UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Speeches

  • Robert Goodwill – 2015 Speech at British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association

    robertgoodwill

    Below is the text of the speech made by Robert Goodwill, a Minister of State at the Department of Transport, to the British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association in the Strangers Dining Room of the Houses of Parliament on 16 December 2015.

    Thank you for inviting me to say a few words this afternoon.

    It’s good to be here.

    I am very grateful to the BVRLA for organising the discussions which have culminated in this evening’s reception.

    There really is no substitute for getting the experts around a table and thrashing out some good ideas.

    And I must say that I am impressed that such a broad range of organisations including BT, Barclays, Diageo, John Lewis, KPMG, and Royal Mail have reached agreement on so many fundamental issues.

    Of course, my job is to look at all the different ideas and attempt to plot the best possible course.

    That means it’s rarely possible to please everyone.

    But such a clear set of recommendations certainly helps.

    Autonomous emergency braking

    First, I was interested to see your strong support for autonomous emergency braking.

    I agree that this technology has great potential for increasing road safety.

    The good news is that progress is already happening.

    The European Union has made autonomous emergency braking mandatory for heavy vehicles such as lorries.

    And I have been encouraged by what has happened in the US where, in September, 10 of the top car manufacturers voluntarily agreed to install the braking technology in all future car models sold in America.

    It’s a classic example of technology moving quicker than the need for regulation.

    The market, helped along by demands from buyers, and perhaps some gentle encouragement from government, is getting us to near-universal adoption of autonomous emergency braking technology far quicker than we could draft, propose, debate and pass new laws.

    I am also grateful for your recommendation that the government adopts a requirement that its own vehicles should have a 5-star rating from the European New Car Assessment Programme.

    We are currently looking at this very question – of how to best include NCAP ratings into the official government buying standards and your recommendation is a very welcome contribution to that process.

    Intelligent mobility

    Turning to your recommendations about intelligent mobility, I agree that a common set of standards would be a huge help in the development of this new technology.

    Not just for the industry and for consumers.

    But also to give Britain the best chance of leading the field in new designs.

    So we have asked the Centre for Connected and Autonomous Vehicles – funded by the government to work with the British Standards Institute, the Intellectual Property Office and the Government Office for Science.

    To map the existing standards landscape and identify what more should be done.

    Air quality

    Finally, I am really glad you picked up on the issue of air quality.

    Poor air quality results in thousands of early deaths each year across the UK, and the main source of air pollution is road transport.

    So there can hardly be a more important issue for the government or for industry.

    I am pleased you have called for the continuation of the plug-in vehicle grants.

    They have been a real success in moving the industry forwards.

    But we need to do more, so we will shortly be publishing a new National Air Quality Plan.

    It will show how the UK will meet European air quality standards in as short a time as possible.

    Many of the points you have made will need to be taken account of in that plan.

    Conclusion

    But in the meantime, I agree that the government has an opportunity to lead the way in many of its purchasing decisions.

    As you recognise in your recommendations, governments can make a difference not just through passing new laws or imposing new taxes, but by setting an example and raising awareness – whether of air quality or new car technology.

    And as we look at how far the vehicle manufacturing industry has come in the last few decades, we must also recognise that pioneering fleet managers in the private sector have been great agents of change.

    That you have got together with the BVRLA and made these recommendations shows that the spirit of enterprise and innovation is still strong.

    So we will continue to reflect on your recommendations.

    In some cases, we are already taking action, and I will be pleased to circulate your recommendations among my colleagues in government.

    Thank you.

  • Sam Gyimah – 2015 Speech on Support for Families

    samgyimah

    Below is the text of the speech made by Sam Gyimah, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Childcare and Education, at 61, Whitehall, London, on 4 December 2015.

    Good morning, it’s a pleasure to be here today at the Family and Childcare Trust, whose aim is to make the UK a better place for families, campaigning for affordable and accessible, high-quality childcare.

    As Childcare Minister, I am pleased to say that government shares these objectives. Support for families is at the heart of our agenda. We want to give children from all backgrounds the best start in life and deliver high-quality childcare that parents can access and afford, and that works best for them.

    And last week’s Spending Review showed how committed we are to supporting parents and families. Over the course of this Parliament we will invest more in childcare than any government before. By 2019 to 2020 we will be spending over £6 billion to support parents with childcare, £1 billion more per year, covering the free entitlements for 2-, 3- and 4-year-olds, Tax-Free Childcare, and the childcare element of the Universal Credit, which will provide support of up to 85% of childcare costs.

    The average market price paid for 25 hours of nursery provision for children aged 2 and over has risen by 69% in the last 10 years. It’s no surprise that working families struggle to find high-quality, affordable childcare. That’s why we are putting parents at the heart of our childcare offer and why we pledged to increase the free entitlement for 3- and 4-year-olds from 15 hours to 30 hours for working parents.

    What does this mean in practice? Working parents will continue to get 15 hours a week of free childcare. In addition to this, from September 2017, working parents of 3- and 4-year-olds will be able to get 30 hours a week of free childcare, worth up to £5,000 per child a year.

    Early implementation pilots will mean this will happen earlier – in 2016 – in some parts of the country. This will be an important opportunity to test what works and what doesn’t in delivering the extended entitlement before we roll out the additional 15 hours nationally.

    The reforms mean that along with the introduction of Tax-Free Childcare, which will provide support worth up to £2,000 per child per year, working families with 2 children could have claimed support with childcare costs worth up to £40,000 by the time both children go to school.

    We’re making this investment because of the benefits for children – with development and school readiness – but also to give families greater choice to work or work without being put off by childcare costs.

    30 hours eligibility

    There is a lot of speculation over eligibility. Every 3- and 4-year-old child will still get 15 hours free – the existing universal entitlement for 3- and 4-year-olds – which has very high take-up of 96%.

    Studies like the ‘Effective pre-school, primary and secondary education’ (EPPSE) study – carried out by academics at the Institute of Education, University of Oxford, and Birkbeck, University of London, has shown how successful the 15 hours is for educational attainment and that’s why it’s so important.

    Parents will be able to access the additional 15 hours if they each work at least the equivalent of 16 hours per week at the national minimum wage or living wage, including those who are self-employed, and the same threshold will apply in the case of lone-parent households. On current minimum wage levels, anyone earning more than around £107 a week will be eligible.

    We are setting an income cap set at £100,000, whereby parents earning more than that won’t be able to access the additional entitlement, although we’re not talking about a combined income here, but rather if one parent’s salary exceeds £100,000. This cap puts the extended entitlement in line with the tax system and means support is targeted at those who need it most.

    We also recognise that families have different circumstances which need to be taken into account.

    Parents working on zero-hours contracts will be eligible so long as they meet the criteria I just mentioned. Where one parent is employed, but the other has substantial caring responsibilities or one parent is disabled, the family will be eligible. Where both parents are employed, but one or both parents are temporarily away from the workplace, for example on maternity or adoption leave, the additional free hours will still be available, which will support continuity for families.

    Quality

    Quality is at the heart of what we are offering parents through the entitlements. Because we know it is quality of provision that delivers the best outcomes for young people, helping to prepare them for school and with their development more broadly.

    At August 2015, 85% of providers on the early years register were rated good or outstanding for overall effectiveness. Ratings for providers in the most deprived areas have improved from 59% good or outstanding in 2010 to 79% good or outstanding in 2015. Congratulations to all the providers in the sector for delivering this high-quality provision.

    We have confirmed that we will not adjust statutory staff-to-child ratios to deliver our pledge to offer more free childcare; and I will reiterate today that ratios won’t change. As the costs of childcare review we carried out shows, there are large benefits to operating at the statutory ratio of 1:8 and high-quality provision is delivered by providers who make the most of the flexibility offered by the current regulatory requirements.

    And we’re making sure we have the best-quality staff.

    The qualification level of the early years workforce has been rising – in group daycare settings 87% of the workforce have a relevant level 3 qualification and many members of the workforce have qualifications beyond this. We know this is important because leading international educational experts have found that staff qualifications are “one of the strongest predictors of the quality of early childhood education and care”.

    We have provided specialist training for some of our highest-quality graduates through early years initial teacher training; we have set clear qualification requirements for staff working in childcare settings so that they have a solid grounding in supporting children’s learning; and we have provided funding to help deliver on-the-job training and development for childcare staff.

    But I want to do more to make sure young people consider the early years as a career of choice and a sector in which they can pursue a long-term career full of potential. And I want those already working in the sector to have the opportunity to enhance their skills and to pursue qualifications that enable them to progress.

    I want us to do all we can to improve career progression routes. So through a workforce strategy I will explore how we can develop a career structure for all staff, as well as put in place a clear career path for apprentices in the sector.

    This is a key priority for me going forward.

    Funding places

    As well as being high-quality, we want to ensure that a free place for parents is exactly that, a free place.

    Through the investment we announced at the Spending Review we are setting a level of funding that will enable childcare providers to deliver high-quality care for children and parents, while at the same time providing value for money to the taxpayer. The overall increase in funding for childcare includes £300 million a year from 2017 to 2018 to increase the national average hourly funding rate paid to providers for the free entitlements. The new average hourly rate is £4.88 for 3- and 4-year-olds and £5.39 for 2-year-olds, and the equivalent rate per carer for 3- and 4-year-olds is £39. We based this funding on a comprehensive review of childcare costs, including careful assessment of 2,000 replies we had to the funding review, with input from all the leading sector organisations.

    We were the only party at the general election to commit to raise the average funding rate paid to providers and we have now delivered that.

    And we will make sure as much money as possible gets to the front line. I understand the way the local authority top slice works and how that leads to variation in rates across local areas, and that funding differs depending on types of provider. As the Chancellor announced at the Spending Review, we are committed to ensuring that funding is allocated in the fairest way and we will consult on an early years national funding formula next year. This will also consider funding for disadvantaged children and special educational needs.

    We are reducing bureaucracy – by simplifying and limiting the conditions that LAs can place on providers. And we are also looking at what else we can do to increase consistency across the country. We will consider whether we can support local authorities in drawing up agreements with providers and whether when providers form a statutory relationship with one local authority, they could then use this when setting up provision in other authorities.

    Availability

    We know that parents like a mix of provision, combining school nurseries – because they support school readiness – with childminding, day nurseries and other provision. We understand this and want to make sure enough places are created in the sector to support these choices.

    So as part of our spending commitments we are also supporting the sector with capital spending, and will allocate at least £50 million to support the creation of early years places. In addition, we will create at least 4,000 places through nursery provision as part of new free schools. And we will also consider why some providers on the early years register do not offer the free entitlement to see if we can make changes to encourage them to do so.

    All of this means that more childcare places will be created, giving parents better access to the childcare they need. And I want to make sure this works for all parents.

    We are opening up new sources of funding in disadvantaged areas through social investment. In March we launched the Childcare Investment Readiness Fund and we will announce the winning applicants shortly.

    This will help to generate a new culture of social investment in the early years market, supporting providers to grow. Groups such as LEYF in London have already effectively leveraged social investment and we want these success stories to be more widespread.

    I am clear that the free entitlement should be accessible by all eligible children, including special educational needs and disability (SEND) children. That’s why as part of early implementation of the 30-hours entitlement next September, we will be encouraging innovative approaches to providing high-quality, affordable and flexible childcare for working parents whose children are disabled or have special educational needs.

    We want to hear more about existing good practice, such as the Solent Teaching Alliance, which is delivering support for private, voluntary and independent nurseries – PVIs – with a focus on children with SEND, and Tor View School, a specialist learning community in East Lancashire helping PVIs in disadvantaged areas improve their support for children with SEND.

    We want to support parents with quality and availability of flexible places and help them to make informed choices. That’s why we have worked with childcare.co.uk to develop a digital app which allows parents to search for 2-, 3- and 4-year-old free childcare based on where and when they need it.

    Through the Childcare Bill we have introduced a requirement on local authorities to publish information and advice for parents on childcare in their area which will further support them with the information they need – from hours offered to cost and suitability for disabled children.

    Flexibility

    We know from the Facebook consultation we did over the summer – with nearly 20,000 members of the public – why flexibility and choice are so important to working parents. And, as a working parent myself, I know how important it is to find childcare that you are happy for your child to attend and which accommodates all your needs – from the parent who needs one child picking up from school at 3pm and the other from nursery so needs to combine childminding with traditional PVI provision to make drop-off and pick-up work. To the shift worker who works non-traditional hours.

    We want to support parents to make the choices that suit them in a high-quality way and this is what we will be looking at during early implementation.

    We have already taken steps to build flexibility within the existing 15-hour entitlement. For example, by encouraging local authorities to fund providers to allow parents to access early education hours between 7am and 7pm so that children can be dropped off earlier in the day or collected later. We will continue to encourage this flexibility because we want childcare to fit with parents’ working hours.

    We know that that this kind of flexibility is possible because we already see it in places such as Swindon, where at the Swindon 2 to 19 Academy the free offer for disadvantaged 2-year-olds is being offered over the weekend to support parents’ working patterns. In this case delivery works through a partnership between the school and a private provider, and I want to see more of these types of partnership.

    Supporting the type of childcare that parents need applies to all age groups, not just those under 5. That’s why we’re making sure that from September 2016 parents in schools will have a right to request wraparound childcare – before and after school, and during the school holidays.

    Simplicity

    A key message from parents during consultation was that a simpler system would help them – I’m sure that’s the message from providers too.

    With a range of childcare support from government it therefore makes sense that 30 hours matches up with Tax-Free childcare and that as well as the same terms of eligibility, because many parents will be eligible to use both the extended entitlement and Tax-Free Childcare, a joint application is being developed by HMRC which will mean that parents will be able to apply for both schemes through a joint online application.

    The Childcare Implementation Taskforce which joins up work on childcare across government will continue to work towards delivering a childcare system which is simpler for parents and providers alike.

    Conclusion

    Over the course of this Parliament we will invest more in childcare than any government before. We have made a strategic choice to invest in the sector at a time of austerity because we are on the side of working parents.

    We will build on existing successes – such as the 96% take up of the existing 3- and 4-year-old offer – to continue developing a childcare system which delivers for families. The decisions taken at the Spending Review and the Childcare Bill currently going through Parliament demonstrate our clear commitment to getting on and doing this.

    We will support children to have the best start in life, support families to work and, as a result, allow our country to prosper. But I know more than anyone that this requires an understanding of the childcare sector and working closely with providers, and I look forward to continued engagement with you as we do so.

  • Baroness Anelay – 2015 Speech in Geneva

    baronessanelay

    Below is the text of the speech made by Baroness Anelay, the Minister of State at the Foreign & Commonwealth Office and the Prime Minister’s Special Representative on Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict, in Geneva on 10 December 2015.

    Thank you, Mr Chair.

    I would like to begin by paying tribute to the courage and dedication of all those in the Red Cross and Red Crescent movement.

    The British Government is extremely grateful for the extraordinary contribution they make – under the most difficult of circumstances – in alleviating the suffering of the most vulnerable, particularly in armed conflict.

    Their vital work complements that of states, as we work to build and maintain peace around the world.

    We in the United Kingdom are clear that International Humanitarian Law remains the most effective framework for regulating armed conflicts.

    That is even more the case as the nature of war changes, as we see new tactics emerge, and new groups take part.

    Tragically, the laws of war are being increasingly ignored – by state and non-state groups alike. Therefore, the need for an effective system to minimise the damage of war is greater today than it has ever been.

    Mr Chair, my message today is that we already have that effective system. What we need is – not new laws – but better implementation of, and better compliance with, the existing framework.

    If everyone complied, International Humanitarian Law would prevent harm to civilians, just as it was designed to do.

    That is the immediate challenge.

    However, it is also remarkable that unlike other bodies of law, there are no dedicated fora where states can discuss International Humanitarian Law. Where they can meet and take stock of its developments and challenges.

    While the Human Rights Council has a wealth of expertise to discuss matters of Human Rights Law, it sometimes lacks expertise on International Humanitarian Law. This has led to confusion and conflation of the two – undermining their integrity and implementation.

    That is why the United Kingdom has actively participated in the four-year consultation process to establish a new meeting of states, dedicated to International Humanitarian Law.

    The UK strongly believes that this new forum should become the primary focus for all future discussions of International Humanitarian Law amongst States. This is essential to ensure these two important areas of international law remain valid and relevant.

    Conclusion

    To conclude, we remain convinced that International Humanitarian Law [IHL] remains the most effective way to protect innocent civilians from the devastating impact of armed conflict.

    Whilst during the course of the negotiations at this Conference over resolution 2 on IHL compliance there were divergent views about how best to address the problem of non-compliance with International Humanitarian Law, we were reassured that every delegation agreed that compliance with International Humanitarian Law is a matter of the utmost importance.

    We hope that, despite the divergent views expressed during this Conference, States can continue discussions on this important matter to ensure a new meeting of states can be established along acceptable lines. The UK remains fully committed to International Humanitarian Law, to ensure it is enforced and its principles are protected.

  • Michael Fallon – 2015 Speech on Stronger Defence

    michaelfallon

    Below is the text of the speech made by Michael Fallon, the Secretary of State for Defence, at the Atlantic Council in Washington on 11 December 2015.

    I’m delighted to be back in the United States, a place where I always feel at home.

    That familiarity reminds me of something President Reagan once said:

    “Great Britain and the United States are kindred nations of like minded people and must face their tests together.

    “We are bound by common language and linked in history. We share laws and literature, blood, and moral fiber. The responsibility for freedom is ours to share.”

    Values under threat

    Our freedom was threatened by Nazi evil, and our nations united to defeat it, seventy years ago.

    Today it’s threatened by a new evil, Islamist fascism.

    This year we’ve seen its followers slaying innocent American people in a San Bernadino day care centre, French people socialising in Paris, and British tourists on a Tunisian beach.

    To defeat this evil we require unity of purpose and a total cross government response.

    That doesn’t just mean shutting down their online presence, stopping their financial support, preventing fighters crossing borders, and building up capacity of fragile states.

    It means calling out their extremist narrative.

    Those susceptible to radicalisation must understand that the way of ISIL/Daesh is a metaphorical and literal dead end.

    The only item on its agenda is the destruction of our nations and establishment of its own barbaric realm.

    Yet no one becomes a terrorist from a standing start.

    There’s a process of radicalisation.

    So we need to expose that Islamist ideology for the perversion it is.

    And we can’t deny this process has anything to do with Islam.

    These extremists are self-identifying as Muslims.

    As President Obama said in his Oval office address:

    “This is a real problem that Muslims must confront, without excuse”.

    But we mustn’t hand a propaganda coup to ISIL/Daesh.

    Their mouthpieces and apologists paint their war as a clash between Islam and the west…in order to sow division.

    Yet the facts are:

    …ISIL/Daesh kills more Muslims than any other group

    …and our anti-ISIL/Daesh coalition is made of many Muslim countries

    …who recognise

    …that what’s at stake

    …is a conflict between those who love life

    …and those who love death and chaos.

    Our challenge is to support reforming voices within the Muslim community, preventing the fusing of religion and politics and stopping the slide into extremism.

    At the same time, taking pride in what our 2 nations offer all our people whatever their colour, class or creed: not discrimination or sectarianism, but freedom of religion, tolerance and opportunity for all.

    Again quoting President Reagan…speaking here at the Atlantic Council: “Our consensus is built not only on what we’re against but on what we’re for. And we are against totalitarianism. We’re for freedom and democracy, for them without hesitation or apology.”

    We won’t discredit their poisonous ideology, if we are not true to those values.

    Use of force

    The use of force must be part of this total government response.

    There can be no compromise, no deal with Islamo-fascists.

    Those who murder innocents at a Christmas party with their co-workers, who behead aid workers and push gay people off buildings must be stopped.

    That was the message from UN Security Resolution 2249 which called on states to take “all necessary measures” to expunge the extremists.

    The US and the UK have always stood side-by-side against terror.

    Against Hitler; against Al-Qaeda; and as part of the anti-ISIL/Daesh coalition.

    From the very start the UK’s been flying missions in Iraq.

    We’re providing some 60 per cent of the Coalition’s tactical reconnaissance.

    And last month the UK Parliament voted decisively to answer our allies’ call and lift the shadow of the 2013 Syria vote.

    We are stepping up

    …alongside our US, French and Coalition allies

    …bringing the full force of the RAF to bear

    …destroying their infrastructure

    …cutting off their oil supplies

    …and locking onto their leaders.

    Multiple dangers

    But our recent National Security Strategy makes clear ISIL is not the only danger we face.

    We’re threatened by multiple, concurrent risks.

    …a resurgence of state based threats

    …an expansionist Russia

    …and a growing cyber threat.

    Collectively they challenge the rules-based international order on which our security and prosperity depend.

    We are a powerful partner today with capabilities and reach few, if any, US allies can provide.

    Tomorrow, we’re going to be an even more powerful partner.

    1. Bigger stronger, defence

    First, we’re investing in stronger defence in a more dangerous world.

    This government was elected to deliver national as well as economic security.

    That’s what we’re doing.

    We’re increasing defence spending.

    We’re the only major country choosing to spend 2 per cent of GDP on defence and meeting the OECD’s goal of at least 0.7 per cent on development.

    This helps us stabilise and support broken and fragile states and prevent crises turning into chaos.

    Over the next decade we plan to spend more than $265 billion on new equipment.

    That money underpins the centrepiece of our Strategic Defence and Security Review, Joint Force 2025.

    To respond to increasing demands in future we’ll have

    …a potent expeditionary force of up to 50,000

    …made up of an Army Division, Maritime Task Group and Air Group.

    Some retired generals were concerned about the size of the British Army.

    Let me reassure them, Britain will remain one of the few countries able to deploy such a highly capable division in the field.

    And now we’ll be able to deploy…two self-sustaining strike brigades.

    At sea, we’ll have a maritime taskforce of new frigates and destroyers alongside, in the 2020s, the world’s second most capable carrier force.

    And in the air, we’ll have more F35s more quickly

    …delivering our carrier strike capability

    …and nine new Maritime Patrol Aircraft

    …protecting our nuclear deterrent.

    All of this and we’re enhancing our global strike capability with more investment in our special forces.

    Our new Joint Force lets us do more independently, but also more in tandem with you.

    That’s why we’ve made a point of investing in shared platforms

    …like P8, like Rivet Joint, like Reaper

    And with the United States locating their European F35 base in the UK

    …I look forward not just to welcoming you on board our carriers

    … as I was welcomed on USS Theodore Roosevelt

    …but seeing your F35s flying from our decks

    …and ours flying from yours.

    Two-way street

    So we have the will and the means to respond.

    As we become a stronger partner I want our relationship to become more of a 2-way street.

    We’re investing more in you and we’re expecting more from you.

    I want to see more contracts in the supply chain flowing from the majors on these programmes to British companies.

    We have so much common.

    Look at our areas of shared interest such as our nuclear enterprise.

    We’re spending almost $47 billion on 4 new Successor submarines.

    And the US is also looking to replace the Ohio… that uses the same common missile compartment.

    Look at our expertise in a huge range of areas.

    We’re building 15 per cent of each F35 produced, from tail parts to wing tips.

    We have unique Dual-Mode Brimstone missiles, bringing a high precision capability to the fight again Daesh not even the US have.

    Many of the companies we use have footprints in both the US and the UK.

    Illustrating a level of industrial integration that is unique.

    It surely makes sense for both of us to benefit from the industrial expertise that exists in our countries.

    2. Strengthening our influence

    Second, the UK is doing more to project our influence around the world and strengthen the international rules based order.

    This year UK forces were involved in more than 20 operations around the globe.

    We’re one of your few global partners.

    In Europe, we’re your closest ally.

    And we’ve been urging our European colleagues to up their game.

    The threats Europe faces on its eastern and southern flanks highlights the value of a joined up response, using our membership of NATO, the UN and the EU to protect our security.

    Britain has pressed the EU to play an important role as part of a comprehensive approach, mobilising its economic might to enforce sanctions on Russia and co-operate on security in the wake of Paris.

    None of this means giving up on our sovereignty.

    What it does mean we can have the best of both worlds: free to act on our own accord with the swiftness and strength that comes from being an independent nation; but working with a bloc of 27 other countries to advance our shared interests.

    But NATO remains the cornerstone of our defence.

    And at Wales last year our PM and your President, urged NATO nations to do more.

    Since then 7 countries have pledged to increase their spending.

    We’re also stepping up our leadership role

    …leading NATO’s high readiness Spearhead force in 2017

    …bringing six northern EU nations together as a new expeditionary force

    …and having a persistent presence in the Baltic states and Poland

    We’re also looking beyond Europe’s borders, doubling peace keeping efforts in Africa and strengthening our hand in the Asia Pacific.

    We’re elevating our defence relationship with India with more joint military exercises and co-operation on technology and manufacturing.

    We’re enhancing our relationship with Japan. In January, we held our first combined Foreign and Defence Ministers’ meeting in London. Next January, we hold the second in Tokyo.

    When it comes to China we’re clear.

    We want to work more closely with them and bind them into the rules based international order.

    But provocative behaviour in the South China Sea destabilises the region and increases the risk of miscalculation.

    We want to see maritime and other disputes settled peacefully in accordance with international law.

    We’re also investing more than $750 milion over the next decade…expanding our presence with British Defence Staffs in the Middle East, Asia Pacific and Africa.

    3. Innovation

    Finally, the UK will have stronger defence because we’re investing in innovation.

    The US’s 3rd Offset strategy addresses the erosion of the west’s technological edge.

    Our SDSR also recognises the need to keep ahead of our adversaries: in cyber, robotics, autonomous systems, and space.

    We’re putting $1.5 billion into an innovation fund to secure operational advantage in future.

    You’ve set up the Defense Innovation Unit Experimental (DIUx) to access innovation in Silicon Valley.

    We will be launching our Emerging Technology and Innovation Analysis Cell.

    …to identify game changing technologies.

    We’re also setting up a new centre to pool the intelligence of the best British brains in business, academia and the public sector.

    And, next year, we introduce a new defence innovation initiative adopting a different approach to risk and doing more to test new ideas.

    But we know when we work together we’re more than the sum of our parts.

    2015 marks 75 years since British scientist Henry Tizard set off for the US on orders from Churchill, armed only with a top secret briefcase.

    That precious cargo, containing blueprints for radar, the jet engine and nuclear fission, helped win a war.

    We’re building on those firm foundations.

    Today we’re collaborating on everything from F35

    …to insect-like Black Hornet UAVs

    …and quantum clocks.

    Yet as Defence Secretary Carter and I announced in London…we’re tightening those ties

    … working on emerging technology demonstrators

    …better use of joint war gaming to test out new ideas

    …and adapting new operating concepts fit for a new environment.

    Prosperity

    The opportunity that comes from innovation has wider applications.

    Defence technologies are often spun off in the commercial sector.

    Together we’ve given the world GPS, the world wide web, and splash proof technology.

    Recently British company Reaction Engines and BAE systems signed a deal to develop the SABRE (Synergetic Air-Breathing Rocket Engine).

    Its aircraft will operate at over five times the speed of sound and can transition to a rocket mode, allowing spaceflight at speeds up to orbital velocity.

    Once this was science fiction.

    Today our scientists are making it science fact.

    We need to do more to take advantage of this dual-use technology.

    Conclusion

    So, at a time of growing threats the UK is stepping up with bigger, stronger defence.

    We’re increasing our defence budget and the size and power of our forces so we can do more to protect our security.

    By doing so we are becoming an even stronger partner with our most steadfast ally, the United States.

    Open societies, successful countries like Britain and the United States, attract enemies as well as envy. The more open we are, the harder we must work to ensure that all our people enjoy the security that comes with greater freedoms.

    As we look ahead, we recall the words of Karl Popper who said: “We must plan for freedom, and not only for security, if for no other reason than that only freedom can make security secure.”

    So together we will plan for security, for freedom and for prosperity.

    Together we will overcome the evil we face, preserve our cherished values, and open up opportunity for our people to make their mark

    Together, in a darker, more dangerous world we will continue to be a light among the nations.

     

  • Nigel Farage – 2002 Speech on Common Fisheries Policy

    Below is the text of the speech made by Nigel Farage in the European Parliament on 18 November 2002.

    Madam President, it is on record that the outline regulations on the common fisheries policy were not agreed until eight hours after the Community had opened the accession negotiations with the United Kingdom in 1971. The head of the British delegation, Sir Con O’Neil, remarked that these two events were not unconnected. Prior to that there had hardly been any interest in a Community fisheries policy because the founding six had virtually no fishing resources. Britain, Ireland, Denmark and Norway all had rich coastal fisheries and they had been kept in good condition by effective conservation measures.

    O’Neil attests to this; experts from the British Ministry of Agriculture produced a report showing that British waters were literally teeming with fish, whilst there were very few within the fishing limits of the present Community countries. The main evidence for this is that Community waters did not attract foreign fishermen, while British waters most certainly did. After 30 years of the CFP, Britain’s waters no longer teem with fish. To paraphrase Sir Con: ‘These two events are not unconnected’. Yet still members of the Committee on Fisheries seem unable to make the connection. They call for more technical and human resources. They want more money for research. They want management plants, sustainable development, integrated policies, multiannual plans, the application of the precautionary principle and, wait for it, target reference points for biomass and fishing mortality. If jargon were the solution, Member State waters would still be teeming with fish, the CFP would be a world-beater. But all that jargon does is to hide an uncomfortable truth: the common fisheries policy has not worked, does not work and cannot work no matter how much reform is dressed up in flowery words. As long as fish are considered to be a common European resource, there will be no sense of ownership or responsibility. Predatory fishing becomes the norm. It is an inevitable consequence of the policy and leads to the depletion of stocks. Reform is not the solution. The CFP cannot be reformed. It has proved to be incapable of reform. It should be scrapped and fisheries should be managed once again by national governments.

  • Nigel Farage – 2002 Speech on Immigration

    Below is the text of the speech made by Nigel Farage in the European Parliament on 18 December 2002.

    Mr President, there are two aspects to this issue: firstly, the problem of excluding unwanted migrants from the European Union – or at least controlling their access; and, secondly, the reasons for migration.

    Excluding population pressure, political instability and regional war, it is clear that the main pressure stems from economic disparities. In short, the bulk of immigrants seeking access to the European Union Member States are economic migrants. Therefore, any successful policy must deal with not only the exclusion issues but also the causes of migration.

    Here it seems clear the European Union is making things worse. Virtually all its external policies in respect of third countries and its policies towards the candidate countries seem geared to causing migration from less-developed countries. The Union has rigid quotas, tariffs and other protectionist policies restricting trade with third countries. While it subsidies its own industries – especially agriculture through the unreformed common agricultural policy – and it dumps subsidised goods on the world market, all of this destabilises third-world economies. In terms of fishing agreements, the Union pillages third-world waters, instead of encouraging local industries. It also takes skilled, educated workers from these countries, depriving them of the building blocks of economic development.

    All of this cruelly exposes the imperialism of the European project. Instead of getting on with practical issues, you launch upon idealistic common policies. These policies are making the problems worse. It would make far more sense to stop damaging third-country economies, rather than embarking on these extraordinary new ventures. In other words, leave immigration control to the Member States – a policy that my party supports – and address the failures of existing policies. There it seems to me, in deference to the Council member present, you must try harder.

  • Nigel Farage – 2015 Speech at the State of the Union

    Below is the text of the speech made by Nigel Farage in the European Parliament on 9 September 2015.

    Mr President, Mr Juncker has simply got this wrong. As I warned in April, the European Common Asylum Policy sets its terms so widely as to say that anyone setting foot on EU soil can stay: I said it would lead to a flow of biblical proportions, and indeed that is what we are beginning to see. This has been compounded by Germany saying last week that basically anyone can come. It is a bit too late now to draw up a list, by countries of origin, of who can stay and who cannot stay. All they have to do, as they are doing, is throw their passports into the Mediterranean and say they are coming from Syria.

    As we know, the majority of people who are coming – and the Slovakian Prime Minister has been honest enough to say so – are economic migrants. In addition, we see, as I warned earlier, evidence that ISIS is now using this route to put their jihadists on European soil. We must be mad to take this risk with the cohesion of our societies. If we want to help genuine refugees, if we want to protect our societies, if we want to stop the criminal trafficking gangs from benefiting as they are doing, we must stop the boats coming – as the Australians did – and then we can assess who qualifies for refugee status.

    I noted your comments, Mr Juncker, because there is a referendum coming in the United Kingdom. I look forward to seeing you in the UK. I know you intend to spend tens of millions of pounds of British taxpayers’ money telling us what we should think. I have a feeling that the British people will warm to you on a personal level, but, as to suggesting that getting rid of a few EU regulations is going to change our minds, sorry – unless you give Mr Cameron back control and discretion over our borders, the Brits, in the course of the next year, will vote to leave.

  • Louise Bours – 2015 Speech to UKIP Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Louise Bours to the UKIP conference held on 25 September 2015.

    Ladies and Gentlemen.

    12 months ago, in this very hall I delivered my first national conference speech as your spokesman for health.

    After my speech some media commentators moaned because they found me a bit… shouty.

    Well, 12 months ago, the NHS was under threat from the Westminster bubble, but now the NHS is facing an even bigger threat from the European Union, and whilst that remains the case let me assure you… I will not stop being shouty!

    And I say to the media and anyone else that doesn’t like it – deal with it. This is about the NHS, it is about the people of this country for whom the NHS is a lifeline, and I’m not going to be quiet about it!

    There are many areas of the NHS that are affected by our full membership of the EU.

    There are reams of rules, regulations and directives that defy logic and leave clinicians and managers in a head-spin and the pending TTIP trade deal threatens the very fabric and principles that the NHS is built upon.

    There are also many unplanned, unintended consequences of wider EU policies that add pressure and confusion to the health service.

    The most fundamental of these is uncontrolled immigration. We hear how there are not enough nurses and doctors in the NHS. It takes years to train for these professions, but how can the government know how many doctors the NHS will need in 7 years’ time, when they don’t know how many people will be living in the country in 7 weeks’ time?

    It’s no surprise we need so many nurses from overseas at short notice when we can’t predict how many patients there may be in 3 months’ time, let alone in the 3 years it takes to train a nurse.
    We can’t plan for the amount of beds, ambulances, medical equipment, drugs or midwives we might need because from one day to the next we cannot tell how many people will arrive here to live.

    No establishment can plan properly under these circumstances, and what is particularly worrying about the NHS not being able to plan properly is that the results can literally be the difference between life and death.

    There are of course, many specific regulations and initiatives that threaten the structure and efficacy of our NHS, I have nowhere near enough time to go through them all, that’s a whole conference in itself, but I will just mention a couple before going on to talk about the TTIP Agreement.

    The Working Time Directive is a health and safety initiative that on the surface may appear reasonable and helpful, but in practice is restrictive and unwelcomed by many in the NHS.

    Ipsos Mori and the General Medical Council have reported negative effects on medical training and on health services throughout Europe.

    But it is not just the future quality of training that is being effected by the EU, it is also the future quality of treatment.

    From next year medical researchers will be blocked from using historical patient data records for research purposes. Cancer Research UK have been particularly vocal in their opposition to the new regulations claiming that many lives will be lost as a result.
    It is vital for those looking for new cures and treatments to be able to track the medical history and developments in people, and this regulation will stop that.

    Last year I spoke about the desperate case of Ashya King, the little boy that couldn’t get NHS treatment for his brain tumour. Today I have to tell you about the EU’s ‘Medicine for Children’ regulation.
    It prohibits medical trials being carried out on children. The Institute of cancer research and other major cancer charities oppose the regulation and health experts say it has resulted in many unnecessary child deaths throughout Europe because half of all new cancer drugs developed between 2007-14 have not been tested on children and therefore cannot be licenced for use on children.

    How can the EU in all conscience say to the family of a dying child that they cannot have a new drug? One that may cure them or help them die without pain or fear? Giving terminally ill children access to new treatments and drugs is vital in the fight against childhood cancer.  It is barbaric to deny them an opportunity to extend their lives, or maybe even the possibility to cure them, simply because of a European Union regulation.

    It must be stopped and if we leave the EU just so we can ditch that regulation alone – it’s worth it.

    Now before I go on to the biggest threat to our NHS I want to dispel a myth about the EU.

    Many Europhiles say that without the freedom of movement that we have in the EU, our NHS would grind to a halt.

    But despite the propaganda, controlling immigration will not damage the NHS.

    Whilst we have a system where new nurses have to have a university degree we will never be able to provide the numbers of nurses the NHS needs.

    Why do those that leave school without A-levels have to do an access course to learn how to write essays, before they get anywhere near to a patient who may need a glass of water, or help being fed a meal, or someone who needs comfort and reassurance?

    We are not training enough, and it is not that there are too few people wanting to become nurses, it’s because we refuse to accept that not all those entering the nursing profession need a university degree.

    Commenting on the need for more UK training, the head of the Royal College of Nursing, Dr Peter Carter, points out that last year there were 57,000 applicants for 20,000 nurse training posts.
    He said it was a matter of huge regret that thousands of people in the four countries of the UK who want to train as nurses are being turned away, while we’re going off and raiding the often impoverished workforce of other countries.

    Let us have a system where those that excel academically can achieve the degree they aspire too, that should be applauded, but let us also encourage and enthuse those who see nursing as a vocation – let us see the return of the State Enrolled Nurse.

    All of the above are about specific issues within the health service, how it delivers what we want it to deliver.

    But the biggest threat the EU poses to the NHS is TTIP, the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, that Brussels want to sign with the USA.

    It would not only change how services are delivered, but go further, it would change why services are delivered.

    It would take us from a health service motivated by delivering the best for patients, to a system motivated by delivering the best private profit.

    We have the most established healthcare system in the world, nearly 70 years-old, America doesn’t have one at all, and the confusing ObamaCare is barely 70 days-old.

    We should not be giving other EU nations the power to influence our health services, let alone allow investors from a country where some people have to sell their homes in order to get life-saving treatment.

    The Tories say there is no need to exempt the NHS from TTIP because it is not at risk.

    Labour MPs say they want exemptions, yet their own MEP’s are helping to push the agreement through the committee stages in the European Parliament.

    TTIP will allow multi-national companies to sue national governments if they introduce policies that harm their investments. Does that not seem a bit topsy-turvy? Shouldn’t it be the other way round, aren’t corporations supposed to serve us, rather than us serve them? Surely a private company should be fitting into our rules, not us fitting into theirs.

    If Labour are serious about protecting the NHS they should stop their MEPs helping the agreement go through.

    And I say to David Cameron: If you are sure TTIP won’t involve the NHS, why not introduce legislation to stop it. The legislation may not be needed as far as you are concerned, but it is needed as far as the public are concerned, because Mr Cameron, we don’t trust you.

    Why don’t we trust him?

    Let me share with you a little known line from the EU, I found it in the EU document library, it’s from June of this year, in a document specifically about TTIP, it says:

    The EU reserves the right to adopt or maintain any measure with regard to the provision of all education, health or social services which receive public funding or state support in any form.
    What do you say now Cameron? Get out of that.

    Last year I produced a letter from Jeremy Corbyn’s boss, Len Mclusky. In it he asked us to support UNITE in their fight against TTIP.  I responded, I said we would stand side by side with them in this fight.  Come on Len, I am still waiting for your response!!
    Presiding over so much infighting, bitterness and backstabbing, before long the Labour party will become less the Jeremy Corbyn show and more the Jeremy Kyle show.

    If you want people to believe your party cares about the British people and the NHS, you must advocate leaving the EU.
    The UK needs to be able to run its own NHS, full stop.

    I am livid that they are systematically ruining our country’s proudest achievement, and now want to sell it off to the highest bidder.

    I am angry for the elderly who have paid-in all their lives only to see the EU decimate the care available to them, angry for the seriously ill that will suffer longer because of EU restrictions on research, angry and upset for the children whose lives will be blighted by the EU rules against medicine trials, angry for every bit of interference from the EU into our beloved and vital NHS.

    So let me make this pledge to you, between now and the referendum, I will fight tooth and nail to make sure the public know the hugely damaging effect the EU is having on our NHS and therefore our health, and the massive dangers it faces if we stay in the EU.

    I will do everything I can to ensure the public know we have to leave the EU if we believe in the NHS.

    And don’t forget… I can be shouty, so in case you haven’t heard, we believe in Britain, we believe in the NHS.

    Thank you.

  • Mark Reckless – 2015 Speech to UKIP Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Mark Reckless, the party’s economic spokesman, to the UKIP Conference held on 25 September 2015.

    It has been an eventful year.

    One change for me from last year is that this time you have been kind enough to advertise me in the programme.

    As our new Economy Spokesman, I would first like to thank Patrick O’Flynn for the solid base of work he has left me, as well as for his hard work on the general election campaign.

    Second I would like to thank Nigel for all the support he has given me both before and since the general election. I could not have asked for more, from him or from you.

    Would Britain be better off outside the European Union?

    Trade deals

    For the first time in forty years we would be able to negotiate our own trade deals, rejoin the World Trade Organisation, and sit on the global bodies which set product regulations.

    We could press for trade deals which would open up new markets for the business and financial services at which this country excels. In return we could offer the free trade in food and agriculture which the EU sets itself against.

    We could reach deals with the big emerging economies, like India and China, with which eight million Swiss have a free trade agreement. Yet the EU blocks us from trading freely with China, so every British woman pays an EU tax every time she buys a bra.

    UKIP wants to end those EU tariffs to cut costs for consumers.

    We also want trade deals with the United States and Canada. But we would seek free trade deals, based on eliminating tariffs and mutual recognition of standards.

    That could not be more different from Cameron and Corbyn’s TTIP. Their Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership will in reality be a corporatist’s charter constructed behind closed doors to shield incumbent companies from competition.

    Now that Jeremy Corbyn has gone back on his word and handed David Cameron a blank cheque on Europe, it is UKIP and UKIP alone that can fight TTIP.

    Paying our way in world

    Ever since we joined we have run a large trade deficit with the European Union. In good years we have paid for it with a surplus on our trade outside the European Union.

    Despite having no authority over trade, where the EU is in charge, David Cameron promised to double UK exports under what George Osborne termed a “march of the makers”.

    The reality within the EU has been anything but. We now have, along with Turkey, the largest overseas deficit of any advanced country globally, between 5 and 6% of GDP.

    The problem is three fold and all relate in significant degree to the EU.

    First, the UK trade balance in goods and services has been running about 2% of GDP in deficit. More than all of this is with the EU.
    Second, we now run a similar deficit on investment income, largely due to a deteriorating balance with the EU and Osbrown more than doubling our national debt.

    Third, and most easily dealt with, if only we were to restore our independence, we transfer a net 1-2% of everything we earn overseas every year. In other words we give it away.

    It is one thing to give money away in overseas transfers if, like say Germany, you run an enormous trade surplus with which to pay for it. It is quite another when, like the UK, you run a 2% of GDP trade deficit and another near 2% deficit on investment income.

    Yet on top of that 4% deficit David Cameron’s Conservatives transfer overseas a further 1-2% of GDP leaving us with a current account deficit of 5-6% of GDP, or £100 billion per year.

    What that means is that every year we have to borrow from or sell to foreigners the equivalent value of British assets.

    So when people complain to me, including some people in the hall today, about all that fancy London property being sold to foreigners, and not our own young people, I say don’t blame them, or think you can somehow solve our problems by restricting those purchases.

    The emptying out of prime central London property to overseas owners is a symptom, not a cause of our problems. If foreigners didn’t buy our most expensive property, we would have to sell them something else, or pay them more to lend to us, adding yet more to our deficit.

    We must instead tackle the problem at source. That means improving our trade balance. We must shift the focus of our trade from the EU, where we run a massive deficit, to outside the EU, where we run a surplus.

    The need to cut overseas transfers

    We must also stop giving away money we do not have. That means cutting the enormous overseas transfers we are making.
    Fifty years ago it was Britain’s huge overseas defence burden which drained resources from the UK. So the call went out to end commitments East of Suez, because our chronic balance of payments couldn’t support them.

    Today our massive overseas transfers do not reflect defence spending, but EU membership, overseas aid, and likely now migrant transfers.

    If you don’t want to have to borrow an extra £55 million a day from overseas, that you will later have to pay back with interest, then don’t give the EU the £55 million a day you then need to borrow.

    If you don’t want to sell £13 billion more London property to absentee overseas investors, then don’t run an overseas aid programme that requires the UK to finance £13 billion of overseas spending.

    You can’t spend money overseas unless you borrow or sell something overseas to pay for it.

    And just as we should never blame overseas investors for buying something we need to sell, we should never blame people who come here from overseas for trying to do the best for themselves and their families.

    That will often mean sending wages which they earn here back to their family who are still overseas. So we need to increase UK exports to pay for those overseas remittances. If we don’t, and they continue, then we will add to our already record current account deficit.

    The Brexit dividend

    Cutting overseas aid and ending our EU contributions will cut our current account deficit. It will also give us more money to spend at home.

    Patrick and Suzanne set out how we might spend our Brexit dividend in a superb manifesto fully costed and independently verified. Leaving the EU would yield enough to finance widespread tax cuts as well as billions more for the NHS.

    That exceptionally well received manifesto will remain the baseline for policy development which I now undertake, and there is just one change I will announce today.

    Our manifesto was so good that we have already seen the government adopt a number of our ideas. One area where we can now come close to declaring victory is inheritance tax.

    It is now eight years since George Osborne promised to raise the inheritance tax threshold to a million pounds, and until this summer it was eight long years of inaction.

    There are three aspects of the changes he now proposes where I would like us to be able to go further, and which we may seek to address in our next general election manifesto.

    First, I would prefer a threshold of a million pounds per person, as George Osborne first promised, and not a million pounds per couple. Second I would not further distort the market by restricting the new allowance to housing for descendants. Third, I would not add yet more complexity to the system by clawing back the extra allowance from larger estates.

    However, making those changes is not the priority for our Breixt dividend. That lies somewhere else.

    Public sector pay

    As an MP in the last Parliament I voted for severe restraint in public sector pay.

    I thought there was no choice if we were to cut the record deficit. I also thought it was fair after several years of relatively more generous public pay settlements and then a sharp fall in real private pay in the recession.

    Public and private pay are now in better kilter.

    Despite that, the Conservatives now propose to continue their assault on public sector pay for another five years, while private sector pay accelerates.

    The government said in the Summer Budget that it would only fund 1% pay increases on average across the public sector.

    Last Monday Greg Hands, the Treasury minister and Conservative MP for Chelsea and Fulham, went further and stated on the parliamentary record that their policy was one “of a one per cent cap on public sector pay increases”.

    And what have we heard from Labour? On Budget day their Acting Leader declared they supported the Conservative policy. And under Corbyn, nothing. A Treasury minister just hardened a 1% pay norm to a 1% pay cap and the Labour front bench didn’t even notice.

    If public sector pay rises at that 1% a year, or barely 5% over the Parliament, then the Office for Budget Responsibility forecast implies that private sector pay will increase by 25% over the same period.

    5% v 25%. How can that be fair? How could we recruit and retain the quality staff we need for our public services? Why do the Conservatives so dislike people who work in the public sector? And who will defend those public servants when Labour is riven by extremism and division?

    UKIP will. It is not just people in the private sector who deserve a pay rise but public servants too.

    And unlike the other parties, UKIP can find the money to pay for fairer treatment of public sector workers, from the £55 million a day we give the EU.

    So I have an announcement.

    Instead of using £5 billion of the Brexit dividend to abolish remaining inheritance tax, UKIP would use that £5 billion to give public sector workers a pay rise.

    We would end the government’s 1% pay cap in the public sector, except for those at the top end who already earn more than £50,000. The extra £5 billion could fund 2% rises every year, or one 5% pay rise above the government’s policy.

    We give the EU up to £55 million a day. If Britain votes for Brexit next year then that money will be available for the NHS, it will be available for tax cuts, and it will be available to give people in the public sector a long overdue pay rise.

    When we vote to leave the EU we will not only be more than a star on someone else’s flag. We will be prosperous, democratic and free.

  • Roger Helmer – 2015 Speech to UKIP Conference

    rogerhelmer

    Below is the text of the speech made by Roger Helmer to the UKIP Conference held on 26 September 2015.

    Good Morning Conference!

    I’d like to share with you something I’ve learned in my years in Brussels and Strasbourg, and it’s this: the EU’s apparatchiks harbour a huge contempt for public opinion.  Isolated in their ivory towers, they can mostly afford to ignore the voters.  They think that people like you and me are just too stupid and ignorant to understand the huge benefits of EU membership.

    But once in a while, reality strikes back and bites their ankles – for example, in 2005 when the French and Dutch voted down the European Constitution.  So did the bureaucrats see the error of their ways, and change course? The hell they did!  No.  They stood wringing their hands, and saying “Perhaps we haven’t explained it well enough”.

    My response is, that I have spent the last sixteen years explaining the European Union to the voters, and the more I explain it, the angrier they get.

    But now at last, with the up-coming Referendum, we’re facing the opportunity of a lifetime.  So I’m going to change the habit of a lifetime.  I’ve spent the last sixteen years telling the British people what’s wrong with the EU.  But now it’s time for a change.   It’s time to talk benefits.  It’s time to talk positively about the massive opportunities offered to this country, to all of us, not by the EU, but by freedom and independence.

    And nowhere are those benefits clearer than in the field of energy.  For three years now, as UKIP’s Energy Spokesman, I’ve been setting out a plan to deliver secure and affordable energy.

    And while we in UKIP have a consistent and workable energy policy, other Parties do not.

    Alex Salmond of the Scots Nats wants to finance an independent Scotland on the back of North Sea Oil and Gas.   But he also says he wants 100% Green Electricity by 2025.

    Jeremy Corbyn talks about re-opening the coal mines, and coal currently produces a third of the UK’s electricity.  But don’t believe Mr. Corbyn – because he also says he wants carbon-free electricity by 2030.

    In any case, we in UKIP can’t implement our plan while we’re in the EU, because we’re hog-tied by EU climate policy and emissions rules.

    So the positive message is simply this: after Brexit, we’ll be free to implement a rational energy policy that can deliver the secure and affordable energy we so desperately need.

    But of course Brexit doesn’t deliver that policy by itself.  We still have to fight what Owen Paterson calls the Green Blob, in Westminster.

    But fighting the green blob is not as hopeless as it sounds.  In this area, as in so many others, UKIP policies are starting to gain traction.  We’re already seeing signs of the alarmist consensus breaking down.  There’s been no global warming for eighteen years.  The costs of renewables are increasingly unaffordable.

    We have a Prime Minister who’s given up hugging huskies, and who reportedly wants to “Get rid of the Green Crap”.  We’ve seen wind farm subsidies cut, and wind farm plans knocked back, including most recently the enormous Navitus Bay offshore project that would have despoiled the Jurassic Coast in Dorset.

    Amber Rudd, described as Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, came into office last year with ambitious plans to cover the nation’s roofs with solar panels.  Someone – maybe it was George Osborne — must have talked her through the costs of solar power, because she’s just announced a dramatic cut in domestic solar subsidies.

    As I recently tweeted: “Not so Green?  Amber Rudd gets the Red Light on Solar Subsidies”.

    More generally, there’s a recognition that many of the assumptions behind the rise of renewables were just plain wrong.  We were warned of the threat of “Peak Oil”, which was predicted to be happening by now.  But instead we see a world awash with new oil and gas fields.

    Of course fossil fuels are finite and will one day be exhausted, but that event is so far off that it has no bearing on today’s policy debates.  We need to be worrying about pensioners with hypothermia today.

    An underlying assumption of the dash for renewables was that as fossil fuels became scarcer, they would get more expensive.  In fact the reverse has happened.  We’ve all seen what’s happened to oil prices recently.  And in the USA, gas prices have dropped by two thirds, thanks to the shale gas revolution.

    With Brexit, we can sweep away the threat to our security of supply issues, we can exploit indigenous coal and gas resources, and we can eliminate our over-dependence on intermittent renewables.  But stuck with EU rules, as we are today, serious industry commentators are warning of blackouts in the winter of 2016.

    Under the terms of the EU’s Large Combustion Plant Directive, we’ve seen a series of coal plant closures – with consequent job losses and threats to generating capacity.  Kingsnorth in Kent; Longannet in Scotland, and Eggborough in Yorkshire, with Ferrybridge not far behind.

    These closures will make not a scrap of difference to the trajectory of atmospheric CO2, nor to the climate.  There are reportedly 1200 new coal-fired power stations in the global pipeline.  Perhaps surprisingly, even über-green Germany is building or refurbishing a couple of dozen – and importing dirty brown coal from Poland into the bargain.

    Our closures will make no measurable difference in the overall picture.  The IEA predicts that coal use will rise for decades.

    We’re currently seeing a haemorrhage of production and jobs and investment out of the UK – and out of the EU – as a direct result of energy prices.  I’ve often quoted former Energy Commissioner Antonio Tajani, who famously said “We are creating an industrial massacre in Europe”.

    We in UKIP don’t want to be a part of that European massacre.

    You’ve heard me talk before about energy-intensive businesses.  Recently we’ve been losing steel companies.  Tata Steel cut 500 jobs in North­umberland.  It’s mothballing its plant at Llanwern in Wales. This affects Bill Etheridge as well – there are knock-on job losses at Tata’s plant at Wednesbury in the Black Country.

    Since I started drafting this speech, we’ve had an even bigger blow to the steel industry.  In the North-East, Redcar, the second largest blast furnace in Europe, is teetering on the brink of bankruptcy.  Its Thai owners have failed to meet scheduled repayments, and 2000 jobs are at risk.  My message for those 2000 steel-workers: you’re being sacrificed to climate hysteria, and to Brussels bureaucrats.

    We’ve lost several aluminium smelters, like Anglesey Aluminium in Wales, and Alcan Lynemouth in Northumberland.

    It’s the same with petroleum refineries.  Petroplus closed Teesside in 2009, and Coryton in 2012.  Murco closed Milford Haven in 2014.  Research commissioned and published by the British government shows that overseas refineries typically emit 35% more CO2 per unit than UK refineries.

    According to Jim Ratcliffe, the CEO of INEOS, the chemicals giant, twenty-two UK chemical plants have closed since 2009, and he says that unless we resolve the energy price problem, there’ll be no chemical industry left in Europe in ten years’ time.  And remember they use gas not only for energy but also as a feedstock.  The list goes on – glass, cement, paper.  All these industries, all these jobs, are under threat from energy prices.

    Across Europe, there are increasing concerns about the costs of renewables.

    Denmark is scaling back climate and emissions targets which are proving just too expensive to deliver.

    Meantime in Germany, Der Spiegel reports that the German renewables business is in crisis.

    But despite these concerns, you can bet that the EU will cling doggedly to its perverse energy policies for years to come.

    The good news is that with Brexit, we can stop the haemorrhage.  We can keep those jobs here at home.  We can reverse the tide, so that industry and jobs and investment come back to Britain.

    That means that outside the EU, we in Britain will have a dramatic competitive advantage on energy prices against the rest of Europe when it comes to inward investment.

    Britain after Brexit will become the manufacturing capital of Europe.

    That’s the story from industry — but there’s the issue of domestic prices as well.  As we get into the referendum campaign, you may find people on the door­step who care about jobs – but don’t always enthuse about the problems of companies.  But they all get electricity bills, and many are suffering.  Maybe they – or their elderly relatives – are struggling to make ends meet.  For them, Brexit means the lower energy bills they desperately need.

    That’s the positive message of Brexit for the voters of Britain.  Lower domestic bills.  More jobs.  More investment.  More growth.  More prosperity.  Not a bad prospectus.

    So Conference, I think it’s time for us to speak up for those 2000 steel-workers in Redcar, and for all the other British workers whose jobs are threatened by perverse climate and energy policies.  It’s time to send a message to our Secretary of State for Energy & Climate Change, Amber Rudd.  And to the Chairman of parliament’s Climate Change Committee, John Gummer, now ennobled as Lord Deben.  And to George Osborne and David Cameron.

    Let’s send a message from this hall in Doncaster, from this Conference, from this Party, that will reverberate in the Palace of Westminster.

    Do we want secure and affordable energy?
    Do we want Britain to become the manufacturing capital of Europe?

    Do we want our country back?

    Colleagues – thank you so much.  And if I may borrow David Steel’s famous rallying cry: Let’s go back to our constituencies and prepare for independence!