UKPOL.CO.UK

Blog

  • Claire Perry – 2016 Speech on Sustainable Railways

    claireperry

    Below is the text of the speech made by Claire Perry, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Transport, in London on 18 May 2016.

    Introduction

    Good morning.

    This morning I want to address a subject that perhaps isn’t currently receiving the attention it deserves.

    And that is the subject of sustainability.

    In recent years, we’ve talked a lot about investment, capacity and connectivity.

    And rightly so – there’s a huge amount happening in rail under each of those themes.

    But I believe our job to revitalise Britain’s railways isn’t finished until have a railway that is not just high-capacity and well-connected, but a railway that is also sustainable.

    So I want to set out what I take sustainability to mean in the context of rail, and why it is important.

    What is sustainability?

    First, then – what is a sustainable railway?

    To my mind, the answer is clear.

    It’s a railway that is fit for the future.

    One that helps solve the environmental challenges we face, rather than contributing to them

    It’s a railway that is properly connected to the communities it serve

    And it’s a railway that has invested in the workforce it needs for the decades ahead.

    A railway meeting environmental challenges

    So, first, let me talk about how our railway can best meet the environmental challenges we face.

    When I speak to my rail counterparts, from everywhere from Canada to Egypt to Taiwan, they talk about environmental sustainability as the driving reason for their investment in rail.

    They see railways as a way of tackling congestion and improving our air quality.

    But in this country, talking in those terms is less common.

    That’s a real missed opportunity, because there’s so much for us to be proud about.

    We are one of the greenest transport modes, and we are getting greener.

    Right now we are on target to reduce per-passenger kilometre carbon emissions by 37% between 2014 and 2019.

    We need to talk about these successes more.

    But our words must be matched with continuing activity.

    Trains

    Let’s carry on making our new trains ever-lighter and more efficient.

    The new class 700 trains for Thameslink, for example, will be 20% lighter than the existing fleet and will use a third less energy.

    And I don’t agree with those who say that because some stretches of our rail network are not currently being electrified, we will never have a rail network without diesel trains.

    I can see a future in which all-electric trains can run on non-electrified track by switching to battery power.

    Last year my department sponsored the trial of a battery powered Class 379 train in Essex.

    We demonstrated that battery technology is able to power a train reliably.

    Yes, we need the range to improve.

    But longer-lasting batteries are the holy grail of industry the world over, so the technology will mature sooner than we expect.

    And I am working with colleagues in DECC to see how government investment in battery storage solutions for renewable energy can be applied to improving battery train ranges.

    Sustainable stations

    Our stations, too, can make their contribution to sustainability.

    Take Blackfriars.

    It’s a stunning symbol of a modern railway.

    But too-few people know that it is also a sustainable structure.

    Blackfriars’s roof’s 23 tennis-courts-worth of solar panels provide up to 50% of the station’s energy; enough to heat 80,000 cups of tea a day.

    Very few buildings have expanses of roof like our stations do, and they are often perfect for installing solar panels.

    Imagine if all our stations used their roofs in this way.

    Freight

    I believe there’s a real opportunity for rail freight to contribute to sustainability, too.

    One of the greatest challenges of our age is the emission of particulate matter from vehicles.

    This is not just a problem for future generations or far-away places.

    Particulates are here now, on our streets, already shortening lives.

    And one of the key contributors is road freight and the need to bring goods from out-of-town distribution centres into city centres.

    Yet our rail lines already reach into stations located in the heart of the city.

    Imagine if we could run electric freight trains into stations outside peak hours.

    Or run passenger trains that can be partly converted to carry freight.

    Goods could be offloaded onto electric vehicles, for distribution across the city.

    Lets set ourselves the challenge of investing in new freight technology and joined up logistics.

    Launch of RSSB Sustainability Principles

    These are just a few ideas for creating a railway that meets our environmental challenges, rather than contributing to them.

    If we are to achieve our sustainability goals, we need to design them into policies, procurement and operations right from the start.

    So today I am delighted to launch the Rail Safety and Standards Board’s Sustainable Development Principles 2016.

    The previous edition set the standard for the industry.

    We recently started including the principles in franchise competitions, where they have prompted bidders to increase energy efficiency of stations and trains and to reduce waste.

    But we want to take these refreshed principles further.

    From now on, they will form an important part of all future rail franchises.

    And in doing so they should have an effect throughout the whole industry.

    Railway connected to communities

    Now, the major change to the principles, is that they include an aspiration for rail to have a positive social impact, focussing on engaging with local communities in making plans, and in deciding how local assets are to be used.

    And that brings me to my second point.

    A sustainable railway is one that is connected to the community it serves.

    After all, a railway is not a closed system.

    It’s rooted in neighbourhoods, and part of the fabric of local life.

    Everyone has a stake in the success of our railways.

    And the railway has a stake in so many local communities.

    It’s a reciprocal relationship that I want the industry to take seriously.

    Station assets used by the community

    In many places, it’s already happening.

    A once-disused waiting room at Great Malvern Station is now a shop selling craft made by people with learning disabilities.

    And I have been really pleased by the way that, under the terms of the Northern franchise, we have agreed that disused railway assets should become community centres.

    There are underused railway buildings like this in towns, cities and villages all over the country, and it would be great for more of them to put to use for local benefit.

    Community railways

    I’m also a big fan of community railways.

    Across the county, thousands of volunteers are together giving 250,000 hours a year in support of their local railway lines.

    In March we launched a competition for ideas to make it easier for tourists to use heritage and community railways.

    These railways reach into parts of the country that tourists often miss.

    So last week we held a Dragons’-Den-style pitching event.

    We got some great ideas and will be announcing the winners soon.

    By putting our railways in the service of local life in these ways, we are gaining support for the railway even from the people who don’t currently use it.

    And a widely-supported railway is a sustainable railway.

    Sustainability of rail workforce

    But my final theme today is about the rail workforce.

    I make no apologies for returning to a theme that I know will be familiar to many.

    A sustainable railway needs a sustainable workforce.

    But, today, parts of the rail industry are set to lose half their staff to retirement within 15 years.

    That’s unsustainable, but so too is the idea that we can run a railway with a workforce that looks nothing like the public it serves.

    In particular, we need more women working in rail.

    Women make up 51% of the population.

    47% of the national workforce.

    But only 16% of the rail workforce, and a shockingly low 5% of train drivers.

    Crossrail has shown what women can do if they are brought into the industry.

    Of those who have undertaken work experience on Crossrail, over a fifth are women.

    Of those taking part in Crossrail’s graduate programme, many of whom will go on to be the future leaders of the industry, women make up almost a quarter.

    And in total, of the 10,000 people working on Crossrail, nearly one third are women.

    The result is clear.

    Crossrail is on time.

    On budget.

    We are the proven world-leaders in urban and soft-ground tunnelling.

    And there it seems there’s barely a dignitary or minister in Europe who hasn’t donned an orange jacket to marvel at Crossrail’s incredible underground structures.

    That’s what a sustainable workforce can achieve.

    And it’s a model for the rest of the industry to follow.

    Conclusion

    And so I hope that will spark some debate.

    We need to build a railway that is sustainable.

    A railway that works for the people it serves.

    And a railway that looks like the people it serves.

    Thank you.

  • Alun Cairns – 2016 Speech on Wales in a Reformed EU

    aluncairns

    Below is the text of the speech made by Alun Cairns, the Secretary of State for Wales, at Liberty Stadium in Swansea on 19 May 2016.

    Ladies and gentlemen, thank you so much for inviting me today to deliver my first major speech as Secretary of State for Wales.

    And I am especially pleased to be able to do so here in Swansea – my home city, so close to the village of Clydach where I grew up.

    And it is particularly special to speak at the home to the Swans and the Ospreys.

    We are also of course in Landore, close to the heart of Swansea’s industrial heritage where the first copper works opened in 1717 and where, by the 1870s, one of the World’s largest steelworks was operating.

    From its beginnings as a Viking settlement right through to its pivotal role in the industrial revolution, Swansea has been an ambitious and confident city, forging links with the wider world.

    And this is what I want to talk about this morning– my vision of a Welsh nation which is ambitious, confident and outward looking, which capitalises on opportunities for economic revival.

    As Secretary of State, I am passionate about seeing good things happen in Swansea.

    Where the UK Government is driving exciting regional initiatives such as the Swansea City Deal and its innovative ideas for internets of energy, well-being and technology….

    To the electrification of the mainline from Swansea to London as part of the largest investment in our railways since the Victorian era; or

    Through to International business success stories such as Swansea-based Lumishore… recent winners of the Queen’s Award for Enterprise- developers of LED lighting for boats who export 40% of their product to Europe.

    Swansea today is an outwardly ambitious city forging ever closer links to Europe and the world.

    For this to continue I believe we need to be a strong part of the UK, engaging with Europe and the wider world.

    And I want to explain why, with practical examples, that is so important. And why accessing the single European market and staying in the EU is so fundamental to that ambitious, outward looking nation.

    Wales’s Own Challenges

    Of course in Wales we face our own immediate challenges.

    Most urgently, we face a crisis in our steel industry. You will be aware that much is being done and offered by the UK Government to attract a buyer and to support an industry that is part of our heart beat.

    I should underline at the outset that I am limited in what I can say about steel because we are following a process…. A sales process in which I must – and am legally obliged to – respect the confidentiality of each party.

    But let me say, at each and every stage – and even before matters came public, the UK government has been actively working with Tata to see through a sales process. At various stages we have had to stay quiet to respect confidences, in spite of the calls for public statements in the 24 hour news cycle.

    The reality is we are working in a context where there is a global over supply of steel.

    I strongly believe that our steel industry is better off as part of a single market – as a bloc we can act against steel dumping far more effectively than we could on our own – and where we can get the best deal for our steel industry in what is their biggest market. Although there are no guarantees, be in no doubt, our membership of the EU makes our chances of gaining that buyer and of defending our industry so much stronger.

    Let me explain why:

    First, access to the EU market is fundamental to any steel manufacturer – with 69% of all steel exports from Wales going to Europe last year.

    Secondly, the joint action taken across Europe to defend our industry from steel dumping has led to steel imports from outside the EU fall massively.

    We have pressed the European Commission for firmer, faster action against unfair dumping and we’re pleased that the EU has listened and acted on this. There are now 37 trade defence measures in place across Europe, with nine investigations ongoing.

    As a result, Rebar and Wire Rod imports have fallen by 99% respectively, with similar number in other areas.

    Third, membership of the EU is fundamental to simply attracting investors because of the benefits the single market of 28 countries brings.

    And Fourth – imagine the action other member states could take if we were outside the EU.

    We could be subject to the same tariffs that are now having a positive impact against cheap dumping; and Tata’s competitors in Europe would naturally frame the EU market response to suit their operations, rather than one that includes us.

    And anyone who knows something about steel – Tata, the unions, investors or (dare I say) the government – all recognise the opportunities of the single market – negotiating around the table, rather than being spectators awaiting the impact of their decisions on our industry and our jobs.

    So the prospects of saving the jobs at Port Talbot and across other Tata operations in Shotton, Llanwern and Trostre and across the UK are much stronger because of our membership of the EU.

    Welsh Exports and the Single Market As well as supporting our Steel Industry, the EU is a major driver for the wider Welsh economy.

    The single market gives British businesses access to over 500M customers – eight times the size of the UK market.

    Businesses in Wales already recognise the value of these opportunities – the number of exporting businesses here is growing six times faster than the UK as a whole.

    The value of Welsh exports for the last year available was £12.2Bn, equivalent to £4,300 per person, with the EU receiving 43% of all our exports and 11% of total Welsh output.

    If there was ever any doubt, the EU is Wales’ largest trading partner and is the lifeblood of 100,000 jobs here in Wales.

    The EU as an Investment Driver Our membership of the EU is also key to the UK in attracting investment – just look at the success stories of companies like Airbus in Broughton or Toyota on Deeside.

    Airbus is home to one of the UK’s largest manufacturing plants.
    The Broughton site employs over 6,000 people and in recent years it’s provided around £100 million a year in pay to Welsh workers.

    It has spent around £120 million annually through its Welsh supply chain.

    And over the last decade, the Airbus site has seen major investments totalling more than £2 billion in facilities and infrastructure improvements.

    It’s a key part of the British economy making highly technical wings for all Airbus commercial aircraft, as part of a much larger global operation.

    This high value, highly skilled work depends on Britain remaining competitive for business.

    Paul Kahn, President of Airbus said: “If after an exit from the European Union, economic conditions in Britain were less favourable for business than in other parts of Europe, or beyond, would Airbus reconsider future investment in the United Kingdom? Yes, absolutely.”

    And like aerospace, automotive is an expanding sector of our economy. It is interesting to note that Sunderland now exports more cars than the whole of Italy, and Wales is a crucial part of this supply chain.

    18,000 people make car parts in Wales in more than 150 companies of all sizes. The CEO of the Wales Automotive Forum says that we make enough component parts to almost make a complete vehicle.

    It is an industry that injects £3.3bn into the Welsh economy.

    I was delighted that Aston Martin reinforced our position with an investment in my constituency – a project that was secured through both the UK and Welsh Governments working together.

    Toyota, is the world’s top-selling carmaker – for four years running – Their plant on Deeside employs 540 people, creating 950 engines a day that are exported internationally.

    Earlier this year, they announced a further £7 million investment in their North Wales plant – a further example of a Wales winning investment.

    Investments like these at Toyota are fundamental to our economy. They highlight again and again the importance of the single market to their presence and their operations; saying specifically, “British membership of the EU is the best for our operations and… long term competitiveness.”

    Airbus and Toyota are just two examples of what Wales needs to do more of – being ambitious, confident and outward looking in high end manufacturing sectors.

    These companies operate in global industries whose success depends competitiveness. They feed on an integrated business model, with the ability to move products, people and ideas around Europe without any restriction.

    The supply chains are relevant to us all.

    There are a host of companies that thrive on such investments that in turn create wealth and prosperity.

    They could be small engineering businesses or electrical operators, such as the ones I visited recently who supply TATA, though to those larger operators who supply Airbus and Toyota.

    Take Toyoda Gosei, – not far from here, where the PM visited just two weeks ago. A Japanese owned supplier of car components, has invested over £65 million in their Gorseinon site.

    The company’s workforce has grown from just 13 in 2010 to more than 600 on the back of the success in the automotive sector and supply chain. Today they supply Nissan, BMW, Jaguar Land Rover and Toyota.

    A clear demonstration of how large operators elsewhere in the UK have a major local impact. And the same could be said for Airbus

    But Europe also offers other features that support other types of investments too. Take the European Investment Bank. It’s the world’s largest lending institution, owned by the 28 European Union member states. They raise the bulk of their lending resources on the international capital markets through bond issues – their excellent rating allows them to borrow at lower cost.

    In 2015 they provided £5.6 billion to help deliver UK projects, contributing to £16 billion of investment – a record year.

    In Wales projects in social housing, transport, energy, water and education have benefited for more than forty years.

    Most recently the EIB was a major investor in Ford at Bridgend and Norgine at Hengoed.

    But they were also key to one of the most exciting investments on our doorstep- Swansea University’s new Bay campus.

    The stunning new £450m campus, which houses the College of Engineering and School of Management. In 2014 the Vice-Chancellor said: “This massive campus development is the largest university-led knowledge economy project in the UK and one of the best in Europe. It would not have been possible without funding support by the EIB (who) demolished the argument that the project was too big for Wales”.

    It is one of the largest knowledge economy projects in Europe, providing internationally acclaimed academic-to-industry collaborative research opportunities. The development wouldn’t have been possible without such financial support.

    The economic impact from the construction of the Bay campus alone is estimated at over £3 billion.

    The EU Supporting Higher Education And Europe’s role in Higher education is much wider.

    Cutting-edge investments have been made in Universities right across Wales. These institutions offer some of the best routes for individuals out of poverty and to growing the productivity of our nation.

    Europe plays a key part in bringing together the Higher education networks, international academics, the research excellence and even the students who choose to study here.

    Thousands of Welsh students have benefited from the Erasmus Exchange. A programme that was established in 1987 by Ceri Hywel Jones, a native of Port Talbot.

    These investments go right to the heart of our local communities across Wales.

    Bangor – The Institute of European Finance provides specialist consultancy and project reports. It houses Europe’s longest established and most comprehensive research library to banking and financial sector material.

    Cardiff Met has received 27 million Euros for schemes involving student and staff mobility to enhance teaching and learning, over 10 million Euros from the European Structural Funds to help with enterprise and commercialisation projects for local businesses, and over 2 million Euros for dedicated research projects.

    Trinity Saint David in Carmarthen, Lampeter and Swansea will receive £2.4 million of EU funds to develop the skills of employees through the Institute for Work-Based Learning.

    These projects are central to that goal of an ambitious, confident, outward looking Wales.

    Welsh Farming

    I’ve already highlighted steel, manufacturing and HE so let me touch briefly on a totally different sector.

    Seafood and agriculture. Industries that are both important to Swansea and to Wales. The EU receives over 90% of agriculture exports from Wales.

    That’s 98% of dairy exports, 97% of lamb, and 92% of beef.

    Leaving the EU could see tariffs of up to 70% imposed on our produce and would put the foundation of many local economies at risk.

    Furthermore, Welsh beef, Welsh lamb, Pembrokeshire Early Potatoes and Anglesey Sea Salt have protected status under EU laws. No company or region can seek to reproduce those products elsewhere or pass them off as substitutes.

    Welsh farmers could lose hundreds of millions of pounds on lamb and beef exports if we weren’t able to access the single market.

    I think it is fair to say that we could look to other markets. What about the US?

    And we have a special relationship -but that does not necessarily break down trade barriers. Yet in spite of our relationship, we exported zero welsh beef or welsh lamb to the US last year.

    Be it steel, automotive, HE or agriculture – leaving the EU would be a leap in the dark that Wales can’t afford to take -against the security of unfettered access to the single market and the role that it plays in attracting investment, along with our dependency on exports.

    Conclusion

    So, that is the positive case I would make for Wales staying in the EU.

    I am not here to advocate the status quo either.

    I am sure that there is recognition that Europe has to change to tackle the challenges ahead.

    And that is what the Prime Minister achieved with his deal in February.

    A recognition from European leaders that it must adapt to the needs of different nations and by delivering that special status for the UK.

    ….That allows us to steer clear of the aspects of the EU that just don’t work for Britain – things like the Euro, open borders or the prospect of ever-closer union.

    Along with an emergency break option on access to our benefits.

    But ultimately, we have a strong voice at the heart of Europe so we can influence how it meets the challenges of migration, terrorism and maintaining the free market rather than simply reacting to their actions and their decisions.

    If we’re not around the table, we could be on the menu.

    This is the case for Wales being stronger, safer and better off in a reformed EU.

    The benefits of membership affect all of our lives – from supporting investment in infrastructure and education to manufacturing, agriculture and social programmes.

    From the breadth of Europe to the heart of our local economies.

    Just as Swansea has been making its mark on Europe and the world for several hundred years, my vision for Wales is of an ambitious and innovative country that looks to the opportunities that Europe and the wider world create.

    This is a positive case for remaining part of the EU and its access to the single market.

    Let us confidently and proudly ensure our voice and influence is heard.

  • John Gummer – 1970 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made by John Gummer in the House of Commons on 30 November 1970.

    I should like to thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me to make my maiden speech. I wish to ask the House for its customary indulgence, even though on this occasion it will be particularly difficult to speak in an uncontroversial way.

    I represent a constituency that is particularly affected by the matters raised by the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris). West Lewisham is largely a residential area with a higher than average population of older people and, therefore, the concerns of the cost of living hit them perhaps more directly than they hit other kinds of communities.

    This Motion begs a major question, a question to which the hon. Gentleman did not fully address himself, namely how a Government should protect the consumer. This is a basic question, the kind of question to which my predecessor as Member for Lewisham, West, Mr. James Dickens, would have addressed himself with a sturdy independence irrespective of the views of this side of the House or, indeed, of his own Front Bench. I hope that sturdy independence which he represented in West Lewisham will not disappear with the change of regime.

    There is implicit in the Motion not only the question, but the answer that the hon. Gentleman would like us to give. Unfortunately, it seems to me that that answer is precisely that which was attempted for over six years by the Labour Government and which was attended by a conspicuous lack of success. Therefore, in addressing ourselves to this Motion it would seem more reasonable not to make apologies for past history, but to try to find a new way of solving the problems which, quite rightly, were highlighted by the hon. Gentleman.

    The hon. Gentleman’s reference to the National Board for Prices and Incomes reinforces what I have said about his remarks. If we become mesmerised by the easy answer which is very popular with the country on the lines of, “Let us have some kind of automatic panacea; let us have a prices and incomes policy”, we know that, after six years, such a policy very soon becomes only an incomes policy; there is no real effect except to raise prices, and the incomes policy very soon can be proved to increase rather than decrease the way in which incomes rise with the consequent effect on the price spiral.

    I notice that there has been a great deal of quoting from the Grocer, a magazine not often quoted by the Labour Party before 18th June. I believe the hon. Gentleman now quotes it to suggest that if only we were to use the same methods as had been used then we will have a great deal of success, though this has not been the case over the past six years. I agree that if the present Government were to use the same methods as were used by the previous Government in the last six years, the present Government containing the sort of people it does, would achieve greater success. But what we need is a different method from that set out in the Motion.

    Is it reasonable to suggest that we can protect the consumer unless we are prepared to do something about the reasons why prices rise unnecessarily? One of those reasons is the way in which our industrial situation has caused overmanning in industry so as to make us uncompetitive. I must declare an interest since I am connected with the printing industry, and it is surely unreasonable to have a situation in which every printing press in Britain has more men working on it than is the case on the Continent. Until we solve that sort of problem we will be able to do nothing for the old-age pensioners of West Lewisham, or of anywhere else.

    On the matter of social welfare the attitude behind the Motion is that all is well and that we should merely stay in the same place. That is what worries me. The situation is not solved merely by saying, “How appalling it is to change the social welfare system.” That is the burden of what is proposed in the Motion. When I go round my constituency I see hundreds of people in private tenancies who need help, and I do not believe that they will regard a change in the system of housing subsidies as being to their disadvantage.

    When we find references made to Professor Townsend and the Child Poverty Action Group, we must remember that, even in every one of six years of Labour Government, child poverty got worse and worse year by year. Nor do I believe it necessary to talk of school milk in the terms used by the hon. Gentleman in moving this Motion when one remembers that school milk was introduced at a time when the major health problem for children in Britain was rickets. Indeed, the major problem today is that of obesity. We have only to look at the evidence to see that that is the case. It has recently been said that nearly one-third of the children of London are overfed. We might well look at that situation in the light of what is said in this Motion.

    To go back to housing policy, it would be wrong to face a situation in which we are not prepared to say that, in order to solve the problems which face the nation, in order to do something about the rising cost of living, we should not ask those who are able to do so to stand on their own feet, simply because there are some—and there are certainly some people in this category—who cannot do so.

    On the matter of consumer choice, it is curious that we should not allow people to make choices in housing and education, which are important, and then complain when people make trivial choices. This takes away the right of a person to make a meaningful choice.

    This Motion not only contains a major question, which it begs, but it gives the wrong answer. Our only choice in solving the problems which face us today is to change the whole nature of our competitiveness. I do not see how the system will work without changing the taxation system to make it possible for companies to improve their liquidity, or to alter the system in such a way as to encourage people by changes in their personal tax situation. Without changing those sorts of things, I do not see how we will avoid the hand-to-mouth system which exists at the moment merely by putting a new subsidy in place of the old. Subsidy is merely a redistribution of present wealth. We want to see an increase in our wealth. This Government have put that matter first and I believe that is the successful answer to our situation.

    The hon. Gentleman spent a good deal of his time sniping at the possibility of Britain entering the Common Market. This was all of a piece with the same argument. He was saying, “Let us stay in the same place. Let us make no major changes. Let us go on like we have always done. Let us not solve the basic problems first.” I feel that unless we enter the Common Market on suitable terms, we will be unable to bring about a change in the continuing costs and wages spiral and that this will go on until we find ourselves unable to operate in the world in which we live. The whole proposition in the Motion seems to demand a return to a world of what one might call Socialist myth, a world which may have existed but does not today—a world which can exist only if Governments are not prepared to make fundamental changes in our society.

    I believe that the Conservative Party was elected to make these fundamental changes in our society. That means changes, and not just tinkering about with and replacing old ideas that have failed over six years of Labour Government. This can be done only by restoring national competitiveness, by changing the taxation system and by being prepared to provide aid for those who need it—and there are many who do—and, above all, by seeking a new place for Britain in the world by finding an accommodation with Europe so that we can play our full role.

  • Eric Bullus – 1952 Speech on the Apple Juice Industry

    Below is the text of the speech made by Eric Bullus, the then Conservative MP for Wembley North, in the House of Commons on 19 February 1952.

    Because we are not always able to forecast how long our Parliamentary business will take, I have been sitting here almost solidly since 2.30 p.m. fearful to leave the Chamber because of the chance that I might be called in my absence and thus miss my Adjournment debate. Consequently, I have learned much today about merchant shipping, about judicial salaries, about Income Tax and Customs and Excise law, about miners’ welfare and Z reservists. I add to this diversity the subject of this Adjournment debate, which I hope may have the support of the whole House.

    It is a truism that the present grave economic crisis means that in this country we have to plan our national resources to see that we get maximum value from them. Especial care must be taken to see that we extract every bit of use from material and products which hitherto have been waste. Local authorities have been doing this since the time of the war and have salvaged much waste paper and waste metal.

    But there are other products at present wasting which can and should be used at little or no extra cost to the nation. I am concerned at this late stage of our proceedings to deal with one such proposal—the right use of the apples at present going to waste. Apples contain much natural sugar and have as by-products pectin and, from the residue, a certain amount of animal feeding stuffs. Without dilating unduly on the properties of the apple, it is significant that the calorific value of the apple is higher than that of beer and almost as high as that of milk.

    Despite the big crop of English apples, in the 11 months ended 30th November last, imports of apples amounted to 184,000 tons—about 8.6 lb. per head of the population. Permitted imports between 1st December, 1951, and 30th June next will total 70,000 tons—approximately 3.1 lb. per head of the population. But it has been estimated that if last year’s average crop is maintained in the coming year, and the public consumption remains at average, there will be a surplus on home production alone. There will be absolutely no need for the importation of any apples.

    The National Farmers’ Union have given figures showing the estimated surplus of apples last year from certain parts of the country. These do not cover the whole of the country, but the figures available suggest that in the counties of Kent, Devon, Dorset, Essex, Hampshire, Somerset and Gloucestershire the total wastage last year was in the neighbourhood of 30,000 tons of apples.

    Mr. Gerald Nabarro (Kidderminster) What about Worcestershire?

    Wing Commander Bullus I am inclined to believe that the wastage was higher than that, because I believe these figures deal with apples at the packing stations and I do not think they include the apples which were allowed to rot on the trees for the want of picking. Local estimates for the Wisbech area suggest that over 14,000 tons were wasted in the season, and for the year 1951—although it was not a glut year—I think it might reasonably be estimated—and it is almost certainly an under-estimate—that the total wastage of apples in this country was over 50,000 tons. I think that is an under-estimate; in a good year the figure would be considerably larger.

    Generally, apples cannot be kept long in storage, and so the home industry has been considered a seasonal one, and that is one of the excuses given for the importation of apples. But it has been possible since 1936—and this is not generally known—to turn the apples into pure fruit juice, retaining all the natural sugar. I say this is not generally known. It it were, there would not be the need for so great an importation of apples, we should not have such flagrant waste and we should get the maximum value from our own crops—and the British apple is the finest in the world.

    The pure unfermented apple juice industry—in which I have no vested interest—commenced in this country in 1936 as a direct outcome of the very considerable wastage of apples, as a result both of glut crops and of the development of the grading of apples for market. The consumption of the product grew very slowly, but at the beginning of the last war consumption had reached about 200,000 gallons a year, and the Minister of Food froze the production at that figure for the duration of the war.

    At the end of the war two other firms began production, but the total sales have now fallen below 100,000 gallons, and there is a real possibility of the industry ceasing to function. Indeed, at a meeting of the Apple Juice Producers’ Association in November last all member firms agreed regretfully that this season might be the last one for the Association. And yet the industry could take a large part, if not all, of the present surplus of English apples without further capital cost. The capacity of the industry is well over four times its present production.

    Let us look at what the utilisation of the waste apples by this industry might mean. Assuming that the waste last year was in the region of 50,000 tons, then it is estimated that this would have produced over 7 million gallons of pure, unfermented apple juice, which would have had a content of 3,500 tons of sugar from natural sources. If this quantity of 50,000 tons of apples had been processed into juice and the pomace dried at least 3,000 tons of product with a high pectin value would have been obtained. This would have been a most valuable addition to our supplies of dried apple pomace for the pectin industry. And we import pectin, be it remembered. Dried apple pomace contains approximately 8 per cent. to 10 per cent. by weight of pectin. Therefore, it is fair to assume that the utilisation of this 50,000 tons of waste apples would provide about 250 tons of dried pectin, an extremely valuable commodity at the present time, when pectin from dollar sources is difficult to come by. The Government figures show that we spent £52,700 on the import of pectin in 1950. So it will be seen what a valuable contribution in pectin can be made if our waste apples are used.

    Again, the dried pomace, after extraction of pectin, can be redried, and then it still has some considerable value as a feedingstuff, although, admittedly, it is very low in protein content. Approximately 1,500 tons of this material would be available from the use of 50,000 tons of apples. Though I do not seek to compare the total nutritive value of apple juice with that of other products it is a good source of calories. Apple juice contains 300 calories per pint compared with 184 in a pint of beer and 375 in a pint of milk.

    The sugars present in apple juice are nearly all composed of glucose and laevulose which are said to be very easily assimilated by the system. It has been shown by independent analysis to contain approximately 9 per cent. of invert sugar and.5 per cent. of cane sugar. This point should be of real interest to the Ministry of Health in connection with the hospitals service. It would appear that very large quantities of apple juice would be required if it were given only to those people who are in need of taking a considerable volume of liquid containing some nutritive materials such as sugars. The juice also contains minerals of which the chief is potassium, and on the Continent this product is very widely used, I understand, in hospital practice for diseases of the heart, kidney, and liver. On the Continent, it is said, mineral constituents are of prime importance.

    Should the pure, unfermented fruit juice industry become defunct it would be extremely difficult in an emergency, in case of possible war, to resuscitate the various organisations. The Ministry of Food announced last November that very severe cuts in import licences for fruit juices were to be made this year. These cuts are of such an order as to embarrass the soft-drinks trade, and it would seem to be an entirely wrong time to allow the home fruit juice industry—an industry requiring no sugar—to lapse.

    The Ministry of Agriculture is engaged in the final stage of considering a marketing scheme for apples, which may be placed before the fruit growing industry in the near future. The ultimate success of such a scheme with the grading of fruit as one of its main provisions must depend very largely on providing a suitable outlet for the cull apples at a price which enables the processer to show a profit. Removal of the apple juice industry from active participation in fruit utilisation would be a serious blow to the organisers of the scheme. The present shortage of sugar and the impending cuts in imported fruit juices throws into relief the fact that the processing of surplus apples would produce a volume of juice that would contain thousands of tons of natural sugar.

    Now may I make a few suggestions about how the Ministry could help this industry? During the past 15 years the Apple Juice Producers Association has on various occasions approached the Ministries of Food, Health and Agriculture with its problems, and though received with sympathy there has not been any form of practical support. In Germany, France and Switzerland the Governments have given continuous assistance; and the United States Government is heavily subsidising its apple exports. The British Apple Juice Producers Association does not ask for any form of subsidy or financial help. Obviously the Government could not sponsor any individual industry, but the Minister of Health could be of the greatest possible help by encouraging the further production of a valuable food from fruit that would otherwise be wasted.

    I suggest that the Minister of Food could collaborate with the Minister of Health to ensure the maximum possible use of apple juice, primarily as a special issue in the hospitals and nursing homes in the Minister’s control. I am given to understand that the juice is acceptable and liked in hospitals, though the present price may mitigate against its wide use at the moment; but a greater production from the industry means, of course, a cheaper product. It is thought that the beverage, with its completely unfermented character, and with its high content of natural fruit sugars, could be usefully served in Service canteens such as the N.A.A.F.I., and especially to flying men in the Air Force who are not permitted for some hours before flying to drink beverages of an alcoholic nature.

    Not all schoolchildren like the milk given in schools, and I suggest that this fruit juice might prove an admirable alternative, if not a nutritive substitute, in our schools. Certain importations would not be necessary, or could be materially reduced. There would be no need for the importation of apples if we used all the apples in this country; and we should save on some of the imports of pectin and supply animal feeding stuffs. I do not know whether the Minister of Food still has his “Food Facts” publicity, but I think that such publicity might be given to the value of fruit juices produced from our own English apples.

    These are only a few suggestions to help a British industry, to use a waste product to advantage, and to assist us in our efforts to balance the nation’s budget. The suggestions I have made are by no means exhaustive. I suggest that what I have attempted to say tonight is of interest to other Ministries than the Ministry of Food, for the Ministries of Agriculture, Health, Education and the Service Ministries are concerned; and, not least, in view of the possibility of using waste products and saving dollar imports, and possibly building up a useful export trade, the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have a healthy interest in my proposals.

    Already the pure fruit industry does a certain export trade, but there are immense possibilities, especially to Empire countries, such as India and Pakistan, and to South America for dollars. I should presume to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what I have said.

    Finally, though representatives of the industry recently saw Ministry of Food officials, nothing tangible has yet resulted. I hope the Minister will, as a result of what I have said tonight, give sympathetic consideration to it to see if something can be done to extract full value from the apple crops of this country. The general advantages are enormous, and I think they are obvious.

  • Queen Elizabeth II – 2016 Queen’s Speech

    queenelizabethii

    Below is the text of the speech made by HM Queen Elizabeth II in the House of Lords on 18 May 2016.

    My Lords and Members of the House of Commons.

    My government will use the opportunity of a strengthening economy to deliver security for working people, to increase life chances for the most disadvantaged and to strengthen national defences.

    My ministers will continue to bring the public finances under control so that Britain lives within its means, and to move to a higher wage and lower welfare economy where work is rewarded.

    To support the economic recovery, and to create jobs and more apprenticeships, legislation will be introduced to ensure Britain has the infrastructure that businesses need to grow.

    Measures will be brought forward to create the right for every household to access high speed broadband.

    Legislation will be introduced to improve Britain’s competitiveness and make the United Kingdom a world leader in the digital economy.

    My ministers will ensure the United Kingdom is at the forefront of technology for new forms of transport, including autonomous and electric vehicles.

    To spread economic prosperity, my government will continue to support the development of a Northern Powerhouse.

    In England, further powers will be devolved to directly elected mayors, including powers governing local bus services.

    Legislation will also allow local authorities to retain business rates, giving them more freedom to invest in local communities.

    My government will support aspiration and promote home ownership through its commitment to build a million new homes.

    Following last week’s Anti-Corruption Summit in London, legislation will be introduced to tackle corruption, money laundering and tax evasion.

    My government will continue work to deliver NHS services over 7 days of the week in England. Legislation will be introduced to ensure that overseas visitors pay for the health treatment they receive at public expense.

    New legislation will be introduced to tackle some of the deepest social problems in society, and improve life chances.

    A Bill will be introduced to ensure that children can be adopted by new families without delay, improve the standard of social work and opportunities for young people in care in England.

    To tackle poverty and the causes of deprivation, including family instability, addiction and debt, my government will introduce new indicators for measuring life chances. Legislation will be introduced to establish a soft drinks industry levy to help tackle childhood obesity.

    Measures will be introduced to help the lowest-income families save, through a new Help to Save scheme, and to create a Lifetime ISA to help young people save for the long-term.

    My government will continue to reform public services so they help the hardest-to-reach.

    A Bill will be brought forward to lay foundations for educational excellence in all schools, giving every child the best start in life. There will also be a fairer balance between schools, through the National Funding Formula.

    To ensure that more people have the opportunity to further their education, legislation will be introduced to support the establishment of new universities and to promote choice and competition across the higher education sector.

    My government will legislate to reform prisons and courts to give individuals a second chance.

    Prison Governors will be given unprecedented freedom and they will be able to ensure prisoners receive better education. Old and inefficient prisons will be closed and new institutions built where prisoners can be put more effectively to work.

    Action will also be taken to ensure better mental health provision for individuals in the criminal justice system.

    My government will continue to work to bring communities together and strengthen society.

    Legislation will be introduced to prevent radicalisation, tackle extremism in all its forms, and promote community integration.

    National Citizen Service will be placed on a permanent statutory footing.

    My government will continue to safeguard national security.

    My ministers will invest in Britain’s armed forces, honouring the military covenant and meeting the NATO commitment to spend 2% of national income on defence.

    They will also act to secure the long-term future of Britain’s nuclear deterrent.

    My government will continue to play a leading role in world affairs, using its global presence to tackle climate change and address major international security, economic and humanitarian challenges.

    My government will continue to work to resolve the conflict in Ukraine. It will play a leading role in the campaign against Daesh and to support international efforts to bring peace to Syria through a lasting political settlement.

    Britain’s commitment on international development spending will also be honoured, helping to deliver global stability, support the Sustainable Development Goals and prevent new threats to national security.

    Prince Philip and I look forward to welcoming His Excellency the President of Colombia on a State Visit in November.

    My government will continue with legislation to modernise the law governing the use and oversight of investigatory powers by law enforcement, security and intelligence agencies.

    Legislation will strengthen the capability and accountability of the police service in England and Wales.

    My government will hold a referendum on membership of the European Union. Proposals will be brought forward for a British Bill of Rights.

    My ministers will uphold the sovereignty of Parliament and the primacy of the House of Commons.

    My government will continue to work in cooperation with the devolved administrations to implement the extensive new powers in the Scotland Act and establish a strong and lasting devolution settlement in Wales. My government will work in Northern Ireland to secure further progress in implementing the Stormont House and Fresh Start Agreements.

    Members of the House of Commons:

    Estimates for the public services will be laid before you.

    My Lords and Members of the House of Commons:

    Other measures will be laid before you.

    I pray that the blessing of Almighty God may rest upon your counsels.

  • David Rendel – 1993 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    davidrendel

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Rendel in the House of Commons on 19 May 1993.

    Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me this early opportunity to do what the Prime Minister would no doubt describe as “breaking my duck”.

    As is traditional, I should like to begin by recalling the sad circumstances of my election to the House. In February of this year, my predecessor, Judith Chaplin, tragically and very suddenly died after what had appeared to be a routine and successful minor operation. Her death was a great loss not only to the House, and particularly to her many close friends here, but also to all of us in west Berkshire. I do not think that anyone doubted that she was a woman of immense ability. Indeed, she was believed on all sides to be destined for high office. For her parliamentary career to be cut short after only 10 months was indeed a tragedy.

    Sadly, just one week after he had given the oration at Judith’s memorial service, her predecessor, Sir Michael McNair-Wilson, also died. He too will be long remembered with great affection by many in this House, as well as by all of us who knew him in west Berkshire. He had many friends and, so far as I know, not a single enemy, even among those who, like myself, were his political opponents. But, above all, we shall remember him for his immense courage after his health failed him. He not only remained a Member of the House while on kidney dialysis, but fought and won in a further general election. It is a great sadness that he enjoyed less than a year of retirement before he too died.

    Both my predecessors were admired greatly as first-class, hard-working constituency MPs. As I said in my acceptance speech, they will be a very hard double act to follow. The constituency that they have passed on to me covers almost half of the area of Berkshire. Although it is dominated by the two largest towns—Newbury and Thatcham—nearly half the population live in the town of Hungerford, in the larger villages such as Lambourn, Compton, Mortimer and Burghfield Common, or in the smaller villages and outlying settlements spread across the rural area. With the M4 cutting across the constituency from west to east, we lie in the now somewhat tarnished silicon valley, with high-tech industries providing a large share of local employment. We are also, of course, famous for our racing stables, particularly in Lambourn and West Ilsley.

    Many hon. Members will, for one reason or another, have had cause to visit our beautiful constituency during the past few weeks. Indeed, there was a time when we saw so much of the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Malone) that I began to wonder whether he was looking for a home in the area. It is, of course, no surprise to me that people should wish to visit west Berkshire, a very large proportion of which is designated as an area of outstanding natural beauty, but I suppose that it is only fair to say that, of the two principal tourists who visited us from Somerset recently, one—the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), who often sits in the seat that I have temporarily occupied today—got a rather better reception than the other.

    It is because so large a proportion of our population live in the rural area that I particularly wished to speak in this debate. Over the past few weeks, hon. Members on both sides of the House have found their mail bags full —as I have done—of letters pleading for the retention of rural sub-post offices. Indeed, if the Secretary of State has done anything for post offices recently, it is perhaps that many extra stamps have been sold to pensioners who have written to their Members of Parliament on this subject.

    But it is not just a matter of letters. As I went round my constituency during the recent by-election, I was struck by how often this issue was raised on the doorstep. As we all know, rural sub-post offices are often housed in the village shop, and thousands upon thousands of our village shops are dependent on their post office income for survival.

    Let me illustrate briefly how important these village shops are for life in rural areas by telling the House about what one village postmistress said to me only a week or two ago. She told me about the lady who comes into her shop almost every day, takes just one or two items off the shelves, and then waits to pay. After a while, the attendant at the till motions to the lady, to indicate that it is her turn to pay, but, in reply, the lady stands back and motions others to go ahead of her.

    At first the postmistress could not understand why the lady should act in this way, but eventually it dawned on her that the lady comes into the shop not merely to buy her daily rations but also because the shop is her sole meeting point for contact with her fellow human beings. She lives on her own—a lonely existence, without relatives around her—and her contact with humanity consists of her daily visit to her village shop-cum-post office, where she always waits at the end, of the queue, listening to the village gossip.

    For all too many people, the village shop is now the only escape from their well of loneliness. If we lose such shops, we shall lose a vital ingredient of the quality of life in rural areas.

    Let there be no doubt that the sub-post office system is vital to the survival of village shops. I have long since lost count of the number of letters that I have received, mainly from elderly people, but also from those in receipt of various other benefits as well. They have all stated that their local post office is now the only remaining place in the village where they can obtain cash. The banks have mostly long since closed their village branches.

    If the post offices close as well, the only option will be a trip into town. It may sound easy, but it is not when people have to rely on public transport because they are too old or too disabled to have a car of their own. Public transport has more or less disappeared from most rural villages. Even when a bus is available, many people have written of how a trip into town to draw their pension will cost them more in bus fares than the total increase in their pensions this year.

    Of course I understand that the Secretary of State intends to leave it to the individual to choose between payment through a bank and payment through a post office, but that is not the choice that people want—a real choice for them means choosing between paying through a bank in the town or paying through the post office in their local village. That choice is under threat today.

    I understand that the Secretary of State wishes to reduce the taxpayers’ subsidy to rural post offices, but surely hon. Members should take a wider view. Yes, we can save the taxpayer money by reducing the subsidy to rural post offices, but what about the far greater cost to the taxpayer of the extra traffic on the roads as more and more people have to drive their cars into towns? What about the cost of car parks, petrol and environmental pollution?

    The overall cost to the community caused by the loss of the sub-post office system will be far greater than any possible savings. Let all hon. Members join to save village sub-post offices, not by merely giving a vague pledge—such as the Secretary of State gave about some national network—but by giving a specific pledge that the number of sub-post offices will not be further reduced. A small, but important, aspect of our country is in danger. It is our duty to save it before it is gone for ever. I therefore urge hon. Members to vote for the motion, not for the Government’s amendment.

  • David Cameron – 2016 Speech at World Economic Forum

    davidcameron

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Cameron, the Prime Minister, at the Mansion House in London on 17 May 2016.

    We’re obviously now 37 days and 37 nights away from this crucial EU referendum and I wanted to give you the opportunity to ask me questions about the issues that are coming up, about the arguments that are being made.

    I would argue that those of us who want to stay in a reformed European Union are giving a very clear and positive argument and positive vision about why that is right. Put simply, it’s right for our economy because we are part of a Single Market of 500 million people that is crucial for our businesses, crucial for our economic future. And, so that is our vision and we’ve heard a lot of voices backing that. Voices from small businesses, from entrepreneurs, from big businesses, from inward investors into the United Kingdom, from farmers not just in England but in Scotland and Wales and in Northern Ireland too.

    And I think what we’ve heard from the other side from those who want to leave is really quite a lot of vagueness, particularly on this issue of the economy. And what I wanted to do in my remarks this morning, before taking any of your questions or points is just to run through what I think are the biggest myths on the economy being put forward by those who want us to leave the EU.

    Now, myth number 1 is, they make this point, that only a small number of businesses actually trade with the EU and so it’s not really fair on everybody else. I think that is a myth because basically there are 3 million jobs in our country that are dependent in some way on trade with the Single Market. Now I don’t argue all those jobs would go but if we restrict our trade with the Single Market clearly they’re going to be affected. But I think there’s a deeper truth about this particular myth which is this – there are many, many businesses in our country that are part of the supply chain for those that do trade with the single market. Take for instance, our car industry. Hugely successful over the last decade, 150,000 people working in our car industry but actually 300,000 people who are in the supply chain and working with our car industry. So I think this a complete myth, the idea that only a little bit of business would be affected if we left the EU. It would have a big impact on our economy that is now being backed up by the OECD, by the IMF, by the Bank of England, by almost every senior economist that looks at it. So I think that is myth number 1.

    Myth number 2 is somehow that if we weren’t in the EU, we could sort of tear up the rule book and have a bonfire of regulations. I think this is a myth in a number of ways. First of all, any business that wants to go on trading with the EU even if we’re outside it has to meet every single rule and regulation of the Single Market and without having any say of what those rules are. Now that’s not a recovery of sovereignty that is actually losing sovereignty, so I think that is a very, very weak argument. And it’s even weaker when you ask people who want to leave the EU, ‘well which are the actual regulations you’d like us to get out of?’ Because the truth is in almost every international survey Britain comes out as actually a relatively lightly regulated and well regulated economy. And we’re not hearing from those who want to leave a whole list of regulations that they want to get out of. Even in the area of social regulations, Britain has actually chosen on things like holiday pay, maternity pay actually to do more than the minimum set out by the European Union. So, I think that is a total myth.

    Now, myth number 3 is a really important one, is that the EU needs us much more than we need them, so were we to leave, they would give us an absolutely tremendous trade deal or access deal. I wish this was the case but it absolutely isn’t the case and the figures are very clear.

    44% of what we export goes to the European Union. 8% of what the European Union exports goes to us. So, you don’t have to be a genius in negotiation to know that the process of negotiating, wanting to leave the EU and then get a good access deal back again, we would need them to agree much more than they would need us to agree.

    And it’s worth thinking as well about this, about another point, we may have a deficit in the sale of goods when it comes to the EU but we have a very large surplus when it comes to services and one of the things that I think we should fear is that of course if we left the EU, they might offer us a deal on goods but it might take a very long time before they offered a deal on services. And you could almost imagine the thrill and excitement of service businesses in Italy and France and Germany and elsewhere saying ‘okay, let’s cut a deal with Britain on trade and goods, but hold back the trade in services so we can fill all of those insurance and banking and other service industries at which Britain is so good’. So, I think that is a particularly pervasive and a particularly dangerous myth.

    Myth number 4, having made the argument that somehow they need us more than we need them, myth number 4 is that there is some great, automatic status you could find, like Norway, like Switzerland, like Canada, that gives you access to the Single Market on the basis that we have it now. And here the leave campaign have dotted around quite a bit. They started with Norway, because Norway does have an access deal to the Single Market, but of course Norway pays into the EU, as much per capita as we do, and it still has the free movement of people from other EU nations into Norway. But of course the Norwegians have absolutely no say over the rules of the Single Market. That is actually a poor status. To swap our status today, where we have a total say over those rules and regulations and full voting powers and voting rights, to swap that for not having a say would be an absolute step backwards.

    Switzerland’s deal doesn’t cover services. That would be hopeless for our economy. So then the people wanted to leave jumped onto the idea of the Canada free trade deal. Now, I’m a massive fan of the Canada free trade deal, I’ve been pushing it very hard, it’s very good for Canada. It would be very bad for Britain. First of all, 7 years of negotiation and it still isn’t in place. So imagine for Britain, being stuck for 7 years trying to negotiate a trade deal with a market where 44% of our trade goes and is only 20 miles off our coast. But even if you imagine it was done more quickly, the Canada trade deal doesn’t include all services, it does still include a number of tariffs, it has quotas on things like beef, which is a vital export for our farmers, so again it is not a good deal for Britain. So, I think that is a myth that there is something ready for us to pluck of the shelf. The Leave campaign have started talking about this sort of mythical free trade zone that includes places like Macedonia and Albania, and I think the idea of painting Britain as a greater Albania is really, that shows that you are losing the argument. And even the Albanian prime minister came out and said he thought that was a bad idea.

    Myth number 5, after they’ve been through these models, realise they’ve had to reject all of those, myth number 5 is, well we don’t really need trade deals, we’re just going to get our seat back at the World Trade Organisation. Well this is a myth, because first of all, we never gave up our seat at the World Trade Organisation. But more to the point, I think actually this is possibly the most dangerous myth of all. One of the Leave campaigners put it the other day which is why don’t we have a status when it comes to trading with the EU, just like the United States does. And if we actually stop and think for a minute about what Britain having a World Trade Organisation status with the EU would be like, it really is quite a chilling prospect.

    The United States actually sells less to the rest of the European Union than we do. Quite important fact that, given they are, you know, the biggest, most powerful economy in the world. But more to the point, they face 7,000 different tariff lines on goods and services that they sell. Many services they can’t sell at all. American Airlines can fly into a European country but they can’t fly between European countries. Think what that would do for EasyJet or for Ryanair.

    Many US cars can’t be sold into Europe because they don’t meet the standards. Cars that are sold have to pay a 10% tariff. You pay 12% on your clothes, you pay 17% on your shoes, you would have a quota for beef that you share with a number of other countries, so if they sell more you suddenly have to pay massive tariffs. So this idea that there’s a World Trade Organisation status for Britain trading with the European Union, that is freely available and good for us, is a complete myth. It would be hugely damaging for our economy. But nonetheless, that is where the Leave campaign currently are.

    Myth number 6. If we were outside the EU, we would be faster and better at signing our own trade deals with the rest of the world. Where I think this is such a myth is first of all the EU, I want it to sign more trade deals, but actually it has signed many more than the US, almost twice as many trade deals as the US and actually the EU trade deals cover a huge percentage of our trade. So yes, one of my arguments for staying in is I want to speed up the process of signing of TTIP, of signing of an EU-Canada, an EU-Japan deal, an EU-China deal and many others. But already the EU does better than many other trade blocs at signing these deals.

    But I think the real myth here is actually the Leave campaigners are not listening to what the rest of the world is saying. We heard it from President Obama, we heard it from the Prime Minister of Japan, we heard it from the Prime Minister of Australia, we heard it from the Prime Minister of New Zealand, and they are all saying they would rather sign a deal with the European Union because it would be a bigger, better and more comprehensive deal than signing a deal with Britain.

    But of course, Britain would have another problem outside the EU, which is that we’d have to work out what our trading relationship with the EU was first, before we could credibly get round and sign trade deals with the rest of the world. So I think that is a complete myth.

    Myth number 7 is this idea that industries like financial services and manufacturing, would somehow magically thrive if we weren’t in the EU. I think this is very easy to dismiss. Take the heart of our manufacturing industry, the automobile industry where we are doing so well, with Honda, with Nissan, with Toyota, with Jaguar Land Rover, with Vauxhall with Ford, we now make millions of engines in Britain that end up in BMW cars, we actually make more cars in the north east of England than is made in many years in the whole of Italy. This is a growing and successful industry, there isn’t a car manufacturer in Britain that believes we should leave the EU, and when it comes to the financial services industry a good point to make here in the City of London, crucially if you leave the EU and you leave the Single Market, you give up the vital passport that means that any bank, or financial services company based here in the UK can trade automatically through the Single Market. Giving that up, would in no doubt, destroy a huge amount of jobs, not just here in London but also in the financial services centres we have in our country, in Birmingham, in Manchester, in Bournemouth, in Edinburgh and in Glasgow, and the Head of the Stock Exchange recently said to me, he thought 100,000 jobs alone could go in the City of London alone because of that measure, so I think that is a complete myth.

    Myth number 8, that economists are somehow split over this issue, there’s a balance of opinion on either side of the argument. I think one of the things that has come out so clearly, already in this campaign, is the overwhelming weight of evidence from economic forecasters that we would be less well off, outside a reformed European Union. You have heard it from the Bank of England, from the OECD, from the IMF, from the Treasury, from the Office of Budget Responsibility and many others besides, and I think when very respected organisations are saying, as clearly as they are that output would be lower, growth would be less, unemployment would be higher, prices would be higher, we would see a hit to living standards, that there is a very clear consensus that leaving the EU would have not just a short-term effect on confidence and investment and growth but would actually have a longer-term effect as well.

    And that leads me to the ninth and final myth put around by the Leave campaign and Leave campaigners, that somehow that there might be a short-term shock, they sometimes suggest but they say there will be a longer-term benefit. That is not what the economic forecasters are saying and there is a very clear reason that it’s not what the economic forecasters are saying because one of the things that generates our productivity and generates our growth, that makes us a successful economy, is our access to the Single Market, and the openness of our economy, and that is why the Treasury analysis is so clear that the long-term effect on our economy would be to make our households at least £4,300 less well off, a 6% shock to our economy, so I think we have got here a very clear set of arguments that completely demolish the economic case for leaving the European Union, and we have a very strong argument for saying that the status quo isn’t just a sort of static, let’s stay in and keep what we’ve got, it is an argument that says, this Single Market is growing, it is expanding, it is going to cover energy, it is going to cover services, it is going to cover digital, and it is a key advantage to our economy to grow, and for jobs and investment to stay in.

    Final thing I would say before taking any questions, is that I hope you, as leaders in business, enterprise and entrepreneurship will feel free to speak out, and I don’t mind if businesses speak out for leaving, or speak out for staying, but I want people to speak out, I want the British public to have the fullest possible debate. They deserve to hear from businesses large and small, about what you think. I don’t want anyone to wake up on June the 24th and feel they weren’t given the facts and the figures. If there’s that little voice in your head saying, well, I shouldn’t take sides, it is a political issue, yes, it is a political issue, the British public are sovereign and they will decide but let’s make sure everyone has the facts because I’m in no doubt having been Prime Minister of this country for 6 years, that on the economic argument alone, there’s no doubt we are better off in, and we would be worse off out, and I am going to make that argument very clearly for the next 36 days.

    Thank you very much indeed.

  • Theresa May – 2016 Speech at Police Federation Conference

    theresamay

    Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May, the Home Secretary, at the Police Federation Conference on 17 May 2016.

    Roll of honour

    Each year the Police Federation pays tribute to those officers who fell in the line of duty in the previous year. The men and women who went to work – to fight crime, put away dangerous criminals, and keep the public safe – but then did not return home. This year, 2 further names are added to that roll of honour:

    PC Sahib Lalli
    PC David Phillips

    They did their jobs serving their communities and striving to make them safer. And in honouring them we should also remember the families that are often left behind.

    Day in and day out, you – and the thousands of police officers and staff up and down the country – do a fantastic job. You do so with a tremendous sense of duty. You do so with courage and dedication not knowing from day to day what you might face. We must never forget the risks you take or the sacrifices you make so that we don’t have to.

    So I am delighted that the Police Federation’s new campaign, Believe in Blue, will celebrate the difference that police officers make every day to people’s lives: protecting the innocent, defusing conflict, and providing comfort. These are not just slogans. They are the daily professional achievements of policing in this country, of which you should all be proud.

    Reform of the Police Federation

    Six years ago I stood on this platform and addressed you for the first time.

    On each occasion since then, I’ve talked about the wide-ranging programme of reform I have put in place since becoming Home Secretary. A programme which, let’s face it, you haven’t always agreed with and which, at times, you have resisted.

    But 6 years on, British policing has changed substantially for the better. We have overhauled inadequate institutions and systems, reduced excessive bureaucracy, and replaced a centralised model of governance with local democratic accountability. Policing is more accountable, more transparent and more effective. And crime is down by well over a quarter since 2010, according to the independent Crime Survey for England and Wales.

    But I am not here today to talk about those reforms. I want to focus on one of the biggest challenges facing each of you, and one of the biggest questions for the British model of policing by consent – the response to vulnerable people.

    But before I do so I want to talk about you, the federation.

    Two years ago, I delivered a difficult message to the federation at this conference. I am sure you remember that day well – I certainly do. Not for my remarks or your reaction to them, but for the fact that, shortly afterwards this federation voted for change when it accepted Sir David Normington’s review of the Police Federation in full.

    You have made clear progress since then. Police officers now choose to join the federation voluntarily, instead of paying their subscription fees by default. The IT and change programmes needed to modernise the organisation are well underway. You have proposed amendments to the federation’s rules and regulations aimed at reforming your structures, governance, and even this conference itself. The Policing and Crime Bill going through Parliament will bring the Police Federation within the scope of the Freedom of Information Act.

    And just as you – the federation – asked me to do, I will enshrine a revised core purpose for the federation in law – making clear your commitment to the public interest alongside your existing duty to your members.

    So Steve and Andy, I would like to commend you for your hard work on delivering that commitment to change. I know it hasn’t been easy. You have experienced setbacks and delays. But you’ve both recognised that the Police Federation will be more representative, more credible and more professional as a result.

    But that does not mean change can stop here. Of the 36 recommendations in the Normington Review, 24 have not yet been delivered. And some of those you say are now in place, like the Independent Reference Group, have not in any way lived up to the spirit of what Normington prescribed.

    Then there are the Police Federation’s accounts. For the past 2 years, I have called these accounts in for review. What they have revealed is spending that has been both questionable and opaque. Branches spending tens of thousands of pounds on presents for retiring federation representatives – gifts that ordinary rank and file officers would never expect to receive. Other items – like £10,000 on an annual ‘plain clothing allowance’ in one branch – which defy explanation. The fact that some branches own what appear to be holiday homes, within an overall property portfolio worth £31 million.

    Members’ subscriptions are not a slush fund for the fed or pocket money for its officials and I am sure ordinary members of the federation will be as concerned about how their money is being spent as I am. Just as they will be concerned by the arrest of 4 senior police federation representatives, including 3 serving police officers, for alleged fraud and potentially criminal misuse of federation funds.

    That investigation has now passed to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) and remains ongoing, so I will not comment on the details of the case. But I will say this. The allegations could not be more serious. They go to the heart of the self-serving culture identified by Normington and they stand in contrast to the commitment to reform this conference made 2 years ago. Irrespective of whether criminality has taken place or whether individuals have acted inappropriately or not, they remind us of the continuing need for the federation to reform the way it operates.

    So I intend to consult the federation on amending its regulations; to require that all expenditure above a defined amount – as set by the federation itself – be agreed by the national officers of the federation and the national board.

    Two years ago, this federation took the bold decision to change. I know that you, for the sake of your members and for the public you serve, want to finish that job. As I’ve said before, if you stall, if you falter, or if the federation turns back on reform, I will legislate to do it for you. But for as long as you are making progress, I will listen and I will help you because you are doing the right thing.

    Hillsborough

    When I delivered that difficult message 2 years ago, it was not just the federation that I said needed to change. It was the police in a much broader sense. I was clear that the series of damaging events and revelations we had seen, put not just the relationship between the public and the police at risk, but called into question our very model of policing.

    One of those damaging revelations was Hillsborough.

    It is now 3 weeks since the jury at the fresh Hillsborough inquests gave its determinations and findings. When time and again, the jurors answered ‘yes’ to questions of error or omission on the part of the police.

    Police planning and preparation, match-day operations, commanding officer decisions, orders from the control box, and the fateful decision to open the gate of the Leppings Lane exit all contributed to what happened that day, leaving 96 men, women and children ‘unlawfully killed’ and the fans blameless in the disaster.

    For the survivors and families who lived through the horror of losing their loved ones, who suffered the injustice of hearing those victims being blamed, who were not believed, and who have seen the authorities that they should have been able to trust instead lay blame and try to protect themselves – the fight has been long and arduous. Throughout, they have remained steadfast, showing an extraordinary courage and a passion for justice for those who died – and I pay tribute to them.

    There are currently 2 ongoing criminal investigations: one by the IPCC, which is examining the actions of the police in the aftermath of the disaster, and a second criminal investigation led by Jon Stoddart, the former chief constable of Durham – so I do not propose to go into this in detail.

    But I do not believe there can be anyone in this hall who does not recognise the enormity of those verdicts. Nor can there be anyone in policing who does not now understand the need to face up to the past and right the wrongs that continue to jeopardise the work of police officers today.

    Because historical inquiries are not archaeological excavations. They are not purely exercises in truth and reconciliation. They do not just pursue resolution; they are about ensuring justice is done. Justice: it’s what you deal in. It is your business. And you, the police, are its custodians.

    We must never underestimate how the poison of decades-old misdeeds seeps down through the years and is just as toxic today as it was then. That’s why difficult truths, however unpalatable they may be, must be confronted head on.

    And let’s not forget, when we look at Hillsborough, the principal obstacle to the pursuit of justice has not been the passage of time. The problem has been that due process was obstructed and the police, the custodians of justice, failed to put justice first.

    The response to domestic abuse

    So we must not let the lessons of Hillsborough and other past injustices go unheeded, and we must not be afraid to face up to the challenges of today.

    There are issues that we have the opportunity to resolve now, where you have already shown that change is possible, but where reluctance or obfuscation could set back the relationship between the police and the public. Today, I want to talk about one such issue in particular – the police response to domestic abuse and vulnerable victims more widely.

    Because for years the violence, rape and emotional abuse that takes place every day behind closed doors was simply not being taken seriously enough, and all too often treated as a ‘second class’ crime. Claims neglected and ignored, suffering dismissed, blame and recrimination cast back at victims, rather than those responsible. In many cases, brutal violence was downplayed as ‘just a domestic’ and too little was being done to protect victims.

    And in neglecting victims, the impact of those crimes on families and children was also overlooked. Research clearly shows that children who grow up in this environment, who know nothing else but conflict and control, can go on to incorporate abuse into the families and homes they eventually build for themselves. The consequence of inaction is not therefore just continued abuse today, but the possibility of new perpetrators and new victims tomorrow.

    It was a scandal I was clear could not continue when I became Home Secretary in 2010, however long it might take to address. That’s why shortly after coming to office I published my strategy: a call to end violence against women and girls. And why in 2013, I commissioned Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) to inspect every police force on their response to domestic abuse.

    On leadership, management and investigative practice – even for routine tasks such as the collection of evidence at crime scenes – inspectors found significant failings that were letting victims down. Officers who couldn’t spot dangerous patterns of abuse. Victims who weren’t treated with dignity and respect. And the shameful attitude of some officers towards victims who had suffered violence and psychological abuse.

    The officers who accidentally recorded themselves calling a victim ‘a bitch’ and ‘a slag’. The victim who overheard the responding officer say: “It’s a DV, we’ll be a few minutes and we’ll go to the next job.”

    In that context, it is not surprising that, in the words of one independent domestic abuse adviser, many women were made to feel like “they were making mountains out of molehills and that they are also to blame.”

    I told you then those attitudes have no place in policing, and they threaten the good work of all you do. It was clear to me there needed to be a change of police culture, from the top down.

    And the truth is, you listened and you acted.

    In the last 2 years, real improvements have been made. Today, every police force in England and Wales has an action plan in place to tackle domestic abuse. For the first time, forces are collecting data against a national standard on all domestic abuse recorded crimes. The use of body worn video is improving the collection of evidence. In the recent police and crime commissioner elections, domestic abuse was mentioned more than any other crime as a priority in candidates’ manifestos.

    We are seeing more victims coming forward, more crimes being properly recorded and more convictions. In 2014 to 15, the Crown Prosecution Service recorded the highest number of police referrals, prosecutions and convictions for domestic abuse ever. And I have also been encouraged to see the first convictions for coercive control, and the many cases that are currently pending. They demonstrate that officers are recognising that patterns of continuous psychological abuse can be just as devastating as a single act of violence.

    So I want to commend all those who have shown a real commitment to protecting vulnerable people from appalling violence and abuse. You should be proud of your work. You have shown that improvement is possible; that difficult truths can be faced up to; and that the trust of those who have been failed in the past can be regained.

    The continuing need for reform

    But there is still a long way to go. Victims of abuse are still being let down and reports are not being taken seriously enough. The right skills, training, and commitment to protect the vulnerable are still not held by every single police officer. And while the new powers that we introduced are effective, they are not being used anywhere near as systematically as they could be.

    We continue to see examples of the same shameful attitude that HMIC uncovered in 2013. We know of officers who develop inappropriate relationships with victims of domestic abuse. They have ignored their professional duty and their moral responsibility, and instead abused their position of power to exploit victims.

    We do not know the true scale of this, but everyone in this room will know it goes on far more than we might care to admit. So today I have written to Sir Tom Winsor to ask HMIC to investigate this issue during their legitimacy inspections later this year.

    Or the officers who put victims of serious domestic violence into a room with their attacker in the name of restorative justice, with no consideration of the psychological and emotional damage that can cause. I know that restorative justice is meant to be victim-led and I know that guidance says it should be considered in all cases. But I simply do not believe it follows either the evidence or common sense to sit vulnerable victims across from perpetrators who for months and years may have destroyed their confidence, manipulated their mind, and beaten their bodies.

    Victims of domestic abuse are not the only vulnerable people who have been neglected by the police. Think of the victims and survivors of child sexual abuse. Of rape, stalking and harassment. Young girls who have been trafficked and held as slaves. These crimes are still investigated with different tools and often less urgency than crimes you are more accustomed to or more comfortable with, but which pose much less risk to individuals and communities.

    As HMIC found last year, not a single police force in England and Wales is outstanding at protecting those who are vulnerable from harm and supporting victims, and 31 forces are judged to be either inadequate or requiring improvement. That suggests that substantially more police forces are effective at tackling drug dealers or stamping out anti-social behaviour than are effective at protecting vulnerable victims from rape, domestic abuse or modern slavery.

    I do not say this chastise you or to lecture you. I know that the vast majority of you joined policing precisely to help vulnerable people and to protect them from harm. You work hard, and you want to do the right thing.

    These cases are difficult and complex for all the reasons we know about. They involve people who do not always know they are being exploited. Those for whom changing their story may indicate that they are being coerced or controlled, not a sign that they are an unreliable witness. Victims who may view perpetrators not as criminals but as their family, their loved ones, and those they rely on for love and protection.

    Investigations will often be more time-consuming and evidence less straightforward than for other crimes. Your superiors may be unsympathetic to the demands on officers and the sheer volume of cases involved.

    Often, you will be forced to come to terms with abhorrent forms of criminality and look through harrowing images, which can weigh heavily on morale and have consequences for investigating officers’ mental health.

    And for crimes that happened 20, 30, 40 years ago, the challenge of launching successful prosecutions when memories have faded, documents have been lost, and witnesses may have died, is undoubtedly incredibly tough.

    I know that, at times, you must feel damned if you do, and damned if you don’t. Because in spite of the complexity and the sensitivity of these crimes, the margin for error is smaller – and the risk of recrimination far greater – than for almost anything else you do.

    And because when you get it right, you are – yes – rewarded with the satisfaction of a job well done. But you also then see even higher numbers of cases and greater levels of responsibility as victims gain more confidence in the system.

    But you must not let increasing caseloads and complex investigations slow improvement or hinder further change. Or let the failure of your superiors to find efficiencies elsewhere pile pressure on officers already stretched and overloaded. There is no excuse for investigative teams not being resourced effectively. Because the number of people now coming forward demonstrates just how much was previously hidden, neglected, or ignored, and how many people are now starting to trust the police again.

    Last year, police forces in England and Wales received more than 100 calls an hour about domestic abuse and domestic abuse cases made up around 1 in 3 violent crimes with injury. Police officers recorded more than 100,000 sexual offences. And there were more prosecutions and more convictions for rape than ever before.

    I know there are some people who say that the pendulum has now swung too far the other way. That after years of under recording, disbelief and an unwillingness to investigate, the police are now overcompensating. That when it comes to the past we should let sleeping dogs lie to concentrate on crimes in the here and now.

    I understand those concerns. But I disagree.

    Victims and survivors of domestic abuse, child sexual exploitation, or modern slavery cannot resolve to forget. They live with the effects of those crimes every day of their lives and they deserve authorities that protect them and police who listen and act. Their children need to know that it doesn’t have to be this way; that not all relationships are abusive; and that it is possible to have a better life and a loving family. And perpetrators must never be allowed to think that their horrific acts will go overlooked or go unpunished.

    So let me be absolutely clear. Domestic abuse is a crime. Sexual assault is a crime. Child sexual abuse is a crime. Modern slavery is a crime. And the victims and survivors of those crimes deserve to be heard now, just as they should have been years ago, and they deserve justice, just as they did then.

    Renewing our model of policing by consent

    I recognise that this is not easy or straightforward. Changing a culture is hard and it will take time. Gaining the confidence of victims and survivors and their families will take longer. But by facing up to the past we can begin to renew the model of policing by consent and to restore the relationship between the public and the police.

    I know policing is listening, and is starting to change. The College of Policing has already rolled out domestic abuse training for every new recruit, revised Authorised Professional Practice, and increased specialist capability too, training 1,160 additional child sexual abuse investigators in the last year alone.

    And I am committed to doing my bit to help. I know chief constables are already considering how best to transform the police response to vulnerability, with proposals due to be presented to the Police Reform and Transformation Board shortly. Today I can announce that, alongside the work to increase police capability around firearms and digital investigations, and subject to that board’s views, I will support these proposals for new training to address vulnerability and improve the response to victims.

    To ensure that the police have access to specialist interviewers trained to reduce victims’ trauma and achieve best evidence from vulnerable victims and witnesses. And to make sure that every force has supervising officers trained specifically to deal with vulnerability, so that warning signs are spotted, victims are prioritised, and each shift of frontline officers and staff is briefed and debriefed properly. This is a proposal the federation called for in response to HMIC’s 2013 report on domestic abuse, and something I wholly support.

    And, as the Police Reform and Transformation Board becomes established and begins to consider where to invest to transform policing in the future, I believe it is right that the federation is included in that process. Because the cultural change needed will only come about if everyone in policing is able to contribute, just as you and other staff associations have contributed on the board of the College of Policing.

    Alongside this investment, I will bring forward proposals with the college to develop minimum training and standards for certain specialist roles and to give the college responsibility to enforce those standards through a system of national accreditation. This will deliver higher standards for specialist investigators, including for domestic abuse and child sexual abuse, and ensure that these are as rigorously and as consistently applied in protecting the vulnerable as they are in other critical areas like firearms and public order.

    These reforms will mean that, in future, victims can have confidence that the police will take these crimes as seriously as any other. And it will mean that you – as police officers – are not forced to take on the risk and responsibility of investigating crimes for which you have not been prepared or trained professionally.

    And if any of you still doubts whether this is possible – whether policing really can change – just look back at the last 6 years and consider what you have achieved.

    Crime down and public confidence maintained. Police forces that are more diverse, more professional and better qualified than ever before. More targeted and proportionate use of existing powers, like stop and search, and the first successful convictions under new laws, including for modern slavery and coercive control.

    You have achieved all of this while delivering significant savings. There is no doubt you can deliver meaningful change in the years ahead at a time when your budgets are being protected.

    Conclusion

    I would like to end by saying this, to every police officer in this hall, and to your colleagues in forces across the country.

    Remember Hillsborough. Let it be a touchstone for everything you do. Never forget that those who died in that disaster or the 27 years of hurt endured by their families and loved ones. Let the hostility, the obfuscation and the attempts to blame the fans serve as a reminder of the need for change. Make sure your institutions, whose job it is to protect the public, never again fail to put the public first. And put professionalism and integrity at the heart of every decision, every interaction, and every dealing with the public you have.

    Because if you do, you will renew the model of policing by consent in this country, and you will truly be custodians of justice for those who have been denied it for too long. Thank you.

  • Andrew Jones – 2016 Speech on Highways Asset Management

    andrewjones

    Below is the text of the speech made by Andrew Jones, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Transport, at the Institute of Civil Engineers on 17 May 2016.

    Introduction

    It’s a real pleasure to be here today.

    The theme of today’s conference is very fitting: “Challenges in highways asset management.”

    Managing our nation’s highways is challenging.

    Especially in the times in which we live.

    Times in which levels of road traffic continue to rise.

    But times in which finances continue to be constrained.

    I remember those challenges from my time as a councillor in Harrogate, when I was the cabinet member for finance and resources.

    Importance of our local road network

    The local highway network is one of our most valuable national assets and an essential component of our economy.

    When it performs as it should, it gets us to work, to study, to visit friends and family, and it supports the movement of trade across the country.

    It is therefore crucial that the local highway network is well-maintained, and well-managed.

    Funding

    That is why between 2015 and 2021 we are providing over £6 billion for local highways maintenance.

    That includes a £250 million fund specifically for repairing potholes; enough to repair over 4 million of them by 2021.

    We have set out our spending plans 5 years ahead in order to provide certainty, and so that councils can plan to use the cash in the best possible way, and at the right time.

    Asset management

    That is, after all, what good asset management is all about.

    But while we’ve made improvements to give councils more certainty, there’s scope for councils to make improvements too; to find efficiencies, and to invest the money at the right time in these assets’ lifecycles.

    I am sure that most people in the room today could tell me of times they’ve seen money being spent in ways that are far from ideal.

    And I know that of the 150-plus highway authorities in this country, many are doing very similar things in different ways, rather than pooling knowledge and expertise for common gain.

    The real, challenge, of course, is how to do this in an era of devolution.

    It would be easy for the government to tell local authorities what to do.

    But that wouldn’t stimulate innovation and the sharing of good ideas.

    So we want to leave the field open for highway authorities to take the initiative, to share ideas, and to learn from one another.

    This conference is a great chance to do just that – to talk about what good asset management looks like, and how we can continue to improve.

    Those who do take opportunities to improve will see real financial benefits, greater accountability, and better roads for everyone who depends on them.

    That is why we have decided to allocate the funding we give to highways authorities partly on the basis of performance.

    It’s an incentive for those who have done well to do even better, and for those who haven’t done so well to catch up.

    That incentive funding is worth £578 million between now and 2021.

    The results of the incentive funding for 2016/17 were announced last month.

    For those authorities who have not ranked as highly as they’d have liked, the department stand ready to support them for next time around.

    Our highways maintenance efficiency programme provides guidance and advice to local highway authorities too.

    And we have also published advice on determining economic costs and benefits of highway maintenance.

    Later today you will be hearing from Matthew Lugg on the highways asset management toolkit.

    This resource is designed to help bolster highway engineers’ case for funding for highways maintenance.

    Of course, if you want experts from the Department for Transport to help make that case to elected members in person, we are happy to assist.

    Just let the department or I know.

    Innovation

    Yet I also believe the time is ripe for us to make more use of new technology to support highway maintenance.

    Right across the transport sector, new technology and ways of working are transforming how we get things done.

    It’s a great opportunity for highways maintenance.

    For example, technology can help us collect information about our assets, to ensure better decision making, to understand more about the materials we use and whole-life costs.

    This is the right time for us all to shift our thinking as a sector.

    Roadworks

    And finally, I also believe we can do more to reduce the congestion on our local roads caused by road works.

    There are over 2 million road works on local roads each year, costing over £4 billion.

    We know that roadworks are essential.

    But they shouldn’t be in place any longer than is absolutely necessary.

    We are currently consulting on changes that could reduce the ‘A’ road congestion caused by road works left in unattended at weekends, and also to ensure removal of temporary traffic lights as soon as the works are complete.

    Conclusion

    And so, in conclusion.

    The sector has come a long way over the past few years; by becoming more efficient, by adopting better principles of asset management, and by working more collaboratively.

    Now we want highways authorities and their contractors to keep improving.

    To keeping learning from one another.

    To communicate, co-ordinate and plan ahead.

    To adopt new technology and innovation.

    To help make funding go further still.

    By following and adopting these principles we will have better local road network and help keep the nation moving.

    Thank you.

  • Patrick McLoughlin – 2016 Speech on High Speed Rail

    Patrick McLoughlin

    Below is the text of the speech made by Patrick McLoughlin, the Secretary of State for Transport, in Leeds on 16 May 2016.

    Opening remarks

    Thank you for that introduction.

    I’m delighted to be here this morning, and to be joined by my PPS Stuart Andrew MP, a local MP who is well in touch with what is happening here in Leeds.

    I’m delighted to be here today for the launch of the ITC report this morning and I’m grateful to Matthew, John and everyone at the ITC who helped put it together.

    Cities and HS2

    There is no doubt in my mind that major cities like Leeds, Birmingham, Manchester, Sheffield – now I’ve got to be careful here because I don’t want to miss anyone out – Liverpool, Newcastle are, without any doubt, where a lot of our country’s wealth is generated.

    Where we see inward investment directed.

    And we want to see most jobs created.

    So it’s no surprise that Britain’s journey over the past six years, from recession to recovery, has been driven by our city regions.

    Yet compared with the majority of major cities on the continent, ours have been suffering from a distinct disadvantage.

    While we continue to rely on an overcrowded Victorian railway network, western Europe worked out a long time ago that in our modern world the best way of carrying large numbers of passengers between cities – quickly, efficiently, comfortably and reliably – is high speed rail.

    But although we’re late joining the high speed club, we do have one very important advantage: we can learn from the experience of others.

    From the design, construction and operation of their high speed railways, but also from the cities which host high speed stations, and their success in stimulating economic growth, so we can make HS2 the very best high speed railway in the world.

    Commitment to HS2

    I know there have been various reports in the papers, about; whether HS2 is going ahead, whether it is going to Leeds and going to Manchester?

    I can tell you today that it is going to Leeds and it is going to Manchester. Because we are totally committed to the whole of the high speed network.

    Of course it’s controversial. It’s controversial in certain areas, which will have a train line going through where they wouldn’t have had one before, perhaps with no station so they feel they’re not going to get any direct advantage.

    I understand that, and I don’t dismiss these concerns.

    But it is worth remembering, when the very first railway between London and Birmingham was put before parliament it was defeated in the House of Commons, because the canals were considered perfectly adequate.

    As has been said earlier on – and it’s important to remember this – we’re not talking about a railway for next year, we’re talking about a railway for 20 years time.

    We’ve got to get the planning, and we’ve got to get the investment right. These projects do take time to actually implement.

    But I can tell you this: that if the government was considering planning a brand new motorway from the north to the south, it would also be incredibly controversial.

    There is no major infrastructure project which is not controversial at the time of construction.

    But there aren’t any major infrastructure projects that I can think of, that once they are there, that people turn round and say: “No, you shouldn’t have built it.”

    So I’m not dispelling some of the problems that there are.

    Of course we have to keep an eye on the costs. We’ve had to keep an eye on the costs on Crossrail, or as we now call it the Elizabeth line. And HS2 is Crossrail’s answer for the northern cities.

    It’s about addressing the balance between transport infrastructure investment between London and the north.

    There are those that think its unequal. Judith (Councillor Blake) might complain – in fact I’ve heard her complain! – that there is not enough investment in some of our cities.

    I have some sympathy with that.

    But I would point out that some of the improvements we’ve seen, for example at King’s Cross Station and St Pancras Station, actually benefit northern cities too.

    These stations used to be places where you didn’t want to spend a minute longer than you needed.

    Today both St Pancras and King’s Cross are destinations in their own right. And if you arrive half an hour early for your train, you really don’t mind.

    Listening and continually improving

    The fact that we are now just a year away from construction means that the report being launched today is well-timed.

    Given the size of the project – the biggest infrastructure scheme in this country for generations – it’s critical that we continue to develop and hone our plans.

    Indeed, the HS2 project has always been about listening to people’s views, and continually improving.

    Since 2010, when we set out our plans for a new high speed railway HS2 has never stopped evolving. It’s included: the biggest public consultation in government history; a massive programme of engagement with local communities; and of course, rigorous examination as the Bill passes through all its parliamentary stages.

    At every stage we have listened, learned, and adapted to make HS2 the very best it can be.

    ITC – guiding principles

    And that process continues. That’s why we’re here today.

    I’m pleased the report reinforces the message that HS2 will not just improve transport and not just speed up journeys – it will also improve capacity too.

    I have to confess that being called HS2 can sometimes overshadow what it’s also about.

    In 1992, 750 million people a year used our railways. Last year 1.7 billion people used our railways. Capacity on some of our networks is saturated.

    When people call for more local services, they don’t seem to appreciate that once built, HS2 will give us that capacity.

    But it is also a catalyst for revitalising and regenerating our cities.

    I welcome the emphasis it puts on close engagement and collaboration, the importance of improving transport connectivity around HS2 stations, and the need to be responsive to change.

    And I echo the advice that cities with HS2 stations need to show leadership, so each of them grasps the unprecedented opportunities that this extraordinary project offers.

    These are the guiding principles of the ITC report.

    And it’s good to know that many of them are already in evidence – particularly for Phase One of the scheme.

    What we’re already doing

    We’ve seen Birmingham set out ambitious regeneration plans around Curzon Station and the Old Oak Common and Midlands Growth Strategies have now been completed.

    Leeds, Manchester, East Midlands, Crewe, and Sheffield are also preparing for the construction of Phase Two.

    Just as government has been engaging and listening, so have HS2 cities; working closely with local businesses, local authorities, and local people.

    And where necessary adapting their programmes.

    Here in Leeds, a station redesign has delivered a much more integrated and successful result.

    We’ve seen blue chip companies for example choosing to move to HS2 cities.

    While HSBC has relocated its retail banking headquarters from London to Birmingham, and cited HS2 as a significant factor in its decision.

    For businesses, HS2 means they can access new markets, draw their employees from a much wider catchment area, and – perhaps for the first time – consider moving offices away from London.

    The benefits of working in cities like Leeds are self-evident: more affordable housing; a higher standard of living; quick access to beautiful countryside – whether it be Yorkshire or Derbyshire!

    In Doncaster and Birmingham, construction of our High Speed Rail training colleges has begun. Councils are saying that school leavers are already applying for places at the college.

    A recent article in the Financial Times reported how hotels in Crewe are already seeing an upturn in business, and quotes Cheshire East council saying that the difference HS2 is making to the town already is “tangible”.

    So the economic benefits of HS2 are clear, even before a single track is laid.

    European Lessons

    So it’s heartening that many aspects of the report reflect work that is under way here in the UK, but it also provides fresh insight that I’m sure will be valuable to all our HS2 cities – particularly the detailed study of high speed on the Continent:

    How Bordeaux launched a competition to find the best way to build 50,000 homes in the region;

    How Utrecht collaborated and worked with residents;

    And how different European cities have sought to attract a new generation of young people to support regeneration around stations.

    I also know the report’s illuminating analysis of each city region here in the UK will be of real value.

    Quite rightly it shows how each location faces distinct challenges.

    But also how HS2 cities can benefit by working together and sharing knowledge.

    Conclusion

    But most of all it reinforces the message, that when HS2 construction begins – and that is next year, actual construction by the way.

    Sometimes people ask me when you will start work on HS2.

    Every time I go and see HS2 Ltd in their office and I see for myself there is a vast amount of work going on, a vast amount of expertise that’s already being engaged, because a lot of the work is in the planning.

    But construction will begin next year.

    And we will be building something much bigger than a new railway. We’ll be investing in our economic prosperity for the next half century and more.

    Now sometimes perhaps there’s a feeling that everything has to be done on a 30 year basis.

    In that case the Jubilee line, when its BCR was 1, would never have been built.

    The Limehouse Link, which had a BCR of 0.47, but has been absolutely essential for the regeneration of The City, would never have been built.

    So sometimes BCRs are not the only thing we have to address when we’re looking at such investments.

    We need to look at future capacities, for our northern cities, around the midlands, not just for the next 20 to 30 years but for the next 60, 70 or 100 years.

    So I very much welcome this report today, and I very much welcome this conference, in helping move forward the debate.

    You’ll read various things in the newspapers: some of them are accurate but some of them are completely inaccurate; most of the things I read are wholly inaccurate.

    Of course there will always be pressure to look at costs, and to make sure we’re getting the best value for money – it would be insane not to do so.

    But it would also be insane not to say ‘what is our transport system going to look like in 30, 40, 50 years time?’ and to make sure our great cities have those same opportunities that London has, and make sure that young people look to those cities to base their lives on, and not to move away from them.

    Thank you very much indeed.