Blog

  • Les Huckfield – 1968 Parliamentary Question on the Leamington Spa—Coventry And Nuneaton Rail Line

    Les Huckfield – 1968 Parliamentary Question on the Leamington Spa—Coventry And Nuneaton Rail Line

    The parliamentary question asked by Les Huckfield, the then Labour MP for Nuneaton, in the House of Commons on 27 May 1968.

    Mr. Leslie Huckfield asked the Minister of Transport what representations have been made by the Railways Board for a variation in the terms of the closure order made for the Leamington Spa—Coventry and Nuneaton railway line.

    Mr. Marsh

    None—apart from the application to delete some of the existing bus services referred to in the Answer given to my hon. Friend’s previous Question on 19th February, 1968.—[Vol. 759, c. 43–44.]

    Mr. Leslie Hackfield asked the Minister of Transport whether he is satisfied that the proposal to single the railway track between Nuneaton, Coventry and Leamington Spa, is in accordance with the terms of the closure order made on this line; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Marsh

    Yes. The official letter sent to the Board on 18th September, 1964 conveying the consent of the Minister to the withdrawal of rail passenger services from the Nuneaton-Coventry-Leamington line included a request that the Railways Board should notify the Minister if they decided to remove the track from any part of the line. I understand that the Board are now considering proposals for singling most of the track, and I have no doubt that they will inform me if they decide to do so. Freight services will in any case continue to operate over the whole length of the line.

  • PRESS RELEASE : Government cracks down on ‘fire and rehire’ practices [January 2023]

    PRESS RELEASE : Government cracks down on ‘fire and rehire’ practices [January 2023]

    The press release issued by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy on 24 January 2023.

    Government launches crackdown on controversial dismissal tactics through a planned statutory code of practice.

    • Plans for a new statutory code will crack down on unscrupulous employers that use controversial dismissal tactics
    • courts to be given power to apply a 25% uplift to an employee’s compensation in certain circumstances if an employer doesn’t follow the new Code
    • Business Secretary Grant Shapps: “Our new code will crack down on firms mistreating employees and set out how they should behave when changing an employee’s contract.”

    The government is taking strong action against unscrupulous employers that use the controversial practice of ‘fire and rehire’, it has announced today (Tuesday 24 January).

    Last year P&O Ferries deliberately sought to evade the law by sacking 786 seafarers without due consultation. Having made no efforts to inform the Business Secretary at the time, they failed to follow best practice or do the right thing for their employees. As a result, Grant Shapps, as Transport Secretary at the time, introduced a 9-point plan including primary legislation to tackle these issues.

    Through a planned statutory code of practice, the government is protecting employees and cracking down on employers that use controversial dismissal tactics. The code, subject to a consultation first, will make it explicitly clear to employers that they must not use threats of dismissal to pressurise employees into accepting new terms, and that they should have honest and open-minded discussions with their employees and representatives.

    ‘Fire and rehire’ refers to when an employer fires an employee and offers them a new contract on new, often less-favourable terms. The government has been clear on its opposition to this practice being used as a negotiating tactic and is now making it clear how it expects employers to behave.

    This new statutory code of practice will set out employers’ responsibilities when seeking to change contractual terms and conditions of employment, including that businesses must consult with employees in a fair and transparent way when proposing changes to their employment terms.

    Once in force, Courts and Employment Tribunals will be able to take the code into account when considering relevant cases, including unfair dismissal. They will have the power to apply a 25% uplift to an employee’s compensation in certain circumstances if an employer is found to not comply with the statutory code.

    Business Secretary Grant Shapps said:

    Using fire and rehire as a negotiation tactic is a quick-fire way to damage your reputation as a business. Our new code will crack down on firms mistreating employees and set out how they should behave when changing an employee’s contract.

    We are determined to do all we can to protect and enhance workers’ rights across the country.

    Maritime Minister Baroness Vere said:

    We remain committed to protecting seafarers and championing the importance of their welfare. This new code goes one step further to doing just that, helping us ensure employees are treated fairly and employers hold meaningful consultations on any proposed changes to employment terms.

    This forms part of our 9-point plan to reform and improve seafarer welfare and close down any legal loopholes that allow employers to avoid paying them – irrespective of flag or nationality.

    Employers should be deterred from using this controversial tactic and must ensure they do not mistreat employees. If they do, they risk poor relations with their employees, and will open themselves up to the risk of legal claims.

    The government asked the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service to produce guidance for employers, which was published in 2021. This new Code of Practice shows the government is going a step further to protect workers across the country, while balancing that with the flexibility that businesses require.

  • Richard Sharp – 2023 Letter to BBC Staff Following Allegations of a Conflict of Interest

    Richard Sharp – 2023 Letter to BBC Staff Following Allegations of a Conflict of Interest

    The letter sent by Richard Sharp, the Chairman of the BBC, to the organisation’s staff on 23 January 2023.

    Dear all,

    You may have seen reporting over the weekend about the nature of my appointment as Chairman of the BBC.

    As Chairman of the BBC I have a responsibility to you, and to our audiences, to make sure that the BBC is always held in high regard, and I don’t want this episode to distract from the important work that you are doing. I wanted to write to you directly to set out the facts.

    Prior to my appointment, I introduced an old friend of mine – and distant cousin of the then Prime Minister – Sam Blythe, to the Cabinet Secretary, as Sam wanted to support Boris Johnson.

    I was not involved in making a loan, or arranging a guarantee, and I did not arrange any financing. What I did do was to seek an introduction of Sam Blythe to the relevant official in Government.

    Sam Blythe, who I have known for more than forty years, lives in London and having become aware of the financial pressures on the then Prime Minister, and being a successful entrepreneur, he told me he wanted to explore whether he could assist.

    He spoke to me because he trusts me and wanted to check with me what the right way to go about this could be. I told him that this was a sensitive area in any event, particularly so as Sam is a Canadian, and that he should seek to have the Cabinet Office involved and have the Cabinet Secretary advise on appropriateness and indeed whether any financial support Sam might wish to provide was possible. Accordingly Sam asked me whether I would connect him with the Cabinet Secretary.

    At the time I was working in Downing Street as a special economic adviser to the Treasury during the pandemic, and I had submitted my application to be Chairman of the BBC. I went to see the Cabinet Secretary and explained who Sam was, and that as a cousin of the then Prime Minister he wanted to help him if possible. I also reminded the Cabinet Secretary that I had submitted my application for the position of BBC Chairman. We both agreed that to avoid any conflict that I should have nothing further to do with the matter. At that point there was no detail on the proposed arrangements and I had no knowledge of whether any assistance was possible, or could be agreed.

    Since that meeting I have had no involvement whatsoever with any process. Even now, I don’t know any more than is reported in the media about a loan or reported guarantee.

    I am now aware that the Cabinet Office have a note of this meeting, and that this included advice to the Prime Minister that I should not be involved, to avoid any conflict or appearance of conflict with my BBC application.

    The Cabinet Office have confirmed that the recruitment process was followed appropriately and that I was appointed on merit, in a process which was independently monitored. Moreover they have confirmed that they gave advice at the time that I should have no involvement whatsoever in any process which might or might not take place, precisely to avoid a conflict or perception of a conflict of interest.

    This matter, although it took place before I joined the BBC, is a distraction for the organisation, which I regret. I’m really sorry about it all.

    I am proud and honoured to have been appointed as the Chairman of the BBC. I have never hidden my longstanding relationship with the former Prime Minister, however I believe firmly that I was appointed on merit, which the Cabinet Office have also confirmed.

    We have many challenges at the BBC, and I know that distractions such as this are not welcomed.

    Our work at the BBC is rooted in trust. Although the appointment of the BBC Chairman is solely a matter for the Government, I want to ensure that all the appropriate guidelines have been followed within the BBC since I have joined. The Nominations Committee of the BBC Board has responsibility for regularly reviewing Board members conflicts of interest and I have agreed with the Board’s Senior Independent Director, Sir Nicholas Serota, that the Committee shall assess this when it next meets, reporting to the Board, and in the interests of transparency publish the conclusions.

    I look forward to continuing our work together.

    Best wishes,
    Richard

    Richard Sharp, BBC Chairman

  • NEWS FROM 100 YEARS AGO : 24 January 1923

    NEWS FROM 100 YEARS AGO : 24 January 1923

    24 JANUARY 1923

    Speaking at the Lausanne Conference, Lord Curzon stated that the Mosul Question should be referred to League of Nations and that the UK would abide by whatever decision was made by that body. The Turkish Government rejected the proposals as their policy was that the majority of people in the disputed territory wanted to become part of Turkey.

    The GPO announced that they were not allowing holders of broadcasting receiving licences to move their ‘sets’ from location to location. The announcement came following how enthusiasts were moving their equipment to hold parties at the homes of others, which the GPO said was not allowable as licences were issued to a particular address.

    There was excitement as there were preparations being made in Egypt to penetrate the wall of the Inner Tomb of Tutankhamun which would reveal his body for the first time to archaeologists.

  • Rachel Reeves – 2023 Speech at the Fabian Society New Year Conference

    Rachel Reeves – 2023 Speech at the Fabian Society New Year Conference

    The speech made by Rachel Reeves, the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, on 21 January 2023.

    Friends, what a pleasure it is to be with you all again.

    This might come as a surprise, but I can’t help but feel it’s been a slow start to the political year.

    After the procession in and out of No.11 last year, it’s already the 21st January and I’ve still only faced one Chancellor.

    Last year I faced four in six months.

    If Jeremy Hunt lasts until the budget, he’ll be the longest serving Chancellor since the current Prime Minister.

    Now I have been a Fabian almost as long as I have been a member of the Labour Party.

    As Secretary of the Young Fabians, I remember meeting in the old offices on Dartmouth Street, and feeling a real connection to our history; every time Labour has won power and achieved meaningful change.

    Take one of my heroes: Beatrice Webb.

    As a social investigator, reforming campaigner, and an economist too, Webb spent a lifetime fighting to build an economy that worked for ordinary people, in the knowledge that this was not just a moral cause, but a route to a stronger, more prosperous country.

    As our economy, our society and our politics have changed, so our solutions must change too.

    This morning I want to tell you about how the next Labour government will bring that Fabian spirit to bear on the challenges ahead.

    As we look ahead to the next General Election, the questions the British public will be asking are simple:

    Are me and my family better off than thirteen years ago?

    Do our hospitals, our schools and our police work better than they did thirteen years ago?

    Frankly, does anything work better than when the Conservatives came into office?

    And if the answers to these questions are no – then you know it is time for a change.

    The Conservatives have brought our public services to breaking point.

    Three years ago they clapped our nurses; but with our NHS on the brink, their solution is to sack them for taking industrial action.

    They crashed the economy, landed homeowners across the country with eye-watering increases to their mortgages, and now they want to tell us all that last year was just a bad dream.

    And they have presided over more than a decade of stagnant living standards.

    Thirteen wasted years.

    Never again let the Conservatives claim to be the party of sound economic management.

    Never again let them claim to be the party of aspiration.

    And never trust the Tories with our public services.

    And to add insult to injury, this week they showed us the depth of their commitment to their own levelling-up rhetoric.

    The Prime Minister gave the game away last year, when he bragged about fiddling funding formulas to divert cash from the North to Tunbridge Wells.

    And then what did we get this week, when the results of this round of the Levelling Up Fund were announced?

    Money funnelled into Tory-held seats.

    £19 million for the Prime Minister’s own constituency.

    But nothing for the entire city of Leeds.

    Ministers have broken promises and they have wasted councils’ time.

    It’s not that the Tories have failed in their efforts to level up the country.

    They haven’t even bothered.

    And worst of all it is clear that they never intended to either.

    Friends, it is time for change.

    It is time for a Labour government.

    While the causes of the cost of living crisis are largely global.

    But our unique exposure to global events – to pandemic, war and economic crisis – has been the result of the choices of Conservative governments.

    Our present crisis is just one chapter in a longer story: more than a decade of weak growth, productivity and pay, and of the eroding of Britain’s economic resilience.

    The effects of Putin’s war have reverberated around the world, and we will not waver in our support for Ukraine.

    But it wasn’t Russia’s invasion of Ukraine that caused home insulation rates to collapse.

    It wasn’t Russia’s invasion of Ukraine that caused a decade of inaction on nuclear and renewable energy.

    And it wasn’t Russia’s invasion of Ukraine that closed our gas storage facilities here in Britain.

    Those are the consequences of a thirteen-year Tory experiment, in unilateral energy disarmament.

    And we are all paying the price.

    We desperately need a plan to repair Britain’s economic and energy security, and bring energy bills down; a plan to end our reliance on fossil fuels.

    But we also need a plan, for the weeks and months ahead.

    Because while the Prime Minister buries his head in the sand, for ordinary people the cost of living crisis hasn’t gone away.

    That is why we have called on the government to rule out any rise in fuel duty in the upcoming budget.

    Because it cannot be right, in the midst of a cost of living crisis, that nurses driving from shift to shift, supermarket workers doing the night shift and the millions of people around the country without access to decent public transport should be left to face the biggest ever hike in petrol prices.

    And today I can tell you more about the immediate action we would take to address the consequences of this crisis.

    Millions of households are still looking to a 40 percent increase in their energy bills, in April.

    On a week when temperatures fell below zero, I know many families and pensioners will be feeling the pressure particularly acutely.

    At the same time, energy companies continue to enjoy record profits.

    Over the last year, North Sea oil and gas profits have tripled.

    That cannot be right.

    So today, I can announce what a Labour government would do.

    We would hold to that most basic of principles: that those who have profited from the windfalls of war should shoulder their share of the cost, so ordinary people do not have to bear the brunt of a crisis that they did not cause.

    We will extend the windfall tax, closing the fossil fuel investment loophole and taxing oil and gas profits at the same rate as Norway.

    By backdating this from the start of 2022, when oil and gas giants were already making historically large profits, we can raise more than £13bn.

    A Labour government would pass those savings onto families immediately, to keep energy bills down this year.

    Our plan will save a typical household up to £500 on their energy bills from April, compared to the government’s plan, by keeping the energy price guarantee at its current level of £2,500, rather than letting it rise to £3,000.

    But let me be clear: this is a maximum.

    If wholesale prices fall further, the cap must come down too.

    And it is a scandal that those with the least are often forced to pay the most for their energy.

    So we would eliminate the premium paid by households on prepayment meters.

    And the forced installation of prepayment meters all too often lead to the most vulnerable households going without heating entirely.

    So Labour are calling on government to bring in a moratorium on that practice.

    Let me say to those companies that are doing this:

    It is wrong.

    It punishes the most vulnerable households.

    And under Labour, it will not happen.

    That is what a Labour government would do.

    That is a plan for today’s crisis.

    But as Keir said earlier this month:

    Sticking plaster politics is not enough.

    We cannot persist with walking into a crisis unprepared, and at the last minute producing hugely expensive fixes to get us through, while the underlying problems – those weakened foundations – remain untouched.

    We will take urgent action to help millions of households through the ongoing energy crisis – because we must.

    And Labour will act to keep energy prices down for good.

    That is why Labour has a plan to reach one hundred percent clean power by 2030, and retrofit millions of homes.

    These policies could save a typical household up to £1,400, generating savings not just for one year, but for every year to come.

    A response to today’s crisis and a plan to prevent tomorrow’s crisis.

    That is what a Labour government will do.

    Climate transition is a moral responsibility – we all know that.

    It is an economic necessity.

    Because the costs of action today are far less than the costs of action tomorrow.

    And it is an opportunity.

    Because whatever ideologues on left and right might tell you, we do not have to choose between going green and going for growth.

    In the 2020s and 2030s, the two go hand-in-hand.

    To some on the right, climate change is nothing more than a cost or even a con.

    Some on the left meanwhile will claim that the only way to tackle the climate crisis is nothing short of a command economy, or the overthrowing of capitalism itself.

    And then there are those on the fringes of the green movement who shudder at the very prospect of economic growth.

    I reject all those assessments, and their ideological cul-de-sacs.

    More innovation, more investment and more enterprise will be crucial to our green transition.

    And there is a global race on for the jobs and industries that will power that transition.

    We do not to have choose between letting the planet burn, or accepting a future of diminishing living standards in a poorer country.

    If these were the extent of our ambitions, we might as well give up now.

    Climate transition isn’t about putting a lick of green paint on a stagnant and insecure economy;

    It’s about new jobs and new industries, lower bills and higher living standards, and economic growth.

    Pro-worker; pro-business; and pro-climate.

    We know some country is going to lead in offshore wind, in green hydrogen, in carbon capture and storage, and in so much more.

    Why not Britain?

    From Rolls Royce, developing carbon neutral aviation in Derby, to Tred in Leeds, which has launched the UK’s first green debit card, to Fife Renewables Innovation Centre, housing businesses at the frontier of the clean energy revolution – the potential is there.

    But in too many places and too many industries, it is going unrealised.

    Meanwhile the Biden administration’s Inflation Reduction Act has galvanized green energy in the United States.

    And at the World Economic Forum this week, Ursula von der Leyen announced plans for an EU Net-Zero Industry Act to allow European nations to compete.

    But our government is sat carping from the sidelines.

    Grant Shapps, the Business Secretary, says these measures are ‘dangerous’.

    But I’ll tell him what’s dangerous: doing nothing.

    The choice is simple: we can sit by while our peers steam ahead in the global race for the jobs and industries of the future; or we can use all the powers at our disposal to let British businesses and working people compete in that race.

    That is why our Green Prosperity Plan forms the very centrepiece of Labour’s economic policy.

    That is the choice Labour will make.

    That is what a Labour government will do.

    This morning I can tell you more about a core part of our Green Prosperity Plan:

    Our world-leading pledge, to be the first major economy to have 100% zero-carbon power by 2030.

    We don’t make that pledge lightly.

    It will take choices; hard choices, that a Labour Government will make in the national interest.

    Take just one example: our planning system.

    A system now defined by delay.

    It currently takes up to 13 years to develop a new offshore wind farm.

    Up to 4 of those years are spent fighting through the planning system.

    The Hornsey 1 wind farm off the Yorkshire coast was commissioned under the last Labour Government, but didn’t come online until 2019.

    Its cheap, clean power that now supplies a million homes couldn’t be provided until years of bird data and other planning requirements had been collected and assessed.

    ​​Since 2017, not a single offshore wind farm has been recommended for approval by the Planning Inspectorate; in every case they have had to be overruled by the Secretary of State.

    But it adds further delay when that same Secretary of State lets that approval decision sit on their desk for almost 2 years, as they did with Hornsey 3, which will be the world’s biggest wind farm when it’s finally completed later this decade.

    Those delays are depriving a further 3.2 million homes from that cheap, clean power.

    And that’s before you consider the years offshore wind farms have to wait for a connection from the National Grid, so that that power can get from the North Sea to people’s homes and businesses.

    This backlog has now got so bad that projects from the latest leasing round last year have been told they will not get a grid connection until 2033 – over a decade later.

    Meanwhile, what are the Tories doing?

    Reforming the planning system?

    Sorting out the grid backlogs?

    Not a bit of it.

    They’re using these critical months and years to argue about whether they should continue to ban onshore wind completely, or simply set up a special, uniquely-restrictive planning regime for it instead.

    With Labour, that won’t stand.

    If we’re going to double onshore wind capacity, triple solar, and quadruple offshore wind, all within the next 7 years, we will need to reform that planning system.

    We’d ensure net zero is embedded through it and our whole energy system; bring planning restrictions for onshore wind in line with other infrastructure; impose tough new targets to get planning decisions on renewables down from years to just months; reform the grid system to cut the delays and get on with delivering more clean power capacity to turbocharge the transition; and ensure these decisions are prioritised so that agencies can meet them.

    We’ll look at how to ensure that communities that host infrastructure in the national interest feel its benefits; end the farce of planning decisions languishing on Ministers desks and crack down on Whitehall blocking developments; and require Local Authorities to proactively identify land for renewable energy opportunities and improve access to data.

    That’s just one example.

    But we will remove those barriers, wherever they are.

    That is what a Labour government will do.

    That work is ongoing, led by Ed Miliband, and there will be much more for us to announce ahead of the next election.

    Now, the Prime Minister made clear the depth of his own commitment to net zero this week, when he chose to fly by RAF jet from Teesside to Blackpool.

    I understand the air stewards had to do the seatbelt demonstration a few times before it really sank in.

    When you look back on the next Labour government, I ask you to judge us on this:

    Are energy bills down – for good?

    Is Britain more secure from the effects of global fluctuations in the energy market?

    Are we on course for net zero?

    Have we created hundreds of thousands of jobs in Britain, in new and growing industries, in our ports, our steel towns and across our industrial heartlands?

    I will campaign with everything I’ve got to see that Labour government elected.

    I will give all I’ve got to be your next Chancellor.

    And I make this pledge to you:

    That I will be Britain’s first green Chancellor.

    Our Green Prosperity Plan forms one part of a wider approach.

    The Tories may bury their heads in the sand, but around the world, economic common sense has moved on.

    Inequality does harm economic growth.

    Markets alone cannot deliver the strategic investment we need.

    And as well as the success of industries at the frontier, the state of our everyday economy – of care, retail, and more – is crucial to sustainable growth.

    To fail to learn these lessons, is to follow the path of managed decline.

    The alternative is what the US Treasury Secretary, Janet Yellen, calls ‘modern supply side economics’.

    It is based on the knowledge that strong and inclusive economic growth cannot be achieved without active government creating the foundations for a dynamic private sector to build on.

    It is time for a British ‘modern supply side’ approach.

    Let me explain what I mean.

    It starts with the acceptance that neither of the big ideas which defined British economic policy over much of the last eighty years are adequate for today’s challenges.

    Because although we would be in a far better place today had the Tories 10 years ago paid more heed to Keynes’ insights, Keynesian pump-priming on the demand side does not hold the answers to stagflation, and supply-side problems require supply-side solutions.

    That was true in the 1970s, and it remains so today.

    But the old supply side economics was based on a misplaced faith, that deregulation and tax cuts for the wealthiest would stimulate economic growth and their benefits would ‘trickle down’ to everybody else.

    Not only did that approach widen inequality between places and people.

    It had diminishing returns for growth and productivity.

    The Truss experiment was the last gasp of a failed economic philosophy.

    A modern supply side approach means government taking on a more strategic role, to expand the productive capacity and the resilience of our economy:

    First, by providing catalytic investment and strategic partnership with business, through our Green Prosperity Plan, through our modern industrial strategy, and through the work of our start-up review.

    Second, by boosting our labour supply – by supporting strong public services and helping people back into work.

    And third, by repairing our economic resilience, extending economic security with a real Living Wage and our New Deal for Working People – led by the work of Angela Rayner – and reducing our dependence on fragile international supply chains with our plans to buy, make and sell more in Britain.

    Together these plans comprise a modern supply-side economics; a new approach, for economic growth felt in every part of Britain.

    That is what a Labour government will do.

    The success of this approach will require honesty about the limits of what national government can achieve alone.

    First, because we cannot achieve our ambitions with the pull of a lever in Whitehall, and so we will give local, regional and national leaders the powers they need to support thriving local economies.

    And second, because any government serious about growth and improving the supply-side capacity of our economy needs to fix the mess that is this government’s Brexit deal and forge a closer trading relationship with the European Union.

    Our agriculture and our food industries rely on trade right across Europe, but we have a deal which doesn’t even include a veterinary agreement.

    We are pioneers in creative industries, but we have a deal which ties them in knots over visas.

    We are the second largest exporter of services in the world, but we have a deal that doesn’t include the mutual recognition of professional qualifications.

    And we have the best universities in Europe, but we have a deal which cuts us out of the Horizon research initiative.

    So we will fix the holes in the government’s patchwork Brexit deal.

    And instead of picking needless fights with our largest trading partner, we will work together with our neighbours and allies, to get a deal that works for the British economy.

    That is what it means to stand up for the national interest.

    And one final thing:

    Modern supply side economics recognises that a strong economy rests on strong public services.

    So be in no doubt: there can be no return to austerity.

    It has left our country poorer, our public services at breaking point, and our public finances in tatters.

    Labour will make sure public services have the investment they need;

    And reform, too – to meet the challenges of an ageing society; to equip young people with the skills for a new economy; and seize opportunities presented by advances in artificial intelligence and robotics.

    Good public services must be paid for.

    Labour will not waver in our commitment to fiscal responsibility.

    I have been clear about the absolute importance of ensuring every line of our next manifesto is fully costed.

    So let me tell you what a Labour government will do.

    We will end the tax break which exempts private schools from paying VAT and business rates.

    Because friends, private schools are many things, but they are not charities.

    We will put that money where it belongs, into all our children’s futures: into our state schools.

    And we will end the non-dom tax status.

    Because if you make Britain your home, you should pay your taxes here too.

    And under Labour you will.

    We will put that money into one of the largest workforce expansions in the history of our NHS.

    More doctors; more nurses; more midwives; more health workers.

    That is what a Labour government will do.

    I know that, in the months to come, many of you will play your part in making our shared ambitions a reality.

    Together, we will change Britain again – in that Fabian spirit.

    We will rescue our public services from Tory neglect.

    Restore economic security to working people.

    Support British businesses to lead in the global race.

    And build that fairer, greener Britain.

    That is what a Labour government will do.

    And friends, be in no doubt:

    That government is coming soon.

    Thank you.

  • Barbara Castle – 1968 Transport Act and Railway Closures

    Barbara Castle – 1968 Transport Act and Railway Closures

    The text of the 1968 Transport Act, as enacted, with regards to railway closures.

    54 Railway closures

    (1)In discharging any of his functions under subsection (8) or (10) of section 56 of the Act of 1962 or under subsection (5) of this section in relation to, or to a proposal by the Railways Board or the London Board for, the discontinuance of all railway passenger services from any station or on any line (hereafter in this section, as in that section, referred to as a closure), the Minister shall have regard to any matters which for the time being appear to him to be relevant, including any social or economic considerations, and shall not give his consent to a proposed closure—

    (a)unless he is satisfied that a reasonable opportunity has been afforded for the making to the Minister of representations with respect to the closure by or on behalf of persons who are employed by the Board concerned for the purposes of, or in connection with, the services in question and who appear to the Minister to be likely to be directly affected by the closure ; or

    (b)before he has considered any representations made while that opportunity remains available which he is satisfied are either made by such persons as aforesaid or made on behalf of such persons by an organisation appearing to him to represent such persons.

    (2)In the case of a proposed closure of a station from which, or of a line on the whole or part of which, railway passenger services fall to be provided by the Railways Board in pursuance of an agreement under section 20(2)(b) of this Act with the Executive for an area designated under section 9(1) thereof, the Board shall not publish a notice of that closure in pursuance of subsection (7) of the said section 56 without the consent of that Executive to its publication ; and if the Board publish the notice before obtaining that consent, the notice shall be of no effect unless before the expiration of the period fixed by the notice for objecting to the closure either—

    (a)the Executive have informed the Board in writing that they consent to the publication ; or

    (b)the Minister, on an application made for the purpose by the Board, whether before or after the publication of the notice, and after affording the Executive what the Minister considers a reasonable opportunity to make any representations, has directed that the notice shall have effect notwithstanding that the Executive have not consented to its publication ;

    but the giving by the Executive of their consent to publication of a notice in pursuance of the said subsection (7) shall not affect the right of the Executive under subsection (4) of this section to oppose the closure.

    (3)Where, in the case of any proposed closure, subsection (2) of this section does not apply but the proposal is for the closure of a station, or of the whole or part of a line, which is situated within an area designated as aforesaid, the Railways Board shall send to the Executive for that area a copy of the notice of the closure published by the Board in pursuance of the said subsection (7).

    (4)Where, in the case of any closure to which subsection (2) or (3) of this section applies, notice of the closure has been published by the Railways Board in pursuance of the said subsection (7) (not being a notice which under the said subsection (2) is of no effect), the Executive concerned may, within the period specified in the notice for objecting to the closure, lodge with the Minister a statement in writing that they oppose the closure and of their reasons therefor; and where the Executive lodge such a statement with the Minister they shall send a copy of that statement to the Board and, notwithstanding that no objection is lodged in accordance with subsection (8) of the said section 56, the closure shall not be proceeded with until the Minister has given his consent.

    (5)In the case of any closure requiring the consent of the Minister under the said section 56 or under subsection (4) of this section—

    (a)the Minister may give his consent subject to such conditions as he thinks fit, including conditions to be complied with after the closure ;

    (b)the Minister may from time to time vary or revoke the conditions for the time being required to be complied with in connection with the closure, whether the closure took place before or after the coming into force of this subsection;

    (c)those conditions may include conditions as to the provision of alternative services by, or by a subsidiary of, the Bus Company or the Scottish Group, or by some other person whether in pursuance of arrangements made by the Bus Company or the Scottish Group or otherwise; and

    (d)whether before or after the closure, and whether the closure took place before or after the coming into force of this subsection, the Minister may from time to time give such directions to the Railways Board or, as the case may be, the London Board and to the Bus Company, and the Secretary of State may from time to time give such directions to the Scottish Group, as he thinks fit in connection with the closure;

    and where any such condition or direction relates to the provision or assistance in the provision of alternative services, the Minister or, where those alternative services are to be provided by, or by a subsidiary of, or in pursuance of arrangements made by, the Scottish Group, the Minister and the Secretary of State acting jointly may refer to an Area Committee within the meaning of the said section 56 any matter relating to those services, and the committee shall consider and report on that matter to the Minister or, as the case may be, to the Minister and the Secretary of State.

    (6)Where any condition or direction such as is referred to in subsection (5) of this section requires the provision of alternative services by, or by a subsidiary of, the Bus Company or the Scottish Group or in pursuance of arrangements made by that Company or that Group, the cost of providing those alternative services shall be borne by that Company or, as the case may be, that Group.

    (7)For the purposes of subsections (5) and (6) of this section any conditions imposed under subsection (11) of the said section 56, so far as still required to be complied with immediately before the coming into force of the said subsection (5), shall have effect as if imposed under the said subsection (5).

    (8)Paragraphs 9 and 10 of Schedule 7 to the Act of 1962 (which contain spent transitional provisions with respect to matters pending at the date of the coming into force of the said section 56) shall cease to have effect.

  • David Webster – 1967 Comments on Dismissal of Gerry Fiennes by Barbara Castle

    David Webster – 1967 Comments on Dismissal of Gerry Fiennes by Barbara Castle

    The comments made by David Webster, the then Conservative Transport spokesperson, on 26 September 1967.

    The peremptory and humiliating sacking of Gerald Fiennes is in sharp distinction to the treatment of Lord Robens. In Lord Robens’ case he was, in my view rightly, asked to stay on after the disaster of Aberfan and after the tribunal had found the Coal Board, of which he was the head, to be seriously at fault and also to have been most unsatisfactory in their giving of evidence.

    In Mr Fiennes’ case, this distinguished and faithful servant of the railways has said what many people would heartily agree with in criticising the apparent lack of interest of the railways board to attempt to attain its financial objectives. He had been summoned to HQ and sacked immediately – with hardly time even to tidy his desk.

    At one moment a lifetime with the railways is suddenly severed, although acute shortage of top railways management is everywhere acknowledged. I suspect that in this case the hand that caused the sacking is that of Mrs Barbara Castle. We know that Mrs Castle has little interest in the financial objectives of the railways. We know that Mrs Castle is impatient of independent opinion, as in the case of the removal of the chairman of the British Road Safety Advisory Council and in her attempts to dominate the road research laboratory. We will demand an inquiry into this grisly affairs as soon as Parliament reassembles.

  • John Beavan – 1966 Comments on Barbara Castle, the White Paper and Beeching (Baron Ardwick)

    John Beavan – 1966 Comments on Barbara Castle, the White Paper and Beeching (Baron Ardwick)

    The comments made by John Beavan for the Daily Mirror on 28 July 1966.

    At last we are moving forward from Beeching. At last, after years of fumbling and dissension, Labour has got itself a comprehensive policy for transport – for passenger services and for freight on road, rail and even the dear old inland waterways.

    I congratulate the Minister of Transport, Barbara Castle, on her need in reaching decisions, and hope she will succeed in translating much of her policy into action. Sensible, the controversial White paper she publishes today gives Lord Beeching his due. If it had not been for him, I do not believe that Mrs Castle or any other minister would have been able to sort things out. Beeching had a narrow brief – to make the shabby, flabby Victorian monster that was British Railways wealthy enough to earn its keep.

    The chief remedy he advocated was deep surgery. Many cuts have been made, many remain to be made, because even the Tories could see the social consequences of some of his suggested cuts were unacceptable to too many people. The brief to Beeching had been too simple. Some of us hoped that Beeching would be put in charge of Britain’s rail and road transport with a proper brief. But he wanted to go back to ICI. In principle, Barbara Castle’s solution is the right one. We should sort out the profitable and potentially profitable lines and tell the Railways Board that it’s their job to make them pay.

    What about the other sections? Some are hopeless. Mrs Castle admits there are 1,330 miles of freight track that are not needed and 400 miles of passenger line which are not needed nor seriously wanted. They should be cut out but we are left with a third class – lines that are useful and socially important but are unprofitable. These, Mrs Castle proposes, should be openly subsidised. It is a good principle – if sophisticated accountancy really can sort out the sheep from the goats. The sum needed to subsidise the necessary but unprofitable services would be a big one.

    Although the Government had decided on social grounds to keep a fair-sized railway system, the cost of doing so should make them ask about each subsidised section, one highly important question:

    ‘Can the social needs be met more cheaply and as efficiently by some other form of transport?’

    There is a lot more to the White Paper than this. I welcome particularly the policy for a combined service for road and rail in the big urban areas. If I could send a personal message to the Labour Party it would be this: In this year of 1966 more suffering is caused to British workers by public transport than by private capitalism.

  • PRESS RELEASE : Minister pledges UK support at Africa summit to fight food insecurity [January 2023]

    PRESS RELEASE : Minister pledges UK support at Africa summit to fight food insecurity [January 2023]

    The press release issued by the Foreign Office on 24 January 2023.

    The Minister for Development and Africa emphasises the importance of the UK working with African countries on a two-day visit to Senegal.

    • Minister for Development and Africa will hold discussions with African leaders this week on rising food insecurity.
    • Andrew Mitchell will explore opportunities to expand British Investment into African countries to tackle this challenge.
    • He will meet Senegalese President and current African Union Chair Macky Sall during his visit, which will celebrate the UK’s growing partnership with a fast-growing, democratic, and stable regional power.

    The UK Minister for Development and Africa will emphasise the importance of the UK working with African countries to grow economies and boost food security – on a two-day visit to Senegal, starting today (Tuesday 24 January).

    Arriving in Dakar, Andrew Mitchell will hail the important relationship between the UK and Senegal, a country, with huge economic potential.

    He will meet key Senegalese government figures on his visit, including current African Union Chair and Senegal President Macky Sall. He will also set out the UK’s vision of a stronger partnership between the UK and Senegal that delivers mutual prosperity and security, and tackles global issues such as health and climate change. He will sign the first ever Memorandum of Understanding between the UK and Senegal, a symbol of our growing partnership.

    Mr Mitchell will see first-hand the impact of British investment in Senegal, including how UK-funded projects are supporting women and girls, and helping to build Senegal’s vaccine production facilities to tackle the next pandemic.

    Representing the UK at the Dakar 2 Feed Africa Summit, an African-led initiative, the Minister will listen to African leaders talk about the causes of rising food insecurity and hear their vision for accelerating agricultural transformation, with the aim of maximising the UK’s impact in alleviating food shortages across the continent. The UK is working with regional organisations like AGRA, Regional Economic Communities and the Africa Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) to help strengthen food trade in Africa.

    Minister for Africa, Andrew Mitchell, said:

    Many Brits know Senegal for its world-class football team. They may not know that our partnership with Senegal reaps benefits for people in both our countries, delivering economic growth and tackling common security and health threats. We hope to deepen this partnership over the long-term.

    As a leading supporter of the African Development Bank I am delighted to participate in the Dakar 2: Feed Africa Summit on an issue that we all need to work together on.

    With Russia’s war in Ukraine exacerbating the already drastic impacts of regional conflict in Africa and climate change on food security, I also want to hear directly from Macky Sall and other African leaders about the issues the continent is facing and understand how the UK can further support African countries as we face those challenges, together.

    Senegal is a leading stable and democratic country in the region, growing in significance and influence, and the UK hopes to build a closer partnership and greater trade and investment ties over the long-term.

    Economic development is crucial to tackling challenges like food insecurity and climate change and on his visit Mr Mitchell will explore opportunities to expand UK investment into the country to make a real and lasting positive impact. The UK-Africa Investment Summit in 2020 announced 27 deals worth over £6.5bn from across Africa. It also announced £9bn worth of investment decisions.

    During his visit, he will see the impact of such investment to date, including a $1.7bn partnership between British International Investment and DP World which features a new container port at Ndayane, Senegal’s largest onshore investment. The port will enable the creation of over 20,000 new jobs and help unblock barriers to greater economic growth.

    He will see the British Council’s landmark English Connects programme and visit the Women’s Integrated Sexual Health Programme (WISH) clinic where our delivery partner Marie Stopes International is increasing access to voluntary family planning, reaching those most in need.

    Andrew Mitchell will also visit Institut Pasteur de Dakar to hear about their plans to develop vaccines for Covid and other deadly diseases.

  • PRESS RELEASE : Rishi Sunak call with Taoiseach Leo Varadkar [January 2023]

    PRESS RELEASE : Rishi Sunak call with Taoiseach Leo Varadkar [January 2023]

    The press release issued by 10 Downing Street on 23 January 2023.

    The Prime Minister spoke to the Irish Taoiseach Leo Varadkar this afternoon.

    The leaders reflected on the close relationship between the UK and Ireland, and the Prime Minister said it was clear both nations were highly aligned when it came to shared values and challenges. He pointed to cooperation on areas like research and development and offshore wind.

    The leaders discussed the invasion of Ukraine, and the Prime Minister updated on the UK’s plans to accelerate its support to help the country secure a lasting peace.

    They also discussed the Northern Ireland Protocol, and the need to find solutions to the problems being faced by communities in Northern Ireland.

    Both leaders reflected on the need for Northern Ireland to have a power-sharing government up and running as soon as possible.

    The leaders agreed to stay in close touch.