UKPOL.CO.UK

Blog

  • Harriett Baldwin – 2016 Speech at FinTech

    Harriett Baldwin
    Harriett Baldwin

    Below is the text of the speech made by Harriett Baldwin, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, at the Guildhall in the City of London on 11 April 2016.

    Thank you for inviting me here today. It is a pleasure to speak at this key event in the FinTech calendar – a chance to bring the entire industry together to celebrate UK FinTech’s achievements, and ensure we continue to be the best place in the world to be a successful FinTech business.

    I’m delighted to see so many great speakers lined up for you today, covering such a broad range of subject matter – from blockchain and digital currencies, to alternative finance and expanding banking to the 2 billion unbanked people in the world.

    What is clear is that there is huge excitement about the potential for FinTech to make profound changes to the way we go about our financial affairs. It is right that the UK continues to be at the very heart of that.

    We are the global capital for FinTech. The recent EY report on FinTech, commissioned by HM Treasury, ranks us above other FinTech hotspots such as California, New York and Singapore.

    The UK FinTech sector generated £6.6 billion revenue in 2015. With a workforce of over 60,000 employees, more people work in UK FinTech than in Singapore, Hong Kong and Australia combined.

    This is a very strong start – but our ambitions are even greater. We need to ensure that the UK continues to be the best place in the world to be a FinTech company. That is why I am today delighted to be announcing a set of measures to deliver key FinTech initiatives.

    First, to ensure that we effectively deliver on our FinTech commitments, we will create an industry-led FinTech panel, working with Tech City UK as well as Innovate Finance and other key representatives of the FinTech community.

    This industry-led panel will oversee the overarching strategy for UK FinTech and ensure the delivery of key initiatives. It will also will have its very own delivery support function, which will monitor and drive initiatives to fruition. It will accelerate the time to market of government and industry initiatives, ensuring that they are targeted where they will add most value.

    One initiative that we particularly wish to see delivered is the implementation of an open banking standard. This will be great news for FinTechs and other innovators – it will allow them to use bank data to provide a range of value-added services to consumers, and will really shake up the way customers can access and use financial services.

    The Open Banking Working Group published its report on the open banking standard and we are now working closely with industry to agree the next steps.

    Through the Financial Advice Market Review too, there was overwhelming support for a Pensions Dashboard that would allow people to access their pension data easily, viewing all of their pension savings in one place. This could help them gain a better understanding of what actions they can take to ensure a comfortable income in retirement.

    That is why I am delighted to act as ministerial champion to support industry in designing and delivering the dashboard, and I hope that we can collaborate to bring this technology to consumers.

    We recognise that government will need to play a critical role in ensuring that we have the right framework within which customers’ data can be safely shared. And I very much hope that you, along with other parts of the financial sector, will join us in making it happen.

    As well as delivering key initiatives, we also want to take additional action to ensure that FinTechs thrive in the UK.

    I know that talent matters. The government has already committed to ensuring that we have the exceptional talent needed in the digital technology field through the UK visa system.

    After feedback from the digital community, The Tech Nation Visa Scheme was enhanced in October 2015 to include new qualifying criteria for digital experts. This will allow for a wider range of FinTech specialists to get a visa to work in the UK.

    Regulation matters too. Government has a key role in ensuring the right regulatory environment in which FinTechs can thrive. As the EY report acknowledges, we already have a world leading regulatory system in the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) – known for its simplicity, transparency and industry-led approach.

    UK FinTechs have praised the role of the FCA in helping them to navigate regulatory complexity through Project Innovate. You know it must be working when regulators from around the world are replicating the innovative model of the Innovation Hub!

    The FCA is also looking into how to support the development and adoption of new technologies that facilitate the delivery of regulatory requirements, so called ‘RegTech’, and we’ve announced the creation of a regulatory sandbox to allow innovative businesses a ‘safe space’ to test innovative products and services.

    As I’m sure you are aware, the FCA announced that the sandbox will start accepting testing applications on 9 May, and Chris will be following me on stage shortly to take you through how the sandbox will work in greater detail.

    But we aren’t just focused on the regulatory sphere. We recognise that FinTechs start-ups can find other aspects of the existing landscape challenging, such as trying to find basic professional services, be those legal, accounting, human resources or regulatory compliance.

    To this end, we will make it easier for UK FinTechs to access the professional services they need.

    Drawing on Tech City UK’s deep understanding of the tech community, industry will build an information hub that makes it easier for FinTechs to navigate through the range of services providers and find the help that will benefit their businesses.

    We also recognise that professional services can be costly, particularly when FinTechs are first starting out. We will therefore work with industry to launch an initiative which will look to bring the major professional services providers together to provide FinTechs with practical and cost-effective basic services.

    This could be similar to existing programmes, such as EY’s FinTech talent program in which high performing staff are seconded directly into FinTechs on a pro-bono basis.

    We will look to ensure as many professional services firms as possible make their services available. EY have already indicated their interest in the programme, and I hope many more professional service providers will join up.

    Last but not least, we want FinTech to reach every part of the UK and have success overseas.

    The UK leads across a broad range of FinTech specialisms – from digital currencies to alternative lending, e-commerce and many others. There are few areas of FinTech that the UK does not have an interest in. But in a globalised world, there can also be benefits to specialisation. With specialisation comes a concentration of knowledge, efficiencies, and a potential market edge.

    That is why I am keen to see the continued growth of regional FinTech hubs around the UK and would like your thoughts on what else the government can do to encourage this.

    This could be about how best to encourage links between academia and industry, or to establish research hubs, or simply enlisting special envoys to further champion the development of FinTech in the regions.

    So I am today asking you, the industry, to share your experience and your ideas for how we can best ensure continued and sustainable growth of FinTechs all across the UK.

    Now one of the fascinating aspects of being a Treasury Minister is the sheer amount of jargon that comes across your desk. I’ve got used to the notion of research catapults and regulatory sandboxes – and it now gives me great pleasure to announce that the next way the UK will continue to maintain our leading global position is through the development of “FinTech bridges”.

    HM Treasury will work with UK Trade and Investment to establish “FinTech bridges” with priority markets. These bridges will help UK FinTech firms expand internationally, as well as attracting international FinTech companies and investors to the UK.

    This builds on the great work of the FCA’s Project Innovate, which promotes competition in the interests of consumers by helping put UK-based innovative business in touch with the right regulators, and also helps non-UK innovators in entering the UK market.

    I am delighted that, just over a month after EY delivered their report during FinTech week, we are making real progress on delivering against many of their recommendations.

    Today we announce a set of new measures: an industry-led FinTech panel; greater support to help UK FinTechs as they develop nationwide and FinTech bridges with priority export market.

    I hope that you, the industry, will help us drive them forward.

    But please be assured that this is just the start of our beautiful friendship – and that we will be announcing other ways we can help you help UK consumers.

    In the meantime, I look forward to continuing working with you to make sure the UK’s environment for FinTech is the best that it can possibly be.

    Thank you – and have a great summit.

  • Sir John Major – 2016 Speech on UK’s Membership of the EU

    johnmajor

    Below is the text of the speech made by Sir John Major, the former Prime Minister, in Hong Kong on 7 April 2016.

    During the last few days in Hong Kong I have been asked repeatedly whether the UK will leave the European Union.

    Almost without exception, the questioners – often investors in the UK – believe it is a bad idea. I will not quote their warnings given to me in private, but let the public remarks of Hong Kong’s Li Ka Shing, a large investor in the UK, speak for many:

    “If Brexit really happens”, he said on Bloomberg, “we will surely decrease our investments.”.

    Mr Li is not alone. As we move towards the referendum in June, the UK has been warned against exit by – amongst others – China, Japan, America, New Zealand and Australia; by the G20; the Governor of the Bank of England; our military leaders; our leading academics and scientists; and a majority of large and small businesses.

    In response, the advocates of Brexit accuse all these sources of “interfering” if they are foreign; or “scaremongering” if they are British.

    The “Out” campaign label such warnings – even from distinguished friends of the UK – as “Project Fear”. I disagree. In truth, it is Project Reality – and the British people have a right to be told what is likely to happen if the UK were to leave the EU.

    Let me set out my own position.

    As Prime Minister I refused to join the Euro currency. I believed it to be premature and risky. I also opted out of the Social Chapter since, at the time, it seemed to give rights to those in work, at the expense of denying work to the millions who were not. And – when it was first introduced – I refused to enter the Schengen agreement on open borders.

    I am, therefore, no starry-eyed European enthusiast. Yet I have not a shred of doubt that the UK should remain a Member of the EU.

    The case for remaining is most often seen in economic terms. But it is far wider than that. The outcome of the UK Referendum will decide what sort of country we are – and what our wider contribution to the world will be.

    When the UK joined the then Common Market our economy was the “sick man” of Europe: today, as a result of our domestic reforms, together with our membership of the European Single Market, we have the best performing economy in Europe.

    Within the next 20 years – on present policies and, crucially, with continuing full access to the Single Market – the UK is likely – not certain, but likely – to be the biggest economy in Europe: bigger than Germany.

    On issues such as the environment, climate change, internet costs and consumer protection, the UK can best progress – or sometimes, only progress – in unity with our fellow Europeans.

    The underlying mantra of the “Out” campaign is – and I use their words – “I want my country back”. It is an emotional appeal, but a bogus one. If emotion triumphs over reality, then all four British nations will lose out: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We will lose power, prestige, security and some of our future economic well-being.

    At present, our world is very disturbed. Uncertain. Across Europe, the scales have fallen from our eyes over President Putin. We see Russia threatening her neighbours with trade embargoes, cyber attacks, energy cut-offs, and encouraging pro-Russian minorities to ferment trouble. I am not, and never have been, a Cold War warrior, but we ignore what Russia is doing at our peril.

    A united Europe can help penalise and deter her: a disunited, shrivelled Europe cannot.

    The faults and frustrations of the EU are widely publicised in the UK: its achievements, less so. But they should be. Across Europe, ancient enemies of many years no longer fight against each other – they work alongside each other.

    The EU was the magnet that helped Spain, Portugal and Greece free themselves from fascist dictatorships. It helped the political climate that brought about the Northern Ireland Peace Process.

    It helped re-build and heal the Balkans after a terrible conflict. And enlargement of the EU has brought a new future to countries once
    imprisoned within the Soviet Empire. So, when we criticise the shortcomings of the EU, we should also remember its considerable successes.

    If the UK leaves the EU, the impact will be felt widely – and negatively – not only in the UK but across the EU.

    If the UK departs, the EU will lose:

    – its fastest growing economy;

    – one of only two nuclear powers; and

    – the country with the longest and deepest foreign policy reach.

    As a result, the EU would be gravely weakened, especially when set against the power of the US and China. Europe – the cradle of modern civilisation – would bow out of super-power influence.

    Does the UK really wish to be the cause of that? Does she really wish to abdicate her role in European and global influence? I truly think not – but many enthusiasts for exit either cannot see the danger – or are prepared to run that risk.

    The point is this: a UK departure would not only be a huge setback for my own country, but for many other nations too. It would have widespread repercussions – and no-one can be sure what they will be.

    For Europe, already facing internal and external crises, it could be one crisis too many. There are hard questions for the UK too, and it is more appropriate for me to raise these in detail at home, rather than overseas. But some are directly relevant to our global trading partners.

    Would external investors – China, Japan, America, be more or less likely to invest in the UK if she shrunk to a domestic market of under 65 million, rather than remaining inside a Europe-wide market of over 500 million?

    That is not a difficult question to answer. The UK would lose investment and jobs. How much, how many, and how soon is difficult to say – but there is no doubt that would happen.

    In the referendum debate, the advocates of leaving claim they can negotiate an arrangement to protect our trade relationship with the EU. After all, they say, the EU needs us because they – the EU – export more to the UK than the UK exports to them. It’s a beguiling soundbite, but they are deceiving themselves. Their argument is, to put it kindly, disingenuous: more accurately, it turns the
    truth on its head.

    UK exports to Europe are between 40-45% of all our exports: 14% of our overall wealth. On average, across the EU, the other 27 Members States only send 7% of their total exports to us: 2½% of their overall wealth.

    In the game of who needs who the most, the answer is clear. If the UK exits the EU, our partners will not be the demandeur in any negotiations on our future access to the single market – the UK will be.

    Moreover, it is blithe optimism on a Panglossian scale for the “Out” campaign to assume our partners – having been rebuffed, deserted and weakened – will still feel so well disposed toward the UK that they will be eager to accede to our demands.

    I fear the reverse will be true. A divorce, at the behest of one partner, is rarely harmonious – or cheap. Such a broken relationship is more likely to be full of rancour.

    The UK will have chosen to leave and, by so doing, will have gravely weakened the whole EU. Some countries will see fifty years of ambition imperilled – and our partners will hardly wish to reward us for that.

    Any trade deal the EU might eventually do with us would certainly not be a sweetheart deal: and it may be harder and harsher than the optimists believe.

    And if we wished such a deal to include services (and we do – since they represent 80% of the UK economy) – or the removal of hidden non-tariff barriers – it may be a long time coming, not least since it would need the approval of 27 other Member States – many of them angry and disappointed at our departure.

    And, of course, the UK would have to accept free movement of people. If we refuse that – there will be no trade deal at all – as Germany, for one, has already made clear.

    The UK will face another dilemma with its international trade.
    By leaving the EU, we would be withdrawing from Free Trade Agreements with 53 countries negotiated by the EU on behalf of all their Member States. These cover 60% of all UK trade. They will all need re-negotiation: a tough – and almost certainly lengthy – process. It is pure self-deception to believe that less than 65 million Britons will get the same favourable terms as 500 million Europeans.

    Nor will bilateral renegotiations of these Free Trade Agreements be a priority for other nations – as America, for one, has made clear. Our partners are more concerned with multilateral trade agreements, and will see the UK’s need for a speedy bilateral deal as a self-imposed own goal: we may well have to wait our turn to have any new deals agreed – and it could take many years.

    To brush aside such realities is to play Russian roulette with the economic future of the UK. The battle now joined over Europe has – on one side – the romantic nostalgia of an “Out” campaign that aches for a past that has long gone, in a world that has moved on.

    On the other side those – like me – who wish to remain are not European dreamers: we are realists who see an edgy, uncomfortable world, and believe that the UK is safer, more secure and better off remaining with our partners in Europe.

    In the Referendum, the easiest slogans inevitably lie with the “Out” campaign, and repudiating their often foolish and extreme claims is for a UK audience. Suffice to say, the “Out” advocates, whether in enthusiasm or ignorance, lace their argument with false statistics and unlikely scenarios.

    They promise negotiating gains that cannot – and will not – be delivered. They hail the purported gains of leaving Europe, whilst ignoring even the most obvious obstacles and drawbacks.

    Nor can they tell us how they actually see the UK outside of Europe. This is simply astonishing, not least since some of them – for over a quarter of a century – have made a career out of wishing to leave the EU. Yet now they have the opportunity to do so they seem bereft of any real detail.

    Some wish to have no relationship at all with the Single Market. Others can’t – or won’t – say what relationship they favour: 25 years of planning, and they still have no idea. Instead, they engage in shrill denunciation of what we have, with no indication of what would replace it.

    I understand the frustration that fuels the “Out” campaign, but have no doubt that an exit from the EU would harm our nation, now and in the future. We must not let an emotional spasm of faux-patriotism overcome the realities of the modern world and spin us out of Europe.

    We would soon regret it. And our children and grandchildren would regret it even more. That is why – between now and June – I will be doing all I can to persuade the British people that the consequences of our leaving the EU would be bad for the UK, bad for Europe, and bad for the wider world.

    I hope and believe that – on 23 June – good sense will prevail, and we can finally lay this particular ghost to rest. I have no doubt that, once it is, our international investors will breathe a large sigh of relief … as most definitely will I.

  • James Duddridge – 2016 Speech in Ghana

    jamesduddridge

    Below is the text of the speech made by James Duddridge, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, in Ghana on 4 April 2016.

    Honourable Ministers, distinguished guests,

    The Africa I came to know in Swaziland, and later living in Cote D’Ivoire and Botswana, is a dynamic place of entrepreneurs, opportunities, an aspirant middle class and a vibrant youth culture. This is the Africa the UK Government wants to engage with.

    Traditional aid programmes building health, education and sanitation services in developing countries are vital. They make a real difference to millions of people. The UK Government will continue to provide this type of support including here in Ghana. I am proud of the extraordinary work DFID do in Ghana – and the way that well over £100m the UK spends by to support Ghana’s sustainable and inclusive economic growth and development.

    But aid never made a country rich. Indeed, aid alone will not eliminate poverty in Africa. In any case, aid inflows are now in most parts of the continent less than other capital flows, foreign direct investment and, in many cases, remittances from overseas diasporas. What is really needed not though is to unleash the power of the free market.

    The British government believes that it is the private sector that will grow Africa out of poverty. Because profitable businesses pay taxes and employ people who pay taxes. Which allows governments to invest in health, in education and in infrastructure. And it means less unemployment. Moreover, a broad tax base increases government accountability. The positive effects of a thriving economy are felt throughout society.

    I believe that when we look at Africa we look at opportunity. Yes, there are risks. Yes there are difficulties. Yes there are security challenges across the continent. We are never short of people who will talk about the negatives. Or of people who treat the continent as a monolith rather than an internally diverse grouping of over 50 countries. But there are also commercial opportunities and abundant resources – not least Africa’s people, and huge economic potential in the Africa that I know and love.

    We understand that while some countries in Africa still need aid, many more need investment, expertise, and financial services – the World Bank estimates that the continent as a whole needs an extra $90bn capital investment a year for infrastructure alone. So we want to champion Africa as an investment and trade destination of choice. Jobs, growth, and poverty reduction are all instrumental in addressing the drivers of conflict – and therefore key parts of the ‘Golden Thread’, a term that our Prime Minister coined, and which we have now enshrined in the UN’s new Sustainable Development Goals.

    African markets are truly the markets of tomorrow. While the economic outlook might be dampened in the short-term by the slump in commodity prices, the medium to longer-term outlook is still promising. By 2019, rising consumer demand from the emerging African middle class could present additional demand of almost 720 billion pounds. Looking further ahead, this consumer market is only set to grow as Africa’s population doubles to 2.5 billion people by 2050.

    This is what I think about when I think of Ghana. And when I do the word that comes to mind is “partnership”. Partnership to achieve the potential that Ghana has – to drive and support sustainable and inclusive economic growth and development in Ghana. For Ghanaians. At the same time – and I don’t want to hide this – I want to see potential benefits for UK companies who want to invest in Ghana or export to Ghana. But importantly – and this is a cornerstone of UK policy – any business won by UK companies will be won openly and transparently because corruption is not just a cancer that rots a country: for UK companies it is illegal anywhere. And far from a reason not to do business with British companies it’s the reason to do business with them – because what you see is what you get and there is no murky side negotiation. This is something that His Excellency President Mahama and I discussed today. I am delighted he is attending the Prime Ministers anti-corruption summit in May and hope that it will mark a domestic and international step change in Ghana’s fight against corruption.

    Earlier today I witnessed the official handover of the Dodowa District Hospital, the first of six new district hospitals that NMS Infrastructure is building for the Government of Ghana to invigorate regional and district health care throughout Ghana. I am proud that it was delivered for the Ghanaian people by a British company, NMS, with British expertise, British exports and UK financing support – and that as well as delivering a world class medical facility it also transferred skills, experience and technology to more than 2000 Ghanaians. That is exactly the sort of partnership that should lie at the heart of our bilateral relationship and I will make it a key part of my role to ensure that happens.

    Thank you.

  • David Cameron – 2016 Speech on Economic Security in the EU

    davidcameron

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Cameron, the Prime Minister, at PWC in Birmingham on 5 April 2016.

    Thank you. Thank you very much Ian. Thanks for that introduction. Thank you for the welcome. It’s great to be back in Birmingham, great to be with you at PwC.

    And, as Ian has just said, we’ve got 78 days to go before the most important political decision that most of us will make in our lifetimes: whether to stay in or to leave a reformed European Union. And it is in many ways bigger than a general election. If you don’t like the choice you make in a general election, you can change your mind in 5 years’ time and chuck them out. Obviously that’s not a bit that I particularly look forward to but nonetheless it’s a very powerful part of our system.

    But this choice about Europe, it is a choice for a generation, a choice for a lifetime: do we stay in or do we go? Now I’m very clear that the best answer is to stay in. I think we are better off in; I think we’re stronger in; I think we’re safer in, and I want to say a word about each of those.

    Safer, because of course what really ensures our safety is our police, our intelligence service, our relationships around the world, but there’s no doubt in my mind, having been your Prime Minister for 6 years, that the European Union, the work we do with our partners, the information we get about criminals, about terrorists, that helps to keep us safer.

    I believe we’re stronger in as a country because of course we’re the fifth biggest economy in the world. We get strength through our membership of NATO, through our membership of the Commonwealth, through our relationship with the United States of America where I was last week, but we do get strength as well by being part of the European Union. We’re there, able to make decisions, whether it’s putting sanctions on Iran, so they don’t have a nuclear weapon or whether it is having a united front against Putin and what he’s done in the Ukraine. We are stronger because we are in the European Union.

    I also think we have the best of both worlds. Our membership of European Union is not quite like anybody else’s. We’re in the single market but we’re out of the single currency. We can work and travel all over Europe, but we maintain our borders and we don’t have to let people into our country if we think they are a threat to us. So I think we have the best of both worlds and that has got better with my negotiation because I’ve made sure they cannot discriminate against the pound sterling, our currency. I’ve made sure we have targets for burden reduction. I’ve made sure that we’ll never be part of an ever closer political union.

    But I think the most powerful case for staying in and the one I want to mention the most before answering your questions, is that we are better off; we are wealthier; we’re more prosperous; we’ll create more jobs; we’ll create more livelihoods for people in our country if we stay in a reformed European Union.

    The European Union is effectively a market of 500 million people, and a market we can sell to without quotas, without tariffs, without taxes, without any impediment. And when you think of Britain, when you think of Birmingham, when you think of the West Midlands, we are a trading nation, we need those markets open. That is how we create jobs. Around a quarter of a million jobs here in the West Midlands are dependent on trade with Europe.

    Now of course that trade wouldn’t disappear altogether if we were to leave the European Union, but what would be in its place in terms of the rules? What sort of deal would we have? And here’s where I think your industries, and the industries you support, in the services sector need to think about this so carefully. Because the truth is this: services make up 80% of the British economy, 4 fifths of the British economy. And it’s absolutely vital for our services industries that we have full access to that European single market. Now if we leave the EU, we therefore have to have some sort of deal with the EU to give us access. Now here’s the absolutely key choice: if we went for a deal like Norway which is out of the European Union but almost a full member of the single market, you’d still have to pay into the EU, like Norway does, and accept the free movement of people from the EU, like Norway does, and yet you’d have no say over the rules that govern trade or services or standards or anything else. Now that’s not a good deal. And you don’t just have to take that from me; that is the view of the Norwegian Prime Minister as well. They say to us, ‘Don’t go for the Norway option.’

    So the alternative to that would be a free trade agreement. Now Canada has, or is about to have, the biggest free trade agreement there is with the European Union, and some of the principal proponents of Britain leaving the EU have said we should have a Canada-style deal. But here’s the rub: the Canada-style deal does not have really any good provisions about services.

    Let me just give you a couple of examples. A Canadian airline can fly between Canada and a European city, but it can’t fly within Europe. Well what would that mean for easyJet or for Ryanair, for companies like that, that are so vital in terms of the cheap air flights that we all enjoy? Let me give you another example. If you’re a television station, if you’re located in Britain, you can broadcast all the way through the European Union; not if you’re a Canadian television station under the deal. Think of financial services, and you help so many financial services companies. With our arrangements, inside the single market, if you’re located in Britain you can trade in any European country. If you’re Canada, your financial services companies won’t be able to do that. They’d have to set up in each and every European country.

    So here’s the truth; if we leave the European Union, and if we have a deal like a Canada free trade deal, it will be very bad for our economy. It will be bad for jobs. It will be bad for investment. And it will be particularly bad for services industries that need those markets open. We have a brilliant manufacturing sector in Britain; it’s important that we keep it going, not least with the huge success of Jaguar Land Rover not far away from here. But we’re also the people that design the building, that consult on the deal, that insure the premises, that provide those vital services, those sales and other services right throughout the European Union. And I think that above all is the reason why we should reject the idea of a free trade deal and recognise we are better off inside a European Union. And that’s how I hope you’ll vote in 78 days’ time.

    But I just want to make one final point before taking your questions, because I think a lot of these arguments can always be quite dry, quite technical. They’re about jobs and investment, vitally important, but there’s also something else we should always think about when we consider this question of in or out. And that is it may be 78 days until that referendum, but it is also only 70 years ago that the countries of Europe were fighting each other and killing each other’s citizens in huge numbers.

    And yes it’s frustrating, the European Union, and I can tell you, as the person who sits round that table till often 3 or 4 in the morning, negotiating complex deals, it can be incredibly frustrating. But the fact that we talk to each other, the fact that we work with each other, the fact that we try and collaborate and cooperate to tackle the problems and issues that we face as countries is so much better than what came before and we should never forget that, whereas our continent had been wracked by war and conflict, we have found a way now to talk to each other, to work together. And that is something, when we think about this vote – which is not just for our generation but it’s for our children and our grandchildren – something that I hope we’ll think about.

    Thank you again for the welcome. I look forward to the questions. Whatever you decide to do, please do vote in 78 days’ time. People say there’s a lot of issues of sovereignty at stake in this referendum. Well, this is a giant act of sovereignty. You, the British people, are going to decide: do we stay in or do we get out? I hope you vote to stay in, particularly after the negotiation I concluded, but it’s your choice. I will obey the orders you give me on 23 June. Thank you very much.

    Right, okay. Questions, points? We’ve got some from the press here as well. Let’s have the lady behind me. Here comes a microphone; you may not need it, but just so they get you all the way up there.

    Question

    Hi, Eleanor Perfect. I’m the EU grants lead for PwC UK, so I work with PwC clients to access Horizon 2020 funding. What’s the plan if we vote to leave, to mitigate the…?

    Prime Minister

    Very good point. In case everybody doesn’t know, the Horizon 2020 programme, that is the money particularly for universities, where Britain actually does extremely well out of science and technology and university funding. If we look at the West Midlands as a whole, I think there’s about £700 million worth of European regional funding coming into the West Midlands between now and 2020.

    Now of course, if we left the EU we would have to make sure we funded science in our universities, and we had the other regional funds equivalent to those things. But you know, we can’t guarantee what it would be. And in a way, it’s a question for the Out campaign to answer: would you replicate the very important funding that’s going into British universities or wouldn’t you? But it is interesting that British universities, by and large, are solidly behind staying in a reformed European Union.

    And also, there’s this point: if we left the EU, it’s pretty clear – and the Bank of England have said this – there would be a shock to our economy and we would suffer in terms of a fall in our currency, a fall in our GDP and our output, and we’d be less able to fund vital science and other projects like the Horizon programme. So if we stay in, we know what we’re going to get, and we know that we can keep on winning for British universities, for British science; if we get out, we can’t guarantee that.

    Let’s have a couple more before we go to the press. Gentleman here.

    Question

    Thank you very much. Phil Harrold, PwC. I lead our automotive practice in the UK, and the automotive industry is in the best health it’s been for over 40 years. What’s the government going to do to maintain conditions for that health?

    Prime Minister

    Well I think – look, it is a really big success story. If I think back to my childhood, and what was going on in the motor industry then and all the difficulties we had in the 70s, you can see a situation transformed. We are now the third largest manufacturer of automotive vehicles, of cars, in the European Union, after Germany and Spain. We actually make more cars in the North East of our country, principally Nissan, than they do in the whole of Italy.

    So this is a huge success story for Britain, and I would argue the success is based on great design and manufacturing skills, very good industrial relations. But it’s also based on the fact that we are part of the European Union, and so the companies that come and invest here – whether it’s an Indian company in the case of Jaguar Land Rover, or whether it is the Japanese companies Nissan and Honda and Toyota – they come and invest here knowing they have complete access to that single market.

    Now, if we went for a Canada‑style trade deal, we’d have to meet all sorts of rules about the origin of all the parts of our cars, and we wouldn’t necessarily get that tariff‑free access to the single market. So if you put yourself in the mind of the Japanese car company, or Tata’s future investment in terms of Jaguar Land Rover, what would be better? Is it better to stay in a reformed European Union, knowing you’ve got access to that market, or is it better to take a risk? It must be better to stay in. And I know if we vote to stay in, we’ll continue to support the car industry in the way that we have. I think that what we’re doing, particularly on apprenticeships and skills, is a really, really strong future for that industry, and I want to see it grow.

    And we – you know, you have to think through what would happen on 24 June and afterwards if we vote to come out. We’re then going to spend years trying to renegotiate our relationship with Europe, and that is going to lead to huge uncertainty. And if there’s one thing businesses hate, it is uncertainty and a lack of knowledge about what the access to the market is going to be. So I think it’s a good example of why we should vote to stay in on 23 June.

    Lady here.

    Question

    Sarah Marshall, PwC. The ‘Midlands Engine’ has been mentioned in the last 2 consecutive Budgets without a lot of detail being out there. If we stay in, how will you ensure that we remain top of the agenda?

    Prime Minister

    Very important point. Look, I would say – I sometimes think the West Midlands thinks that it’s going to miss out because of this thing called the Northern Powerhouse, and I think that’s mistaken thinking. I think for a long time in our country we’ve been too unbalanced in terms of too much of the economic activity has been in London and the south-east. And the Northern Powerhouse is not about favouring the north over the West Midlands, it’s about trying to rebalance the whole country, and to create an alternative centre of strength and excellence – in manufacturing, in universities, in transport and all the rest of it – to make us a more balanced country. And that actually is of huge benefit to the West Midlands, because West Midlands will then draw its strength not only from the fact that Birmingham is the country’s second city, but also its connectivity to London and the south, and to Manchester and Leeds and Liverpool in the north; it will draw strength from both.

    And at the same time, we are putting a lot of investment into Birmingham. If you think of one of the biggest investments this government’s made over the last 5 years, it’s actually the complete renewal of Birmingham New Street station; something that was absolutely vital for our country. The biggest project coming up next is HS2, which I think has got huge benefits for Birmingham, not just in terms of journey speed and capacity, but also big regeneration of key parts of Birmingham.

    So I think you’ll hear a lot more about the West Midlands Engine, and I think you’ll also see this coming‑together of the local authorities in the West Midlands to try and form one West Midlands authority with one mayoral figure, who I think will be able to help drive the investment that’s needed in the West Midlands. So I think it’s a very positive picture: if you put together transport, connectivity and the governance that’s going to change, I think it’s a very strong picture.

    Let’s have Faisal Islam from Sky News.

    Question

    Thank you, Prime Minister. The leader of the opposition has called for an investigation into your tax affairs for your own interests. Can you clarify for the record that you and your family have not derived any benefit in the past, and will not in the future, from the offshore Blairmore Holdings fund mentioned in the Panama Papers?

    Prime Minister

    Sure. Look, what we need – the investigation we need, first of all, is for HMRC, our tax authority, to use all the information that is coming out of Panama to make sure that everything is done to make sure that companies and individuals are paying their taxes properly. In many ways, what’s coming out of Panama is actually what we’re introducing in our own country, which is a register of beneficial ownership so everyone can see who owns what company.

    As for my – the 2 things I’m responsible for are my own financial affairs and for the tax system of the United Kingdom. In terms of my own financial affairs, I own no shares. I have a salary as Prime Minister, and I have some savings which I get some interest from, and I have a house which we used to live in which we now let out while we’re living in Downing Street. And that’s all I have; I have no shares, no offshore trusts, no offshore funds, nothing like that. And so that, I think, is a very clear description.

    The second thing I’m responsible for is, of course, our tax system and for international tax policy. And I would say that no government, no prime minister has done more to make sure we crack down on tax evasion, on aggressive tax avoidance, on aggressive tax planning, both here in the UK and internationally. So we have recovered billions of pounds in our country by changing tax regulations and rules in Budget after Budget, billions of pounds. But we’ve also led the world in making sure we have, which we’ll have in June, an open register of beneficial ownership so everyone can see who owns what in Britain.

    We haven’t just done that here in the UK, we’ve also pioneered that abroad. We’ve said, for instance, to the Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies that they have to have the automatic exchange of tax information, they have to have a single standard for reporting company taxation, and they too need to do registers of beneficial ownership. And we’ve made huge progress on that with the Overseas Territories, with the Crown Dependencies, and other countries as well. I started this at the G8 summit in Northern Ireland, some years ago, and we’ve now got country after country sharing tax information, committing to beneficial ownership registers which we never had before.

    Is there more to do? Absolutely. Am I committed to doing it? Absolutely, and the anti‑corruption summit that we’re holding in London on 12 May will be yet another sort of mark along the way of making sure we deliver on this absolutely vital agenda. We have low taxes here in Britain, but low taxes that people must pay, and that is our agenda and we’re going to stick to it.

    Lady here?

    Question

    Thank you. Lauren McCafferty, PwC. Ian opened today talking about student talent and the importance of graduates to our business, and you’ve touched on some of the key arguments that would appeal to those. I work in student recruitment myself, so I am incredibly passionate about it. There are a lot of complex arguments coming out of both sides of the debate. What personal message would you want to give to students who are perhaps voting for the first time in their lives to summarise the key points for them that they should consider in staying in? Thank you.

    Prime Minister

    Well I think to young people it is all about the opportunities of the future. If we stay in a reformed European Union, you have the opportunity to work, to live, to travel, to study in all these different European countries, and I think that is an exciting and compelling world to live in.

    If, on the other hand, we leave, you start your working life with probably a decade of uncertainty. What is our relationship with the rest of Europe? What trade deals are we going to have with other countries in the world? What are my rights going to be if I want to go work in Spain or if I want to go travel or live in other countries?

    So I think you’re swapping the certainty of knowing that, however this – imperfect this organisation can be, there’s lots of opportunity within it, and particularly for a country like Britain that has a special status within it. You are swapping that for uncertainty and for something of a leap in the dark. And I think, for people who’ve been to university, who’ve got an opportunity or people coming through school who want to do an apprenticeship, we know that what we’ve got can work for you in this organisation. Don’t put that at risk.

    Because this is a decision – as I say, it is not a decision you take now and then you reverse in 4 or 5 years’ time if you don’t like it, like you can with a government; this is a decision for the next generation. So I think the younger generation need to think very carefully about what this all means.

    Let’s have the Express & Star. Sir.

    Question

    Thank you. Mr Cameron, have EU regulations harmed the British steel industry to the extent that we can’t compete with foreign import?

    Prime Minister

    No, I don’t believe they have. Look, we’ve got a very difficult situation with the steel industry in our country, just as other countries do, because we’ve got massive global over capacity, a collapse in global prices and this makes a real challenge for our steel industry. But we’ve got a government that’s determined to help in every way that we can. I met this morning with the Welsh First Minister to talk about all the things that we can do. We’ve already helped on energy. We’ve already helped on procurement. We now want to make sure that Tata are looking seriously at a potential buyer for this business, and all of the business; I think it’s very important to say that.

    And then you’d have to ask yourself the question, well would we be better off trying to do this if we were outside the European Union? And my answer is no, we wouldn’t. More than half of British steel goes to the European Union. We need those markets to be open for our steel. And if we were outside the European Union, we could be subject to those anti-dumping tariffs that the European Union is quite rightly applying to the Chinese and to other countries.

    So I think there is a certain strength in numbers when you’re dealing with other countries in this way. Britain is a big economy. Fifth largest in the world. But we are 60 million people, which, when added together with the other 440 million people in the European Union, means that we have serious power as a trading bloc, as a trading bloc in our negotiations with China or with America.

    And I think sometimes people can think that, just because you have friendly relations with a country, you automatically get a good trade deal from it. Now we have very friendly relations with the United States of America, no doubt about it. But right now, how much British beef or British lamb do you think they’re buying in America? Zero, none. They have put some sort of block on it for, I think, very phoney reasons. So even though you’ve got a friendly relationship, that doesn’t necessarily lead to friendly tariff and friendly trade regimes.

    It is a tough trading world out there. We need those European markets open. We need strength in numbers through Europe to make sure we crack down on the dumping of Chinese and other steel, and Britain is leading the way in making sure that happens.

    Let’s have, lady here.

    Question

    Hello. How diverse do you think the UK government is?

    Prime Minister

    Very good question. We were talking about this a bit earlier. Not as diverse as it should be, but I think we have made some important steps forward. We’ve now got – sitting around the cabinet table, one third of the people round the cabinet table are women, which is a big change from when I first came into politics. When I became leader of the Conservative party, I think we had 17 or 18 women MPs; we’ve now got over 70. So that’s a big change, but as we’ve got 300 – more than 300 MPs, it’s not enough.

    In terms of diversity in terms of the ethnic diversity of Parliament, that’s changed a lot in recent years and I think that is really positive. And if I look around my cabinet table, we were just talking about the steel industry, and my Business Secretary, his dad came from Pakistan to drive the buses in London, and in one generation his son is sitting around the cabinet table responsible for one of the most important portfolios in government.

    So I think we are becoming more diverse. I think we do need not positive discrimination but positive action, you need to make sure that people can make it right to the top and you need to demonstrate that, because I think role models are so important in this, and I’m sure you find this in PwC. It’s all very well saying we’re an equal opportunities employer, we’re all based on merit, you can go as high as your talent allows. That’s great, but if you open the door and all you see is a sea of white male faces, it’s not very encouraging.

    So I have always believed, if you want to have a more diverse workforce, have a more diverse leadership, change your country in that way, you need to take some quite strong positive action to make sure that we access all of the talent of the country. And that is the key point in the end.

    This is not about political correctness; this is about effectiveness. PwC would not be half as effective as it is if it locked out women and people from Britain’s ethnic minorities into its teams. My wife would say it would be considerably less than 50% efficient if that was the case.

    Question

    Say, for example, if we do end up having to leave the EU, people vote that they don’t want to stay, for European companies who’ve invested in the – invested in the UK, what impact would it have on them, and what incentive would they have to stay?

    Prime Minister

    Well, very good question. What – in case everyone didn’t hear, for the foreign companies that invested in the UK, if we were to leave the EU, what effect would it have on them? The short answer is that you can’t say for certain until you know what the alternative arrangements are that Britain would put in place. And so it’s really a question the Leave campaign have got to answer.

    But the truth is this: if we opted for a situation like Norway, which is basically almost a member of the single market, the situation wouldn’t change very much because those companies would still have access to European markets, but Norway pays into the EU about the same per head of population as we do. So the people who say I want to get out of Europe because I want to stop contributing to the budget, well the Norway solution doesn’t help. Ditto when it comes to the free movement of people. Norway has to sign up to the free movement of people, so anyone from another EU country can go and live and work in Norway. In fact, they won’t even have my welfare deal where, under my new arrangements, you don’t get full access to our welfare system if you come from another European country for 4 years.

    So that’s the Norway answer, which would be reassuring, I think, to foreign investors and other European investors who’ve come to build plants and businesses in Britain. But that’s not what the Leave campaigners say they want, because they don’t want to pay in to the EU, and they don’t want free movement of people.

    So therefore you have to look at a free trade deal. And the longer you look at these free trade deals, the more you can see, they take a very long time to come in. The Canada one has been 7 years in negotiation and still hasn’t been passed. So you’ve got 7 years of uncertainty; 7 years of the Japanese car company thinking, ‘Shall I put more investment in Britain or not?’; 7 years of, you know, the Indian company thinking, ‘Should I invest more in this great automotive business or should I put that money somewhere else?’

    And then if you do go for a Canada-style free trade deal, you may well find that you don’t have the access to the market that you used to have. So I was looking at this Canada free trade deal, and this is relevant, I think, to your business. They don’t have automatic access to all European markets for their accountancy businesses. Indeed, in France you have to have the permission, I think, of the Finance Ministry in order to set up a bookkeeping business in France.

    And you lay yourself open as a country, and as a group of companies, and as an economy, to putting yourself into a very difficult situation, where of course the French accountancy firms will be saying, ‘Well don’t let the Brits in. Let’s favour our own accountancy firms.’ You know, you’d get car manufacturers in Spain lobbying their government, saying, ‘Well don’t give them a good free trade deal. Let’s have more cars made in Spain.’

    These are all things that cannot happen now because we have this unimpeded access to this market of 500 million people. And that is why I think for us to vote to leave the European Union would be an act of economic and political self-harm to our country, which is why I am going to campaign very hard in the next 78 days to say that we really should not take this step.

    And I’ll say again what I’ve said before. I’m not standing to be your Prime Minister again at the next election. I’ve got no other agenda here than saying what I think after 6 years of being your Prime Minister is the best thing for our country, for our economy, for our businesses, for our families. And I have no hesitation in saying, yes, there are frustrations with this organisation, but we are better off, we are stronger, we are safer if we stay inside it.

    Let’s just take a couple more and then we’ll have one more from the press.

    Question

    I think you’ve touched a – thank you. I think you touched a little bit on diversity and [inaudible] as well. I know this is about EU, but Theresa May has been making it really hard for people from non-EU backgrounds to be working here. What is your stance on that?

    Prime Minister

    Well I agree with Theresa May. I mean, that’s – we’re in the cabinet together, so we’d have to agree with each other. But look, the point is this –

    Speaker

    You haven’t always though.

    Prime Minister

    I know. The point is this, we have had very big pressure in terms of migration into the UK. It’s been running at, you know, well over 100,000 a year, sometimes 200,000 a year or more going back for around a decade now. And people want us and I want us to control immigration. Immigration is good for the country. It is good that people come and work here and make their home here and contribute, but you do need to try and have a control over the numbers and a control over the pressures.

    And so what we’ve done is say, well we’re going to attack this – deal with this problem in 2 ways. First of all, for people coming from outside the EU, we put a cap on economic migration of some 20,000 a year, and we put in place some restrictions so that students can come, but they must be genuine students to genuine universities. We’ve closed down dozens of bogus colleges.

    So that’s how we’ve approached the issue of migration from outside the EU but I know it does sometimes cause frustrations inside the EU where there is the right to go and live and work in other European countries, just as we have the right to go and work in their countries. So the approach we’ve taken there is on welfare, which is we have a very generous in-work welfare system. People can earn as much as, you know, £8,000, £9,000, £10,000 of tax credits when they come to our country. So that’s why we’ve negotiated this unique ability for the next 7 years to be able to say you don’t get full access to our welfare system until you’ve been here for 4 years. And I think that’s a very positive way of saying, yes we want people to come but we want people to pay in before they get out. No something for nothing.

    So this does create difficulties and problems, and I know there can be pressures for more people who want to come, but I think both inside the EU and outside the EU, we need to have that controlled immigration, which is what we’re delivering.

    Question

    Prime Minister, as you can see we’re a people business, so how would an in vote benefit the employment market as we run up to 2020?

    Prime Minister

    The employment market? Well I mean, first of all the good news is over the last 6 years we’ve seen something like 2.3 million more people in work, so we are a job factory. We’ve been creating a lot of jobs in our country, and this has put on some of the immigration pressure. And I would say the best thing we can do is keep going with the economic plan that we’ve got. It’s a plan that’s working and one of the things that could upset the plan is creating uncertainty. And one of the ways we create jobs is having access to Europe’s markets, making sure we complete these trade deals with North America, with India, with China, and that I think is the best way to secure jobs and secure growth.

    Whereas the uncertainty of maybe 7, maybe 10 years of not knowing exactly what your relationship is with Europe, what your trade deals are with the rest of the world, companies wondering about whether they’re going to come in and invest here, companies that are already here thinking about should we grow more in Britain or should we go somewhere else, that is uncertainty that we do not need.

    And that is why, as I said, I think there are so many good arguments for staying in a reformed EU: the argument about safety and fighting terrorism, the argument about Britain’s strength in the world and being able to get things done. But I do think the strongest single argument is this issue of our economy, of jobs, of people’s prosperity, because, in the end, that is what I think people want to know. What is my best chance of securing a good future for myself and for my family, having a job, being able to contribute and deliver in that way? That’s the most important thing, and that’s the question I think people should have in their minds as they go into the polling booth.

    Can I say you’ve been a really brilliant audience? Thank you very much for the welcome, thank you for all you do at PwC. I can see you have achieved a very diverse and very strong workforce, and it’s been great to come here to Birmingham and join you today.

    Thank you very much indeed.

    Speaker

    Thank you, Prime Minister.

  • Desmond Swayne – 2016 Speech on UK’s Funding of Ghana Elections

    desmondswayne

    Below is the text of the speech made by Desmond Swayne, the Minister of State for International Development, in Ghana on 6 April 2016.

    Good afternoon everyone and thank you all for sparing the time to join us in formally announcing our new Deepening Democratic Governance Programme.

    My name is Desmond Swayne and I am the Minister of State for the Department of International Development. I am visiting as Ghana is seven months away from holding Presidential and Parliamentary Elections on 7 November. I should state upfront our expectation is that Ghana will deliver peaceful and credible elections, building on its already impressive track record. Having held 6 free and fair elections since the end of military rule, Ghana is already “best in class” in the region and indeed amongst the very best electoral democracies in Africa.

    The UK is interested in helping to enhance Ghana’s strong effort, recognising that each election cycle presents new challenges, which mandated institutions are required to respond to. The UK has been steadfast in its commitment to Ghana’s democratic transformation, most recently disbursing over £6 million to support election in 2012.

    Our new programme of support will focus on three main areas over a period of five years. Firstly, state institutions. We are already well acquainted with Ghana’s Electoral Management Bodies, the Electoral Commission; the Judiciary and the Ghana Police Service. Our aim is to identify and agree priority needs where the UK can best lend support, based on our comparative advantage, including assisting with some critical institutional reforms following the elections, where there is clear evidence of strong national commitment.

    Secondly, it is our intention to enhance existing support through the multi-donor Strengthening Transparency Accountability and Responsiveness Programme, better known as STAR Ghana, which offers assistance to civil society organisations. Here, we have a specific focus on doing more to support the inclusion of women, youth and persons with disabilities.

    Thirdly, we want to be flexible and opportunistic in our support, this includes being ready to respond in helping national partners to tackle unforeseen challenges which may have a destabilising impact. Regional experiences have taught us the importance of being prepared and alert to the risk of electoral related violence. So our support includes a rapid response facility that allows us to respond to challenges as they emerge. If all goes well – and we sincerely hope it does – we won’t need to draw on the rapid response facility. That will be a sign of success, not failure.

    Lastly, the programme focuses strongly on sustainability. We want to work with national partners to achieve lasting results, reducing the dependency on international assistance in this area. We envisage this to be our final electoral assistance programme to Ghana. It is our intention to exit from this area by 2020.

    There is a very clear and strong rationale for this exit from further electoral assistance by 2020. Ghana has an unrivalled record in the region for delivering peaceful and credible elections. In 2020, the country will be holding its 8th democratic elections. Ghana is also ranked as a Lower Middle Income Country, which calls for greater self-financing of critical aspects of its own development. So the UK’s withdrawal from supporting electoral processes in Ghana is a positive sign of Ghana’s success, and reduced reliance on external finance.

    Prior to my arrival, I heard quite a lot about how the elections this year were shaping up to be more challenging than in the past. Let me be clear that the UK’s only interest is that the outcome is peaceful and represents the will of Ghanaian people. My Government will work with whichever Government Ghana chooses.

    But we do want Ghana to protect and further enhance its reputation as a beacon of democracy that others across Africa can emulate. For that to happen, the people and the political parties need to work with the police to resolve concerns, not rely on militia groups; and all involved need to respect Ghana’s electoral laws and codes of conduct.

    If our support can help Ghana achieve that result in 2016 and beyond, it will prove to be a very worthwhile investment indeed.

  • Philip Hammond – 2016 Speech at Lord Mayor’s Easter Banquet

    philiphammond

    Below is the text of the speech made by Philip Hammond, the Foreign Secretary, at the Mansion House in London on 6 April 2016.

    They say that a week is a long time in politics. And I have to tell you that the last year, frankly, seems like a lifetime. But when I stood here just before the General Election, I set out what we had achieved since 2010 to re-establish Britain’s place in the world.

    Re-shaping with a new National Security Council and prosperity as a central aim of diplomacy. Addressing the new security challenges we faced and consolidating our position as a major defence power. And restating our commitment in the Foreign Office to excellence in diplomacy.

    And since that election, as a single party Government (because I have to confide to you, when it comes to parties in Government less is definitely more) we’ve been able to go still further:

    In the post-Election Budget, we committed to continue to spend 2% of GDP on Defence – demonstrating our determination to maintain world class Armed Forces with cutting edge capabilities.

    And in the spending review we protected the Foreign and Commonwealth Office budget, confirming the value that we place on our worldwide network and our global influence.

    We’ve boosted our unrivalled soft power, with new cash for the British Council and a strengthened BBC World Service.

    And in the Commons, last December, the new Parliament, wiped clean the stain of the August 2013 Syria vote when, by a large majority, it voted to extend our military action against Daesh from Iraq into Syria – demonstrating that Britain does have the political will to act to safeguard our national security.

    But these achievements have been made against a backdrop of some serious storm clouds gathering on the horizon.

    Headwinds continue to buffet the global economy, forcing economic policymakers around the world to revise growth rates down.

    In the first six weeks of the year, concerns about China’s economic slowdown wiped over eight trillion dollars off world markets.

    And the collapse in oil markets – which welcome for consumers – is devastating those countries which rely on oil revenues for their public finances.

    Persistently weak inflation, negative interest rates in some countries, stagnating global trade, and vanishing demand. All, I’m afraid, point to turbulent times ahead.

    And as we seek to protect the British economy from these headwinds we have to recognise that we also face significant and growing threats to our national security.

    Last year, I set out the principal challenges we faced: Islamist extremism; Russian aggression; and EU reform.

    One year on and none of these challenges has gone away.

    The Prime Minister’s prediction that tackling Islamist extremism would be a “generational struggle” is looking increasingly prescient. And the succession of terrorist atrocities around the world including Sousse; the Metrojet bombing; Paris; Brussels; as well as attacks in Turkey, Pakistan, Lebanon and Nigeria, confirm that the terrorists’ desire to attack our values, our democracy and our freedom remains undiminished.

    But, in spite of these tragic incidents, we should not overlook the progress we have made in tackling Daesh in their heartlands of Syria and Iraq over the last year.

    In Iraq, government forces have retaken the strategically significant cities of Tikrit, Baiji, Sinjar and Ramadi, recovering some 40% of the territory that Daesh in Iraq once held. And an increasingly self-confident Iraqi Security Force is now preparing the ground for the forthcoming battle to liberate Mosul.

    In Syria, we and our coalition partners have been systematically targeting the Daesh senior leadership and the external attack planners who threaten us directly, as well as the oil infrastructure that has provided so much of their financing.

    But we are also upping our preparedness for the broader counter-terrorism fight: doubling the number of counter-terrorism officers on the FCO overseas network, standing up the four regional Counter Terrorism hubs announced in the recent Strategic Defence and Security Review and, I can announce tonight, creating a fifth Counter Terrorism hub in Europe, in the wake of the Paris and Brussels attacks, and the ongoing Daesh violence in Turkey. And underpinning this growth, we’re boosting our counter-terrorism funding, with an extra £80 million committed to Foreign Office CT over this next spending review period.

    But while we boost our fight against terrorism, the old challenge of state-based aggression in breach of the rules-based international order has not gone away.

    Just three weeks on from the second anniversary of Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea, fighting has flared up again in the last few days in eastern Ukraine.

    In Syria, Russia’s unannounced intervention last September has strengthened Asad, who continues to wage war on his own people, driving some into the arms of the terrorists, and many more out of their homes, out of their country into the refugee camps in Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey – and onward to Europe.

    Russia and Iran are the two countries which have real influence on the Syrian regime and as members of the International Syria Support Group they have responsibility for telling Asad that it is time to go.

    For our part, we will continue to work with Russia where it is clearly in our national interest to do so – as it is in Syria. But all nations must know that if they violate the rules by which the international community lives, that community will hold them to account.

    And it is through the EU – my third topic from last year’s speech – that we’ve applied the hard-hitting, co-ordinated sanctions in response to Russia’s intervention in Ukraine.

    I said last year that we would fight for reform in the European Union, and the Prime Minister has delivered it: an historic deal which protects our special status outside the Euro and outside the Schengen area, exempts us from ‘ever closer Union’, creates a red card for national parliaments, and a new mechanism for repatriating powers, as well as a new regime to limit access to our benefit system for EU migrants.

    I have historically been a sceptic on the EU, and if you’d asked me a decade ago whether I believed it would be possible to achieve the package which is now on offer to the UK, I would have said “no”.

    Because at that time, many of our partners suffered from the belief that there could only be a one-size-fits-all model for the European Union.

    But that has changed, and it’s changed, I believe, for three reasons:

    First, the dawning realisation that the Eurozone countries will inevitably require further fiscal and political integration. The recent financial crisis has underscored that reality. With Euro-ins and Euro-outs, a multi-destination EU has become inevitable, destroying the federalists’ vision of a one-track Europe. So now, different views of the future can be accommodated: greater integration for those who want or need it; a looser model for those of us who do not.

    Secondly, the impact of the global financial crisis on the Eurozone. In Britain, we were hit hard, but thanks to the measures we’ve taken since 2010, and thanks to the fact that we’ve kept the pound, we are back on the path of economic growth and rising employment. But in the Eurozone, without the safety valve of devaluation, the impact has been longer term. Many countries are still suffering from sclerotic growth and record unemployment. This bitter experience has been a wake-up call for those whose principal concern used to be protecting something called the “European social model” – an awakening to the fact that you can’t protect any kind of social model if you don’t have a competitive economy. Boosting competitiveness and a focus on job creation are the new policy drivers in Europe. The penny has finally dropped: without a strong and competitive economy, everything we value is built on sand.

    And thirdly, political views across the EU have shifted decisively. Seven or eight years ago, the UK was a genuine outlier in terms of what we believed the EU should look like and what role it should play in people’s lives. But no longer. There is now a long list of countries who believe, to quote Italian Prime Minister Renzi, in “Better Europe, not more Europe”. What used to be regarded as eccentrically British views on the future on Europe are now firmly established in the mainstream of European political thought.

    It’s probably fair to observe that we, in my party, may not always have been the greatest cheerleaders for Mr Juncker but he has certainly detected, and taken on board, this change of mood – and this Commission is now delivering on a reform agenda. Proposals for new legislation have been cut by 80%. And the Prime Minister’s deal commits the Commission to sectoral targets for burden reduction, with a special focus on SMEs.

    That’s a good start, but our job is far from done. We now need to lock this change of mood into the DNA of the European Union, and turn the commitments made to the UK into a working reality, institutionalising our reform agenda. And if Britain votes, as I hope it will, to remain, taking active leadership of the reform agenda in the European Union. So despite my historic scepticism about the EU, it is my firm judgement that, on balance, the benefits of the single market with the unique terms of membership now offered to the UK, mean that we will be safer, stronger and better off in.

    Increasing competitiveness through strengthening the single market and driving more EU trade deals… while maintaining Britain’s attractiveness as a destination for inward investment by staying in the 500 million-consumer Single Market, but keeping the Pound.

    Britain is, and will remain, a world-class player. But our ability to project our influence around the world is enhanced by our EU membership. Acting as part of a European bloc to deliver stronger trade deals, to bolster the resilience of fragile partners around our periphery and to impose tough economic sanctions against those who threaten our security, gives us greater reach and greater influence.

    So to those of my countrymen who care passionately about maintaining Britain’s influence in the world, I say this: our voice will be louder and more persuasive if the United Kingdom votes to “remain” on June 23rd.

    There was of course, I have to admit, one big challenge I did not foresee in my speech last year, and that was the migration crisis in Europe.

    The movement of hundreds of thousands, perhaps a million or more, of people across the Middle East into Europe is at a level not seen since the immediate aftermath of the Second World War.

    Some of them are fleeing terror and conflict; others are simply pursuing a better life – enabled in their quest by the ubiquitous smart phone, delivering the instant access to information that has revolutionised all of our lives.

    The fact is, the digital revolution means access to information is now ubiquitous, but economic opportunity is not.

    And it’s clear to me that information-enabled economic migration will be a major challenge for all rich countries, long after the Syria crisis is resolved.

    Working out how we discharge our moral and legal obligations to genuine refugees fleeing persecution and conflict while dealing robustly with the traffickers and those who are seeking to circumvent the rules to access a better standard of living, will be a major challenge for politicians across the developed world for many years to come.

    My Lord Mayor, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen, I’ve focused this year and last on we’ve acted to restore and enhance Britain’s role on the world stage.

    We’re rebuilding our economy, the foundation of everything we do.

    We’ve committed the funding to strengthen our defences and protect our diplomatic network.

    And we’ve rediscovered the political will to act to protect our national security.

    In the fight against Islamist extremism, we’re degrading Daesh and exposing the fallacy of the so-called “Caliphate”;

    We’re keeping up the pressure on Russia over Ukraine and seeking a negotiated solution and an end to Asad’s rule in Syria;

    We’ve secured a unique membership arrangement from the European Union and we’re giving the British people the final say on it at the ballot box;

    And we’re working with the EU and with Turkey to crush the traffickers, stem the flow of economic migrants and protect genuine refugees.

    Through the actions we’re taking, we’re ensuring that Britain is better prepared both to deal with the major threats today and for the unknown challenges yet to come.

  • Andrew Jones – 2016 Speech on Funding for Road Maintenance

    andrewjones

    Below is the text of the speech made by Andrew Jones, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Transport, at the Road Surface Treatments Association Conference on 7 April 2016.

    Introduction

    It’s a real pleasure to be here today.

    To give the keynote address on the future of funding for road maintenance.

    After all, this is a subject of vital importance to all of us – government, industry, and – above all – everyone who uses our roads.

    Funding

    That importance is why the condition of the local road network is so often in the media.

    And it is why even before I was appointed Roads Minister, I received more letters about potholes than about anything else.

    And since becoming Roads Minister, I’ve realised my colleagues in Parliament do too.

    Given that I’ve become the person they pass all their letters onto for my response.

    I don’t mind – that’s why I came into politics: to deal with some of the problems that matter to people’s everyday lives.

    And right now, when we’ve just emerged from a winter that the Met Office has said was one of the wettest on record.

    Leading to severe flooding and damage to our roads.

    Public interest in road maintenance is at its annual highest.

    I pay tribute to those who worked to respond to the floods, helping to repair and rebuild damaged infrastructure.

    Both over the winter and more recently in response to Storm Katie over the Easter Weekend.

    It’s because of the extreme weather we’ve seen that we have agreed to provide a further £180 million so affected authorities can repair the damage to local roads.

    However you look at it, £180 million is a lot of money – especially in the context of the still-urgent need to balance the nation’s books.

    But even that figure is dwarfed by the quarter of a billion pounds we’re targeting at fixing potholes on the local road network through our Pothole Action Fund.

    Enough to repair over 4 million holes by 2021.

    Then there is also the £578 million we are making available between now and 2021 to incentivise highways authorities’ performance.

    And those figures are just a fraction of the overall total of £6 billion we’ve committed for local highway authorities in England during the same period.

    Representing a funding increase of nearly £400 million for local roads maintenance compared to the last Parliament.

    And the fact that we have laid out our spending plans 5 years ahead is another clue as to how seriously the government is taking highway maintenance.

    We want to provide local highway authorities with funding certainty.

    So they can use the cash in the best possible way.

    Perhaps identifying preventative maintenance to undertake now that will save them money later.

    Sound asset management

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

    The motto that prevention is better than cure applies to our roads, just as much as anything else.

    And as a former Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources for my local council in Harrogate, I understand the pressures authorities are under.

    But I also understand that there’s scope for local authorities to improve their approach to maintaining their roads.

    To find efficiencies, and to invest money at the right time in these assets’ lifecycles.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if most people in the room today could give me stories about how 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, most are doing very similar things in different ways, rather than pooling knowledge and expertise for common gain.

    It was painfully evident from the National Audit Office study undertaken in 2014 that many highway authorities did not have an asset management strategy or plan.

    Despite the fact that authorities who use such plans see real financial benefits, improved accountability, value for money and customer service.

    So that’s why 2 years ago we decided to introduce incentive funding – the £578 million pound pot I mentioned just now.

    This money is to be allocated to highways authorities based on their performance.

    Authorities that spend money on roads efficiently.

    Will be rewarded with extra funds to keep up the good work.

    While authorities with a history of inefficiency will receive comparatively less money.

    Over time, we expect that all authorities will improve.

    By the financial year 2018/19, over a quarter of funding will be allocated on the basis of competition or performance.

    I have been pleased that all authorities eligible to apply for incentive funding have submitted self-assessment returns to the department.

    You will hear more from Matthew Lugg later today about how we are assessing authorities.

    Matthew has worked closely with the Department for Transport and the Highways Maintenance Efficiency Programme Board to put our plans into action.

    I express my thanks for his and the board’s contribution.

    But what I can announce for the first time today is the results of the incentive funding for 2016/17.

    All the authorities that applied will receive some incentive funding.

    But I would particularly like to mention what we now know are the 2 top performing highways authorities in the country: Durham and Lincolnshire.

    They scored highly against all 22 criteria and they will receive the maximum possible funding.

    I would urge other authorities to look closely at how Durham and Lincolnshire are running such an efficient operation.

    Where all the other authorities rank and the funding they will receive is to be published on the DfT’s website today.

    For those authorities which have not ranked as highly as they’d have liked my officials in the department stand ready to support them in learning from the best.

    Indeed, if highways authorities feel that they need someone from the Department for Transport to make the case for proper highways management to elected members in person, we are happy to send one of our experts along.

    Please contact the department or me directly if you feel this would be helpful in your area.

    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 keep learning from one another.

    And to make funding go further still.

    Places like Durham and Lincolnshire are showing what’s possible.

    By following their lead, we’ll have a better road network that better meets the needs of the nation.

    Thank you.

  • John Major – 1991 Statement on the 1991 European Council Meeting at Maastricht

    johnmajor

    Below is the text of the speech made by John Major, the then Prime Minister, in the House of Commons on 11 December 1991.

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the European Council in Maastricht which I attended with my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

    The European Council has reached agreement on a treaty on European union. The relevant texts have been deposited along with the presidency conclusions. The House will be invited to debate the outcome next week.

    Let me set out the main provisions of the agreements we reached. The treaty covers economic and monetary union and political union. It follows the structure for which the United Kingdom has consistently argued.

    The treaty creates a new legal framework for co-operation between member states in foreign and security policy and in the fight against international crime. That co-operation will take place on an intergovernmental basis outside the treaty of Rome. That means that the Commission will not have the sole right of initiative and the European Court will have no jurisdiction.

    On defence, we have agreed a framework for co-operation in which the primacy of the Atlantic alliance has been confirmed and the role of the Western European Union has been enhanced.

    As the House knows, there was strong pressure over many months for all aspects of co-operation to come within European Community competence. That was not acceptable to this country. Instead, an alternative route to European co-operation has been opened up. I believe that this will be seen as an increasingly significant development as the Community opens its doors to new members, and more flexible structures are required.

    I turn now to the main features of the text. The treaty provides for the possibility that member states will wish to adopt a single currency later this decade, but they can do so only if they meet strict convergence conditions-–conditions for which the British Government have pressed from the outset. These cover inflation, budget deficits, exchange rate stability and long-term interest rates.

    A single currency may come into being in 1997, but only if a minimum of seven countries meet the convergence conditions, and eight of the Twelve vote in favour. The treaty lays down that a single currency will come into being by 1999, but only if those convergence conditions are met and only for those countries which meet them. It is therefore highly uncertain when such a currency will be created and which countries it will cover.

    In the House on 20 November, I said that there must be a provision giving the United Kingdom the right to decide for ourselves whether or not to move to stage 3. That requirement has been secured. It is set out in a legally binding protocol which forms an integral part of the treaty. The protocol was drafted by the United Kingdom and fully protects the position of this House. The effect of the protocol is as follows. We have exactly the same option to join a single currency at the same time as other member states if we wish. We shall be involved in all the decisions. But, unlike other Governments, we have not bound ourselves to join regardless of whether it makes economic or political sense.

    The treaty text on political union provides for enhanced intergovernmental co-operation on foreign and security policy, on defence policy and in the fight against terrorism, drug trafficking and other crimes.

    International crime knows no frontiers. Terrorists and other criminals must not be allowed to escape justice or to retire abroad with the proceeds of their crime. This text gives us a new basis for co-operation with our partners in bringing these criminals to justice.

    The text provides for joint action in foreign policy, building on what was already agreed in the Single European Act. But, as I told the House on 20 November, if Britain needs to act on its own, it must be free to do so. The treaty meets that requirement. Joint action can take place only if we agree. Where there is no joint action, each member state is entirely free to act on its own. If, after joint action has been agreed, a member state needs to take its own measures to meet changed circumstances, it may do so.

    There was pressure from other member states to take foreign policy decisions by majority voting. I was not prepared to agree that Britain could be outvoted on any substantive issue of foreign policy. Some of our partners also sought to draw a distinction between decisions of principle, where unanimity would apply, and implementing decisions which could be subject to majority voting. No one was able to explain how that distinction would work. I told the European Council that, if such occasions did arise, we should consider the case for majority voting on its merits. The treaty reflects our view. It provides that the Council may, but only by unanimity, designate certain decisions to be taken by qualified majority voting. But we cannot be forced to subject our foreign policy to the will of other member states. We have, in fact, preserved unanimity for all decisions where we decide that we need it.

    We are agreed that Europe must do more for its own defence. We should build up the Western European Union as the defence pillar of the European union, but the treaty embodies the view set out in the Anglo-Italian proposal two months ago, and endorsed at last month’s summit of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation that whatever we do at European level must be compatible with NATO. The WEU must in no way be subordinate to the European Council. It is not. We have avoided the danger of setting up defence structures which would compete with NATO. We have created a framework in which Europe can develop its defence role in a way which complements the American presence in Europe and does not put it at risk.

    In these negotiations, we put forward a series of proposals designed to be of direct benefit to the European citizen. All of them were accepted. The Community has agreed to increase the accountability of European Community institutions; to strengthen the European Parliament’s financial control over the Commission; to allow the European Parliament to investigate maladministration and to appoint a Community ombudsman accessible to all Community citizens; to build up the role of the Court of Auditors, which becomes an institution of the Community; and to ensure compliance with Community obligations by giving the European Court of Justice power to impose fines on Governments who sign directives but subsequently do not implement them.

    We wanted-–and secured-–a sensible enhancement of the role of the European Parliament. We did not accept the proposal made by other member states for a power of co-decision between the Parliament and the Council. As I told the House on 20 November, the Council of Ministers must be the body that ultimately determines the Community’s laws and policies.

    I also said then that we were prepared to consider some blocking power for the European Parliament. That has now been agreed. The treaty sets up, in a limited number of areas, a conciliation procedure where there is disagreement between the Council and Parliament. In the last analysis, the Parliament would be able to block a decision in those areas, but only if an absolute majority of its members turned out to vote the proposal down.

    The House has been rightly concerned at the creeping extension of Community competence over the last few years. The Commission has often brought forward proposals using a dubious legal base, and the Council has found it difficult to halt that practice in the European Court. We have taken significant steps to deal with that problem. First, the structure of the treaty puts the issues of foreign and security policy, interior and justice matters and defence policy beyond the reach of the Commission and the European Court. Secondly, the treaty itself embodies the vital principle of “subsidiarity”, making it clear that the Community should only be involved in decisions which cannot more effectively be taken at national level. Thirdly, in some areas-–notably health protection, educational exchanges, vocational training and culture-–we have defined Community competence clearly for the first time. Fourthly, there will be no extension of Community competence in employer-employee relations-–the so-called social area. We have a high standard of social protection in this country. Our national health service, free at the point of use, is the envy of many in Europe, but we recognise the Community’s social dimension. Also-–unlike some of our European partners-–we have implemented that dimension too ; 19 out of the 33 measures in the social action programme have been agreed. But there is no reason for the Community to get involved in employment legislation, which must be for each country to decide for itself.

    Over the past 12 years, we have transformed labour relations. In 1979, 29 million working days were lost in strikes. Last year the figure was less than 2 million. I was not prepared to see that record put in jeopardy. Nor was I prepared to risk Britain’s competitive position as the European magnet for inward investment. I was not prepared to put British jobs on the line. [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. A great many people outside the House are interested in what the Prime Minister has to say.

    The Prime Minister : Many of our partners have a wholly different tradition of employment practice which is reflected in the separate arrangements which they have agreed, which will affect only their countries and for which only they will pay. But even among these member states there are many who fear the effect of Community measures on their jobs and their ability to compete. Our arguments are based not only on our national interest but on the risks we perceive to the competitive position of the Community as a whole. This week’s events in the Soviet Union were a salutary reminder that reform in the Community is not an end in itself. The Community’s primary task must be to extend its own advantages of democracy, stability and prosperity to eastern Europe. At British initiative, we committed ourselves at Maastricht to the further enlargement of the Community, starting with the EFTA countries. When they and, in due course, the new democracies of eastern Europe are ready to join the Community, we shall be ready to welcome them. With this in mind, the Commission will report on enlargement to next June’s European Council in Lisbon. Thereafter, it will be for the British presidency to carry that work forward. I look forward to doing so.

    We agreed a number of statements on foreign policy issues. I will single out two of them. On the Soviet Union, the European Council calls on the republics to respect the rights of minorities, to implement international agreements on arms control and nuclear non-proliferation, to control and secure their nuclear weapons, and to honour their obligations in respect of the Soviet Union’s external debt.

    The European Council has endorsed the demands which we, France and the United States have made to the Libyan Government requiring them to abandon their support of terrorism and to hand over the alleged perpetrators of the Lockerbie bombing.

    The founders of the Community knew that they could not create a viable organisation if they established goals that could never be achieved. In talking about European union, we are talking about concepts that have to be cast in the reality of national legislation and everyday life. The Single European Act started as a grandiose design and ended up as a workmanlike blueprint for a free market. Those treaties have followed the same course.

    Our role has been to put forward practical suggestions-–and sometimes to rein in the larger ambitions of our partners. Where we believed their ideas would not work, we have put forward our own alternatives.

    Those can be found throughout this treaty. As with all international negotiations, there has been give and take between all 12 member states. But the process was one in which Britain has played a leading role, and the result is one in which we can clearly see the imprint of our views.

    This is a treaty which safeguards and advances our national interests. It advances the interests of Europe as a whole. It opens up new ways of co-operating in Europe. It clarifies and contains the powers of the Commission. It will allow the Community to develop in depth. It reaches out to other Europeans-–the new democracies who want to share the benefits we already enjoy. It is a good agreement for Europe, and a good agreement for the United Kingdom. I commend it to the House.

  • John Major – 1990 Speech to the Young Deaf Achievers Awards

    johnmajor

    Below is the text of the speech made by John Major, the then Prime Minister, at the Cafe Royal in London on the 12 December 1990.

    Ladies and Gentlemen:

    Chairman, thank you very much indeed. I must let you into a secret that not many people are aware of – indeed, if they were, I suppose in a curious way it would not be a secret! But we do have in the House of Commons something of a trade union of former Ministers for the Disabled. It is a very discreet, very select, rather enjoyable trade union but in that trade union the Father of the Chapel, irrespective of anything to do with politics, is undoubtedly Jack Ashley and it is a very great privilege for me to follow him today and to thank him publicly for the extraordinary amount of work he has done not just for people who are disabled through deafness but for people who are disabled in a whole range of ways. He has done more in my judgement [Applause].  Well there you are, I need not say it because you know, so it does not need saying!

    Jack was kind enough to say that minutes were precious and to thank me for coming. If I may say so, I think perhaps I should thank him for inviting me because the reason I was keen to come today is because there are many of us here who are very fortunate in that we have to face no disability in the normal journey through life that all of us have; but those who do need a very special courage to face that – not just the courage to meet the challenges, but the ordinary everyday courage to actually decide to take on those challenges in the first place, perhaps to go to a workplace or a university or to enter into a sport or to enter into the normal social contact that most people accept, anticipate and enjoy with no difficulty whatsoever.

    Faced with a disability, whether it be deafness or perhaps some other disability or perhaps a myriad series of disabilities which alas is so often the case, it does take a very remarkable kind of personal courage to enter into that commitment into society and the young people that I had the privilege of meeting just before lunch today were people who have not only had the courage to enter into society in that particular fashion but have achieved very remarkable things as a result of having done so and for me, it is a very great privilege today to have had the opportunity of meeting them. A privilege but not a surprise, for having been Minister for the Disabled, albeit for the all too short time of just a year, I learned during that period across a whole range of disability, with what enormous courage so many people in this country face hurdles that many of us cannot imagine and perhaps would not be able to cope with if we were able to imagine them. For we ought not to pretend, as we see these young people receiving their well-deserved awards in a few moments, that what they have achieved has been easy or comfortable or without some difficulties, for it has not been and indeed, in many ways it simply could not have been.

    Many of us might think what today’s finalists have done was almost impossible but I think if you do think that, that shows the failure of our imagination and not theirs, for the young people who receive these awards did realise what could be done, put themselves to do it and have succeeded in my judgement in rather spectacular fashion.

    One of the reasons I regard this as an important occasion is to touch upon something that Iain Vallance said. In many ways, these young people offer a very considerable beacon of hope to other people who are disabled as to what they can achieve in their own lives and they have precisely the same right to achieve what they can in their lives that everybody else has and we have an obligation to assist them to do it, whether or not they be disabled, and to ensure that they can get the maximum possible out of their lives provided that they will put into it – as those we meet today and hundreds of thousands of others do – the effort and courage that is necessary to deal with the difficulties they often face.

    I hope that those people who perhaps still have in their minds some form of prejudice or difficulty because somebody has one form of disability will realise that one form of disability does not disable people from the normal functions of life, the normal responsibilities of life, the normal duties of life and the normal pleasures that the rest of us are able to enjoy.

    If there is one thing that has been happening remarkably in the last twenty years or so, but which still has further in my judgement to go, it is to open up the opportunities for people who are disabled that those who are not disabled have over the years come to take for granted and I hope that that is something we will all be able to take a part in doing in the years ahead.

    The people who are disabled know from their own experience the will power that is necessary to achieve what they have achieved and I think in terms of will power and courage, if there are two attributes that the young people you will meet shortly have demonstrated to a very remarkable extent it is those. I hope that we will continue to encourage them and many others to achieve precisely the same things in the future.

    I would, if I may, therefore like to thank most warmly both [indistinct] and Iain Vallance and British Telecom for sponsoring this event, for the enormous amount that they have done, are doing and I very much hope will continue to do in the future and perhaps I should also mention just as an example, the contribution that British Telecom has made to the Royal National Institute for the Deaf telephone exchange for the deaf, which it has been jointly funding with the Government. This does allow deaf people to telephone, hearing people by providing an operator with whom deaf people can communicate through text; the operator then passes on their message. British Telecom announced a grant of 4 million pounds this year to allow this service to continue and I would like publicly to express my thanks to Iain Vallance for that very generous and … [Applause].

    I think, if I may presume to speak upon behalf of the award winners today and perhaps also a little wider on behalf of disabled people – people who have disabilities I might more accurately say – elsewhere in the community, there are, I think, some people whom they would wish to thank and whom I might thank on their behalf and that is their parents and friends who will have encouraged them and helped them throughout the vast majority – in the case of their parents, throughout all their lives – to deal with their disabilities and to make the most of their opportunities. On behalf of disabled people, I would like to extend those thanks most warmly for I think they are thanks well deserved by those who offer so much to people who have been treated so harshly in so many instances.

    I think, if I may say so, Chairman, that the principal purpose of today’s meeting is to honour those young people who have won in a very in a very remarkable fashion these awards which are so difficult to obtain and so I will say no more except to say that in a few moments I hope you will give a very warm welcome indeed to a number of very remarkable young people who have achieved what few could have achieved and which all of us may look at with a certain degree of pride that young people in our country can do such things despite the handicaps that they face.[Applause].

  • David Blunkett – 2002 Speech to Labour Party Conference

    davidblunkett

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Blunkett, the then Home Secretary, to the Labour Party Conference in Blackpool on 7 October 2002.

    I thought for a moment that Tony was going to walk straight forward, down the steps, out of the Conference, and say “You’ve got the most difficult job, good luck!”.

    I want to thank colleagues across the country, nationally and locally, for the support they have given to the members of the Policy Commission and, of course, to the front bench team for what they have been doing. This has been a joint task, working together, committed together.

    Some of you will know that I am deeply committed to what is called ‘intelligence-based policing’. I am particularly keen on this due to an incident that occurred 30 years ago. It’s alright, I wasn’t actually arrested at the time!

    A Superintendent came to my house on a Sunday evening. He knocked on the door and I said “Come in”. I was a young councillor and he said to me “Do you drive a mini?” (I only got a Superintendent because I was a councillor).

    I said “You know I own a guide dog?” He said “Yes, that’s the reason for my visit. You have been reported driving through the Ecclesfield district of Sheffield in a mini”.

    I said “And I suppose the dog barked every time we got to traffic lights?” And gospel as I stand here he said “I don’t think that is very funny.”

    I said “You know what day it is today don’t you?” and he said “No”. I said “It’s the 1st of April”. He said “What is the significance of that?”

    Anyway I have restored relations with the police since and we are all working closely together.

    Conference, there is no equivalent for crime of the Socialist Health Association or the Socialist Education Association. There is no equivalent in any political party. But our Party is returning to its roots in taking seriously the impact of crime. The importance of good policing for those most vulnerable, for those in the least affluent areas, no longer the silly nonsense of seeing crime and justice as an issue for the political right; no longer the delusion that stability and order are secondary to equality and justice – because they go hand in hand with equality and justice. It is a simple, historical fact that for progressive politics to flourish, for liberal ideas to be listened to, we have to have stability and order.

    From the Spanish Republic to the Weimar Republic, to less obvious incidents in our own history where the more insecure and unstable people feel the more frightened they are, the more likely they are to turn to right wing solutions. That is why I am pursuing the line I am on stability and order. On tackling anti-social behaviour. On ensuring that our Party is seen to be on the side of those who are most threatened by the anti-social behaviour in our neighbourhoods, the actions that put people at most risk. Those who Tony talked about yesterday, who turn to us for solutions.

    Our values, this Party, our Government, will meet that challenge. Not by Government alone, but in partnership with all those who have a role to play.

    We accept our own responsibilities. We will invest the resources necessary. Resources gained by the economic success led by Gordon Brown. Resources made available because of the stability in the economy that we seek to replicate in our social policy.

    We will work with those on the ground to take on those who destroy the lives and the livelihoods of others. Equality, opportunity, and justice mean nothing if people cannot live in peace and free from fear in their own home or down their own street.

    We are aiming at nothing short of a change in culture. Self-respect and respect for others. The engagement of family and parents, of the wider community. And a new ‘can do’ attitude by the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, and the courts.

    You are one and a half times as likely to experience crime in the top 80% of disadvantaged areas in our country, as the country as a whole. Five times as likely in those areas than in leafy suburbs. Over four fifths of street crime is perpetrated in just 10 police force areas.

    So opportunity and security go hand in hand. Urban or rural. Rich or poor. We are all in this together. Subject on the streets and in our homes to the same attacks and the same challenges. Strong communities, working with a strong and determined Government, can make a difference.

    So what are we doing?

    Our policy was set in the White Paper published last December. We set out an end to end reform of policing and crime reduction. We then negotiated and achieved an unprecedented change in modernising and reforming the police service. We have passed the Police Reform Act. Slimming down the bureaucracy around Anti-Social Behaviour Orders. Ensuring that vehicles can be seized on or off the street when they are being used to terrorise others.

    Record recruitment of police officers. 129,600 officers now available to us; 4,000 more than a year ago. That is something for all of us to be proud of.

    And 4,500 extra civilian staff – twice the annual number ever recruited before.

    The first 1,000 Community Support Officers coming onto the streets. 1,200 Street Wardens recruited through Neighbourhood Renewal and the work of John Prescott and his team.

    Record investment coming in from a multitude of directions to begin to tackle the scourge of crime in those most deprived areas.

    The upward trend in street crime is now just gradually being reversed. The commitment that Tony and I gave on robbery and mugging is coming round whatever the newspapers tell you. A 14% reduction already since the target was set back in the Spring.

    And yes of course we know that unless people feel differently, unless they experience improvement for themselves, they will not believe the statistics. So the task is to change what is happening in their lives, making them feel different about the streets they walk on.

    Tony mentioned yesterday the need to avoid scepticism turning into cynicism, the most corrosive way of undermining not simply the achievements of those working to bring about change, but democracy itself. The feeling that nothing can make a difference. That whatever we do, whoever we vote for, it doesn’t change a thing. That is what we need to take head on in developing not simply announcements as I am making today about more police, or civilians, or CSOs, but actually about the engagement of people in their own lives to make a difference.

    Today I can announce a new target for policing. We will reach, by next Spring, 130,000. By the year after we will reach 132,500 police men and women and we will ensure that they are on the beat, doing the job, out there, visible, available, for everyone to see the results of a Labour Government investing in a police service that is reformed and is working.

    And with 4,000 Community Support Officers by 2005, working with the police alongside them in the community. With up to 3,000 forensic scientists working with us using the new DNA testing. And with the Crime Reduction Partnerships, the Community Safety Partnerships at local level, investing in CCTV and in target hardening of people’s homes, we can tackle crime together. It is down by over a fifth. Under the Tories it doubled.

    And yes of course there will be reform across the piece. An end to end reform of the Criminal Justice System. Balancing the rights of the victim, of the community, with those accused.

    Wrongful conviction of the innocent is an affront to justice. But so is the criminal, the perpetrator of misery, walking free from the dock to commit their crimes again and terrorise the community.

    The rights of the accused and the rights of the community must be balanced together. This is not a zero sum total as many writers and speakers talk about. You do not erode the rights of the honest, of the innocent, by increasing the rights of victims and the protection of witnesses. You do not diminish one by improving the other. This is not a see-saw. The debate needs to be about how we join together. Everyone working in and committed to a better system ensures that victims and witnesses are properly protected. That delays and adjournments are cut out. That faster justice means fairer justice for all.

    And it can be done. Thanks to the street crime initiative we have already seen the changes that can be brought about by partnership working across the Crown Prosecution Service, the courts, probation, prisons, and many others.

    And thanks to Jack Straw and his team, we have seen already the work of the Youth Justice Board and the Home Office coming to fruition. The youth justice pledge that we would halve the time from arrest to conviction of young offenders has been more than met by this Government, but you never hear a word about it.

    For this is reform and modernisation hand in hand in practice. Prevention, policing, and prosecution. But prevention surely has to be the most valuable of all. The Police Act will help with that. A new role for local commanders at divisional level. Priority payments for police who are at the front line, seeing the action on the ground. A reduction in bureaucracy.

    The introduction of the Proceeds of Crime Act to tackle head on the internationally organised criminals who devour the benefits that people have accrued for themselves through the most sophisticated methods imaginable.

    A drive against hard drug dealing. The establishment of the National Treatment Agency was only 18 months ago. With the Agency we need to develop treatment and support, and rehabilitation. We need an education programme that actually seeks both to prevent and to develop as part of our harm minimisation drive a system that works in the interests of everyone.

    It was for that reason that I’ve recommended the reclassification of cannabis. To make sense of education, of policing priorities, and of the drive to tackle the scourge of our era which is crack, cocaine, heroin and ecstasy. The drugs that kill, that put communities at risk, that undermine families and destroy the very fabric of our society.

    So, testing and treatment of prisoners, new regimes in our prison and probation service. No – not seeking a target for how many people we will have in jail – but a drive to ensure that we minimise the number of people that we have to send to jail in the first place. That is the task we are setting ourselves.

    To prevent re-offending, to make sense of sentencing, to use prison and community sentencing hand in hand. To develop the new intensive supervision and tagging system. But to ensure that dangerous and sex offenders are locked away as long as is necessary.

    Our hearts went out to the parents of Holly and Jessica, and now to the parents and family of Milly. At this Conference Sarah Payne’s Mum, Sara, is present. We know we have a task to ensure that our children are safe. We have already promised to legislate this Winter for sex offenders and sex offences to be dealt with by a new common-sense approach.

    Parliament must be able to act on behalf of the people. Democracy and legitimacy of politics itself depends not on protecting people from the will of Parliament, but protecting people from the actions of dangerous criminals on our streets.

    Compassion is only really possible when people believe that common-sense prevails. That is why we will toughen still further the law on dangerous sex offenders. We have already taken measures, we have already committed ourselves in the Bill to tackling the scourge of chat-room abuse of the Internet, of toughening up in relation to the sentences that are handed out. But it is why also we need to clamp down on the evil around us of those who should be, or are not registered.

    That is why today I am going to announce a new programme. Sex offenders will have to register annually. Using biometrics in the future may ensure that we do not only confirm who they are, but we also use technology to know where they are. We will ensure that those coming in from abroad have to register. We will work with countries abroad to ensure that they do, and anyone who breaks this provision will leave our country immediately.

    Adequate sentencing, proper supervision, a register that has a check by the community – we have put on the multi-agency panels for the first time a representative of the community – will and should do the job. But I do want to say quietly to those who are campaigning: we cannot open the register to the vigilantes who do not understand the difference between “paediatrician” and “paedophile”..

    We will do everything we can, but we must maintain the stability I talked about, the order imposed by us.

    That is why the end to end review of the criminal justice system is so important; why the reform and modernisation must take place. Allowing our Parliament to protect the public, making sure that we do debate and understand that there is a public interest that needs to be balanced with individual rights, both of them upheld, isn’t in any way to undermine civil liberties. It is simply to secure common-sense and the confidence of the public, who at the moment by 74% do not believe that the criminal justice system works in their interest.

    It is true of our task of building a civil society. Tony talked yesterday of an enabling Government; of working with and alongside people, not just for them; creating a sense of belonging, of shared responsibility, of citizenship that engages people in being part of the solution and not just passing it to someone else.

    It is true of our task of balancing managed immigration and nationality and our asylum policy. Policies need to work, they need to build trust and confidence in the population as a whole. On 7 February in our policy paper, Secure Borders, Safe Haven, I spelt out how we intended to ensure that new routes for economic migration, for new channels of coming into our country, would be developed. We have already started to do it. As Gordon said on Monday, I have put in place that we will have a doubling of the number of visas for work permits given in the year ahead to 175,000 – the largest number in Europe, six times the number of work permits granted in Germany this year.

    I promised to listen last year at Conference to calls to abolish vouchers. On 8 April I abolished the voucher system and I invite you to join with me in listening, but also in contributing, to find solutions to much more difficult problems than the one that seemed insuperable just 12 months ago.

    So let me explain briefly why I have sought to secure our borders. Television programmes night after night last year showing people coming through the Channel Tunnel, far from encouraging people to provide a warm welcome, frightened people into believing that we were being overwhelmed. We were not. I have argued, as part of the economic migration programme, that we needed to ensure that people felt secure that we had got a grip of the problem. Eight hundred people from Coquelles depot alone came through a year ago. Last month it was one.

    I went to Calais and Frethun and to Belgium last week. I secured in three months with Nicholas Sarkosy, the Minister for the Interior in France, agreement which means that at each French port there will be equipment that will ensure that we have properly organised immigration controls. We secured the fencing and security at the depots. Not because this is anti-asylum, but because it is anti the organised traffickers who are exploiting the exploitable across the world; getting their families to pay for children as well as adults to be trafficked across Europe, to be dumped in Sangatte, and then to try and make their way in containers or under trains across to Britain. It is a scandal that needs to be stopped and we should be the first to say so.

    It is about demonstrating competence. It is fairness balanced by common-sense. Building trust and confidence, and building it in order to reject racism wherever it occurs. The Race Relations Amendment Act came in in April. We have set in train new recruitment from outside our Department for the Race Equality Unit. We have established a new social cohesion programme. We are actually putting in place the practical measures, and we are building trust so that we can welcome inward migration to our country.

    The real task for all of us – and I say it to those who criticise me – is to take on those who are building up a campaign now (read the papers to see it) against any inward migration to our country whatsoever. They are arguing that we cannot take more citizens from across the world. I argue that we cannot afford not to take them from across the world to build our economy, to contribute to our wellbeing.

    In the Bill we will toughen up on those who are clandestinely in our country, working illegally, and those who seek to exploit the most generous provisions for asylum seekers in the world. We will do so because undermining the Minimum Wage, destroying what the trade union movement has fought for in terms of conditions of work, isn’t all that clever, allowing people to work clandestinely at £2.00 an hour in our community.

    I am interested in a fair, open Britain, and I am interested in breaking down the barriers of fear that stop those who are true supporters of our Party believing that we have got it right. That is the task ahead of us. For when I wrote a detailed essay in a book of essays, just a few weeks ago, and argued that as well as the mother tongue, English mattered in the home of Asian families, when I argue for an understanding of citizenship and our democracy, I do so not to dictate, but because through speaking English, through an understanding of citizenship, the opportunity for education and employment is opened up. It is an equality agenda. The mother or grandmother trapped in the home, the child acting as the interpreter, the host community unsure of how to break down those barriers on which racists feed. And of course language is one of those key barriers. That isn’t linguistic colonialism, it is just good common-sense.

    Conference, by building trust we can put right historic wrongs. In the 1968 Immigration Act and again in 1981, those British overseas citizens, those protected persons, those British subjects who were given British passports, had no rights of residence in our country. They had no right to settle, to become citizens of our country. This week I have laid an amendment to the Nationality and Immigration Act to put right that wrong, to give them the right to sit, to stand, to work equally alongside us in this country, and we should be proud of it.

    Conference, yesterday Tony said that I had a challenging job. Well he put it slightly stronger than that, but one or two Cabinet colleagues have taken offence. It comes and it goes. There aren’t many laughs, there aren’t many cheers, but there is a lot of satisfaction. For what we are doing from the Home Office team really does matter. It can transform our communities. That is why we work together, that is why you deliver the leaflets and argue the case.

    Next year I will have been in the Party for 40 years – it ages me! I believe in our values. I fight for a better life for the people we represent, that you and I seek to speak for day in and day out. I say to those who criticise us, please do so, with solidarity as part of our mutuality. But please read what is said. Please listen to the words. Please let’s have a dialogue of friends. And let’s answer the questions together, because only together can we hold on to this majority in our Parliament, win back seats in local government; and above all to win people to the belief that this, our Party, is on their side.