship – completely defusing the situation.
What a gesture of sincerity, which did so much more good than the self indulgent and pompous posturing of groups like the UAF who are more interested in stirring up further trouble than in actually solving problems.
In Muswell Hill you will recall that their community centre had been burned down, but when I went to take part in the Big Iftar with the local Somali community, there they were inviting in their neighbours to show what Ramadan is all about and showing true British grit.
Not just integrated but an integral part of the community.
And I also saw it in Gillingham when after another grotesque attack on a mosque other community leaders including councillors all came out not only to condemn those actions entirely, but also to support the Muslim community.
I went to share in their Eid celebrations. It was a true privilege to see people of different faiths standing shoulder to shoulder together.
That is where we gain strength – by working together to solve common problems and including everyone so that the faces of our neighbours become familiar and their customs become understood.
It’s especially important for young people – so they grow up open-minded with a strong sense of personal accountability and social responsibility. This is why we are backing the work of Youth United – giving young people a positive place to belong and creating more places in our great British institutions whether the scouts, the sea cadets or the St John Ambulance.
The work we are doing together – the work that each of you do, every day, wherever you live will lead us on the path to a stronger society. But the alternative route – the route offered by the extremists – ultimately ends in the villages of Srebrenicia.
The old century was riven by discord – scarred and despoiled by the Holocaust – but we have a chance in this century. We can be determined to learn the lessons, to set aside hatred and ensure all people of goodwill work together.
That instead of those who preach hate, or those who shout slogans, we will listen to the voices of peace and hope.
Of a people comfortable with differences – accepting of others and united in Britishness.
Below is the text of the speech made by Matt Hancock, the then Minister of State for Skills and Enterprise, at the Novotel in Hammersmith, London on 5 September 2013.
Thank you very much for the invitation to speak to you today. I’m particularly keen to come here because I have a simple message: you matter. The job you are doing matters, and it’s vital you do it right. You are a vital part of our ambitious reforms across academic and vocational courses. You matter to me, to pupils, to the future of our nation no less – and I want to take a few minutes to explain why.
Half of 16 year olds enter the vocational education system but in the past the need for vocational education to be inclusive has removed the focus on the need for quality.
We need a vocational education system that is rigorously high quality, motivating people with any level of prior attainment to get the skills they need to reach their potential and prepare them for working life, so that it becomes the norm for school leavers to go to university or into an apprenticeship.
This drive for quality is an enormous challenge for the skills system.
While the top students in colleges are as well served as the top in academy sixth forms, the average is lower and the tail of poor performance much longer.
90% of young people who leave school without a C or higher in both English and maths have still not reached this level by the age of 19.
Businesses cannot find young people with the right skills. Just today James Dyson set out how he could employ more young people if they had the right skills. Our reforms will and must rise to that challenge.
We are doing this through a relentless focus on improving rigour and responsiveness to employers needs.
We need rigour to improve the quality of vocational education, which has been ignored for too long. The academic reforms that this government has implemented are essential to ensuring GCSE and A levels give young people the right skills and knowledge. We now need to bring that same resolve and ambition to vocational education, driving up quality and with it the esteem in which technical qualifications are held.
And we need providers to be responsive to employers needs, not to central command and control. We have given colleges the freedoms and flexibilities they need but this is not enough. Autonomy for providers must be matched with accountability.
So our vision is rigour and responsiveness, delivered by autonomy and accountability.
And that’s where you come in.
There are three ways to hold providers to account:
First, we are giving learners the information they need to make the right choices. By providing high quality and timely information to learners about schools, colleges and training providers, students can make an informed choice about which providers suit their needs and aspirations. We are focusing more on progression and value added – on where a course gets you – instead of completion rates so that providers put their time and energy into helping learners progress onto the next stage of their career.
Second, we are implementing new and tough minimum standards. These minimum standards will force providers to drive up the quality of their classroom provision, workplace provision and apprenticeships. Alongside these minimum standards, we are taking a much closer interest in the financial performance of colleges to ensure that learners are protected.
Third, we are using a tougher intervention regime across the sector. I am delighted to see Sir Michael Wilshaw and yourselves taking an ever-increasing interest in the quality of skills providers. Within skills there is some outstanding provision, as your inspections have already shown, but there is still too much provision that is falling short of what is required. So I am increasingly using Ofsted grading to determine access to funding. You cannot access funding for our new traineeships unless you are rated ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’ by Ofsted. I believe that this puts the right incentives in place for providers. The new Further Education (FE) Commissioner, who reports to Ministers, will challenge failing FE colleges and institutions over their capacity and capability to improve, and in cases where the college or institution cannot deliver, we will take tough action. Your role in providing evidence to support action, whether from inspections or monitoring visits, will be crucial.
So our three core accountability tools – high-quality information, minimum standards, and tougher inspections – rely on the ability accurately measure quality. This becomes even more critical as we begin to base our funding decisions on the judgements of Ofsted.
So it falls to you to deliver tough but fair judgement on vocational courses.
Tough in that you don’t let up on need for high quality and high expectations in vocational provision.
Fair, recognising that excellent vocational learning can be different in nature from academic.
We know that government itself must also deliver on its promises if we are to promote successful and aspirational vocational education.
We have removed poor value qualifications at 14 to 16, and are now removing them at 16 to 19. Our new qualifications, including Tech Levels, will be more rigorous, developed according to standards set by employers and have widespread recognition and transferability. The new Tech Bacc will be a central feature of our future accountability system.
Excellent vocational education and training must keep pace with, and actively develop, new learning technologies. We look to you to support the skills system to embrace these technologies, and to understand the value they bring to learning and the learner experience.
We are redesigning our apprenticeship system following Doug Richard’s review earlier this year. Our upcoming reforms to apprenticeships will lead to higher quality employer-led provision in the workplace, while Nigel Whitehead’s review will ensure adult vocational qualifications are fit for purpose.
Alongside our major reforms to apprenticeships, we have recently launched traineeships for those who cannot yet hold down a job, but are within six months of being able to. We expect traineeships to play a major role in tackling NEETs and supporting Raising the Participation Age (RPA).
I believe that these reforms together with the work of Ofsted can genuinely transform FE into a rigorous and responsive sector.
I would like to thank all of you for the dedication and commitment that you put into your work in FE and beyond. I know that the role of Her Majesty’s Inspectors (HMIs) is demanding and requires a special range of qualities, so thank you for the professionalism and commitment that you bring to this role and I look forward to seeing the impact of your work in the coming months and years.
Below is the text of the speech made by James Brokenshire, the then Minister for Security, on 5 September 2013.
Thank you for the opportunity to address this conference.
It’s a privilege to speak to the people at the front line in reducing extremism in our communities.
Clearly we are here today to discuss our response to the threat posed by far right extremism – and I think that we have assembled in this room some of the best, most experienced people in the field.
Before I begin, I would like to echo the sentiments of the previous speakers and utterly condemn the actions of the so-called defence leagues, their off-shoots and the offensive, anti-Muslim messages they promote.
They are divisive and run contrary to the values of respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs.
Those values are the essence of our democratic system, and any attack on them is an attack on the basis of our society.
The terrorist threat posed by the far right
However, as you might expect from the Security Minister, I will focus my comments today on the terrorist threat posed by the far right.
As you know, the most significant terrorist threat we face comes from Al Qa’ida, its affiliates and like-minded terrorists.
That’s the ideology most likely to inspire a terrorist attack in Britain today.
But we know from recent events that although the far-right threat may not be on the same scale as Al Qa’ida, their divisive and racist ideology can still have deadly consequences.
This summer we have been shocked and appalled by the murder of Mohammed Saleem and the attacks on Aisha Mosque in Walsall, Wolverhampton Central Mosque and Kanz Ul Iman Masjid in Tipton.
I met with Mr Saleem’s family and representatives of the mosques affected and was deeply moved by their resilience, unity and dignity in the face of terrorism.
I also met with officers from the West Midlands Counter Terrorism Unit and as you know, following their thorough investigation, an individual has now been charged with the attacks.
Alongside the investigation, West Midlands security advisors also visited over two hundred mosques and Islamic centres to provide reassurance and advice on how best ensure that mosques are safe places.
Building on this and existing work, they have developed national guidance on protective security measures for mosques and other places of worship.
This guidance has been sent to all forces so that the advice can be provided across the country.
Even more recently the police have been investigating a fire at a mosque in Harlow, which has now led to a man being questioned about the incident.
But, of course, this summer wasn’t the first time the far right has posed a threat in the UK – in 2010 Ian and Nicky Davison – co-founders of the Aryan Strike Force – were convicted for possessing the poison ricin and for making pipe bombs.
They claimed they had 350 members and their website had tens of thousands of postings, all of them messages of hate.
And this is not just an issue for Britain – in 2011, Anders Breivik conducted the callous murder of 77 people in Oslo and on the island of Utoya.
Most of his victims were children and teenagers.
In Breivik’s manifesto, which he published online before the attack, he identified Islam as the enemy and called for the deportation of all Muslims from Europe.
Al Qa’ida and the far right
Although the threat they pose is very different, Al Qa’ida inspired terrorism and domestic terrorism share a number of similarities.
In both cases there is no single pathway to radicalisation, but the vulnerable people that domestic extremists prey upon can share many of the same characteristics exploited by Al Qa’ida radicalisers.
They both look for the same sense of alienation; the same questions of identity; and the same feelings of anger and injustice.
And once they’ve found these psychological hooks, Al Qa’ida and domestic extremists use ideologies with similar features to justify their perverse violence.
Both groups simplistically divide the world into ‘them’ and ‘us’ – an evil group that is responsible for all of the world’s ills and a persecuted group that includes the person they are targeting for radicalisation.
They ignore complexity and nuance in favour of stereotypes and conspiracy thinking to allow individuals to blame others for their own failures and absolve themselves of responsibility.
They also operate in similar ways.
For example, both make increasing use of the internet to spread hate-filled propaganda which can have a brutalising and dehumanising effect.
We also know that domestic extremism and Al Qa’ida-inspired terrorism can have a “reciprocal radicalisation” effect.
Incidents instigated by one group can ratchet up tensions within the other, and so on back and forth.
Prevent and the Extremism Task Force
Let me be clear everyone has the right to go about their lives freely and without fear and we will not tolerate any form of terrorism and extremism.
That is why we updated our Prevent strategy in 2011 to emphasise that Prevent is about stopping people becoming or supporting all kinds of terrorism.
And that is why the Prime Minister has set up the Extremism Task Force earlier this year.
This group includes all of the cabinet members whose departments have a role to play in challenging extremism and terrorism.
The taskforce has met three times so far, and has re-examined the evidence and government policy in a number of areas.
One of the key conclusions has been that Prevent work must be led at the local level, but with strong enabling support from central government.
The central government response
At the centre we have important levers.
For example, the Home Secretary has the power to ban individuals from entering the country to stir up hatred and provoke violence.
This can be effective, such as when we prevented Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer – the co-founders of the anti-Muslim hate campaign “Stop The Islamization of America” – from speaking at an EDL rally in Woolwich in June.
This country also has one of the strongest legal frameworks in the world to protect communities from hostility, violence and bigotry.
We keep that framework under review to make sure that it remains effective in the face of new and emerging threats.
In March last year we published a cross-government action plan to tackle hate crime, bringing together the work of a wide range of departments and agencies.
The action plan will work to prevent hate crime happening in the first place; increase reporting and victims’ access to support; and improve the operational response to hate crimes.
I think it is important to underline that we need to explore every option to encourage the victims of hate crime to report these crimes to the police so that they can be investigated and the perpetrators brought to justice.
To counter the use of the internet by extremists we are funding the Counter Terrorism Internet Referral Unit, a specialist team in the police, who assess online content and seek to remove it when it breaches terrorism legislation and is linked to the UK.
To date over 6,500 items of terrorist material have been taken down.
The local response
But the real difference is being made by local action in local communities.
I know it is coming from the people in this room.
You know your communities.
You live and work in them, and for them, every day.
And it is clear that a huge amount of work is going on to tackle the threat from the far right.
Take Channel, for instance.
About 15% of all the referrals you have made to Channel have been due to concerns that someone may be vulnerable to radicalisation by the far right – that is hundreds of people being protected from being drawn into hate and extremism.
And concerns about the far right are becoming an ever larger part of Channel’s workload.
You are also making great progress in raising awareness of the signs of domestic extremism through the roll out of WRAP and similar products.
Through WRAP alone, you have trained over 44,000 local staff in schools, prisons, social services and the health service to recognise the signs of vulnerability and make referrals to Channel.
Of course Channel is only effective if there are supportive measures in place, and that means everything from mainstream health and social services interventions to mentoring by those specialising in challenging ideologies.
And it is having an impact.
I have also been very impressed by the breadth and variety of the domestic extremist-oriented projects that you are taking forward as part of our Local Delivery programme.
Through the local Prevent coordinators we are funding 18 projects focussed on preventing domestic extremism across England and Wales.
Together, these projects represent a substantial challenge to the extremists and whilst time prevents me from telling you about all of them, I do want to highlight a few of them that I think are doing particularly innovative work.
One project called “One Extreme to the Other” taking place in a number of areas across the country tackles the phenomenon of reciprocal radicalisation through a theatre performance in schools followed by a discussion session.
Thousands of children will have seen these performances and participated in discussions when the project is completed.
Another project seeks to “rewind” racism by deconstructing the very concept of race in schools and colleges that have experienced friction between Muslim and non-Muslim students.
The project aims to reduce extremist support, provide a more stable learning environment in schools and colleges and increase the resilience of our young people.
A third project focuses on frontline staff who have already received basic WRAP training, and provides a deeper understanding of far right extremism, its history, ideology and symbols.
Innovation like this is positive, welcome and necessary.
The Special Interest Group
Indeed, the Special Interest Group itself is an excellent innovation, enabling people to share lessons learned and to take forward joint activity.
Therefore, today is an important opportunity to take this innovation a step further and we should seize it with both hands.
We need to use all the tools available to us – from dialogue and engagement through to stronger powers such as licensing laws and even littering laws.
This might mean working with venues to share our guidance on how to avoid being used for extremist events, using local media to spread positive messages; or bringing prominent local people on board.
How we can make better use of social media and harness the power of the internet to counter those who use it to spread hate.
The key challenge for all of us is to be creative – the extremists take every opportunity to advance their agenda of hate and we need to be just as imaginative in our response.
Thank you again for giving me this opportunity to speak.
Below is the text of the speech made by Elizabeth Truss, the Secretary of State for the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, at The Institute for Government, Carlton Gardens, London on 1 February 2016.
Thank you very much. It is hard to believe that the Institute for Government (IfG) has been around for just eight years.
In that time, there is scarcely a corner of Whitehall it hasn’t shone a light into. It is a rare combination of a think tank, a classroom and a critical friend.
And I don’t think I would be standing here if I agreed with the blogger Guido Fawkes, who described the Institute as the “most serious threat to freedom in Britain since the Communist Party”.
It’s an exciting time for us to be talking about reform in government.
Why this matters
I’m someone who has always cared about this issue but I think that more of us should care. It matters far beyond the world of Whitehall-watching, because it is critical to our mission to build Britain’s economy and society in this turnaround decade.
I believe that the ‘why’ and the ‘what’ are inevitably linked to the ‘how’. If we want Britain to lead the world, our governance needs to lead the world too. It needs to enable talent and enterprise, to do less – and where it acts to be more productive and more open to ideas.
Global changes
As the introduction said, I worked at Shell and Cable & Wireless in the 1990s and 2000s and I saw the changes that technology bought, from the carefully drafted memo right through to the slapdash blackberry message. The arrival of the internet did not just mean automating what we already did. It meant companies making huge efficiency savings and the whole culture of organisations changing. Layers of management were stripped out and we had to be more nimble and responsive.
We face ever-fiercer global competition and shifting patterns of climate, trade and economic power. To meet these challenges, our productivity must match and exceed the level of the best-performing nations.
The government’s supply side reforms to taxes, welfare and education are all vital to closing the gap.
We are also getting out of the way and allowing enterprise to thrive – since 2010, five private sector jobs have been created for every job lost in the public sector.
And we must improve our own productivity and make sure that our actions drive competitiveness. This means breaking up monopolies, opening up competition for the supply of public goods and minimising the burdens of regulation.
Changing government
Making government work better is something we’ve been grappling with for generations. The Northcote-Trevelyan reforms of 1850s were about meritocracy and efficiency in Whitehall.
Government departments coordinated by the Cabinet Office were the product of the First World War and David Lloyd George, with the Hankey and Haldane reforms which he started.
The post-war growth of government led to massive delivery departments. The Fulton Committee in 1968 called for much greater separation of services and policy – the ‘how’ and the ‘why’ – and for openness to outside experts.
This led to the creation of Next Steps agencies starting in the 1980s. We saw real improvements as a result of this, but the creation of so many arm’s-length organisations also brought duplication, friction and extra costs.
Since 2010, we have been reshaping this landscape by sharing more expertise across government – like the Government Digital Service. In the case of Defra, we have seen the number of organisations reduced from more than 90 in 2010 to today’s 34.
I want Defra to be leading the way in the next phase of change and I believe the four key principles are about government being more integrated, more open, more modern and more local.
Integrated
The technology revolution means that people today expect responsiveness and seamlessness, they want services shaped around their needs not around organisational convenience. The days of traditional government departments saying “take it or leave it” are over.
Defra touches the lives of every individual and every business in the country. And our starting point has to be the people who deal with us and the landscapes we are trying to enhance, not our organogram.
We will structure our work around river catchments and landscapes that make up the environment. For the first time, we will have a plan and budget for each area rather than 34 organisations operating with different plans. We are going to be integrating these plans with the 25-year framework we are creating for the environment, which we are going to be launching this spring. When community groups, NGOs, farmers and businesses talk to us, they won’t be passed from pillar to post.
The important legal independence and regulatory role of Natural England and the Environment Agency will be maintained whilst more flexible operations will mean the same spending delivering results several times over. We will share the same IT, HR and communications, releasing resources for the front line.
A new Environment Analysis Unit will pull together data, stats and economics from across our organisation meaning that flood alleviation, flora and fauna, farming, water soil and air will be considered together; not as isolated issues.
The idea of integration goes beyond the Defra border. The same principle applies across government and into the business and voluntary world. We are turbocharging our food exports and inward investment by establishing the Great British Food Unit – where companies from Halen Mon Sea Salt to Weetabix have a platform for their products.
By bringing together UKTI, Defra and the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board, which is funded by farmers – we have created a UK and international network with 40 staff in London, 5 in China and other locations around Britain and the world.
Open
Free and open debate is one of our great advantages as a nation.
I’m not sure that government and policy wonks ever had a monopoly on good ideas – but we certainly don’t now and modern technology makes it easier than ever for us to access the most creative minds.
Matt Hancock is leading the changes to the civil service, like requiring all senior appointments to be advertised outside Whitehall.
This draws on previous experience as Lord Wilson, the former Cabinet Secretary, has said: “Nearly 30 per cent of Permanent Secretaries appointed between 1900 and 1919 had begun life in another profession. Their average age was under 40. It was not unknown for former MPs and Junior Ministers to become Permanent Secretaries.” Now there’s a threat!
The Extended Ministerial Office (EMO) is a much discussed idea, some might think it’s a goth punk movement, but it isn’t as I’m sure everyone in this room knows, it’s an innovation introduced by Francis Maude. I’m a huge fan of the EMO, because I think it complements the superb expertise we already have in Defra and helps us do more and reach more people.
We have Ellen Broad from the Open Data Institute driving forward reform with our Head of Data Alex Coley.
We’ve got Fiona Gately, who has worked for Duchy Originals and school food campaigns in Britain and America. She is promoting British food and drink with our Food Director, Sarah Church.
We’ve got the economist Adam Memon and government reform specialist Kanishka Narayan bringing new ideas to the department. And we’ve got other outside experts including Ian Hall, a financial services specialist.
I am pushing Defra to welcome good ideas wherever they come from, creating a flourishing greenhouse of creativity. This means consulting as widely as possible and “showing our workings” in public. For the environment framework for example, we are going to be launching the framework in spring, with the final results through at the end of this year, and we are using a platform called Dialogue to enable contributors to have their say.
Open to people
I think we have a huge resource to tap. The British people have an unparalleled love and pride for nature and landscapes. Millions join groups like the RSPB and the National Trust – and farmers and volunteers are working to improve the countryside, like the ones I met last month who have brought the harvest mouse back to Selborne in Hampshire.
But there are too many people in our country who are not aware of these natural wonders, how food is produced or benefiting from the experience of climbing Catbells in the Lake District or visiting the National Arboretum in Gloucestershire.
As well as opening our policy making for new ideas – I want to open our environment to new people.
This means National Parks, Kew, the Forestry Commission attracting more visitors, especially children from all backgrounds and parts of the country. It means making training, volunteering and apprenticeships in countryside management, farming and the environment more widely available.
These are huge public assets and we should ensure they are benefiting the public as a whole as widely as possible.
Modern
I’m pleased to say that Defra is at the forefront of the open data revolution. By June, we will be on target to release 8,000 datasets as I promised last summer.
I think it’s an immense achievement of our department that one third of all of the government’s open data will be Defra’s – we don’t have one third of the government budget, but we’ve got one third of all the data out there.
This is a major resource that entrepreneurs already use to design new tools, from websites for people to check their local river levels to software for the latest precision farming techniques.
Our data is driving exciting advances in mapping. Architects are using our Lidar data, a 3D map of the country built up with airborne laser readings, to build a model of London as they plan the next skyscraper. Game developers are using it to build new landscapes for Minecraft and archaeologists are discovering lost networks of Roman roads from Lancashire to Dorset.
As a department, we are increasing our capital investment by 12 percent over the course of this parliament. This means that as well as increasing our spending on flood defences, we can raise our investment in IT, science and facilities by 30%. This new technology will help us to assess risk more precisely and to automate more monitoring and inspection, enabling us to reduce our running costs by 15 percent.
That means we can do things like introduce a single helpline for farmers and streamline the way people apply for environmental permits and track animal movements. Our Single Farm Inspection Taskforce, which we promised in our manifesto, will cut tens of thousands of official visits – without sacrificing standards. This all reduces the time and money people will have to spend dealing with us so that by 2020 we will have swept away £470m worth of unnecessary costs for businesses.
Local
The world is more educated than it has ever been before. People have better information for making decisions at the touch of a screen. Government should move from making decisions on people’s behalf to ensuring they have the information, tools and structures to act.
At the most basic level this means individuals being given greater information, tools and capability to contribute to their local environment, for example, providing habitats for bees in their gardens. It also means communities having the wherewithal to make local decisions. In the “Slow the Flow” project in Pickering, the community are using the landscape to provide flood protection and environmental benefits.
I think it’s important to note though that empowering individuals and communities requires Defra staff on the ground to be able to take genuine decisions and resolve issues rather than passing them up the line. During the flooding in the North of England – Environment Agency staff were communicating directly with communities online and through broadcast at a level never seen before. I want to see more people in our organisation having that ownership and fulfilment and to be able to get things done locally.
The tools being designed by the Environment Analysis Unit and the Natural Capital Committee, under the leadership of Dieter Helm will give a consistent framework for people to take decisions nationally and locally. For example, natural capital accounting will help calculate where woodland planting would provide the greatest benefits for plants and animals, recreation and reduced flood risk alongside the economic gains for forestry and farming. We’ll be starting three pathfinder projects later this year—one on the coast, one in an urban setting and one in a large rural landscape.
The governance reforms through the 25 year plan for the environment will also make it easier for us to bring in talents and finances from other organisations. People could use Environmental Impact Bonds, for example, to raise money to plant trees based on the value they provide in the future.
Conclusion
In the 1980s, government took on and broke up entrenched monopolies in public utilities and the City of London, releasing the pent-up energy of the economy.
Today, we are doing the same for how we are governed. We are harnessing new ideas and technology with an open approach to policy and decision-making. We are devolving power and responsibility to the both people inside and outside government who can bring the best solutions.
Just as our economy was turned around in the 1980s, in this turnaround decade we are creating a state that is more responsive to people and place and the realities of a more integrated and open world.
Together we can create the smarter, leaner state that will deliver the results for Britain.
Below is the text of the speech made by Patrick McLoughlin, the Secretary of State for Transport, at The Manufacturing Technology Centre, Ansty Park, Coventry on 1 February 2016.
Introduction
Thank you.
It’s a real pleasure to be here today (1 February 2016) for the launch of the Rail Supply Group’s sector strategy.
This strategy comes at an important moment for the rail industry.
In the 20 years since privatisation, customer numbers have doubled.
Rail freight has grown by 75%.
And our rail supply chain has created the safest network in Europe.
It is a remarkable achievement.
More people are using our railways than ever before.
More even than in their pre-Beeching heydays.
We have begun a new era of the railway.
An era in which record passenger numbers are being matched by record government investment.
To maintain and enhance our existing network, we are spending £38 billion.
We are spending £15 billion building Crossrail.
We are building new stations and refurbishing old ones.
We are laying new tracks, electrifying more than 850 miles of the network and bringing thousands of new train carriages into service.
And on top of all that, we are on target to start building HS2 just next year.
For the supply chain, all this means a steady stream of work for decades to come.
It’s a huge challenge.
But a huge opportunity.
Now we need the supply chain to pull together and to plan for the future.
The RSG sector strategy
And that’s what this strategy is: a plan.
For the first time, the rail supply chain has an agreed plan for how it will grow in numbers, productivity and expertise.
A plan for how, by 2025, the industry will more than double exports, attract new talent, develop new technology, harness the energy, drive and innovation of the sector’s SMEs, and become a global leader in high speed rail.
It’s a plan with some great ideas, such as for a rail supplier excellence scheme, to recognise the best firms, services and products.
Ideas for working with the Small Business Commissioner, to find ways of speeding up payments to small businesses.
And ideas for creating a Rail Supply Chain Finance Forum, to improve banks’ understanding of the sector and reduce the cost of finance.
Skills shortage
But I am particularly pleased that the strategy faces up to our greatest challenge; the need for new skills, and new entrants to the industry.
As things stand today, parts of the rail industry will lose half their staff to retirement within the next 15 years.
And yet for the improvements to our existing network, we estimate we need 10,000 new engineers.
And we expect HS2 alone to create 25,000 jobs during construction and 3000 jobs in operation.
If we do nothing, the supply chain simply won’t be able to get the work done.
As the strategy explains, the skills shortage is already driving up costs and delaying projects, with the cost to government estimated at over £350 million pounds a year.
And without action, it will keep getting worse.
Shared response to skills shortage
So I am pleased that the Rail Supply Group will produce a rail skills plan, will co-ordinate a service so people can apply for jobs across the sector, and will support the sector in hiring more engineers, planners, technicians and project managers.
All this builds on the government’s own ‘Transport infrastructure skills strategy’, led by Terry Morgan, and published just last week.
Our skills strategy will help create 30,000 apprenticeships in the road and rail sector by 2020, through requiring contractors to either hire 1 apprentice for every £3 to £5 million spent on the contract, or to ensure that for every 200 people employed 5 apprenticeships will be created each year.
So there’s much shared purpose between the RSG sector strategy and the government’s skills strategy.
Women in rail
But both strategies also recognise that we need more women in the industry.
Women make up 47% of the national workforce, but less than 20% of the rail workforce.
In some roles women are hardly represented at all.
For example, women make up only 4% of engineers and train drivers.
It’s a challenge that both the government and the rail supply chain must address together.
We have already set a target to increase the number of women in the industry in line with the number of women at work in the wider economy.
And through ‘returnship’ programmes, we want to make it easier for women to return to work after time out.
So it’s very good news that the Rail Supply Group’s strategy has now committed to raising the profile of the industry and to attracting a more diverse workforce.
Conclusion
So, in conclusion.
I am delighted with the publication of this strategy.
It’s a clear sign that the rail supply chain is grasping the challenges ahead and that there is great unity of purpose between government and the industry.
We know where we are heading – to a future in which railways are even more in demand than they are now.
A future in which we will have electrified our main-lines, built Crossrail, and finished HS2, among much else.
And now, thanks to this plan, the rail supply industry also knows how it’s going to get us there.
It will be a great journey, and you can count on the government’s support.
Below is the text of the speech made by Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, to CBI Scotland in Glasgow, Scotland on 5 September 2013.
After the toughest global economic conditions in living memory, the UK economy is starting to turn a corner. And the signs of recovery are encouraging.
Growth has doubled in the last quarter. Across the UK, more people are in work than ever before. And at a time when unemployment is rising across the EU, private sector employment in Scotland has grown by 146,000 in the last three years.
Our focus on fiscal discipline is also helping to keep interest rates low for UK businesses and families. We’ve reduced the deficit by a third as a percentage of GDP over the last three years. And we’re borrowing £49 billion less this year than the previous government.
Of course, none of this is easy. There are still major economic challenges to be overcome. Many families are feeling the squeeze. Some businesses still struggle to get the credit they need. And, as a country, we are working hard to repair and rebuild our economy.
That means doing what we can to unwind the toxic legacy of the last government’s economic model. Broken from the start, it didn’t do enough to support balanced growth across the UK. It was lop-sided: over-reliant on one specific part of the financial services industry to drive an unsustainable boom that left us vulnerable when the crisis hit.
None of that can be fixed overnight. But bit by bit, we are clearing up the mess we inherited. Our critics said it couldn’t be done. That the two parties of the coalition wouldn’t be able to set politics aside and put our economy and nation first. But we are proving them wrong.
And so are you. Because ultimately it is your enterprise and your hard work, as UK and Scottish businesses, that is making the difference. And tonight I want to focus on our work together, government and business.
And the essential role that Scotland – as one of the UK’s biggest economic success stories – plays in realising our vision for a stronger economy and fairer society across the UK.
Because I believe that the best route we have to achieving a sustainable recovery lies in strengthening that partnership between us.
For me, it’s a partnership that strikes that old-fashioned liberal balance between a government that gets out of the way of businesses to enable and empower them to do what they do best: create jobs and drive growth.
And a government that steps in, when needed, to set the rules of the game essential to ensure a sustainable and competitive economy; backed up with access to finance, modern infrastructure and a skilled workforce.
That’s why we’re making the UK’s business environment one of the most competitive in the world: cutting corporation tax to one of the lowest rates in the G20; reducing the National Insurance bill for companies; protecting the flexibility of our jobs market and getting rid of unnecessary red tape.
And that combination of measures has helped make the UK the most attractive location for overseas investment in Europe, with over 10% of the UK’s 2012 FDI, foreign direct investment, projects coming to Scotland.
At every step of the way, in the coalition, we’re fighting hard to create jobs, boost growth and make a genuine difference to people’s lives across the UK.
That’s why we’ve committed to raise the personal allowance on income tax. So that basic rate tax payers will get to keep all of the first £10, 000 they earn. We’ve already taken over 2 million people out of paying income tax altogether. And by the time these changes are complete, they will be worth around £700 a year for over 20 million basic rate taxpayers.
We’ve also extended our Funding for Lending Scheme to provide more help to SMEs. And the latest figures show that under this scheme lending to businesses and homebuyers has increased. And ahead of the official launch of our new £1 billion UK Business Bank, we are already accepting proposals for the project’s first investment round.
We’re also protecting and boosting investments essential to our long-term growth. Setting out, for the first time, a long-term Infrastructure Strategy for 21st century Britain, with a major boost to capital spend here in Scotland.
This is supporting a £100 million roll-out of superfast broadband to communities across Scotland; a £50 million contribution to safeguard and improve the cross-border sleeper service for Scotland; and an investment in faster, more modern electric trains on the East Coast Main Line. That’s in addition to our committed investment in a national High Speed Rail Network.
HS2 is central to our 21st century ambition to build a stronger economy in the UK. We know that our competitors have been investing in better roads and railways for decades. But the last time we built a new main rail line north of London was more than 100 years ago.
Rail travel has doubled in the last 20 years. With important routes like the West Coast Main Line hit by serious capacity issues. HS2 will help us catch up and compete, more than doubling the number of seats between London and Birmingham and helping to slash journey times to Scotland. This is an economic growth story.
Completing HS2 will help us to tackle the north-south divide that’s scarred our country for too long. Giving 8 of our biggest cities, across the North and Midlands, the modern rail links they deserve, as well as generating over £60 billion of benefits for the UK.
The Core Cities Group estimates this investment will create around 400,000 new jobs, 70% of which will be based outside of London. And in Scotland, we calculate it will boost the economy by around £3 billion.
And here I just want to respond to those who have criticised this project in recent weeks. That includes the ex-ministers who green-lighted this idea in the first place.
It’s a pattern, we see happening time and time again in this country. When a deal has been signed, the temptation to undermine it from the comfort of opposition can be too much for some politicians to resist. This clouds the debate and chips away at the consensus.
But the alternatives they suggest – such as upgrading existing lines – aren’t viable answers. For example, the extra capacity created through the £9 billion upgrade of the West Coast Mainline has already been filled.
We’ve tested our business case rigorously. And we’re clear on what needs to be done to deliver this project on time and to budget. That is how Britain builds the infrastructure it needs. And that’s how we compete, as a 21st century economy, with a modern transport system that works to make us stronger.
In energy, our £3.8 billion UK Green Investment Bank, headquartered here in Scotland, is helping to boost private sector investment in green energy projects.
And I’m pleased to say that we can raise a glass to the bank’s first project here in Scotland: with over half a million pounds committed to a new bio mass boiler at Tomatin Distillery, near Inverness.
But that’s just the start. And with our strengthened support for renewables through the single British energy market, we are helping to create thousands of new jobs in Scotland.
And here in Glasgow, at Strathclyde University, we’re funding 2 new catapult centres to drive research, innovation and business development in our Offshore Renewables and High-Value Manufacturing sectors.
These are investments that will help rebuild the UK’s economy because the UK succeeds when Scotland succeeds. And a stronger UK economy ensures a stronger Scotland.
And it’s precisely because of that shared prosperity that I don’t want to see a barrier thrown up between Scotland and the rest of the UK.
Right now, membership of the UK’s Single Market gives UK businesses unrestricted access to over 60 million consumers. As set out in our business and microeconomic analysis paper, in 2011, that was worth around £45.5 billion in trade for Scotland (excluding oil and gas), that’s double the amount Scottish businesses sell to the rest of the world. And the demand for Scottish goods and services from England, Wales and Northern Ireland contributes almost 30% of Scottish GDP. In turn the rest of the UK exports almost £50 billion worth of goods and services to Scotland.
Now I’m not saying that all of this trade will be lost, if Scotland votes Yes in 2014. I’m not here to create an artificial argument. But our latest research shows that the long-term effect of a new border between our two countries – with all of the new rules, regulations and systems it will require – will reduce Scotland’s GDP by 4%, equivalent to £5 billion in 2012, over the next 30 years.
The UK’s strong monetary and fiscal framework also provides investors and businesses in Scotland with the confidence, certainty and support they need to grow. This includes strong national institutions like the Bank of England. And as a strong part of the UK, Scotland also makes its global voice heard with a seat at the table at the G8, the G20, NATO and UN Security Council.
This also means that Scotland through the UK’s membership can play a powerful part within the wider union of EU, shaping legislation, negotiating budgets and driving the future of EU single market.
This time next year, the people of Scotland will be gearing up for one of the most important collective decisions you will ever take together.
Those, who say Scotland could not be an independent state are wrong. Scotland could be an independent state, but my view is that Scotland’s future is best served in the UK, as part of our family of nations. And just because you can do something does not mean you should do something.
In the 21st century when countries around the world, within the European Union, in Latin America, South East Asia and beyond are reaching out to cooperate, I believe that it would serve no-one well if the nations of the UK family were to loosen the ties that bind us together.
But separating our family of nations – through the creation of a new international border – would inevitably, mean a drifting apart. So that the strength that we draw from 300 years of economic integration; the solidarity of our common values that built the welfare state and the NHS; and the security we share from standing together past and present – all of that will be lost.
I will campaign proudly for Scotland to remain in the UK. Not out of some nostalgia-driven attachment to the past. But out of a clear-sighted look to our future.
Just two days ago the Chancellor was in Aberdeen to publish the latest in our series of Scotland Analysis papers, which set out objective expert analysis on the realities of Scotland becoming an independent state. Everything points the same way: our nations are better together than we are apart.
We have a great deal of confidence in our argument and that the facts speak for themselves. Already the answers put forward so far by the nationalists about what an independent future for Scotland might look like keep changing. In particular, what the economic realities of separation will mean for your business.
You drive the Scottish economy. You create the jobs and the wealth that makes Scotland a great place to live and work. And I urge businesses across Scotland to remain a voice of reason in this debate, relentless in securing honest answers about the choice Scotland has to make.
But if Scotland votes No next year, this won’t be the end of the story. A vote against leaving the UK family is a positive vote to remain within it – and to be part of Scotland’s evolving position within it.
We can’t let this debate be set up as a false choice between separation, on the one hand, and a status quo set in tablets of stone, on the other. Because the more pragmatic reality is – and which business accepts – is that nations must adapt and evolve.
Gladstone, Grimond, Steel, Kennedy and Campbell – these are just some of the giants of my party who, down the years, have set the Scottish debate alight. And made a genuine, lasting difference.
And within the coalition government, we have a strong track record on this. Through last year’s Scotland Act 2012, we took substantial steps to improve Scotland’s devolution settlement.
And I want to thank Michael Moore and his team, for their work with business to ensure this new settlement will be one that serves the interests of Scottish business and Scotland’s communities.
The Act amounts to the biggest transfer of financial powers – including major tax and borrowing powers – from London to Edinburgh in 300 years. That work has been a priority for me in government, because, as a Liberal, I will always argue that our country is at its strongest and has its best shot at success when we share the power within it more fairly between our government and our people.
And the Campbell Home Rule Commission defined a truly modern settlement for a modern Scotland to be achieved through a major transfer of financial and constitutional power from Westminster to Holyrood: with Holyrood raising the majority of the money it spends. So Scotland can determine its own destiny on the domestic agenda.
Fiscal responsibility is critical to a modern, mature parliament; one that has to balance the budget not just spend the money. This also means much more autonomy and power for local councils and communities across Scotland, and across the UK.
This is a proposition that the Scottish government seems reluctant to accept. For example, it says it will consider powers for the Isles of Scotland to become independent in the future – yet they seem to be centralising power more and more.
My proposition protects the United Kingdom single market, one of the most important things for business. A single currency; a single regulatory system; a single, open, free market.
With Home Rule we truly get the best of both worlds. Local power and authority right alongside global clout, social equity and economic strength.
Many others are joining the debate. I welcome this. It is in the best Scottish political tradition to have a broad, inclusive conversation about the best form of government for Scotland. It worked to deliver devolution and it can work to improve devolution. And I urge you to join it too.
I believe that the structures of government, and the policies of government, should serve all of the people – that they should serve the people of Scotland.
A thriving business sector creates opportunity and diversity as well, of course, as the revenue on which our public services depend. So the future of devolution in Scotland must evolve in a way that enables your success too.
This train is leaving the station – debate is under way. So now is the time for you to express your views, to shape that debate, to influence and shape a modern and successful Scotland within a strong United Kingdom.
In conclusion, the responsibility that rests on the shoulders of the people who live in Scotland today is considerable. One year from now, you will decide whether Scotland remains part of the UK or not.
You won’t just be making that decision for now, for yourselves. But for ever – that’s because there is no turning back. The future of the 300 year union is your call on 18 September next year.
What I believe, and what the evidence shows is that, the best future for Scotland is to be part of a strong United Kingdom.
That is how we build a stronger economy and secure a fairer society in a UK where every corner of our country prospers, and where every individual – English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish – can succeed.
