UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: 2017

  • Claire Perry – 2017 Speech at Launch of the Clean Growth Strategy

    Below is the text of the speech made by Claire Perry, the Minister of State for Climate Change and Industry, on 12 October 2017.

    Good morning all.

    It is such a pleasure to be here today to launch our new Clean Growth Strategy. Not only because I am required to, under the Climate Change Act.

    But also because I am genuinely proud of what we have achieved so far in the United Kingdom and incredibly excited about the huge opportunities for us ahead.

    You may wonder why we have asked you to come to this iconic venue, scene of so much national success, this morning.

    Well there are two reasons.

    The first is because we are benefiting in this building from one of the UK’s biggest low-carbon combined heating, cooling and power facilities – brilliant technology that we want to see deployed much more widely.

    And the second reason is… well you will have to wait for that.

    Before I begin to detail all the steps we are taking, I want to thank a few people.

    First, I want to thank my Secretary of State Greg Clark for his longstanding commitment to action on climate change.

    From his time as Shadow Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change before the 2010 election, to his work across government, he has continued to champion the urgent need to cut emissions and seize the opportunity of clean growth and he deserves a huge amount of credit for this Strategy.

    Second, I want to thank Nick Hurd, my predecessor in the department.

    Nick put a massive effort into developing the policies in this plan, and I was really delighted I could take the baton from him [not just to steal all the glory] but because when I took on the Strategy, he had got it to a great place.

    Thanks also to my amazing team at BEIS who have been working so hard for so long to put this Strategy together.

    I also want to thank the Committee on Climate Change and their tireless chairman, Lord Deben.

    You don’t realise until you sit in this ministerial chair, what a brilliant piece of legislation the Climate Change Act has proved to be, holding our feet to the fire as we consider every policy choice and empowering the Committee to keep us moving forward despite the short term political cycle.

    Finally, I also want to thank all of you here today for your work cajoling, prodding, challenging, sometimes praising and, yes, criticising what we do.

    We are not going to tackle the risks of climate change, nor grasp the opportunities of doing so unless we work together and I thank you for your commitment to this most important of issues.

    You will know the gestation of our Clean Growth Strategy has been long, at times difficult and sometimes frustrating.

    But we finally have a Strategy that is ambitious, broad and binding…

    Sets out clear targets….

    Harnesses the power of national innovation….

    And re-affirms this government’s commitment to lead the way to a low carbon future.

    So, today, in launching the Clean Growth Strategy I want to focus on three things:

    First, to celebrate the extraordinary success the United Kingdom has achieved in delivering clean growth over the past two decades…

    Second, as Greg said, to underline the enormous industrial opportunity for us that is emerging from the global transition to a low carbon economy – and how it will benefit us right across the UK.

    And third to set out why this Clean Growth Strategy is distinctive and how it helps us meet the challenges we face.

    As I said to start, the reason we are all here is the 2008 Climate Change Act, which had cross-party support and was a totemic piece of legislation. Because of that legislation we have to set out our strategy to meet the upcoming carbon budgets.

    But we are also here because we want to be.

    As the Prime Minister said in her foreword to our new strategy: “Clean growth is not an option, but a duty we owe to the next generation.”

    And I think the UK should be very proud of our record in fulfilling that duty.

    We were one of the first countries to recognise both the economic and security threats posed by rising sea levels and rising high temperatures.

    And we have followed the guidance provided by that scientific understanding with action.

    As Greg said, since 1990, we have cut emissions by more than 40 per cent while our economy has grown by two thirds over that time.

    On a per person basis, this means that we have reduced emissions faster than any other G7 nation.

    And not by sacrificing growth and competitiveness – we have led the G7 group in growth in national income over that period.

    Let me just repeat that – we lead the G7 group of countries in cutting our emissions and growing our economy

    Proving as false the view that we couldn’t protect the planet and raise prosperity at the same time.

    Our world-first 2008 Climate Change Act set the pace for change, committing us to cut greenhouse gas emissions by at least eighty per cent by 2050.

    And I’m pleased to tell you we are on track.

    We over-performed against our first carbon budget, and are on track to do the same for the second and third. This is a fantastic achievement.

    Our action at home is matched by our ambition to see action across the world.

    This saw us playing a leading role in securing the agreement of 195 countries to sign up to the now historic Paris Climate Agreement…

    It commits us to being among the largest contributors of international climate finance.

    And it means that from the Prime Minister, Theresa May, downwards we continue to work across the world to ensure the Paris agreement and climate action are delivered and at the forefront of international action – UK leadership that has never been more needed than now.

    I know many of you in this room are responsible for this incredible success.

    A success which I don’t think we celebrate enough.

    Well I promise to keep talking about it and to champion it on your behalf at every opportunity, home and abroad.

    The commitments made by 195 countries in Paris also present an unparalleled economic opportunity.

    We are seeing the start of a global shift toward clean solutions…

    Low carbon ways to get from A to B…

    …power and heat produced in way that helps the planet and helps people struggling with their bills…

    …and heavy industry going carbon-light.

    This shift offers UK businesses and innovators huge potential to shape the future of clean growth.

    Because part of the reason why the UK is considered a leader in tackling climate change, is that we don’t just see it as a problem to be solved…

    We see it is an opportunity, too.

    So, by focusing on clean growth, we are presented with a win-win situation…

    We can cut the cost of energy…

    Drive economic growth…

    Create high value jobs right across the UK…

    And improve our quality of life.

    This is precisely what our Clean Growth Strategy is about.

    You will see a list of 50 major policies and plans in the Strategy Document today, with many supporting ones in the text behind them, and when implemented there will be real change

    To give you just a few examples:

    For businesses, the largest pool of contributors to emissions, we will help them improve how they use their energy, aiming to increase their energy productivity by at least twenty per cent by 2030, saving businesses £6 billion…

    …we will establish an industrial energy efficiency scheme to help large companies cut their bills…

    …and we will demonstrate international leadership in carbon capture, usage and storage, that we need to decarbonise and improve how we do business, including substantial new investment in leading edge innovation.

    Our strategy will make a positive change to how we live.

    We will make it easier for homeowners to make home improvements that can reduce their energy use…

    …we will invest around £3.6 billion to upgrade around a million homes through the Energy Company Obligation by 2020, and extend that support to 2028…

    …we will continue to support RHI (Renewable Heat Incentive)…

    … we will work towards our aspiration that every home in the country will be rated Energy Performance Certificate as Band C by 2035…

    And we will aim to upgrade as many private rented homes as possible where practical and affordable – helping many of those living in severe fuel poverty.

    And, our Clean Growth Strategy will change the way we travel and make our air cleaner.

    We have already said and reconfirm today we will end the sale of new conventional petrol and diesel cars and vans by 2040…

    …it will invest £1 billion supporting the take-up of ultra-low emission vehicles, including helping consumers to overcome the upfront cost of an electric car…

    …and we will make sure that those cars are powered by developing one of the best electric vehicle charging networks in the world.

    Indeed you may have seen the hydrogen bus outside and we will continue to support different types of low carbon transport.

    I get asked all the time – so what’s the magic bullet today?

    And my answer is – we don’t have one. There is no one lever we can pull.

    Instead we go through every major part of our economy and every part of government to set out ways to cut the emissions and drive innovation

    Whether that’s investing in research and innovation for energy efficiency…

    Or building new heat networks across the country to drive down the cost of keeping homes warm…

    Whatever it takes, we are determined to make a difference.

    And any set of actions that hopes to combat climate change has to cover all parts of the economy

    And be focused on the next few decades, not the next few years, that is why the Clean Growth Strategy is a Strategy.

    It has far-reaching goals and priorities, and sets the scene for other long-term plans government will be bringing forward like the upcoming 25 year plan from my colleagues at DEFRA, the DfT’s Road to Zero and our Industrial Strategy and its Sector Deals.

    Our message is clear: this needs to be a priority for our government and the country for the years ahead, for future generations and not just us today.

    And now is the right time to make these decisions because the benefits are huge.

    The most recent research shows that the UK’s low carbon economy could grow over 10 to 12 per cent per year up to 2030 – four times faster than the growth of the UK economy as a whole.

    By that estimate that would mean – in just 13 years – the UK’s low carbon economy would support up to 2 million more jobs and export up to £170bn low carbon goods and services each year.

    And I’m not just talking about jobs in London and the South East…

    This impact will be felt all over the country. We’ve already seen this happen, whether it’s the Siemens wind turbine blade factory in Hull or Nissan confirming that their Leaf electric car will be produced in Sunderland.

    Like I said: a win-win situation right across the country, one that we are exploiting.

    You may ask: what is different about this plan?

    Well, it focuses areas of action where we get clear joint benefits:

    cleaner air from low emissions vehicles…

    …lower energy bills from improved energy efficiency…

    … reducing waste and using resources efficiently…

    …and creating a more biodiverse, resilient natural environment.

    It is also a true cross-government approach – with real actions from buildings to transport, and from the natural environment to power generation.

    And at the heart of our Strategy is a targeted focus on innovation.

    Because I fundamentally believe that it is only through innovation that we can bring down the costs of low carbon technologies.

    We want low carbon to mean low cost.

    Because we need low cost to protect our businesses and households from high costs, including energy costs.

    But – just as important – if we can develop the low cost, low carbon technologies here, we can capture the industrial and economic advantage from the global transition we are starting to see.

    Finally, if we want to see other countries, particularly developing countries, follow our lead, we need low carbon technologies to be cheap.

    So we have a new triple test to help us decide how to support new technologies:

    First, does this deliver maximum carbon emission reduction?

    Second, can we see a clear cost reduction pathway for this technology, so we can deliver low cost solutions?

    And third, can the UK develop world-leading technology in a sizeable global market?

    Of course, we can’t predict every technological breakthrough – if we’d have done that a few years ago, we would have been wrong – and not all of the choices we make will be the right ones.

    That is the nature of working with such fast moving technologies.

    But we are determined to create the best possible ecosystem for the private sector to invest and innovate.

    If we get it right, we can see the benefits, just as we have on offshore wind, and the remarkable cost reduction we have seen where the costs have plummeted 50 percent in just two years.

    And we have installed the biggest offshore wind base in the world.

    To achieve these sorts of wins going forward and deliver the clean growth we need, it will require everyone to play their part.

    This is not a job for central government alone.

    It is a job for our devolved nations, local authorities, businesses and civil society working together; ambition and drive from every part of society and government is as important as diktats from Whitehall.

    That is why we are delighted to celebrate in our document some of the amazing work that is taking place across the country.

    And it is why we are setting up an annual ‘Green Great Britain’ Week, to celebrate the progress we have made, showcase UK technology and leadership, and inspire and motivate us to keep going, no matter the challenges, to deliver low carbon technology.

    To meet our goals, we are going to need the full ingenuity, enterprise and determination of the British people working together.

    So that answers the second question as to why we are here today.

    Because we want to capture the spirit of cooperation and enterprise that gave us such an amazing performance at the 2012 Olympics from Team GB…

    And use it to deliver a Green GB…

    There won’t be medals on offer…

    But the prize for all of us will be driving and capturing the benefits and opportunities for Britain and the world of our low carbon future.

    I think that’s a race we all want to win.

    Thank you.

  • Andrew Murrison – 2017 Debate on University Vice-Chancellor Pay

    Below is the text of the speech made by Andrew Murrison, the Conservative MP for South West Wiltshire, in the House of Commons on 11 October 2017.

    It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to introduce this Adjournment debate and to have two hours and 20 minutes in which to discuss this important matter.

    I would like to set out a bit of the context around my request for this debate. During the summer, a league table of vice-chancellors’ pay was published, showing that the average pay of a university vice-chancellor was somewhere in the region of £280,000 a year. That struck me as a large sum of money, particularly in the current atmosphere of relative austerity. I was particularly upset to notice that the vice-chancellor of my own local university, the University of Bath, a non-Russell Group middle-ranking university, should be right at the top of that league table, in poll position at No. 1, on £451,000 a year, plus a very generous package.

    Since being elected in 2001, I have been an ex officio member of Bath University’s court. I confess that it does not involve me in a great deal of hard work, but nevertheless I have been very pleased to be associated with Bath University, which—let me be absolutely clear—is a good institute of higher education that has done exceptionally well over the past several years. However, it seemed to me that I could no longer be part of the governance of Bath university, in however much a titular capacity, while its remuneration committee showed such an error of judgment as displayed on this occasion, hence my action over the summer.

    Since then, I have been inundated with correspondence from all sorts of people—not only constituents, but young people who are burdened with debt, and university lecturers, particularly those working at the University of Bath—in support of the action I took, and in some cases providing me with very long accounts about why it was right that we should look at restraining this part of public sector expenditure. I found those arguments to be compelling.

    I very much welcome recent Government interventions on higher education funding, as announced by the Prime Minister recently in Manchester and reiterated by the Minister in his statement earlier today. They are absolutely right, and will have given a great deal of comfort to those going through higher education, as well as to universities themselves. As the Minister rightly pointed out earlier, the quality of British higher education is of vital importance, and the changes made—to be fair, by the Labour party when in government, and then continued by the coalition and then Conservative Governments—were necessary to safeguard the quality of British universities and higher education in the UK. They are to be wholly welcomed and are absolutely right, but we do need to address the fundamental issue of student debt, which is causing so much grief to young people and, by extension, to the party of government. I hope that in the review the Minister alluded to earlier today we can find a solution that goes some way towards satisfying the concerns of young people in this respect and of course their families, who are usually co-contributors to higher education costs.​

    Mounting student debt is one of the problems of our time. Currently, young people are leaving university with an average debt of £42,000. Although, theoretically, that debt may never be repaid, and in lots of cases never will be, it is a burden that young people feel acutely. The Minister understands that and is doing what he can to look at that issue. I wish him well in his quest.

    This is not simply about tuition fees; it is also about housing costs and the high rates that young people have to pay for university-related accommodation, which is often of an inferior or distinctly mediocre standard. It seems to me that that is sometimes a covert way of universities raising yet more money.

    Given that universities are relatively well off, I think we all would agree that they need to be particularly careful about spending money. That comes to the crux of what I want to discuss. This debate is at a time of relative restraint in pay across the public and quasi-public sectors. We have seen, as Members of Parliament, the results of that, with the concerns expressed in our mailbags and the bow wave of pressure to relax restraint that has been in place for some years now. People see that and examples of where it has not applied, and they make adverse comparisons. When people see very high pay leaping up and up, they are entitled to feel aggrieved, particularly when they feel they have some direct involvement in paying for what they see as excess. That certainly is the case here, as my mailbag has demonstrated.

    In the past five years, vice-chancellors’ pay has increased by 17.4%. It now averages £278,000 a year. At Bath, it is £451,000 a year. By comparison, the chief executive of the Royal United Hospitals Bath NHS Foundation Trust receives £185,000 a year, which most people would think is pretty good. He runs an organisation that is just as complex as, if not more so than, the University of Bath; the university employs 4,800 people against the Royal United’s 3,015.

    It is right to compare those salaries with that paid to the Prime Minister, and the reason is that people generally feel it is inappropriate for people in the quasi-public sector and public sector to be paid multiples of the income of the Prime Minister unless there is a very good reason.

    Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op) I was happy to join the hon. Gentleman in resigning from the University of Bath’s court. I never quite understood why I was on the court. I resigned in a previous incarnation, so it was only right and proper that I resigned on this occasion. Does he agree that one problem with university vice-chancellors is that they have other ways in which to supplement their income, such as where they live and their expenses, and that information should be in the public domain? The University of Bath was very hesitant to share that information.

    Dr Murrison I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I will come on to some of the benefits later on in my remarks, and it will not surprise him to know—I suspect he has read the report, as I have—that the University of Bath features large in the University and College Union’s report on this subject, regrettably, as one of the arguably worst examples of what I certainly represent as excess at the top of higher education in this country at the moment, which is the matter we are seeking to resolve.​

    The Prime Minister is paid £152,000 a year. The Prime Minister, of course, heads the Government, and it is extraordinary therefore that the vice-chancellor of Bath University should be paid £451,000, which is pretty much three times the salary of the Prime Minister. I think most people in this country would have a general sense that that is odd, to put it mildly, and needs quite considerable justification.

    Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con) I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate and congratulate him and the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Drew) on the principled way in which they resigned because of what I and many other people see as an outrageous amount of money. Does he agree that the pay of vice-chancellors should be clearly linked to performance measures? One performance measure must be successful job destinations, with highly skilled and highly paid jobs for students.

    Dr Murrison Yes, up to a point. If my right hon. Friend will allow me, I will come on to performance-related pay later in my remarks, which I have a little over two hours to make.

    Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP) I spoke to the hon. Gentleman about this matter earlier today at the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. The Government have advised that they will deal with fat cats in the boardroom, but little has been done on this issue, which is why this debate is appropriate and necessary. At Queen’s University in Belfast, the vice-chancellor’s wage rose from £230,000 to £249,000 in 2014, but the university does excellent work and has partnerships involving medical research and discovering new drugs. That figure pales into insignificance when one discovers that the vice-chancellor of the University of Huddersfield earned £364,564 in the financial year to 2016. Is it not time to address that?

    Dr Murrison The hon. Gentleman is obviously correct. That is why I am bringing this matter to the Floor of the House. There is an issue with Governments seeking to control pay in that way in the private sector, but not in the public and quasi-public sectors, where things are quite different due to the large sums of public money. It is perfectly legitimate for this place and for Ministers to be involved in some of that, certainly in setting the right environment for the determination of pay settlements. We will be in an unhappy, uncomfortable place if we continue to see the escalation of recent years.

    Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD) The University of Bath is in my constituency, so I take a great interest in this. A motion raising concerns over the vice-chancellor’s pay was discussed during a meeting of the university court in February this year. The motion was defeated by the votes of the very people who had benefited from decisions on pay, despite the clear conflict of interest, which raises grave concerns about the governance of our universities.

    Dr Murrison I absolutely agree. The functioning of remuneration committees in universities needs to be addressed. Ministers have recently set out a vehicle for doing so, and I will come on to discuss the Office for Students and how it might be used to increase transparency about remuneration.​

    Remuneration committees are, to put it mildly, opaque. How they are constituted and how they operate varies, and their willingness to be open also varies greatly between institutions, as the University and College Union has made clear. Bath is probably not an exceptional example of transparency in the setting of vice-chancellors’ pay, and that lack of transparency means that the quality of those settlements is likely to be diminished. We know that well in this place, because we have been through some of this in our not-too-distant past. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and the public getting to see what is going on often acts as a restraint on as pay and benefits. Any transparency that can be linked to the process and to this part of the quasi-public sector has to be a good thing.

    We also need to discuss what has happened to pay more generally within higher education. Much of the disaffection that has been expressed to me since the early summer has come from the academic staff of our universities. They have expressed some frustration that the rewards for institutions achieving great things appear to be accruing to higher management staff and vice-chancellors, whereas they have seen little benefit. They have seen their salaries increase by 3.8% over five years, which is in contrast to the average 17.4% increase for vice-chancellors, and the average pay for a tenured academic is a little over £49,000.

    That seems rather strange, particularly in the context of performance-related pay. If we seriously believe in performance-related pay in the public and quasi-public sectors, we cannot simply except the majority of the workforce from that form of remuneration. That makes no sense, particularly since the drivers of quality in universities are clearly those at the chalk face—those at the laboratory bench. They are the drivers of the good-quality student experience and quality research for which this country is renowned and which we must maintain. Those people are being alienated by the egregious awards that they see coming out of remuneration committees to senior people in universities.

    The demoralising effect must be fully understood. When remuneration committees consider top-level pay and their legitimate need to attract high-quality people to the top of their institution, they must also understand more clearly the effect of such rewards on those who do the work.

    Wera Hobhouse Less than a week ago, a group of students came to my surgery telling me that rents on campus are going up by 8%. Is there any wonder that people think that students who are already under huge financial pressure will pay the high salaries of some of the management of the university? The public perception is there and it reflects badly on the reputation of our universities.

    Dr Murrison I am particularly concerned about university accommodation, as I said earlier. As I understand it, the position at the University of Bath is that accommodation is ring-fenced, in the sense that receipts from halls of residence are ploughed back into more halls of residence. The position in Bath is slightly unusual and it would certainly not be right, from what I have seen, to suggest that the University of Bath is using accommodation directly as a cash cow. However, it is certainly the case that the university is making a significant profit year on year from the accommodation it provides to its captive audience on the fringes of the city of Bath.

    ​Robert Halfon My hon. Friend is being incredibly generous in giving way, and that is typical of him. Does he agree that it is not just an issue of vice-chancellor pay but of senior management pay and the random way in which professors are paid from university to university, sometimes using significant amounts of funds? There is also an issue of pay disparity in senior management between men and women. There is some suggestion that BBC-type level problems might be affecting our universities.

    Dr Murrison I am at a slight disadvantage on my right hon. Friend’s latter point, because my interest in this matter was sparked by Dame Glynis Breakwell, the vice-chancellor of the University of Bath. She is right at the top of the pay league table, so my local experience clearly does not bear his point out. I would not be surprised, however, if that was the case. The trouble is that the lack of transparency around a lot of this material in the university sector means that it is quite difficult to make that comparison. Were it to be the case—and I suspect he is right—I would clearly want the universities to address it, as it is simply not acceptable.

    I was interested in my right hon. Friend’s earlier point about performance-related pay, and in preparing for the debate I did look at those universities that had significantly increased the level of vice-chancellor pay in the recent past and compared that with improvements as judged by the Complete University Guide set of metrics, which is used by most pundits and commentators to compare universities. The students certainly look at those figures very closely in deciding where to go.

    I stared at the figures and compared and contrasted them for some time, and I could not see any correlation between improved pay for vice-chancellors and improved metrics. Indeed, there is some suggestion that there is an inverse correlation, which rather bears down on the point about performance-related pay. I can see very little evidence of it operating here. We need to be careful about performance-related pay, because it is set by remuneration committees and, unless its terms are available for scrutiny, the goals could be eminently achievable. That would make a mockery of the whole thing, which comes back to my central point: we must have transparency in how pay is set if we are to have any confidence in our current system.

    I absolutely accept that vice-chancellor pay and benefit packages are a tiny part of a multi-billion-pound consideration in higher education. That point was made clearly by Lord Willetts when he was the universities Minister. He rightly sought to put the whole thing into perspective, but my worry is that in the remuneration of vice-chancellors and senior people in higher education we have a window into what might be going on more generally in the universities sector. If we are seeing such egregious examples of the misuse of public funds and student indebtedness, as I believe we are in this case, we wonder what is happening more generally in this sector.

    Universities have charitable status. The Higher Education Funding Council governs that, with this subcontracted by the Charities Commission, which has written to me on this subject. It is important that we emphasise that charities—universities, in this case—have charitable purposes; they are meant to use their moneys for charitable purposes, to demonstrate charitable good. They should not be using money unless they can demonstrate that that expenditure in some way satisfies their charitable purposes.​

    The University and College Union’s report of February 2016, for which I am in its debt, sheds interesting light on this subject, because it discusses not only pay, but other benefits. Although many universities did not respond to the UCU’s request for information, and so we need to be slightly guarded about its conclusions, this report nevertheless gives us some useful data. For example, it shows that Bath’s vice-chancellor spends an average of £313 a night for hotel accommodation and that Middlesex University’s vice-chancellor spends an average of £448 a night, whereas the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority will allow MPs £150 a night in London and £120 a night outside it. I make no comparison between MPs and vice-chancellors; what I would say is that £150 a night seems reasonable. People will not often hear a Member of Parliament being nice about IPSA, but I am nice about it; for the record, I think it does a good job in general and it has pitched that about right, because we can certainly get accommodation in London for £150 a night or outside London for £120 a night and we will not be living underneath the arches. How someone can spend £448 or £313 a night, inside or outside London, is a little beyond me—it is probably beyond my experience. That is an example of what I mean about the use of funds for charitable purposes. In what way does that expenditure advance the charitable purposes of these institutions?

    It gets worse, however, because the report goes on to consider air fares. Twenty-one universities that responded to the request for information—there may well be more that decided not to respond, because they do not want to share their information, for obvious reasons—ranging from high-end Bristol to the frankly obscure, send their principals only by first-class or business-class air travel. That is a remarkable thing. The vice-chancellor of the University of Bath spent £23,000 in 2014-15 on air fares and, according to the report, flew exclusively by first or business class. Members of Parliament will know full well that IPSA will take a dim view of any Member seeking to claim for anything other than economy. The Minister may well be familiar with the ability of Ministers to fly long haul by business class if they have a meeting the next day—most Departments would allow that for Ministers, and I certainly recall it—but for short-haul flights of less than three hours most certainly that particular benefit would not be got. It seems excessive for universities—remember the point about their charitable status—to have their principals and senior staff fly first or business class habitually. In this day and age, that seems wholly excessive.

    It gets worse still. Many universities provide accommodation for their vice-chancellors. The report lists accommodation occupied by vice-chancellors, and some of it looks rather attractive, particularly that in Bath. At No. 2 in the catalogue is the vice-chancellor of the University of Bath, who in 2014-15 occupied accommodation worth nearly £3 million, which I think would seem excessive to most. It would probably seem excessive to the parents who have recently delivered their children to university halls of residence, many of which are distinctly shabby.

    My chief concern about all this is the lack of transparency. The University and College Union makes transparency the crux of its survey and report, and it is ​right to do so. In seeking the information it has sought, it has found that universities have in many cases been reluctant to engage, and we are beginning to see why. It found that 71% of those universities that responded had their vice-chancellors as members of their remuneration committees. In most walks of life, that would be considered a strange feature of a remuneration committee, even if the individual who was the subject of a particular discussion absented him or herself from the room while their issue was being discussed, because pay for an individual is not seen in isolation; it is seen against the backdrop of other senior pay within the institution and senior pay in other institutions.

    I perceive a cartel operating in higher education, with vice-chancellors, and senior university staff generally, sharing each other’s remuneration processes to their mutual benefit. I am of course not in any way suggesting that there is some deliberate attempt to do that, but that seems to me to be how it might work in practice. In short, remuneration committees appear to be unsatisfactorily shadowy for organisations operating in the public or quasi-public sectors. We see instances of minutes not being published, and of redacted minutes being published. When we are dealing with public funds and student indebtedness, that is unacceptable.

    My other concern is about leadership. Vice-chancellors are quintessential leaders; leading is what they do. If they are not leaders, they are nothing at all. Yet some of the most senior, such as the vice-chancellor of the University of Oxford, have been bleating about being paid less than footballers and bankers. That does not strike me as leadership. At a time of pay restraint in the university sector, as well as in others, it seems to me wholly inappropriate for the leaders of these organisations to be complicit in a system that gives them a pay rise that is way out of kilter with that being awarded to their staff. That is wholly wrong and I hope that, going forward, we will see the same sort of restraint among the senior echelons of higher education as we have seen further down the pay scale.

    I shall finish by being nice about the vice-chancellor of the University of Bath, because Dame Glynis Breakwell has done a grand job, over many years, and the University of Bath is a fine institution. Dame Glynis deserves warm thanks and praise for all the hard work she has put in. I do not blame her for her extraordinarily generous remuneration package; I do blame the system that has allowed it. I am pleased that a lot of the things the Government have been talking about recently—particularly the Office for Students, which I know my hon. Friend the Minister will talk about in a moment—will help in that respect. In particular, the OfS will add transparency to the way in which senior people in higher education are paid, bearing in mind the charitable status of those institutions, and the fact that they are in receipt of large sums of public money and the proceeds of student indebtedness. If it manages to achieve that through reforming not only remuneration committees, but the general atmosphere and ethos around this, then it will have done a good job and it will be an early indication that it will be a worthy successor to the Higher Education Funding Council.

    The purpose of this debate was simply to discuss how we might restore some balance and confidence to this particular element of university finances. I fear that I have hardly ingratiated myself with senior university administrators. I hope very much that we will continue ​to remunerate appropriately these heads of our wonderful national institutions, but most can agree that pay for university vice-chancellors has become excessive and that, in the months and years ahead, we need to do something about it.

  • Liam Fox – 2017 Speech on Israel

    Below is the text of the speech made by Liam Fox, the Secretary of State for International Trade, on 10 October 2017.

    Good morning.

    It is an honour to be here today to address the Jewish Care business breakfast, and to join the distinguished list of speakers who have addressed this gathering.

    Over the course of my career I have had the pleasure to speak at many charitable gatherings, for a wide variety of good and noble causes.

    I’m not sure I have ever, though, addressed a charity which is as comprehensive in its philanthropy as Jewish Care.

    And your organisation not only provides important care for the elderly members of the Jewish community, but also for those with dementia, disabilities, or mental health issues.

    You even provide leadership opportunities for young people, helping them to develop vital life skills.

    Before I entered parliament, I worked as a GP. I have experienced first had how much of a difference charitable organisations like Jewish Care can make, caring for the most vulnerable people in our society.

    It is work that is, sadly, too often overlooked by those without direct experience of it. Yet charities can provide targeted care within communities, often reaching parts where the state cannot.

    For those of you in a generous mood, there are few organisations more worthy of your munificence.

    I know that you have not invited the Secretary of State for International Trade here to wax lyrical about the virtues of Jewish Care, or of charity in general.

    But I do see a clear connection between trade and philanthropy.

    Without the prosperity that trade engenders, charitable organisations could not flourish, yet there is also a more immediate connection.

    The great rabbinical philosopher, Moses Maimonides wrote that:

    The highest level of Tzedakah or Charity, is that which enables the recipient to become self-reliant.

    For millions of the world’s poorest people, trade has meant exactly that.

    As economies across the world have liberalised, opportunities for employment, or commerce, have lifted billions from poverty.

    According to the World Bank, the three decades between 1981 and 2011 witnessed the single greatest decrease in material deprivation in human history – a truly remarkable achievement.

    It is hard to imagine an international aid programme – even one as generous as our own – that would or could have been so effective.

    It was no coincidence that this period coincided with the great liberalised economies of India and China opening up to the world.

    At a fundamental level, free and open trade allows people to improve their own lives, allowing the individual to access global opportunities. It delivers employment, goods and services, often where they are needed most.

    Across the world, trade has created prosperity, where once there was only deprivation.

    Of course, the United Kingdom has benefitted vastly from centuries of trade, and its promotion comes with a degree of economic self-interest.

    We must recognise, though, that there is also an equally strong social and moral case for the defence of trading freedoms.

    And I say ‘social’ because whilst trade has delivered vast benefits to those in developing countries, it has also has a transformative effect on the lives of our own people.

    Although it might not always be noticed, the wider benefits of a liberal trade policy have spread to British consumers and households by providing a wider choice of goods at a lower price.

    Free trade is not only vital in ensuring that supplies of raw materials and everyday essentials like food and clothing are available in the UK; but it also increases the quality of those products, and helps to drive down prices.

    In the decade to 2006, the real import price of clothing fell by 38%. In the same period, the price of consumer electronics, as we all know, fell by 50%, despite all the rapid technological achievements of that period, what went from a $4,000 brick called the mobile phone at that time turns into a super computer in the palm of your hand at a fraction of the price. That is what liberal and open trade can provide.

    As a consequence, living standards in this country are now at their highest level in history.

    Yet ‘Free Trade’ as a concept is often regarded with suspicion or simple indifference by consumers, who often fail to see how it can make a difference to their lives.

    I believe that open, liberal free trade is undeniably a good thing.

    It is unfortunate, though, that trading freedoms can no longer be taken for granted.

    Last year, the Word Trade Organization estimated that the growth in global trade could be as little as 1.8%, falling below the growth in global GDP. This is the inverse of the normal relationship and it’s unhealthy, history tells us in the long term.

    Moreover, research by the OECD that shows that protectionist instincts have grown since the financial crisis of 2008.

    In 2010 G7 and G20 countries were operating some 300 non-tariff barriers to trade – by 2015 this had mushroomed to over 1,200.

    So clearly, free trade is in need of a champion. The case for commercial freedom must be made at every level.

    To consumers we must show that, when a foreign company invests in your area and creates jobs – that is free trade.

    When you use a smartphone or a flat-screen TV at a lower price – that is global free trade.

    Or when you go to a supermarket and you buy your fruit and meat and vegetables you want all year round, rather than relying on our own seasonal produce – that is global free trade in action.

    These benefits often go unrecognised, even at an official level.

    Last Spring, I was at the World Economic Forum in Davos, at a meeting of trade minister from the world’s major economies.

    It was a full 54 minutes – just shy of an hour – before a single one of the world’s trade ministers said the ‘C-word’. Consumers were never mentioned at that meeting. We have got to also champion the consumer interest and such a state of affairs illustrates perfectly that a wider recognition is needed of the benefits that free trade can bring to ordinary people.

    Those who shape international trade policy must no longer see commercial freedoms solely as a means of reaching a narrow macroeconomic advantage, but as a force for social and geopolitical good.

    Those countries, like the United Kingdom, who have benefitted the most from free trade, cannot, in good conscience, pull up the drawbridge. There is a moral obligation to pass on the benefits of free trade to our less developed partners, allowing them access to our markets, or our skills and our expertise.

    Such a policy would benefit all of humankind.

    My Department for International Trade was founded last year to make Britain a global champion of free trade once again.

    We are in a unique position to use our economic and diplomatic influence to extend and protect commercial freedoms across the world.

    Of course, as a department of state of the UK, our primary purpose is to ensure that global trade bestows its benefits on Britain.

    Our vision is of a UK that trades its way to prosperity, stability and security, and our mission is to help businesses export, drive investment, open up markets and champion free trade.

    Liberalisation of the global economy is firmly within this country’s interests, and we are ready to take advantage of the historic opportunities that have been presented to this country.

    Our departure from the European Union after some 44 years of membership will bring challenges. Yet it will also offer almost limitless possibilities.

    For the first time in more than four decades this country will have a fully independent trade policy, to be shaped to best serve the interests of British consumers, British businesses, and the British economy.

    The potential of this should not be underestimated. The trading bloc of the European Union has served parts of our economy well, but it is a model that is fundamentally outdated in the age of globalisation.

    New technology has reduced the barriers of distance and time, and being tied to other nations simply through geographical proximity is no longer necessary especially in an economy like the UK, which is now 80 % services. The British people have opted not for insularity, but internationalism.

    We will soon be in a position to revitalise our existing trade relationships, and to build new connections with those growing economies that will drive prosperity in the 21st century.

    Don’t believe me, go and look at the EU’s website. The EU trade page says in the next 10 to 15 years 90% of global growth will be beyond the borders of Europe. That is where we need to be.

    To ignore such possibilities would be a great disservice to the British people.

    This vision of the future is central to the government’s ambition to build a truly global Britain.

    This is about building a country that is a bold, outward-looking champion of free trade.

    The UK will lead the defence of the rules-based international system as a newly independent member of the WTO, while forging agreements with partners across the world.

    The state of Israel will, of course, be a key partner in that future.

    As a longstanding friend of the Israeli people, I was delighted to attend the Tel Aviv in London festival last month.

    I was struck by the many similarities between the two cities, not only in their formidable international reputations for technology, innovation and financial services, but in the vibrancy of the culture that we share.

    These parallels are indicative of the complimentary nature of the Israeli and UK economies. It is a strong foundation from which to enhance our future relationship.

    The UK is already the number one destination in Europe for Israeli investment, with over 300 companies already operating here.

    Yet there is more to be done and more to be achieved. One of the things that I am proud of in my department has been the creation of a UK-Israel Trade Working Group, designed to identify and remove barriers to trade between our two countries. This will not only strengthen our bilateral relationship, but provide a strong foundation for further progress upon our exit from the EU, as well as providing greater prosperity, stability and security in Israel itself.

    And this is one of the themes that we have across our government because trade is not only done for itself; it provides a prosperity which underpins social cohesion.

    That social cohesion helps in turn to underpin political stability and that political stability is a contribution to our wider security.

    All of them are parts of a continuum which cannot be disrupted, which is something that both the UK and Israel understand well.

    In the extensive travels undertaken by myself and the other departmental ministers in the past 15 months, I have been struck by the sheer level of enthusiasm that exists across the world for Britain’s new role.

    Nations are not only lining up to enhance their trading relationship with our country, but also to access our wealth of talent, knowledge and expertise.

    Our global brand remains incredibly strong. People want to ‘buy British’ and they want to partner British as well. Globally the commercial prospects for this country have never been brighter and we must embrace them with confidence and optimism.

    We are opening a new chapter in our nation’s history, but the story has not yet been written.

    I believe that politics is a binary choice. You can either shape the world around you, or you’ll be shaped by the world around you.

    The United Kingdom has the ability to shape the world – all we require is the confidence to do it.

    My department stands ready to help shape the future of global trade, placing Britain back at its heart.

    Free trade may be a centuries-old concept, but it is also the key to projecting this country’s prosperity far into the future.

    Sir Winston Churchill once called free trade “a condition of progress”. Once again, the great man’s words have stood the test of time.

    It is incumbent upon all of us to defend that progress.

    There will be challenges ahead, but we have the ability, the vision and the determination to shape the future as we see fit.

    We are not passengers to our own destiny. We can make change happen if we choose to do so and change we will.

    Thank you.

  • Theresa May – 2017 Statement at Race Disparity Audit Launch

    Below is the text of the statement made by Theresa May, the Prime Minister, at the launch of the race disparity audit on 10 October 2017.

    Thank you very much everybody for being here. I’m really pleased to welcome you to Downing Street today. I think this is a very significant day for our country in terms of what we’re publishing today.

    I think when it comes to the health of our economy and the performance of our health service, or the results of our education system we’ve got plenty of data to show us where things are working well and where things are not working in the population as a whole. But what we’re publishing today, I think, is data that fills a glaring gap, by analysing how a person’s ethnicity affects their experience in public services and how that affects their lives. And that holds a mirror up to our society and I think establishes a new and permanent resource for our country.

    I think this is important and launching this piece of work was one of the first acts that I did as Prime Minister and it is a personal priority to me because I absolutely, passionately believe that how far you go in life, should be about your talents and your hard work and nothing else.

    We know that Britain today in the 21st Century is a diverse multi-ethnic democracy. Diversity is a source of strength and pride for us. But when one person works just as hard as another person – and has got the same ambitions and aspirations – but experiences a worse outcome solely the grounds of their ethnicity, then this is a problem that I believe we have to confront.

    And that was the approach that I took when I was Home Secretary and I looked at the issue of stop and search and saw the significant disparity in stops and searches – far more young men from black and minority ethnic backgrounds being stopped and searched. But the number of incidents didn’t actually equate to that and justify that. We knew there was an injustice there and we had to act and that’s why we shook the system up and I am pleased to say the number of black people being stopped and searched has fallen by two thirds. I think that’s the difference that we can make when we identify the problem properly and then actually confront injustice and I hope that this audit will empower us to tackle many more of these issues.

    I think the data we’re releasing today and the online platform that presents it, should quickly become to be regarded as the central resource in the battle to defeat ethnic injustice. It’s a world first, no country has ever produced a piece of work looking at the lived experience of people of different ethnicities which is as extensive and ambitious as this and I want to give a huge vote of thanks to everybody who’s worked so hard on putting this together and helped us in what we’re doing.

    But it is not a one-off event this is a first but it’s not something that’s only going to happen today and the data sets and the online platform that we’re launching are now a permanent resource. I think that’s really important they will be updated and new data will be added and we’re fully committed to this for the long-term. And of course, as you know, as you look at the data much of it has existed for years but it’s been spread across the government system. It’s been difficult to access, perhaps it hasn’t been looked at through this particular prism before, and now it will be easily available and people can look at the data, they can look at the methodology for putting the data together, they can interrogate that data, they can measure our progress and they can focus our minds.

    Overall the findings will be uncomfortable but it’s right that we’ve identified them, shone a light on them and we need to confront these issues that we have identified. So we are going to take action, for example in relation to the issue of unemployment for people from particular BAME communities we will be identifying hotspots where we will be putting particular extra work in to help people into the workplace.

    The Ministry of Justice is going to take forward with recommendations from the Lammy Review that includes performance indicators in prisons to assess the quality of outcomes for prisoners of all ethnicities; committing to publish all criminal justice databases held on ethnicity by default; and working to ensure that the prison workforce itself is more representative of this country as a whole.

    In schooling, the Department for Education is taking forward a review on external exclusions. Again, there is some significant differences shown from this data on exclusions. This will share best practice nationwide and will focus on the experiences of groups who are disproportionately likely to be excluded. And the team in the Cabinet Office, which has been working on this, will be continuing its work in the future.

    I know that people around this table – I’ve worked with some of you over the years – have devoted many years working on these issues and we’re keen to hear from you about your thoughts on the audit, your own experiences and the experiences of the people that you’re representing.

    I was with a group of young people yesterday at a school in south London and hearing from them, their direct experiences, absolutely tapped into the sort of information that we are seeing in this audit and the impact. It wasn’t just their immediate experience, it was the impact on their aspiration and where they thought their life could go and I think this is really important,

    I think what this audit shows is that there isn’t anywhere to hide. And that’s not just for government, it is for society as a whole actually. The issues are now out in the open and we all have a responsibility to work together to tackle them.

    So I think the message is very simple; if the disparities can’t be explained, they must be changed. Britain has come a long way, we must recognise that we’ve come a long way, in promoting equality and opportunity. But what the data published today shows is that we still have a way to go if we’re truly going to have a country that does work for everyone.

    So thank you very much everybody for coming today and I am looking forward to hearing your views in due course.

  • Chris Grayling – 2017 Statement on Monarch Airlines

    Below is the text of the statement made by Chris Grayling, the Secretary of State for Transport, in the House of Commons on 9 October 2017.

    Mr Speaker, with permission I would like to make a statement about the steps the government has been taking to support those affected by the collapse of Monarch Airlines, in particular the 110,000 passengers this left abroad without a flight back to the UK and the almost 2,000 people who have lost their jobs.

    Mr Speaker, this situation is deeply regrettable and all parties considered options to avoid the collapse of the company. Ultimately, however, Monarch’s board took the decision to place it into administration and it ceased trading at around 4am on Monday 2nd October (2017). The engineering arm of the group remains a viable business and continues to trade.

    Ahead of the collapse my department had been working closely with the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) and several departments across Whitehall to prepare contingency plans, and the response has been swift and substantial.

    To put this into some context, this is the largest operation of its kind ever undertaken and has meant the CAA has essentially set up one of the UK’s largest airlines in order to conduct this operation.

    To give members a sense of the scale:

    we have put arrangements in place to bring back 110,000 people to the UK
    this requires 700 flights over a 2 week period
    a maximum of 35 aircraft in operation at one time
    the CAA are working with 27 different airlines, more than 200 CAA staff working on the project with thousands more in partner organisations
    there are over 40 airports involved – in the UK, around the Mediterranean and beyond
    it has required 267 coaches carrying over 13,000 passengers
    so far there have been over 39,000 calls to our customer service centres, all swiftly answered by more than 250 call centre staff
    there have been over 1,000,000 unique visitors to a dedicated website monarch.caa.co.uk – and 7,000,000 page views
    furthermore more than a million people have been reached through our Facebook promotion
    and there have been 10 government departments and agencies involved, including the FCO in London and our extensive diplomatic and consular network in the affected countries

    I have seen first-hand the work being done across government and the CAA to make this operation a success and spoken to some of the passengers who have returned to the UK on government flights. I have been hugely impressed by what I have seen and the response from passengers has been overwhelmingly positive – with many praising the CAA and government themselves for a well-organised and professional response.

    Normally, the CAA’s responsibility for bringing passengers back would extend only to customers whose trips are covered by ATOL. However this is the largest airline failure in UK history and there would have been insufficient capacity in the commercial aviation market to enable passengers to get home on other airlines. With tens of thousands of passengers abroad and with no easy means of returning to the UK, I therefore instructed the CAA to ensure all those currently abroad were offered an alternative flight home.

    As of last night, around 80,000 passengers have returned to the UK – almost three quarters of the total number who were abroad at the time of the collapse. We have also deployed teams of government officials to overseas airports to provide advice and assistance to passengers.

    Mr Speaker, despite robust plans and their success so far, this is a hugely distressing situation for all concerned. One of my top priorities has been to help those passengers abroad get safely back to the UK.

    Employees

    But in addition to supporting passengers, we have also been working across government to ensure the almost 2,000 former Monarch employees receive the support they need.

    I am pleased to report that airlines have already been directly appealing to Monarch’s former employees. For instance, Virgin Atlantic are offering a fast track recruitment process for cabin crew and pilots, and easyJet have invited applications for 500 cabin crew vacancies. EasyJet are also calling for direct-entry Captains or First Officers who meet Captain qualifications.

    All former Monarch employees will have received information from Jobcentre Plus outlining the support available to them. In total, Jobcentre Plus has pulled together a list of more than 6,300 vacancies across the major UK based airlines – around 3 times the number of people made redundant – which will help former Monarch employees remain in the airline industry.

    Both I and the Aviation Minister have been in contact with those members whose constituencies will have been hardest hit by these job loses, and given assurances that we will work with the industry to offer what support we can.

    Taxpayer

    However, I am also aware of the duty this government has to the taxpayer, and while affected passengers have been told they will not have to pay to be flown back to the UK, we have entered into discussions with several third parties with a view to recovering some of the costs of this operation.

    The ATOL scheme will of course provide the financial cover for those with ATOL protection. We are currently engaged in constructive discussions with the relevant credit and debit card providers in order that we might recoup from them some of the cost to taxpayers of these repatriation flights. We are also having similar discussions with other travel providers through which passengers may have booked a Monarch holiday and I would like to thank them for their constructive behaviour and approach.

    Mr Speaker, the initial response to this unprecedented situation would not have been as successful were it not for the support and cooperation of many players.

    The loss of a major British brand, which was close to celebrating its half-century, is undoubtedly a sad moment. However this should not be seen as a reflection on the general health of the UK aviation industry, which continues to thrive.

    We have never had the collapse of an airline or holiday company on this scale before. We have responded swiftly and decisively. Right now our efforts are rightly focused on getting employees into new jobs, and passengers home. But then our efforts will turn to working through the reforms necessary to ensure passengers do not find themselves in this position again. We need to look at all the options, not just ATOL, but also whether it is possible for airlines to be able to wind down in an orderly manner and look after their customers themselves without the need for government to step in. This is where we will focus our efforts in the weeks and months ahead.

    This has been an unprecedented response to an unprecedented situation, and I am grateful to all parties who have stepped in to support those affected.

  • Theresa May – 2017 Statement on the UK Leaving the EU

    Below is the text of the statement made by Theresa May, the Prime Minister, in the House of Commons on 9 October 2017.

    With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to update the House on our plans for leaving the European Union.

    Today the fifth round of negotiations begins in Brussels and this government is getting on with the job of delivering the democratic will of the British people.

    As I set out in my speech in Florence we want to take a creative and pragmatic approach to securing a new, deep and special partnership with the European Union which spans both a new economic relationship and a new security relationship.

    So let me set out what each of these relationships could look like – before turning to how we get there.

    Economic partnership

    Mr Speaker, I have been clear that when we leave the European Union we will no longer be members of its single market or its customs union.

    The British people voted for control of their borders, their laws and their money. And that is what this government is going to deliver.

    At the same time we want to find a creative solution to a new economic relationship that can support prosperity for all our peoples.

    We do not want to settle for adopting a model enjoyed by other countries.

    So we have rejected the idea of something based on European Economic Area membership. For this would mean having to adopt – automatically and in their entirety – new EU rules over which, in future, we will have little influence and no vote.

    Neither are we seeking a Canadian-style free trade agreement. For compared with what exists today, this would represent such a restriction on our mutual market access that it would benefit none of our economies.

    Instead I am proposing a unique and ambitious economic partnership. It will reflect our unprecedented position of starting with the same rules and regulations. We will maintain our unequivocal commitment to free trade and high standards. And we will need a framework to manage where we continue to align and where we choose to differ.

    There will be areas of policy and regulation which are outside the scope of our trade and economic relations where this should be straightforward.

    There will be areas which do affect our economic relations where we and our European friends may have different goals; or where we share the same goals but want to achieve them through different means.

    And there will be areas where we want to achieve the same goals in the same ways, because it makes sense for our economies.

    And because rights and obligations must be held in balance, the decisions we both take will have consequences for the UK’s access to the EU market – and EU access to our market.

    But this dynamic, creative and unique economic partnership will enable the UK and the EU to work side by side in bringing shared prosperity to our peoples.

    Security relationship

    Let me turn to the new security relationship.

    As I said when I visited our troops serving on the NATO mission in Estonia last month, the United Kingdom is unconditionally committed to maintaining Europe’s security.

    And we will continue to offer aid and assistance to EU member states that are the victims of armed aggression, terrorism and natural or man-made disasters.

    So we are proposing a bold new strategic agreement that provides a comprehensive framework for future security, law enforcement and criminal justice co-operation: a treaty between the UK and the EU.

    We are also proposing a far reaching partnership on how together we protect Europe from the threats we face in the world today.

    So this partnership will be unprecedented in its breadth and depth, taking in cooperation on diplomacy, defence and security, and development.

    Implementation

    Let me turn to how we build a bridge from where we are now to the new relationship that we want to see.

    When we leave the European Union on 29th March 2019 neither the UK, nor the EU and its Members States, will be in a position to implement smoothly many of the detailed arrangements that will underpin this new relationship we seek.

    Businesses will need time to adjust and governments will need to put new systems in place. And businesses want certainty about the position in the interim.

    That is why I suggested in my speech at Lancaster House there should be a period of implementation – and why I proposed such a period in my speech in Florence last month.

    During this strictly time-limited period, we will have left the EU and its institutions, but we are proposing that for this period access to one another’s markets should continue on current terms and Britain also should continue to take part in existing security measures.

    The framework for this period, which can be agreed under Article 50, would be the existing structure of EU rules and regulations.

    Now I know some people may have some concerns about this. But there are two reasons why it makes sense.

    First, we want our departure from the EU to be as smooth as possible – it wouldn’t make sense to make people and businesses plan for two sets of changes in the relationship between the UK and the EU.

    Second, we should concentrate our negotiating time and capital on what really matters – the future long-term relationship we will have with the EU after this temporary period ends.

    During the implementation period, people will continue to be able to come and live and work in the UK; but there will be a registration system – an essential preparation for the new immigration system required to re-take control of our borders.

    And our intention is that new arrivals would be subject to new rules for EU citizens on long term settlement.

    We will also push forward on our future independent trade policy, talking to trading partners across the globe and preparing to introduce those deals once this period is over.

    How long the period is should be determined simply by how long it will take to prepare and implement the new systems we need.

    As of today, these considerations point to an implementation period of around two years.

    And as I said in Florence – because I don’t believe that either the EU or the British people will want us to stay longer in the existing structures than necessary, we could also agree to bring forward aspects of that future framework, such as new dispute resolution mechanisms, more quickly if this can be done smoothly.

    At the heart of these arrangements, there should be a clear double lock: guaranteeing a period of implementation giving businesses and people the certainty they will be able to prepare for the change; and guaranteeing this implementation period will be time-limited, giving everyone the certainty this will not go on forever.

    Negotiations

    Mr Speaker, the purpose of the Florence speech was to move the negotiations forward and that is exactly what has happened.

    As Michel Barnier said after the last round, there is a “new dynamic” in the negotiations. And I want to pay tribute to my Rt Hon Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union for all he has done to drive through real and tangible progress on a number of vital areas.

    On citizens’ rights, as I have said many times this government greatly values the contributions of all EU citizens who have made their lives in our country. We want them to stay.

    In Florence, I gave further commitments that the rights of EU citizens in the UK – and UK citizens in the EU – will not diverge over time, committing to incorporate our agreement on citizens’ rights fully into UK law and making sure the UK courts can refer directly to it.

    Since Florence there has been more progress including reaching agreement on reciprocal healthcare and pensions, and encouraging further alignment on a range of important social security rights.

    So I hope our negotiating teams can now reach full agreement quickly.

    On Northern Ireland, we have now begun drafting joint principles on preserving the Common Travel Area and associated rights. And we have both stated explicitly we will not accept any physical infrastructure at the border.

    We owe it to the people of Northern Ireland – and indeed to everyone on the island of Ireland – to get this right.

    Then there is the question of the EU budget.

    As I have said, this can only be resolved as part of the settlement of all the issues that we are working through.

    Still I do not want our partners to fear that they will need to pay more or receive less over the remainder of the current budget plan as a result of our decision to leave. The UK will honour commitments we have made during the period of our membership.

    And as we move forwards, we will also want to continue working together in ways that promote the long-term economic development of our continent.

    This includes continuing to take part in those specific policies and programmes which are greatly to our joint advantage, such as those that promote science, education and culture – and those that promote our mutual security.

    And as I set out in my speech at Lancaster House, in doing so, we would want to make a contribution to cover our fair share of the costs involved.

    Mr Speaker, I continued discussions on many of these issues when I met with European leaders in Tallinn at the end of last month.

    And in the bi-lateral discussions I have had with Chancellor Merkel, Prime Minister Szydlo, President Tusk and the Taoiseach Leo Varadkar, they welcomed the tone set in Florence and the impact this was having on moving the negotiations forwards.

    Legislation

    Mr Speaker, preparing for life outside the EU is also about the legislative steps we take.

    Our EU Withdrawal Bill will shortly enter Committee Stage, carrying over EU rules and regulations into our domestic law from the moment we leave the EU.

    And today we are publishing two White Papers on trade and customs. These pave the way for legislation to allow the UK to operate as an independent trading nation and to create an innovative customs system that will help us achieve the greatest possible tariff and barrier-free trade as we leave the EU.

    And while I believe it is profoundly in all our interests for the negotiations to succeed, it is also our responsibility as a government to prepare for every eventuality. So that is exactly what we are doing.

    These White Papers also support that work, including setting out steps to minimise disruption for businesses and travellers.

    Conclusion

    Mr Speaker, a new, deep and special partnership between a sovereign United Kingdom and a strong and successful European Union is our ambition and our offer to our European friends.

    Achieving that partnership will require leadership and flexibility, not just from us but from our friends, the 27 nations of the EU.

    And as we look forward to the next stage, the ball is in their court. But I am optimistic it will receive a positive response.

    Because what we are seeking is not just the best possible deal for us – but I believe that will also be the best possible deal for our European friends too.

    So while, of course, progress will not always be smooth; by approaching these negotiations in a constructive way – in a spirit of friendship and co-operation and with our sights firmly set on the future – I believe we can prove the doomsayers wrong.

    And I believe we can seize the opportunities of this defining moment in the history of our nation.

    Mr Speaker, a lot of the day to day coverage is about process. But this, on the other hand, is vitally important.

    I am determined to deliver what the British people voted for and to get it right.

    That is my duty as Prime Minister.

    It is our duty as a Government.

    And it is what we will do.

    And I commend this Statement to the House.

  • Greg Clark – 2017 Speech to Conservative Party Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Greg Clark, the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, at the Conservative Party conference held in Manchester on 2 October 2017.

    The Conservative Party owes its strength over the years to two things. To our principles as the party of freedom in a property-owning democracy and to our ability to ensure stability and prosperity for the whole country.

    Today we face a challenge to both. A challenge from the Left to our idea of what Britain is and can be and a broader challenge to respond to the spreading worry among many people, worries that came to the fore in the election, that the system can’t be trusted to give them and their children a fair chance to make it, and who want to know they have an active government who will fight on their side for a stable and prosperous future for them.

    First things first. The British people made the decision to leave the European Union and this Government is going to carry out this instruction – Confidently, Seriously and responsibly. We are going to get the negotiations right. Part of my job is to make sure the voice of business is heard. I am a Conservative Business Secretary, and I will do my job.

    Sometimes, when I travel around the world meeting overseas investors, I encounter the assumption that the vote for Brexit was part of a global trend to more closed economies. For trading less. For protection. For pessimism. For retreat. I always say that nothing could be further from the truth.

    Let me speak for people who voted remain and people who voted for leave, and let me speak for the Government too. We’re for a Britain open to the world. Britain must, and will, always be: open to trade, open to talent, open to business.

    We can be pioneers of a new industrial age. To achieve that, strategy begins with understanding the challenge in a serious way. Our economy has been extraordinarily good at creating jobs. We can be proud of the fact that the vast majority of people of working age in this country are in work. We are the jobs capital of the world. But we’re nowhere near being the earnings capital of the world.

    We generate less value for our efforts than, say, people in Germany or France or America. We have to work longer hours to get the same rewards.

    We have some people who are among the most highly skilled on the planet.

    But we have too many without an adequate education or training. They can hold down a job. But the job isn’t productive enough to properly support themselves and their families.

    We have some of the most prosperous places in the world. But we have too many places where potential is unfulfilled. So our job is to increase this country’s earning power. For unless we raise our earning power, capitalism won’t work for everyone. And if capitalism doesn’t work for everyone, it doesn’t work.

    Here is the mission of our government: Prosperity for all – prosperity everywhere.

    So our industrial strategy is about people. You can’t be productive if you don’t have the skills. We’ve raised standards in schools, and expanded apprenticeships. Now Justine Greening and I are reforming technical education.

    Introducing more rigorous technical qualifications in areas where we need them- Construction, Design, Engineering, Digital technology, Healthcare, Science. More students are took maths and science A levels this summer than in any year since records began. And in every major city of England we will open an Institute of Technology to incubate the skills we need. We will give every single person in this country the prospect not just of a job – but of a trade. No-one left behind – Nowhere left behind.

    And our industrial strategy is also about ideas. We want Britain to be the world’s most innovative economy. Since our last conference we have made the biggest investment in research and development for 40 years. Just one example of what that means: As battery-powered autonomous cars take over, Britain will be the go-to place for new battery technology.

    Our industrial strategy commitment to research and development has, in the last 12 months alone helped ensure Britain will be home to; two new models from Nissan, the electric MINI from BMW, a quarter of a billion new investment from Toyota and Ford’s new vehicle research centre.

    Today we go further as we announce, as part of our Industrial Strategy, the consortium of businesses and universities across the country who will form the Faraday Battery Institute – advancing Britain’s place in the vanguard of the next generation of this technology.

    All this is backed up by the third pillar of our strategy – upgrades to our roads, railways, airports, energy networks, housing and broadband. People and ideas, supported by infrastructure. For the first time in a generation, the British government is leading the way on energy – through taking decisions on new nuclear, rolling out smart meters and leading the way in clean growth.

    The world is moving from being powered by polluting fossil fuels to clean energy. It’s as big a change as the move from the age of steam to the age of oil and Britain is showing the way. In the last year we have established ourselves as the world’s leader in offshore wind power. The price has halved and all across the country factories and service centres are opening up to build and export that technology. A dividend of industrial strategy.

    To drive earning power we need to champion good work by responsible employers who – pay their employees well, pay their taxes, train their workers, treat small business suppliers fairly, and compete vigorously and not by wielding monopoly power.

    The Taylor Review makes us the first country to think seriously about how the gig economy can drive economic success -while safeguarding the rights and conditions of people who work in it. And by upgrading our standards of corporate governance so that they will continue to be the best, and making sure that in takeover battles bidders have to publish their plans and can’t renege on them, we are strengthening our reputation as the place that combines unparalleled opportunities with high standards.

    We’ll agree sector deals with business sectors from life sciences to oil and gas; from the creative industries to ceramics. If business sectors can show how they will invest more and improve the earning power of the people who work in their industries, we’ll shake hands on a deal.

    The people who know best what is needed to drive forward their local economies are the people who live, work and do business in them.
    We will build on the success of our City Deals and Growth Deals – invented by this Government and now being copied around the world – to give local leaders the power to make a difference. As we saw earlier, when asked to choose – who is the best leader to drive forward their local economy, two thirds of the cities from Bristol and the West of England to Middlesbrough and the Tees Valley chose the Conservatives.

    Britain can win the fight to be the first home of the new industrial revolution.

    Yet to do that we must do something none of us in this hall ever thought we would have to do again. We must mount a battle of ideas on a scale we have not done for many years. Because underpinning everything we do is a belief that Britain is best served by a thriving, market economy, that produces jobs and prosperity for our people, and pays for the public services on which our nation relies.

    Our opponents are determined instead to create in Britain a socialist state.

    This is not a caricature – it is a description. The Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer calls himself a Marxist and he says his biggest influences are Trotsky and Lenin. The Labour Party has given itself over to a programme, an ideology and a leadership that would bring ruin.

    Despite the history of failures that litter the landscape they are marching off down the path of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange. It’s our job – each one of us in this hall – to stop them. The cost of their plan they haven’t even determined, but every person in this hall knows it can only be paid for in one of three ways: you tax, you borrow or you expropriate. Each one would be a disaster.

    The Labour party is committed to raising taxes, in the words of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, to “the highest level in the peacetime history of the United Kingdom”. It’s an illusion that these taxes would be paid by some distant multinational. I’ll tell you who’s going to pay. Working people already struggling to get by – that’s who’d have to pay the price of Labour.

    As any economist will tell you, taxes on companies have to be paid by workers, by consumers and by pensioners – through lower wages, higher prices and less valuable investments meaning lower pensions.

    This is not a choice of prosperity for the many or the few – it’s prosperity for no-one. And let me address a word to those Labour MPs who are choosing to stay silent even though they know their party is now led by people with an extreme and ruinous ideology. If, by your silence, you aid and abet the electoral fortunes of that leadership you won’t be forgiven, and you won’t deserve to be forgiven.

    While they stay silent it is this Party that will make the case for the values and policies that are essential for our prosperity. We’re going to make the case for an enterprise economy. We’re going to make the case for businesses that compete and succeed and provide a living for the people of this country. We’re going to make the case for well-paid jobs. The case for decent public services.

    The case for a welfare state paid for not by what we borrow but by what we earn. We’re going to be the voice for freedom to trade, for enterprise and creativity, and, for prosperity for all. We’re going to take the battle to the socialists – and we’re going to win.

    Here is the Conservative way to govern: Living within our means; creating good jobs; paying people well; investing for the future; Being a beacon of free trade and internationalism. That is what our modern industrial strategy is about. Prosperity for all will be our reply to the high tax, anti-enterprise, job-destroying, socialist ideology that in the last two years has taken over the opposition. This need to take the arguments to the socialists and win, this need to be a voice for enterprise and liberty – is a duty that we happily take on our shoulders. For we know that our country, and this party, have not faced a more overwhelming test of our seriousness of purpose in over 70 years. We will rise to the challenge, we will do our duty, we will secure for the next generation, a better Britain.

  • Jeremy Hunt – 2017 Speech to Conservative Party Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jeremy Hunt, the Secretary of State for Health, at the Conservative Party conference held in Manchester on 2 October 2017.

    We have a great team at the Department of Health so let me start by thanking them: the wise Philip Dunne, the savvy Steve Brine, the smart James O’Shaughnessy, the street-smart Jackie Doyle-Price and our perfect PPS’s Jo Churchill and James Cartlidge.

    Sometimes something happens that reminds you how lucky we are to have an NHS.

    That happened right here in Manchester in May.

    When that bomb went off at the Arena, we saw paramedics running into danger, doctors racing to work in the middle of the night, nurses putting their arms round families who couldn’t even recognise the disfigured bodies of their loved ones.

    One doctor was actually on the scene picking up his own daughter when the bomb went off. Thankfully he found her – but instead of taking her home he quietly dropped her off with friends and went straight to work at his hospital – without telling colleagues a word about where he’d been.

    It was the same heroism after the London attacks too. So let’s start by thanking all those superb NHS staff for being there when our country needed them.

    Of course they’re there for us not just in national emergencies but in personal ones too.

    When you’re losing a loved one, when you’re sick unexpectedly, when you’re knocked sideways by a mental health crisis – the NHS is there. A National Health Service and a national symbol of British professionalism and British compassion.

    But it only exists because of its people. So today I want to recognise that supporting NHS staff is one of our most important priorities.

    We need more doctors. So last year I said we’d increase the number of doctors we train by a quarter, one of the biggest ever increases.

    We also need more nurses. So today I can tell you we’ll increase the number of nurses we train by 25% – that’s a permanent increase of more than 5,000 nurse training places every single year. And we’ll do that not just by increasing traditional university places, but also by tripling the number of Nursing Associates so people already in the NHS can become a registered nurse after a four year apprenticeship without having to do a traditional full time university course. Derby, Wolverhampton and Coventry Universities have already offered to run apprenticeship nursing courses on hospital and community sites and others will follow, always making sure we maintain the high standards required by the nursing regulator. We’ll also launch a new initiative to encourage nurses who have left the profession to come back.

    Our NHS is nothing without its nurses: we need your skills, we need your compassion and with today’s announcement we are backing the biggest expansion of nurse training in the history of the NHS.

    For nurses, as for all of us, pay and conditions matter. I’ve already said we’ll decide next year’s pay awards after listening to the independent pay review bodies. But there are other things we can do today.

    Nurses look after us – but they also have their own families to look after: kids at school, a mum or dad with dementia, a partner coping with cancer.

    If we’re to get the best out of them we need to be much better at supporting them with their own caring responsibilities.

    They need to be able to work flexibly, do extra hours at short notice, get paid more quickly when they do and make their own choices on pension contributions. So today I’m also announcing that new flexible working arrangements will be offered to all NHS employees during this parliament. And we’ll start next year with 12 trusts piloting a new app-based flexible working offer to their staff.

    And like many people, NHS staff can also struggle to find homes near work they can actually afford. So from now on when NHS land is sold, first refusal on any affordable housing built will be given to NHS employees benefitting up to 3,000 families.

    And there’s one more group who are understandably a bit worried at the moment and that’s the 150,000 EU workers in the health and care system. Let me say to them this: you do a fantastic job, we want you to stay and we’re confident you will be able to stay with the same rights you have now – so you can continue being a highly valued part of our NHS and social care family.

    I became Health Secretary five years ago. It’s a long time ago – but I’ll never forget my very first week.

    Someone gave me the original Francis report into Mid Staffs to take home to read. I was gobsmacked. How could these terrible things really happen in our NHS?

    The Chief Executive of the NHS told me I’d better get used to the fact in hospitals all over the world 10% of patients are harmed. Another senior doctor told me there were pockets of Mid Staffs-like problems everywhere. And academics told me that 3.6% of all hospital deaths were probably avoidable – that’s 150 deaths every single week – causing immense heartache to families as we heard so powerfully from Deb just now.

    People like Deb – and what a privilege to listen to her this morning – made a choice.

    Instead of drawing a line under their personal tragedies and moving on they chose to dedicate their lives to campaigning, reliving their sadness over and over again, just to make sure other families wouldn’t have to go through what they did.

    They also made my mind up for me: my single ambition as Health Secretary would be to transform our NHS into the safest healthcare system in the world where this kind of thing never happened.

    But where on earth do you start?

    The first thing is to be honest about where the problems are. My kids are 3, 5 and 7 and as a Dad I know exactly how good all the local schools are – thanks to Ofsted. We had nothing like that in health – so against a lot of opposition in 2013 we became the first country in the world to introduce the Ofsted system to healthcare, giving independent ratings to every hospital, care home and GP surgery.

    The results were, to say the least, a big surprise. Look at this.
    14 hospitals got an ‘outstanding.’ We assumed it would be the famous teaching hospitals, but in fact it was often trusts no one had really heard of outside their area. Like Western Sussex, under the inspiring leadership of Marianne Griffiths, which has the best learning culture I have seen anywhere in the NHS. Or in mental health Northumbria Tyne and Wear which I visited on Friday and is blazing a trail on the safety of mental health patients.

    Then we asked ourselves a difficult question. Is quality care just something you have to buy? Of course money matters – you need enough nurses on the wards and that costs money. But it turned out to be a more complex relationship.

    All Trusts are paid the same NHS tariff. But on average the ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’ trusts were in surplus and the ‘requires improvement’ and ‘inadequate’ ones were in deficit. Why’s that? Because poor care is about the most expensive care you can give. If someone has a fall and stays in hospital an extra week, it’s not just terrible for them it costs us more too.

    But our biggest worry was what would happen to the trusts we put into special measures. Would they get trapped in a vicious circle of decline? 35 trusts went into special measures – nearly one in five of all NHS trusts – and so far 20 have come out. What happened?

    Take Wexham Park Hospital in Slough. When they went into special measures, the CQC said their care was unsafe, 6 of their 8 clinical areas needed improving and if you asked staff the majority said they would not recommend their own care to a friend or member of their family. Think about that: the staff themselves said their own hospital’s care was not to be trusted.

    Two years later under the extraordinary leadership of Sir Andrew Morris and his Frimley team things were transformed: all 8 clinical areas were good or outstanding, more than two thirds of staff started recommending their own care and the Trust became one of only 8 in the country to go straight from special measures to being rated ‘Good.’

    And we learned perhaps the most important thing I have learned as Health Secretary. The staff in every Trust going into special measures were exactly the same as the staff coming out. In other words it wasn’t about the staff, it was all about the leadership.

    We also learned that you can’t impose quality or safety from above – it has to be part of a culture that comes from the bottom up. And that starts with openness and transparency.

    Let me show you that works.

    After Mid Staffs we were worried about staffing levels on wards. But rather than a top-down edict telling Trusts to recruit more staff, we did something simpler. We just asked every trust to publish every month the number of nurses employed in each of their wards. What was the impact?

    This is the total number of adult nurses employed in the NHS. And you can see in the first two years from 2010 they went down by just under 5,000. Then we introduced ward by ward transparency and what happened? The blue line is the number of nurses Trusts planned to recruit. The green line is what they actually recruited. In other words once we started being transparent about nurse numbers the NHS ended up with 18,000 more nurses than it planned.

    And the public noticed – inpatient satisfaction over this period rose to record highs.

    We also introduced transparency in areas like mental health, our major priority under Theresa May’s leadership. We are leading probably the biggest expansion of mental health in Europe right now. But progress across the country has been patchy – so we are using transparency to make sure that wherever you live mental health conditions are always treated as seriously as physical health conditions.

    So by shining a light on problems, transparency saves lives. But it also saves money.

    Every time someone gets an infection during a hip operation it can cost £100,000 to put right. So under the leadership of Professor Tim Briggs we started collecting data on infection rates across the country. What did Tim find? He found that our best hospitals infect one in 500 patients. But our least good ones it is as many as one in 25 patients.

    Putting that right is now saving hundreds of millions of pounds as well as reducing untold human misery. So never let it be said you can’t afford safe care – it’s unsafe care that breaks the bank.

    Now what’s been the overall impact of this focus on safety and quality? We all know the pressure the NHS is under. But despite that the proportion of patients being harmed has fallen by 8% and 200 fewer patients harmed every single day.

    Staff are happier than ever with the quality of their care and the proportion of the public who agree their NHS care is good is up 13%.

    This July an independent American think tank, the Commonwealth Fund, said the NHS was the best – and safest – healthcare system in the world. That’s better than America, better than France, better than Germany and most importantly ahead of the Ashes better than Australia.

    But – and there is a ‘but’ – we still have those 150 avoidable deaths every week.

    Twice a week somewhere in the NHS we leave a foreign object in someone’s body.

    Three times a week we operate on the wrong part of someone’s body.

    Four times a week a claim is made for a baby born brain damaged.

    We may be the safest in the world – but what that really means is that healthcare everywhere needs to change.

    In America Johns Hopkins University says medical error causes 250,000 deaths a year – the third biggest killer after cancer and heart disease. Conference I want the NHS to blaze a trail across the world in sorting that out.

    So we have big campaigns right now to tackle e-Coli infections, reduce maternity harm, make sure we learn from every avoidable death and most of all keep our patients safe over winter.

    But we need to do something else too: and that’s get much better at supporting doctors and nurses when they make mistakes. Everyone makes mistakes – but only doctors and nurses have been brave enough to choose a career where the price of those mistakes can sometimes be a tragedy.

    And when that happens no one is more devastated, no one keener to learn and improve than those same frontline staff.

    But we often make that impossible. They worry about litigation, the GMC, the NMC, the CQC, even being fired by their trust. Unless we support staff to learn from mistakes we just condemn ourselves to repeat them – and that means dismantling the NHS blame culture and replacing it with a learning culture. The world’s largest healthcare organisation must become the world’s largest learning organisation – and it’s my job and my mission to make that happen.

    Now next year the NHS has an important birthday. Like Prince Charles and Lulu it will turn 70.

    Here are the words of the Health Minister who announced its formation back in 1944.

    Nye Bevan deserves credit for founding the NHS in 1948. But that wasn’t him or indeed any Labour minister.

    That was the Conservative Health Minister in 1944, Sir Henry Willink, whose white paper announced the setting up of the NHS.

    He did it with cross-party support. And for me that’s what the NHS should always be: not a political football, not a weapon to win votes but there for all of us with support from all of us.

    So conference when Labour question our commitment to the NHS, as they did in Brighton, just tell them that no party has a monopoly on compassion.

    It’s not a Labour Health Service or a Conservative Health Service but a National Health Service that we built and are building together – as I’ve said many times.

    And the next time they question our record, tell them we’ve given our NHS more doctors, more nurses and more funding than ever before in its history.

    Tell them when they left office the NHS wasn’t even rated the best in Europe, let alone best in the world as it has been twice on our watch.

    And most of all tell them that if they’re really worried about the NHS being destroyed, then there’s one thing they can do: ditch Corbyn and McDonnell’s disastrous economic policies which would bankrupt our economy and bring our NHS to its knees.

    Because the economic facts of life are not suspended for the NHS: world-class public services need a world-class economy and to ignore that is not to support our doctors and nurses, it’s to betray them.

    However unlike Labour we don’t make the mistake of saying the challenges facing the NHS are only about money.

    If they were, we wouldn’t have had Mid Staffs, Morecambe Bay and all those other tragedies that happened during bumper increases in funding.

    As Conservatives we know that quality of care matters as much as quantity of money.

    So when we battle to improve the safety and quality of care we are making the NHS stronger not weaker.

    And we’re reinforcing those founding values of the NHS we just heard, namely that every single older person, every single family, every single child in our country matters – and we want all of them to be treated with the same standards of care and compassion that we’d want for our own mum or dad or son or daughter.

    That, conference, is why we’re backing our NHS to become the safest, highest quality healthcare system in the world and we will deliver the safest, highest quality healthcare system in the world. Thank you.

  • Liam Fox – 2017 Speech at Conservative Party Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Liam Fox, the Secretary of State for International Trade, at the Conservative Party conference held in Manchester on 3 October 2017.

    OK. It’s time for some optimism.

    It doesn’t seem like a year since we last met together in Birmingham. When we did so, my Department had been in existence for little over two months.

    We had the challenge, but more importantly the wonderful opportunity, to build a new department designed for the trade challenges of the 21st century.
    It has been a huge honour to be at the centre of such a historic project and to work alongside some of the most talented and energetic people in our country.

    In a short time, we have achieved so much.

    We have attracted the brightest and best talent from across Whitehall, the private sector and abroad in order to make sure that we have the skills we need to help British business succeed.

    We now have over 3400 DIT personnel including those in 108 posts around the globe, literally working around the clock in our national interest.

    But none of this could have been achieved without our parliamentary colleagues: our departmental Whips, Heather Wheeler and Liz Sugg and my outstanding PPS Tom Pursglove; and PPS to our Ministers, Mike Wood.

    I’m delighted to welcome Rona Fairhead who joined us as our Minister in the Lords last week, and who will be leading our new export strategy. She follows in the footsteps of Mark Price who is returning to the private sector. Mark, we all owe you a huge debt of gratitude for the tireless work you did for our country.

    And I’m thrilled that following the general election I was fortunate enough to retain Greg Hands and Mark Garnier – two of the finest Ministers in Whitehall.

    And let’s not forget the invaluable dedication of our tremendous civil servants both here at home, and those in posts abroad, who work tirelessly on behalf of our country and who deserve more thanks than they sometimes get.

    We are blessed in having a unity of purpose that I have never experienced in any other department in Whitehall.

    Our vision is of a UK that trades its way to prosperity, stability and security.
    We know that to realise this vision we must build a department that champions free trade, helps businesses export, drives investment and opens up markets so that more British businesses can take up the opportunities that exist in the global economy.

    And we need to prepare for life after Brexit, to make the technical changes and global arrangements that will enable us to take full advantage of having an independent trade policy for the first time in over 40 years.

    And we have done so against an economic backdrop where the fundamentals of the British economy have been sound and resilient.

    Because the naysayers got it wrong – and doesn’t it annoy you when people preface any piece of good news with the phrase “despite Brexit”. Well, doesn’t it?

    So let’s just have a reality check.

    We have the highest number of people in employment ever, “despite Brexit”.

    Last year we had the highest inward investment to the UK ever, creating over 75,000 new jobs and safeguarding over 32,000 others, “despite Brexit”.

    We have new cars being built in Sunderland and Cowley, amongst the highest economic growth rates in the developed world, an 11% rise in exports and the best order books for British manufacturers in 22 years.

    No, not despite Brexit but because of the sound economic management of a Conservative government under the leadership of our Prime Minister, Theresa May and Chancellor, Phillip Hammond.

    And last week we saw the full horrors of what a Labour alternative might look like. Economic incompetence, financial incontinence and self-congratulatory nonsense.

    A leadership that is conning Britain’s young people, planning to borrow and spend on an unprecedented scale leaving the debts and the inevitable taxes to the next generation. It is a confidence trick. Labour claim to be the party who support young people when, in reality, they are the party who will sell out young people.

    We, on the other hand are getting on with the business of governing.

    We will leave the European Union, and with it, the Single Market and the Customs Union, at the end of March 2019. We are now making the preparations for that to happen.

    First, at the World Trade Organisation in Geneva, we have to table new trading schedules – which are the legal basis of our international trading obligations.

    We have increased our staff numbers and worked hard with our international partners to ensure that this process is as technical and straightforward as possible.

    Second, we have to translate into UK law, the trade agreements that the EU has, with other countries, and to which we are a party.

    There are around 40 such EU free trade agreements and we have been working to ensure that we continue our trading advantages with important markets, such as Switzerland and South Korea, avoiding any disruption at the point we leave the EU.

    Beyond that, we will need to look to new agreements to ensure that we can take full advantage of the opportunities that will arise in the future.

    Of course, as we look globally, we must continue to recognise the hugely important market for the UK that the EU provides. That is why the Prime Minister and David Davis have consistently said that we want to see a full and comprehensive agreement with the EU, retaining an open and free trading area across the European continent.

    That is in the interests of both the UK and our European partners who we want to see prosperous and strong, playing a full part in our mutual economic well-being and security.

    But the EU itself estimates that over 90% of global growth in the next 10 to 15 years will occur outside Europe so we must be ready to meet that challenge.

    These are the markets where Britain must trade, invest and partner, ensuring that we deliver and bring back to Britain the fruits of growth in some of the world’s most dynamic places.

    From the vibrant energy of the Asian economies to the awakening giant of Latin America to the potential of the African continent, new opportunities are arising, new ventures beckoning and new possibilities blossoming.

    We have already begun discussions with the United States, Australia and New Zealand about future relationships.

    We have established a trade policy group to lead our trade negotiations of the future and recruited the terrific Crawford Falconer from New Zealand to head up a new trade profession, creating new skills and career opportunities in trade.

    We have established 12 working groups with 17 countries from India to Brazil and from the Gulf to Australia.

    As Ministers we have travelled to over 100 global markets, promoting British exports of goods and services, encouraging inward investment to the United Kingdom and seeking overseas investment opportunities so that British companies develop a genuinely global footprint.

    Am I optimistic about the future? Absolutely.

    When people ask if I’m a glass half full or half empty man – I just tell them that I’m Scottish and the glass isn’t big enough.

    And we continue to innovate to help UK businesses, large and small. We have a dedicated network of Trade Envoys, and will shortly have a fully established complement of Trade Commissioners to lead nine new regions across the world, bringing together expertise in export promotion, investment and policy at our posts abroad.

    We will bring an end to micromanagement from Whitehall and give those with the intuition and understanding of international markets the freedom they need to do the job that this country needs them to do.

    And our job is to ensure that everything we do helps British business.
    We have created a cutting edge digital trading site – called great.gov.uk – showcasing Britain to the world and showing real time export opportunities.

    And we are now providing political risk insurance so that even the most difficult markets can be accessed with confidence and for SMEs we will make export finance available through their own banks for the first time, making help available quickly and efficiently.

    But we must not assume that everyone takes the same positive view of global free trade that we do. There are many who are worried about the disruptive effects of the globalised economy and the effect it may have on their own jobs and prosperity. If we are to get wide acceptance of a competitive, free market, global economy then we must ensure that it works for everyone. And we must provide mitigation where disruption is caused to individuals or communities.

    In particular, we have to ensure that our training and reskilling is sufficient to help people back into the workplace as quickly and smoothly as possible.

    We may think that the benefits of free trade are self-evident but we need to sell our vision and mission to a public that is often either unaware or sceptical about the benefits.

    We need to say that when the UK sells its goods and services to other countries it helps the UK economy grow and become stronger.

    We need to say that improving trade and selling more into markets overseas support jobs at home.

    And we need to point out that the choice and competition that comes from trade means a greater variety of goods in the shops, helping keep prices down and making incomes go further.

    Getting cut-price produce from Lidl and Aldi is free trade in action.

    Getting bigger widescreen TVs at lower prices from Currys is free trade in action.

    Getting lower cost school clothing or having a full range of fruit and vegetables all year round is free-trade in action.

    On the other hand, putting up barriers to trade – or protectionism – leads to higher prices and less choice. Ultimately, it leads to a less competitive economy that delivers lower living standards.

    Let’s make our arguments mean something to all our people.

    And more, let’s go beyond the economic arguments and make the moral case too.

    Over the last generation, more than 1 billion people have been taken out of abject poverty thanks to the success of global trading. It is the greatest reduction in poverty in human history and we are working hand in hand with our development policy so that ultimately people can trade their way out of poverty rather than simply depending on aid.

    Of course no one is likely to disagree with the sentiment. Yet the most developed countries have been placing more and more obstacles in the way of free trade in recent years. According to the OECD, at the end of 2010 the G7 and G20 countries were operating around 300 non-tariff barriers to trade. By the end of 2015 this had increased to over 1200.

    Those who have benefited most from free-trade in the past cannot pull up the drawbridges behind them. It is completely unacceptable, which is why, as we leave the European Union, and take up our independent seat at the World Trade Organization, we will be unequivocal champions of free-trade for the benefit of all.

    But we need to see free trade in a wider context still. We live in a world that is more interconnected and more interdependent than at any time in our history.

    Free trade helps to ensure that there is an ever wider sharing of prosperity.

    That prosperity, which encourages and develops social cohesion, underpins political stability. And that political stability, in turn, is part of the framework for our global security.

    That is why we must see them all as part of a continuum and why it is so essential that our trade policy, our development policy and our foreign policy work hand in hand, which is why Boris, Priti and I are working so closely together.

    So let’s be upbeat, Let’s be positive. Let’s be optimistic.

    From Jakarta to Panama to Tokyo to Johannesburg, I have heard nothing but a willingness to do business with Britain, a respect for the quality of our goods and services and a desire to develop partnerships with British business.

    We need to take as positive a view of Britain as they do.

    We need to stop the negative, undermining, self-defeating pessimism that is too prevalent in certain quarters and be bold, be brave and rise to the global challenges, together.

    We are not passengers in our own destiny. We can make change happen if we want to.

    And it is this great party leading our great country that will make that change and lead us to a great future.

    Thank you.

  • David Davis – 2017 Speech at Conservative Party Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Davis, the Secretary of State for Leaving the European Union, at the Conservative Party conference held in Manchester on 3 October 2017.

    Ladies and Gentlemen, it is a great pleasure to be here in this great City, a city forever associated with free trade.

    The historic buildings we see all around us, they were all built on the back of trade.

    Today, I want to talk about how we can draw inspiration from that past, to carve out a new place for ourselves in the world, to rise to the new set of challenges that face us as new technologies threaten to change our world faster than ever.

    When we met last year in the shadow of the Referendum emotions were still raw.

    A year later, there is a new mood.

    People want to look to the future.

    They are fed up that people in Westminster seem to be stuck in an endless debate while the rest of the world wants to get a move on.

    Over a year later I still get people coming up to me every day saying: ‘best of luck’ or ‘get a good deal for us Mr Davis’, and even, ‘Surely it can’t be that difficult?’

    And that’s just the Cabinet.

    Joking aside, every time I walk down the street, get on a train or walk through an airport….

    People – not leave voters, or remain voters any more – just ordinary decent people, enthusiastically come up to me and wish me well on our shared project.

    They know it’s not going to be easy or straightforward.

    But the reasons that so many men and women voted to leave a year and a half ago are the same reasons that drive me every day right now:

    We have been given a one-off time-limited extraordinary opportunity.

    An opportunity to make sure that all the decisions about the future of this country are taken by our parliament, our courts, our institutions.

    Decisions about how to spend our taxes – made here in Britain.

    Decisions about who comes into the country – made here in Britain.

    All our laws – made here in Britain.

    We need to get Britain standing on its own two feet – facing outwards to the world.

    And it’s that last point, looking forward to Britain’s Global role, which I want to talk to you about now.

    One of the most powerful arguments I’ve heard for being outside the European Union was simple.

    And it goes like this:

    ‘What kind of internationalism is it which says that this country must give priority to a Frenchman over an Indian, a German over an Australian, an Italian over a Malaysian.’

    It couldn’t have been further from a Conservative Conference.

    Having been said by Barbara Castle in 1975.

    But what she meant, rings true today.

    We are a global nation. We export more goods and services than Russia, Brazil and Indonesia combined

    We have one of the greatest armed forces on the planet…

    Who show their worth to the world in the Indian Ocean, in Iraq and the Baltics.

    We train the best diplomats and put them to the test by sending them to work for the Foreign Secretary.

    Now that we are leaving the European Union.

    It allows us to be more international, not less.

    It requires us to face the world, not looking away or glancing back, but with confidence and determination about the future we will build.

    And ladies and gentlemen there is only one party which can deliver that and it is our Conservative Party.

    Now, I would be happy to work with the Labour Party in the national interest, putting aside our differences for the good of the country.

    But they have been playing a different game.

    They’ve now published 11 separate Brexit plans and they are to paraphrase  Tolstoy, each unhappy in its own unique way.

    For the customs union…then against it.

    For the single market…then against it.

    For freedom of movement…then against it.

    Where we have introduced a Repeal Bill to take control of our laws and provide legal certainty…

    They opposed it and offered no alternative.

    Where we set out our negotiating positions and got the process started…

    They opposed it and offered no alternative.

    Where we have set out a plan for life outside the EU…with free trade and a strong economy…

    They opposed it and offered no alternative.

    They claim they respect the outcome of the Referendum…but oppose every step required to deliver it.

    This is the most complex negotiation you could imagine.

    Where one oversight, one error could cost the taxpayer billions of pounds…

    And just last week I heard Keir Starmer say, ‘We mustn’t get bogged down in discussions about technicalities’

    Well I’m afraid ignoring the details of Brexit just won’t cut it.

    It’s like they’ve got a new slogan: ‘Labour…government without the hard bits’.

    Well we are different in this party

    We respect the people’s decision

    And we will deliver the people’s decision

    And as we do it, we will have to be clear eyed about what we want to achieve.

    Because the future of our country is much more than just Brexit.

    And it is something to be excited about whether you voted leave or remain.

    As Liam has just told you the European Commission itself says that 90 per cent of the future global growth will come from outside Europe.

    Having an independent trade policy will allow us to embrace those opportunities to the full.

    And it gives us an opportunity to lead a race to the top.

    To push up global standards.

    To protect rights for workers.

    To improve productivity and increase wages.

    And lead the world as the champion of free trade.

    Campaigning for the poverty-busting, affluence-spreading, wealth-creating impact that it can have.

    Last week I was in Brussels.

    Representing Britain in the fourth round of negotiations

    We are making real steps forwards getting results on issues which affect people’s daily lives.

    On the rights of British citizens in the Europe and European citizens here.

    We will allow all 4 million of them to live their lives as they do now.

    I am certain we can secure a deal on this soon.

    On Northern Ireland and Ireland both the UK and the European Union are fully committed to protecting the peace process and ensuring that there is no return to the problems of the past.

    And on the issue of the money

    Yes, as the Prime Minister has promised, we will honour our commitments.

    Because ours is a country that which plays by the rules and obeys the law.

    But we will do our duty for the British taxpayer, and challenge these claims line by line.

    We must never lose sight of the bigger picture, and the prize on offer at the end of the process.

    And it is only in this context, that we can finally settle this issue.

    Closer to home, we are getting Britain ready for Brexit step-by-step.

    The first step is the Repeal Bill.

    A critical piece of legislation, which ends the supremacy of EU law.

    It is essential to a smooth and orderly exit.

    And it helps provide the clarity which citizens and businesses have been clamouring for.

    Now where MPs set out to improve this legislation, we will welcome their contribution…

    But be in no doubt: this Bill is essential and we will not allow it to be wrecked.

    On the negotiating front, we are aiming for a good deal.

    And that is what we expect to achieve.

    However, if the outcome of the negotiation falls short of the deal that Britain needs we will be ready for the alternative.

    That is what a responsible Government does. Anything else would be a dereliction of duty.

    So there is a determined exercise underway in Whitehall devoted to contingency arrangements so that we are ready for any outcome.

    Not because it is what we seek, but because it needs to be done.

    And while much of our task lies ahead, when I look at what we’ve achieved so far it should give us cause for optimism.

    That we will strike that deal, and create that shared future.

    Because Brexit is not a rejection of Europe, or indeed the values and ideals that are shared across our continent.

    It is a decision by the British people to leave the political project.

    A project which may be right for the other nations who remain there by the consent of their people.

    But one that is no longer right for us.

    They approach it through the prism of their own history – one that, in the past, was all too often determined by dictatorship and domination, invasion and occupation.

    For them Europe symbolises democracy, liberty, modernity, the rule of law.

    Our own island story follows a different path.

    We had been the leading liberal democracy for over a century before we joined the common market.

    And when we decided to leave the European Union we voted, not against the political project itself, but against Britain’s involvement in it.

    Europe’s history will continue, and so will ours, and we will remain good friends and allies.

    And for those who claim that we are not good Europeans.

    Well, did you know that we spend one and half times as much on defence as the European average? That is how we stationed troops on Europe’s border in Estonia and in Poland.

    I call that being a good European.

    We spend over twice the European average helping the poorest people on the planet.

    Including in Africa where for many, British aid acts as a ladder for people to climb out of the hands of people smugglers.

    I call that being a good European.

    And we are the first to help our neighbours in the fight against terror…as both our Belgian and our French colleagues found last year.

    I call that being a good European.

    This is more than warm words.

    None of it comes for free.

    If we spent only the European average on defence, on international development, on intelligence, we would spend £22 billion less a year.

    And that isn’t going away. Because we choose to be good global citizens.

    That’s what we mean when we say we are leaving the EU, but not leaving Europe or our shared values.

    So this is our plan, and I’m incredibly lucky to have been given the team to deliver it.

    The intelligence, dedication and sheer hard work of Robin Walker, Steve Baker and our Minister in the Lords Joyce Anelay.

    Our excellent PPSs, Gareth Johnson and Jeremy Quinn.

    And the support of our hard-working public-spirited and patriotic civil servants in Whitehall.

    And on a personal point can I put on record my thanks for my two former Ministers David Jones and George Bridges.

    I’d like you to join me in thanking them all.

    So together, as a team, we will work to deliver the national interest.

    Now if there’s one thing I don’t need to do today, it’s to remind you to believe in our country.

    But if I have one message for you, it is to keep your eyes on the prize.

    You will have read in the newspapers lurid accounts of the negotiations with the predictions of break down and crisis.

    Offensive, indeed insulting, briefing to the newspapers, which I take as a compliment.

    Of course sometimes the exchanges are tough, but that is to be expected.

    The job the Prime Minister has entrusted to me is to keep a calm eye on our goal and not be diverted.

    Because the prizes for success are enormous. As are the consequences of failure.

    I didn’t campaign so hard in the referendum for the pleasure of negotiating with the European Commission

    I did it because the future of this country is great.

    And this Government is facing up to it.

    Success will not be automatic, we will have to work hard for it.

    We will encourage the things that we Conservatives believe in:

    Hard work, Enterprise, risk-taking

    Innovation, competition, self-reliance.

    When we leave the EU, our successes, and yes, our failures, will be ours and ours alone.

    But we are the country of William Shakespeare and Jane Austen, of Alexander Fleming and James Dyson. A super power in science, with the fairest legal system in the world.

    Britain is where you come if you want to study artificial intelligence or life sciences.

    And being who we are and drawing on our strengths, we can be confident that our successes will dwarf our failures.

    So let us turn to face the future.

    Delivering on the referendum.

    Setting out a new relationship with Europe.

    Pushing forward, to grasp the opportunities that lie ahead.

    Looking forward, to the future we forge together.

    Putting our country on the path to greatness once again.