UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: 2016

  • Greg Hands – 2016 Speech on Plans for London

    Gregg Hands

    Below is the text of the speech made by Greg Hands, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, in London on 25 February 2016.

    Good morning – it’s great to be with you today.

    I’m Greg Hands; Chief Secretary to the Treasury.

    A bit about me: I was born in the States – my first political memory being Richard Nixon’s election – but my family moved back to the UK when I was very young.

    After studying history at university, I worked in financial services, in London and New York; was elected Member of Parliament in 2005; became a Whip after the 2010 election; and last year the Prime Minister asked me to become Chief Secretary to the Treasury.

    One of the big aspects of being Chief Secretary is the job of portfolio manager.

    The sums are quite something. 4 trillion pounds of assets and liabilities; over 700 billion pounds of expenditure a year.

    Some people I speak to in the City get quite jealous of those numbers.

    But the big difference, of course, is that making those numbers larger isn’t an indicator of success!

    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury has to rein in public spending, and make sure that taxpayers’ money is spent wisely.

    The caricature of the Treasury is as the department always saying “no, we can’t afford this”.

    That’s not entirely unjustified: we were elected by British voters to eliminate the deficit, and made it clear that this would largely be through fiscal consolidation.

    We set a very clear path at last year’s Autumn Statement and Spending Review; but navigating it over the coming years has its challenges.

    It’s certainly a significant part of my job description to make sure we stick to that path, and that involves being tough; or, being an “economist” in the 19th century definition of the word – i.e. someone who believes in making economies in public spending wherever possible.

    This is compounded by the economic landscape we’re currently experiencing.

    The Chinese slowdown, the fall in oil prices, continued instability in the Middle East – all are economic risks to a greater or lesser extent.

    And because we are an open, trading economy, and rightly so, all these threats will have some sort of impact on us.

    The best way to insulate ourselves from these threats is to get our own house in order.

    So what I have been saying to the civil servants looking after public spending is: “Now is not the time to take our foot off the pedal”.

    Our long-term economic recovery depends on us continuing to seek ways to be more efficient, more effective, smarter in the way we use our resources – and that’s one of the things I’ll be concentrating on over the coming years.

    But there is another part of the narrative. Spending cuts – though necessary – by themselves won’t deliver the economic results we need for long-term economic security.

    It is equally important that we pull out the stops for enabling growth.

    So the sorts of conversations taking place in the Treasury aren’t simply “take this off the shopping list”.

    They will be along the lines of: “How can we do this in the most cost-effective way? Could we be more innovative about how we fund it, or design it? Is there a cheaper way of achieving the same outcome?”

    Because we know that in order to achieve optimum economic growth, government investment is vitally important. The trick is to do it wisely.

    That is why in a large number of areas, we have maintained, and even increased, spending.

    Some of these areas are services which improve our quality of life; the NHS, our life chances; schools, our national security, or our commitment to help the world’s poorest people.

    And some of those are areas which can be real drivers of economic growth in the future – science, research, broadband, housing, regional growth, and infrastructure, to name a few.

    We know that it is businesses – such as the ones you represent – who generate growth in this country. And our programme of spending is directly calibrated to make it easier for you to do that – wherever you are in the UK.

    Because although the Northern Powerhouse is a highly exciting programme for regional rebalancing through growth, the Chancellor is in the same place as I am: you don’t make the weak stronger by making the strong weaker.

    This is the greatest city in the world, and we’ll keep it that way.

    So what are our plans for helping London go from strength to strength? Four things:

    Transport is one of the things my constituents are the most exercised about – rightly so. Inadequate transport is bad for productivity and bad for quality of life.

    At the Spending Review last year, we committed to £11 billion support for London.

    This funding will enable TfL to invest in the network in projects including Crossrail, due for completion in 2018; major underground upgrades, including new trains and increased capacity; 1,700 hybrid-electric buses this year; and new cycle superhighways to open by the end of this year.

    Aside from this, we’ll see HS2 construction beginning next year, with the line from London to Birmingham to be completed in 2027, and extended to Leeds and Manchester by 2033.

    As HS2 is built, places connected to it – for instance, Old Oak Common – will also receive funding for redevelopment.

    And we’ve also pledged £55 million to extend the London Overground to Barking Riverside.

    And of course, one of the most important investments we can make is in our people: making sure that we have world-class skills is at the heart of our long-term plan.

    That’s why we have protected funding for the core adult skills participation budgets in cash terms, at £1.5 billion.

    This will help around 1.7 million learners each year to develop the skills that employers need.

    It is also why we are giving local areas more say in setting up skills systems that are responsive to local economic priorities.

    We will vastly expand further education loans, to help those seeking to move their skills to a new level; and we will also consult on introducing maintenance loans for people who attend specialist, higher-level providers.

    We’re funding five National Colleges and a new network of Institutes of Technology. Given London’s particular strengths in the digital sector, I’m delighted that the National College for Digital Skills – opening this September – will be based in Tottenham.

    And there is our apprenticeship system – which is at the heart of our commitment to a world class skills system.

    By 2020, spending will be double the level of spending in 2010-11 in cash terms.

    We’re also putting control of funding in the hands of the employers through the apprenticeship levy, so that the system delivers the skills they want and need.

    We’re committed to creating 3 million new apprenticeships by 2020, and I am delighted that employers across the capital are playing a key part in this, including in the design and development of new degree apprenticeships.

    It is also vital that our world-class workforce has good places to live.

    Being MP for an area where house prices set new records practically every month, I’m acutely aware of the pressures – particularly when it involves getting onto the property ladder.

    Essentially, we need to build more.

    Our manifesto committed to delivering 200,000 Starter Homes – homes for sale at a 20% discount, available to younger first time buyers, who plan to live in them.

    In the Spending Review, we announced £2.3 billion to help deliver up to 60,000 of these.

    We also committed to developing 135,000 Help to Buy: Shared Ownership homes in London, which will allow more people to buy a share in their home and buy more shares over time, as they can afford to.

    The scheme will be open to all households earning less than £90,000 in London, and will relax and remove previous restrictions, such as local authorities’ rights to set additional eligibility criteria.

    And our London Help to Buy scheme launched last month. The scheme will offer buyers with a 5% deposit on a loan of up to up to 40% of the value of a new build home, interest-free for 5 years.

    Finally, we’re supporting specific developments. The Barking Riverside extension, which I mentioned, a few moments ago, will provide 10,000 new homes.

    And the £97 million we’re providing to support redevelopment at Brent Cross will support 7,500 homes.

    The fourth plank of our strategy for keeping London world-class is to help develop our financial services sector.

    That means opening ourselves up to new and emerging markets – particularly in Asia and the Middle East, which still provide enviable levels of growth.

    It means priding ourselves on exceptional standards of regulation, conduct – and therefore trust.

    It means harnessing new technology, and fostering competition in the market.

    And it means maintaining excellence, not merely in financial markets, but in all the range of associated professional services that come with the territory.

    The hard work we’ve put in since 2010 has meant that London now enjoys the accolade of the world’s most dynamic financial centre, according to the Global Financial Centres Index.

    Maintaining this competitiveness while keeping the highest standards of conduct is a major area of Treasury focus, and one on which my Ministerial colleague Harriett Baldwin is working tirelessly.

    Underpinning all this activity is our core belief that the best way to ensure Britain’s continued prosperity is a thriving private sector, one that adds value and creates jobs and growth.

    It’s fair to say that many of the old consensuses about the economy have disappeared.

    Those of us who believe in things like the free market, and private-sector driven growth, and the benefits of wealth creation, need to continue making that case.

    The very best thing we can do is to prove the naysayers wrong, through our actions as well as through our arguments.

    Time and again throughout history, a dynamic, innovative private sector has proven the biggest spur to increasing our standard of living.

    I look forward to working with you so that this continues over the coming years.

  • Baroness Verma – 2016 Speech on Agenda 2030

    baronessverma

    Below is the text of the speech made by Baroness Verma, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for International Development, at the UN in New York on 23 February 2016.

    Thank you Mr President, I’m delighted to be here to talk to you today.

    Today’s discussion comes at an opportune moment. There are real reasons to be optimistic – 2015 saw agreement of a series of ambitious universal deals – financing, climate and the Global Goals. The UK takes these universal commitments seriously, domestically and internationally and is committed to playing its part to make sure these are achieved.

    Against that optimism, we are faced with so many protracted crises; in Syria, in Yemen, in South Sudan. At their heart are conflict and instability. So it’s clear that if we’re to achieve Agenda 2030, and live up to our promise to leave no one behind, we need to do more to prevent conflict and build, resilient, peaceful societies.

    It is so often the poorest people who are most vulnerable to crises and who are further impoverished when stability and security breaks down. The statistics back this up; conflict-affected states were the most off-track in achieving the MDGs.

    Approximately half of the global poor live in countries affected by conflict and violence. So it’s clear that we can’t look at peace, development and humanitarian issues in isolation. The 3 are inherently interlinked. To fail on one, is to undermine progress on the others.

    The United Kingdom has made it a priority to improve our efforts on these three strands.

    In addition to our commitment to 0.7%, we are one of the few Council Members to believe that the Security Council has a role to play in preventing future conflicts, and not just ending those that are ongoing. That’s why our Secretary of State for Development chaired the Council last November; the first time a Development Minister has done so. It’s also why we co-hosted the London Conference for Syria and the Region earlier this month, where we and others worked hard to better integrate these three issues through the Conference outcomes.

    The UN’s mandate means it operates at the nexus between peace, development and humanitarian. And if we are to succeed, whether in Syria or elsewhere, the UN should be at the centre of our efforts.

    When I talk about integrating humanitarian, peace and development work it of course includes the UN’s work on security, human rights and international law too.

    The Secretary-General’s response to Agenda 2030, the Human Rights Up Front Initiative, the ECOSOC dialogue and yesterday’s meetings, have all firmly acknowledged the need for strong progress by the UN in this area.

    This year, we have a real opportunity to make that progress. The World Humanitarian Summit, the Secretary-General and World Bank’s Migration and Refugees Summits, the ECOSOC dialogue and negotiation of the Quadrennial Comprehensive Policy Review can all help ensure the UN is ready to play this central role.

    I believe there are 3 issues that need to be addressed as part of this process.

    First, the UN needs to manage protracted crises more effectively. The UN’s engagement in peacekeeping and political negotiation in many of the world’s more difficult conflicts is strongly valued. But the UN has to overcome operational and funding silos to be able to achieve lasting political solutions, longer term peacebuilding and development. The humanitarian and development parts of the UN need to work more effectively together.

    Second, the UN needs to act earlier to prevent conflict and to balance a better approach to crises with action to address the underlying causes of fragility and conflict. This means being a smoke alarm as well as a fire extinguisher; and really prioritising conflict prevention as much as resolution. It also means investing in support to help build institutions, improve governance and the rule of law – the golden thread that will support economies to thrive and grow.

    Thirdly, the UN needs a much more variable, flexible footprint, focusing where help is most needed, on the most vulnerable and marginalised including women and girls, and where the UN’s unique legitimacy as a universal body most equips it to make a difference, with the ability to surge to meet a sudden need or respond quickly to an emerging crisis.

    It’s very easy to talk in generalities, so I’d also like to set out some thoughts on what is needed in practical terms. I think it requires change in 3 areas: fully implementing Delivering as One; leadership; and funding.

    Delivering as One has made progress, as I have seen for myself in the countries I’ve visited, but not yet enough. There is strong and growing demand for Delivering as One and it is proving it can enable a more effective UN voice. We need to see its full implementation, by all entities, including the Standard Operating Procedures and the Management and Accountability Framework. We’d also like to explore ways to ensure more coordinated planning, budgeting and risk assessment, between the UN’s development, humanitarian and peacebuilding support.

    Delivering as One goes hand in hand with effective leadership: resident and humanitarian coordinators, often the heads of the UN in country, must be individuals that can deliver strong leadership that responds to both short and longer-term needs. They also require better support from the UN system: clearer authority to draw on all assets of the UN system in support of national priorities, sustained funding through contributions of all entities and more dedicated advisory support, building on the success of the peace and development advisers.

    Let me now turn to my third point; funding. I have already spoken about the need focus on long-term conflict and crisis prevention and bring all the sources of funding onto the same page to ensure the most strategic allocation. There is a need to increase flexibility between allocations to humanitarian, peace and development funds. And there is a need to attract new forms of finance into the system, including potential private sector investment, becomes ever more acute.

    Mr Vice President, through these steps and more, we have the chance to use the links among peace, development and humanitarian issues to our advantage. Instead of instability hampering development, let us build on stability to advance it.

    The real test will be delivery at country level, and improvements to the quality of lives for people on the frontline – so the focus on Delivering as One, strengthening the Resident Coordinator system and underpinning frameworks is absolutely critical. But this will also require working back up the chain to headquarters with effective leadership from the executive and Member States to change procedures and incentives to support joint working, better delivery and better outcomes.

    We have some ideas, but don’t have all the answers – I hope today’s discussions can help us start to formulate some of them.

    Once again, thank you for the opportunity to speak and thank you for listening Mr President and distinguished delegates.

  • Matt Hancock – 2016 Speech on Digital Technology in Wales

    Below is the text of the speech made by Matt Hancock, the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, on 25 February 2016.

    It’s good to be in Newport.

    Though I have to say I’m glad I’m not visiting Wales in a few weeks’ time. If the Rugby World Cup was anything to go by it might be quite painful for an Englishman to visit Wales after 12 March.

    The rugby team’s obviously one centre of Welsh excellence. But later today I’ll be visiting several other local innovation centres, and I’ve already been hugely impressed by what you’ve shown me here at the ONS, which has underlined your commitment to technological modernisation and the honing of talent.

    Seventy-five years ago, Winston Churchill created the Central Statistical Office (CSO) to improve on the coherence and availability of national statistics.

    Plenty has changed since 1941 – not just the year the CSO was brought into this world, but also the first functional British jet, tupperware, velcro and, of course, the slinky.

    But the two challenges Churchill was trying to tackle – coherence and openness – remain the same, even as the world has become more complex and diverse.

    As technology marches on, we have unparalleled opportunities to use data to transform the services we provide and improve how the country is run. It’s more essential today than ever before that government is built on a foundation of high-quality, comprehensive and coherent statistics.

    It’s said that 90% of all the data ever produced in history was generated in the past 2 years. The different kinds of data are also multiplying, from purchasing transactions to sensors, the Internet of Things and social networking sites.

    New open data sets of unprecedented scale and variety are springing up, often in real time. This presents us in government with an opportunity like nothing we’ve ever seen before.

    It’s a revolution we need to grasp with both hands. That means 3 things – it means recognising the potential of the rich national resource that data presents, it means being curious about new ideas and ways of doing absolutely everything, and it means opening ourselves up to the public and towards each other across government. There is massive potential in data, we need the curiosity and openness. Let us take these 3 in turn.

    In the public and private sector, data is fuelling improvements unimaginable a few short years ago. It’s transforming how we travel and shop, the way we go out and the way we interact with each other.

    And it’s changing how we deliver government.

    We can deliver services that are cheaper, faster, more accessible and more secure. Services that respond with targeted solutions to specific problems. Services driven not by Whitehall but by the needs of citizens.

    The potential of data as a national asset

    To do this we must recognise the raw potential of the data at our fingertips.

    Newport has long been a world-leading centre of industry – it was a crucial coal port and a focal point for the South Wales Valleys throughout the industrial era.

    200 years ago this city was a hotbed of the industrial revolution. It is no stranger to leading industry, to innovation and to the tide of technological change.

    Today we live in an entirely different world. Today, instead of coal, data is the most valuable raw material of our age. The way I see it, statistics are its refined product, and this is the refinery.

    And to fulfil the potential of the ONS in the 21st century we still need to be the best and the most imaginative country in the world when it comes to using our resources.

    We’re in the foothills of a data revolution. Data is no longer just a record of something that happened. It’s a mineable commodity from which we can extract value. It’s the unseen infrastructure of the digital economy, as important as any road or railway.

    It’s not just the ONS. In South Wales we have a big data cluster: DVLA, Companies House, ONS and the IPO.

    So there is increasing potential for a South Wales big data cluster and build the ecosystem-public, private and academic that can deliver the capability we need.

    The ONS’ role in harnessing this resource

    To harness our data resources, statistics will be crucial. Statistics are taking on ever greater importance in a world underpinned by increasingly evidence-based decisions. And that goes far beyond working out the odds at Cheltenham.

    The ONS is crucial in the production of the statistics government relies on to make good policy, and its statistics are held in high regard throughout government, business and the wider public.

    The 2021 census is a valuable opportunity to re-assert that reputation and consolidate our data resources.

    When the first census of population took place back in 1801, the population of England and Wales was given as 9 million.

    Our next census will be the largest peacetime operation ever undertaken in the UK. It will be digital-by-default, and we are aiming for the highest online response target of any census in the world, at 75%.

    In the census each decade and the work that you do in Newport and Titchfield each year, you take raw data and turn it into life-changing improvements, everywhere from the classroom to the hospital bed. In doing so you change lives up and down the country.

    So my point is the potential of technology. My second is about our response: curiosity. It’s crucial that we engage with curiosity towards change.

    You’re pioneering the data science agenda, leading analytical professions in building the right infrastructure and developing the specialist skills we need to make the most of the data revolution.

    Through the recently initiated Data Science Learning Academy, you’re spreading that leadership.

    And you’re pushing the agenda across government through programmes like the Data Science Accelerator.

    You’re expanding your horizons beyond government. The Big Data Team’s efforts on web scraping show how we can harness alternative data sources – in this case real-time supermarket data – to deliver more accurate, cost-effective outputs.

    The same spirit of curiosity is at the heart of your innovation lab, which uses state-of-the-art technology to find new data sources and techniques. And it’s why I’ve asked the Open Data Institute to help us connect with the start-ups leading the data field.

    Next I’m visiting the Alacrity Foundation. The ONS’ partnership with this unique organisation is a great example of how we can partner with outside bodies to nurture the brightest and best young talent.

    To succeed and thrive in this new world, where knowledge is so dispersed, we need to be as curious as possible and embrace not just our own ideas, but also those at the cutting edge of the data revolution. And I urge you to be part of that revolution.

    Openness

    That brings me to my third point. I want the spirit of curiosity you’re showing here to be embedded in everything government is doing. The best ideas can come from absolutely anywhere. And that’s why we need to open ourselves up to ideas like never before.

    The opportunities for innovation are a function of how much raw information is out there, and how many people can access and harness that information.

    I’m delighted to see you continuing to open up your website, taking in huge levels of feedback and making your gateway to the public more agile, in a more cost-efficient way. I’m thrilled to see the new website go live.

    It’s part of our radical open data policy: we’ve now published 23,000 datasets, covering £200 billion of public spending.

    And part of being open is being open about the challenges we face. The ONS’ work is going to become even more crucial in the coming years. So it’s imperative that we keep up with how the world is changing.

    Yes, the digital world is a maelstrom right now, but if we work together we can do more than just keep our heads above water – we can ride the waves to unimaginable places.

    Yes, under John Pullinger’s impressive leadership the team will have to be adaptable in its size, shape, and skill-set.

    But I want to underline this message you’ve heard before. Newport is Britain’s home of economic statistics, and that is not a resource we are going to squander. The ONS will stay in Newport.

    And more than that, we’re going to invest to build our long-term capacity here, working with others in the region to create a hub and a centre of excellence for data handling and economic analysis. We’re going to double-down on Newport.

    Of course, the digital world means roles will change, and some old ways of doing things will cease to exist. But we’re committed to working with you in that transition.

    Through the Learning Academy and other initiatives, everyone will have the chance to gain new skills and continue to make a massively valuable contribution.

    Change is a challenge, but also an opportunity – an opportunity for all of us to gain new skills, and for you to re-assert the crucial contribution the ONS makes to our country.

    Your programme of change and Charlie Bean’s review will give the ONS a foundation to plan for the future, and to stay ahead of the curve of digital change with a strong, positive vision.

    As the report highlights, we need an ONS that is less reactive and more proactive; more curious, open and self-critical.

    These are just some of the challenges you’ll face in the years ahead, but I’m confident through the changes you’re making you’ll be more than capable of overcoming them.

    Cabinet Office support and reform package

    We are here to support you as we work together to reform government and unleash human ingenuity at all levels of the public sector.

    Finally let me set out some of the most important projects this change will feed into. One big step we must take across government is to build single, canonical data registers kept up-to-date by one responsible authority and used across government. We don’t need 7 lists of countries of the world. We need 1, and it probably should be maintained by the Foreign Office.

    We are also working together on how we share data within government. We’ll do this while maintaining the appropriate safeguards, but the prize is extremely valuable – more efficient and high-quality statistics, and huge potential for improvements to public services.

    We will shortly bring forward proposals to improve the legal framework around research and statistics, tackling fraud and debt, and improving public services.

    We’ve consulted widely over 2 years of collaboration, to build modern rules to govern the use of data in public services.

    We want to give public authorities much greater clarity about what data can be shared, cutting delays so research with economic and social benefits can be conducted in a timely fashion.

    We will put in place specific safeguards to ensure any information that could be used to identify individuals is protected, enhancing privacy.

    These changes to legislation will not only ensure you have the tools to produce world-class statistics, they will let government feed the most up-to-date and relevant data into policy decisions, helping us deliver reforms from the Troubled Families programme to better targeted fuel poverty payments. They will better equip us to tackle fraud and debt.

    Through them we can enhance social mobility, crime prevention and improve services for the citizens we serve.

    Conclusion

    So, these are times of change. We can – and must – tap into that same spirit in the data revolution. That’s what it will take for us to turn our rich data assets into world-leading innovation.

    If we do this right the prizes are huge, and will change the very fabric of how the country is run.

    Let us tackle these challenges head on and turn them into opportunities. You’ve already shown you’re willing and able to do this. We are backing you to deliver. I can’t wait to see what you come up with next.

    Thank you.

  • James Duddridge – 2016 Speech at UK-Sierra Leone Trade and Investment Forum

    jamesduddridge

    Below is the text of the speech made by James Duddridge, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, at Sheraton Park Lane, Piccadilly in London on 25 February 2016.

    Thank you Atam for your kind introduction. I am delighted to be here.

    I would like to thank Developing Markets Associates, and all the sponsors, for organising this important event.

    I have just had a meeting with Dr Kamara, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Relations. Our governments have worked closely for many years, but particularly so over the last two years to defeat the terrible scourge of Ebola. I was delighted when your country was declared free of the disease in November.

    It is right that we acknowledge the tragic impact of that devastating outbreak on Sierra Leone and its people.

    It is also right that we start to put this terrible episode behind us.

    I remember visiting Sierra Leone in 2013 and it was one of the fastest growing economies in Africa. That was only three years ago. I hope Sierra Leone will return to hyper-growth rates and a thriving business environment.

    This morning I am going to set out why the UK Government sees potential in Sierra Leone, what we believe is needed to realise that potential, and what opportunities we believe this holds for you as investors.

    I lived and worked in Africa for many years. My experience was one of energetic entrepreneurs, burgeoning businesses, a rising middle class, potential and drive in equal measure. Doing business is in Sierra Leoneans’ DNA.

    The UK Government is committed to supporting Sierra Leone’s recovery. We have pledged over £240 million over the next two years to support the President’s plans for recovery.

    This assistance is a part of a wider picture, because we are committed to promoting trade, investment and prosperity right across Africa. I am delighted that Guy Warrington will be going out as our new High Commissioner to Sierra Leone.

    We have created a new Prosperity Fund – worth £1.3 billion – to promote conditions for sustainable and inclusive growth. A significant proportion is earmarked for Africa.

    This Government is also delivering on our commitment to spend 0.7% of Gross National Income on international development, of which Sierra Leone is a beneficiary. I have been working closely with Justine Greening at the Department for International Development, who has visited Sierra Leone a number of times, and my DFID counterpart Nick Hurd.

    However, aid alone will not ensure Sierra Leone’s long term recovery. It needs investment too, and that means an improved business environment.

    The government of Sierra Leone has drafted its plan for post-Ebola recovery. It has identified priorities for recovery over the next two years: health, education, social protection, infrastructure, energy, water, and the development of the private sector. These will all be critical in getting Sierra Leone back onto the path of sustainable development.

    It is encouraging to see that the President and his Ministers recently proposed to include a new Governance pillar in the recovery plan. We support this step towards addressing some of the big challenges around procurement, payroll, and corruption.

    We are working in partnership with the government of Sierra Leone to encourage them to create the business environment that will reassure and attract investors.

    Some UK companies, such as Standard Chartered Bank are already there. They, alongside Herbert Smith Freehills and Prudential, helped Sierra Leone during the Ebola outbreak by producing the Investor Guide for Sierra Leone – a great example of the private sector coming together to help the country on its path to long-term recovery.

    My parliamentary colleague James Cleverly, MP for Braintree and a fellow Essex MP, whose mother was Sierra Leonean, was recently in Sierra Leone. I hope to do more to work with the Sierra Leonean diaspora across the country.

    It’s worth taking a moment here to recognise the country’s enviable natural advantages:

    Its rich mineral deposits.

    Its huge potential in renewable energy, in particular solar and hydro-electric – I should say here that Sierra Leone was one of the first countries on the continent to sign up to the Department for International Development’s Africa Energy Campaign which promotes access to solar powered electricity – which is now much cheaper, more accessible and reliable.

    Its strategic shipping location on the Atlantic seaboard of West Africa, with one of the largest natural harbours in the world.
    Its millions of hectares of forests and fertile agricultural land, and abundant fish stocks.

    Sierra Leone is also well placed to benefit from the huge economic growth we expect to see across the continent. Consumer demand from its emerging middle class is growing and that trend is set to continue as Africa’s population is forecast to double by 2050 [UN Population Data].

    So in conclusion I urge you to listen closely to what you hear today. Sierra Leone has put Ebola behind it. The UK Government is supporting trade and investment, reconstruction and prosperity. Doing more business provides taxation for the government. We should be proud of what we’re doing to help Sierra Leone back to double digit growth rates.

    Sierra Leone has huge potential. Its government has a plan for recovery and has identified its priority sectors. From mining and renewable energy to project management and environmental services.

    Finally, this country’s strong historic ties with Sierra Leone, our long-term friendship, together with the familiarity with English, present UK companies with a unique advantage. I urge you to seize it with both hands.

    Thank you.

  • Andrew Jones – 2016 Speech on Transport and Mental Health

    andrewjones

    Below is the text of the speech made by Andrew Jones, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Transport, at Cavendish Square in London on 25 February 2016.

    Introduction

    Thank you.

    The relationship between mental health and transport goes deeper than many people realise.

    Last week, Professor Ed Bullmore, Head of Psychiatry at Cambridge University, published an article with the title, ‘Why brains and airports have a lot in common’.

    He said the best way to understand how the different parts of our brain are wired together is by thinking of how airports are connected by flights.

    The different parts of most people’s brains are wired together similarly to how airlines link big airports such as Heathrow or Schiphol.

    While in other people’s brains, though they have no fewer connections, those connections are routed as if they are flights between many smaller airports.

    The difference helps explain some mental health conditions such as schizophrenia.

    Professor Bullmore’s use of transport as a metaphor is a brilliant way of talking about the brain.

    Transport is important for mental health

    Yet we are here today (25 February 2016) because we know that mental health and transport are linked by more than metaphors.

    There’s a real-world connection, too.

    The stats say that 1 in 4 of us will experience a mental health issue this year.

    It might be phobias, anxiety, OCD, depression, panic disorders, dementia or one or more of many other conditions.

    You’ve already heard moving accounts of the experience of living with conditions such as these.

    And about how, so often for people with mental health conditions, good transport can help a full, timely recovery or just make life that bit better.

    Transport offers freedom to visit family, go to the shops, travel to volunteer or to museums, and transport offers the hope that can be found in the chance to study or to work – all the things that make for a normal life.

    So it’s a real pleasure to join you for what is probably the first, and almost certainly the biggest, gathering of transport and mental health advocates ever held in Britain.

    Transport needs to catch up

    And it’s about time we met.

    Because when it comes to serving those with poor mental health, transport has some catching up to do.

    To see how much, look at the progress the transport industry has made in meeting the needs of those with physical ill health.

    Take the bus industry – one of my areas of responsibility.

    Today nearly 90% of buses are equipped to serve physically disabled people, with wheelchair space, priority seats, handrails, and devices to help people get on and off.

    But on mental health, there’s sadly been nothing like that kind of progress.

    Even someone with the best mental health will sometimes find public transport stressful and bewildering.

    Just ask anyone who’s been at Clapham Junction train station during rush hour.

    Or anyone who’s boarded a bus in an unfamiliar town, not quite knowing where to get off or even whether you are travelling on the right bus going in the right direction.

    Or anyone who’s had to dash from one airport terminal to another in time to catch a flight.

    And then there’s the familiar feeling of rising panic whenever the ticket inspector enters the railway carriage, even when you are sure you have a valid ticket.

    No wonder someone who experiences anxiety, panic attacks, memory loss or a host of other possible conditions can feel unable to use public transport.

    I had a lot of sympathy with one person with a mental health condition who said:

    You might afford the bus, but the bus company’s website doesn’t give fares. To find out the fares you have to speak to the bus driver or phone the company. Just thinking about either brings on a panic attack. The dread of getting on the bus with insufficient fare is overwhelming.

    So what are we going to do about problems like these?

    What we must do

    First, we need to recognise that transport’s problem with mental ill health is a symptom of a wider problem.

    Across much of our society and our economy, mental health has not received the same level of attention as physical health.

    It might be because mental health is less visible.

    It might be because people don’t understand mental ill health and how common it really is.

    Or it might be because of the stigma that still lingers around mental health, a stigma that for physical health we long ago dispelled.

    The good news is that things are changing.

    During the coalition government we passed the Health and Social Care Act 2012, to make sure the NHS treats mental and physical health conditions equally.

    And thanks to the work of organisations like those here today, such as the Mental Health Action Group, Mind, and Anxiety UK, that change is gathering pace.

    The BBC, which is covering our Summit today, has just finished its mental health season.

    And last week both the Duchess of Cambridge and First Lady Michelle Obama wrote high-profile articles on the importance of proper treatment for mental ill health.

    So bit by bit, we are breaking down the stigma and misunderstanding around mental health.

    What transport has done already

    But now we need that change to come to the transport sector, too.

    And there are some early signs of encouraging progress.

    First Bus have introduced a Better Journeys Card which is designed to give people a discrete way of alerting the bus driver to any special assistance they may need. The card contains messages such as please help me find a seat, please count out my change with me and, please be patient, I have a hidden disability.

    These cards remind us that, so often, it’s skilled and helpful transport staff who make the biggest difference to passengers.

    So I am pleased that, on the railways, Virgin Trains has been working with the Alzheimer’s Society to deliver specialist training to station staff, which has meant that a number of its stations are increasingly dementia-friendly.

    And many airports have been making progress too.

    Most airports now offer familiarisation visits to those who would benefit from them before they fly.

    Gatwick has said that, so far, 80% of its front-line staff have undergone Dementia Champions and Dementia Friends training, and the airport has introduced its own bespoke NVQ Level 2 Certificate in the Principles of Dementia Care for customer-facing staff.

    Meanwhile, Manchester Airport has recognised how stressful the security search process can be for children with autism. So it has special wrist-bands for children to wear to alert staff that they need a search procedure suited to them.

    These are great examples of the difference that transport operators can make when they think about those with mental health needs.

    Buses Bill

    And the person who said they were worried about boarding the bus without knowing the fare might be pleased to hear that we are going to make a new law.

    As part of our Buses Bill, all bus operators will be required to make data about routes, fares and times open and accessible.

    It will allow app makers to develop products that passengers can use to plan their journeys, and give people the confidence to take the bus.

    Transport industry pledge

    But we need the industry to keep taking action of its own accord, too.

    For one thing, there’s a good commercial case for it.

    If 1 in 4 of us will experience a problem in any given year, and if 1 in 20 of us experience a long-term mental health condition during our lives, then those with mental health conditions constitute the UK’s largest single sector of disabled people, and a transport industry which excludes these people is missing out on millions of potential customers.

    Yet the many transport firms represented here today show there’s a lot of good intent out there.

    The government doesn’t want to impose a one-size-fits-all solution on the transport industry.

    It’s about getting to know your customers and taking action in the most effective way for your sector.

    That’s what I’d like you to think about this afternoon.

    And if you have a good idea, we’ve provided pledge cards that you can fill in to record what you are going to do.

    Conclusion

    So in conclusion, change is coming in transport.

    People want a better service, more attuned to their needs.

    Those with mental health conditions have as much right to travel as anyone else.

    And making the improvements these passengers want needn’t be expensive.

    It’s often just a question of listening, being flexible, and giving staff the right kind of training.

    If we get it right, our transport networks will be better for some of the most vulnerable people in our communities.

    So make your pledges.

    This summit isn’t a one-day-wonder.

    It’s an issue that will keep rising up the agenda.

    And that is what will make life better for us all.

    Thank you.

  • John Hayes – 2016 Speech on Digital Security

    John Hayes

    Below is the text of the speech made by John Hayes, the Minister of State for Security, at the Policy Exchange in London on 25 February 2016.

    The title of my speech this morning is taken from Hegel’s Philosophy of Right.

    It is perhaps his best known, and most contentious, observation: “What is reasonable is real; and what is real is reasonable.”

    The remark is contentious principally because some believe that Hegel was making a normative claim for what is actual: that what is real must be right.

    But of course that is not the case.

    Rather, Hegel, was arguing that ultimately philosophy must be a rational enterprise, concerned with understanding the world as it actually is.

    What was true of Hegel’s philosophy then is equally true of public policy today, particularly in relation to the fundamental issue of security.

    It is all too tempting to view the threat we face as abstract, as theoretical. To believe that we have always faced threats.

    That the threats we now face are essentially the same as those in the past.

    This is all too tempting because – as T.S. Eliot wrote in his four quartets – humankind cannot bear very much reality.

    I want to speak this morning about security and keeping people safe.

    The threat we face now is changing, ferocious and flexible.

    That threat is evolving rapidly.

    Responding to it is a testing challenge.

    That requires us, now more than ever, to review, revise and rejuvenate what we do and how we do it.

    And most of all what we need to do now and to do next.

    The Investigatory Powers Bill, which we published in draft in November, is crucial to these efforts.

    Fundamentally, our approach brings together work at home to build cohesive communities and root out extremism with cooperation and dialogue with nations worldwide.

    Threat

    Success requires realism.

    The terrorist threat we face here in the UK is unprecedented and growing.

    And that’s not only my view.

    Andrew Parker, the Director-General of MI5, has said: “The threat we are facing today is on a scale and at a tempo that I have never seen before in my career.”

    In the 12 months to September last year, our police and security services arrested 315 people for terrorism-related offences.

    That’s an increase of a third on the previous year and from just 121 five years ago.

    And we have stopped at least seven different attempts to attack the UK in the last 18 months alone.

    There have been 16 attacks in Europe over the past two years, most of them inspired or directed by Daesh.

    And the attacks in Paris in November 2015, in which 130 people died, showed what can happen when terrorists are successful.

    The terrorist threat now is not confined to Europe, or even just to the West.

    It is more sophisticated and more widely distributed.

    It could be a marauding terrorist firearms attack, as we saw in Paris.

    It might be an attack on transport, as we saw on the Russian MetroJet flight from Sharm El Sheikh or the attempted attack on the train travelling from Brussels to Paris.

    It could be a co-ordinated attack on a tourist site, as we saw at Sousse in Tunisia, or more recently at Bamako in Mali.

    Or it might be a knife attack, as we saw in Marseilles recently.

    The diversity of the threat, as well as its volume, is a serious challenge to us here, and to our allies around the world.

    The essential change in terrorism is the increasing adaptability of terrorists, and of Daesh in particular.

    It uses new technology, new methods.

    It is adaptable. And it revels in its own depravity.

    It has murdered hundreds of thousands of men, women and children – the vast majority of them practicing Muslims, the very people it claims to speak for.

    It operates in a way we have never seen before.

    We have never seen this number, demographic or range of ages of people travelling to take part in conflict.

    Daesh is responsible, directly or indirectly, for many of the attacks and attempted attacks that I have already mentioned.

    And far from being isolated in Syria and Iraq, its influence is spreading to groups worldwide – in Libya, in West Africa, in Afghanistan and beyond.

    But the other thing is that Daesh is not the only threat we face.

    Al Qaeda and its affiliates continue to pose a very real and very present danger.

    Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula took credit for the attack on the Charlie Hebdo magazine in January last year, in which 12 people died.

    It holds territory in ungoverned spaces in the Middle East.

    The Al-Nusrah Front, its affiliate in Syria, has combined success on the battlefield with an effective online media campaign and a presence on the ground in Syria.

    And AQ-M, its Africa-based affiliate, recently claimed responsibility for the attack on a Radisson hotel in Mali in November, in which 21 guests were killed.

    JTAC, the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre – experts who have access to the latest intelligence – assess that the threat to the UK is SEVERE, that means that an attack in the UK is highly likely.

    And they don’t take that judgment lightly.

    People should be alert, but not alarmed; watchful but absolutely sure of our resolve.

    So the threat is growing.

    More complex.

    And more diverse.

    It is for this reason that we should heed Hegel’s warning – to understand the world as it really is.

    I know there is no complete solution to the problem I describe.

    This is not a project.

    You can’t ascribe a specific timescale to it.

    These are unpalatable truths.

    But if we are to succeed, we need to confront that reality.

    Response

    Which is what this Government has done.

    Facing reality means disrupting terrorist attacks and those who help to support them.

    And we have.

    We have proscribed terrorists groups – 15, including 11 linked to Syria and Iraq.

    We have revoked British citizenship from individuals.

    Since May 2010, we have excluded over 100 hate preachers.

    In 2014, we withdrew or refused a British Passport 24 times under the Royal Prerogative.

    And, last year, we extended Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures, TPIMs, to include relocation powers to allow the police and Security Services to manage the risk from individuals we cannot prosecute or deport.

    Facing reality means being prepared to respond to attacks in the national interest.

    As part of the recent Strategic Defence and Security Review, the SDSR, we have done just that.

    We will continue to invest in capabilities to protect ourselves against terrorist attack.

    We will invest £1.9bn over the next five years in protecting the UK from cyber attack.

    More than double our spending on aviation security around the world.

    An additional 1,900 personnel for the security and intelligence agencies.

    Facing reality means reviewing, in the light of the attacks in Paris last year, our response to a marauding firearms attack by terrorists.

    Those attacks highlighted the challenges any country would face in managing multiple, concurrent incidents.

    But since then, working with other nations, we have pressed for stronger protective security, crisis response and border management, to stop the movement of people and weapons, to increase information sharing, to improve controls on firearms and to enhance aviation security.

    Investigatory Powers Bill

    Facing reality also means ensuring that the police and security services have the legislation they need to keep us safe.

    Powers that are necessary and proportionate.

    Having passed the Counter Terrorism and Security Act last year, we published in November a draft Investigatory Powers Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny.

    Communications and modern technology are at the heart of the threat we face, and so the heart of our response.

    Facing reality means knowing that these days terrorists, paedophiles, serious fraudsters scheme in cyber space.

    The web enables individuals the world over to communicate quickly, easily, often using encryption.

    It works across borders and across jurisdictions, just as the extremists who use it do.

    Difficult to detect and even more difficult to disrupt.

    Of course its global nature makes regulation problematic.

    Crucially, terrorists in Syria and Iraq can use the web to reach out using online communications to direct, enable and inspire individuals the world over to contemplate attempting, at least, murder and violence.

    Communications data matters – that is the who, where, when and how of a communication but not its content.

    It is a vital tool to investigate crime and protect the public.

    It has been used by every major Security Service counter-terrorism investigation over the last year.

    It is used in 95 per cent of serious and organised crime investigations handled by the CPS.

    It might be used to find a missing person, to establish a link between a suspect and a victim.

    It is used to investigate crime, to keep children safe, to check alibis and to tie a suspect to a crime scene.

    When offences such as fraud are committed online, it is sometimes the only possible way of identifying the offenders.

    It has been used in the investigation of many of the most serious and widely reported crimes against children, including the murder of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman, as well as the Oxford and Rochdale child grooming cases.

    Law enforcement capabilities are degrading due to rapid technological change and because more and more communications are taking place online.

    So, while this is important for our counter-terrorism efforts, that is by no means the only reason it is important and it is by no means the only reason why we are bringing forward legislation.

    Bernard Hogan-Howe, Metropolitan Police commissioner, has said that communications data is regularly used to tackle criminals whose activities affect the wider community, such as repeat burglars, robbers, drugs dealers. Put simply, the police need access to this information to keep up with the criminals who bring so much harm to victims and our society.

    But it is important that we appreciate why this legislation is itself important – and in particular how far we have come in ensuring that we have a legal regime that serves the interests of both privacy and security.

    We have provided more information than ever before about some of the most sensitive powers available to the security and intelligence agencies – including the use of bulk personal datasets and the acquisition of bulk communications data to thwart terrorist attacks.

    The draft Bill puts these capabilities on a clear statutory footing and makes them subject to robust, world-leading safeguards.

    The Parliamentary Joint Committee which looked into these matters in such very great detail – and I can see members of that committee in the audience here today – along with two other parliamentary committees who scrutinised the Bill, have made valuable recommendations about how the Bill could be improved and our proposals clarified. We are committed to ensuring the Bill receives maximum scrutiny.

    We remain committed to having new legislation on the statute books by the end of the year – a result of existing legislation falling away on 31 December.

    We will return to Parliament with a revised Bill.

    The draft Bill goes further than the current oversight regime.

    A double lock on ministerial authorisation of intercept warrant means that both judges and ministers will consider the evidence supporting warrants.

    For trust is the golden thread running through the viability of the new legislation.

    Which is why necessity and proportionality are the lodestars of the draft Bill.

    Prevent

    We cannot confront the reality of the threat we face without confronting the poisonous ideologies and extremist messages that underpin it.

    As we have seen time and time again in cases of young people radicalised here in the UK, it is also more insidious than ever.

    It is easy to assume the threat is elsewhere – is there – but in fact the threat is here and the threat is now.

    Daesh’s propaganda combines extreme violence and extremist messages with modern technology, using social media to reach out to young and vulnerable over the whole world.

    From their bedrooms they can access images of murder and brutality, messages of death and destruction.

    The Police Counter-Terrorism Internet Referral Unit is currently removing 100 pieces of Daesh or Syria-related content every day.

    And we have seen the impact that such material can have time and time again.

    To appreciate the impact of Daesh’s propaganda, take the case of a 14-year-old boy who, from his bedroom, plotted an attack on a parade in Melbourne.

    That plot, developed over the internet, sought to behead police officers.

    The child was recruited online by a known Daesh recruiter.

    He himself had reached out in turn online to a 16-year-old girl, who was subsequently found to possess extremist literature, bomb-making instructions and violent imagery.

    Had we not detected that young man’s plot, many would have been killed.

    Cases such as this demonstrate Daesh’s insidious, sinister, seductive appeal; its ability to inspire, as well as to direct, attacks; and the extraordinary difficulty in detecting what they plan.

    Because these two children were not battle-hardened foreign fighters; they were not individuals who had travelled to Syria; they were not career criminals.

    They were young people, in their homes, using the internet – like my children, like so many of our children.

    It is stories like this which make me so determined to counter Daesh and safeguard those at risk of being corrupted by it.

    We cannot afford to ignore what lies behind radicalisation and terrorism.

    We must identify, anticipate and counter the doctrine of our enemies and how it is proselytized.

    Through our Prevent strategy, we have built a unique model of partnership between Government, civil society and industry.

    It supports people who are vulnerable to being drawn into terrorism. And it works with sectors and institutions where there are risks of radicalisation.

    Last year, we supported 130 community projects, reaching over 25,000 participants.

    Over half of these were delivered in schools, aimed at increasing young people’s resilience to terrorist and extremist ideologies.

    Since April 2015 we have engaged in Prevent with over 285 mosques, 200 community organisations, 100 faith organisations, 800 schools and colleges and 40 universities. The Prevent duty, of course, has cemented all of this.

    Nurturing the common good in the national interest.

    Much has also been made of Channel, our voluntary programme to support those at risk of radicalisation. Contrary to what some have alleged, this is, as I said, a voluntary programme.

    And hundreds of people have been provided with support.

    I can tell you today that the vast majority of those who choose to participate in Channel leave with no further concerns about their vulnerability of being drawn into terrorism.

    Channel works.

    Take the teenager reported to the police for considering travelling to Syria. She had a difficult family life – domestic violence; a broken home; isolated, few or no friends.

    She had been subject to a serious assault. And perhaps unsurprisingly, she turned to the internet for religious guidance.

    That so-called guidance led to her supporting Daesh and advocating hatred for non-believers.

    Through Channel, however, she was able to rebuild her relationship with her mother, to address her religious concerns and build her self-esteem and self-confidence.

    Let me be clear.

    Prevent is about radicalisation. Prevent is about safeguarding.

    The most significant of these threats is currently from Islamist terrorist organisations such as Daesh.

    They are trying specifically to incite and recruit people of Muslim background, partly by distorting religion for their own ends.

    Clearly, we need to respond to that.

    We must protect those most at risk of radicalisation. But let me be equally clear – Prevent covers all forms of such activity, whatever its source.

    This is about safeguarding; about protecting the common good.

    Global response

    I said earlier that the threats we faced are global.

    A global threat necessitates a global response.

    It is for that reason that we are playing a leading role in the global coalition of more than 60 countries committed to defeating Daesh.

    The Coalition includes Iraq, partners in the Arab world, European nations and the United States.

    We are working to defeat Daesh on all fronts – not just military, but cutting off its finances, sharing counter-terrorism expertise and working to defeat its poisonous narrative.

    At the heart of our work is the need for a political solution in Syria that brings peace to the country and enables millions of refugees to return home.

    We are working with the UN and international community to bring this about.

    Daesh has a worldwide influence that reaches across states and reaches across borders.

    So our response also needs to be global, not just in the UK, not just in Europe, not just in Syria and Iraq. In particular, Daesh has a footprint in Libya.

    It is important that we continue to support efforts to establish a unified national government there.

    It is only when one is established can begin the difficult work of establishing in turn effective, legitimate governance, restoring stability and tackling the threat posed by Daesh.

    Defeating Daesh’s values

    I spoke at the start about understanding the world as it really is.

    And that, as I have said, means understanding the threat we face.

    It means recognising the changing reality that makes the Investigatory Powers Bill so essential.

    It means ensuring that we deal with the poisonous ideas that underpins Daesh’s appeal.

    That is what drives all we do.

    Not only does that mean keeping the UK safe, dealing with the severe threat.

    It also means ensuring we are winning hearts and minds.

    It means defeating Daesh’s purported values.

    Daesh claims to offer clarity and certainty.

    That we have little or nothing to offer.

    If we are to counter that claim, to succeed, we must be realistic about the challenge we face, and in response have a positive vision of the pluralistic society we value.

    Out of adversity comes an opportunity – for us, for the UK, to provide real leadership and to develop a common response to terrorism that crosses social, cultural and national boundaries.

    Tackling the problem at source means working with communities, through our Prevent strategy, and speaking out against those who would divide us.

    It means working with industry, including with major communications service providers, to ensure we all have the tools we need and that they are fulfilling their responsibilities.

    It means working at home and abroad – in Europe and beyond – to help them respond robustly to the threat.

    As I have said there are those who are set on destroying our values, on radicalising our young people, on killing indiscriminately across the globe.

    Out of adversity comes opportunity – for us, for the UK, to provide real leadership, to grasp that our certainty must outpace our adversaries, our commitment must out match those who want to harm us.

    Sure that our confidence that we will triumph outshines those whose dark dreams and deadly intent we face. Our clear purpose is to keep our people safe from harm.

    In this struggle for the national interest – our determined cause:

    We will be certain.

    We are committed.

    And I am confident.

    Thank you so much.

  • Nicky Morgan – 2016 Speech to the Association of Colleges

    nickymorgan

    Below is the text of the speech made by Nicky Morgan, the Secretary of State for Education, at Church House in Dean’s Yard, London on 24 February 2016.

    Thank you, Carole [Stott, Association of Colleges], for that kind introduction.

    It’s a pleasure to be speaking here to college principals, senior leaders and governors at this Association of Colleges event today.

    I’d also like to take this opportunity to extend my personal thanks to Martin Doel as he prepares to leave his role at the Association of Colleges.

    Martin, you have done a fantastic job of leading the sector through a period of substantial change, and I am grateful for the determined way in which you have represented your members’ interests while engaging constructively with the government.

    Although you will be missed, I look forward with interest to seeing your research as the Professor for Further Education and Skills at UCL’s Institute of Education.

    Our nation’s discussion on education is very often focused on schools.

    This discussion can sometimes sidestep the important role that further education and sixth-form colleges play in the education of our young people.

    The importance of your role is very clear.

    But before I discuss the importance of your role I would like to set out my position on something everyone is talking about right now and that’s Britain’s membership of the European Union.

    Like the Prime Minister I have made my position very clear: that Britain is stronger, safer and better off in a reformed European Union. I don’t believe that Britain would fail outside the EU but I don’t want Britain to be cut off from its partners in Europe either.

    I don’t want children growing up in Britain today to have their ambitions limited. They should have the freedom to study elsewhere in the EU, and be enriched by the thousands of students who choose to come here to study too.

    Our world is changing around us very quickly and we cannot allow ourselves to be cut off from our neighbours and partners in Europe if we want to realise Britain’s true potential.

    Realising potential is what further education and sixth-form colleges are all about. And that’s something I know as a constituency MP. Loughborough College plays a significant role in my local area. It has been inspiring to be a member of the steering group of their Bridge to Work programme which won an Association of Colleges Beacon award in 2013.

    Nearly half of all our young people choose to attend an FE college or sixth-form college after finishing their GCSEs, and alongside the rest of the school system, there have been some tremendous successes since 2010. Earlier this month, I was pleased to see the Association of Colleges host an event in Parliament to celebrate student success.

    And it was no surprise that there were many inspiring stories.

    Stories that showed the power of colleges in transforming the lives of young people.

    Students such as Hannah Cooper, from Amersham College, whose experience at college improved her confidence so much that she eventually led an award-winning young enterprise team.

    Or students such as young entrepreneur Callum Coles, from Cirencester College, who has developed an approach aimed at reducing drink-driving. In this case, the sector has provided the foundation for him to transform the lives of others.

    These are just 2 examples of the many successes that take place across the whole of the country. They serve to demonstrate the central role the sector must play in preparing our young people for adult life.

    Spending Review settlement

    That role in preparing our young people for adult life underpinned the strong Spending Review settlement secured for the sector. A settlement that saw:

    – the base rate protected for 16- to 19-year-olds

    – the core adult skills budget protected throughout this Parliament

    – sixth-form colleges given the option to become academies

    As a government we recognise that this settlement was important given the key role of colleges in driving economic prosperity, improving skills and raising productivity.

    Technical and professional routes

    However, we believe that the purpose of education is much wider than just making our young people economically productive.

    What does that mean for the sector?

    It means that a core academic grounding in maths and English remains crucial to the education of our young people irrespective of their post-16 choices.

    The huge increase in the numbers of young people who didn’t secure English and maths A* to C at GCSE at 16 who are continuing study is a triumph for the sector, and thousands more young people are now securing those good passes which will unlock movement to a range of skilled occupations.

    This increase is down to the hard work and dedication of teachers who work in this sector who work tirelessly to ensure these students don’t have their options narrowed later in life due to a lack of core skills. I want to say thank you to the whole sector for all their work in delivering this.

    And we want to encourage colleges to continue to enrich the experience of their students to give them the cultural capital to succeed.

    But, we always need to be honest with our young people.

    Focusing on developing the skills, knowledge and character traits that make them employable are important. It serves as a basis for securing a lifetime of sustained employment – which will support their own ambitions and their future family.

    That is why technical and professional education is so important.

    Over the last few years we have made great steps forward following the trailblazing Wolf Review. However, whilst standards are improving, the system remains confusing and unnecessarily complex.

    There are over 13,000 qualifications available to 16- to 18-year-olds.

    So I ask you:

    How can a student know what the best route is for their chosen career?

    How can a student know which qualifications will be most relevant?

    How can a student know what will be valued by potential employers?

    Simply put: it is very difficult.

    That is why we will be simplifying the over-complex skills system by creating up to 20 new technical and professional routes to skilled employment. Helping students to make the transition from compulsory schooling to employment with the right skills for their chosen industry.

    And we will do this in direct partnership with employers and want colleges to be involved. Ensuring the new system provides the skills valued by employers and the 21st-century economy.

    The routes will lead young people from compulsory schooling into employment and the highest level of technical competence. Routes will include apprenticeships, and for many an apprenticeship will be the best option, providing an opportunity to train directly in the workplace.

    I am grateful that Lord Sainsbury has agreed to lead an expert panel to make recommendations to government in this area. We are fortunate to have Bev Robinson from Blackpool and The Fylde College on the panel, and I know the panel and officials have been speaking with AoC members directly about their views.

    Engagement with employers and character

    This is the right approach for students, colleges and employers.

    But it won’t work without engagement by colleges with local employers and local enterprise partnerships. And many colleges do work with employers – for example Furness College in Cumbria and BAE Systems or Bridgewater College in Somerset with Mulberry. Household name employers want to work with colleges to access our best students and equip them for work in their industry.

    Students want to know that their college is working with potential employers in their region and that their curriculum is aligned with local enterprise priorities.

    Employer engagement will help students secure employment and they will be able to take their skills and use them in their local area to support productivity and growth.

    We know we lag behind our international peers – that’s why we launched the productivity plan in July, right after we returned to government.

    In a recent report on skills and employment in the UK economy, it was highlighted that this government has an excellent record on job creation, but there is room for further productivity improvements by developing the skills of our young people.

    One of the most interesting aspects of this report for me personally was that 2 types of skills need to be improved.

    The first are the technical and professional skills that will be addressed through our strategy on new technical and professional routes and requirements for English and maths.

    But the second are the softer skills – those that are often associated with the development of good character. The ability for students to get up and get on in the working world.

    I want our colleges to be places that develop the character of their students to prepare them for life in modern Britain. Character traits like:

    – self-improvement

    – determination

    – self-discipline

    And these are just 3 of the character traits associated with success.

    That is why we are committed to over 1 billion pounds of funding over this Parliament for the National Citizen Service to serve over 300,000 15- to 17-year-old students by 2020 after finishing their GCSE exams.

    Giving young people the chance to be informed and active citizens – understanding their responsibilities as well as their rights.

    We must work in partnership to deliver on the development of knowledge and skills but also on character education.

    And let me be clear: this is not a ‘nice to have’, it is a must have for students to succeed and realise their full potential irrespective of their background.

    I therefore have 2 challenges I want to put to you all as college chairs and principals:

    – work even more with employers to deliver the right skills for your students and local community

    – and develop the character of your students even more so they can succeed in the working world and be fully prepared for adult life
    Apprenticeships

    And, we can’t talk about technical and professional education routes without the discussing the critical importance of work placements and apprenticeships.

    Learning in the workplace is crucial for our young people – it provides them with hands-on experience and helps them develop the character traits needed for success in adult life.

    That is why this government is committed to a 3-million-apprenticeship-starts target by 2020. I want to see our 16- to 18-year-olds choosing apprenticeships and to help meet that ambitious target because apprenticeships are an option on par with higher qualifications.

    And I want to stress this now – we must make sure students are aware of all the options open to them. For some, it will be the academic route that leads to university. But for others, the technical and professional education provided through an apprenticeship or via classroom based provision with a work placement.

    The apprenticeships of today cover industries from across the whole economy. From engineering and construction through to digital marketing and fashion.

    There is no room for the outdated snobbery that apprenticeship and technical routes are somehow lesser.

    They are not.

    Colleges have always recognised that we need to cater for these students and with this commitment combined with our skills reform package we will continue to make great strides forward.

    And our skills reform package will be anchored in quality as supported by the Institute for Apprenticeships who will ensure the standards match the requirements of employers in every sector.

    However, when I look at the data right now – I see that only 37% of apprenticeship funding is going toward colleges, compared to 60% to independent training providers.

    Of course, competition is healthy for this sector. But, it is time for it to step up to the plate and forge lasting links with employers to be the ‘go to’ provider of apprentices in their local community.

    The apprenticeship levy shows this government’s commitment – and it opens opportunities for you to work with each other and engage with employers to offer the right apprenticeships for your local areas.

    I want to see this sector secure a larger share of that apprenticeship revenue stream and remain confident you can do it.

    Area reviews

    Part of that confidence is built on the constructive engagement we have had across the sector on area reviews. You all understand that we must have a further education and sixth-form college sector that is of high quality and are financially resilient and sustainable.

    And getting there will mean some difficult decisions.

    For some it will involve mergers to take account of scale economies or the ability to rationalise your estate. For others, it will be ensuring the curriculum is mapped with student and employer demands.

    We want to support you as you go through this process but we rightly recognise that this must be locally-led.

    High-quality leadership teams in financially resilient institutions will be able to deliver on our shared commitment to improve the skills and life chances of our young people. And I am pleased to see that the first wave of reviews are starting to produce those kinds of outcomes that will help meet these aims.

    Conclusion

    Further education and sixth-form colleges are central institutions to the education of young people: preparing them for adult life and developing the skills for a more prosperous nation.

    This government’s commitment to the sector through the Spending Review settlement, reform to technical and professional routes and target of 3 million apprentices; alongside your staff’s dedication and shared commitment to transforming the lives of young people is a partnership that will truly prepare our young people for adult life.

    Thank you.

  • David Cameron – 2016 Speech in Slough on the EU

    davidcameron

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Cameron, the Prime Minister, at O2’s Headquarters in Slough on 23 February 2016.

    Thank you, thank you very much. It’s great to be here in Slough, where so many – what? Hold on a second. This is actually the town where so many businesses have their European headquarters, where so many jobs have been created, and I think it’s a very good place to start the conversation we need to have over the next 4 months about whether Britain stays in the European Union or leaves.

    As Karen said, it’s also good to be starting in a telecoms company. This is a very successful business, but in an extraordinarily successful industry. 200,000 people employed in the UK: you account for almost 2% of our economy, so a great place to start.

    Now, in 4 months’ time, we’re all going to have to make a very, very big decision: does Britain stay in a reformed European Union or do we vote to leave? Now, you make decisions at election times, and I would argue this is a much bigger decision, because at election times, you can vote in a team of people, and if you’re fed up with them after 5 years, you can vote them out. Obviously, I don’t like that bit, but you can do that.

    This is a decision, though, that lasts for life. We make this decision, and it’s probably going to be the only time in our generation when we make this decision. And I was determined to make sure the British people had the very best possible decision. So what I’ve done for the last 9 months is to try and sort out some of the things that people are frustrated with, with the European Union. Because it’s not a perfect organisation; no organisation is perfect.

    And I thought that the 4 things that most frustrated people about the European Union was that it’s been too bureaucratic and not competitive enough, so we got a proper set of actions to make sure we take burdens off business and create jobs and sign trade deals around the world. I’ve sensed – and I think many people have sensed – that it’s been too much of a political union, too much about the politics, and not about creating jobs and prosperity. So we’ve got Britain carved out of an ever closer union, so we don’t have to take part in those things anymore.

    I’ve sensed – I think a lot of people have sensed – that it’s been too much of a single-currency club. The euro is tremendously important for those countries in it, but those countries out of it like Britain, we want to make sure we’re treated fairly inside the European Union, so we have fixed that to make sure we can never be discriminated against.

    And the fourth thing I wanted to fix was to make sure that, of course we have free movement in Europe: you can live and work and travel and retire in different European countries. But we need to take some of the pressure off in terms of migration, and specifically, we need to have greater control over our own welfare system. So I’ve managed to secure the agreement that people who come to Britain and work, they’re going to have to come and work for 4 years before they get full access to our welfare systems. Now, I’m not saying I’ve solved all the problems that Britain’s got with Europe, or all Europe’s problems, but I think this is a good basis to now ask people, ‘Do you want to stay in this reformed Europe or do you want to leave?’

    And I think when we come to this, the really big question, I think there are 3 very positive reasons for wanting to stay inside this reformed European Union. The first is, that I believe we’ll be better off, that we’ll create more jobs, we’ll create more livelihoods, we’ll see more investment, we’ll see more success for Britain. Why? Well, because we’re part, inside the European Union, of the biggest free-trade single market anywhere in the world: 500 million people, bigger than the US, bigger than China’s internal market. This is the wealthiest, strongest market in the world, and we have privileged access, without tariffs, the ability to trade and invest right across the EU.

    And I think about it from O2’s point of view. Because we’ve got a set of rules about telecommunications and mobile phones and the rest of it, that’s been good for business because we’ve been able to break down barriers in other countries and set up businesses in other countries. That’s good for jobs, because we’re creating more jobs, including right here in Slough. But it’s also good for consumers, because this competition inside the single market has actually driven down prices and it’s cheaper now; much cheaper to use a mobile phone today than it was a decade ago. And also, with the end of roaming, it’s going to be – which we’re getting in 2017, it will be cheaper still when you travel.

    So point one, I think we’ll be better off. Far better off inside the European Union. Three million jobs are dependent on our trade with Europe. Now, of course, not all the jobs would go if we left the European Union; we’d still do trade with Europe. But can we really put our hands on our hearts and say all those jobs would be safe, that we wouldn’t be disadvantaged if we were on the outside? I don’t believe we can, so we’re better off.

    The second reason is, I believe that we’ll be safer inside the European Union. We obviously face, in our world today, some very big threats in terms of crime and terrorism, and obviously the primary thing we do there is we have a strong police force, we have security and intelligence services, we work with our longstanding partners like America to try and keep our people and keep our country safe. But I can tell you, as your Prime Minister, I’ve seen so many times how the border information we exchange with other European countries, how the criminal records information we exchange with other countries, this helps to keep us safe.

    Let me just give you one example. We all remember those terrible days in 2005 when London was bombed by terrorists. The second time that was attempted, on 21st July, 1 of those bombers got out of the country, but because we were part of the European Arrest Warrant, we were able to get him arrested, get him back to the UK, and he’s now sitting doing a 40-year jail sentence. Before we had the European Arrest Warrant, before we had those arrangements, it could take years, sometimes as much as a decade, to get people extradited from other European countries back here, so we will be safer inside the reformed European Union.

    I also believe we’ll be stronger. I believe profoundly that Britain is not the sort of country that simply looks inward on itself. We know that we should have a role in the world, because we will be stronger and safer and better off if we can actually get things done around our world. And as part of the European Union, just as being part of NATO or part of the United Nations, we can get things done. How did we get those oil sanctions against Iran, so they gave up their nuclear weapons? We did that inside the EU. How have we made sure we’ve had a strong response to Vladimir Putin and what he’s trying to do in the Ukraine? We’ve had sanctions set out inside the EU. How have we stopped our ships being attacked as they go round the coast of Africa and Somalia? We’ve done that through NATO, but also through the EU. So I believe we are stronger in the world if we are part of a reformed European Union. So stronger, safer, better off.

    But I think we have to recognise in this decision you’re all going to take in 4 months’ time, that it is a choice. I’ve set out the positive choice of why I think we’re better off, stronger and safer, but we also need to ask ourselves, what would it look like outside the EU? And here I think we need some answers from the people making the other case, because right now, they’re not telling us what it’s going to be like outside the EU. I’ve looked at what the models are. You can have a situation like Norway. They sign up to all the rules of the EU, so they have to pay into the EU, they have to take migration from the EU, but they have no say on what the rules are. That seems to me a very, very poor deal.

    You could go to the other end of the spectrum, and say, as I think Mr Farage did yesterday, ‘Let’s just have the World Trade Organisation rules and be a member of the World Trade Organisation outside the EU, and see what that means.’ Well, what that would mean is, you’d start having to pay tariffs every time you export a car to Europe. Britain, for instance, is now the third largest manufacturer of cars in the EU: it employs 140,000 people. So I think we’ve got to look very carefully at these alternatives, because each one of them shares a key disadvantage, which is that basically, if you leave the EU, you no longer have any say over the rules, over the laws, over the way this market works, and we are, in the end, a trading nation where our businesses need access to that market and need a say over those rules.

    When all is said and done, it’s not going to be me that makes the choice; it’s going to be all of you. This is a referendum where every single vote counts the same. But I just make 2 final pleas to you. First of all, I think what we can have now is the best of both worlds. Inside the bits of the EU that work for us, inside the single market, inside the political cooperation to get things done, inside those things that keep us safe against terrorists and criminals, but not in the single currency, not in the Schengen no-borders system, not in an ever-closer political union. We have the best of both worlds.

    Final thing from me is that I feel very strongly about this. I feel that having spent 9 months trying to get us a better deal, securing that deal, and now with 4 months to go before this referendum, I feel with all I’ve seen in the last 6 years as your Prime Minister, the right decision is to stay in a reformed EU. I have no other agenda. I’m not standing as your Prime Minister at the next election. I’m simply going to speak for the next 4 months about the advantages I see of staying in and the dangers of coming out. But in the end it will be your choice, the British people’s choice. If you choose to stay in, we know what we get. If you choose to leave, I will put in place the arrangements as your Prime Minister that you asked me to do. But my strong advice, with all that I’ve seen and all that I know, is the right thing for Britain is to stay in a reformed Europe and to cast that vote on 23 June.

    Thank you very much and look forward to your questions.

    Now, we’ve got some time for questions if you put your hand up and there’ll be roving microphones and if you wait for those. You may not need them, but just in case.

    Question

    Hi there. Thank you very much. So just a quick question. Looking at BBC News the other day I noticed that the pound had gone down about 2% against the dollar. I just wondered what your thoughts were on the impact on the British economy based on the speculation of a Brexit or a British exit from the EU? Also, the kind of long-term impact of that and also the short-term impact of that, and I guess what you’re going to look to, to rectify that.

    Prime Minister

    Well look, I think it’s a very good point. I don’t think it’s necessarily right to speculate too much about what happens on the markets one day against another, but the government will want to set out very clearly what we think the economic impacts could be. Obviously we know if we stay in a reformed European Union we know what to expect. We know how the market works, we know how to sell our goods, we know how to create jobs, we know how the systems work. If we leave, there is this period of great uncertainty. And that’s why I think there could be a bad economic effect and what we’ll do is make sure that the Treasury and the Bank of England and other authoritative organisations set out the facts, set out the figures so people can make a judgement.

    But I think the reason why there’d be a bad effect is quite simple: if you leave, the process is you spend 2 years discussing the arrangements for leaving, and at the end of those 2 years, unless there’s unanimous agreement by the other 27 members, you’re automatically out of the European Union. And as you spend those 2 years negotiating what your position will be like outside the EU, you can’t really do the trade deals with other countries that we have today. So I think there’ll be big uncertainty for businesses. And that’s why I think, if you believe in voting to leave you’ve got to really believe it. You’ve got to feel very, very strongly this is the right answer because I think there’ll be a lot of uncertainty and businesses will be saying, ‘Well what are the rules for exporting, what is our access to the single market, how certain can we be?’ And that’s why I’m so pleased that O2 today has come out very strongly in support of staying in a reformed European Union. We’ve got 35 of the biggest businesses in Britain who’ve all said that they think Britain is better off. Nissan, the car company – and we make more cars now in the north east of England than the whole of Italy because of the great success of Nissan. And they’ve said this today, ‘For us, a position of stability is more positive than a collection of unknowns.’ And I think that is worth listening to.

    Obviously we’ve got to listen to other voices as well, but when we listen to businesses we’re not just listening to what some big business chief might say, we’re actually listening to the effect on jobs, to the effect on families’ finances, to the effect on the prosperity for our country and for all our people.

    Okay, let’s have a question from up here.

    Question

    What do you see the potential advantage is for us leaving? I know you talk about advantages of us staying, but if we were to leave, what would you see as the advantages?

    Prime Minister

    I think those who want to leave should speak about those, but chiefly what they point to, I think, is this idea that obviously if you leave the EU you are able to make more decisions for yourself because you’re not taking part in the decisions in the EU that cover a lot of areas of regulation or legislation, such as the laws that for instance govern mobile phones in Europe. I think, look, that is true but you’ve got to ask yourself, does that make you more powerful? Does it make you genuinely more sovereign? Because the fact is if you leave the EU the EU doesn’t cease to exist.

    So let’s take your industry. If we were to leave, you’d still have the European Union making rules about mobile phone coverage, technology and all the rest of it. We’d be on the outside and if we wanted to sell into the EU we’d still have to obey the rules that were being written. The difference is that we wouldn’t be writing them.

    Now some people say, ‘Yes, but you never get to write the rules, you’re not that powerful in Europe.’ Well Britain is the second largest economy, the second largest net contributor and we do make a real impact on those rules. In fact, I would argue, if you take your industry, if we weren’t there I think Europe would become probably more protectionist, less open, it’d be less easy for companies like O2 to break into other European markets. So I think what you’d be left with, if we were to leave, is a sense that you might feel a bit more sovereign about making your own decisions, but you wouldn’t actually be able to make the decisions that make a difference to people’s lives.

    So I think you get more power and influence in, than you get from the illusion of sovereignty out. But I think that’s going to be one of the key questions in this campaign.

    Let’s have one from the press.

    Question

    Thank you very much, Prime Minister. Listen, my question is this: a former Tory leader today, William Hague who knows all about splits on Europe, warned about the dangers ahead in the coming months, and that’s partly because a man who wants to be Tory leader, Boris Johnson, will be campaigning on the other side to you. When you said yesterday you have no other agenda, and you’ve repeated that here today, we all know you were talking about Boris Johnson, will you at least admit that?

    Prime Minister

    No, look I’m saying this because I feel this so strongly. Right? I’m not standing again as Prime Minister and I just want people to know that I am speaking about this issue after thinking about it very, very deeply. After thinking about all the things I’ve learnt as Prime Minister over the last 6 years.

    I think 6, 10, 15 years ago, I don’t think that I believed that Europe was as important to our security as I believe it is today because I’ve seen with my own eyes just how important this security and intelligence and sharing of information is.

    I’m not sure that 6 maybe 10 years ago I thought that Europe was quite so important for Britain getting things done in the world. I thought obviously NATO matters, our partnership with America matters, but I see and I’ve seen this for 6 years that if we want to fix stuff, whether it is trying to stop people smugglers in the Mediterranean, whether it’s trying to stop pirates off the coast of Africa, whether it’s confronting Iran about the nuclear programme, whether it’s trying to get better results in Syria, we gain by sitting round that table with the French, with the Germans, with the Italians and getting things done.

    Look, we can do great things on our own. We’ve got amazing armed forces, brilliant intelligence services, we’re the fifth biggest economy in the world, we’re a great power. But we get more by being in these organisations and I want to speak very clearly about that because I feel this, with my experience over the last 6 years, very, very deeply.

    Now let me say about Boris, I have huge respect for Boris as a politician. He’s a great friend of mine. He is a fantastic Mayor of London. I think he’s got a lot to give to the Conservative party. I think he’s got a lot to give to this country. But on this issue I think he’s got it wrong and I think he’s reached the wrong conclusion. So we’re going to have, I hope, a very reasonable, civilised argument, both between us and between other parties, and you’re going to find people with some fairly strange bedfellows. This is one where, you know, Jeremy Corbyn and I agree. I mean, we don’t agree about many things but we agree about this one.

    So we just have to have a debate, and yes of course it’s going to be a strong and a passionate debate, and I think he’s got this one wrong. And I would say to anybody who is thinking about this and is struggling to decide, because I think lots of people, I think we all feel quite conflicted. In all of us there’s a questioning about what’s the right answer for Britain. I would say: anyone who’s finding it hard to make up your mind, and you feel it’s a very balanced decision, I would say come down on the side of security and safety and certainty. Because in this reformed European Union we know what we get. We know what we get in terms of jobs and prosperity and security. Outside, what do we get? And I don’t think the people who want us to leave are spelling it out.

    Yesterday in Parliament it was quite interesting. Not only do the people who want to leave, not only are they not sure about what they want to do when they’ve left, i.e., do you want to have a Norway-style solution or do you want a world trade solution or do you want a trade deal? They haven’t worked that one out but they’re also not sure about how they even want to leave or indeed in some cases whether they really do want to leave. Some people are suggesting, maybe if we vote no, we can have a second renegotiation, we can have a second referendum, and I think that is a complete illusion. This is a straight decision: you stay in or you get out, and I think it’s misleading people if we pretend there’s some other answer here.

    So I think Boris has got this wrong. I have huge respect for him; I think he’s got a very strong future in British politics. But on this one, I think he’s made the wrong decision.

    Now, let’s have gentleman over here.

    Question

    Welcome to O2, Prime Minister. You mentioned the European Union, and you mentioned that the UK is the world’s fifth biggest economy, it’s the second biggest economy in the EU and the second biggest contributor. There are those who say that the EU cannot credibly continue without us in it, and that if we were to vote for Brexit, it would lead to the EU’s breakup, which the UK could end up being a haven for investors and so on. How would you respond to that argument? We hear a lot about the impact on the UK, but what do you think the impact could be on the EU and the implications for the UK if we vote for Brexit?

    Prime Minister

    It’s a very good question. I think the impact on the EU, I’d say 2 points about that. One is, I think it would weaken the west at a time of great concern and conflict. We’ve got Putin to the east, we’ve got Daesh in Syria and Iraq, and problems of terrorism. This – it’s a time, I think, for strength in numbers. It’s not a time for dividing the west. So in that respect, it would make the EU weaker and make the west weaker.

    But the other thing I’d say is, I don’t believe – some people believe if Britain left the EU, the whole thing would sort of collapse. I don’t think that is the case. I think actually, what would happen is the EU would probably become more protectionist. I think it would probably become more politically integrated. I think it would probably want to take even more decisions over people’s lives, and those decisions would affect us. I think this is one of the key points; one of my cabinet ministers said at the cabinet meeting, you know, ‘We’d all like to be in Utopia, but I guess when we get to Utopia, we might find the EU’s there already.’ You know, this thing doesn’t cease to exist because we leave it, and I think it would go in the wrong direction.

    And if you take your industry specifically, you know, Britain has been a great force in Europe and continues to be a great force in Europe for opening up markets, for saying that other countries should liberalise their telecoms sectors and allow in new companies, just as we’ve done here. And I think that if we’re not there making that point, less of that will happen, and that is bad news for British telecoms companies. So I think it would be a worse Europe if we’re not there, but at the same time, I think we’d be showing disunity at a time when we need strength in numbers for the security of our people.

    Let’s have a few more questions.

    Question

    Hi, Mr Cameron. We’ve obviously had the blond bombshell of Mr Johnson coming out and supporting the ‘leave’ campaign. Also, I noticed today that almost 2 thirds of FTSE 100 CEOs didn’t sign a letter to suggest we should stay in the EU. Are you concerned there’s increasing momentum going towards the ‘leaving EU’ campaign?

    Prime Minister

    I think it’s going to be a very hard-fought contest. I think that, you know, they’re very strong arguments on both sides; there’ll be very strong figures on both sides. But I think when it comes to business and industry, the overwhelming view I am getting is that British business, particularly those that trade a lot with Europe, really want us to stay in the EU. And for 35 FTSE 100 companies to come out and say this so clearly as they have today, I think that is a very positive, very clear decision by them and a very clear message, that they’re saying, ‘We’ll be better off if we stay in.’ And, you know, for companies these days to make a statement like that, they find that sometimes quite difficult; they have to go through corporate governance proceedings, board meetings, to make those decisions. And many businesses don’t want to get involved in any political issue.

    But I would say to them: this is not like a general election. It’s not about backing one team or another team. This is a decision that we’re going to have to live with in Britain for decades to come, and so if you have a strong view, you should make it clear. But I think it’s a – I can’t remember before 35 FTSE 100 companies coming out in this way quite so clearly. So I’m convinced the strongest arguments are on the ‘remain’ side, and I’m going to use everything I’ve got in the next 4 months to put those arguments, because I believe this is so important.

    Question

    Thank you very much indeed. Prime Minister, the business letter which was raised by the previous questioner, isn’t the era of business leaders telling the British people how to vote over? Shouldn’t this be a debate about the strength of people’s arguments, not their share prices?

    And secondly, if I may, can you just be more – answer that question a little bit more fully: why do you think so few other business leaders, those other 2 thirds, didn’t sign your letter? Because I know that you were hopeful that more would.

    Prime Minister

    Well, first of all, I would say it is a huge number of FTSE 100 companies, the 100 biggest companies in the country, coming out and being so clear that Britain is better off remaining in a reformed Europe. That’s a very clear statement. As I say, one of the reasons companies often find it hard to go forward is that they sometimes have to have board meetings and sometimes don’t want to make any form of political statement. But I can tell you this: if the ‘leave’ campaign could produce 35 business leaders of this statute – of this sort of stature, they’d be over the moon. And I don’t think they have the prospect of doing that with FTSE 100 leaders in any way like what has happened today.

    Now, I would argue, this is not business leaders telling people how to vote. This is simply people running some of the largest businesses in our country that employ over 1 million people between them, saying this has real consequences for our country, and if we care about jobs, if we care about investment, if we care about a strong British economy, then the right decision is to remain in the EU, and I would encourage, not just businesses, I’d encourage trade unions to speak out, I’d encourage voluntary bodies, non governmental organisations, universities, anyone who thinks this is important. If you think it affects your business, affects jobs, affects the way that you think Britain can do well or badly in the world, speak out. This is a really, really important decision. We’re going to take it in 4 months, and it’s going to last for decades, so I don’t think anyone should hold back. I’m certainly not going to hold back, and I think that anyone who thinks this is important: speak out.

    Question

    I was wondering if you could take us back to the moment when you found out that Boris Johnson was going to campaign for the other side, as you. How did you find out, and were you irritated or were you just disappointed?

    Prime Minister

    No, I – you know, I’ve been talking to Boris for many weeks about this issue. We’ve had lots of long conversations about it, lots of text messages and emails and face-to-face conversations about it. And look, I – of course I’m disappointed, because I want everyone possible to back my side of the argument, and I believe in it very passionately, and so obviously I’m disappointed. But I understand there are lots of people who, you know, have very strong views about this.

    But I would say to anyone who’s taking time to decide, who’s thinking about it and weighing it up and trying to work out what’s best, if you’re not certain, surely the best thing to do is to back the side that has the security and the safety and the certainty of what we know. Because it is undoubtedly true that voting to leave is a risk. Even if you think there’s going to be some great future at the end of the process – and I don’t buy that – there’s undoubtedly a period of risk and uncertainty. You’ve got two years when you have to negotiate what your leaving looks like. During that period, you can’t go around signing trade deals with other countries, and when you leave, what is your relationship going to be with the single market on which so many jobs depend? What will be the decision of businesses thinking about where to invest in Europe, about whether they should come to Britain?

    Here we are in a telecoms firm, but let’s take another example, let’s take financial services, an important industry. Right now, all those businesses know what they’ve got. They know that if you are located in Britain, because we’re a member of the EU, you can sell your services in every other EU country. Now, if we leave the EU, we may not have that, and so those companies, if they’re only based in Britain, would have to move some jobs into other EU countries. Overseas companies thinking of coming here would think, ‘Well, why come to Britain? Because I don’t get that right to passport all my services throughout the rest of the EU. I’d better go somewhere else.’ So it seems to me there’s a real danger of job losses, in that industry and in many others besides.

    Plus, I think you’ve got to think something else. If you’re not in the single market, what is the danger of the countries of the single market discriminating against you? Right now, we have recourse to stop that. Europe the other day did actually try, very annoyingly, to say that if you wanted to do complex deals in euros, you had to be in a eurozone country. That was really bad news for Britain but we fought it, through the courts, and we won, and in my renegotiation we’ve set out a principal that means that can never happen again. But leave the single market, leave the European Union, yes we’d still have a great financial services industry, London’s an amazing financial centre, but they could start discriminating against us from day one. And what recourse would we have?

    So these are the questions and that’s why I say there is uncertainty, there is risk, there is a leap in the dark if you leave the single market and leave the EU, so if you’re not certain, don’t leap. Stay with what we’ve got, knowing it’s going to get better because of the deal I negotiated with the EU which does address some of the biggest concerns we’ve had in our country.

    Let’s have a few more. Lady up here. Thank you.

    Question

    Hiya, so – so my question is in terms of common man like – I am not part of Britain, I come from overseas, so I see my neighbour who’s a Polish guy who’s getting more benefits than I’m supposed to get it, so what is it like?

    Prime Minister

    I think this issue about benefits and welfare and migration, I think is a really important issue and I’ll be very level with you: part of being in the European Union is accepting the free movement of people. That we are able, in Britain, if we want, to go and work and live, travel, retire in other European countries, and other European countries can come and do that here in Britain. So there is that free movement, but what there’s not is the free movement to go and claim benefits. If someone comes to Britain, if they – under all the rules I’ve changed, if they come to Britain, they can’t claim unemployment benefit for the time they come. If they haven’t got a job after 6 months, they have to go home because they can’t sustain themselves. And what we’ve now agreed is that if you come and work, you don’t get full access to our tax credits, our in-work benefits for 4 years. And also if you claim child benefit, you can only claim child benefit at a rate discounted for the country you come from. So I think these are good changes, big changes which will have an effect on this issue about welfare claiming and migration that I think has concerned people in our country.

    But I’m not saying we’ve solved all the problems, there still is pressure from freedom of movement and that’s why we’ve made some other changes as well, to make sure that if people have – are criminals, we don’t have to let them in, if there are people trying to do sham marriages, that we can deal with that. A whole lot of changes to free movement, and I think that’s really important because people want to know there’s a basic sense of fairness. And I would say the thing people most want to know is that there’s no something for nothing. You can’t come here and start claiming benefits straight away, you’ve got to pay into the system before you get out of the system. And that’s one of the things that my renegotiation has secured.

    Okay, let’s have a few more, let’s have the gentleman right here.

    Question

    I just wanted to kind of ask a question about ourselves as O2 and try and bring it to life in that sense. You might be aware that we’re being acquired by Hutchison at the moment, and BT EE’s transaction went through the CMA, it was all fine, and then because we’re foreign-owned, it’s going through a European Commission body and they – probably it was different political or whatever agenda to us. I’m just wondering if you think that’s a proof point of success?

    Prime Minister

    Okay, first thing is, the way this works is that mergers, over a certain size, are looked at by the European Union. It’s not because you’re owned by a foreign owned country, it’s because of the scale of the merger that’s being contemplated. Now I must make no comment on it, it’s not up to me, it’s up to independent competition bodies, both here in the UK and in the EU. So they will have to decide, and I was talking to your Chief Executive about this; they’ll have to decide whether it is good for competition and all the rest of it, or not.

    What I would say though, just come back to how this impacts your industry: this has been, and is, an unbelievable success story. You think about – go back 10, 20 years, how many people were employed in mobile telephony, now we’re talking about 200,000 people, the spawning of huge numbers of different industries around what you do, with all the games and the applications and all the rest of it.

    And I would argue that, for your industry, of course we’d still have a great mobile phone market in Britain if we were outside the EU, of course we’d still have great mobile phone companies, but would we have the opportunities to use these rules in Europe to break up the monopolies in other countries and make sure that O2 can be a success in those countries too? We wouldn’t, and I think they’d go in the opposite direction. And when I look around Europe and telecoms markets, so many of them are still dominated by the old legacy nationalised company. And actually we’ve shown in Britain that a more competitive market means lower prices, better services, much more innovation. And we want to drive that right across the EU. We’ve got a chance to lead the EU in this industry. Indeed, some of the best companies have been born and bred right here in Britain and I want them to be able to, you know, paint on the larger canvas and create the jobs, more of which we want to see here.

    Last question I’m afraid. Lady here.

    Question

    You’ve talked a lot about big business but I’m interested to know, as a strong supporter of small business, do you really think that being in the EU is better for them?

    Prime Minister

    Very good question. Okay we’ve done a lot of arguments about a big company like O2, and what it means. What about small companies? I’d make a couple of points. First of all, about 1 in 5 small companies export, and most of them will be exporting to Europe as well as other countries. And there the same arguments apply. If you are going to sell into Europe, you’ve got to meet the rules of the single market. So if you’re outside the EU, you still have to meet those rules, but you have no say on what they are. And I think Britain can be a force for good, in Europe, in terms of making sure the rules are fair, and making sure we cut bureaucracy. And one of the things I secured in my agreement, the special status for Britain, is that we are going to have targets to cut bureaucracy in each of the main business areas, which I think will help small business.

    I’d also make this point: many small businesses that don’t export are part of a supply chain with companies that do export, and so I think that the idea that there are two sorts of businesses, one entirely domestic and one international and exporting, I think is rather out of date.

    Now those who want to leave will argue of course if you’re outside the EU then you’ve got to meet the single market rules when you sell into Europe but you could deregulate your rules here in the UK. But there I would say: is that really worth that much? When you look at all the international surveys, they say that Britain is one of the best places in the world to start a business, to run a business, to comply with regulation and the rest of it. So I don’t think the benefit you get out of being outside the EU, on that basis, is worth anything like the giving up of the influence and the rules in the single market on which we do rely. The figures are very straight forward: 50% of what we export goes to other EU countries; 7% of what they export comes to us, so when some people say, ‘Well we’ve got a trade deficit with Europe, so they need us more than we need them,’ I think they’re making a mistake.

    We obviously are a global country, we trade all over the world, we’ve doubled our exports to China, and we need small businesses to play a part in that too. And we shouldn’t be choosing between either doing better in the Far East, the Middle East, China, America, the Commonwealth, we shouldn’t be choosing between that and doing well in Europe. We should try and do both. Let’s be in the single market, trading effectively with other European countries and increasing jobs and growth. And at the same time getting out there and taking on the world in the way that we have with China and India and other countries.

    Look I really enjoyed coming today, thank you for being so patient with me and thank you very much indeed. Thanks a lot.

  • Andrew Jones – 2016 Speech on the Buses Bill

    andrewjones

    Below is the text of the speech made by Andrew Jones, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Transport, on 23 February 2016.

    Introduction

    Thank you for the chance to speak this evening (23 February 2016).

    It’s a really opportune time to be speaking in Parliament about road passenger transport, and in particular, about buses. Because we will shortly introduce the government’s Buses Bill: the first bus-specific legislation in living memory. So tonight is a good opportunity to say the latest on what the bill will contain.

    Background to the bill – 3 principles

    But first, I would like to set out some of the thinking behind the bill. It’s a bill that has been informed by three principles.

    Our first principle is simply this: that people using buses is a good thing. Bus services offer huge public benefits. They help people get to the shops and to work, boosting our economy. They enable people to visit friends and family, building social links. And buses can reduce air pollution, helping our environment.

    So our second principle is that, given we want to see people using buses, local areas should have the best possible tools for supporting and increasing that bus usage. Over recent decades, the trend in numbers of people taking the bus is patchy. There’s regional variation. Some places have seen declines. In others there’s been a rise. Either way, it’s clear that the tools local areas have at their disposal to increase bus usage, such as the quality contracts — introduced in 2001 but still never successfully used — are insufficiently effective. So we believe there’s a case for local areas to have some new options, even if those options won’t be taken up in every area.

    And that leads to the third principle informing the bill: the principle of devolution. Devolution is an underlying theme of this government. And not just in transport. You can see it in free schools, academies, the scrapping of centrally-set targets for local authorities, and directly elected mayors. It’s because people want more of a say in the decisions that affect them. And there’s an appetite for political power to become more local. So we’ve agreed devolution deals with Manchester, Liverpool, Sheffield, and several other areas. And these places have told us that, for devolution to reach its full potential, they need greater choice over how local transport works. To have the choice, for example, to link bus routes to local economic development, such as new housing, and new business parks.

    Open data

    So those are the principles that inform the content of the Buses Bill. And those principles are why the bill will include a requirement that operators make data about routes, fares and times open and accessible.

    It is in everyone’s interests for people to know as much as possible about the bus services in their area. So through open data, app makers will be able to develop products that passengers can use to plan their journeys and give people the confidence to leave the car at home and take the bus instead.

    New partnerships

    The bill will also introduce new arrangements for local authorities and bus operators to enter into partnership with one another; to agree their own standards for all services in their area; perhaps focusing on frequency and reliability along a particular route or transport corridor; or setting emissions standards to improve local air quality; or introducing common branding, marketing and ticketing rules over a wider geographical area.

    This new partnership approach won’t be right for every area. And sometimes, there will be a case for more radical change. For example, some of the things that some local areas want can be difficult to deliver in a fully de-regulated bus market — such as a single fare structure across different operators and transport modes.

    Franchising

    So the bill will honour our devolution deal commitments to give local authorities the choice to use new powers to franchise bus services in their areas. I want to keep the good parts of the quality contract scheme process, which at least forces people to think things through properly. But I want to lose the parts which don’t work, such as the excessive cost and the bureaucracy. The decision to take up these new powers will be for local areas to take. Ministers might have a role in granting the powers in the first place — as they presently do through the devolution deal process. But once a local area has these powers, the decision to use them will be theirs and theirs alone.

    As you would expect, local areas will need clear arrangements for ensuring the powers are used accountably, the capability to meet their promises to passengers, and a system that does not disadvantage bus services that cross local or national boundaries. Yet we certainly do not foresee a one-size-fits-all approach in every area. Some local authorities may want to introduce newly-integrated, uniformly branded networks of services, much like you see in London. Others will just want to build and improve on what’s already there. Whatever approach is chosen — and that will be a local decision — we want to ensure that bus operators and the wider supply chain have as much notice of change as possible, and that the effects on small operators are considered properly.

    What the bill will not do

    So that is what the bill will do. Yet before concluding, I would also like to set out what the bill will not do.

    First, and for the benefit of the coach operators in the room, it will not affect long-distance coach services. Nor will it affect coach hire services. It will only to apply to local bus services. And even then, its effect will differ from area to area. Because the bill will be an enabling bill. It gives local authorities new choices about how they can improve bus services. But it does not impose those choices. In many cases it may be better to leave things just as they are. For those cases, our message will be – if it isn’t broken, don’t fix it. The status quo is acceptable too.

    And finally, neither will the bill give local authorities new powers to take bus operators’ assets, such as vehicles or land. Oversight of anti-competitive behaviour will be left to the Competition and Markets Authority — exactly where oversight lies at the moment.

    Conclusion

    So I hope that summary of the bill, of the thinking behind it and its contents, has been helpful.

    We will introduce the bill soon — as soon as we’ve finished the legal drafting and we have been allocated Parliamentary time. But one thing’s certain. Every member of this House knows how important bus services are to their constituents. So we can expect some really thorough debate on the bill before it obtains Royal Assent If we get it right, passengers will benefit. And so, I believe, will the bus industry.

    Thank you.

  • Sajid Javid – 2016 Speech on British Manufacturing

    Below is the text of the speech made by Sajid Javid, the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills , at the QEII Conference Centre in London on 24 February 2016.

    It’s great to be here this morning.

    And it’s great to see so many of the sector’s leading lights coming together to answer the big questions of our time.

    What does the future hold for British manufacturing?

    Can we compete in the face of cheap imports from emerging economies?

    And are there any factories in the UK that haven’t been visited by George Osborne?

    Apparently there’s a whole website devoted to photos of the Chancellor wearing hard hats and high-vis jackets…

    We’re British.

    And, as you have just heard from the Prime Minister, that means we make things.

    We always have.

    We always will.

    We invented modern industry, and we’ve played a role in countless technological leaps forward since.

    We can be proud of our manufacturing heritage.

    And we should be equally positive about Britain’s manufacturing future.

    Sadly that doesn’t seem to be a fashionable thing for politicians and commentators to say right now.

    Sometimes I turn on the radio or open the newspaper and all I get is negativity, people talking you down.

    “Manufacturing is in terminal decline,” they say.

    “We don’t build anything anymore.”

    “We’re just a service economy.”

    Nonsense.

    When I look at manufacturing, when I look at the people in this hall, I don’t see malaise.

    I don’t see failure.

    I see people who are creating jobs, creating growth.

    I see the people who are building what Britain needs and what the world wants.

    Yes, the first decade of this century was one of industrial decline in Britain.

    But over the past 6 years, manufacturing output is up.

    Jobs are up.

    Exports are up.

    Britain’s manufacturing base spans almost 90,000 employers and provides work for millions of people.

    Just this morning, we’ve heard that Aston Martin is creating 750 skilled manufacturing jobs in Wales.

    Foreign direct investment is up more than 60% since 2010.

    You represent the most innovative and intensive R&D sector in the UK, accounting for £13 billion of investment each year.

    And over the past decade manufacturing productivity has increased 3 times faster than the economy as a whole, something reflected in today’s EEF report.

    2015 was the most successful year ever for our £23 billion aircraft industry, with delivery numbers up 44% since 2010.

    A new car rolls off a British production line every 20 seconds, with 80% destined for export.

    The world flies in British-built planes and drives British-built cars.

    And as I never get bored of pointing out, the Australians are throwing British-made boomerangs.

    I know that not all British manufacturers are part of this boom.

    Unprecedented conditions in the international steel market have had a devastating effect on too many British communities.

    And the recent announcement by Bombardier was absolutely crushing for hundreds of skilled, hardworking people in Belfast.

    As we have repeatedly shown, when such challenges arise this government will do everything within its power to support the companies and people affected.

    And that includes not talking down the rest of the sector.

    Not losing sight of the fact that British manufacturing can boast success after success.

    It’s a sector we should all be proud of.

    And in the EEF it has a very worthy champion.

    The challenge is to maintain that success in a period of rapid technological change.

    Whether you call it ‘Industry 4.0’ or the ‘fourth industrial revolution’, it’s impossible to deny that the way in which we live and work is undergoing a seismic shift.

    While that can bring incredible benefits for the consumer, we have to acknowledge that change is also going to disrupt the workplace.

    As long ago as 2013, Oxford academics warned that half of all jobs could be computerised within the next 2 decades.

    Last year, McKinsey said that 45% of current jobs could be adequately performed by technology that already exists.

    The University of Massachusetts has even created a computer programme that can write and deliver speeches for politicians!

    If you see a machine being lined up to take your job, it’s little consolation to know that the resulting rise in productivity will help the overall economy.

    But again and again through the history of manufacturing, we have seen how new inventions, new ideas and new technologies actually create new opportunities for workers.

    We just can’t always see what they are until they arrive.

    After all, the job descriptions of the future have yet to be written.

    The role of government is not to stand on the beach and attempt to turn back the tide of change.

    It’s to do all we can to help you ride the wave it creates.

    Minimising the negatives while making the most of the limitless opportunities on offer.

    But I’m not going to stand here and tell you how you should respond to this change.

    There are a lot of important and influential individuals speaking here today.

    A lot of very clever people.

    But no politician or journalist or think-tank wonk knows manufacturing like you do.

    Only you can decide the right way forward for your business.

    Only you can make the most of the opportunities brought by new technology and new insights.

    And only you can navigate the risks.

    That doesn’t mean you’re entirely on your own.

    For one thing you have the EEF supporting you.

    And you also have a Business Secretary who is on your side.

    Manufacturing matters to Britain.

    It matters to this government.

    And it matters to me personally.

    Manufacturing is in my blood.

    Fifty-five years ago, in 1961, my father Abdul landed in this country for the first time.

    He headed north to Lancashire, then the home of countless cotton mills.

    And every morning he got up, and he queued outside one of those mills.

    And eventually the foreman invited him in and offered him his first job.

    Fast forward a decade, and the soundtrack of my childhood was the clattering of my mother’s Singer sewing machine.

    She was making the clothes to be sold on my dad’s market stall.

    So I grew up in a home where manufacturing was the bedrock of success.

    A home where we had what we had because my parents made things.

    And I will never forget the lessons I learned there.

    That’s why I know how vital your work is.

    That’s why I’m absolutely passionate about what you do.

    And that’s why I’m proud to say that I respect the EEF, I listen to what you have to say and I act on it.

    Earlier this month an EEF survey found that half of companies say their internet connectivity, while fine for now, will not be suitable for their future needs.

    Off the back of that survey, the EEF called for a government review of business broadband.

    Today, I can announce that that’s exactly what will happen.

    Working alongside the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, we will look at the broadband speeds that businesses need now and in the future.

    We will look at the barriers that exist for businesses to get the affordable, high speed broadband they need.

    And we will look at the whole issue of leased lines and the role they play in the market.

    In doing so, we will take in to account Ofcom’s review of digital communications, which will be published tomorrow, and its review of leased lines, to be published next month.

    We recognise that leased lines need to be competitively priced.

    We want to see charge controls on leased lines where appropriate, and, of course, we want to see more competition in the provision of broadband services and products.

    Of course, that’s not all we’re doing for manufacturing.

    We’re also investing in your future success.

    We’ve had to make a lot of tough decisions over the past 6 years, to get the economy back on track.

    But I’m not afraid to invest where it can really make a difference.

    I know that the inspired ideas of today are the profitable businesses of tomorrow.

    So at last year’s Spending Review I was proud to secure an investment of almost £7 billion as part of the national science capital commitment. The highest ever. And I also won protection for the annual £4.7 billion government funding for science, research and development.

    We also fund a third of the High Value Manufacturing Catapult, which has seen £300 million invested in just 5 years.

    The Catapult helps manufacturers turn innovative research into real-world success.

    And when you achieve that success, when your new product starts making money, I don’t believe you should be penalised for it.

    Your profits should go to you – not the government.

    So we have the lowest corporation tax of any G7 nation.

    We’re reviewing business rates.

    And we’re using the tax system to encourage and support the kind of cutting-edge thinking that makes British manufacturing a world leader.

    Since last month the annual investment allowance has been set at its highest-ever permanent level, £200,000.

    The Research and Development Tax Credits scheme underpins work worth more than £14 billion at more than 18,000 companies.

    It’s backed up with the Patent Box, offering a significantly reduced corporation tax rate for companies that invest in new ideas.

    One thing I’m never going to let the state do is strangle innovative manufacturers with red tape.

    Never mind the fourth industrial revolution…

    Sometimes feels like there are corners of Whitehall where they’re still getting to grips with first one!

    And if government regulators attempt to keep up with the pace of change in manufacturing and industry, only one thing will happen.

    A blizzard of directives, outdated before they’re even published, will stop innovative manufacturers in their tracks.

    You can’t write a rule book for ideas that haven’t been thought up yet.

    But that doesn’t have to mean a free-for-all that puts workers and consumers at risk.

    Look at our approach to driverless cars.

    They clearly have a major role to play in the future of global transport, and I want Britain to be right at the forefront of their development.

    So rather than imposing a complex web of regulations for developers and manufacturers, we’ve created a simple code of conduct that ensures basic safety standards are met.

    There’s no doubt that manufacturing is moving forwards, and that the government is doing all it can to support that.

    But for too long the way we look at and measure what you do has been stuck in the past.

    Looking at the raw output figures and concluding that manufacturing represents 10% of our economy is far too simplistic.

    In a complex, intertwined global economy we have to recognise the whole of the manufacturing value chain.

    That is, all those activities that take place upstream and downstream of production.

    So I welcome the independent metrics report undertaken by Professor Sir Mike Gregory and his expert team, and published today on GOV.UK.

    Mike and his team looked at opportunities for improving our understanding and measurement of modern manufacturing activity and they’ve developed a number of interesting proposals.

    These include a representation of the manufacturing value chain that suggests it provides employment to more than 5 million people; pilot exercises testing the potential of data analytics to supplement national data and provide new insights on modern manufacturing activity; and, for the first time, a detailed looked at digital-era business models and their interaction with the value chain.

    When we underestimate the contribution manufacturers make to the economy, we are doing you all a disservice.

    Sir Mike’s review isn’t an attempt to move the goalposts or fiddle the figures.

    It’s about giving you the credit you so richly deserve.

    The mill my father worked in has, like many others, long since closed its doors.

    But that doesn’t mean Britain no longer manufactures textiles.

    Today, we have companies like Unmade.

    Run by a trio of Royal College of Art graduates, Unmade uses the latest technology to let shoppers customise and manufacture their own unique knitwear.

    Everything is bespoke, with zero waste and a minimum commercial order of one.

    Yes, it’s still a small, niche business.

    But as I always say, even the biggest company started out as one or two people with an idea and the get-up-and-go to make it happen.

    And Unmade is an important example.

    Because the future of British manufacturing is not a race to the bottom against emerging economies with standards as low as their prices.

    The future lies in quality and innovation.

    In doing things other countries simply haven’t figured out how to do yet.

    You can’t undercut ideas.

    The industry in which you work is changing.

    But we cannot allow British manufacturing to be left behind.

    And I will not allow British manufacturing to be left behind.

    You led the world before.

    In many areas you lead the world today.

    And, as Business Secretary, it is my personal mission to see that you continue to lead the world for many years to come.

    Thank you.