UKPOL.CO.UK

Blog

  • Boris Johnson – 2020 Joint Statement with French President

    Boris Johnson – 2020 Joint Statement with French President

    Below is the text of the statement made by Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister, and Emmanuel Macron, the President of France, on 10 May 2020.

    The Prime Minister and President Macron spoke today.

    They stressed the need for close bilateral, European and international cooperation in the fight against Covid-19.

    The leaders spoke about the need to manage the risk of new transmissions arising from abroad, as the rate of coronavirus decreases domestically.

    In this regard, the Prime Minister and the President agreed to work together in taking forward appropriate border measures. This cooperation is particularly necessary for the management of our common border.

    No quarantine measures would apply to travellers coming from France at this stage; any measures on either side would be taken in a concerted and reciprocal manner. A working group between the two governments will be set up to ensure this consultation throughout the coming weeks.

  • Boris Johnson – 2020 Statement on the Coronavirus (10/05/2020)

    Boris Johnson – 2020 Statement on the Coronavirus (10/05/2020)

    Below is the text of the statement made by Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister, on 10 May 2020.

    It is now almost two months since the people of this country began to put up with restrictions on their freedom – your freedom – of a kind that we have never seen before in peace or war.

    And you have shown the good sense to support those rules overwhelmingly.

    You have put up with all the hardships of that programme of social distancing.

    Because you understand that as things stand, and as the experience of every other country has shown, it’s the only way to defeat the coronavirus – the most vicious threat this country has faced in my lifetime.

    And though the death toll has been tragic, and the suffering immense.

    And though we grieve for all those we have lost.

    It is a fact that by adopting those measures we prevented this country from being engulfed by what could have been a catastrophe in which the reasonable worst case scenario was half a million fatalities.

    And it is thanks to your effort and sacrifice in stopping the spread of this disease that the death rate is coming down and hospital admissions are coming down.

    And thanks to you we have protected our NHS and saved many thousands of lives.

    And so I know – you know – that it would be madness now to throw away that achievement by allowing a second spike.

    We must stay alert.

    We must continue to control the virus and save lives.

    And yet we must also recognise that this campaign against the virus has come at colossal cost to our way of life.

    We can see it all around us in the shuttered shops and abandoned businesses and darkened pubs and restaurants.

    And there are millions of people who are both fearful of this terrible disease, and at the same time also fearful of what this long period of enforced inactivity will do to their livelihoods and their mental and physical wellbeing.

    To their futures and the futures of their children.

    So I want to provide tonight – for you – the shape of a plan to address both fears.

    Both to beat the virus and provide the first sketch of a road map for reopening society.

    A sense of the way ahead, and when and how and on what basis we will take the decisions to proceed.

    I will be setting out more details in Parliament tomorrow and taking questions from the public in the evening.

    I have consulted across the political spectrum, across all four nations of the UK.

    And though different parts of the country are experiencing the pandemic at different rates.

    And though it is right to be flexible in our response.

    I believe that as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom – Scotland, England, Wales, Northern Ireland, there is a strong resolve to defeat this together.

    And today a general consensus on what we could do.

    And I stress could.

    Because although we have a plan, it is a conditional plan.

    And since our priority is to protect the public and save lives, we cannot move forward unless we satisfy the five tests.

    We must protect our NHS.

    We must see sustained falls in the death rate.

    We must see sustained and considerable falls in the rate of infection.

    We must sort out our challenges in getting enough PPE to the people who need it, and yes, it is a global problem but we must fix it.

    And last, we must make sure that any measures we take do not force the reproduction rate of the disease – the R – back up over one, so that we have the kind of exponential growth we were facing a few weeks ago.

    And to chart our progress and to avoid going back to square one, we are establishing a new Covid Alert System run by a new Joint Biosecurity Centre.

    And that Covid Alert Level will be determined primarily by R and the number of coronavirus cases.

    And in turn that Covid Alert Level will tell us how tough we have to be in our social distancing measures – the lower the level the fewer the measures.

    The higher the level, the tougher and stricter we will have to be.

    There will be five alert levels.

    Level One means the disease is no longer present in the UK and Level Five is the most critical – the kind of situation we could have had if the NHS had been overwhelmed.

    Over the period of the lockdown we have been in Level Four, and it is thanks to your sacrifice we are now in a position to begin to move in steps to Level Three.

    And as we go everyone will have a role to play in keeping the R down.

    By staying alert and following the rules.

    And to keep pushing the number of infections down there are two more things we must do.

    We must reverse rapidly the awful epidemics in care homes and in the NHS, and though the numbers are coming down sharply now, there is plainly much more to be done.

    And if we are to control this virus, then we must have a world-beating system for testing potential victims, and for tracing their contacts.

    So that – all told – we are testing literally hundreds of thousands of people every day.

    We have made fast progress on testing – but there is so much more to do now, and we can.

    When this began, we hadn’t seen this disease before, and we didn’t fully understand its effects.

    With every day we are getting more and more data.

    We are shining the light of science on this invisible killer, and we will pick it up where it strikes.

    Because our new system will be able in time to detect local flare-ups – in your area – as well as giving us a national picture.

    And yet when I look at where we are tonight, we have the R below one, between 0.5 and 0.9 – but potentially only just below one.

    And though we have made progress in satisfying at least some of the conditions I have given.

    We have by no means fulfilled all of them.

    And so no, this is not the time simply to end the lockdown this week.

    Instead we are taking the first careful steps to modify our measures.

    And the first step is a change of emphasis that we hope that people will act on this week.

    We said that you should work from home if you can, and only go to work if you must.

    We now need to stress that anyone who can’t work from home, for instance those in construction or manufacturing, should be actively encouraged to go to work.

    And we want it to be safe for you to get to work. So you should avoid public transport if at all possible – because we must and will maintain social distancing, and capacity will therefore be limited.

    So work from home if you can, but you should go to work if you can’t work from home.

    And to ensure you are safe at work we have been working to establish new guidance for employers to make workplaces COVID-secure.

    And when you do go to work, if possible do so by car or even better by walking or bicycle. But just as with workplaces, public transport operators will also be following COVID-secure standards.

    And from this Wednesday, we want to encourage people to take more and even unlimited amounts of outdoor exercise.

    You can sit in the sun in your local park, you can drive to other destinations, you can even play sports but only with members of your own household.

    You must obey the rules on social distancing and to enforce those rules we will increase the fines for the small minority who break them.

    And so every day, with ever increasing data, we will be monitoring the R and the number of new infections, and the progress we are making, and if we as a nation begin to fulfil the conditions I have set out, then in the next few weeks and months we may be able to go further.

    In step two – at the earliest by June 1 – after half term – we believe we may be in a position to begin the phased reopening of shops and to get primary pupils back into schools, in stages, beginning with reception, Year 1 and Year 6.

    Our ambition is that secondary pupils facing exams next year will get at least some time with their teachers before the holidays. And we will shortly be setting out detailed guidance on how to make it work in schools and shops and on transport.

    And step three – at the earliest by July – and subject to all these conditions and further scientific advice; if and only if the numbers support it, we will hope to re-open at least some of the hospitality industry and other public places, provided they are safe and enforce social distancing.

    Throughout this period of the next two months we will be driven not by mere hope or economic necessity. We are going to be driven by the science, the data and public health.

    And I must stress again that all of this is conditional, it all depends on a series of big Ifs. It depends on all of us – the entire country – to follow the advice, to observe social distancing, and to keep that R down.

    And to prevent re-infection from abroad, I am serving notice that it will soon be the time – with transmission significantly lower – to impose quarantine on people coming into this country by air.

    And it is because of your efforts to get the R down and the number of infections down here, that this measure will now be effective.

    And of course we will be monitoring our progress locally, regionally, and nationally and if there are outbreaks, if there are problems, we will not hesitate to put on the brakes.

    We have been through the initial peak – but it is coming down the mountain that is often more dangerous.

    We have a route, and we have a plan, and everyone in government has the all-consuming pressure and challenge to save lives, restore livelihoods and gradually restore the freedoms that we need.

    But in the end this is a plan that everyone must make work.

    And when I look at what you have done already.

    The patience and common sense you have shown.

    The fortitude of the elderly whose isolation we all want to end as fast as we can.

    The incredible bravery and hard work of our NHS staff, our care workers.

    The devotion and self-sacrifice of all those in every walk of life who are helping us to beat this disease.

    Police, bus drivers, train drivers, pharmacists, supermarket workers, road hauliers, bin collectors, cleaners, security guards, postal workers, our teachers and a thousand more.

    The scientists who are working round the clock to find a vaccine.

    When I think of the millions of everyday acts of kindness and thoughtfulness that are being performed across this country.

    And that have helped to get us through this first phase.

    I know that we can use this plan to get us through the next.

    And if we can’t do it by those dates, and if the alert level won’t allow it, we will simply wait and go on until we have got it right.

    We will come back from this devilish illness.

    We will come back to health, and robust health.

    And though the UK will be changed by this experience, I believe we can be stronger and better than ever before. More resilient, more innovative, more economically dynamic, but also more generous and more sharing.

    But for now we must stay alert, control the virus and save lives.

    Thank you very much.

  • Tim Yeo – 2004 Speech at Conservative Party Spring Conference

    Tim Yeo – 2004 Speech at Conservative Party Spring Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Tim Yeo on 6 March 2004.

    Welcome to this session – delighted to have David Davis and Shailesh Vara with me. You’ll be hearing from them soon and later from four of our outstanding PPCs.

    “Young and hopeful” – I think that includes us on the platform.

    It certainly includes most of you in the audience.

    But it’s really the millions of young people who are the future of our country.

    Who are being let down by this Labour Government.

    We can all remember Tony Blair’s promise that education, education, education would be their priority.

    Seven years later what has Labour delivered?

    Take class sizes. An important issue for parents.

    Labour promised to reduce them.

    But the number of secondary school classes with 30 pupils or more has gone up by more than half since 1997.

    That’s 130,000 more young people in classes with over 30 pupils than when Tony Blair gave that pledge.

    What about exam results?

    Ministers try to persuade us standards have risen.

    But the truth is that one in three 11 year-olds leave school unable to read, write or count properly.

    That’s a fact that ought to shame even Tony Blair.

    And here’s another one. Last year more than 33,000 young people left school without a single GCSE.

    Maybe that’s partly because the number of pupils bunking off from school has risen more than a fifth since 1997, despite more than £600 million of spending on various Ministerial initiatives and gimmicks.

    For those who are at school the situation inside the classroom isn’t always good. According to the teaching union NASUWT there’s an attack on a teacher every seven minutes.

    A year ago a poll showed that one in three teachers are considering leaving the profession within five years, because of the target-driven culture and lack of discipline.

    And for youngsters going to university, Labour’s broken promises on top-up fees means they’ll start their working lives burdened with huge debts.

    As for bureaucracy, under Labour non-teaching staff are recruited faster than teachers.

    So Tony Blair’s school report is not good.

    Meddling Ministers.

    Money wasted.

    Frustrated teachers.

    Stagnating standards.

    So much for Labour.

    What will we do to put this right?

    Our plan is radical. It has three elements.

    First, we believe it’s time to give pupils and parents much greater control over how the Government spends their money on their children’s education. I’ll come back to this in a moment.

    Second, we will give schools more freedom. We know it’s the commitment of teachers that determines the quality of education.

    It’s time to get the target-obsessed bureaucrats off their backs.

    To set teachers free.

    To be accountable first and foremost to parents.

    Free to restore discipline in schools and stop the small minority of disruptive pupils from wrecking the chances of their classmates.

    Free to do what they do best – teach.

    Which brings me to the third element.

    Restoring confidence in standards.

    Whatever the spin about better exam results, we know Labour has downgraded the system with its culture of prizes for all which undermines students’ real achievements.

    Universities and employers tell the same story of falling confidence in the qualifications young people acquire at school.

    We will make the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority institutionally independent like the Bank of England, to prevent political manipulation.

    We will address other problems too. Wearing my health hat for a moment, I know that physically active young people are healthy too.

    Because of that we will bring sport back into the schools, something Labour has been too busy flogging off school playing fields to attend to.

    As a parent myself I know what benefits sport can bring.

    Labour’s failures are not confined to schools.

    Our universities are under-funded.

    Labour’s solution will saddle students with huge debts.

    By contrast, we will keep our promises on top-up fees and tuition fees, while giving universities the cash they need.

    That’s good news for students and universities. Bad news for Labour MPs who have to explain why they broke their manifesto promises.

    And under the Conservatives universities won’t be told by yet another bureaucrat, appointed by the Minister, who they can admit and who they can’t.

    But fixing the funding of our universities is not enough.

    We need vocational training that stimulates and skills up those young people who don’t go to university.

    Labour’s system of vocational training is an expensive mess – respected by neither students nor employers.

    Later this year I will set out our Conservative framework for skills training which will address this fundamental failing, a failing that becomes more and more critical as international competition for jobs and investment intensifies.

    Let me close by returning to my first element – the core of our strategy to improve standards in schools.

    The Pupil Passport.

    The right for every parent to choose the school their child goes to.

    Take the example of a child in an inner city borough, with two secondary schools in the vicinity, one good and one bad.

    Currently if the good school is full and the bad one has empty seats then parents may be compelled by the surplus places rule to send their child to the bad school, regardless of their wishes.

    The only way parents can avoid this is to appeal against the decision.

    But although appeals have risen 50 per cent since 1997, only a third are decided in the parents’ favour.

    The Pupil Passport means that child would be able to attend the good school, which itself could expand.

    I can announce today, following Oliver Letwin’s speech setting out the spending plans of the next Conservative Government, and confirming that extra cash will be available for schools, that the Pupil Passport will not be confined to inner city areas as we originally envisaged.

    Instead it will be rolled out progressively across the whole country.

    Because we want every family to be empowered.

    To have the choices which in the past have been available only to the better-off.

    People who could afford to move to the catchment area of their favoured school.

    Under the Conservatives you’ll be able to go to the right school even if your family lives in the wrong street.

    Good schools will attract more pupils.

    And since every girl or boy who is accepted by a school will have funding that goes automatically with her or him, that school will be able to expand in response to demand.

    A popular faith school, for example, within the maintained sector, will be able to grow. So would a successful comprehensive.

    In some areas, completely new schools will spring up. The other side of this coin is that schools which few parents choose for their children will find their numbers decline.

    That will put pressure on budgets.

    It will provide a spur to encourage those schools to improve.

    No longer will they be able to rely on the LEA to ensure that their classrooms are filled with youngsters whose parents have been ordered to send them there.

    Unlike Labour a Conservative Government will not reward failure.

    Because we will abolish the surplus places rule.

    The rule which enables the council to decide the school your child goes to, even if you know it’s the wrong one.

    We are talking to local government colleagues and others about what this means for the future role of LEAs.

    And about how money will be allocated.

    About how the value of the Passport will be set.

    Our aim is to give every family the power now enjoyed by a few.

    Because we know the power of choice is the power to force improvement.

    At the next General Election we will offer the country a clear choice.

    Either continue down this Labour path of stagnating standards where Ministers know best, where you take what you are offered. Don’t you dare ask for anything different.

    An education system in which the State looms too large and people are too small.

    Or follow the new Conservative path.

    Bigger citizens who have more control. Where you choose what you want.

    A path which leads to higher standards.

    Transforming the way public services are delivered.

    That’s the choice we’ll offer the next generation of young and hopeful Britons to help fulfil their aspirations.

    Together our task is to help them choose the right option.

  • Caroline Spelman – 2005 Speech on Traveller Camps

    Caroline Spelman – 2005 Speech on Traveller Camps

    Below is the text of the speech made by Caroline Spelman on 21 March 2005.

    Last November we began consulting on the best way to deal with illegal traveller camps.

    Today we can announce a seven-point plan to deal with both illegal and unauthorised development, to give stronger rights to local residents and to ensure planning controls are fairly enforced for all.

    First, as Michael has said we are reviewing the so-called Human Rights Act – if it cannot be improved, we will scrap the Act.

    Second, Conservatives will give councils the power to refuse applications for retrospective planning permission. This will stop the cynical manipulation of the planning system by travellers or rogue developers who wilfully ignore the rules.

    Third, we will make traveller trespass a criminal offence as they have done in the Republic of Ireland. This will stop local residents having to pay up to evict travellers from their land and give the police a fast track system to evict illegal occupiers.

    Fourth Conservatives will give councils new powers to ensure the rapid removal of caravans from illegal sites, and allow the courts to levy larger fines to stop travellers from profiting illegal developments.

    Fifth we will extend councils powers of compulsory purchase, where the land is the subject of a continuing breach of a Stop Notice. This will protect local residents from being forced to purchase land from speculators, at vastly inflated sums, just to avoid the threat of illegal encampments.

    Sixth, we will provide clearer, more effective guidance for the police. Mr Blair’s Government’s new guidance is a trespassers’ charter, restricting the ability of the police and councils to take action. We will issue revised guidance, undoing John Prescott’s changes, and encouraging police to tackle criminal or anti-social behaviour on traveller sites.

    Finally, Conservatives will give local people a greater say on where sites go. We oppose the imposition of arbitrary quotas on councils to provide traveller camps. We will abolish the unelected regional assemblies and regional housing boards which now threaten to silence the voice of local communities.

    Our proposals are sensible and practical. They will deal with the problem of illegal traveller camps – a problem which Mr Blair’s Government has created. Yesterday Labour said that action to tackle this issue was “tapping into … bigotry”.

    They’re wrong. It’s not bigoted. It’s about fairness. And it’s about standing up for the right values. People want a government that upholds the law – not one that turns a blind eye when the law is flouted.

  • Michael Howard – 2004 Speech on Housing

    Michael Howard – 2004 Speech on Housing

    Below is the text of the speech made by Michael Howard, the then Leader of the Opposition, on 27 October 2004.

    There are few things more important to us than the home we live in.

    People in this country want to own their home. Owning your own home gives you security, stability and a base. It gives you a real stake in society. It gives you freedom and security.

    A lot of people do already own their own home. But for more and more people – particularly first time buyers – it’s becoming very difficult.

    Everyone knows someone who is desperate to buy their own home – someone just starting out on a career, or a young couple that have just got married and want to start a family.

    Twenty or thirty years ago, their parents would have found it difficult, but they would have managed. But for today’s young people, the difficult dream has become the impossible dream.

    But it’s not just young people who have a problem. It’s easy to forget that many older people want to move home – to a home that is more suitable or to one that is nearer their family.

    So we need practical policies that that will help put a home within their reach.

    Some people think the answer is to build more houses. We certainly do need more homes – the level of homebuilding in this country is at its lowest for more than eighty years – and we will be publishing our detailed proposals on this shortly.

    But what we emphatically do not want is to concrete over the south east with millions of homes, which are simply dumped on communities and which are unsustainable.

    Labour have been all talk. They have promised action, but they have not delivered. In many ways, through stealth taxes such as stamp duty and council tax, they have made owning your own home even more difficult.

    I won’t promise to solve the housing problem overnight. But we are putting forward today a series of practical policies that will make a difference, policies that will address different housing needs and tackle the problem of affordable housing.

    As Caroline said, we’ve been working on our policies for many months now. We’ve talked to a huge range of people and held wide-ranging discussions. Today’s document is the fruit of a lot of hard work.

    The policies in this document will help increase home ownership in this country. They will help give young people the start they need and support older people who want to move house.

    At the heart of our approach is people, not buildings.

    We haven’t simply asked – how can we build more homes?

    We’ve asked some different questions – how we can we make homes more affordable? How can we open up the existing supply of homes? How can we give more people a greater stake in the home they live in?

    In short, how can the Party that gave people the Right to Buy today give people the Right to Own?

    This is what we are going to do:

    First, we will extend the Right to Buy to over a million housing association tenants who don’t have that right at the moment.

    Second, we will allow social housing tenants to buy the home of their choice, not just the house in which they currently live. We’re going to do that by giving tenants transferable discounts that can be used towards the cost of any suitable property on the market.

    Third, we will enable tenants to steadily build-up a stake in their home through a Right to Shared Ownership.

    Fourth, we will bring the property ladder back within reach of ordinary home buyers – young and old – by extending shared equity schemes.

    These proposals will help bring more homes within reach of more people.

    They will increase home ownership.

    They will make homes more affordable.

    They will help people live in the homes that are right for them.

    And they will help us invest in building more social housing.

  • Tim Yeo – 2004 Speech on the Loyal Address

    Tim Yeo – 2004 Speech on the Loyal Address

    Below is the text of the speech made by Tim Yeo, the then Shadow Secretary of State for Transport, in the House of Commons on 25 November 2004.

    On Tuesday we heard the last Queen’s Speech before the general election. It was given after seven and a half years of a Labour Government. So it is fair to say that this is a time to pass judgment first on the Government’s record and secondly on their intentions. I am genuinely sorry—because it matters very much to this country—to say that the Government’s record is a bad one.

    Our transport system increasingly resembles that of a third-world country. The Government’s failure to bring roads and railways into the 21st century is damaging business. The Confederation of British Industry has estimated that the cost of congestion is £15 billion per year. It damages the competitive position of British firms and makes Britain a less attractive country for new investment.

    Congestion does not hurt just business; it hurts families. Although Ministers like to talk about the work/life balance, they seem to have their heads firmly in the sand when it comes to transport policy. One simply cannot put a price on the time that mums and dads lose because the train has let them down again or the road is too congested and they are not home in time to say good night to their children.

    Let us look at the facts. We will start with roads. In Britain, the proportion of road links that are congested for more than an hour a day is three times greater than in Germany and five times greater than in France. Our motorway provision per head of population is less than half the European average. We have a lower motorway density than any of our European competitors. That is despite the fact that motorists pay £8 billion more in vehicle excise duty and fuel duty than in 1997. Indeed, the Treasury now takes more than £40 billion a year in tax from road users, but the Government spend only £1.6 billion on new trunk roads and motorways and only £10 billion a year on all road infrastructure. Some of the extra tax goes to subsidise bus services. Although subsidies to buses have doubled to more than £1.4 billion a year, outside London bus use is falling.

    The picture on railways is similarly depressing. Twice as many trains run late now as in 1997.

    New rail schemes have been kicked into the long grass, even though rail subsidies have soared from more than £1 billion a year in 1997 to more than £3.5 billion now. Fares have risen faster than inflation, despite the Government’s promises to the contrary. Nothing that we have heard in the Queen’s Speech addresses those failings. The Crossrail Bill will have our support, but as everyone knows, and the Secretary of State acknowledged, it does not advance the starting date for that important project by a single day, because the Government are still dithering over the funding.

    I will deal with the Railways Bill in detail in a moment, but let me say initially that it is hard to see what the Bill contains that will improve the lot of passengers. Its central feature and the reason why it is being introduced is the abolition of the Strategic Rail Authority. The House will remember that two years ago the Department of Transport’s own review of the 10-year transport plan said that the SRA would provide the

    “firm leadership envisaged for it: that of providing strategic direction and funding for the rail industry.”

    The Labour general election manifesto said that the body would provide

    “a clear, coherent and strategic programme for the development of the railways so that passenger expectations are met.”

    Now, having consumed £237 million of taxpayers’ money, that very body is being abolished. The Secretary of State’s only strategy for the railways is one of utter incoherence.

    To be fair to the Secretary of State and the Government, we should judge them according to the performance criteria that they set out. The 10-year plan launched with such fanfare four years ago by the Deputy Prime Minister—and I am sorry that he is not here to enjoy the debate—contained a number of commitments.

    According to the plan, congestion on Britain’s roads was to be reduced by 2010. In practice, it has got worse. According to the plan, trains were to be made more punctual. In practice, they have become less punctual. According to the plan, rail passengers were to increase in number by 50 per cent. In practice, the increase has been 5 per cent. According to the plan, bus travel throughout England was to grow by 10 per cent. In practice, outside London, it is falling. According to the plan, the maintenance backlog on local roads was to be eliminated. In practice, that target has been dropped.

    According to the plan, Thameslink and the East London line were to be built by 2010. In practice, those targets cannot be met. According to the plan, rail freight was to increase by four fifths. In practice, the amount of freight carried by rail in the past two years has fallen. According to the plan, passengers were to travel by train more quickly and comfortably. In practice, as those of us who use the railways regularly will know, overcrowding has reached chronic proportions and is likely to get worse, while reliability is worse than in 1997. According to the plan, the east coast main line was to be modernised and capacity increased. In practice, that scheme has been put on ice. According to the plan, local roads were to be improved. In practice, the Freight Transport Association reports that their condition is worse than a decade ago.

    Not one of those 10 failures was mentioned by the Secretary of State today, but they are what concern road and rail users every day. Their consequence is an economy whose competitive position is being steadily worsened by this Government’s refusal to address them. Absolutely nothing in the Queen’s Speech suggests that the Government have any idea about how to tackle those problems, or even any intention of trying to do so. Let us look at what the Secretary of State is proposing.

    When it comes to new roads, the most decisive step that he can muster is more talk about road pricing, along with yet another consultation exercise about a possible extension northwards of the M6 toll road. Yet the Secretary of State told the House on 20 July that

    “Doing nothing would be the worst possible option.”

    Yet that is the very option that he is pursuing.

    A carefully argued study by the CBI, the British Chambers of Commerce, the Automobile Association, the FTA and other organisations identified the need for improvements to key motorways and trunk roads, but it is simply being ignored. The only certain consequence of this Queen’s Speech and of the actions of this Secretary of State is that road congestion will get worse.

    When it comes to the railways, now that the SRA has been condemned to death, power is shifting decisively back to civil servants in the Department of Transport and Network Rail. None of that bodes well for passengers, but I suppose that we should not be surprised that this Government should want to give more power to a body such as Network Rail, which is not directly answerable to anyone—least of all to its customers or the paying public.

    There will be anxiety too among train operators about how decisions over the allocation of franchises will be taken under the new regime. Most alarming of all, however, is the Government’s proposal to hand more power over the railways to Ken Livingstone.

    Two out of three train journeys begin or end in London, so that proposal is worrying indeed, especially for passengers travelling to or from stations outside the area for which Ken Livingstone is responsible. Passengers may now find that it suits Ken to stop their fast trains on the edge of London to pick up a few of his voters. They may also find that their fares go up because Ken says so.

    Just this week, Ken Livingstone’s officials at Transport for London caved in to trade union demands for tube workers to be given longer holidays than anyone else in the country. That is a warning of what lies ahead. I wonder whether it was Ken’s attitude to cost control that tipped the balance when Ministers in the Department of Transport were deciding about handing over to him a bit more say about how our railways are run. Giving Ken Livingstone power over how trains are run is a sure-fire way to discourage the extra private investment that railways need to attract.

    Where will it all end? Will the local councils in Birmingham, Rugby, Milton Keynes and Watford all be given a say over the trains that run from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden to London? Will all those councils be involved, too?

    The Railways Bill has exposed the Government’s complete disarray over the strategic direction of the rail industry. It will increase the extent to which politicians and bureaucrats interfere in the running of the railways. For that reason, the Conservative party will oppose it.

    We look forward to the imminent publication of the road safety Bill. I welcome the Government’s acceptance of many of the measures for which the Conservative party has been calling for some time. They include measures such as a crackdown on uninsured drivers—long overdue—and action to tackle the disappointing upturn in drink driving. Other measures include the introduction of variable penalty points to reflect the relative seriousness of different traffic offences.

    I was not entirely surprised that the Secretary of State got on to the subject of money in his speech, but he did not mention the cuts that he has made in transport spending. They must be something of an embarrassment to him. The spending plans that he inherited were set out in the 2002 spending review. That document said that, in the current year, 2004-05, the Government would spend £11.2 billion on transport. In the 2003 public expenditure statistical analysis, that figure was cut to £10.75 billion, and in the 2004 spending review, there is a further cut in transport spending for this year. The figure is now down to £10.4 billion—a reduction of 7 per cent. from the planned total for spending in 2004-05 that was announced before the Secretary of State took over.

    Breaking a pledge so spectacularly is not unusual for this Government, of course, but it is a reason why we cannot rely on any promise about future spending increases from this Secretary of State. It makes a total mockery of the right hon. Gentleman’s attempt to attack the Conservative party’s transport plans when he has personally overseen a cut of nearly £1 billion in transport spending for the current year.

    In any event, almost everyone—and I suspect that that includes the Secretary of State—recognises that taxpayers alone cannot fund the improvements needed in Britain’s transport infrastructure. The key to a modern transport system is more private investment. Unfortunately, even if he realises that, the Secretary of State is not taking the necessary action to encourage it. Instead of getting on with extending the M6 toll road northwards, he is conducting yet another consultation process. That is another example of how this Government are all talk.

    The M6 toll road was first approved when my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) was a Transport Minister, and it took more than a decade to complete. The need for immediate action is therefore obvious.

    On railways, the Government’s insistence on short-term contracts for train operators is an obstacle to increased investment. The bungled renationalisation of Railtrack is another deterrent to private investors. At the same time, the potential to bring vastly more private capital into the railways by unlocking the huge development potential in and around our stations, which are adjacent to some of the most valuable brownfield sites in the country, remains shamefully unexploited.

    Unlike the present Government, the next Conservative Government will have a timetable for action. That will include longer contracts for the best train operators and a major programme. The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Jamieson) appears to think that that is amusing, but he did not hear the earlier part of the debate. We will also have a major programme of investment in stations which will bring benefits to passengers without any contribution from the taxpayer or any increase in fares.

    I turn now to the other subject for today’s debate. It would have been too much to hope that the Queen’s Speech would include a reference to farming. After all, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs could not bring herself to mention farming in her speech to this year’s Labour party conference. Nevertheless, everyone involved in agriculture has plenty about which to be concerned.

    We are at a potential turning point in the industry. The effect of the mid-term review is to break the mould of 40 years of supporting farming by linking payment to production. Now that link is broken. I am not against that change in principle, but the potential consequences for the industry are far reaching. We may not see the changes take effect until 2006, because the Government’s incompetence in sorting out the rules under which the new arrangements will work mean that, for the time being, farmers have to operate in a climate of uncertainty.

    The difficulty that the Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality had last week in answering my question about whether the Government have assessed the likely impact of the changes in the method of farming support on British agricultural production was revealing. Clearly, the Government have not assessed that. I ask again today: does the Minister agree that it is now possible that over the next five years farm output will fall dramatically? Are the Government happy to see Britain become more and more dependent on imports for more and more of its food needs? Does the Government regard farming as a strategically important industry. What assessment have Ministers made of what all that will do for jobs in the countryside, the effect on the rural economy and how our rural landscape will look?

    If we are to import more and more of our food, it is even more urgent that we require honesty in food labelling by law. British consumers are entitled to know where the food they buy comes from and how it was produced. British farmers are entitled to know that when food grown abroad—often to lower environmental and animal welfare standards—is sold in British shops, consumers will be informed of the differences between British methods of production and those overseas. Why are the Government so afraid of what Brussels might say that they continue to shirk their duty to consumers and producers alike on the vital question of labelling?

    Will the Minister confirm that, because of the Government’s failure in yet another computer project, farmers are likely to suffer severe cashflow problems? The Rural Payments Agency will be unable to make payments due to farmers when the single farm payment comes in, because of the Government’s failure to complete the necessary preparations.

    Why on earth have the Government not abolished the over-30-month scheme? Even the European authorities now accept without qualification that British beef is safe, but Ministers are unwilling to take the action that is needed to relieve our beef producers of a burden that could and should have been lifted a considerable time ago.

    Will the Minister confirm the report in The Daily Telegraph today about the European Commission’s refusal to allow two thirds of Britain’s claim for help with the costs of foot and mouth disease? It appears that British taxpayers must pay an extra £600 million towards the £8 billion cost of foot and mouth disease because the Government refused to respond to the outbreak in a timely and prompt manner. The House will recall that in the last few days of February 2001 and the first three weeks of March 2001, my colleagues and I constantly urged the Government to take the steps, such as bringing in the Army, that were needed to bring foot and mouth disease under control. Because the Prime Minister did not want to admit the scale of the crisis in the run-up to the general election, he refused to act until forced to do so in the face of overwhelming evidence. That failure—those lost weeks during which I and others set out day after day exactly what needed to be done—cost our farmers, the countryside, the tourism industry and the country very dear. Today we learn that it will cost the taxpayer another £600 million on top of the billions of pounds already wasted. If the Minister says just one thing when he winds up, will he say sorry to all those people who suffered because of the way in which the Government bungled the handling of foot and mouth disease?

    The Government now propose an integrated rural agency. That proposal will weaken both the important statutory functions carried out by English Nature and the rural advocacy role performed by the Countryside Agency. I do not believe that making greater use of regional development agencies to deliver rural services will help the countryside or the people who live and work there.

    We support the principles behind the animal welfare Bill, although we have some concerns about the extent to which it will give Ministers powers to act through secondary legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden will refer in more detail to the clean neighbourhoods and environment Bill when she winds up later. Those measures are certainly necessary. Fly-tipping has increased by two fifths since 2001, littering increased by 12 per cent. last year, and the number of abandoned vehicles increased by 39 per cent. in two years. Unlike the present Government, we will take environmental crime seriously and we will start by making fly-tipping an arrestable offence.

    I now turn to what was not in the Queen’s Speech. There was a serious omission from the programme, which I hope the Minister will address: the absence of a marine conservation Bill. Will he explain the reason for that extraordinary omission? Is it, as many people fear, that his Department has simply been outgunned by the Treasury and the Department of Trade and Industry? If so, it is another worrying sign that on environmental matters the Government are all talk and lack real commitment. The Bill is urgently needed and, if introduced, would have our support.

    I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), who has worked tirelessly on that subject. His early-day motion 171 in the last Session attracted the support of about half the Members of the House. Both that early-day motion and his private Member’s Bill in 2001 enjoyed all-party backing, as well as the endorsement of many outside organisations, including the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the World Wildlife Fund, the wildlife trusts and the Marine Conservation Society. It also enjoyed endorsement from the Select Committee on Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs. The absence of any marine equivalent to the sites of special scientific interest, despite the fact that more than half our biodiversity is in the marine environment, is scandalous. Furthermore, a marine spatial planning framework would enable rational decisions to be made about the priorities to be attached in different places to development, nature conservation, fisheries and so on. The Government’s attitude to that Bill is a litmus test of whether they take environmental issues seriously. What the Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality says this afternoon will show whether the Government have passed or failed that test.

    I turn to a subject that did get a mention in the Queen’s Speech: climate change. I am pleased that the Prime Minister intends that to be a theme of both Britain’s chairmanship of the G8 and our presidency of the EU, but I should be much more pleased if he backed his fine words with a bit of action. On climate change, so far the Government have been all talk. Let us consider carbon dioxide emissions, on which Britain is committed to a reduction of 20 per cent. by 2010. Up to 1997, under the last Conservative Government, carbon dioxide emissions were falling; over the first six years of the Labour Government, they have risen. Unless there is an urgent policy change, Britain has no chance of meeting its targets for cutting carbon dioxide emissions.

    To make matters worse, the Prime Minister has failed to show the international leadership that Baroness Thatcher provided. When my noble Friend Baroness Thatcher was Prime Minister, she was the first Head of Government of any substantial country to take the issue of climate change seriously. The Prime Minister has failed, too, to use his unique relationship with President Bush to persuade the United States Administration to address the issue of climate change constructively. As Stephen Tindale of Greenpeace said recently:

    “The Prime Minister can no longer be given the benefit of the doubt. So far his record on climate change is almost entirely a record of fine words and no action. His repeated failure on this issue is undermining his diplomatic efforts . . . Fancy speeches are not enough.”

    Tony Juniper of Friends of the Earth was equally forthright:

    “The leadership position of the country is jeopardised by the position at home.”

    He went on to say that

    “Britain’s credibility is essentially derived from the policy choices taken by the Conservatives in the 1980s.”

    His predecessor at Friends of the Earth, Charles Secrett, summed it up when he said:

    “Blair thinks he can get away with boosting his green credentials by making a big speech every year on climate change. When it comes to putting his own house in order it’s always business as usual.”

    In the transport sector, the Government’s efforts to encourage greener practices are pitiful. The Conservative party is looking at how we can encourage a much faster switch to more environmentally friendly vehicles. We have already advocated colour-coded licence disks so that the public can instantly recognise which vehicles are environmentally friendly and which are not. We are now examining how the tax system can be used much more extensively to encourage the purchase and the use of greener cars. We want Britain to be in the forefront of the trend, which is already under way, for hybrid vehicles that do not run at all times on fossil fuels.

    Aviation is the fastest growing single source of carbon-dioxide emissions in the transport sector. It is an area where international leadership is desperately required to move the world towards recognition of the need for an agreement on an aviation fuel tax—leadership which Britain could provide if we had a Government who took climate change seriously.

    Progress in curbing emissions from aircraft depends on international agreement, and sadly the Government have neglected this subject entirely. One step forward would be the inclusion of aviation within the EU emissions trading scheme. Why on earth are the Government giving the go-ahead for further expansion of runway capacity in south-east England before agreement has even been reached on a robust European emissions trading regime for aviation? The Department for Transport’s own survey in 2002 shows that only one person in eight is aware of the link between aviation and climate change. The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution has commented that

    “rapid growth in air transport is in fundamental contradiction to the Government’s . . . goal of sustainable development.”

    On this issue, the Government are not even all talk; they are no talk. Surely it would be a start if air travel documents contained information similar to that which now appears in car advertisements, disclosing the emissions that the relevant flights caused.

    Home energy efficiency is another crucial aspect of the solution to climate change, and it is another area where the Government’s approach has been lacklustre. The domestic sector accounts for a quarter of all UK carbon dioxide emissions, largely from heating homes and generating electricity for appliances. Households could cut their bills by one third through energy efficiency measures.

    Under pressure from the Conservative party and others, amendments to the recent Housing Bill, now the Housing Act 2004, have finally forced the present Government to accept a target for improving domestic energy efficiency equivalent to that set under the last Conservative Government. The next Conservative Government will make it easier for homes to be powered by clean, green, renewable energy and to save on energy consumption. Fiscal instruments can promote those aims, whether in the form of lower stamp duty for energy-efficient homes—an option that we are now examining—or through council tax concessions for tenants and owners who have invested to make their homes more energy efficient. The scheme pioneered by Centrica with Conservative-led Braintree district council, under which householders who install cavity wall insulation can claim a £100 council tax rebate, is a good model that could be replicated elsewhere. More could be done in the social housing sector too, where faster progress is needed to bring all social housing up to an energy-efficient rating of 65, to reduce fuel poverty and to comply with the law.

    Another area of Government neglect is micro-generation. To realise the enormous potential that that could make, changes to the distribution network would be needed, and discussions with the industry and with Ofgem about how to promote those changes should be underway now. The role that combined heat and power schemes can play has been well demonstrated in Woking, and it is disappointing that that model has not been more widely followed.

    That leads directly to the topic of renewable energy. The Government’s fixation, which I mentioned, with covering our countryside with onshore wind farms at the expense of encouraging other renewable energy technologies is undermining both our ability to raise the proportion of Britain’s energy derived from renewable sources and our chances of gaining a commercial advantage by leading the world in the development of offshore wind, wave and tidal power. Our island status gives us a big natural advantage, which Ministers are busy throwing away.

    Biofuels and biomass could also make a bigger contribution than they currently do, and at a time when farm output is likely to fall, biofuels could take up some of the slack. If that is to happen, more encouragement, whether in the form of a further duty cut or through a renewables transport fuel obligation, is needed. As usual from a Government who are all talk, nothing is happening.

    In conclusion, let me just say that the issues for which the Department for Transport and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are responsible affect every family and every business in the country. They affect Britain’s reputation abroad and the influence we can exercise, as well as our ability to attract new investment and to compete internationally. Sadly, the failure of Ministers, from the Prime Minister downwards, to tackle these challenges with the urgency needed is damaging our economy, our environment and the quality of life of every man, woman and child in the country.

    Instead of action, we have consultation. Instead of decisions, we have delay. Instead of leadership, we have posturing. This is a Government who are all talk, and they must be replaced at the earliest opportunity.

  • Michael Howard – 2004 Speech on the Voluntary Sector and Public Services

    Michael Howard – 2004 Speech on the Voluntary Sector and Public Services

    Below is the text of the speech made by Michael Howard, the then Leader of the Opposition, at Toynbee Hall on 30 November 2004.

    Since becoming Leader of the Opposition, I’ve spent a lot of time travelling round Britain. And wherever I go, I meet remarkable people who give up their time to help those who are less fortunate.

    I meet people that have pulled together to tackle the problems they face. I visit communities who have been emancipated by the realisation that they can help themselves. And I see society working to meet the needs of its most vulnerable people, often more successfully than the State.

    As Beveridge wrote in 1948:

    “The making of a good society depends not on the State but on the citizens, acting individually or in free association with one another, acting on motives of various kinds, some selfish, some unselfish, some narrow and material, others inspired by love of man and love of God. The happiness or unhappiness of the society in which we live depends upon ourselves as citizens, not on the instrument of political power which we call the State.”

    Central to my approach is a belief that voluntary organisations are often better at delivering services than government.

    Just because the State pays for services, it doesn’t always have to provide them. Involving the voluntary or private sectors helps to drive up standards – benefiting everyone.

    Voluntary organisations are often more flexible and more responsive than the State. They tailor their services to the communities they work in. They do not simply hand out money – they know how it’s going to be used. They rarely suffer widespread fraud – because they know their clients personally. Some of the most successful organisations in the country – the schools, care homes and child care centres catering to the poorest people in society – are independent charities.

    Institutions like Toynbee Hall do not simply offer a contract with their customers. They offer a covenant: a relationship, an understanding of the emotional aspects of life, a recognition that we are not economic units or faceless statistics, but human beings.

    That’s why I would like to involve the voluntary sector much more in the delivery of public services. In education, we want charitable schools to be able to compete for the money which the taxpayer spends on each child – so that parents have a greater choice of school. In health care, we want charitable hospitals and clinics to qualify for NHS funding, if they can deliver care at NHS standards and NHS prices.

    But voluntary activity is more than about providing services to people in need. It’s part of a mindset, it’s a set of values, it’s a sense of humanity by which people can show responsibility for others. It’s practical. But it can also be wonderfully inspirational.

    A thriving voluntary sector, by virtue of the fact that it is voluntary, is a sign of a society in which people recognise that freedom brings responsibility – responsibility not just to our communities but to those less fortunate than ourselves. It offers the decisive and positive answer to that age-old biblical question: am I my brother’s keeper?

    What drives me forward is my trust in people.

    I believe that if people are given a choice they will make the right decisions for themselves and their families.

    I believe that if professionals – doctors, nurses and teachers – are trusted to exercise their judgment, they will take the right decisions: decisions that are in the best interests of patients and pupils.

    And I believe that if the voluntary sector is trusted to help run our schools and hospitals, we can improve the services on offer.

    My ambition is simple – to give everyone the choice in health and education that today only people with money can buy.

    As Winston Churchill said in 1940:

    “When this war is won, as it surely will be, it must be one of our aims to establish a state of society where the advantages and privileges which have hitherto been enjoyed by the few shall be far more widely shared by the many”.

    It’s a dream worth turning into reality.

  • Nicola Sturgeon – 2019 Speech at Lord Mayor’s Burns’ Supper

    Nicola Sturgeon – 2019 Speech at Lord Mayor’s Burns’ Supper

    Below is the text of the speech made by Nicola Sturgeon, the First Minister, on 28 January 2019.

    Lord Mayor, Lady Mayoress, Your Excellencies, Aldermen, Sheriffs, Chief Commoner, Ladies & Gentlemen

    It is an absolute pleasure to be here in these grand surroundings with all of you this evening. I am grateful to you, Lord Mayor, for hosting us, and I am grateful to all of you for attending.

    I do feel as if we are partaking in something of an historic occasion here this evening – the first ever Burns supper here in the Mansion House. I hope it’s not the last Burns supper to take place here. I think we should declare it a tradition.

    It is a real pleasure to be here. The Lord Mayor mentioned some of the many Scottish inventions – those that were invented by Scots, and those that we claim were invented by Scots. I’m not sure which list is the longest. Penicillin, the telephone, the television, the pin number. We also claim, of course, to have invented the Bank of England and the overdraft. Nobody said all of those inventions were good inventions. I actually just discovered that Scots also founded the state bank of India as well, so the list grows longer every day.

    But undoubtedly, one of Scotland’s greatest exports is Robert Burns – a wonderful poet. His poetry, his words of wisdom on so many different topics remain as relevant today as they were when he wrote them. So it’s wonderful to be here this evening celebrating the memory and the legacy of Robert Burns.

    I know that as well as many people from the Scottish and London business communities this evening, we’re also joined by diplomatic representatives from a number of countries across Europe, from Mexico and New Zealand.

    That’s actually really fitting because Robert Burns was a proud and very committed internationalist.

    In fact – and this is relevant to a point I’ll make later on – when the Scottish parliament reconvened in 1999, one of the songs chosen for the opening ceremony was Robert Burns’ A Man’s a Man, and that song contains these words:

    Then let us pray that come it may,
    (As come it will for a’ that,)

    That Man to Man, the world o’er,
    Shall brothers be for a’ that.

    Those words are resonant, perhaps in many ways more resonant today than in the day that Robert Burns wrote them. So, to celebrate not just his legacy but his internationalism this evening, it’s wonderful to be joined by people from across the globe.

    Now of course the other purpose of this evening’s event is to celebrate and strengthen the ties between Scotland’s financial services industry, and the City of London.

    In a week like this, it’s impossible to completely avoid Brexit in reflecting on that. However I’m sure you don’t want me to spend too much time on Brexit this evening. And believe you me – I don’t want to spend too much talking about Brexit.

    Apart from anything else, the Scottish Government’s view is well-known. We think leaving the EU will be damaging to the UK as a whole.

    We would prefer to stay in the EU, and short of that we’d prefer to stay in the Single Market and in the Customs Union. We hope that the prospect of no deal will very soon be removed completely as an option, and if necessary to avoid a Brexit cliff edge, we believe that Article 50 should be extended to allow parliament more time to come up with a proper and managed way forward.

    However – and this is the message I want to emphasise this evening – regardless of what happens with Brexit, there is a bright future for financial services in Scotland.

    I’m sure this is the case in many parts of the UK today, but certainly in Scotland we see Brexit as creating a necessity to be more firm in our determination to look outwards, to build links and to foster collaboration, and that is as true in financial services as it is in many other areas.

    The sector right now in Scotland is flourishing – and the Scottish Government is working very closely with business to help it flourish further in the years ahead.

    We’ve seen good evidence of that in the last year. One of them many of you will be aware of already – the decision by Barclays to invest in Glasgow.

    That investment, which was hugely welcome, could create up to 2,500 jobs. And perhaps more significantly, in what was a truly global field of options – the other centres are in New Jersey and India – it is a major vote of confidence in Scotland and in Scotland’s workforce.

    In the last two years HSBC and Computershare have both hired hundreds of additional staff in Scotland. We’ll hear from George Quinn later this evening about Zurich’s major investment in Glasgow.

    What all of these businesses – and many more besides – recognise is that Scotland is one of the best places anywhere in Europe to base financial services operations. That’s why we are the UK’s most important financial centre outside London. We have strengths across a range of areas from asset management to insurance and banking.

    First and foremost, that is because of our people. We have world-class universities and colleges. In fact by some measures, Scotland has the most highly qualified workforce in Europe.

    For example, at present, more than 70,000 students are studying subjects relevant to financial services in Scotland’s universities.

    But of course that skills base goes far beyond financial services. That’s why businesses across a range of economic sectors – several of which are represented here this evening – choose Scotland for inward investment.

    However to take an example which is closely connected with finance, we are widely acknowledged as a UK leader in data and informatics. We are also investing significantly in wider digital skills – an issue which I know has been a major focus of your time in office, Lord Mayor.

    That skilled workforce is a major reason why Technation last year named Edinburgh as the best location in the UK for establishing a technology company. That in turn is why our fintech sector is starting to gain international recognition.

    In addition, having a devolved government allows us to respond rapidly to the needs of business. That makes it easier for the public sector to provide co-ordinated support for inward investors. And of course we offer a brilliant quality of life – with vibrant cities and beautiful landscapes, if not always fantastic weather.

    To build on all of these strengths, we already work closely with businesses in Scotland. I co-chair Scotland’s Financial Services Advisory Board with Scottish Financial Enterprise, and of course we’ve just worked very closely together to produce the financial services prospectus that the Lord Mayor referred to.

    But we also want to work with companies based in London, and with the City of London itself.

    And there’s a point which I think is worth emphasising here. The City of London and Scotland can sometimes be seen as rivals or competitors. And of course, every now and again, that will undoubtedly be the case. But far more frequently, we will benefit from working together.

    After all, as all of us know, London’s scale is unique within the UK and indeed Europe. That gives you an important comparative advantage in many areas.

    But we also know that Scotland offers a fantastic range of expertise and facilities, and that office costs are significantly lower than in London.

    So – and many of you have direct experience of this – companies which already have big operations in London, can benefit from offices in Scotland which complement their London bases. Working together is undoubtedly good for Scotland, but also brings benefits for London as well.

    That’s indeed why we established a new Scottish Government base in London in 2017. It demonstrates that – whatever the future holds for all of us – it will always be in our interests to encourage close ties with London.

    And it also symbolises something wider. In the last couple of years the Scottish Government has also established new bases in Dublin, Berlin and Paris. Our enterprise agencies have doubled their representation across Europe, and are also strengthening their presence in other parts of the world. What that symbolises is a determination to be firmly outward looking and firmly open for business

    I mentioned earlier how appropriate it is that there is an international dimension to this evening’s event.

    That’s because Scotland – like the City of London – benefits enormously from our connections with friends and partners the world o’er. We have world class businesses which prosper by trading the world o’er. And so we are determined to forge new partnerships and to strengthen existing ones – here on these islands, across Europe, and right across the world.

    That definitely applies to the partnership Scotland enjoys with the city of London. We believe that it benefits the City, and that it also benefits Scotland. And so we are determined to work with you, Lord Mayor, to strengthen that relationship further.

    That’s why I am delighted to see so many people here. I hope you all have a wonderful evening. And I look forward to working with many of you, in the months and years ahead.

  • Grant Shapps – 2020 Statement on the Coronavirus

    Grant Shapps – 2020 Statement on the Coronavirus

    Below is the text of the statement made by Grant Shapps, the Secretary of State for Transport, on 9 May 2020.

    Opening remarks

    Good afternoon, and welcome to today’s Downing Street press conference.

    I’m pleased to be joined today by Professor Jonathan Van-Tam.

    Latest data

    Let me start by updating you on the latest information from the COBR data file.

    I can report that through the government’s monitoring and testing programme, as of today…..

    1, 728,443 tests for coronavirus have now been carried out in the UK, including 96, 878 tests yesterday

    215,260 people have tested positive, that’s an increase of 3,896 cases since yesterday

    11,809 people are currently in hospital with coronavirus in the UK, down from 12,284 yesterday

    And tragically, of those hospitalised with the virus, 31,587 have now died. That’s an increase of 346 fatalities since yesterday.

    These deaths are devastating for the families and friends of victims, who are in our thoughts and prayers are with all of them every day.

    But they also strengthen our resolve to fight this pandemic with all the resources we can muster in the weeks ahead….

    Planning for restart/opportunity for lasting change

    Tomorrow, the Prime Minister will set out a roadmap for the next phase in our strategy to tackle coronavirus.

    In support of this, I am setting out today an ambitious programme to help prepare our transport network for the critical role it will play as we emerge from this crisis.

    Importantly, it is true to say that moving beyond COVID will be a gradual process… not a single-leap to freedom.

    When we do emerge, the world will seem quite different, at least for a while.

    The need to maintain social distancing means that our public transport system cannot go back to where it left off.

    Here is a very stark fact…

    Even with public transport reverting to full service – once you take into account the 2 metre social distancing rule – there would only be effective capacity for one in ten passengers on many parts of the network.

    Just a tenth of the old capacity.

    So, getting Britain moving again, while not overcrowding our transport network, is going to require many of us to think carefully about how and when we travel.

    Everyone involved

    We have accomplished so much over the past 7 weeks of lockdown.

    The whole country has been responsible for reducing the COVID reproduction or ‘R’ rate…

    Millions of households across the UK have changed their behaviour for the greater good.

    Getting Britain moving again, whilst not overcrowding our transport network, represents another enormous logistical challenge.

    Yet this is a problem which presents a health opportunity too…. an opportunity to make lasting changes that could not only make us fitter, but also better-off – both mentally and physically – in the long run.

    Active travel

    During the crisis, millions of people have discovered the benefits of active travel.

    By cycling or walking, we’ve been able to enjoy this remarkably warm spring whilst sticking to the guidelines.

    In some places, there’s been a 70% rise in the number of people on bikes whether it’s for exercise, or necessary journeys, such as stocking up on food.

    So, while it’s still crucial that we stay at home, when the country does get back to work, we need those people to carry on cycling and walking, and to be joined by many more.

    Otherwise, with public transport capacity severely restricted, more cars could be drawn to the road and our towns and cities could become gridlocked.

    We also know that in this new world, pedestrians will need more space.

    So today (9 May 2020) I am announcing a £2 billion package to put cycling and walking at the heart of our transport policy.

    To set out how we will deliver this, I will bring forward a national cycling plan for publication in early June, in line with the statutory Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy to help double cycling and increase walking by 2025.

    The first stage, worth £250 million, is a series of swift, emergency interventions to make cycling and walking safer.

    Pop-up bike lanes. Wider pavements. Cycle and bus-only streets. All examples of what people will start to see more of.

    Accompanying the new money, we are today publishing fast-tracked statutory guidance, effective immediately, requiring councils in England to cater for significantly-increased numbers of cyclists and pedestrians, and making it easier for them to create safer streets.

    For employees who want to start cycling to their place of work, but who don’t have a bike right now, the popular Cycle to Work Scheme already allows employees to save between 25% and 39% on the cost of a new bike or an electric bike.

    There has been a huge increase in people using the scheme, and we will work with employers to increase uptake further.

    And for those who may have an old bike in the shed, and want to get it back into a roadworthy condition, there will be a voucher scheme for bike repairs and maintenance.

    Plans are also being developed to boost bike fixing facilities.

    What’s more, over the next few months, we will set out further measures to make a ‘once in a generation’ change to the way people travel in Britain.

    These will include tough new standards for cycling infrastructure;

    a new national cycling champion to inspire us

    much closer links with the NHS, with GPs prescribing cycling to help us get fitter

    legal changes to protect vulnerable road users

    at least one “zero-emission city,” with its centre restricted to bikes and electric vehicles

    and the creation of a long-term cycling programme and budget, just like we have for our roads

    There’s clear evidence, including from the Prime Minister’s time as mayor of London, that making streets safe for walking and cycling is good for retailers, business and the economy.

    Green travel / E-scooters / E-vehicles

    And in making these changes, our national recovery can also become a green recovery.

    One of the few positive benefits about the crisis is drastically better air quality and the health benefits that that brings.

    More than 20,000 extra deaths a year in the UK are attributed to nitrogen dioxide emissions, which are highest in areas with most road traffic.

    We want to try to preserve this as much as possible.

    So today I’m also fast-tracking trials of e-scooters, bringing this programme, already underway, forward from next year, to next month….

    And extending those trials from four local authorities to every region in the country that wants them….

    … in a bid to get e-scooter rental schemes up-and-running in our cities as fast as possible….

    Helping reduce car use on shorter journeys, and taking some pressure off buses, at this vital time.

    These trials will help us assess their safety and benefits, together with their impact on public spaces.

    The car industry has of course been very badly hit during this crisis, but April’s new sales figures showed – for the first time – that the two biggest selling models were both electric vehicles.

    So, to help keep this quiet, clean car revolution going, I can also announce today, £10 million of additional support for car-charging points on our streets.

    The car will remain the mainstay for many families and, as well as backing electric infrastructure, we’re going to accelerate the filling of pot-holes that plague so many road users.

    Data

    And just as new technology is changing the vehicles we use, so new digital technologies will help us make more informed transport choices in our battle against Covid.

    At a time when transport demand could quickly overwhelm capacity if users have no access to real-time travel information…

    … It is crucial that we take advantage of the UK’s digital tech expertise.

    With the right mobile apps, people can find out which parts of the transport network are overcrowded. And avoid them!

    They can choose alternative travel options, to help maintain safe social distancing…

    … or they can get information to help stagger their journeys – and lift the burden on public transport at peak times.

    This week I chaired a roundtable with key players like Google, Microsoft, and British firm, Citymapper, to develop both data and apps to help the public view crowding across the transport network, in real-time.

    Overall package

    This £2 billion announcement represents the most significant package of cycling, walking and green travel by any British government.

    Clearly, it will never be possible to cycle, walk or e-scooter everywhere. Cars will remain an absolutely vital form of transport for many….

    And so in the coming days…

    as we look to the future…

    … there will be further announcements about the huge investment we’re making in road and rail networks – taking advantage of their low usership during this COVID crisis.

    Closing remarks

    Finally, as we begin the process of preparing public transport to get Britain moving again, no-one should underestimate the sheer scale of the challenge ahead.

    Even with every train, bus and tram fully restored to service – this will not be enough.

    Social distancing measures mean that everyone who travels will need to contribute to meeting this capacity challenge.

    Changing our behaviour is the single biggest thing that’s beaten back this virus.

    The welcome fall we’ve seen in deaths is not only the achievement of our doctors and nurses and careworkers – but of everyone in the country for following the stay at home guidance.

    To re-iterate, nothing I have said today changes these basic rules.

    But as we contemplate the future, we will have to carry on making changes, particularly after we leave our homes.

    Preventing overcrowding – which could lead to a second spike and more deaths – will be the responsibility of each and every one of us.

    So please, only travel when you need to.

    Be considerate to others, and help us prioritise essential workers.

    And let’s all play our part in Britain moving safely again when that time comes.

  • Vaughan Gething – 2020 Statement on Scientific Advice in Wales

    Vaughan Gething – 2020 Statement on Scientific Advice in Wales

    Below is the text of the statement made by Vaughan Gething, the Minister for Health and Social Services in Wales, on 4 May 2020.

    The Welsh Government’s Chief Scientific Advisor for Health Dr Rob Orford joined the UK Government’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) COVID-19 meetings on 11 February 2020.

    SAGE is responsible for ensuring timely and co-ordinated scientific advice is available to decision makers to support UK cross-government decisions in the Cabinet Office Briefing Room (COBR).

    Wales’ Chief Medical Officer Dr Frank Atherton and Dr Orford agreed a formal technical and scientific advisory structure within Welsh Government was also needed to provide official sensitive advice to Ministers. The terms of reference for a Technical Advisory Cell (TAC) were agreed on 3 March, in accordance with SAGE guidance. TAC meets three times a week.

    The TAC is designed to:

    Interpret SAGE outputs into a Welsh context

    Relay relevant information and questions from Welsh Government to SAGE

    Ensure indirect harm is not caused by the proposed interventions

    Help inform NHS and social care planning guidance

    Ensure Welsh Government and Public Health Wales have timely access to the most up-to-date scientific and technical information

    Brief Local Resilience Forum and Strategic Coordinating Group chairs about scientific and technical outputs, via the

    Strategic Health Coordinating Support Group, which is chaired by Public Health Wales.

    TAC does not replace statutory functions of Public Health Wales or use the technical or scientific information, which has not been agreed or discussed by SAGE, unless this has a specific Welsh context.

    The priorities of TAC are aligned to SAGE and include:

    The detection and monitoring of coronavirus

    Understanding effective actions to help contain a cluster

    Understand, measure and alter the shape of the UK epidemic

    Ensure indirect harm is not caused by the proposed interventions

    Model the UK epidemic and identify key numbers for NHS planning

    Understand risk factors around demographics, geographies and vulnerable groups

    Generate behavioural science insights for policy makers

    Ensure NHS tests and trials key interventions

    Consider emerging therapeutic, diagnostic and other opportunities.

    TAC is co-chaired by Dr Orford and the Deputy Director for Technology and Digital. Membership is drawn from Welsh Government, Public Health Wales, Cardiff University and Swansea University. A range of experts from different disciplines are included covering public health, health protection, medicine, epidemiology, modelling, technology, data science, statistics, microbiology, molecular biology, immunology, genomics, physical sciences and research.

    Membership of TAC is kept under constant review.