UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: 2016

  • Will Quince – 2016 Speech on Compensation for Rail Passengers

    Below is the text of the speech made by Will Quince, the Conservative MP for Colchester, in Westminster Hall on 12 July 2016.

    I beg to move,

    That this House has considered compensation for rail passengers.

    It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. May I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry), for being here to respond on behalf of the Government? May I also apologise to her for once again raising an issue involving trains?

    My constituency, as the Minister knows, is home to many commuters. We are just under an hour away from London Liverpool Street station, and tens of thousands of my constituents travel on the Great Eastern main line every day. I admit that they have many complaints—short formations; staff members being unavailable; broken toilets; and services disrupted by too much rain, wind, sun and every other type of weather. My Twitter feed is often inundated with criticisms of our train operator; most are valid, and some less so.

    All of us in this House know that few things are more annoying than a delayed train. All too often, we have swept this issue under the carpet by saying that at least the trains are clean, and with laptops we can still work, even if we are delayed. We prioritise new rolling stock and free wi-fi as part of new franchises, but let us be clear. We cannot just think of these people as passengers stuck in a carriage going nowhere and being a bit annoyed. They are commuters who cannot make it into work due to factors beyond their control, and job insecurity can follow. They are parents unable to get home in time to have dinner with their children or put them to bed, missing out on something so important to their lives.

    I would like to take this opportunity to applaud the Government for recognising this issue and not only investing in our railways but committing to reducing the threshold for compensation to 15 minutes from half an hour. The Government are also extending the Consumer Rights Act 2015 to our railways, which will allow for compensation when the service our constituents receive does not meet expectations. I have some thoughts on this matter—particularly on the urgency of implementation, but I will spare the Minister those on this occasion. Much more needs to be done on making it as easy as possible for passengers to receive any compensation they are owed. I hope the Minister will agree that the end point must be commuters automatically receiving compensation when their train is delayed.

    Another issue, which is potentially even more frustrating, is that many franchise holders may be profiting from these delays. As I have mentioned, passengers are currently able to claim for compensation from train operators when they suffer delays greater than 30 minutes. What many probably do not realise is that Network Rail pays out compensation to train operators whenever there is disruption on the track. That compensation is known as schedule 8 payments. The guidance on those payments states that their purpose is to

    “compensate train operators for the financial impact of poor performance attributable to Network Rail and other train operators”.

    That is not unreasonable; I do not think any of us would believe it is. Given that we do not have vertically integrated lines, Network Rail is responsible for track and signalling. Who would want to take on a franchise if they were financially liable for things beyond their control?

    The problem is that there can be a big gap between the amount of compensation train operators receive from Network Rail through schedule 8 payments and the amount of compensation then paid out to passengers for delays. For example, Abellio Greater Anglia—the train operator that runs the line in my constituency—last year received £8.56 million in compensation from Network Rail for disruption. How much did it pay out to passengers for delays that year? Just £2.3 million. That is a subsidy of more than £6 million, and it is not a one-off. East Midlands Trains received £11 million from Network Rail but only paid out £516,000 to passengers. Southeastern received £7.09 million but paid out £1.35 million. Southern, which we know has issues at the moment, received £28.54 million from Network Rail and paid only £1.6 million to passengers. That is nearly a £27 million difference.

    I know that train operators would say we cannot compare those figures and that they measure different things, but my response is simple. On seeing the massive subsidies for delays that operators are receiving, the average person will ask, “What incentive do our franchise holders have to push Network Rail to tackle these issues? Why would they demand better infrastructure when they are profiting from my disruption as a commuter?” As I mentioned, I welcome the Government cutting the threshold for when passengers can receive compensation. However, I truly believe we need further reform. We need to deal with the subsidy for delays.

    Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)

    May I praise my hon. Friend for securing this debate on an extremely important issue and for the research he has done into the figures? It is essential that we highlight what is effectively a double subsidy. After all, it is a subsidy to Network Rail from the taxpaying population who are using the trains to get to work that is going back to the train companies they are already buying tickets from. It seems rather extraordinary that people are now paying twice for delayed trains, not just once.

    Will Quince

    My hon. Friend raises a good point. I strongly believe that rail operators should not receive more in schedule 8 payments than their passengers receive in compensation for delays and the cost of handling the disruption, and I have a solution.

    One option is to claw back the difference to Network Rail and ring-fence the money for infrastructure improvements in the line, which I am sure the Minister would like. That would tackle the issue by ensuring that the necessary infrastructure was funded and delivered on. However, given that we believe very much in devolution, localism and empowering our constituents, we should ensure that passengers have a say on how the money is used, even if it is not in the form of direct compensation. I suggest that the Government seek to change the terms of our franchise agreements to require that, at the end of every financial year, train operators put any net difference between these amounts into a fund to be controlled by a local railway panel. That panel could be modelled on local highways panels and involve local authorities, businesses and rail passenger groups. It would listen to passengers on how they would like the extra funds to be used to improve their railway, whether it is through extra benches at stations, cleaner trains, stronger wi-fi or more staff.

    I accept that that may not be possible without being subject to judicial review while train operators have existing franchise contracts. Instead, we should make those conditions part of all new franchise agreements, coming into effect on each line whenever the franchise comes up for renewal. No one disagrees with Network Rail compensating franchise holders when there are delays due to infrastructure problems, but it is not right that train operating companies are able to receive more money in compensation for delays than they pay out to their passengers. It is a subsidy for failure. We need to stop rail operators profiting from the disruption of passengers’ lives and end the subsidy they are receiving from delays.

  • Matt Hancock – 2016 Speech on the Civil Service

    Matt Hancock
    Matt Hancock

    Below is the text of the speech made by Matt Hancock, the Minister for the Cabinet Office, in London on 12 July 2016.

    The Civil Service is engaged in a mission to improve the lives of everyone in Britain.

    Put simply, its role is to help the government of the day develop and implement its policies. But we know this is far from simple. This means tackling some of the country’s most complex and unique challenges.

    There are always challenges. And now more than ever we must rise to them.

    From steering the country through the ravages of war, to global leadership in tackling climate change. From the rise of the automobile to the heights of the digital world, the Civil Service for 160 years has served Britain with dedication and distinction.

    Now we must add to our tasks the task of leaving the EU. While I voted remain, all democrats must respect the clear decision of the British people.

    Now we must rise again to the challenge, and make Brexit Britain the global success we all know in our hearts it can be.

    And I’m delighted to be here, setting out this challenge, at Civil Service Live.

    We’ve held events across the country, from Coventry to Cardiff, Sheffield to Glasgow, and now London.

    Over 7,000 civil servants have attended and many will have contributed to the conversation about how we build a brilliant Civil Service.

    That feedback has been used to test and shape the Workforce Plan that I will outline to you today.

    Through all this change, the strength of the Civil Service rests on the rock of its immutable core values – objectivity, honesty, integrity and impartiality.

    Because honest administration and official advice given without fear or favour means a better government and a safer and better society for our citizens.

    Through this change, the legitimacy of the Civil Service rests on its service of the democratically elected government of the day.

    I know the Civil Service will turn brilliantly to deliver on the new direction the people have set our nation on.

    And the capability of the Civil Service rests on how it shapes and adapts to the changes in the world.

    So this is about how we build on these foundations, and equip the Civil Service to deliver its mission for the people of our country.

    Why are we here?

    A year ago, I set out my expectations for what the Civil Service needs to look like in 5 years time.

    Delivering better services, with strong leadership and outstanding people.

    We are well on the way to achieving that vision. But everyone knows there is more to do.

    Today we are publishing a plan that sets out how we can take that further.

    Building on years of work to reform the Civil Service, it sets out a clear vision of a Civil Service workforce we want to see.

    A workforce packed full of talented, motivated, dynamic people, dedicated to improving the country they love.

    With more people recruited from outside, from different backgrounds, with different experience of life and work.

    An organisation with more authority, more engagement, more accountability and more trust throughout.

    The Workforce Plan is all about how the Civil Service can adapt to be the best.

    How we respond to the changing nature of work, and especially the digital revolution.

    Why we need to change.

    And what we plan to do to deliver that modern Civil Service our country will need.

    Let me take each in turn.

    Future of work

    We need to build a Civil Service that can adapt to a world where new technology is radically changing the future of work.

    It’s a challenge and a huge opportunity.

    For years physical tasks have been automated. Now cognitive tasks are being automated like never before.

    This is inevitable. It can’t be resisted. But we can and must make this change work for us.

    The goal is to automate work, but humanise jobs.

    This sort of transformation, using the best technology, means we can deliver better services and lower costs.

    It can free people up to do the thinking, the managing, the creating.

    But it also means the jobs will be different.

    I’ve been struck in the year I’ve been responsible for digital transformation, that any particular technology is only a tiny part of the solution – maybe 10%.

    90% is about culture, training and human behaviour.

    I no longer think of digital transformation.

    I think about business transformation; using the best available digital technology.

    We must support this disruption, and support those disrupted.

    And support for those whose jobs are disrupted puts a focus on training and skills like never before.

    Training in the new technology. That’s important, and this plan will reform Civil Service Learning to deliver cutting edge training.

    World-class leaders

    And the skills to embrace change; to manage effectively; to trust and to take responsibility. These skills can be taught. They can be learned.

    For too long, management of our people in parts of the Civil Service has been the preserve of the amateur. But management – change management; culture management; people management – these things can and in future will be actively taught.

    And I want to turn upside down the way training is decided on.

    In the past there’s been a laissez-faire attitude to training that has encouraged people to train, and to train in what they fancy or think will be useful.

    This approach is a dereliction of duty.

    Training is part of a manager’s toolkit. Part of the role of the line manager is to guide people’s careers. This means steering – and requiring – training that a member of staff needs. Hands on, caring deeply about the progress of each direct report.

    Not relying on faux-objective box-ticking ‘competency tests’, but on trusting managers to know, and care for the progress of their team.

    And that of course requires leadership. Inspirational confident leadership, at every level, that develops talent and empowers staff to deliver.

    We have some areas of excellent leadership in the Civil Service. I want to pick out the Department for Work and Pensions in particular for praise.

    But across the board, standards can and must be higher if we’re going to get the best out of people.

    That is why the Civil Service will be setting up a new flagship leadership academy. This will work with leading academics to provide world-class learning. Creating an ethos of excellence where leaders learn from each other.

    And leadership should not be the preserve of those at the top. We need world-class leaders at every level.

    So we will create leadership and management apprenticeships, building on the excellent expansion of apprenticeships already begun.

    And we will be re-launching the learning curriculum for all civil servants.

    This will provide valuable learning opportunities for those at every level.

    The result will be leaders who are confident and inspiring. Leaders who empower and listen to their people.

    Most inclusive employer

    It’s been said before and with good reason; the Civil Service’s greatest single asset is its people.

    So as well as strengthening those who are already civil servants, how do we attract the best too?

    I believe passionately that to govern modern Britain, the Civil Service must become more like modern Britain.

    We need to cast our net wider and further. We should be attracting and developing the best talent from right across our society, no matter who they are or where they come from.

    Because everyone should have the chance to succeed and serve their country.

    And because organisations work better when they are more diverse.

    Evidence shows that decisions drawn from a range of experiences, backgrounds and attitudes are better decisions.

    In March, we published the ambitious Talent Action Plan and launched our ambitions social mobility strategy, setting out the steps we are taking to become the most inclusive employer in the UK.

    We will be undertaking a comprehensive review of the employee experience. Including the way the Civil Service identifies talent, to ensure every talented individual has the opportunity to progress.

    True social mobility will only be achieved if we attract, recruit and promote people based on merit and potential, not polish.

    This is essential to unlock the potential of all staff in our workforce, and all future recruits. Whether they are based in London or elsewhere in the UK. Where they work in policy, operations or elsewhere. Whether they attended university or not. And whatever their family background.

    Movement

    Last year I said I wanted a more porous Civil Service, with more exchange in and out.

    Young people entering the job market today can expect to move jobs between 12 to 15 times on average.

    Careers are changing and with it the standard of a job for life is long gone. Many people now expect to change jobs during the course of their career.

    Civil Service structures need to reflect this, supporting short- and long-term careers. Making it easier for people to move in and out with ease.

    Everyone should have the chance to apply for a job serving their country.

    So we will be opening up recruitment. Roles will be advertised externally, by default, first in the Senior Civil Service, then throughout by the end of this Parliament.

    Secondment opportunities will be expanded. Increasing exchange in and out, working with other employers to make normal an exchange of skills that will benefit the Civil Service. It will benefit wider society too. Increasing diversity of thought and experience, and helping us to tackle the hardest national problems.

    Career paths

    Movement should be planned and purposeful, to build skills and expertise where they are needed, whilst recognising that sometimes it takes time in post to build experience.

    We want to stop the absurd reality that to get a promotion you have to move. It prevents people getting deep experience and staying put to see a job through, and encourages people to flit from one job to another.

    No longer should we take people with no experience of an area or job and throw them in at the deep end because they have a gap in their experience.

    Gone are the days of the gifted amateur. Today’s world is too complex and demands are too high. Today’s plan takes the professionalisation of the Civil Service further.

    So I’d say to everyone wanting to build a career in the Civil Service:

    Specialise; focus on your strengths; become the expert, become the best in the world at what you do. Don’t flit around.

    And under the new plans for a professionalised Civil Service you will be rewarded.

    Alongside this to develop breadth of experience, and depth of expertise, we must build career paths at all levels of the organisation, that reach right to the top.

    We are leading the way by co-chairing the development of national apprenticeship standards for professions.

    We also now have specialist Fast Stream programmes for Digital, Commercial, Finance, Project Delivery and HR. These are growing technical skills in our people from the start of their careers – setting them up for success. And I want to see top people from all these professions reaching the top.

    This all complements the work that professions are doing more widely. Commercial, for example, are creating career paths across the Civil Service that extend beyond departmental boundaries.

    All this will allow civil servants to make informed decisions. Informed decisions about how they develop their career, about the learning they need to build skills, and about when they should move role or seek promotion.

    Flexible reward

    To attract and promote the best talent from across society, we also need to reward and promote hard work and success. And we need to reward specialist expertise.

    We are recruiting in an increasingly global and competitive market. And we need to be able to compete. The reward offer needs to provide value for money. But it also needs to be fair.

    We need a total reward package that can continue to attract talented people. Both now and in the future.

    Commercial and digital skills are in demand and in short supply. Not just in the UK but globally.

    Government manages some of the most complex, and high risk, commercial contracts. So we must be ready. And we must prepare now.

    So we are creating a new commercial organisation, for senior specialists.

    It will help us attract these skills. It will create structured career paths and offer a competitive reward proposition through a set of new pay ranges.

    We’re also looking at pay for digital specialists over this year.

    And more widely, we will be reviewing the reward framework for civil servants.

    Conclusion

    All civil servants should find something in this for them.

    It is ambitious. And it is rightly ambitious.

    The Civil Service does vital work for the nation.

    But it’s also practical and deliverable. And it must be delivered. For the benefit of the Civil Service. For the benefit of civil servants. And for the benefit of the nation.

    This is where you have a part of play. This plan cannot be delivered without the support of civil servants.

    It needs to be more than just a piece of paper. And it will be each one of you that brings it to life.

    We will help you to do this. Giving you the tools and the support to build a modern career in a modern civil service workforce.

    I’ve said before I want to see jobs as good as at Google. I mean it. And one of the reason the jobs in the Civil Service are so good is because the mission is so important.

    We serve our country. Come, serve, and gain that deep expertise. There is no more noble calling.

  • David Cameron – 2016 Statement on Theresa May Transition

    davidcameron

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Cameron, the Prime Minister, in Downing Street, London on 11 July 2016.

    Good afternoon.

    I am delighted that we are not going to have a prolonged Conservative leadership election campaign.

    I think Andrea Leadsom has made absolutely the right decision to stand aside and it is clear that Theresa May has the overwhelming support of the Conservative Parliamentary Party.

    I am also delighted that Theresa May will be the next Prime Minister. She is strong, she is competent, she is more than able to provide the leadership that our country is going to need in the years ahead and she will have my full support.

    Obviously with these changes we now don’t need to have a prolonged period of transition, and so tomorrow I will chair my last Cabinet meeting. On Wednesday, I will attend the House of Commons for Prime Minister’s Questions and then after that I expect to go to the Palace and offer my resignation so we’ll have a new Prime Minister by Wednesday evening.

    Thank you very much.

  • Harriett Baldwin – 2016 Speech on Women in Finance

    Harriett Baldwin
    Harriett Baldwin

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

    It’s great to be here today at Barclays Accelerator.

    This is a fantastic space for a community of entrepreneurs and experts to find new opportunities to take your businesses forward – often using the very latest technologies to do so.

    But what I want to talk about today certainly isn’t rocket science. But it is one of the very best ways any business can improve and thrive. And that’s by harnessing the full talents and potential of women.

    Find out more about the Women in Finance Charter
    This is a real passion of mine – both as a woman who has worked in this sector, and as the Treasury Minister responsible for Financial Services in the UK.

    Because everyone here will recognise that this is still an industry dominated by men.

    That was certainly the case when I started working at an investment bank in the late eighties. And I am disappointed to say it’s still the case 30 years later.

    The pay gap between men and women is worse in Financial Services than in any other industry in the UK – with a woman getting 60p for every £1 a man earns.

    Furthermore, just 6% of CEOs in this sector are women. And it’s not much better if you look one step down the ladder either.

    Well it’s 2016, and change is long overdue.

    I’m proud of the UK’s success in Financial Services. But I’m also convinced that we will not maintain our reputation as a world-leader in this sector, unless we become a world-leader in diversity too.

    That’s not just the right thing to do, it’s the best thing to do for the success of any business. Quite simply, firms with a good gender balance perform better.

    So I want to tackle this head on.

    That’s why I asked Jayne-Anne Gadhia, the CEO of Virgin Money, to look at why so few women were represented in the top jobs, and what we could do about it.

    She sadly can’t be with us today due to a family bereavement, but I want to pay tribute to the huge amount of work she put into this.

    That culminated in the publication of an excellent review last March at the Bank of England, which recommends how this industry can make sure more women are rising through the ranks into the more senior roles. This launch was backed at the very highest level by the Governor Mark Carney.

    And it’s thanks to her work, that the Treasury has launched a Charter for Women in Finance, asking companies to sign up to the principles she recommends.

    And I’m really delighted to announce today that 72 financial services firms have now signed up to this. Together these firms employ over 530,000 people in the UK.

    And they are companies of all shapes and sizes. From global banks to credit unions, national insurance companies to fintech start-ups.

    We also have regulators, trade bodies and market places like the FCA, the BBA and the London Stock Exchange signed-up.

    And every one of these organisations has done a huge amount to really commit to the Charter and its goals.

    Let me give you just three examples.

    And it would be wrong if I didn’t, at this point, start with Jayne-Anne’s company, Virgin Money, as she has been forging the way forward.

    As you would expect, at Virgin Money, they’ve set themselves a fantastic target: to achieve a 50:50 gender balance at every level of their organisation by 2020.

    HSBC are also setting the same target for their senior management team.

    And last month, I went to speak to a financial services consultancy and recruitment firm called E2W in Kent.

    They may be a smaller business but they are making a mighty effort to drive forward change and help us make this Charter a success by using their industry networks to raise awareness of the Charter and its objectives.

    And so I want to thank not only these firms, but every single organisation which has signed up to the Charter.

    We all share the same determination to make change happen and achieve the gender balance that we need to see.

    We have today published the list of all firms that have signed the Women in Finance Charter on the gov.uk website, so that members of the public can see which firms have made these commitments.

    And by the end of September, every one of these firms will have set out their own tailored targets for making progress towards gender balance at the top of their organisation on their websites.

    So in September 2017, the think tank New Financial will gather data about signatories’ progress and produce the first Annual Review of the Women in Finance Charter, looking at what really works in practice.

    But we want more and more firms to get on board and sign up.

    We need to create a groundswell of organisations determined to make change happen.

    I want the UK to be the best in the world when it comes to financial services. And that means giving women the opportunities they deserve in the 21st century to help that happen.

    So I’d like to thank everyone for coming here today to celebrate this milestone in the road to improving diversity in this industry.

    All of you who have already signed up to the Charter are really pioneering the way forward.

    And I have no doubt that it will bring you more success in the future.

    Because those who lag behind risk not only losing out in terms of performance, but also in terms of recruiting the best talent, or retaining and attracting customers.

    We need more businesses to recognise this – across all sectors.

    Last year, the government published a productivity plan which looked at what was holding our economy back.

    And one of the key factors was that women so often face barriers which prevent them from realising their full potential.

    That’s why it’s important that we all set to work to turn this around. Because if we do, there are huge gains to be made.

    The Charter is one of a number of ways we’re helping to improve diversity across the workforce.

    It goes hand in hand with the drive from endeavours like the review on women in senior leadership in business, led by Sir Philip Hampton and Dame Alexander. Or the work of the Investment Association’s Diversity Project, chaired by Helena Morrissey, founder of the 30% club.

    So let’s keep working together, on all of these fronts, to make change happen.

    Not only will our businesses do better.

    Not only will the industry prosper.

    But the whole country will reap the benefits.

  • David Cameron – 2016 Speech at Farnborough Air Show

    davidcameron

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Cameron, the Prime Minister, on 11 July 2016.

    It’s great to be back here, because this is the right place to talk about the future for the British economy. Why? Because in the new situation we face, we are going to need to play to our strengths.

    And the British aerospace industry is clearly one of those greatest strengths. It’s the second biggest in the world, based on long-term investment, science, research and high skills, and its products and expertise exported across the globe.

    Indeed, every two seconds, a plane takes off or lands somewhere in the world whose wing design was tested right here at Farnborough. And by the end of the decade, if you board a large passenger plane, as often as not, it will be powered by a Rolls-Royce engine.

    That is the scale and success of British aerospace today.

    Now just over a fortnight ago, the British people voted to leave the European Union. That went against what I recommended. I don’t resile from what I said, from my warnings of a short-term shock, medium-term uncertainty and some long-term risks.

    Indeed, we’ve already had a taste of the turbulence in global markets and in terms of the value of the pound. And there will be other problems ahead.

    But I want to be clear: we will deal with them from a position of strength, with a growing economy, a greatly-reduced deficit, with low inflation and more jobs and businesses than ever before in our country.

    Above all though, we must recognise we are in a new reality now. We must accept it, we must make it work. That’s the way British business is responding to the referendum result.

    As one of your longest-serving chairmen wrote to me this weekend and said: “We must make the most of the cards in front of us, not ask for a new hand.”

    The key things we need to get right are these: our future relationship with Europe, Britain’s underlying productivity challenges, the need to grow exports faster, and encourage more inward investment. And above all, we need to think big and think radically about how to ensure the best possible outcome for the United Kingdom in these new circumstances.

    Trade and investment

    This amounts to the biggest challenge for the British political system that we have faced for around 40 years. It will require a massive national effort, not just for government departments, civil servants and ministers, but an effort that means working together with business and industries in a way we’ve never seen before. And as we do so, I want to spell out the big things that I think that effort should focus upon.

    First, we have got on focus on trade and investment as never before. UK Trade and Investment has gone from strength to strength in recent years. Our exports to China have increased by 90%, to South Korea they’ve more than doubled and we’ve made impressive progress in markets like Chile and Pakistan.

    But the fact is, despite all the benefits of selling goods and services abroad, just 11% of British companies export. Of those who do, only 5% of what we make and sell goes to fast-growing markets like China and India. We still do more trade with Belgium than we do with Indonesia, Singapore, Vietnam and Malaysia combined. We do more trade in services with Luxembourg than with the massive economies of Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

    Now people read those figures in two ways. Some emphasise the importance of our European market. And others say it shows how far we have to go in driving exports into the expanding markets. Both of those readings are right. And we need to do both things – we need to win in Europe and win in the rest of the world.

    Now around the world, middle classes are rapidly expanding. Young populations are growing and growing. More and more people have disposable incomes; more and more have smartphones. And those people want to buy British – to wear our clothes, listen to our music, watch our football teams, use our apps, fly in our planes, drive in our cars. They are starting to want to buy the things we’re especially great at, like services.

    UK Trade and Investment has made great strides. But we need a further step change in the pace and the effort and the activity that we undertake. And as we recast our relationship with Europe, this is our moment to do so. But UKTI cannot do it alone.

    Six years ago, I gave some very clear instructions to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. To our diplomats and our staff overseas I said: you are also our trade envoys. To our embassies and high commissions I say: you are the shop windows for Britain.

    We set up a GREAT campaign to promote Britain in 144 countries. You can see it emblazoned everywhere, from the Moscow Metro to the Rio cable cars that we are going to see a lot of in the coming months. And today the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is much more commercially minded.

    New opportunities

    So I say now we have to redouble our efforts again and embrace the new opportunities.

    We need to draw up a list of the countries and territories we should be thinking of for our future trade deals, led by the department for business, the Foreign Office and more.

    Now we need to develop the skills necessary to strike those deals. It’s not optional now; it is essential. Britain’s economic future relies on it – and the renewed push needs to begin right now.

    Next, we need to address one of the remaining fundamental weaknesses of our economy. We face a massive productivity challenge. Yes, our growth here in Britain has been stronger than many. And yes, in the last Parliament we created more jobs in the UK than the rest of Europe put together. But our output per person, per hour is still lower than America, Germany and France.

    Now is the moment to tackle it. There is no single, silver bullet. The work we have done on cutting businesses’ taxes and prioritising infrastructure – that helps, and must continue.

    High-speed rail, green investment, super-fast broadband: this needs to be combined with building more homes, reforming planning, starting more apprenticeships.

    And now that we are coming out of the European Union, we must rapidly explore all the new potential opportunities for supply-side reforms, for example on taxes, which could also boost our productivity.

    But above all, our response to the productivity gap needs to be business-led, and I welcome the initiatives coming from British business.

    Dynamic economy

    I also think we should be taking note from industries that do this well. In aerospace, productivity is growing 15 times faster than in the rest of our economy. I say: let’s take your lead, learn the lessons that you provide, and get more industries doing what you’re doing.

    Next, we should focus on how we can help different sectors to thrive, just as this aerospace sector does. Yes, we need a dynamic market economy that pulls its weight in every sector – from manufacturing to services. And yes, in that dynamic economy we must recognise that new, insurgent businesses, and indeed new, insurgent industries, mustn’t be held back – after all, they are often the ones that drive new investment and jobs.

    And I don’t believe in picking winners. But there are sectors where Britain clearly has a competitive edge, and where there can be strong partnership between business and government. And we need to build on that record.

    We’ve got it in aerospace. We’ve got it with the automotive industry. But I want us to have it elsewhere, in pharmaceuticals, in life sciences, in all the different aspects of tech – green tech, financial tech, in our world-beating creative industries and financial services.

    We’re getting there, but we need to go faster, linking academia with industry to discover cures for new diseases, backing advanced manufacturing for the industries of tomorrow, making it easier for our film studios and fashion houses to flourish, and getting the funding to the tech start-ups that are set to change the way that we live.

    Collaboration

    And that leads me one final point about collaboration. Because when you consider the challenges that we face and the opportunities that we have now got to make the most of, it is obvious that we are going to need an all-government effort. We cannot afford to work in silos. And this must be driven from the top.

    Take our National Security Council, now been operating for six years. I wouldn’t argue that creating it has solved all our security problems or dissolved all the threats that we face. Of course not. But it has helped us to face them in a more joined-up, strategic and effective way. Why? Because we bring together all the weapons in our armoury – military, intelligence, counter terrorist policing, aid, diplomacy, development – it brings all these things together to meet the challenges that we face.

    And now that the UK faces – alongside that set of security challenges – a new set of economic challenges; it is, in my view, time to do the same thing in the economic sphere.

    When we are trying to break into new markets and sign new trade deals, we need all our economic, business and industrial might working together in the same direction – our business leaders, universities leaders and more.

    When we are examining ways of driving up productivity, we need all the economic departments at the table – not just the Treasury, but education, infrastructure, regional planning, everyone.

    The threats we face don’t neatly fit into one department’s remit. I would say they are everyone’s remit.

    Now it’s a matter for the next Prime Minister what structures to set up, but I would strongly advise taking an approach like the one I have just set out.

    As for our European relationship, there is a huge amount of work to do, complex issues to understand and crack, a negotiating mandate to draw up, and the big, strategic decisions are for the next Prime Minister. But the groundwork is underway.

    All I would say about the outcome is this: I believe it is in our fundamental national and economic interests to remain very close to the European Union, for trade, for business, for security, for cooperation. So let that be our goal.

    So the right relationship with Europe, higher productivity, more exports and inward investment – these are the things that we have to get right – and they will require a massive national effort.

    Looking at the aerospace industry – growing four times faster than the rest of our economy; with 90 per cent of its turnover made up of exports; and an exemplary relationship with government, academia and other industries – we can see just what can be delivered.

    So I would argue that we need to come together. We need to make the most of the cards in front of us. We need to build that strong, dynamic economy that really could be the envy of the world.

  • Theresa May – 2016 Speech to Launch Leadership Campaign

    theresamay

    Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May, the Home Secretary, on 11 July 2016.

    Two weeks ago, I launched my candidacy to become the Leader of the Conservative Party – and Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

    And last week, I won the overwhelming support of my colleagues in the House of Commons. Nearly two thirds of the Conservative Party in Parliament. Left and right. Leavers and remainers. MPs from the length and breadth of Britain. The result showed that, after the referendum, the Conservative Party can come together – and under my leadership it will.

    I am here today – in the great city of Birmingham – to launch my national campaign, in which I will make my case to the Conservative Party membership – and the country as a whole.

    That case comes down to three things.

    First, our country needs strong, proven leadership – to steer us through this time of economic and political uncertainty, and to negotiate the best deal for Britain as we leave the EU and forge a new role for ourselves in the world. Because Brexit means Brexit and we’re going to make a success of it.

    Second, we need to unite our Party and our country.

    And third, we need a bold, new, positive vision for the future of our country – a vision of a country that works not for a privileged few but for every one of us.

    My vision of a country that works for everyone

    It is about that vision that I want to talk to you today. Because if we’re going to govern in the interests of the whole country, we cannot become defined exclusively by the process of our withdrawal from the EU. That is an important job and we’re going to get it done. But we also need a Government that will deliver serious social reform – and make ours a country that truly works for everyone.

    Because right now, if you’re born poor, you will die on average nine years earlier than others. If you’re black, you’re treated more harshly by the criminal justice system than if you’re white. If you’re a white, working-class boy, you’re less likely than anybody else to go to university. If you’re at a state school, you’re less likely to reach the top professions than if you’re educated privately. If you’re a woman, you still earn less than a man. If you suffer from mental health problems, there’s too often not enough help to hand. If you’re young, you’ll find it harder than ever before to own your own home.

    But, as I have said before, fighting these injustices is not enough. If you’re from an ordinary, working-class family, life is just much harder than many people in politics realise. You have a job, but you don’t always have job security. You have your own home, but you worry about mortgage rates going up. You can just about manage, but you worry about the cost of living and the quality of the local school, because there’s no other choice for you.

    These are the reasons why, under my leadership, the Conservative Party will put itself – completely, absolutely, unequivocally – at the service of ordinary, working people. It is why we will make Britain a country that works for everyone:

    An economy that works for everyone, so we don’t just maintain economic confidence and steer the country through challenging times – but we make sure that everyone can share in the country’s wealth.

    A society that works for everyone, so we can bring people back together – rich and poor, north and south, urban and rural, young and old, male and female, black and white, sick and healthy, public sector, private sector, those with skills and those without.

    A democracy that works for everyone, so we can restore trust and confidence in our most important institutions – and the political process itself.

    And a party that works for everyone – because we can’t build a country that works for all unless we, the Conservatives, are truly a party that works for all.

    An economy that works for everyone

    In the coming weeks, I will set out my plans to take our economy through this period of uncertainty, to get the economy growing strongly across all parts of the country, to deal with Britain’s longstanding productivity problem, to create more well-paid jobs, to negotiate the best terms for Britain’s departure from the European Union – and to forge a new role for ourselves in the world.

    But today, I want to talk about my plans to reform the economy so that it really does work for everyone. Because it is apparent to anybody who is in touch with the real world that people do not feel our economy works that way at all. Talk to almost any ordinary member of the public, and the frustration they feel about the loss of control over their day-to-day lives is obvious.

    They are the ones who made real sacrifices after the financial crash in 2008. Some lost their jobs, some reduced their hours, others took a pay cut. Wages have grown, but only slowly. Taxes for the lowest paid went down, but other taxes, like VAT, went up. Fixed items of spending – like energy bills – have rocketed. Monetary policy – in the form of super-low interest rates and quantitative easing – has helped those on the property ladder at the expense of those who can’t afford to own their own home.

    There isn’t much job security out there. Some find themselves exploited by unscrupulous bosses. And, yes, some have found themselves out of work or on lower wages because of low-skilled immigration. It’s harder than ever for young people to buy their first house. There is a growing divide between a more prosperous older generation and a struggling younger generation. And there is a gaping chasm between wealthy London and the rest of the country.

    When you add all of these things up, the only surprise is that there is so much surprise in Westminster about the public’s appetite for change. And make no mistake, the referendum was a vote to leave the European Union, but it was also a vote for serious change.

    Yet so many of our political and business leaders have responded by showing that they still don’t get it. There are politicians – democratically-elected politicians – who seriously suggest that the Government should find a way of ignoring the referendum result and keeping Britain inside the European Union. And there are business leaders whose response has not been to plan for Britain’s departure or to think of the opportunities withdrawal presents – but to complain about the result and criticise the electorate.

    Well, I couldn’t be clearer. Brexit means Brexit. And we’re going to make a success of it. There will be no attempts to remain inside the EU, no attempts to rejoin it by the back door, and no second referendum. The country voted to leave the European Union, and as Prime Minister I will make sure that we leave the European Union.

    And I am equally clear about the need for change. I am not going to ignore the public when they say they’re sick of politics as usual. I am going to make sure that the motives of the Government will never be in any doubt. We, the Conservatives, will put ourselves at the service of ordinary, working people and we will make Britain a country that works for everyone – whoever you are and wherever you’re from.

    The Government has made great strides in the last six years, dealing with the debt crisis, reducing the deficit, and presiding over an economic recovery. But if we are going to make sure our economy truly works for everyone – if we are going to help people to take control of their lives – we need to take action in four different ways. We need to reform the economy to allow more people to share in the country’s prosperity. We need to put people back in control of their lives. We need to give more people more opportunity. And we need to get tough on irresponsible behaviour in big business.

    Reforming the economy for greater shared prosperity

    I will start with economic reform. Because for a Government that has overseen a lot of public service reforms in the last six years, it is striking that, by comparison, there has not been nearly as much deep economic reform. That needs to change for a simple reason. If we want to increase our overall prosperity, if we want more people to share in that prosperity, if we want bigger real wages for people, if we want more opportunities for young people to get on, we have to improve the productivity of our economy.

    Yet we have long had a problem with productivity in Britain. So I want to make its improvement an important objective for the Treasury. I want to see an energy policy that emphasises the reliability of supply and lower costs for users. A better research and development policy that helps firms to make the right investment decisions. More Treasury-backed project bonds for new infrastructure projects. More house building. A proper industrial strategy to get the whole economy firing. And a plan to help not one or even two of our great regional cities but every single one of them.

    Putting people back in control

    If we are going to have an economy that works for everyone, we are going to need to give people more control of their lives. And that means cutting out all the political platitudes about “stakeholder societies” – and doing something radical.

    Because as we saw when Cadbury’s – that great Birmingham company – was bought by Kraft, or when AstraZeneca was almost sold to Pfizer, transient shareholders – who are mostly companies investing other people’s money – are not the only people with an interest when firms are sold or close. Workers have a stake, local communities have a stake, and often the whole country has a stake. It is hard to think of an industry of greater strategic importance to Britain than its pharmaceutical industry, and AstraZeneca is one of the jewels in its crown. Yet two years ago the Government almost allowed AstraZeneca to be sold to Pfizer, the US company with a track record of asset stripping and whose self-confessed attraction to the deal was to avoid tax. A proper industrial strategy wouldn’t automatically stop the sale of British firms to foreign ones, but it should be capable of stepping in to defend a sector that is as important as pharmaceuticals is to Britain.

    And I want to see changes in the way that big business is governed. The people who run big businesses are supposed to be accountable to outsiders, to non-executive directors, who are supposed to ask the difficult questions, think about the long-term and defend the interests of shareholders. In practice, they are drawn from the same, narrow social and professional circles as the executive team and – as we have seen time and time again – the scrutiny they provide is just not good enough. So if I’m Prime Minister, we’re going to change that system – and we’re going to have not just consumers represented on company boards, but employees as well.

    There are other ways, too, in which we need to put people back in control. As the Government reforms public services, we should encourage public sector workers to set up mutuals. As we take infrastructure decisions – like with new housing, roads, or exploration for oil and gas – the benefits should be shared not just with local authorities but with local people themselves.

    Giving people more opportunity

    And this brings me on to the third way in which we need to make our economy work for everyone – which is by giving people more opportunity. This, to me, is what the Conservative Party is all about. In the name of equality, Labour end up holding people back – but we believe in setting people free to go as far as their talents will take them.

    That is why school reform is such a passion for so many Conservatives – and I will be setting out my own plans for schools policy in the coming weeks. But it is also why housing matters so much, and why we need to do far more to get more houses built.

    Because unless we deal with the housing deficit, we will see house prices keep on rising. Young people will find it even harder to afford their own home. The divide between those who inherit wealth and those who don’t will become more pronounced. And more and more of the country’s money will go into expensive housing instead of more productive investments that generate more economic growth.

    Getting tough on corporate irresponsibility

    The fourth way in which I want to make our economy work for everyone is by getting tough on irresponsible behaviour in big business. Because yes, we’re the Conservative Party, and yes we’re the party of enterprise, but that does not mean we should be prepared to accept that “anything goes”.

    The FTSE, for example, is trading at about the same level as it was eighteen years ago and it is nearly ten per cent below its high peak. Yet in the same time period executive pay has more than trebled and there is an irrational, unhealthy and growing gap between what these companies pay their workers and what they pay their bosses.

    So as part of the changes I want to make to corporate governance, I want to make shareholder votes on corporate pay not just advisory but binding. I want to see more transparency, including the full disclosure of bonus targets and the publication of “pay multiple” data: that is, the ratio between the CEO’s pay and the average company worker’s pay. And I want to simplify the way bonuses are paid so that the bosses’ incentives are better aligned with the long-term interests of the company and its shareholders.

    I also want us to be prepared to use – and reform – competition law so that markets work better for people. If there is evidence that the big utility firms and the retail banks are abusing their roles in highly-consolidated markets, we shouldn’t just complain about it, we shouldn’t say it’s too difficult, we should do something about it.

    And tax. We need to talk about tax. Because we’re Conservatives, and of course we believe in a low-tax economy, in which British businesses are more competitive and families get to keep more of what they earn – but we also understand that tax is the price we pay for living in a civilised society. No individual and no business, however rich, has succeeded all on their own. Their goods are transported by road, their workers are educated in schools, their customers are part of sophisticated networks taking in the private sector, the public sector and charities. It doesn’t matter to me whether you’re Amazon, Google or Starbucks, you have a duty to put something back, you have a debt to your fellow citizens, you have a responsibility to pay your taxes. So as Prime Minister, I will crack down on individual and corporate tax avoidance and evasion.

    It is not anti-business to suggest that big business needs to change. Better governance will help these companies to take better decisions, for their own long-term benefit and that of the economy overall. Under my leadership the Conservative Party will resolutely remain the party of enterprise and we will help British businesses to stay competitive and create more well-paid jobs.

    This is a moment of great national change – and we must rise to the occasion

    This is a different kind of Conservatism, I know. It marks a break with the past. But it is in fact completely consistent with Conservative principles. Because we don’t just believe in markets, but in communities. We don’t just believe in individualism, but in society. We don’t hate the state, we value the role that only the state can play. We believe everybody – not just the privileged few – has a right to take ownership of what matters in their lives. We believe that each generation – of politicians, of business leaders, of us all – are custodians with a responsibility to pass on something better to the next generation. Above all, we believe in Britain – and in the British people.

    From Robert Peel to Lady Thatcher, from Joseph Chamberlain to Winston Churchill, throughout history it has been the Conservative Party’s role to rise to the occasion and to take on the vested interests before us, to break up power when it is concentrated among the few, to lead on behalf of the people. It has been our strength as a Party that at moments of great national change, we have understood what needed to be done. And believe me, nobody should doubt that this is another of those moments of great national change.

    We must leave the European Union – and forge a new role for ourselves in the world.

    And we must make Britain a country that works not for a privileged few but for every single one of us.

    To do those things we need to come together – as a Party and as a country – under strong and proven leadership.

    And then together, we will build a better Britain.

  • David Cameron – 2016 Speech at NATO Summit

    davidcameron

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Cameron, the Prime Minister, in Warsaw, Poland on 9 July 2016.

    Britain’s membership of NATO is vital for our country because it helps to keep our nation secure and our people safe.

    It is vital for NATO too because for 65 years the United Kingdom has played a leading role at the heart of this successful alliance, deploying British troops alongside our Allies around the world, from Afghanistan to the Aegean to the Baltics.

    We have played a key role in making sure that together we stand up to aggression, we face up to new threats, and we invest in the latest capabilities.

    Wales 2014 was an absolutely key moment in NATO’s development – pledges there included the defence investment pledge, which set the ambition for all Allies to increase defence spending to meet our level of ambition.

    And it was at Wales where we agreed a vital package of reassurance measures to deter Russian aggression.

    Here at Warsaw, we have reaffirmed Britain’s commitment to this Alliance with concrete action to tackle the threats we face from Russia, from terrorism and from illegal migration.

    Let me say a few words on each.

    Russia

    First, Russia. Two years on from Russia’s illegal actions in Ukraine, our message to Russia has not changed. Such action is indefensible and wrong. And we will always stand up for the sovereign right of countries to make their own decisions.

    But we are not seeking confrontation with Russia. Indeed, we are working to prevent it. So we will continue to pursue a twin track approach of deterrence and dialogue.

    The multi-national spearhead force that we agreed at the Wales Summit is now operational. It’s capable of deploying anywhere on Alliance territory in just a few days – so it sends a strong, clear message to Russia that NATO stands ready to respond quickly to threats.

    And Britain will lead the land force next year, providing 3000 troops along with tanks and Warrior armoured fighting vehicles.

    We have also agreed to further reassure our Allies by increasing the number of NATO troops present along our eastern flank. And once again, the UK will play its part. On land with the deployment of 500 soldiers to Estonia early next year as well as an infantry company to be based here in Poland, and in the air by taking part in next year’s air policing mission.

    But we must also engage in a hard-headed dialogue with Russia to avoid misunderstanding or miscalculation. And that’s why we have agreed that the first meeting of the NATO-Russia Council in many months will take place next week.

    Terrorism

    Turning to terrorism, NATO has an important role to play beyond its borders helping to prevent countries becoming a safe haven for terrorists who can threaten us here at home.

    That is what we did in Afghanistan and today we have reaffirmed our collective commitment to support a more secure and stable future for that country.

    The Alliance has agreed to maintain funding for the Afghan security forces through to 2020 and to keep a significant NATO troop presence into the next fighting season.

    As part of this, the UK will do more to train Afghan officers. We will keep 450 troops there into 2017 and we will deploy a further 50 personnel to provide additional mentoring, particularly for the Afghan air force. We will also step up NATO’s efforts to help the Iraqi government tackle Islamist extremism.

    Two years ago at the Wales summit, we agreed to offer a NATO training mission once an Iraqi government was in place.

    That mission, training Iraqi forces inside Jordan, has been such a success that today we have agreed to provide counter-IED, medical and security training within Iraq.

    And Britain will provide £1 million in funding to help get this up and running.

    It is vital that as we work to defeat violent extremism around the world, we equip other countries to deal with these threats too.

    Migration

    Finally, we have discussed how NATO can work alongside other organisations like the EU to tackle different challenges such as illegal migration.

    Such co-operation has proved effective in the Aegean where the NATO naval operation has helped to reduce the number of people embarking on these perilous journeys from a peak at one stage of 2700 people moving every day from Turkey to Greece to around 70 today. It has been a very strong success.

    The United Kingdom was one of the first countries to contribute a ship to that mission and today I can announce that we will maintain our role with the deployment of HMS Mersey later this month to take over from RFA Cardigan Bay.

    Nuclear deterrent

    So here at this summit the UK has underlined the importance of the contribution we make to this Alliance – with further deployments on land, in the air and at sea.

    Of course, this is only possible because we have stood by our commitment to spend 2% of our GDP on defence. Indeed our defence spending is one quarter of the European total. We have the largest defence budget in Europe, the second largest in NATO and we are maximising our investment in the front line.

    We will spend £178 billion over the next decade on equipment and equipment support. A lot of people talk about the 2% commitment, rightly, but there is also a commitment to spend 20% of your defence budget on equipment programme, again a pledge that Britain more than meets.

    And we must invest in the ultimate insurance policy of all – our nuclear deterrent.

    So today I can announce that we will hold a Parliamentary vote on 18 July to confirm MPs support for the renewal of a full fleet of four nuclear submarines capable of providing around-the-clock cover.

    The nuclear deterrent remains essential in my view – not just to Britain’s security but – as our allies have acknowledged here today – to the overall security of the Alliance.

    Conclusion

    To conclude, I think this summit has underlined one very important message – that while Britain may be leaving the European Union, we are not withdrawing from the world, nor are we turning our back on Europe or on European security.

    We will continue to be an outward-looking nation that stands up for our values around the world – the only major country in the world to spend 2% of our GDP on defence, as promised, and 0.7% of our GDP on overseas aid, as promised. Only Britain, amongst the major countries, has kept those 2 vital pledges. And they massively enhance our standing and our ability to get things done in the world and our ability to keep people safe at home.

    We are a country that is willing to deploy its troops to reassure our Eastern partners or to help countries further away defeat terrorists.

    A country with the ultimate deterrent. And above all, a proud, strong United Kingdom that will keep working with our allies to advance the security of our nation and people for generations to come.

  • Rory Stewart – 2016 Statement on June Environment Council

    Below is the text of the statement made by Rory Stewart, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, on 7 July 2016.

    I attended the EU Environment Council in Luxembourg on 20 June along with my noble friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Lord Bourne). Roseanna Cunningham MSP also attended.

    I wish to update the House on the matters discussed.

    EU emissions trading system (ETS)

    The presidency introduced its progress report on negotiations to reform the EU ETS, framed in the context of the Paris climate agreement. The Commission saw carbon leakage rules as a priority and cautioned against over-burdening national authorities and industry. The Commission called for more ideas from industry on how best to use the innovation and modernisation funds, and supported a focus on addressing the surplus of allowances in the system rather than direct price regulation.

    In the ensuing policy debate, all Ministers supported the presidency’s progress report and proposals for next steps. The UK focused on the need to balance the reducing number of free allowances with appropriate carbon leakage support, protection of the market stability reserve, strengthening of the carbon price, and reaching agreement on ETS alongside the effort share decision.
    Paris ratification: presentation from the Commission and Council statement

    The Commission briefly presented its proposal for a Council decision on EU ratification of the Paris agreement, published on 10 June. The presidency then invited Ministers to endorse a Council statement calling for ratification of the Paris agreement by the EU and its member states as soon as possible.

    Following proposals from other member states, the presidency presented a compromise statement which included references to climate finance, and which the Council agreed by consensus.

    National emissions ceilings directive: state of play

    The presidency set out the state of play of the negotiations. The presidency was disappointed agreement had not yet been reached, but noted good progress was made in the four trilogue meetings which had taken place. On the key issues of 2030 limits, flexibilities and the nature of 2025 ceilings, the institutions were still some way apart. Despite this, the presidency believed a deal was close and had been in contact with the European Parliament with a view to arranging a fifth trilogue meeting. The Commission fully supported the presidency’s efforts.

    The UK along with other member states encouraged the presidency to make another attempt at a first reading agreement by the end of June. However there was some difference in focus between member states in terms of ambition and the need for realistic and attainable targets. A significant number of member states expressed a clear preference for an agreement built on the most recent presidency mandate.

    AOB: NOx emissions by diesel

    The presidency reported on recent discussion at Transport Council. The Commission reiterated its view that the main issue was member state implementation of the Euro 5/6 regulations. It noted the progress made on the adoption of the real driving emissions (RDE) and worldwide harmonised light vehicles test procedure (WLTP) proposals. The Commission called on member states to accelerate negotiations on the type approval regulations. The Commission said it intended to provide further guidance on the implementation of the Euro 5/6 regulations by the end of the year, but added this had to be based on a transparent exchange of information gathered during national studies.

    The UK underlined the urgent need to resolve the issue to ensure health benefits and for member states to fulfil their legal obligations.

    AOB: endocrine disruptors

    The Commission presented its recently adopted package on endocrine disruptors consisting of a communication and draft Commission acts setting out scientific criteria in the context of EU legislation on plant protection products and biocidal products.

    Council conclusions on Closing the Loop: Circular Economy

    The Council adopted by consensus conclusions which responded to the Commission communication on an EU action plan for the circular economy. The UK welcomed the conclusions and, in particular, the call for EU action on microbeads which was supported by several other member states.

    Council conclusions on illegal wildlife trafficking

    Council adopted by consensus conclusions which responded to the Commission communication on an EU action plan against wildlife trafficking. The UK intervened in support of the conclusions and called for a robust EU commitment on trophy hunting at the convention on international trade in endangered species conference of the parties in September. The UK also called for action in working towards the closure of the Chinese domestic market for ivory.

    AOBs

    The Council noted updates from the Commission on: negotiations on aviation emissions in the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), the outcome of which would have implications for the EU’s aviation emission trading system; the outcomes of the eighth Environment for Europe ministerial conference; and the UN Environment Assembly.

    The Council noted presidency updates on: April’s “Make It Work” conference, an initiative which aims to improve EU regulation; April’s informal Council of Environment and Transport Ministers; and the recent “REACH Forward” conference on chemicals legislation.

    The Council noted information provided by: the Commission regarding environmental implementation review; the German and Belgian delegations regarding the Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans (BSal) virus affecting salamander and newt populations; and the incoming Slovakian presidency, who informed member states of the key environment priorities for its presidency—climate change, biodiversity, waste and water.

  • Jim Shannon – 2016 Speech on Blood Cancers

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jim Shannon, the DUP MP for Strangford, in Westminster Hall on 7 July 2016.

    I beg to move,

    That this House has considered blood cancers and the Cancer Drugs Fund.

    It is always a pleasure to come to this Chamber and have the opportunity to expound on the subjects that we bring here for consideration. I am pleased that so many hon. Members have made the effort to attend on a Thursday afternoon—often referred to as the graveyard shift. I am not sure that is entirely accurate or fair, but we thank very much those who have made the effort to be here. It is also a pleasure to see in her place the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), and I look forward to hearing the Minister. He and I always seem to be in these debates—if he is here I am here, and if I am here so is he—but it is always a pleasure to see him. We look forward to his response to the points that we make during the debate.

    Cancer is a massive issue. It will affect one in every two people we meet, and many of us here have a personal interest in the subject. More and more people are surviving cancer because of the incredible work that has been done by the pharmaceutical industry and private enterprise, and also because of the work done in partnership with universities. Queen’s University Belfast is involved in finding new drugs and working with private enterprise, the Government and the education system to find ways of doing more.

    The fact that more people are surviving and living longer is to be celebrated, but unfortunately not everyone is living well, which is what this debate is about. That is especially true for people with blood cancers, many of whom will live with the disease and the consequences of its treatment for many years. Some of them are fortunate to do so, but for many that will be time limited. About one in four people living with or beyond cancer face disability or poor health following their treatment. Evidence from Macmillan shows that by 2020 nearly one in every two people will receive a cancer diagnosis in their lifetime. Just look round this Chamber: half the people here today will receive a cancer diagnosis at some time during their life; or, if they are not affected directly, their families certainly will be.

    I place on the record my thanks to the cancer charities, Marie Curie Cancer Care, Macmillan Cancer Support and the many others, which do such marvellous work with those who have cancer. Right now, routine follow-up care for people with cancer costs about £250 million a year. It is usually delivered via a one-size-fits-all medical model that is based on repeat out-patient consultations despite a lack of evidence to show that that is effective, so we must also look at that.

    I was therefore pleased to see the commissioning guidance released recently to promote the roll-out of a recovery package for everyone with a cancer diagnosis. The recovery package will be especially important for patients with blood cancers, because it will mean that they get the physical, emotional and social support they need to lead as healthy and active a life as possible for as long as possible. Every one of us in this Chamber would wish that to happen. Many people with blood cancers live for a number of years with the consequences of their disease and treatment, so there needs to be a commitment from the Department of Health that everyone with a blood cancer will be offered tailored support.

    Let me talk from a personal point of view. My father had cancer on three occasions. He passed away last year. He did not die because of cancer, but he was diagnosed 39 years ago—38 years before he passed away—and my mother was told to go home and prepare and get the estate sorted out. In other words, there was next to no hope, but my dad survived, and he survived for three reasons. He survived, first, because of his faith and the prayers of God’s people; secondly, because of the skill of the surgeon’s knife; and thirdly, because of the care of the nurses. Those three things are vital for all of us. That is an example of how far we have come in those 39 years.

    Patients with blood cancers can face significant problems in accessing vital treatment because of the difficulties and complexities of appraising medicines in this area. I thank the charities and others who have given us background information. I will not do this of course, but I could probably speak for three hours on this subject. I am sure that people are thinking, “Well, I hope he doesn’t.” I am not going to, because clearly I want to give everyone an opportunity to participate in the debate.

    The appraisal system used by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence is not suitable for assessing medicines that treat conditions with small patient populations—in other words, cancers that affect a small number of people. Perhaps in the greater scheme of things, they are numerically small, but it is vital that the drugs are available and in place.

    At this point, I pay special tribute to the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith), the chair of the newly brought together all-party group. I thank him for going with me to the Backbench Business Committee to ask for this debate. We are both pleased to be able to have the debate so early after the launch of the APPG. The hon. Gentleman will speak himself, but it is a pleasure to work alongside him.

    Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)

    I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this very important debate. The issue of small populations and finding the right treatments is crucial as the cancer drugs fund goes forward within the NICE context. That is an opportunity as well as a threat. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reflect that in the rest of his speech.

    Jim Shannon

    It is always a pleasure to have the hon. Gentleman come along to a debate in support. He always does so, and his valuable contributions are always appreciated by us all. I wholeheartedly agree with him.
    The way the system fails blood cancer patients can be illustrated via the case of ponatinib, a drug designed to treat chronic myeloid leukaemia patients who are resistant to or intolerant of other treatments. I will elaborate on this point later, for it is very important. I think that the hon. Gentleman has grasped that it is a vital issue as well. The drug is fully available to all CML patients in Scotland and Wales, but in the remainder of the United Kingdom it is provided on the NHS only to a small subset of patients who can benefit from it after NICE refused to appraise it because of the small patient population. One of the questions that we would like answered in this debate if possible—I am not sure whether the Minister is the right person to answer it, but I know that if he is not, he will certainly direct it to the right Department—is how we ensure that there is not a postcode lottery when it comes to the allocation and availability of cancer drugs.

    Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate. Does he agree that parents—in my case, the parents of nine-year-old Charlie Fearns—are confused, distressed and dismayed that they are not provided with the medical intervention that they need to treat their child’s illness? Charlie needs chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy, but Mr and Mrs Fearns are having to find as much as £150,000-plus to fund the therapy themselves. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me that that extra burden, in their circumstances, is far too onerous?

    Jim Shannon

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and for that personal story. I think that that situation is a disgrace. Any of us in the House would wholeheartedly agree with him. There has to be a system that enables all the people of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to partake of, use and have accessible these drugs. The example he gives shows just where the current system falls short. This debate gives us an opportunity to highlight that and to seek the solutions that he and his constituents want.

    The situation with ponatinib has resulted in the equivalent of a postcode lottery in patient access across the UK, with some patients having to move to Scotland or Wales to undergo treatment. Why should they have to move? It is not fair that they should. It seems grossly unfair that they should have to either move or travel to the hospital. For these patients, the drug could be an alternative treatment to a stem cell transplant, and a last chance of survival.

    The systems of appraisal used to assess blood cancer medicines need to be able to take into account the small patient numbers and the issues that that raises about the amount and maturity of data available, to ensure that all patients who need access to medicines do not miss out because of where they live.

    Chronic lymphocytic leukaemia is the most common type of leukaemia, a cancer of the white blood cells. In leukaemia stem cells start to overproduce white blood cells that are not fully developed; in CLL, these are called lymphocytes. Figures from Macmillan and NICE estimate that some 2,700 to 3,200 people in the UK are diagnosed with CLL each year, with most cases occurring in people over 60 and very few in people under 40. Around two thirds of the diagnoses are made by chance through a routine blood test with doctors; people do not know they have it and all of a sudden they find out they do. The other third of diagnoses are made following visits to the doctor for CLL-related symptoms: enlargement of the lymph nodes, liver or spleen, anaemia, bruising or fever, drenching night sweats and/or weight loss of greater than 10%. Someone with any of those symptoms should see their doctor, and do so soon.

    CLL is more prevalent in men, with recent studies showing that some of the risk of developing it is inherited from parents. One in 20 CLL patients has a relative with CLL or a very similar condition; however, CLL can and does affect anyone.

    Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)

    I commend my hon. Friend for raising this issue today. In Northern Ireland three people every day are diagnosed with blood cancer. I am sure he would agree with commending the work of Leukaemia & Lymphoma NI, the only charity in Northern Ireland dedicated to dealing with this, and the great support it gives to the Centre for Cancer Research and Cell Biology at Queen’s University, which he has already mentioned. Without the dedicated work of people in charities like that across the country, raising money for absolutely vital research, we would be in a much poorer place indeed.

    Jim Shannon

    I am indebted to my right hon. Friend and colleague for that intervention. We have done, and we continue to do, many great things in Northern Ireland in medical research, charitable giving and charitable operations. He has rightly highlighted an organisation in Northern Ireland that does just that. It is worrying that we have so many people with blood cancer. When we take that as a proportion of a nation of 1.8 million, it gives an idea of just how important it is.

    CLL tends to develop very slowly with many people not requiring treatment for months or even years, although others need it straight away. For all stages of CLL, more than 40%, of men and more than 50% of women will survive for five years or more after being diagnosed. At stage A, which is the earliest, people survive on average for 10 years or more after diagnosis, those at stage B for five to eight years, and those diagnosed at stage C live for up to three years. From those figures, life expectancy is very clear: people have a diminished lifespan.

    Doctors often recommend against immediate treatment for CLL if it is diagnosed at an early stage and opt to watch and wait. I am concerned that sometimes they need to be more proactive and receptive to what the issues are at the time. “Watch and wait” can be stressful for those diagnosed and their families, but early treatment can lead to exposure to the side effects of drugs without achieving significant benefits, as well as to increased life insurance premiums. Sometimes we have to look at the other things that affect us when our health declines, such as work and financial obligations, or how to feed our family. That adds to the stress.

    Patients whose CLL relapses early have a more aggressive form of the disease and it is essential that clinicians have a range of treatment options available to suit individual patient need. That is due to factors such as the variable course and nature of the disease, the toxicity profile of the therapies and the comorbidities, which are more prevalent in this situation. There is a general poor understanding of the need for a variety of treatment options. Again, knowledge of the blood cancers among GPs, the NHS, consultants—those who should know—perhaps needs to be improved as well.

    Stakeholders including the CLL Support Association, which has done great work collecting much of this information, have two key areas in which they have workable recommendations to make a difference. For post-diagnosis support the CLLSA believes that because CLL behaves in such a diverse way, it is important that patients and their families are provided with accurate information from trusted sources. Each hospital should have a CLL nurse who can provide patients with useful written information that contains links to websites for those who wish to know more.

    Let us be honest: people who get this diagnosis want to know as much about the disease and the problems that they have right away; they want to have that knowledge and information right there. As the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) said, citing the personal experience of his constituents, they want to know what it means, how to react, what the survival chances are and how long. All those things play upon the mind; they are very important issues.

    When it comes to access to new treatments, a second preliminary decision from NICE in June 2016 has provisionally rejected ibrutinib for NICE guidance to treat relapsed refractory and 17p deletion or TP53 mutated CLL. That group of patients have a poor prognosis and very few options available to them. The manufacturer has been requested to submit a proposal for consideration of CDF listing for access to treat adults for the 17p deletion or TP53 mutation only. Again, that is something that perhaps the Minister can reply to. When people see that they can access new treatments, which really could be life-saving, they want to have them right away and want to try them. In many cases, people probably would not mind piloting those things, just to make sure that they can have life expectancy on the timescale they have been given.

    The CLLSA feels that ibrutinib should be made available to both groups because both populations share a number of similarities in patient need, including a significant symptom burden, limited alternative treatment options, and subsequently poor survival prospects. As both groups have a similar symptom burden, it is unfair that they will be unable to benefit from access to this treatment. There are also the quality of life benefits. CLLSA argues that the quality of life benefits reported by patients have not been adequately considered by NICE. As such, the cost-effectiveness of ibrutinib is likely to have been underestimated. Many of us believe—in the background information—that it certainly is a drug that could do more if there was the opportunity. We need to make sure that it can be made available and accessible.

    Furthermore it should be noted that CLL is a heterogeneous disease, so there is a need for multiple options in every situation. I know that each person’s individual circumstances are different and the GP and consultant who look at that will decide the way forward. Some patients may not respond to, be unable to tolerate or be otherwise unsuitable for alternative treatments such as idelalisib. As such, there is a clear need for access to ibrutinib to enable patient and clinician choice, so that treatment can be tailored to patients’ individual clinical needs. Ultimately the decision will remain a matter for NICE, but this is what the key stakeholder in CLL believes to be the way forward. That is an organisation that has been run by trustees who are all volunteers and either suffer from CLL, are clinicians or are relatives of those with CLL. They do their research, not for glory or riches, but for what is best for those affected.

    Some of the background information we had relates to brentuximab—I hope my pronunciation is right. That is hailed as one of the most effective single agents for relapsed anaplastic lymphoma—or Hodgkin’s lymphoma as it is better known. It was delisted after two of its indicators were removed, making it harder for some patients to receive the medicine they need. In November 2015, the Blood Cancers Alliance met the Secretary of State for Health and in a letter to the Prime Minister expressed its concern over the delisting of life-saving drugs from the CDF. There is a drug that was delisted and that seemed to be doing the job; it is concerning that it has been removed when it quite clearly could have made a difference.

    It was greatly encouraging to have so many stakeholders engage on this issue and time will not permit me to pay tribute to all of them. Another organization working in the field is Celgene, which has provided some further information that will add to the debate. Five conditions account for almost 70% of the total lives lost to blood cancer: myeloma, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, acute myeloid leukaemia, myelodysplastic syndromes and the aforementioned chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. New treatments have transformed survival rates for multiple myeloma since the 1970s and there have been great steps forward. I know that when the Minister responds he will tell us some of the good things that have happened, but average life expectancy for a patient diagnosed with multiple myeloma is still only five years. This debate gives us the chance to discuss the issue and get some direction and focus from the Minister on how we move forward and achieve a better, longer life for those with blood cancers.

    Continued progress is only possible with continued research and investment. That is critical to achieving progress in the treatment of blood cancers. We have had many debates in Westminster Hall on rare diseases because we acknowledge the need to focus on rare diseases, and today’s debate is an example of that. The numbers of people who fall into the category of having rare diseases are small, but we must not ignore the burden of their despair and what that means.

    Many of the molecules in other companies’ pipelines are being studied in combination with Celgene’s treatments. Ceasing access to those treatments will seriously hinder progress in increasing survival rates and limit future innovation. I know that the Minister, like everyone in this Chamber today, is totally committed to finding new drugs that can cure these life-threatening diseases, as I am sure he will make clear in his response. The point is that a balance needs to be struck between regulation protecting people and allowing innovation.

    In conclusion, I am pleased to have the opportunity to express in this Chamber my concern on behalf of those with blood cancers. I thank all hon. Members who have come to participate. Our responsibility as elected representatives is to put the case on behalf of our constituents. I believe we have the opportunity to make a difference for those who many years ago would not have a long life, but who today could have a longer life if they had access to the cancer drugs fund. What we have in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is people with fantastic brains who have the ability to come up with new medications and who can make these things happen. I look forward very much to the Minister’s response.

  • John McDonnell – 2016 Speech to the Local Government Association

    John McDonnell GB Labour MP Hayes and Harlington

    Below is the text of the speech made by John McDonnell, the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, in Bournemouth on 8 July 2016.

    We are meeting at a time of enormous uncertainty, following the result of the EU referendum just two weeks ago.

    There is the wider political uncertainty about Britain’s role in the world.

    And there is the economic uncertainty introduced by the shock of the Leave vote itself.

    Longstanding trading and financial relationships are at risk of being torn up.

    Perhaps the clearest message from the vote to Leave is that business as usual is no longer an option.

    The shock of the Leave vote has been worsened by the shaky foundations of our economy.

    Productivity growth has stalled since 2007, an unprecedented occurrence in modern peacetime history.

    Partly as a result of low productivity, wage growth remains low and any inflation arising from the falling value of the pound is liable to eat into real earnings.

    The current account deficit remains at near-record levels, whilst borrowing by government and households is also rising.

    The economy is, if anything, more unbalanced than it was before the crash of 2008.

    We argued that George Osborne’s fiscal rule, introduced last autumn, had no sound basis in economics.

    The Chancellor has failed to hit his debt target at this year’s Budget.

    The shock of the Leave vote, and the absence of a plan to deal with that shock, has now forced him to abandon his fiscal surplus target.

    This is absolutely the right course of action, as was abandoning the threatened “Brexit Budget” of swingeing cuts and tax rises.

    Further austerity would be absolutely the wrong course of action to take in an economy buffeted by a shock like Brexit.

    Let me make it clear – Local Government have been bearing much of the brunt of austerity. Councils cannot and should not be the target once again.

    Labour will continue to press for proper funding and resources for our local authorities.

    But we need to also recognise that our economic policy now must be about more than just accepting the status quo.

    We have to do more than try and patch up the damage.

    The Leave vote showed just how decades of underinvestment had left too many people here feeling abandoned by what they, quite understandably, view as a distant Westminster elite.

    We need a break with the old way of doing things.

    I believe that it is local councils that have started to show how a new path for the economy can be created.

    But it has to be matched up by action from central government.

    The challenges are substantial.

    Regional inequality

    Britain today has the worst regional inequality in Europe.

    The gap between our richest regions and our poorest is wider even than that between North and South Italy, or between East and West Germany.

    In London we see the richest places in the whole of the EU, nearly 80% of UK regions earn less than the EU average.

    These are the places that tended towards voting Leave.

    We should not allow a situation to persist where the majority of investment, from both public and private sectors, is concentrated in a few areas, and great swathes of the country are left behind.

    It was important to see the government begin to lay out its vision of the British economy after the Leave vote.

    George Osborne’s commitment, made in the Financial Times earlier this week, that he was seeking to boost the funding made available to regions in the North of England is to be welcomed.

    We have asked him to set out a timetable for delivering this, and some details of the projects to be brought forward.

    Local Government should be vitally important partners in designing and delivering this programme.

    We’re concerned that after the Leave vote, vital EU regional funding that comes to over £10bn a year will be simply lost.

    This has provided a lifeline of funding for some of the poorest regions in the country and is now at risk.

    So we’ll be pressing the Government to address this question urgently. The Government must guarantee this funding is protected.

    Austerity

    The Government’s austerity policies have reinforced the UK’s regional bias.

    It is local authorities that have borne the brunt of the cuts.

    But it is then the local authorities in some of the poorest places that have been hardest hit.

    Overall, local authorities have seen their spending fall by 23% since 2010, allowing for inflation.

    These are huge cuts for local authorities to bear.

    Action by local authorities

    But across the country, councils have responded with determination to their deteriorating circumstances forced on them by austerity.

    Oldham council has looked to develop its own responses to the crisis, working with Oldham Credit Union to reduce the burden of problem debt locally. Its Fair Employment Charter rewards local employers and looks to use local authority procurement to improve working conditions.

    Enfield council in London has developed innovative contracting models with major local employers to support good jobs.

    And Preston, inspired by the example of Cleveland, Ohio, has developed an extensive programme of work. Preston was one of the councils facing the very sharpest cuts to its funding out of any in the country. But they are responding creatively.

    They have got major local employers and buyers – so-called anchor institutions, like the University of Central Lancashire – to drive through a local programme of economic transformation. By changing their procurement policies, these anchor institutions were able to drive up spending locally.

    They’re looking to shift a proportion of the joint council’s £5.5bn pension fund to focus on local businesses, keeping the money circulating in Preston.

    And the council is actively seeking opportunities to create local co-operatives as a part of local business succession, working with the local Chamber of Commerce. The aim is to sustain high quality local employment, by giving the chance for workers to keep a business in local hands.

    These are just a few of the ways in which imaginative local authorities are starting to show a new path for the economy.

    We need to scale up and spread initiatives like these.

    And we have to make devolution a reality where it has not already been achieved.

    That doesn’t mean passing down responsibility for administering cuts to local and regional authorities, particularly in England.

    It means ending the concentration of power and wealth in just a few hands in our capital city, and giving the powers back to those local areas and places that have been excluded for too long.

    We need a government that trusts local authorities to find their own economic solutions for their own areas.

    Labour already has an agreement with our new Mayors to set up a Mayoral Economic Forum, helping to bring together best practices and ideas

    Looking ahead, we need to bring other local authorities on board.

    I think we can develop a consensus on the approach now to be taken, based on the foundation

    Next steps

    Most immediately, there is an urgent need for some clarity and certainty from government.

    The lack of planning for the Leave vote has already been damaging to our economy.

    Economic policy has been pulled together on an ad hoc basis.

    The centerpiece of the Government’s macroeconomic policy, the fiscal surplus target, has been ditched.

    And the Chancellor has now floated the prospect of exceptionally low Corporation Taxes as a solution to low and falling rates of business investment in the UK.

    This is not a view I share. Previous cuts to corporation tax have not resulted in increasing investment, as the Office for Budget Responsibility has found.

    And by whittling away at the tax base, cuts to corporation tax put more of the burden on households and small businesses, whilst increasing the pressure for cuts to local authority spending.

    So we are adamantly opposed to further cuts in the headline rate of corporation tax that threaten to turn this country into little more than a tax haven.

    We need, instead, some clear parameters for the ongoing discussions with the EU and other international partners about Britain’s future role in the world.

    Local Government must be represented in the negotiations and decision making as we remake our relationship with Europe.

    Another red line is preserving free trade. There is no economic case for reimposing tariff barriers with Europe and depriving British businesses of access to the world’s largest single market.

    And we cannot accept any restrictions on the rights of those who work here.

    That includes those from other EU countries who presently live and work in the UK.

    We will not be willing to support any EU deal that reduces the rights available to working people in this country.

    The way forward

    The Brexit vote should act as a wake-up call for all of us.

    It will force major challenges on local and national leaders alike over the coming years.

    Labour wants to work in partnership with local authorities as we begin to put together a new political economy for the country.

    We will seek to ensure Local Government’s voice is heard and listened to in this challenging period ahead.