Category: Speeches

  • Oliver Dowden – 2023 Statement at the UN Sustainable Development Goals Summit

    Oliver Dowden – 2023 Statement at the UN Sustainable Development Goals Summit

    The statement made by Oliver Dowden, the Deputy Prime Minister, on 19 September 2023.

    Your Excellencies. It is half time on the SDGs, and our collective promise is in peril.

    The UK was instrumental in developing Agenda 2030 and its SDGs.

    Today we recommit to them – and to reforming the international financial system that will play such a big role in helping us deliver them.

    We are driving reforms of the Multilateral Development Banks including stretching their balance sheets to release over $200bn of additional finance over the next ten years.

    To support this, the UK is announcing two innovative guarantees to scale up MDB lending one to unlock $1 billion in education financing and one to unlock up to $1.8 billion of climate finance for Asia-Pacific countries.

    I also reiterate our support for a bigger and better World Bank, which increases voice and

    representation of the poorest and most vulnerable.

    We support reforms to make the MDBs more agile, more shock responsive and better able to mobilise more private investment.

    We encourage MDBs and all other creditors to offer Climate Resilient Debt Clauses – pioneered by the UK – to pause debt repayments when disaster strikes.

    We will continue to mobilise billions through British Investment Partnerships for energy transitions and infrastructure –$40 billion by 2027 and we will support countries to collect taxes owed to them to invest in their development, with a new £17 million package of support.

    We must of course meet our global climate finance goals which is why at the G20, the Prime Minister announced $2 billion for the Green Climate Fund the biggest single commitment the UK has made to help the world tackle climate change.

    We must maintain the spirit of partnership that created the SDGs as we ensure the financing and investment to deliver them.

    We will do that through UK-hosted Summits on Food Security, AI, and Investment in Africa keeping up momentum through the autumn, into 2024, and all the way to 2030.

    Thank you.

  • Oliver Dowden – 2023 Speech to the UN General Assembly

    Oliver Dowden – 2023 Speech to the UN General Assembly

    The speech made by Oliver Dowden, the Deputy Prime Minister, on 23 September 2023.

    Mr President,

    As we meet here this evening millions of people in Morocco and Libya continue to struggle with the aftermath of a devastating earthquake and catastrophic flood.

    Let me extend the sympathy of the British people to all those who have lost loved ones.

    Our search and rescue teams have been deployed in Morocco and we have increased our humanitarian support for Libya.

    We will continue our support – alongside many other nations represented here in the weeks and months to come.

    This week, nations have gathered here to recommit to addressing the biggest challenges we face.

    Climate change, with catastrophic weather events telling us to act, now.

    The Sustainable Development Goals… and how to get them back on track after Covid.

    Migration, with millions crossing borders and dangerous seas, at the mercy of human traffickers.

    And Russia’s brutal invasion of Ukraine… an attack on a sovereign member of the United Nations by a Permanent Member of its Security Council.

    The most heinous assault imaginable on everything this organisation stands for, and was founded to prevent.

    With consequences felt not just by the brave people of Ukraine, but by millions more across the globe.

    Those hit by food shortages – particularly in developing countries – are Putin’s victims too.

    Russia could end this war tomorrow. Putin could end this war tomorrow. That is what the world demands.

    But until that happens, the United Kingdom will stand alongside Ukraine.

    Whatever it takes.

    For weeks, for months – if necessary, for years.

    Because if these United Nations – in which the United Kingdom believes, and helped to found – are to count for anything, it is surely for the cardinal principle that aggression cannot, and must not pay.

    These are the issues of the moment.

    But I want to focus on another challenge.

    A challenge that is already with us today, and which is changing – right now – all of our tomorrows.

    It is going to change everything we do – education, business, healthcare, defence – the way we live.

    And it is going to change government – and relations between nations – fundamentally.

    It is going to change this United Nations, fundamentally.

    Artificial Intelligence – the biggest transformation the world has known.

    Our task as governments is to understand it, grasp it, and seek to govern it.

    And we must do so at speed.

    Think how much has changed in a few short months.

    And then think how different this world will look in five years or ten years’ time.

    We are fast becoming familiar with the AI of today, but we need to prepare for the AI of tomorrow.

    At this frontier, we need to accept that we simply do not know the bounds of possibilities.

    We are as Edison before the light came on, or as Tim Berners-Lee before the first email was sent.

    They could not – surely – have respectively envisaged the illumination of the New York skyline at night, or the wonders of the modern internet.

    But they suspected the transformative power of their inventions.

    Frontier AI, with the capacity to process the entirety of human knowledge in

    Seconds, has the potential not just to transform our lives, but to reimagine our understanding of science.

    If – like me – you believe that humans are on the path to decoding the mysteries of the smallest particles, or the farthest reaches of our universe, if you think that the Millenium Prize Problems are ultimately solvable, or that we will eventually fully understand viruses, then you will surely agree that by adding to the sum total of our intelligence at potentially dizzying scales.

    Frontier AI will unlock at least some of those answers on an expedited timetable in our lifetimes.

    Because in AI time, years are days even hours.

    The “frontier” is not as far as we might assume.

    That brings with it great opportunities.

    The AI models being developed today could deliver the energy efficiency needed to beat climate change, stimulate the crop yields required to feed the world, detect signs of chronic diseases or pandemics, better manage supply chains so everyone has access to the materials and goods they need, and enhance productivity in both business and governments.

    In fact, every single challenge discussed at this year’s General Assembly – and more – could be improved or even solved by AI.

    Perhaps the most exciting thing is that AI can be a democratising tool, open to everyone.

    Just as we have seen digital adoption sweep across the developing world, AI has the potential to empower millions of people in every part of our planet, giving everyone, wherever they are, the ability to be part of this revolution.

    AI can and should be a tool for all.

    Yet any technology that can be used by all can also be used for ill.

    We have already seen the dangers AI can pose: teens hacking individuals’ bank details; terrorists targeting government systems; cyber criminals duping voters with deep-fakes and bots; even states suppressing their peoples.

    But our focus on the risks has to include the potential of agentic frontier AI, which at once surpasses our collective intelligence, and defies our understanding.

    Indeed, many argue that this technology is like no other, in the sense that its creators themselves don’t even know how it works.

    They can’t explain why it does what it does, they cannot predict what it will – or will not – do.

    The principal risks of frontier AI will therefore come from misuse, misadventure, or misalignment with human objectives.

    Our efforts need to preempt all of these possibilities – and to come together to agree a shared understanding of those risks.

    This is what the AI Safety Summit that the United Kingdom is hosting in November will seek to achieve.

    Despite the entreaties we saw from some experts earlier in the year, I do not believe we can hold back the tide.

    There is no future in which this technology does not develop at an extraordinary pace.

    And although I applaud leading companies’ efforts to put safety at the heart of their development, and for their voluntary commitments that provide guardrails against unsafe deployment, the starting gun has been fired on a globally competitive race in which individual companies as well as countries will strive to push the boundaries as far and fast as possible.

    Indeed, the stated aim of these companies is to build superintelligence.

    AI that strives to surpass human intelligence in every possible way.

    Some of the people working on this think it is just a few years away.

    The question for governments is how we respond to that.

    The speed and scale demands leaders are clear-eyed about the implications and potential.

    We cannot afford to become trapped in debates about whether AI is a tool for good or a tool for ill; it will be a tool for both.

    We must prepare for both and insure against the latter.

    The international community must devote its response equally to the opportunities and the risks – and do so with both vigour and enthusiasm.

    In the past, leaders have responded to scientific and technological developments with retrospective regulation.

    But in this instance the necessary guardrails, regulation and governance must be developed in a parallel process with the technological progress.

    Yet, at the moment, global regulation is falling behind current advances.

    Lawmakers must draw in everyone – developers, experts, academics – to understand in advance the sort of opportunities and risks that might be presented.

    We must be frontier governments alongside the frontier innovators.

    The United Kingdom is determined to be in the vanguard, working with like-minded allies in the United Nations and through the Hiroshima G7 process, the Global Partnership on AI, and the OECD.

    Ours is a country which is uniquely placed.

    We have the frontier technology companies.

    We have world-leading universities.

    And we have some of the highest investment in generative AI.

    And, of course, we have the heritage of the Industrial Revolution and the computing revolution.

    This hinterland gives us the grounding to make AI a success, and make it safe.

    They are two sides of the same coin, and our Prime Minister has put AI safety at the forefront of his ambitions.

    We recognise that while, of course, every nation will want to protect its own interests and strategic advantage, the most important actions we will take will be international.

    In fact, because tech companies and non-state actors often have country-sized influence and prominence in AI, this challenge requires a new form of multilateralism.

    Because it is only by working together that we will make AI safe for everyone.

    Our first ever AI Safety Summit in November will kick-start this process with a focus on frontier technology.

    In particular, we want to look at the most serious possible risks such as the potential to undermine biosecurity, or increase the ability of people to carry out cyber attacks, as well as the danger of losing control of the machines themselves.

    For those that would say that these warnings are sensationalist, or belong in the realm of science-fiction, I simply point to the words of hundreds of AI developers, experts and academics, who have said – and I quote:

    “Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war.”

    I do not stand here claiming to be an expert on AI, but I do believe that policy-makers and Governments ignore this expert consensus at the peril of all of our citizens.

    Our Summit will aim to reach a common understanding of these most extreme risks, and how the world should confront them. And at the same time, focus on how safe AI can be used for public good.

    The speed of this progress demands this is not a one-off, or even an annual gathering.

    New breakthroughs are happening daily, and we need to convene more regularly.

    Moreover, it is essential that we bring governments together with the best academics and researchers to be able to evaluate the technologies.

    Tech companies must not mark their own homework, just as governments and citizens must have confidence that risks are properly mitigated.

    Indeed, a large part of this work should be about ensuring faith in the system, and it is only nation states that can provide the most significant national security concern reassurance that has been allayed.

    That is why I am so proud that the United Kingdom’s world-leading Frontier AI Taskforce has brought together pioneering experts like Yoshua Bengio and Paul Christiano, with the head of GCHQ and our National Security Advisers.

    It is the first body of its kind in the world that is developing the capacity to conduct the safe external red-teaming that will be critical to building confidence in frontier models.

    And our ambition is for the Taskforce to evolve to become a permanent institutional structure, with an international offer.

    Building this capacity in liberal, democratic countries is important.

    Many world-beating technologies were developed in nations where expression flows openly and ideas are exchanged freely.

    A culture of rules and transparency is essential to creativity and innovation, and it is just as essential to making AI safe.

    So that, ladies and gentlemen, is the task that confronts us.

    It is – in its speed, and its scale, and its potential – unlike anything we – or our predecessors – have known before.

    Exciting.

    Daunting.

    Inexorable.

    So now we must work – alongside its pioneers – to understand it, to govern it, to harness its potential, and to contain its risks.

    We will have to be pioneers too.

    We may not know where the risks lie, how we might contain them, or even the fora in which we must determine them.

    What we do know, however, is that the most powerful action will come when nations work together.

    The AI revolution will be a bracing test for the multilateral system, to show that it can work together on a question that will help to define the fate of humanity.

    Our future – humanity’s future – our entire planet’s future, depends on our ability to do so.

    That is our challenge, and this is our opportunity.

    To be – truly – the United Nations.

     

  • Lucy Frazer – 2023 Speech to the Royal Television Society

    Lucy Frazer – 2023 Speech to the Royal Television Society

    The speech made by Lucy Frazer, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, in Cambridge on 20 September 2023.

    Good afternoon, thank you for the introduction Alex.

    I thought today, I might share a secret from my past.

    When I was about 7 I used to dream about creating and presenting my own TV show.

    After school I watched Tony Hart transform Morph on my screen and imagined my future on the TV.

    The fact that I was absolutely hopeless at art never appeared to me to be a barrier to my prospective career.

    And then, one day, I nearly got my breakthrough.

    When I was about 8 I attended a dance class (and i was just as bad at dance as I was art) and the whole class auditioned to be in a TV advert.

    Unbelievably I reached the final round.

    And my glamorous future flashed in front of me.

    But that inevitable tap on the shoulder asking me to leave the stage quickly ended my not yet burgeoning career.

    And my dreams of the starry world of film and TV came to a crashing end when I started my law degree.

    And I know that millions of people across the country, young and old, share that dream about being involved in what is one of our most exciting and glamorous industries.

    And where better a place to have that ambition?

    Here in the UK, our TV is genuinely world leading.

    And it has been world-leading for years – from the days of four to five channels, to the current all-you-can-eat world of television we’re in now.

    Today, in 2023, we produce the best of the best.

    Many of the most celebrated shows of this golden era have been made here in the UK, written here in the UK, and shot here in the UK.

    Shows like Sex Education, The Crown and Luther that have become huge hits not just in this country, but all over the world.

    And with imitation being the sincerest form of flattery, many of our great TV shows and formats have spawned remakes all over the world – from Love Island and The Office to Bake Off and Ghosts.

    You have created a great environment for our TV excellence.

    One which discovers and nurtures outstanding talent.

    One where creativity is given licence to flourish, every day.

    Everyone should take a quick look at IMDb’s top 100 TV shows voted for by users, 26 were first shown on British screens.

    British-produced shows like Peaky Blinders, Chernobyl and David Attenborough’s nature documentaries all featured in the top 10.

    Our PSBs have been able to bring the same levels of creativity to their programming as streaming services backed by some of the biggest businesses in the world.

    You see in countless programmes from Happy Valley and Unforgotten to Taskmaster and Derry Girls.

    Meanwhile companies like Netflix continue to underline the dominance of our TV and film industry in Europe.

    Spending $6 billion making TV shows and films in Britain over the past 4 years.

    Investment that has given us zeitgeist-defining shows from The Crown and Top Boy to The Tinder Swindler

    But despite all this excellence, it would be foolish to ignore the enormous challenges that you all face in remaining competitive.

    I know that the ongoing strikes in the US are having a significant impact on many working in the industry in the UK.

    The government is committed to our film and high-end TV sector, and we want to ensure that it’s in the best possible position to bounce back once the US strikes are resolved.

    At the same time, we know that new technologies are, and will continue to drive changes in users’ habits and impact the market landscape.

    You only need to look at a handful of Ofcom’s figures to appreciate the seismic scale of change.

    They show the number of TV programmes pulling in 4 million or more viewers has halved since 2014.

    They show live programmes, like news shows or soaps, are seeing steep declines in viewer numbers across the board.

    They show that TikTok, for the second year in a row, was the fastest-growing source of news in the UK.

    We know that Artificial Intelligence is already beginning to transform the way we create and consume media and content.

    The Government has an interest in this – because your success is success for our economy, with the jobs and growth you support – and your success is also success for our society, because the content you create helps to entertain, challenge, console, educate.

    So it is our job, in Government, to support you to ensure in this changing landscape, we protect, preserve and enhance the existing ecosystem that you have all created here in the UK.

    And so I see my role as three fold.

    First, Maximising the potential of the creative industries including TV, helping you to grow your revenues, invest and spur growth across the UK.

    Secondly, giving you the support you need to navigate this changing world,

    And thirdly, ensuring that at all times that we champion media freedoms.

    Today’s theme in this conference is about choice.

    I see choice as opportunity.

    I want to talk about these three priorities within this context, to enable you seize the opportunities that are available.

    And I want to expand on those three roles.

    So first, potential.

    Since I was appointed as your Culture Secretary 7 months ago I have sought to maximise the potential of the creative industries, which includes TV.

    In February I worked with the Chancellor to ensure we not only continue the High-End TV tax relief and other creative tax reliefs, but actually increase them, in the form of the new Audio-Visual Expenditure Credit (AVEC).

    And, in June, I published our Sector Vision – which is a collaboration with the industry – in particular the Creative Industries Council.

    This vision set out our ambition for the creative industries as a whole.

    An ambition to grow the sector by £50 billion, create a million new jobs and a pipeline of talent, all by 2030.

    And I am now working with the industry to deliver on that commitment.

    Through the funding of Creative Industries Clusters across the country like TV in Leeds, gaming in Dundee and Bristol.

    Backing innovation in the TV industry – with funding for collaborations like the one between we’ve just announced between the National Television and Film School, Royal Holloway University of London and Pinewood for the development of green screens.

    And investing in developing the pipeline of talent, with approval for BRIT School North in Bradford in August, to help us bring through the next Tom Holland or the next Amy Winehouse.

    These are just three examples of how we are investing over £300 million since the last Spending Review.

    And they build on years of support by the Government.

    Building on the tax reliefs that support and incentivise culturally British production, like the high end TV tax relief and the audio visual and cultural reliefs.

    Direct funding through initiatives like the Global Screen Fund.

    As well as the significant support we gave throughout Covid through the £1.5 billion Culture Recovery Fund and the hugely successful Film and TV Restart Scheme that supported more than 100,000 jobs for cast and crew on more than 1,000 productions.

    I am proud that the Government has, for years, recognised the importance of our TV industry.

    Secondly as I highlighted we need to make sure you have the framework in which to remain globally competitive in this changing world.

    That is why we’re bringing forward the Media Bill, which we have already drafted and consulted on.

    This Bill updates the system in which public service broadcasters operate, future proofs it and levels the playing field.

    It ensures that we sustain both public service broadcasters and the radio sector.

    It does this by making sure public service broadcasters’ apps like BBC iPlayer and ITV X, as well as STV Player in Scotland, the Channel 4 app, My5 and S4C’s Clic in Wales are always easy to find and watch, whether you’re on a smart TV or using a streaming stick.

    The way we’ve approached this Bill has been in a consultative fashion, but I do recognise some concerns remain, including about extending content regulation to video on demand services.

    But what we are saying is this – is that when you are watching TV, the same rules that apply to a new Channel 4 series or a new Sky documentary should be the ones applied across the board.

    The Bill is about ensuring we have the right playing field in place for all parts of the TV ecosystem to thrive.

    This is part of our work to help bring TV into the digital age but we recognise there is more to do.

    Because we recognise that internet provided TV is growing,

    74% of homes now have a smart TV connected to the internet.

    And this has spawned hundreds of new, mostly internet-based TV channels which have created yet another innovative way for audiences to enjoy their favourite shows.

    But while this shift is an exciting one, it’s our job to look at those channels that fall outside our existing regulations and to make sure people are not left behind by this move to digital.

    That’s why we are going to consult on whether we need to extend regulation to these unregulated channels and Electronic Programme Guides. And if so, how?

    And, my starting point in looking at this will always be that any change to regulations must strike a balance between protecting people – particularly the young and vulnerable while protecting freedom of speech, and not unduly burdening the TV industry.

    I know that this challenge of the move to internet TV is something that you are thinking about with the announcement of Freely earlier this week.

    As we focus on the future, our attention must also be on making sure people are not left behind.

    Because new ways of consuming TV should not come at the expense of those who still enjoy terrestrial television.

    Free to view television is a vitally important part of our television landscape, and this Government wants to encourage the sector to keep embracing innovation and technological development, but we’re not going to pull the rug from under the devoted audiences of Freeview channels.

    We want terrestrial television to remain accessible for the foreseeable future.

    At the same time, we really want to build a clear picture of what the future of TV looks like.

    So today I can confirm that we’re launching a new programme of work on the Future of TV distribution, alongside a call for evidence from Ofcom – which it will publish later in the autumn.

    My department will undertake a six-month research project, looking at changing viewing habits and technologies that will impact how shows are brought to our screen, both now, and in the decades to come – acknowledging always the importance of access.

    I recognise that the future of TV is not just about pipes and wires, the way it appears on our screens, and how people access it.

    We are also working within my department, with industry and with Ofcom to consider the impact of specific new technologies like AI and to shape an evidence base that can guide future policymaking.

    It is our job to ensure we strike the right balance between supporting innovation and protecting rights holders.

    As part of that, we’re engaging closely with the Intellectual Property Office and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology to ensure we strike that right balance.

    While it’s clear that AI is a rapidly developing technology, I want to assure you all that one of my priorities is to make sure we protect and maintain the integrity of our high quality news output.

    In the coming weeks, we’ll be growing that evidence base with a number of roundtables on AI to discuss what it means for our media and for our creative industries.

    And finally, why this is all so important, and that’s because your work retains and enhances our media freedom.

    TV is an enormous industry. Together with film it brings in more than £18 billion for the UK economy and supports almost 300,000 jobs across the UK.

    It’s an industry that is there to entertain and inform.

    But it is also so much more than that.

    A television industry which is able to broadcast, to produce and distribute fearless truth telling in its news, uncomfortable issues in its documentaries, or produce dramas that highlight challenging real life issues.

    Is one that reveals behind it a strong democracy that is the mark of a free country.

    We all know the playbook in countries that are not free.

    The first thing a dictator does is take control of the airwaves.

    Because these leaders know that if you succeed in stifling universal debate, you can control the narrative.

    That is why you’re all so important to our present, and to our future.

    Media freedom is central to our values as a country, and to mine as your Culture Secretary.

    And that is partly why I’ve always enjoyed watching the political dramas that you make – whether that is House of Cards, the Politicians Wife, Road Kill, The Diplomat – A Very British Scandal.

    They are all so brilliant.

    And I don’t even mind that all these programmes often have as their theme a Tory politician, always unscrupulous, who inevitably ends up booted out of office, in prison or dead.

    Because that is one of the things that makes our country great.

    The freedom you have to make programmes.

    I should say that I have noticed in most of these there is a female heroine, often political (sometimes a lawyer), who always outwits the men.

    Which is probably the real reason I have enjoyed them all.

    Now, before I close, I do want to address the serious allegations that came to light over the weekend concerning Russell Brand.

    Those allegations are deeply shocking and it’s right that the police are encouraging anyone who believes they may have been a victim of a sexual offence to come forward.

    It’s also right that organisations involved in his employment conduct transparent investigations into whether complaints were made or concerns raised – and what action, if any, was taken.

    The nature of these allegations means it would be inappropriate to comment further at this stage, but I do want to briefly touch on the wider culture within our film and TV industry.

    This is an industry that young people – like 7 year old me – grow up dreaming of working in.

    One where the sky’s the limit for talent.

    It is incumbent on all of us to make sure that this industry is synonymous with talent, opportunity and inclusivity – not the scandals of MeToo.

    TV studios, production facilities and offices need to be places where people feel safe.

    Places where working cultures are responsible and accountable, and do not allow for possible abuses of power.

    Places where everyone feels able to speak up, no matter how junior, and where leaders never turn a blind eye.

    I would urge all of you, as leaders in your industry, to look hard at the cultures and processes in your own organisations and lead change, if change is needed.

    But I’d like to finish properly by thanking you all for the work you’ve done, to build not just a world class TV industry, but a world-leading one.

    It is a testament to your talent, your ingenuity, and your commitment.

    The Prime Minister and Chancellor have identified the creative industries as one of the 5 priority sectors of growth which we will focus on as a government.

    And you’re an essential part of that.

    We want to work with you not just to retain our position but to build on it.

    And I as your Culture Secretary promise to be your champion in Government to support you to maximise your potential and thrive in this changing landscape.

    And I look forward to doing that with you in the months and years ahead.

    Thank you.

  • Oliver Dowden – 2023 Speech at the United Nations Security Council

    Oliver Dowden – 2023 Speech at the United Nations Security Council

    The speech made by Oliver Dowden, the Deputy Prime Minister, in New York, the United States, on 20 September 2023.

    Thank you, President.

    I am proud to sit here today in solidarity with President Zelenskyy. He and the Ukrainian people have met Russia’s invasion of their country with bravery, and with courage. I pay tribute to their fortitude.

    Ukraine’s fight against Russian aggression is not only a fight for freedom, it is also a fight for the principles upon which the United Nations itself is based, principles underpinned by our Charter which says that all States’ sovereignty is equal, that territorial integrity is inviolable, that disputes should be settled peacefully and that we must protect those things together.

    When Russia’s tanks rolled into Ukraine they trampled over every one of those principles. They have done so ever since. Every missile, every bomb, every false arrest, every piece of propaganda has been a flagrant assault, not only on freedom, but on our multilateral rules-based system.

    If we allow Russia to lay waste to what we have built here, the risks to world order, the risks to us all, are grave.

    For over a year and a half, Ukraine has been suffering the terrible consequences of Russia’s war of choice. We must never forget the human cost. 9,500 people killed. 17,000 people injured. Reports of 500,000 military casualties on both sides.

    Russia has callously targeted schools, hospitals, even playgrounds. Ukrainians have been tortured, they have been raped. Men, women, and thousands of children have been forcibly deported from their homes.

    And the devastation flows beyond Ukraine’s borders. Thanks to their destruction of thousands of tonnes of grain, the hungry and malnourished people of the developing world are Russia’s victims too. That is why the United Kingdom will contribute a further £3 million to the World Food Programme to continue President Zelenskyy’s ‘Grain from Ukraine’ initiative.

    Of course, the only end to this widespread suffering is through a just and lasting peace. Ukraine has demonstrated their commitment to peace time again and again including in Copenhagen and Jeddah this summer. But they have also shown on the battlefield this summer that they are capable of restoring the sovereignty and territorial integrity that must be the foundations of any peace.

    Ukraine’s counter-offensive has put Russia under pressure. In total, Ukraine has regained 50 per cent of the territory seized since the war began and in Kharkiv and Kherson, the yellow and blue flag flies high once again. That flag flies throughout the rest of the world, reflecting the solidarity we feel to Ukraine. Yet we might wonder what difference does this support make when Russia seems so impervious to UN demands?

    When it seeks to fuel its aims with arms from sanctioned states such as Iran and the DPRK and when it conducts sham elections in Ukraine’s sovereign territory? The truth is this: Russia knows the power of collective action because it tries so hard to weaken and divide the international community.

    So, just as we need to confront our biggest challenges on global poverty, on climate change, on artificial intelligence collectively, we need effective multilateralism to achieve resolution. To seek justice for the many, many victims. To rebuild ruined cities and create new opportunities. To get grain exports flowing again. To help put Ukraine back on the path to prosperity. To secure peace.

    And that is what we shall do, together.

    Thank you, Mr President.

  • Rishi Sunak – 2023 Speech on Net Zero

    Rishi Sunak – 2023 Speech on Net Zero

    The speech made by Rishi Sunak, the Prime Minister, at 10 Downing Street on 20 September 2023.

    Let me get straight to it.

    I know people in our country are frustrated with our politics.

    I know they feel that much gets promised, but not enough is delivered.

    I know they watch the news or read the papers and wonder why in the face of the facts as they have them, choices are made as they are.

    I know that they dislike Westminster game playing, the short termism, and the lack of accountability.

    But most of all I think people are tired of the false choice between two versions of change that never go beyond a slogan.

    I have been Prime Minister for nearly a year now and it is the privilege of my life.

    I know the fundamentals of our great country are solid and timeless.

    Its people are its greatest strength, economically and socially.

    Their hopes and genius are what propel us forward, not Government.

    Government can set the framework, step in when needed, and step back when necessary.

    It can make big decisions.

    But what I have concluded during my time so far as Prime Minister, is that those decisions – the decisions that could bring real change, change that could alter the trajectory of our country – can be so caveated, so influenced by special interests, so lacking in debate and fundamental scrutiny that we’ve stumbled into a consensus about the future of our country, that no one seems to be happy with.

    And this is because too often, motivated by short term thinking, politicians have taken the easy way out.

    Telling people the bits they want to hear, and not necessarily always the bits they need to hear.

    We are making progress, including on my five priorities.

    Inflation – down again today and on track to be halved.

    Fastest growth in the G7 over the last two years.

    Debt – on target to be falling.

    The NHS – treating more patients than last year.

    And small boats – crossings significantly down on last year.

    But put simply: that isn’t enough.

    If for too many, there remains a nagging sense that the path we’re on no matter which party is in government isn’t quite what we hoped for, and that no one seems to have the courage to say so.

    That we make too little, that we spend too much, that things take too long and that even when we know these things, we seem powerless to change them.

    Now, I am here today to tell you that we do not have to be powerless.

    Our future doesn’t have to be a foregone conclusion.

    Our destiny can be of our own choosing.

    But only if we change the way our politics works.

    Can we be brave in the decisions we make, even if there is a political cost?

    Can we be honest when the facts change, even if it’s awkward?

    And can we put the long-term interests of our country before the short-term political needs of the moment, even if it means being controversial?

    I have spent my first year as Prime Minister bringing back stability to our economy, your government, and our country.

    And now it is time to address the bigger, longer-term questions we face.

    The real choice confronting us is do we really want to change our country and build a better future for our children, or do we want to carry on as we are.

    I have made my decision: we are going to change.

    And over the coming months, I will set out a series of long-term decisions to deliver that change.

    And that starts today, with a new approach to one of the biggest challenges we face: climate change.

    No one can watch the floods in Libya or the extreme heat in Europe this summer, and doubt that it is real and happening.

    We must reduce our emissions.

    And when I look at our economic future, I see huge opportunities in green industry.

    The change in our economy is as profound as the industrial revolution and I’m confident that we can lead the world now as we did then.

    So, I’ll have no truck with anyone saying we lack ambition.

    But there’s nothing ambitious about simply asserting a goal for a short-term headline without being honest with the public about the tough choices and sacrifices involved and without any meaningful democratic debate about how we get there.

    The Climate Change Committee have rightly said you don’t reach net zero simply by wishing it.

    Yet that’s precisely what previous governments have done – both Labour and Conservative.

    No one in Westminster politics has yet had the courage to look people in the eye and explain what’s really involved.

    That’s wrong – and it changes now.

    The plans made on your behalf assume this country will take an extraordinary series of steps that will fundamentally change our lives.

    A ban on buying new boilers even if your home will never ever be suitable for a heat pump.

    A ban that takes effect in just three years for those off the gas grid.

    And mandatory home upgrades for property owners in just two years’ time.

    There have even been proposals for:

    Taxes on eating meat
    New taxes on flying
    Compulsory car sharing if you drive to work
    And a government diktat to sort your rubbish into seven different bins.
    Now I believe deeply that when you ask most people about climate change, they want to do the right thing, they’re even prepared to make sacrifices.

    But it cannot be right for Westminster to impose such significant costs on working people especially those who are already struggling to make ends meet and to interfere so much in people’s way of life without a properly informed national debate.

    That’s especially true because we’re so far ahead of every other country in the world.

    We’ve had the fastest reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in the G7. Down almost 50% since 1990.

    France? 22%.

    The US? No change at all.

    China? Up by over 300%.

    And when our share of global emissions is less than 1%, how can it be right that British citizens, are now being told to sacrifice even more than others?

    Because the risk here, for those of us who care about reaching Net Zero – as I do – is simple: If we continue down this path, we risk losing the consent of the British people.

    And the resulting backlash would not just be against specific policies but against the wider mission itself, meaning we might never achieve our goal.

    That’s why we have to do things differently.

    We need sensible, green leadership.

    It won’t be easy.

    And it will require a wholly new kind of politics.

    A politics that is transparent, and the space for a better, more honest debate about how we secure the country’s long-term interest.

    So, how do we do that? What is our new approach to achieving net zero?

    First, we need to change the debate.

    We’re stuck between two extremes.

    Those who want to abandon Net Zero altogether – because the costs are too high, the burdens too great or in some cases, they don’t accept the overwhelming evidence for climate change at all.

    And then there are others who argue with an ideological zeal: we must move even faster, and go even further no matter the cost or disruption to people’s lives and regardless of how much quicker we’re already moving than any other country.

    Both extremes are wrong.

    Both fail to reckon with the reality of the situation.

    Yes, Net Zero is going to be hard and will require us to change.

    But in a democracy, we must also be able to scrutinise and debate those changes, many of which are hidden in plain sight – in a realistic manner.

    This debate needs more clarity, not more emotion.

    The test should be: do we have the fairest credible path to reach Net Zero by 2050, in a way that brings people with us?

    Since becoming Prime Minister, I’ve examined our plans and I don’t think they meet that test.

    We seem to have defaulted to an approach which will impose unacceptable costs on hard-pressed British families.

    Costs that no one was ever told about, and which may not actually be necessary to deliver the emissions reduction that we need.

    And why am I confident in saying that?

    Because over the last decade or more, we’ve massively over delivered on every one of our carbon budgets despite continuous predictions we’d miss them.

    We’ve seen rapid technological advances which have made things like renewables far cheaper:

    Just consider offshore wind, where costs have fallen by 70% more than we projected in 2016.

    And people are increasingly choosing to go green – look at how demand for electric vehicles has consistently outstripped forecasts.

    Given these things, I’m confident that we can adopt a more pragmatic, proportionate, and realistic approach to meeting Net Zero that eases the burdens on working people.

    And that’s the second part of our new approach.

    Now I’m not saying there will be no hard choices.

    And nor am I abandoning any of our targets or commitments.

    I am unequivocal that we’ll meet our international agreements including the critical promises in Paris and Glasgow to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees.

    I’m proud that our country leads the world on Net Zero, with the most ambitious 2030 target of any major economy.

    And as we’re as committed as ever to helping developing countries.

    Just the other week I announced $2bn for the Green Climate Fund – the single biggest commitment of its kind, the UK has ever made.

    But we can do all this in a fairer, better way – and today I can set out the details of what our new approach will mean for people.

    That starts with electric vehicles.

    We’re working hard to make the UK a world-leader.

    I’m proud that we’ve already attracted billions of new investments from companies like Tata’s Jaguar Land Rover gigafactory.

    And I expect that by 2030, the vast majority of cars sold will be electric. Why?

    Because the costs are reducing; the range is improving; the charging infrastructure is growing.

    People are already choosing electric vehicles to such an extent that we’re registering a new one every 60 seconds.

    But I also think that at least for now, it should be you the consumer that makes that choice, not government forcing you to do it.

    Because the upfront cost is still high – especially for families struggling with the cost of living.

    Small businesses are worried about the practicalities.

    And we’ve got further to go to get that charging infrastructure truly nationwide.

    And we need to strengthen our own auto industry, so we aren’t reliant on heavily subsidised, carbon intensive imports, from countries like China.

    So, to give us more time to prepare, I’m announcing today that we’re going to ease the transition to electric vehicles.

    You’ll still be able to buy petrol and diesel cars and vans until 2035.

    Even after that, you’ll still be able to buy and sell them second-hand.

    We’re aligning our approach with countries like Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Australia, Canada, Sweden, and US states such as California, New York and Massachusetts and still ahead of the rest of America and other countries like New Zealand.

    Now, to get to Net Zero, we also need a fairer, better approach to decarbonising how we heat our homes.

    We’re making huge advances in the technologies that we need to do that, like heat pumps.

    But we need a balance.

    Between incentivising businesses to innovate, so heat pumps become even cheaper, more effective, and more attractive.

    But without imposing costs on hard-pressed families, at a time when technology is often still expensive and won’t work in all homes.

    For a family living in a terraced house in Darlington, the upfront cost could be around £10,000.

    Even the most committed advocates of Net Zero must recognise that if our solution is to force people to pay that kind of money support will collapse, and we’ll simply never get there.

    So, I’m announcing today that we will give people far more time to make the necessary transition to heat pumps.

    We’ll never force anyone to rip out their existing boiler and replace it with a heat pump.

    You’ll only ever have to make the switch when you’re replacing your boiler anyway, and even then, not until 2035.

    And to help those households for whom this will be hardest I’m introducing a new exemption today so that they’ll never have to switch at all.

    Now, this doesn’t mean I’m any less committed to decarbonising our homes.

    Quite the opposite.

    But rather than banning boilers before people can afford the alternative; we’re going to support them to make the switch.

    I’m announcing today, that the Boiler Upgrade Scheme which gives people cash grants to replace their boiler, will be increased by 50% to £7,500.

    There are no strings attached.

    The money will never need to be repaid.

    And this is one of the most generous schemes of its kind in Europe.

    Next, energy efficiency.

    This is critical to making our homes cheaper to heat.

    That’s why we’ve got big government grants like the Great British Insulation Scheme.

    But under current plans, some property owners would’ve been forced to make expensive upgrades in just two years’ time.

    For a semi-detached house in Salisbury, you could be looking at a bill of £8,000.

    And even if you’re only renting, you’ll more than likely see some of that passed on in higher rents.

    That’s just wrong.

    So those plans will be scrapped, and while we will continue to subsidise energy efficiency – we’ll never force any household to do it.

    And that’s not all.

    The debate about how we get to Net Zero has thrown up a range of worrying proposals and today I want to confirm that under this government, they’ll never happen.

    The proposal for government to interfere in how many passengers you can have in your car.

    I’ve scrapped it.

    The proposal that we should force you to have seven different bins in your home.

    I’ve scrapped it.

    The proposal to make you change your diet – and harm British farmers – by taxing meat.

    Or to create new taxes to discourage flying or going on holiday.

    I’ve scrapped those too.

    And nor will we ban new oil and gas in the North Sea which would simply leave us reliant on expensive, imported energy from foreign dictators like Putin.

    We will never impose these unnecessary and heavy-handed measures on you, the British people but we will still meet our international commitments and hit Net Zero by 2050.

    And if we’re going to change politics in the way I’m talking about, we can never allow carbon budgets to be set in the same way again.

    The last Carbon Budget process was debated in the House of Commons for just 17 minutes and voted through with barely any consideration given to the hard choices needed to fulfil it.

    It was the carbon equivalent of promising to boost government spending with no way to pay for it.

    That’s not a responsible way to make decisions which have such a bearing on people’s lives.

    So, when Parliament votes on carbon budgets in the future, I want to see it consider the plans to meet that budget, at the same time.

    If the first part of our new approach to meeting Net Zero is to change the debate and the second part is a more pragmatic, proportionate, and realistic approach that eases the burdens on families…

    …then the third is to embrace with even greater enthusiasm, the incredible opportunities of green industry and take the necessary practical steps to create whole new sectors and hundreds of thousands of good, well-paid jobs right across the country.

    We’re already home to the four of the world’s largest offshore wind farms, we’re building an even bigger one at Dogger Bank and we’re improving our auction process to maximise private investment into this world-leading industry.

    We’re lifting the ban on onshore wind.

    We’re investing in four new clusters to capture and store carbon from the atmosphere.

    And we’re building new nuclear power stations for the first time in thirty years.

    Just this week, we took a significant long-term decision to raise funding for Sizewell C – putting beyond all doubt our commitment to decarbonising our power sector.

    And later this autumn, we’ll shortlist the companies to build the new generation of small modular reactors.

    But one of our biggest constraints to reaching Net Zero and improving our energy security, is this:

    We’re investing billions in new energy projects, yet we don’t have the grid infrastructure to bring that power to households and businesses.

    And when energy security is national security – that’s unacceptable.

    Right now, it can take fourteen years to build new grid infrastructure.

    There are enough projects waiting to be connected to generate over half of our future electricity needs.

    So, I can announce today that the Chancellor and Energy Security Secretary will shortly bring forward comprehensive new reforms to energy infrastructure.

    We’ll set out the UK’s first ever spatial plan for that infrastructure to give industry certainty and every community a say.

    We’ll speed up planning for the most nationally significant projects.

    And we’ll end the first-come-first-served approach to grid connections by raising the bar to enter the queue and make sure those ready first, will connect first.

    So, from offshore wind, to nuclear, to a revolution in our energy infrastructure investors should have absolute confidence that we’re getting on with the job and the UK will remain the best place in the world to invest in the green industries of the future.

    Not least, because of something else this country has always excelled at: innovation in new technologies.

    As a country that emits less than 1% of the world’s carbon emissions, one of the most powerful contributions, we can make is our unique ability to develop new technologies that can help the world.

    Like the SENSEWind team in Scotland developing the technology to service floating offshore wind turbines while still out at sea.

    Or the researchers at Cambridge who pioneered a new way to turn sunlight into fuel.

    And that’s why today we’re going further, creating the new, £150m Green Future Fellowship.

    This will support at least 50 leading scientists and engineers to develop real, breakthrough green technologies.

    And it builds on the £1 billion I invested as Chancellor, in the Net Zero Innovation Portfolio.

    And finally, we can’t tackle climate change without protecting nature; and vice versa.

    Just the loss of forests alone accounts for the equivalent of ten times the global emissions of the entire United Kingdom.

    And in the coming weeks, ahead of my attendance at COP28, I will set out the next stage in our ambitious environmental agenda.

    So, in conclusion.

    This country is proud to be a world leader in reaching Net Zero by 2050.

    But we simply won’t achieve it unless we change.

    We’re now going to have a better, more honest debate about how we get there.

    We’ll now have a more pragmatic, proportionate, and realistic approach that eases the burdens on families.

    All while doubling down on the new green industries of the future.

    In a democracy, that’s the only realistic path to Net Zero.

    Consent, not imposition.

    Honesty, not obfuscation.

    Pragmatism, not ideology.

    That’s how we’ll turn the challenge of net zero into the greatest opportunity – and the proudest achievement – of our lifetimes.

    And this is just the start.

    What we begin today, is bigger than any single policy or issue.

    We are going to change the way our politics works.

    We are going to make different decisions.

    We won’t take the easy way out.

    There will be resistance, and we will meet it.

    Because I am determined to change our country and build a better future for our children.

    Nothing less is acceptable.

  • Rishi Sunak – 2023 Speech on Net Zero

    Rishi Sunak – 2023 Speech on Net Zero

    The speech made by Rishi Sunak, the Prime Minister, on 20 September 2023.

    I’m absolutely committed to reaching Net Zero by 2050.

    But no one in politics has had the courage to look people in the eye and explain what that involves.

    That’s wrong – and it changes now.

    We’re changing our approach to meeting Net Zero to ease the burden on working people.

    So what does that mean for you?

    Removing unnecessary and heavy-handed measures
    The debate about how we get to Net Zero has thrown up a range of worrying proposals and I want to confirm that under this government, they’ll never happen.

    I’m scrapping the proposal for government to interfere in how many passengers you can have in your car and the idea that we should force you to have 7 different bins in your home.

    I’m also scrapping the proposal to make you change your diet – and harm British farmers – by taxing meat.

    And the proposal to create new taxes to discourage flying- I’ve scrapped that too.

    We will never impose these unnecessary and heavy-handed measures on you, the British people, but we will still meet our international commitments and hit Net Zero by 2050.

    Extending deadlines to transition to clean energy
    We know the upfront costs for families are still high – so to give us more time to prepare, we’re easing the transition to electric vehicles on our roads and heat pumps in our homes.

    That means you’ll still be able to buy new petrol and diesel cars and vans until 2035, in line with countries like Germany and France.

    It also means we’ll never force anyone to rip out their old boiler for an expensive heat pump, which for a family living in a terraced house in Darlington, could cost up to £10,000.

    How can we afford to make these changes
    This country is proud to be a world leader in reaching Net Zero by 2050.

    Because of the progress we have already made, the UK’s share of global emissions is now less than 1%.

    In fact we are a world leader in cutting emissions, surpassing the targets most countries have set for 2030 including Australia, Canada, Japan and the US.

    We have overdelivered on all our previous targets to date.

    Given this progress, reaching our targets does not need to come unnecessarily at the expense of people facing higher costs – and that’s why today we can ease the burden on working families.

    We will continue to meet our international agreements, including the critical promises in Paris and Glasgow to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees, but our new approach to Net Zero is:

    Pragmatic, proportionate and realistic
    Accountable to the British public
    Meet our Net Zero commitment
    Supporting British families
    In a democracy, that’s the only realistic path to Net Zero.

    Consent, not imposition.

    Honesty, not obfuscation.

    Pragmatism, not ideology.

    That’s how we’ll turn the challenge of Net Zero into the greatest opportunity – and the proudest achievement – of our lifetimes.

  • James Cleverly – 2023 Opening Remarks at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York

    James Cleverly – 2023 Opening Remarks at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York

    The speech made by James Cleverly, the Foreign Secretary, in New York on 19 September 2023.

    Mike thank you very much and thank you for hosting me today and thank you all for coming.

    I was about to say I’ve done a bit of research but I don’t think it’s good starting a speech with an outright lie, so I’ll be a bit more honest. Members of my team have done a bit of research and I discover, because they’ve written it down here for me that the origins of the council lie in meetings between Brits and Americans in the aftermath of the First World War. And the conversation between our two countries has been a longstanding one and the work of this institution, the thinking about international relations is unsurprisingly as relevant today as it was back then.

    Those meetings occurred in one of those pivot points in history and as someone who I regard not only as an important interlocutor but increasingly someone that I regard as a friend, Tony Blinken reminded us in a speech that he gave last week, we too are living through a pivotal moment because we’re at the nexus of interconnected challenges.

    Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is not necessarily a trial of strength as the work that our two nations did through conflicts in the first and second world war but is absolutely a trial of our resolve – and the point that I have made, and the point that I will make here today and will continue to make is that the world is watching. Our resolve is being tested and we are being observed. You can applaud at any point you fancy.

    Now that is not of course the only area where our resolve is being tested.

    Our willingness to address issues such as climate change, how to deal with new technologies such as AI, all these things are testing our ingenuity and testing our resolve and today at the UN, this week at the UN we are reminded sadly that we are way behind schedule on the delivery against our Sustainable Development Goals.

    And after the economic dislocation of the pandemic and of the war in Ukraine, I think citizens here in the US, certainly in the UK and more widely across the world are asking their governments what are you doing about it, what are you doing to act on our behalf.

    Mike you’re a former US Trade Representative, a voice on the international stage and I suspect that you like me and indeed many of you in the room will understand that there is no real boundary between foreign policy and domestic policy and the idea that there is, is completely artificial but I think that it is now incumbent upon us that we pay more attention to the interrelationship between international policy and domestic policy.

    Last week, Tony Blinken spoke about having a fully integrated domestic and foreign policy.

    And my Prime Minister and the government he leads are also absolutely determined to address the principle concerns of our citizens, which they tell us loud and clear are about addressing illegal migration and economic growth. Those superficially appear to be domestic issues but of course as soon as you look at them in any kind of detail it becomes clear they can only be resolved through international engagement.

    So that is why we are intensifying collaboration with the countries on international illegal transit routes, migrant transit routes, as well as the countries from whom people are fleeing.

    We are working with international partners to break the business model of those evil people smugglers and we are deepening our economic ties with countries around the world to try and dissuade people from moving to try and remove the drivers of that migration. And I know that migration is an increasingly sensitive political issue here in the US and it is also a sensitive political issue in a number of other countries across Europe and beyond.

    What this reminds me of is the need to strengthen our traditional alliances and also to build additional ones. In terms of strengthening our pre-existing alliances I’m very pleased that Prime Minister Sunak and President Biden signed the Atlantic declaration earlier this year, it’s about reinforcing one of our strongest friendships in the world, it forms part of a continuum of close working relationship, it’s the first Atlantic charter signed by Prime Minister Churchill and President Roosevelt, whatever happened to those guys did they make it in the world? I don’t remember, but it is part of a longstanding friendship and it has reminded us once again in a time of conflict in the European continent how important our bilateral relationship is.

    Whilst we look at the horrors that are being perpetrated against the Ukrainian people by the Russian armed forces, we are reminded that once again at a time of need, the United States of America and the United Kingdom and others of course, have really stepped forward and are playing a leading part, once again in defending democracy and freedom.

    The US is the leading supplier of military aid to Ukraine and I pay tribute to your nation’s generosity. And the Ukrainians are making the most of their support. And I know sometimes there’s frustration with the pace of their counter-offensive, I’ve had military briefings, and whilst I don’t want to bore you with the details, the Russian occupying forces have spent a huge amount of time and effort fortifying the whole of that southern part of Ukraine, meaning that any advance would inevitably need to be both slow and methodical. But the support of the US, the support of the UK the support of other nations around the world, both NATO members and further afield has made a difference.

    It gave the Ukrainians a fighting chance at the beginning of this conflict. Those depth strike capabilities, those long range missiles that the UK and others are now providing are enabling the Ukrainians to target logistics hubs, communications hubs, command control hubs giving them the ability to methodically push back against Russia.

    Putin believed that he could outlast Ukraine and outlast Ukraine’s friends around the world. He was wrong. Because time is not on Russia’s side. Some brutal statistics.

    Russia has suffered many times more fatalities in combat in just over eighteen months than the Soviets did during their 10 years in Afghanistan. That level is unsustainable.

    As we saw Prigozhin and the Wagner Group with their attempted mutiny, cracks are appearing, and again I quote Tony Blinken, cracks are appearing in the Russian system and the longer this conflict persists the longer those cracks will work their way through the system. Putin is scared of a mass mobilisation.

    His circle of friends both in Russia and internationally is shrinking.

    Last year, only four countries defended Russia in a UN General Assembly vote on Ukraine.

    And whilst the world’s largest economies met last week in New Delhi, he was finalising his plans in a solitary summit with an impoverished dictator.

    That is the damage that Putin’s poor decision making has done to his own country.

    And so, the lesson I take from that is that we need to maintain our resolve. Putin’s calculation was that he could outlast us. We have to prove him wrong. And we have to prove him wrong not just to ensure that the conflict in Ukraine has a proper and good resolution where the Ukrainians get their country back, but because every current dictator and would be dictator and future potentate will look at how we respond to this challenge and they will factor that into their calculations about future actions.

    So we need to send the message loud and clear that we have the resolve, we have the strategic patience, that we will do the right thing until this is resolved. Because if we do not then we will invite further aggression which we will then inevitably have to deal with at some point in the future.

    Ukraine will not give up. The UK will not abandon them. And we will continue to advocate for the international community to lend them their support.

    Now, obviously Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is not the only issue that we have to discuss. There are many, many challenges on the world stage.

    I’ve recently returned from a trip to Beijing, where I spoke with the Chinese government about areas where we have deep, deep disagreements. For example, their treatment of the Uyghur Muslim minority in Xinjiang, their failure to abide by commitments freely entered into over Hong Kong, their aggressive posture across the Taiwan Strait.

    But, of course, I also engage with them on some of the issues that are important to all of us: the economic recovery, post conference, how we make sure that we benefit from AI, and that we address the challenges and potential dangers of that technology. And so we don’t have the luxury of dealing with only one challenge or one situation at a time. We have to look holistically. The United Kingdom has always been a globally focused country. We enjoy good working relationships with the United States, as I’ve already said, and our other friends in the Americas, our European friends and colleagues, but also we have enhanced our focus on the Indo Pacific region, where of course we have long standing friendships and we intend to enhance those.

    So to give myself some time to answer your questions, I will summarize by saying that the challenges the world presents us are legion. But we do have the opportunity to make positive progress. We do have the opportunity to get the Sustainable Development Goals back on track.

    It is going to mean that we work with our traditional friends and allies, but it also means that we have to give voice to the emerging powers in the world. The UK has encouraged an expansion of the United Nations Security Council for example, we believe that India, Brazil, Germany, Japan should have permanent membership, and Africa really deserves a louder voice on the world stage.

    We think there needs to be change, evolution, and modernization of the international financial system so that we can apply the really big bucks held in the private sector to some of the challenges that we need to address. My Prime Minister has recently announced to the G20 a $2 billion commitment from UK to the Green Climate Fund to reinforce the value that we place on the natural world and the future of our children.

    So there are plenty of things that we can discuss. I throw myself open to questions from the floor. You can ask me anything you like. There are three caveats. There are some things that I don’t know. You probably find that hard to believe, but nevertheless, it’s true. There are some things that I do know that I’m not going to tell you about. And other than that, I am quite willing to answer questions on any subject that either I’ve covered here that are maybe in your heads.

  • Rachel Maclean – 2023 Speech at the National Housing Federation Conference

    Rachel Maclean – 2023 Speech at the National Housing Federation Conference

    The speech made by Rachel Maclean, the Housing and Planning Minister, on 15 September 2023.

    I want to thank all of you in the audience. I know that you all work extremely hard for your tenants and communities during what’s been a uniquely challenging period – starting with the aftermath of the Grenfell Tower tragedy, the pandemic and, now, cost of living pressures.

    In the century since housing was first promoted as a social good, it is important to acknowledge the contribution of the dedicated, visionary people who’ve made social housing such an integral part of our social fabric.

    I do agree with the remark Lewis made earlier in his preface to me coming on the stage, that housing is integral to everything the government is trying to do in terms of levelling up and promoting quality of life for people.

    As we look forward – as we continue to make improvements to people’s quality of life; increase pride and belonging in place; and pave the way to Net Zero – I have no doubt that the sector you collectively represent will once again be leading the charge.

    That’s why we’re all gathered here today, because we all know that the foundations of a good life are ultimately built on having a safe, decent, affordable home. It’s that home that affords security, dignity and the opportunities to get on.

    Those are the principles that underpin your sector’s social mission – and it’s one that this government stands behind you to deliver.

    There’s solid progress to build on.

    Since 2018 this government has delivered the three highest annual rates of new home building for 30 years.

    With more than 860,000 households helped to purchase a home since spring 2010, through government backed schemes such as Help to Buy and Right to Buy.

    And we’re on track to meet our manifesto target of delivering one million new homes in this Parliament. It’s by expanding delivery overall, we are stimulating the market to deliver more affordable homes through the planning system.

    A significant proportion of that new housing supply will be the many thousands of new affordable homes being built across the country.

    This includes tens of thousands for social rent, delivered through our £11.5 billion Affordable Homes Programme.

    This would not have been possible without all of you in the audience, given the significant contribution that housing associations make to housing supply.

    It’s been a big year for the social housing sector.

    Working together, we’ve made significant strides, notably with the Social Housing Regulation Bill passing into law – that’s an important part of delivering a fitting legacy for all affected by the Grenfell Tower tragedy.

    But we know there’s more to do to, much more – not just deliver for people of North Kensington, but for the millions living in social housing who deserve better.

    Long-term housing plan

    I heard Kate earlier speak about and call for the need for a long-term plan for housing.

    We agree. We agree that we need to create a stronger, fairer housing market, and that is exactly what the Secretary of State set out recently. That is what we are developing and implementing.

    It is a plan to deliver more homes.

    More opportunities for people to own their home.

    More homes in the right places.

    More beautiful and greener homes and neighbourhoods.

    That is underpinned by the regeneration and renaissance in the hearts of 20 of our towns and cities through inner city densification and brownfield development.

    Anyone who like me who has spent most of their life in Birmingham, in my case about five decades, in Birmingham, will have seen that progress over time. I personally feel very proud of what Birmingham has done and can continue to do. Especially now with the Mayor, Andy Street.

    But we are also supercharging the growth in our cities including Leeds and Cambridge, which of course is Europe’s science capital.

    We have high ambitions and a long-term plan to achieve them.

    Safe, decent warm social housing

    But, beyond that, we need to get the basics right – ensuring that every home is safe, decent and warm.

    That must be the first priority for landlords.

    The tragic death of Awaab Ishak in Rochdale underlined in the starkest terms what is at stake.

    Why we must raise the bar for existing homes and new homes.

    Why we must learn the lessons from the past to build better homes for the future.

    As we deliver more homes and we continue to aim for our target of 300,000 a year, we do so in the right way – prizing quality as well as quantity – ensuring the safety and dignity of residents.

    Starting with getting our existing housing stock up to scratch and improving the lives of those living in it.

    To that end, we’ve reduced the number of non-decent homes by 2.5 million since 2010 and will be updating the Decent Homes Standard and applying it to private rented homes for the first time.

    All social housing should already meet the Decent Homes Standard. The majority does, but unfortunately there’s still 10% of social homes that don’t meet basic standards of habitability, that rises to a fifth for homes in the private rented sector.

    It’s essential that we raise standards across the board – which is why we’re aiming to halve non-decent homes in both sectors by 2030 – with the biggest improvements in the lowest-performing areas.

    Given what it means for residents when things go wrong – the daily misery, health and other problems that go with homes not fit to live in – it’s right that we set this level of ambition and go further to hold social landlords to account – something that I know the sector overwhelmingly welcomes.

    As you’ll be aware, this is what the Social Housing Regulation Act aims to do – to strengthen the Regulator’s ability to take action when standards aren’t met, including through new, unlimited fines.

    The Bill aims to put tenants’ needs at the heart of wider reforms to drive improvements in social housing and, crucially, requires social landlords to respond to serious hazards like damp and mould within new strict time limits.

    We’re bringing a sharper focus to these issues – you can see that through the £30 million funding going to the Greater Manchester and West Midlands Combined Authorities for physical upgrades to social housing, targeting serious hazards, including damp and mould.

    This all adds up to a more robust approach to ensuring that landlords provide the quality homes tenants deserve and get on with renovating existing stock – and they should prepare for the new regime coming into effect from April.

    I recognise that many social landlords, highly commendably, aren’t waiting for this new regime and are already driving improvements.

    In particular, I welcome the National Housing Federation’s work, as part of the ‘Together With Tenants’ initiative, to strengthen the relationship between housing associations and their residents. It is massively to the sector’s credit that it proactively identified work that needed to be done through last year’s Better Social Housing Review.

    Strengthening relationships between tenants and landlords means rebalancing those relationships so that they’re fair and work well all round.

    And the consultations we’re publishing on the quality of the homes and services that social landlords provide to their residents – spanning the review of the Decent Homes Standard, Awaab’s Law, professionalisation, energy efficiency standards and supported housing – are an important opportunity for you to shape future reforms and improvements to the sector. So we do very much look forward to you all contributing and having your say.

    Of course, I’m well aware that, while we all want to improve the quality of existing homes, this clearly comes at a cost – and that this is an added strain on social landlords on top of a difficult economic backdrop and the what we believe is a necessary step to limit rent increases this year.

    It’s a challenging period for the sector alongside a testing period for public finances more generally and this government will do everything in its power to support you.

    In doing so, I recognise the importance of setting a rent policy for social housing that strikes the right balance between championing our shared ambitions on quality and then what’s affordable for tenants and the welfare system.

    That’s the approach the government took last autumn when weighing up a very difficult set of competing priorities for rent setting this year – and what I’ll be considering again, together with the Housing Secretary, in the round, as we publish our consultation on rent policy from 2025 later this year before making decisions about rents and new requirements in the first half of 2024.

    Delivering more social housing

    Quality matters. Ensuring that existing homes are safe, decent and warm matters.

    But so too does quantity – meeting the significant demand for more social housing.

    As I’ve just outlined, this is made all the more challenging by the need to invest more in existing homes and a more difficult operating environment.

    But I know – and appreciate – that housebuilding remains central to your mission – and we will continue to back that ambition through the Affordable Homes Programme.

    To that end, we have taken a series of pragmatic decisions to ensure delivery continues apace – providing greater flexibility on grant rates, directing a large share of the Programme towards supporting the delivery of Social Rent homes and allowing more funding to be used to acquire and convert existing homes.

    The Affordable Homes Programme also now offers funding for estate regeneration – for providers looking to replace existing homes with new affordable homes – something I know has been widely welcomed, underlining, the important contribution that social housing providers can make to levelling up and regenerating communities across the country.

    We’re determined to use every possible lever to increase the supply of affordable homes and deliver for those who need them most.

    That’s why we’re looking at national planning policy, thinking about changing it to clarify that local planning authorities should do more to prioritise Social Rent homes.

    And it’s why – having listened to your concerns through a number of discussions that I’ve held, your concerns about the new Infrastructure Levy – we have recently amended the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill to strengthen the protections in law for onsite affordable housing delivery and have committed to further consultation with you on the detail.

    Like you, we are determined to see that the Levy delivers at least as much – if not more – affordable housing than the existing system of developer contributions.

    It’s also why we’re investing in accommodation for those fleeing war and conflict in Afghanistan and Ukraine, as well as increasing the provision of decent family appropriate Temporary Accommodation, via the £750 million Local Authority Housing Fund.

    I would really like to put on record my gratitude to councils and their social housing partners for the significant contribution they have made in a short space of time to helping those affected.

    Because, when it comes to levelling up, there are few better places to start than by ensuring that everyone has a safe, decent and warm home.

    All of you are at the heart of our efforts to provide this safety net and springboard – and, indeed, at the heart of our long-term plan for housing, for economic growth, for building a stronger, fairer country.

    We have achieved a great deal and, it’s in that spirit, we’re committed to going forward – to supporting you to balance the challenges of improving quality and increasing supply within a difficult economic context and also to provide as much long-term certainty as possible.

    We will rise to these challenges and, I’m sure, grasp these opportunities and I look forward to working with you all in the future.

    Thank you.

  • Liz Truss – 2023 Speech at the Institute for Government

    Liz Truss – 2023 Speech at the Institute for Government

    The speech made by Liz Truss, the former Prime Minister, in London on 18 September 2023.

    It’s great to be here at the Institute for Government today. I’m having a rather more relaxing September than I did last year. And you might well ask, Why am I back talking about the same topic? But it’s one year ago that I launched my government and our economic policy. And I’m speaking here today, not because I want to relive the events of last year. I certainly don’t. It’s not because I’m keen to be back in Downing Street. I’m certainly not. It’s because one year after saying that economic growth was the central issue for our country. Since then, we’ve heard a lot of people say that right across the political spectrum. That still is not agreement, or what has caused the problems of a lack of economic growth, but also what on earth we’re going to do about them.

    And I think these issues are only getting more urgent. The reality is that over time, we’re not bringing in as much money as a country. We have the highest debt interest payments in the developed world. And according to the Growth Commission, the average person in the UK is now £9,100 worse off than the average person in the United States.  I believe the reason that we have this problem is 25 years of economic consensus that has led to a period of stagnation and I believe that we need to shatter that economic consensus if we’re to avoid worse problems in the future.

    The fact is the British public know that the consensus isn’t working, Lord Ashcroft’s poll on the state we’re in released on 4th September. revealed that 72% of people in Britain agree that Britain is broken, people are getting poorer, nothing seems to work. We need big changes to the way the country is run, whichever party is a government. And yet despite the dissatisfaction the poll also reveals that people don’t agree on why we’ve got the problems and what the fundamental cause of the malaise in which we’re living is.

    Now there are some people who claim that this is a crisis of capitalism, that we’ve had too much free markets, but quite the opposite is true. The fact is that since Labour was elected in 1997, we have moved towards being a more corporatist social democracy than we were in the 70s, in the 80s and the 90s. State spending now accounts for 46% of GDP, higher than it was in every year in Britain except for 1975 and up from 34.8% in the year 2000. No other European country has seen this level of growth in state spending, apart from Greece and Spain.

    There’s also a growing burden of regulation. The cost of regulations introduced in 2022 alone is 10 billion pounds according to the government, and I believe that is an underestimate in the sectors that are key arteries of the economy, whether it’s energy, housing and banking, there is less competition or more government involvement than there was 25 years ago. The government still owns a 40% stake in NatWest. The cost of energy in Britain are twice what they are in the United States, and we have a severe shortage of housing.

    The cost of welfare and pensions has ballooned by 50% in real terms, since the turn of the millennium, and even on an income of 50,000 pounds, it’s still possible to claim Universal Credit. Our tax system has become more complicated, with many facing high marginal tax rates when they seek to earn more income. Somebody earning 100,000 pounds with a student loan faces a marginal tax rate of 71%. We’ve had cheap money for over a decade, with nearly 900 billion pounds pumped into the system by the Bank of England through quantitative easing in an era of the near zero interest rates, something that’s completely unprecedented in 300 years of UK central banking. So how on earth did we get to this situation? Well, my view is that after the successful monetary policy, and supply side reforms of the 1980s, and the winning of the Cold War by the West, we were all optimistic and upbeat about our future and we took our eye off the ball.

    Free market economists went off to lucrative jobs in the city, allowing academic institutions and think tanks to be captured by the left. Demand management crept back in alongside Neo-Keynesian dominated monetary policy. And we Conservatives allowed the debate to be framed and led by the left whether it was the anti capitalist arguments of the Occupy movement, whether it was the diversity policies, or whether it was the statist environmental solutions.

    We’ve all got to admit that it’s the left that made the running. And we’ve seen that regardless of which government has been in power, from the energy price gap to the 2050 climate change target to the ESG agenda in companies. There’s been a cultural shift across both business and the public sector. Towards a lot more left wing policies. And despite the long record of failure of industrial policy, it’s back in vogue again, people are talking about it. And at the heart of this was the basic belief by politicians that the good times would go on forever. The discussion was about sharing the proceeds of growth. It was about general well-being and happiness rather than GDP. The only question seemed to be how we will get to redistribute the pie. Not about growing the pie in the first place. But the problem is that 25 years later, we have seen a growing size and scope of the state. And that growing size and scope of the state has slowed down economic growth itself.

    Levels of tax and regulation, are now too high to generate the amount of economic activity we need to help people’s incomes get bigger and to fund government services and that means our economy is now stagnating people talk about the productivity puzzle, but it’s really not a puzzle.

    If there’s not enough incentive to go out and set up a business to take risks to compete, or even work. That’s a problem. People are delaying starting a family because housing is too expensive. And the cost of bringing up children is so high. Public Sector productivity is woeful, and millionaires are voting with their feet. The UK is third after Russia and China for the departure of high net worth individuals. And despite all of the evidence that these incentives have a major impact. There’s been a fatalistic consensus that these levels of growth in Britain are inevitable. And the economic models of the Treasury and the OBR reflect that they’re overly static and short term missed.

    They underestimate the effect the tax and regulation have on people’s behaviour. And they tend to focus on one or two or at most five years of the effects of policy. I call this approach abacus economics. The failure to factor in the dynamic effects of policy stalls out risks and problems for the future. So what we see is parts of the country that need investment don’t get it because the emphasis is on saving time or money now, rather than creating the conditions for growth in the future. We see energy projects being cancelled, because the costings are based on yesterday’s energy prices, not on future energy security. And the Treasury is always allergic to giving up its levers of control, and so objects to more local decision making a more low tax zones.

    This pattern of high spending, high tax and high regulation and low growth isn’t just taking place in the United Kingdom. It is taking place across Western Europe and across the United States, particularly the coastal states. And when we look at the counter examples of high growth in places like Poland, the Baltic states or Florida and Texas, they’re largely places with low regulation and low taxes in Poland Corporation taxes 19% and income taxes are extremely flat. And yet despite all this evidence, the global left wants to double down on this strategy for statism and in fact, they appear to be meeting at the moment in Canada.

    That is what Bidenomics is, it’s about injecting more top down subsidies, increasing debt and trying to reduce competition by levelling up taxes across the West. More regulation through the Environment Protection Agency amongst others. And to fund this federal spending is at 40% More than pre-COVID levels. And it’s set to go up even more this year. Soon the United States will be spending more money financing its debt than it spends on its entire defence budget.

    And Wall Street has just clocked on to this. Just recently they downgraded US debt which is meant to be the safest in the world. And despite the fact that it’s very clear that the West cargo on borrowing forever. The Labour Party have said that they want to copy and paste Biden’s policies onto the UK statute book. They’re calling their version of Biden’s policies. The green prosperity plan is not a green prosperity plan.

    It’s a green de-growth plan. And it’s just a new name for the failed subsidies and high taxes of the past. Real economic security would mean incentives. So oil and gas producers want to come to the North Sea. And so people want to invest in the United Kingdom. And above all, real security means controlling public spending.

    Now last autumn, I sought to take on this consensus and try and get the British economy on a better trajectory through a three pronged approach of targeted tax freezes and reductions, supply side reform and holding down public spending. It was clear that interest rates were going to go up and they would go up further. We’d had artificially low rates for too long, and they were rising across the world.

    Therefore, in order to dampen inflation, and stave off a recession, the only tool we had at our disposal was doing all we could to fix the supply side of the economy and increase our productive capacity. As far as I was concerned.

    This was an urgent task. And the growth plan which subsequently became known as the mini budget, sought to do this through targeted tax cuts supply side reform and spending restraint. I felt we needed to reform our tax system with mothers to make it more business friendly, and to make the UK a more attractive place to invest.

    We needed to reverse the impending hike in corporation tax. We needed to cut the top rate of income tax to show that Britain was open to talent reforming IR35 would cut red tape for small businesses and return to VAT free shopping would make our cities more attractive.

    Independent calculations suggested that cutting the higher rate of income tax and the tourist tax would have increased rather than decreased revenues within five years. Those are calculations by the CEBR. So when people describe my policies as unfunded tax cuts, that is not an accurate description. In fact, quite the opposite of being unfunded these tax cuts could have include increased funding for our public services. The OBR also say for the cost of freezing corporation tax was much less than the Treasury suggested. Their costing of the measures was £25 billion over five years, not £45 billion and regrettably, the static models used by the OBR failed to acknowledge this.

    The second part of the plan was supply side reform, with some of the biggest constraints to growth in the UK economy, being in energy housing and the labour market. On energy there was a risk of household bills going up to 6000 pounds due to decades of short term US energy policy that have failed to ensure our security. That’s what we introduced the energy price guarantee, while we work to open up fracking and the North Sea to make the UK energy independent.

    Again, including by abolishing the windfall tax, again due to static costing, the cost of this was vastly overestimated. It will actually cost 27 billion pounds, less than half the £55 billion forecast by the OBR in the autumn of 2022. On planning we instituted Canary Wharf style investment zones with planning freedoms and tax breaks for a decade that would help drive new jobs and opportunities in left behind areas. And we sought to make property ownership a reality for young people again, by reducing costs on developing the get passed on to renters and buyers. Whether it be through planning reform, reduced regulation, or speeding up planning decision. We also wanted to cut red tape on childcare to make it more affordable for families.

    The third part of the plan was about public spending restraint. Now we were deliberately careful about discussing public spending, given the very difficult politics of it. What I tried to do as prime minister was navigate between the economic reality and what realistically we could get support for in Parliament. Having been chief secretary I know it’s very difficult to cut spending in year and it’s often counterproductive. In the past, we’ve cut things like capital, and then it’s come back to bite us later. Therefore, what I tried to do was change the trajectory of spending by holding spending down now in an inflationary environment, not reopening.

    The Spending Review represents a tough approach. I also wanted as was widely publicised at the time to increase welfare benefits by wages, not prices. These two measures would have meant that compared to what we are spending now, we would have saved 35.5 billion over two years. 18.4 billion in 2023 24 and 17 billion in 2025. But even these modest savings did not command the support of the Conservative parliamentary party. And it’s a very serious issue for us who wants to see smaller government that currently making significant changes to spending simply doesn’t have enough political support.

    So those were the three key parts of the plan: targeted tax reductions, supply side reform and public spending restraint. Of course, the growth plan was a starting point, a signal of direction further changes were needed, given the scale of the challenge we face. CEBR analysis at the time suggests that if those policies have been kept in place, GDP growth would be 2% higher than otherwise by 2030. And investment would have been up 10% and could have been even stronger. These impacts are even greater in the long term. The 20 year GDP impact is normally three to four times bigger.

    I think we can see from the evidence on the ground, the impact the policies would have had. Investment would not have faltered in the North Sea were it not for the windfall tax. We would have got moving on fracking and lower energy bills would have been on the horizon. A more competitive rate of corporation tax would have persuaded the likes of AstraZeneca to locate in the UK and there would have been more duty free shoppers and a boom in the number of self employed.

    The policies are welcomed by business groups and voters like them as well. And since last year, virtually all of the policies in the mini budget have been called for 38 councils want to proceed with full fat investments aims, city firms are demanding more freedom to invest. Companies have called for lower corporation tax. There’s an entire campaign in the Daily Mail for tax free shopping and the self employed want IR35 reforms. So why didn’t it happen? Why didn’t these policies which people wanted and would have resulted in economic growth not happen? Well, the reality is it was the reaction. So although I did get rid of the health and social care levy a new tax which would have no doubt expanded over time.

    Unfortunately, most of the policies weren’t implemented. And they weren’t implemented because there was a reaction from the political and economic establishment, which fed into the markets, markets that were already destabilised by the Bank of England slowness. to hike interest rates and the failure to regulate LDIs. And I was effectively forced into a policy reversal under threat of a UK meltdown.

    Now some people say we were in too much of a rush. And it’s certainly true that I didn’t just try to fatten the pig on market day. I tried to rear the pig, fatten the pig and slaughter the pig on market day. I confess to that. But the reason we were in a rush is because voters had voted for change. They voted for change in 2016 and they voted for change again in 2019. And I wanted to deliver that change, and I knew we had limited time. I knew with the level of resistance or the lack of preparation, that things weren’t going to be perfect.

    However, given the situation the UK was in, it was important to take action and not to do nothing. Because I went into politics to get things done, not to do public relations. And to all the people who said that, if we’d spent more time rolling the pitch or we’d done things in a different way. Or we delayed things, we would have been able to deliver our programme. I asked them to look at what has happened since. By October the seventh through the OBR was already leaking their calculations that there was a 70 billion pound hole in the budget.

    These numbers of course subsequently proved wrong. But the leak would have made delivery of the corporation tax freeze untenable. And since last year, no major supply side reforms or tax cuts have been allowed to happen. Whether it’s on financial services, childcare planning, or on the environment. In fact, 150 Conservative MPs have written to the prime minister saying there should be no change in net zero legislation.

    So although there’s no doubt that the communication could have been better, and the operation better honed I think we all have to acknowledge in the room that this wasn’t just a process problem. There was unquestionably a reaction to the policies themselves. And the fact is that supply side economics and a belief that the size of the state needs to be reduced are ideas that no longer command widespread support and understanding. The anti-growth coalition is now a powerful force, comprising the economic and political elite, corporatist parts of the media, and even a section of the Conservative parliamentary party. The policies I advocate simply are not fashionable on the London dinner party circuit.

    In fact, what is interesting is when you look at the polling evidence, the people who want change and support these policies are less likely to be comfortably off in London and the Southeast. The law of Ashcroft poll shows very clearly, those who want to see lower taxes and smaller government and who are tougher on welfare tend to live in less affluent areas. Many of those are people who started voting Conservative in 2019. And, in addition to that, there are some of the policies I advocate that just don’t have very much public support at all. such as cutting the tax top tax rate, building more homes, of getting or getting rid of process when building infrastructure projects. But frankly, we need to find a way of doing these things. Otherwise, we’re not going to get the prosperity and the opportunity that people want.

    And we can see that policies I advocated working right now, in places like Texas, Florida and the Czech Republic. Even Germany, is now cutting corporate taxes and reducing regulation. If the situation was urgent last year, it’s even more urgent now. The UK is in a serious and precarious position and there is a real risk of a downward spiral. The national debt was £525 billion in 2005. By 2022, it had quintupled to £2.5 trillion, and it’s set to hit £3 trillion within three to four years.

    I believe we can get out of this. But the only way to get out of the debt spiral is to get a grip on public spending while implementing policies to grow the economy. I urge the government to be bold and to set out a clear vision of how the UK can get to sustained 3% annual growth within a decade. This should set out a clear tenure trajectory for reducing the size of the state as a proportion of our economy through a combination of growth and spending control. We should aim to get that ratio we achieved at the turn of the millennium. Before Blair and Brown turned on the spending taps and excess regulation made us uncompetitive and we need to give people hope that things can get better. We need to spell out what 3% growth would mean in terms of improved standard of living and opportunities for an average family. A new car or holiday abroad, more support for your children.

    And ministers need to go out and explain the why as well as the how we need to make the case for free market economics and omit the state has got too big, partly as a result of excess spending during COVID. We need to show an enterprise economy is good for everyone. Conservatives can’t just assume people have read Milton Friedman. We need to spell out our philosophy and that would contrast with Labour’s lack of ideas or force them to defend the stale economic consensus started under Blair and Brown.

    Now in order to deliver this, there’s going to be big change required. We need a new supply side revolution, the supply side revolution in the 1980s was all about taking a long productive industry and the unions, which held the whip hand over the elected government of today of the day. The supply side revolution now has to take on the burden of regulation and an overlarge over powerful bureaucracy which has the whip hand over the elected government. This supply side revolution has to encompass changes to tax regulation and the size of the state. The government needs to take on the OBR over the impact of tax policy, and we need to see much more sophisticated levels of analysis from the Treasury about long term economic growth. This needs a wide variety of thinkers, including monetarists and supply siders. We can’t afford to be uncompetitive internationally. We need corporation tax back at 19%. And we should also refuse to implement the OECD minimum tax agreement which I previously labelled a cartel of complacency.

    It won’t be implemented in the US and even if it was it would make the entire West uncompetitive. We also need to reduce marginal tax rates to make it worthwhile to work at every income level. Further changes like abolishing the tourist tax, abolishing the windfall tax and sorting out IR 35 needs to be made. We also need to get a grip on the ballooning welfare and pensions bill.

    This means slowing the rates of increased benefits and tougher work. Requirements. It means raising the retirement age further. And as a party we have to deal with a difficult issue of the increasing costs of pensions. The current trajectory is not sustainable. We need more competition and less corporatism in key sectors of the economy like energy and finance. I favour a single utilities regulator to get rid of the Balkanization and capture that we’ve seen under organisations like off water and OFGEM.

    The government needs to divest its shares in banks and withdraw from micromanagement in sectors like transport. And in the energy sector, we need to get on with fracking and abolish the windfall tax in the housing market that should be tax breaks in return for having new developments in homes in your area, a much simpler zoning process and speeded up infrastructure projects. That’s what the original investment zones I proposed are about we should diverge properly from the EU. So we can increase competitiveness in areas like financial services. And finally, we should as many other Western countries already doing delay implementing net-zero commitments such as the ban on new petrol and diesel vehicles from 2030. Other environmental regulations which are hiking the cost of living, like enforcing the replacement of gas and oil boilers should also be abandoned. Ladies and gentlemen, in conclusion, there is a growing consensus that we need to grow. But although people will the ends, they don’t necessarily will the means.

    In order to grow, we need to change and that starts with acknowledging that we have a problem. It means abandoning the stale economic consensus. It means politicians doing the right thing even if it’s unpopular. This will not be easy, but it will be worth doing. With determination to turn things around, we can make Britain grow again. Thank you.

  • Oliver Dowden – 2023 Speech on the Strength of UK-Italy Relations

    Oliver Dowden – 2023 Speech on the Strength of UK-Italy Relations

    The speech made by Oliver Dowden, the Deputy Prime Minister, in Italy on 14 September 2023.

    Ladies and gentlemen, at the risk of derailing what The Economist has rightly called the ‘blossoming’ relationship between the United Kingdom and Italy, perhaps you’ll permit me to say:

    Vorrei ringraziare tutti voi di essere qui stasera, in questa bellissima citta, in questa antica e famosa universita.

    Grazie di cuore.

    Thank you to the Rector, for welcoming us to this fine seat of learning.

    Thank you Mayor, for your very warm welcome to your wonderful city, which is so beloved of my fellow Brits.

    Thank you to Lord Willetts and Carlo Calenda, for your leadership of Pontignano… and for all you do to nurture the close friendship between our nations.

    And thank you – above all – to all of you for being here.

    You all believe in the importance of this relationship between the United Kingdom and Italy.

    Important, not just because of our friendship, culture and our long shared history.

    But because you are strong believers in how much more we can achieve together as modern European nations facing the same challenges:

    from supporting Ukraine in its fight for freedom

    to confronting economic and energy security challenges

    to tackling illegal migration.

    And you know that to succeed, we must address them together.

    The number of my colleagues attending this conference demonstrates that this is certainly the view of the British Government.

    (Although it would perhaps be an exaggeration to say that they took a lot of persuading to come to Siena!).

    Their presence is a testament to the United Kingdom’s determination to drive forward a new strategic partnership between London and Rome.

    Now our topic for this year’s Pontignano is ‘Adapting to technological change’.

    But before I say a few words on that, let me take a step back and look at our relationship with Italy – to take stock, as diplomats like to say.

    A turning point.

    My counterpart, Antonio Tajani, said at the start of the year that relations between the UK and Italy were ‘at a turning point.’

    And he was right.

    Look at the situation that confronts us:

    war in Europe

    threats to our energy and our food supplies

    climate change

    irregular migration, across the Mediterranean and the Channel.

    And all of it underpinned by the onward march of technology.

    Set against that backdrop, it is surely no wonder that our two countries – sharing so many interests whose strengths complement each other in so many ways – should seize this moment to work more closely together.

    And that is exactly what we are doing.

    A longstanding friendship.

    We are, of course, building on a very strong foundation.

    The ties between our peoples go back centuries – indeed all the way back to ancient Rome and through the Renaissance.

    More recently – 80 years ago, British Forces landed at Salerno, as part of their central role in the liberation of this country.

    And next year we will mark the 80th anniversary of Anzio and Monte Cassino.

    Today, the bonds between us are thriving and vibrant.

    And there is also a mutual respect and affection between our peoples – epitomised in Italians’ moving reaction to the death of our late Queen a year ago.

    And your enthusiasm at the Coronation of King Charles III earlier this year.

    Indeed our new Monarch loves Italy, as he himself told an Italian television crew in the Mall the night before he was crowned.

    So there is a rich tapestry of ties between us. And that vibrant partnership is an invaluable source of strength, as we face together the most challenging set of circumstances in many decades.

    Until recently, perhaps the defining political moment of my generation was the 9th November 1989 – the date that the Berlin Wall came down and liberty rolled across our continent.

    Now a new date is inscribed in our memories.

    The 24th February 2022 – the date Russian tanks rolled into Ukraine and its missiles rained down on Ukrainian cities.

    The events of that day, and every day since, have reminded us of some old truths.

    The need for strong defence to deter war.

    The need to stand up to aggression today, or risk greater aggression tomorrow.

    The need for friends and allies to stick together and stand up for what we believe in.

    Every day since the invasion, that is exactly what the United Kingdom and Italy have done – as G7 partners and leading members of NATO.

    Let me pay tribute to Italy’s response.

    You have been at Kyiv’s side every step of the way.

    And I am proud of the role that Britain has played and will continue to play, for as long as it takes.

    If anyone doubted Britain’s enduring commitment to European security, you have your answer, not just in our words, but in our actions.

    And as we sit here tonight, in this cradle of European civilisation, let us spare a thought for the people of Ukraine, a fellow European country, who face another night in bomb shelters or on the front line.

    Forging a new relationship between the UK and Italy – real momentum…

    It is not just on Ukraine, however, that cooperation has been galvanised between our two countries.

    There is a real determination to make this relationship between Britain and Italy count for more, to be more than the sum of its parts.

    Take a look at the last nine months:

    In December our Prime Ministers signed – with their Japanese counterpart – the Global Combat Air Programme to build a new generation of combat aircraft together.

    In February, our Defence and Trade Secretaries signed agreements forging ever closer relations.

    And then in April, our Prime Minister was delighted to welcome PM Meloni to Downing Street where they signed an ambitious Memorandum of Understanding – covering issues from national security to cultural ties.

    The agreement also covered another subject on which our countries share the same challenge: illegal migration.

    This is a challenge that is political, societal, criminal.

    Our electorates demand that we deal with it, and we must.

    We both share the same sense of urgency – and albeit at different ends of Europe, we are facing the same phenomenon:

    Large numbers of arrivals by sea.

    Unscrupulous traffickers in human lives.

    The death traps into which they place innocent  women and children.

    The tragedies in the dark waters off the Channel,  off Lampedusa or the Calabrian coast.

    So we are significantly expanding our cooperation together.

    Working together in bodies such as the G7 and the Council of Europe.

    Adapting to technological change.

    In so doing, we will, of course, be taking advantage at every opportunity of new technologies – the theme of this Pontignano.

    I am delighted that British scientists will once again be able to collaborate with those in Italy and across Europe as part of the Horizon programme.

    And, as a Minister from the country that invented the steam engine, speaking in the land of Marconi, I know how well both our countries know the revolutionary power of technology.

    And the list of technologies that have fundamentally altered the course of human history is relatively short: fire, metals, the printing press, the combustion engine, electricity, fission, the internet.

    All of these tools have been bent to achieve a step-change in the pace of human progress.

    And now I believe that we are on the cusp of another such inflection point, one that has the potential to make the pace of progress supersonic:

    Artificial Intelligence, or more specifically, the advent of artificial general intelligence, represents, at once the most exciting and the most daunting challenge of our age.

    Exciting, because there is an opportunity, as our PM has put it, for human progress that could surpass the industrial revolution in both speed and depth.

    For game-changing innovations in all aspects of our lives:

    unthinkable advances in medicine

    cures for cancer and dementia

    growing crops to feed the world…

    or solving climate change.

    But also daunting.

    Not only will AI expedite and intensify the existing threat landscape,

    in Artificial General Intelligence, humans face the potential of a technology that surpasses both the capability of our collective endeavour, and the limits of our understanding.

    We have to accept that the answer to many of our questions about the AI frontier will be ‘we don’t yet know’.

    We do not yet know what these machines might be capable of.

    What we do know is that, to date, the limits of human progress have been capped by the sum of our collective intelligence.

    By adding to that sum with AI – at potentially dizzying scales – we will redraw the bounds of what we previously thought possible.

    But, as scary – and exciting – as that is,

    it should not be a barrier to our exploration.

    But it does mean that we need a new approach to regulation.

    One that iterates to build faith in the systems that will come to underpin so many aspects of our lives.

    This approach will involve active and ongoing collaboration between Governments, Al labs and academics, amongst others.

    Many organisations outside of national Governments, in particular private companies – including those in Italy – have been pivotal to the most recent advances in AI.

    I know that many such companies are taking part in Pontignano this year.

    And these collaborations will be crucial to ensure the safe and reliable development and deployment of frontier AI throughout the world.

    The United Kingdom is acutely aware of the importance of this moment – and of the need to act swiftly and with resolve.

    Domestically, the Prime Minister has asked me to chair a Resilience sub-committee of the National Security Council, which will be taking a methodical approach to assessing the risks of AI.

    And internationally, our forthcoming AI Summit at Bletchley Park in November will aim to agree how we can collaborate on frontier AI safety:

    to agree a shared assessment of the frontier risks

    as well as share some of the best examples from around the world of how AI is being used to improve lives.

    Already, the UK has been working with industry leaders such as Google DeepMind, OpenAI and Anthropic, who will give us unprecedented access to their products and models.

    So that we can mitigate against the risks, and take advantage of the opportunities.

    The importance of their cooperation cannot be overstated.

    We need them to ensure that our frontier systems are aligned with human objectives.

    And we need them to ensure that they are deployed safely,

    Because – ultimately – we need end users to have confidence in these transformative tools.

    The Summit is an important forum to begin to address these questions.

    But it is only one of the first steps in a very long journey.

    We look forward to working with our colleagues in the Italian Government and across the world.

    Together we have a huge stake – for our countries, as for the sake of humanity.

    So my message is a simple one: it is vital that we work together to make AI safe.

    I look forward to discussing this collaboration with you at this conference.

    And to our colleagues in the Italian Government.

    Let me say that the United Kingdom sees Italy as a crucial partner in helping us to achieve this goal.

    We look forward to working very closely with you on this, and on other shared priorities, from migration to economic security to climate, as you assume the Presidency of the G7 next year.

    So, there is plenty here for this year’s Pontignano to discuss.

    This medieval city is famed – not just for its beauty – but for its enduring identity, its spirit and its character through the centuries.

    Famous too for Lorenzetti’s 14th century frescos at the Palazzo Publicco – not far from here – depicting the tenets of good government, and the consequences of bad government.

    So this is an ideal and inspiring place for such discussions – a city which has long stood for humanity’s ability to solve apparently intractable problems.

    A city which centuries ago understood the importance of developing a legal and political framework by which society can be governed in the best interests of the wider community.

    I like to think that if Ambrogio Lorenzetti were here today, he might recognise some of the dilemmas modern democracies are wrestling with as we seek the right way forward.

    A few hundred metres from here, there is the famous pavement in the Duomo – the intricate work of artisans here in Siena many centuries ago.

    At the other end of Europe, in London, there is another pavement – the famous Cosmati pavement, laid by British and Italian craftsmen in Westminster Abbey in 1268.

    One of the earliest examples of what Britons and Italians can achieve together when they put their minds to it.

    It was on precisely that pavement, watched by the entire world, that our new Sovereign was crowned in May.

    Let that be the spirit in which we embark on this Pontignano, and usher in a new chapter of British-Italian endeavour for the good of both our nations, of Europe and for the good of the world.