Tag: 2017

  • Theresa May – 2017 Statement on Robert Mugabe’s Resignation

    Below is the text of the statement issued by Theresa May, the Prime Minister, on 21 November 2017.

    The resignation of Robert Mugabe provides Zimbabwe with an opportunity to forge a new path free of the oppression that characterised his rule. In recent days we have seen the desire of the Zimbabwean people for free and fair elections and the opportunity to rebuild the country’s economy under a legitimate government.

    As Zimbabwe’s oldest friend we will do all we can to support this, working with our international and regional partners to help the country achieve the brighter future it so deserves.

  • Mark Field – 2017 Speech at the Asian-European Meeting

    Below is the text of the speech made by Mark Field, Minister of State for Asia and the Pacific at the Foreign & Commonwealth Office, at the Asian-European Meeting held in Myanmar on 20 November 2017.

    Introduction

    It is an honour to represent the UK at this ASEM Foreign Ministers’ meeting. It is a particular pleasure to see a democratically-elected leader of Myanmar in the Chair.

    Myanmar’s path towards peace and democracy has been long and difficult. Major challenges remain. The UK is proud to have been a consistent advocate for human rights and democracy in Myanmar over many years. We continue to work with the civilian government to promote peace, sustainable development and fundamental rights for all communities in Myanmar.

    We are particularly grateful to you, Madam Chair, for your willingness to address the issue of Rakhine in the margins of this meeting. We welcome your inclusive vision for Rakhine and commitment to the right of return for refugees.

    I would also like to pay tribute to the generosity of Bangladesh for taking in more than 610,000 refugees over the past 3 months – a huge burden for any country. The UK has given some £47 million in humanitarian support and we stand ready, along with others here, I trust, to contribute further.

    UK-Asia

    The UK’s links with Asia run deep. They include some of our closest commercial, political and people-to-people links. As we prepare to leave the European Union, our commitment to ASEM and to Asia will endure.

    Rules-based System

    ASEM brings together countries with a deep commitment to the rules-based international system. Peace and sustainable development in both our regions depend on that system. So I want to highlight two threats to the rules-based system, and four global challenges that can only be addressed through strengthening that system.

    North Korea

    As many have mentioned, the first regional issue is the threat posed by North Korea‘s reckless nuclear and ballistic missile tests. The unanimous Security Council vote to strengthen sanctions sent the strongest possible signal of international resolve.

    We all have a duty to enforce UN sanctions urgently and rigorously.

    South China Sea

    The second regional issue concerns the South China Sea. We are committed to a Rules-Based Maritime order. European states have a legitimate interest in peace, stability and security even as far away as the South China Sea. The UK’s position remains that all states must respect international law, as reflected in UNCLOS, and seek to settle disputes peacefully, without coercion or the threat of force.

    Global Challenges

    Turning to the global challenges:

    The UK has shown that it is possible to cut emissions while pursuing economic growth. And I hope others will be able to follow that lead. The Illegal Wildlife Trade not only harms biodiversity but also fosters corruption and undermines the rule of law. I congratulate China on its domestic ivory ban, and Vietnam for hosting the 2016 conference. London hosts the next conference on this issue in 2018. I urge ASEM to support work to combat this criminal trade.

    Finally, digital connectivity can and will help enhance the links between Asia and Europe. The internet is increasingly a principal driver of our prosperity and social well-being. To ensure this continues, we must work together to tackle cyber-crime, protect online freedoms and abide by the norms of responsible state behaviour. Innovation, R&D will also ensure cyber security for us all.

  • Alistair Burt – 2017 Speech on Yemen

    Below is the text of the speech made by Alistair Burt, the Minister of State for International Development and Minister of State for the Middle East at the Foreign & Commonwealth Office, in the House of Commons on 20 November 2017.

    With permission, Mr Speaker I would like to make a statement to the House on the humanitarian and political situation in Yemen and the implications of the conflict for regional security.

    Her Majesty’s Government remains deeply concerned by the humanitarian situation in Yemen and the impact recent restrictions are having on what was already the worst humanitarian crisis in the world and largest ever cholera outbreak.

    We recognise the risk of a severe deterioration of the humanitarian situation, if restrictions are not quickly removed and call on all parties to ensure immediate access for commercial and humanitarian supplies through all Yemen’s land, air and sea ports.

    But we should be clear about the reality of the conflict in Yemen. The Saudi-led Coalition launched a military intervention after a rebel insurgency took the capital by force and overthrew the legitimate Government of Yemen as recognised by the UN Security Council. Ungoverned spaces in Yemen are being used by non-state actors and terrorist groups to launch attacks against regional countries, international shipping lanes and the Yemeni people.

    As my Rt Hon friend the Foreign Secretary has made clear, we strongly condemn the attempted missile attack against Riyadh on 4 November. This attack, which has been claimed by the Houthis, deliberately targeted a civilian area and was intercepted over an international airport.

    The United Kingdom remains committed to supporting Saudi Arabia to address its legitimate security needs.

    We are therefore deeply concerned by reports that Iran has provided the Houthis with ballistic missiles. This is contrary to the arms embargo established by UN Security Council Resolution 2216 and serves to threaten regional security and prolong the conflict.

    I understand that a UN team is currently visiting Riyadh to investigate these reports. It is essential that the UN conducts a thorough investigation. The UK stands ready to share its expertise to support this process.

    But Mr Speaker, we recognise that those who suffer most from this conflict are the people of Yemen.

    We understand why the Saudi-led Coalition felt obliged to temporarily close Yemen’s ports and airports in order to strengthen enforcement of the UN mandated arms embargo. It is critical that international efforts to disrupt illicit weapons flows are strengthened.

    At the same time, it is vital that commercial and humanitarian supplies of food, fuel and medicine are able to reach vulnerable Yemeni people, particularly in the north – where 70% of those in need live.

    Even before the current restrictions, 21 million were already in need of humanitarian assistance and 7 million were only a single step away from famine. 90% of food in Yemen is imported and three quarters of that comes via the ports of Hodeidah and Salif. No other ports in Yemen have the capacity to make up that shortfall.

    Our NGO partners in Yemen are already reporting that water and sewerage systems in major cities have stopped operating because of a lack of fuel. This means that millions no longer have access to clean water and sanitation, in a country already suffering from the worst cholera outbreak in modern times.

    The current restrictions on access for both commercial and humanitarian shipments risk making an already dire situation immeasurably worse for the Yemeni people. We have heard the UN’s stark warnings about the risk of famine.

    We call on all parties to ensure immediate access for commercial and humanitarian supplies to avert the threat of starvation and disease faced by millions of civilians.

    We also call for the immediate reopening of Hodeidah port and the resumption of UN flights into Sana’a and Aden airports, as the Foreign Office statement on 15 November made clear. Restrictions on humanitarian flights are causing problems for humanitarian workers, including British nationals, who wish to enter or exit the country.

    We have been urgently and proactively seeking a resolution of this situation. Our Ambassador in Riyadh has been in frequent contact with the Saudi Foreign Minister. My Rt Hon friend the Foreign Secretary has discussed the situation in Yemen with the Crown Prince, with whom we have emphasised the urgency of addressing the worsening humanitarian crisis. My Rt Hon Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has spoken to both the UN Secretary-General and the Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs since about the situation in Yemen since her appointment on 9 November.

    We are also continuing to work closely with other regional and international partners, including the UN. On 18 November, my Rt Hon friend the Foreign Secretary spoke to the UN Secretary-General. Central to this discussion was how the security concerns of Saudi Arabia can be addressed to enable these restrictions to be lifted. It is vitally important that the UN and Saudi Arabia enter a meaningful and constructive dialogue.

    More broadly, we will continue to support the people of Yemen through the provision of lifesaving humanitarian supplies. The UK is the fourth largest humanitarian donor to Yemen, and the second largest to the UN appeal – committing £155 million to Yemen for 2017/18. UKaid has already provided food to almost two million people and clean water to over one million more.

    Mr Speaker, the only way to bring long-term stability to Yemen is through a political solution. That is why peace talks remain the top priority. The Houthis must abandon pre-conditions and engage with the UN Special Envoy’s proposals.

    The UK has played, and continues to play, a leading role in diplomatic efforts to find a peaceful solution. This includes bringing together key international actors – including the US, Saudi, Emirati and Omani allies – through the Quad and Quint process. We intend to convene another such meeting shortly. It is vital that we work together to refocus the political track.

    The UK will also continue to play a leading role on Yemen through the UN. In June, we proposed and supported the UN Security Council Presidential Statement which expressed deep concern about the humanitarian situation in Yemen. The statement called for an end to the fighting, a return to UN-led peace talks and stressed the importance of unhindered humanitarian access. It is vital that the words of the text are converted into action. The international community’s unified and clear demands must be respected.

    I commend this statement to the House.

  • Sajid Javid – 2017 Speech to County Councils Network Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Sajid Javid, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, to the County Councils Network Conference on 20 November 2017.

    Good afternoon everyone, many thanks to Paul [Carter] for that kind introduction.

    And thank you also for everything you’ve done as Chairman of the CCN.

    You’ve shown tireless leadership and endless enthusiasm for the task, and it has been a real pleasure working with you.

    The last time I spoke at a major local government conference, it was the LGA’s one back in the summer.

    And I think it’s fair to say the reception was a little mixed.

    Views were diverse.

    Some said it went down like a bucket of cold sick.

    Others disagreed – they liked it even less!

    I know you’ve had a great day today.

    I’ve been looking at the agenda and it looks like a brilliant programme.

    I’m sorry I’m not able to join you for this evening’s festivities.

    Sadly I’ve got to rush back for votes, which is a shame as I see Gyles Brandreth is tonight’s after-dinner speaker.

    He’s certainly worth sticking around for.

    I’m sure you all know that Gyles used to be a Conservative MP, from 1992 to 1997.

    A very different time, when a minority government was beset with sleaze allegations and facing divisions over Europe…

    Less well-known is the fact that, in 1978, Gyles was European Champion at the board game Monopoly.

    True story.

    So he certainly knows how to get houses built.

    And in central London too, not on the green belt!

    It’s a pleasure to be here in lovely Marlow, on the edge of the Chiltern Hills.

    It’s a very historic town.

    Mary Shelly lived just down the road when she was writing Frankenstein.

    The story of a well-meaning individual who wants to do the right thing but ends up unleashing a monster.

    Kind of like me with that LGA speech, actually…

    With so much focus on the outcome of June’s General Election, a lot of people seem to have forgotten about May’s county polls.

    Well, a lot of people outside this room, anyway!

    Congratulations to everyone here who got elected or re-elected.

    Paul, for example, he won 66% of the votes in his ward and leads a group that holds more than 80% of the seats in Kent.

    80%!

    I think it’s fair to say us Conservative MPs are a little envious!

    I know it’s not easy to ask your fellow residents to judge you, put their faith in you, vote for you.

    I’ve done it 3 times myself now and it’s certainly a humbling experience.

    But a great many men and women did just that back in May, with thousands winning the backing of their local communities and proudly taking their seats on county councils.

    In the weeks before the vote I travelled the whole country, talking with and listening to county councillors, candidates, officials and residents and hearing about what really mattered to them.

    I often talk about councillors as being on the frontline of democracy and my tour of the counties really reinforced that.

    What you do matters.

    The decisions you make matter.

    The people you serve rely on you to get things right. Time and again – you deliver for them.

    You don’t do it for fame or riches.

    You certainly don’t do it for an easy life.

    You do it because you want to make a difference.

    Because you want to make life better for the people of your counties.

    You represent the very best aspects of public service and of British life.

    And it’s an honour, an absolute honour, to represent you as Secretary of State.

    The topics being debated here today and tomorrow show just how important our county councils are.

    Social care, children’s services, transport, jobs and more.

    These are the building blocks of daily life, relied on by millions of people.

    And of course the thread that runs through all of them is the thread that runs through all of politics and government.

    The thread alluded to by my Labour Shadow just a few minutes ago.

    Funding.

    I know that I could stand here all night and make any number of announcements and pronouncements and promises…

    …and you’d all nod along politely and then say “that’s great, Saj, now show me the money”.

    With the Budget happening on Wednesday and the local government finance settlement to come, it wouldn’t be right for me to get into specifics right now.

    But, whatever the Budget brings, whatever the finance settlement brings, I remain totally committed to speaking up for the needs of local government.

    Twelve months ago I stood in front of you and promised to fight for county councils in the year ahead.

    To speak for you, lobby for you and be an advocate for you at the Cabinet table and beyond.

    Twelve months on, that’s a promise I’ve worked hard to keep.

    Over the past year, Marcus Jones and I have never stopped fighting to secure finance agreements that work for everyone.

    For Whitehall, for the counties, and above all for the people we all serve.

    That’s why we announced an extension of the business rates retention pilots.

    That’s why we secured sizeable amounts of fresh funding for adult social care and just last week announced plans for a new green paper.

    And that’s why we’re continuing to push ahead with our work on Fair Funding.

    I recognise this is still a difficult financial climate. I know the pressures that you face, particularly with respect to adult and children’s social care.

    I’m also not naïve enough to think there’s a single magic bullet that will instantly solve all of the issues you face.

    I’d advise you to raise a sceptical eyebrow at anyone who claims to have one.

    I’m interested in the long-term, not the quick fix.

    Sustainable change, not an easy win.

    And that’s why I will keep working with you to better understand these challenges so I can continue to fight your corner.

    With many of your councils dating back to Victorian times, it’s easy to characterise counties as the dusty old relatives of the local government world…

    …especially when compared with the shiny new unitaries, combined authorities and so on.

    But that stereotype couldn’t be more wrong.

    Because this is an exciting time for anyone involved with county councils.

    A time of new opportunities, new roles, new ways to better serve the people you represent.

    I know that in some corners of local government there’s still this outdated attitude that says councils should stay in their lane.

    “We’re responsible for this, the districts are responsible for that and never the twain shall meet”.

    You don’t need me to tell you that such thinking is woefully out of date.

    The future – not to mention the present – is all about joined-up thinking, working together strategically to get things done.

    Look at housing, the single biggest challenge of our age.

    Most counties are not planning authorities, directly responsible for delivering homes.

    But you’re all responsible for transport.

    For schools.

    For roads.

    For creating an environment in which homes can be built, in which communities can be created.

    I know that tomorrow you’re going to hear from Ed Lister about the role of counties in getting homes built.

    And it’s great that you’re discussing it, because the only way we will build the homes this country needs is if we all roll up our sleeves and do our bit.

    There are also opportunities for closer working across county lines.

    There was a time when most peoples’ lives extended no further than a day’s walk from their home, but such days are far behind us.

    In 21st century Britain, people are mobile.

    Their work is mobile, their lives are mobile.

    They are not constrained by lines on a map, and nor should you be.

    No man is an island and – with a handful of literal exceptions – no council is either.

    All local authorities are intrinsically linked with their neighbours on issues such as transport, housing and the economy…

    …even the Isle of Wight with its links to Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton.

    Earlier this month I was in China, where interest in the Northern Powerhouse and Midlands Engine was pronounced because potential investors want to look at opportunities on a regional level, not just individual towns, cities and counties.

    That’s why strategic co-operation between councils has never been so important.

    Sometimes that will be an informal process, sometimes more official.

    We already see a great many Local Enterprise Partnerships crossing local authority lines, recognising the flows of people and money in the modern economy and the need for strategic decision-making.

    And of course combined authorities, with a directly elected mayor, are already delivering results right across the country.

    Up to now relatively few county councils have been involved in devolution deals.

    Devolution has been seen as something for the big cities, the metropolitan centres.

    This government remains absolutely committed to the devolution agenda, but I see no reason why its benefits should be limited to the cities.

    That’s particularly important given our Industrial Strategy, which is built around the goal of sharing the benefits of growth right across the country – north and south, urban and rural, cities and counties.

    Devolution and localism, for me, is all about making decisions at the most appropriate level.

    Some things, matters of national importance, will always be best decided at Westminster.

    But for everything else, there are all kinds of opportunities to redistribute power in all kinds of ways.

    Just look at Transport for the North, set to become a statutory body in the spring, and recognising the benefits of looking at transport on a regional level.

    What does this mean for counties?

    Well, if you have an idea for making local government work better, one that serves the interests of local people, then please come and tell me about it.

    If local people want it, if local businesses want it, I’ll do what I can to help you make it happen.

    And that could include non-mayoral combined authorities in, for example, rural areas where a single figurehead isn’t necessarily suitable.

    To help with that process we’re looking at how to design a devolution framework.

    As promised in our election manifesto it will be a common set of guidelines.

    Rules that everyone plays by, so that everyone involved in the process…

    …local authorities, businesses, residents…

    …knows where they stand and what is expected of them.

    Work is still in the early stages – and I’d welcome your support in shaping the final product.

    But I want a framework that, above all else, provides clarity and consistency about what a successful devolution agreement looks like.

    What standards will need to be met, what outcomes will need delivered, what red lines there are for the whole process.

    Expectations about leadership, scope and levels of local support.

    With a clear position on how devolution negotiations should proceed, authorities at all levels will much better placed to develop and put forward proposals that suit the unique needs of their residents and businesses.

    It will help ensure that the right decisions are made at the right levels, so that local people get the services they deserve.

    Of course, devolution and combined authorities aren’t the only changes that counties are talking about right now.

    I’ve now received two proposals setting out competing visions for the future of Buckinghamshire – whether that should be as one unitary or two.

    These show councils at their best – ambitious, innovative, and ready to come forward with exciting ideas for the future.

    We’re now going through both sets of plans very closely and will be making an announcement on next steps as soon as we can.

    And, earlier this month, I announced that I’m minded to support the plan for a pair of unitary authorities in Dorset.

    I know that’s a decision that was welcomed by the CCN, it’s great to be on the same page as you.

    But, more importantly for me, it’s a decision that was also supported by two-thirds of Dorset residents.

    By the Dorset Local Enterprise Partnership.

    By the vast majority of local businesses.

    By 6 of the 9 local councils.

    By most of the county’s MPs.

    I’ve always been clear that any change to council structures should not be dreamed up or imposed by Whitehall, but led by local councils and local people.

    And that’s exactly what we’ve seen in Dorset.

    Yes, some people disagree with the move.

    That’s what happens in a democracy.

    And that’s why, when I announced that I was minded to support the change, I made it very clear that further steps are needed to try to secure local consent before a final decision is made.

    Last year I told you that I wasn’t going to force all of you to go unitary.

    That’s still very much the case.

    But if councils want to come to me with proposals that will improve local government, improve public services, and give better value to local taxpayers…

    My door is always open.

    And if, as in Dorset, those plans are built on a foundation of local support, it will make any decision I have to make a great deal easier!

    Speaking of councils coming to me with ideas, let me take this opportunity to thank the CCN and Respublica for the fascinating report you’ve just published.

    At a time when opportunities and challenges are plenty, it’s great to see you proactively looking at innovative ways of dealing with them.

    In Budget week in particular, it’s very easy for politicians who aren’t in power to offer blank cheques they know will never be cashed and empty promises they know will never be kept.

    Actually coming up with workable, practical ideas is much harder.

    So this report is a welcome addition to the debate.

    It certainly provides food for thought, and my team and I will be looking at it closely.

    And I’ll also be asking Paul to sign a copy so I can give it to Marcus Jones in the Secret Santa next month!

    All ministers have annual fixtures in their speaking diaries – the CCN conference is one such example.

    But, because I’ve run 3 departments in less than 4 years, this conference today is actually the first time I’ve managed to speak an annual event 2 years in a row!

    I think it’s fitting that the CCN is where I break that particular duck.

    Because local government is very, very important to me.

    I talk about housing a lot, everyone knows it’s my number one priority, but that doesn’t mean I’m not full of admiration for what you do.

    So it’s great that I’m able to come back year after year to build relationships, reflect on progress, and work together on the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead.

    That’s why, rather than talking at you for an hour, I’m going to give over the rest of this slot to Q&A.

    I want to hear your views, your concerns, your ideas.

    I want a conversation with local government, not a lecture.

    County councils have roots that go back through the centuries.

    They are a significant part of this country’s history.

    They play a vital role in its present.

    And, when I look around this room, I see no shortage of ambition for the future.

    I’m looking forward to working with all of you to turn that ambition into results.

    Thank you.

  • Paul Maynard – 2017 Speech on Travel for Disabled Passengers

    Below is the text of the speech made by Paul Maynard, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Rail, Accessibility and HS2, on 15 November 2017.

    Introduction

    I welcome the publication of these three pieces of important research today. I am grateful to the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) for carrying them out.

    And I am grateful to those in the rail industry who assisted in the research.

    Many of whom are here today.

    I take that as a sign of your commitment to learn from this research and to take action where it’s needed.

    Because it is through research of this kind that we gain the hard evidence we need to improve services for passengers.

    We learn what is being done well.

    For instance, we learn how much of a difference can be made by helpful, caring, considerate staff.

    And it’s right that we recognise those members of rail staff who not only fulfil their formal obligations to disabled passengers, but do so with a smile, with kindness, while allowing passengers to sense that their custom is valued.

    And I know that later you’ll be hearing some case studies of good service provided by Network Rail, Virgin Trains East Coast, and the work of the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee.

    But we also learn from research of this kind what is not being done so well.

    And in this research we do learn rather a lot.

    And, again, it’s right that we recognise what’s not working – and the need to improve.

    So I’d like to spend a little more time discussing these areas.

    Awareness of support

    For me one of the most striking features of the research is that today disabled passengers are not sufficiently aware of their rights to access help.

    In fact, over 71% of those eligible to use passenger assist don’t know anything about the scheme.

    Of those who did know about their right to help, most learned through word of mouth.

    Either from helpful rail staff, or from friends and family.

    That’s not a bad thing in itself.

    But word of mouth isn’t enough.

    After all, if you don’t know about help available in the first place, how can you tell others?

    Greater awareness must come from better communication by train operating companies themselves.

    Reliability of service

    The next striking finding of the research is that customer satisfaction is most commonly linked with 3 elements.

    The first is whether passengers actually receive the help they request.

    Now, I understand that things can go wrong.

    But if there’s one thing train companies need to be good at, it’s getting people to the right place at the right time.

    But at the moment, most of the explanations put forward by passengers for assistance failures include:

    – staff not arriving to meet them at agreed points

    – staff being late

    – trains not arriving on time, so staff or equipment to help with alighting are not available as they should be

    – or stations at either end not being aware of their journey.

    These should be easy things to fix.

    Getting people to the right place at the right time, and communicating information down the line; this is the bread and butter of any rail company.

    But for a variety of reasons, disabled people aren’t getting the service they are owed.

    Staff attitude

    Then there’s the second big concern of passengers – the attitude of staff.

    I’ve already said what a positive difference caring, considerate staff can make.

    And the overwhelming majority of staff on the railway are exactly that – often going above and beyond the call of duty to deliver a quality service to vulnerable passengers.

    But it is equally true that it can only take one disappointing interaction to rob someone of their confidence in using the transport network.

    Passengers have talked about being made to feel an inconvenience.

    When a disabled passenger turns up at the station, they are maybe asked “have you booked?” – in what can seem like accusing tones.

    Staff may be unable to spot or react properly to hidden disabilities, such as learning difficulties.

    Or they may seem sceptical whether help is really needed.

    Yet as the prevalence of hidden conditions such as dementia increases in our society, the ability of the railway to respond properly must increase accordingly.

    Again, this shouldn’t be too difficult to remedy.

    A lot of it is about good and thorough staff training.

    Of the kind that should elementary for anyone working in a customer-facing role today.

    In my own constituency, I’ve seen the superb work done by Jane Cole of Blackpool Transport to improve the understanding of bus drivers of the needs of disabled passengers; work informed by Jane’s previous role in setting up Virgin’s original passenger assist programme.

    Jane is now the government’s Champion for Accessible Transport working with the Disabilities Minister, and I hope we can tap into her undoubted expertise.

    Facilities

    The third major influencing factor – after whether requested help is received, and staff attitudes – is whether facilities are up to scratch.

    General accessibility, toilets, lighting, seating, lifts and everything else.

    Now I recognise that, of the 3, in some circumstances this can be the most challenging to get right.

    That’s one legacy of operating the oldest rail network in the world.

    Built to Victorian standards.

    And I am glad that Network Rail and others have worked hard to find creative ways to fit accessible solutions within historic architecture.

    But while getting it right may be challenging, it’s still essential.

    We need to do more to ensure more toilets on board trains are in service more of the time.

    But where they are out of order, we need to fix them, and do it fast.

    And until they’re fixed, inform passengers in sufficient time before they board.

    No one should suffer being caught short while trapped on a train.

    Just as no one with vision or spatial awareness challenges should find themselves on a dark platform, illuminated only by a flickering light.

    I could go on, but you don’t need me to spell out all the possible scenarios in which things can go wrong.

    The research is already quite clear on what the issues are, and what needs to be done about them.

    Need for enforcement

    And all of the above explains why enforcement of these duties is so important, and why the ORR has such an important role to play.

    Not only is it the railway’s economic regulator, but it is also the passenger’s champion when it comes to the handling of complaints, the provision of information during disruption and the provision of services to disabled passengers.

    These duties are not in conflict, but rather are complementary.

    At the same time, each duty requires a very different mind-set.

    I know the ORR has always fought to make sure operators do the right thing for passengers – including holding train operating companies to account for their finances.

    And I strongly believe there is no-one better positioned to influence operators, to re-balance the railway in favour of the passenger.

    In this role, I see ORR having a visible presence, upholding the legitimate expectations of the fare-paying passenger.

    ORR cannot do this alone.

    It needs to bring the industry with them on the journey towards higher standards.

    But just as justice delayed is justice denied, so is justice in the shadows justice denied.

    My inbox and postbag overflows with complaints from those who have not received the level of service they are entitled to when seeking passenger assistance on the railway.

    People need to see the strong hand of the ORR guiding these improvements.

    ORR holds many enforcement powers that it could be using right now to deliver justice.

    As the ORR builds up its evidence base, and negotiates improvements by consensus, I would like to see them wielding these powers.

    To become an earnest advocate for passengers who need them the most.

    To think creatively about how its consumer-facing role requires an outward-facing advocacy on behalf of disabled passengers.

    To seize the opportunity presented by the impending arrival of the Passenger Ombudsman to complement that work by ensuring that the consumer duties it has are explored to their fullest extent.

    And by challenging the industry at each and every opportunity.

    So as a next step, I would welcome the thoughts of the ORR on how it intends to respond to complaints about levels of accessibility on the railway.

    Whether through published league tables, through examples of bad and good practice, or through naming and shaming the very worst.

    With creativity, I know that the ORR can truly make a difference.

    Conclusions

    So, thank you again for this vital work.

    It gives us the evidence and the information we need to make things better.

    It give us a new opportunity.

    So let us be the ones who seize that opportunity.

    And make travelling better for everyone.

    Thank you.

  • Angela Crawley – 2017 Speech on Child Maintenance Service

    Below is the text of the speech made by Angela Crawley, the SNP MP for Lanark and Hamilton East, in the House of Commons on 16 November 2017.

    It is perhaps not surprising that while Brexit dominates most political debate, issues of huge importance sometimes slip through the scrutiny of this place, and I believe that the Child Maintenance Service falls into that category. After several months of working through the formalities of this House, I am delighted finally to have the opportunity to raise my concerns and highlight in the Chamber the real struggles faced by my constituents.

    My constituency office has dealt with a huge variety of problems with the Child Maintenance Service, including the tax on survivors of domestic violence—the Minister may be aware of that issue since I have been campaigning on it for some time. I would also like to raise further constituency cases beyond that campaign, and I hope that the Minister will to respond to my remarks.

    The Child Maintenance Service was established in 2012 to replace the Child Support Agency—an organisation that was arguably worse. The new system was built on the ethos that children fare better when their parents have a positive relationship. However, that is not the case for all former partners, and some of the ill-judged changes made in the transition to the CMS included glaring oversights in the administration of the system. The stubborn refusal of the Government to acknowledge their mistakes has meant that the current system is not always fit for purpose.

    The essence of child support is simple. When both parents are not in a relationship, or if they break up, the child should not suffer financially. For some children, the CMS is their means of avoiding poverty. As a result, that organisation forms one of the most important roles of government—the protection of children. It is therefore vital that such a service should be treated with no less complacency than any other Department.

    To allow the CMS to fulfil its important duty, some changes should be made. It currently operates three different payment systems, two of which—the family-based scheme, and the direct pay scheme—operate without charge. The collect and pay scheme, however, has a number of charges. The family-based scheme essentially runs without the involvement of the CMS. Parents can sort out financial arrangements without the bureaucracy of Government interference. It is designed for former partners who can maintain an amicable relationship, and it is the most advantageous scheme for all those involved. It is cost-neutral to the Government, beneficial to the child, and ideally involves no ill-feeling between the parents.

    The direct pay scheme is where child maintenance is directed to the receiving parent without using the CMS. That happens after a maintenance calculation has been made by the Department. Parents essentially agree between themselves how and when maintenance will be paid, and the onus is on both parents to monitor the payment and highlight any discrepancies within the agreement. The direct pay scheme does not check whether maintenance has been paid, and neither does it offer any enforcement for either parent. Instead, if the scheme does not work, the CMS offers a move to a managed service—the ​collect and pay service. That scheme is available to those who have failed to receive payment, and if there is a reason why someone may not wish to interact with their ex-partner, or if the parent requests to use that scheme, in many cases the CMS can collect child maintenance payments and pass them on to the parent with day-to-day care of the children.

    Paying parents must pay a 20% collection fee on top of their usual child maintenance balance, and receiving parents must pay a 4% per cent collection fee that is deducted from their usual child maintenance amount. There is a £20 application charge for the collect and pay scheme, which is waived should the receiving parent be a survivor of domestic abuse. This scheme is the safest of all. Even in this instance, however, the system can be open to exploitation and abuse. The protections include wage deductions and the removal of any possible contact with an abusive partner. As the Minister will know, one of the biggest barriers to independence for survivors of domestic abuse is financial control, which is why it is welcome that the £20 application fee for the collect and pay scheme is waived for survivors of domestic abuse.

    I welcome the waiver, but it leads to the question that if the collect and pay scheme is the most secure mechanism for survivors of domestic abuse to exercise their right to child maintenance, and is free to apply, why is there an ongoing monthly charge for the survivors’ continued safety? The 4% collection charge is removed from the child’s entitlement. This is support that the Government have already determined through their calculations that a child is due, yet they see fit to remove it, taking vital financial support from families and penalising children.

    In previous correspondence with the Minister’s Department, I was informed that the charges were to cover administering the cost of the service and to incentivise the use of other schemes within the CMS. Logically, however, that runs counter to the Government’s removal of the £20 charge. The Minister is essentially saying that the initial charges are intended to incentivise the use of other schemes, but the ongoing monthly, and more costly, charges are there to penalise those where this is not possible. I am sure that that is not the intention, but the Government are using the charges to encourage some of the most vulnerable individuals in the country to engage with their abusive ex-partners and to rely on Government bureaucracy or worse. That is unacceptable and it must stop.

    The 4% tax on survivors of domestic abuse has rightly caused major concern with support groups and charities, including Women’s Aid, the White Ribbon Campaign, Gingerbread, Engender and One Parent Families Scotland. Those organisations all signed a letter in March this year, alongside Members from every party in this House with the exception of Government Members, calling for the abolition of the tax. Since then, the Government have lost their majority and this could carry the majority of the House. I therefore implore the Minister to do the right thing by vulnerable parents and send a message that the Child Maintenance Service should be a place of safety and security where individuals can exercise their right to child maintenance without fear of recurring abuse. I have been campaigning for this change for some time and have heard many weak excuses from the Department for its inaction. If the Minister in his reply plans to give me some of the ​same lines I have heard in the past, let me assure him that I have heard them all before. Let me try to counter them in advance and save him some time.

    The Government have consistently advised me that the direct pay scheme is a safe scheme and that the collect and pay scheme is the best way to ensure that both parties are protected. The Prime Minister has told me that users can utilise anonymous sort codes and therefore hide their location and that, if a payment is not made, the domestic abuse survivor can move on to the collect and pay service. Let me tell the Minister why that answer is at best careless and at worst negligent. Giving abusers access to communication with their former partners through bank transfers, and the ability to leave messages while doing so, continues the cycle of abuse. Allowing abusers to pay late without fear of enforcement also continues the cycle of abuse. The system is open to exploitation and abuse, and I hope the Minister will take that into consideration.

    Finally, while the collect and pay service offers the protection required, the charges come into play if a domestic abuse survivor is moved on to it. I am sure that that is not the intention. There is no way, even by the Government’s logic, that a survivor of domestic abuse can escape the tax applied by the Government without subjecting themselves to the possibility of continued abuse. Surely the Minister would agree that that is a flaw in the system? It must be reviewed and addressed accordingly.

    Another argument proposed by the Conservative party is that the tax is so small that it does not matter. I would question whether it is the place of the Government to define what matters and what constitutes small or large. Is it the place of the Government to define what is materially impactful when vulnerable families rely on the service? In response to a letter, the former Minister highlighted the fact that the 4% charge was “miniscule” and, in her interpretation, was not materially impactful. That is not a position I would expect of a Minister. I would expect the Minister to listen and adopt the views of Opposition Members as well as Government Members.

    I believe that the Minister’s response is contemptible at best, and I seek a better response from the Department. I want to raise two points. First, if it is not materially impactful, why apply it at all? Secondly, it might not have a huge effect on the Government’s budget, but for families living on the breadline, every penny counts. In advance of next week’s Budget, I ask the Government to consider who needs the 4% of child maintenance more—a family who will feel its material impact or the Treasury, which will not? I hope he will feed that back to the Chancellor along with my determination that the tax be scrapped.

    The Government consider it a success that more people are using the systems outside the intervention of the CMS, but with one third of those applying for children maintenance citing domestic abuse as the reason, I wonder how many individuals are being put at risk to avoid these punitive charges. The CMS should be protecting, not punishing, those who have fled domestic abuse. It is time that the tax was scrapped. I have spoken at length about the domestic abuse survivors tax—an issue I have campaigned on and which needs attention—but it is just one aspect of the service that is not working, yet, as much of my constituency casework shows, it could very easily be addressed.​

    I wish to highlight a few further issues with the CMS, and I hope that the Minister will be able to respond. Several issues with its administration have clearly had an impact on my constituents. One of them had been in an abusive relationship but managed to cut off all contact while receiving maintenance for their child. However, the Department sent her a letter meant for her ex-partner, which caused her great concern, as she was worried that he would get mail meant for her and find out her new location. It is unacceptable that a simple administrative error could strike such fear and alarm into an individual and that any Department, no matter how easily administrative errors might occur, could allow someone to feel endangered in that way.

    Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP) I rise to mention the case of lady in my constituency who approached the CSA back in 2005 and was assessed as only getting £18 a week. Eventually in 2013, after multiple letters and failures, it recognised that it should have been £68 a week. By that time, though, there were nearly £20,000 of arrears. That woman has been left in debt, and until recently we were told that the arrears would be cleared over the coming 15 years. By then, she would have been left servicing debt for 27 years. We have managed to get it sorted, but the idea that someone could write back to a woman who has raised children for 12 years on her own and say, “Don’t worry. In 15 years, it’ll be cleared,” shows a lack of comprehension of the real world.

    Angela Crawley I wholeheartedly agree my hon. Friend that such errors, so glaring and so obvious, should be addressed by the Government.

    The service levels offered to my constituents are often inconsistent, and CMS rules are often not followed by departmental staff. For example, requests to use the collect and pay service are often discouraged by advisers. I have previously raised the case of a constituent whose ex-partner was falling behind on payments and had requested to be put on the collect and pay scheme. She was told by a CMS adviser that this was not possible because the shortfall in payments was less than 10%. My constituent had not heard of this rule and, on asking where this was written in the legislation, was told to look it up herself.

    I could not find it written down anywhere either, and on questioning the Department, I was informed that it was not policy. Will the Minister tell me if there are targets for staff to keep people off collect and pay? I sincerely hope that there are not. If not, why are excuses being made not to use the scheme? In calculating the amount owed by the paying parent, income details are taken from HMRC, but they are not always taken from the most recent tax year. In fact, HMRC can use historic income data from any year in the past six for which it considers it has complete details.

    While this might work for most people, as was outlined in correspondence with the Department, it fails those who are self-employed or who tend to work on a contractual basis. For those people, income figures can vary dramatically year on year, so the calculation often does not reflect real incomes. The CMS system of annual reviews does not work for contractors, particularly when the annual review takes place before the end of the tax year. That simply causes more issues, with CMS ​payments being calculated on the basis of inaccurate income figures. There is currently no facility for a mid-year adjustment, and I ask for that aspect of the policy to be reviewed.

    An additional failure in the system of calculation is that, should a contractor submit payslips to try to prove current income, the amount shown on them is extrapolated to produce an estimated annual income. The contracts are often, by nature, short-term, and a few months of high income may be followed by months of no work. This is what happened to my constituent George Gillan, from Carluke. As the Minister knows, I have written to one of his colleagues about it.

    George worked offshore on a contractual basis, with a high income during the months when he was working, which were followed by periods when he could live on those earnings when out of work. At present, the CMS is calculating his payments on the basis of income from the tax year ending April 2015. George tried to submit evidence of a change in his circumstances by sending 12 weeks of payslips, but that was extrapolated across the whole year. The total estimated income did not breach the 25% threshold for a new calculation, so it could not be changed.

    That left my constituent owing payments that he simply could not afford to make. His annual review takes place in February, and because a mid-year adjustment could not be offered, he cannot afford to take short-term contracts, as he will be expected to make payments based on his higher income from 2015. He has not worked since December 2016, because he is fearful that he will be penalised on that contractual basis. If mid-year adjustments were possible—I hope the Minister will consider them—things would be much easier for those who are self-employed or work on a contractual basis. I hope the Minister will agree that that would be an easy accommodation to make. There is a fundamental flaw in the current procedure for identifying accurate income details, especially those of contractual workers.

    I am sure that I have given the Minister more than enough material to respond to, but Members and the public will know there are many issues I have not been able to cover today. Let me recap. I am asking the Minister to make the system fairer for survivors of domestic abuse by scrapping the 4% tax for those who use the collect and pay service. I am asking him to address the administrative problems that plague the CMS. I am asking him to ensure that its service is managed to a high standard and that policies are clear and correctly interpreted by staff. I am asking him to ensure that the CMS works for contractual workers by allowing accurate income details to be taken and allowing for mid-year adjustments. I realise that it is difficult for policy changes to be made, but I hope that the Minister will give serious consideration to some of the injustices that my constituents and people across the country have experienced in their dealings with the CMS.

    I am grateful for the opportunity to speak. It took me rather a long time to secure the debate. I urge the Minister to take my pleas on board and to seek to improve the system to protect and support families, which is what the Child Maintenance Service should be doing.​

  • Andrea Leadsom – 2017 Statement on Abuse in Parliament

    Below is the text of the statement made by Andrea Leadsom, the Leader of the House of Commons, in the Commons on 16 November 2017.

    Thank you Mr Speaker, with permission I will update the House on steps being taken to tackle harassment and abuse in Parliament.

    Madam Deputy Speaker, as my Right Honourable Friend the Prime Minister has made clear – there can be no place for harassment, abuse or misconduct in politics.

    I said we would take action in days, not weeks and that is exactly what we have done.

    Getting this right matters to everyone here – and I want to thank the Honourable Member for Birmingham Yardley – who I know is taking a keen interest in this matter.

    I hope today’s statement will answer some of her questions.

    Last week, the Prime Minister convened a meeting of the party leaders to discuss this matter.

    All party leaders attended and there was agreement to work together to make swift progress.

    The proposals outlined by the Prime Minister for an independent grievance procedure have been embraced across this House, and I am reassured by the consensus.

    All parties have acknowledged that any proposal must adhere to three specific criteria: it must have cross-party agreement, it must include both Houses of Parliament and it must be independent.

    The new system will be available to all who work here – including all MPs’ staff, Lords staff including cross-benchers, interns, volunteers, journalists, and constituency staff.

    It was agreed that the political parties would establish a cross-party working group to take this work forward, and I am pleased to report that the group met for the first time on Tuesday.

    The working group is made up of representatives from every party and from both Houses – Conservative, Labour, SNP, Lib Dem, Plaid Cymru, DUP, Green, and cross-benchers.

    Very importantly, MAPSA, the Members and Peers Staff Association, and UNITE are representing parliamentary staff on the group, and are ensuring that their experiences, and their requirements, are taken fully into account.

    The first meeting of the working group made clear that the voices of staff will be at the heart of this process. Any new system will need the absolute confidence of those who will use it.

    The working group also agreed that the new procedure must be independent of the political parties – and that to inform the group over the next two weeks, we will hear from a number of different contributors.

    This will include hearing from staff directly, as well as groups including ACAS, IPSA, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, and experts on a range of topics that will help us to shape a new process.

    Anyone wishing to submit their own thoughts or suggestions to the group in writing is also very welcome to do so.

    This is early days for the working group, and we will certainly be working quickly but thoroughly to make sure we create a new procedure that provides confidence to all who use it.

    I know that in addition, many members of staff have expressed an interest in the provision of HR training, as well as better employee support for staff.

    All those employing staff need a certain amount of guidance and training that will enable them to be good employers.

    This week the working group heard directly from the Clerks of the two Houses – who provided a very helpful account of the procedure used by House staff.

    Whilst we have recognised that the Respect policy used by the House authorities provides an excellent reference point, the independent procedure we are seeking to build will take into account the specific needs of Parliament, and the group has acknowledged the need for more than just mediation.

    The working group agreed a new system should provide support, advice and action on a wide spectrum of complaints around bullying and harassment.

    We will do everything in our power to ensure the solution is transparent, fair, and effective.

    And this fairness, Madam Deputy Speaker, must also apply to MPs and Peers, because we do recognise that right across both Houses we have many model employers who genuinely care about, and look after, their staff extremely well.

    We are working to a tight timeframe – but we have all acknowledged that it is right we address this issue with urgency.

    The publication of the final proposal will balance the need for fast action with the need for due diligence.

    The working group, including staff representatives, are considering the timetable carefully, and aim to report back to the House before the House rises for Christmas recess.

    Madam Deputy Speaker, you and the Speaker have said that you hope all parties will live up to their responsibilities by demonstrating both an appetite for change and a practical means of delivering that change.

    That is exactly what we intend to do and I want to thank all parties for working together in a supportive fashion. We share this duty to bring about positive change.

    People come to work in this place for a number of reasons – out of public service, to support the party of their choice, or to gain new work experience.

    Nothing should deter them from pursuing those ambitions, and I know we are all determined to ensure that this is a safe and fair place to work.

    Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

  • David Davis – 2017 Speech in Berlin

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Davis, the Secretary of State for Leaving the European Union, in Berlin on 16 November 2017.

    Thank you for inviting me to speak here tonight.

    It’s a privilege to be here, at Berlin’s Museum of Communication, to talk to you about how the United Kingdom is approaching talks to leave the European Union.

    I’m not here tonight to give you a blow-by-blow account of the Brexit negotiations.

    I’m sure have already got that from the pages of Suddeutsche Zeitung already.

    And I’m sure I’ll be answering questions about that once we’ve finished.

    Just to say we have made a great deal of progress in the negotiations to date – far more than is understood by most people.

    I’ve come to talk about the future for Europe these talks will create and their importance to generations to come.

    Earlier this evening I spent a little time walking around this incredible museum.

    To see the evolution of technology that has made our world closer and more interconnected than ever before.

    Put simply, what I believe is this:

    In that more interconnected world, it’s more important than ever that the United Kingdom and Germany work together to protect the values and interests that we share.

    Values that define our relationship, and are more important than our membership of particular institutions.

    Values of democracy.

    Of the rule of law.

    Of human rights.

    Of economic liberalism.

    And of freedom.

    These are the values that will guide the new partnership we want with the European Union.

    Shared interests

    I know that the UK and Germany came to the EU from different starting points.

    For Germany, and others, the creation of the EU is still seen properly as a foundation for peace and stability, democracy and justice, across our continent.

    The UK’s experience is different.

    For us the European Union — and the European Economic Community before it — was primarily an economic endeavour.

    One that bolstered trade but which always provoked public debate about the political integrity of sovereign states.

    Now this isn’t to say that one is right and the other is wrong.

    Indeed they are linked.

    Trade and peace have always been mutually beneficial objectives.

    But simply we have always viewed the Union differently.

    Germany was a founder member. We chose not to be.

    Germany was a founder of the euro. Again, we stayed out.

    It also doesn’t mean that we do not see the value in the wider political project for Europe.

    There cannot be any doubt that we want to see the European Union succeed and flourish.

    It’s in both of our interests.

    And while the British people have had their say, and we have decided to leave the institutions of the European Union.

    Brexit does not and will not mean the end of our relationship with the EU or indeed with Germany.

    Or that trade between the UK and Germany should reduce.

    Neither does it undermine, or reduce, our unwavering commitment to Europe’s security.

    I believe, with determination from both sides, the opposite can be true.

    So we need to create the right structures for after our European Union exit that will enable our partnership to thrive.

    We will always – always – stand up to the shared threats our continent faces and cooperate on the security of Europe.

    And the close economic ties that we both benefit from should continue, if not strengthen, in the years to come.

    The weight of evidence requires it.

    Bilateral trade between the United Kingdom and Germany is worth a total of 176 billion euros a year.

    Spanning the entire economy.

    And that’s more than a thousand euros to every man, woman, and child in both our countries.

    In 2015, two billion euros worth of German aviation exports were sold in Britain’s markets.

    In the same year 8.5 billion of chemical and rubber exports went to the UK.

    And 29 billion of automotive exports, from your biggest manufacturers BMW, Mercedes and the like, end up on British roads.

    That translates to roughly one in three cars sold in Britain — that’s 810,000 cars — coming from Germany.

    For our part, Germany is the UK’s second biggest trading partner – receiving 9% of our exports — and we’re your fourth biggest investor.

    Meanwhile 220,000 Germans work for the 1,200 British companies in Germany.

    That trade creates jobs.

    It boosts prosperity.

    And it creates wealth not just in Britain, not just in Germany, but across the entire continent.

    I have twice served on the boards of FTSE100 businesses and I’ve seen it myself first hand.

    In the face of those facts I know that no one would allow short-term interests to risk those hard-earned gains.

    Because putting politics above prosperity is never a smart choice.

    Two months ago, our Prime Minister Theresa May explained a bold ambition for the form of our future relationship.

    One that ensures these links with our friends and partners, such as Germany, are maintained and indeed, strengthened.

    It goes beyond just wanting a positive outcome to the negotiations.

    Because fundamentally, it is about the kind of country that the UK wants to be, after we leave the European Union.

    I recognise that, since the referendum last year, some in the European Union have had their doubts about what kind of country we are or indeed what we stand for.

    Now if you want to know the mind of a nation all one must do is read its press.

    So with that in mind I looked through some copies of Suddeutsche Zeitung.

    I read that “Britain wants to isolate itself”, that we are “short-sighted islanders”, or at least that’s how I translated “Inselbewohner”.

    Well I’m afraid I have to disagree.

    We are the same country we have always been.

    With the same values and same principles we have always had.

    A country upon which our partners can rely.

    The sixth largest economy in the world and a beacon for free trade across the globe.

    And when it comes to trade — as we forge a new path for Britain outside the European Union — I believe we can be its boldest advocate.

    Continued security cooperation

    Being a country that our partners rely on also means the United Kingdom continuing to play its part in maintaining the security of the continent.

    From mass migration to terrorism, there are countless issues which pose challenges to our shared European interests and values that we can only solve in partnership.

    That’s why we have already set out our ambition for continued partnership in areas such as security, defence, law-enforcement and counter-terrorism.

    Drawing on the full weight of our military, intelligence, diplomatic, law enforcement and development resources to lead action both inside and outside Europe.

    Hand in hand with our closest allies and partners our determination to defend the stability, security and prosperity of the European continent remains steadfast.

    Because the threats that European people face are the same, whether they are attending a pop concert in Manchester, Christmas markets in Berlin or simply using public transport in Brussels, Madrid or London.

    Britain always has – and always will – stand with its friends and allies in defence of those values that we share.

    And, of course, the United Kingdom always has been — and always will be — a country which honours its international commitments and obligations.

    This is more than just rhetoric.

    If we spent the European Union average on defence and international development, and other foreign affairs, we’d spend 22 billion pounds a year less than we currently do.

    That’s money that demonstrates how seriously we take our role on the world stage and it’s money that we’ll continue to spend in our mutual interest.

    Future economic partnership

    Because of our shared values and shared history, we’re ambitious and optimistic about our future partnership with the European Union.

    Of course, life will be different. We recognise that we can’t leave the European Union and have everything stay the same.

    And as we leave, we will be leaving the single market and the customs union.

    This is not an ideologically driven decision but a practicality based on what our people voted for and the respect we have for the four freedoms of the EU.

    It’s clear that the British people voted to have greater control.

    Greater control over our borders.

    Greater control over our laws.

    And a greater say over the United Kingdom’s destiny in the world.

    Now as we look to the future, we understand that the single market’s four freedoms are indivisible.

    And that it is built on a balance of rights and obligations.

    So we don’t pretend that you can have all the benefits of membership of the single market without its obligations.

    However, we are seeking a new framework that allows for a close economic partnership but that holds those rights and obligations in a new and different balance.

    That recognises both our unique starting point and our trusted, historic relationship.

    We will be a third country partner like no other.

    Much closer than Canada, much bigger than Norway, and uniquely integrated on everything from energy networks to services.

    The key pillar of this will be a deep and comprehensive free trade agreement – the scope of which should beyond any the European Union has agreed before.

    One that allows for a close economic partnership while holding the UK’s rights and obligations in a new and different balance.

    It should, amongst other things, cover goods, agriculture and services, including financial services.

    Seeking the greatest possible tariff-free trade, with the least friction possible.

    And it should be supported by continued close cooperation in highly-regulated areas such as transportation, energy and data.

    Race to the top

    Because there is so much that, even after we exit the European Union, the UK will continue to share with our European partners.

    Like our European counterparts, people in Britain do not want shoddy goods, shoddy services, a poor environment or exploitative working practices.

    We cannot be cheaper than China.

    And we’ll never have more resources than Brazil.

    And that is why the UK is committed not only to protecting high standards, but to strengthening them.

    So after we leave the European Union we will not engage in a race to the bottom.

    That would mean lower standards for our consumers and poorer prospects for our workers.

    After Brexit, Britain will have an independent trade policy and we will use it to lead a “race to the top” on quality and standards across the globe.

    A race that both Britain and Germany are well equipped to win.

    And where it makes sense for our economies where we can, we will want to do so by working in tandem with our European partners — and especially with Germany.

    For example, we have worked closely with Germany in the G20, especially through the Financial Stability Board.

    This has set global standards for financial businesses, aimed at averting any new international financial crises.

    Goods and services

    So the real question is how should this economic partnership work for the most important parts of our economy — goods and services.

    Our trade in goods is deeply integrated — and I believe it’s in the interests of both parties that this is maintained.

    That consumers and businesses must continue to have access to the widest possible range of goods.

    That UK and European businesses should be able to continue to work together through integrated supply chains.

    And that the safety of consumers, patients and food should be paramount in any agreement.

    The first step is ensuring that we maintain tariff-free access across the board.

    There is precedent for this already.

    The Canada-EU free trade agreement will eventually remove tariffs on all industrial goods; and most tariff lines for non-industrial goods.

    But we can go further than that.

    Because we already have established supply chains.

    And unlike other agreements, it is not a case of opening up a previously-protected market to new challengers from abroad.

    We should be trying to maintain what we already have.

    Think of a BMW car, produced here in Germany to be sold in the United Kingdom.

    Currently, that car only has to undergo one series of approvals, in one country, to show that it meets the required regulatory standards.

    And those approvals are accepted across the European Union.

    That’s exactly the sort of arrangement we want to see maintained even after we leave the European Union.

    We also fully trust each other’s institutions.

    For decades we have been happy to let German bodies carry out the necessary assessments to make sure that products — from cars to medical devices — are fit to go to market in the United Kingdom.

    And our regulators work together within European Agencies.

    Collaborating on scientific assessments to authorise products from medicines to chemicals for use across the European Union and sharing data on public health and safety risks.

    Leaving the European Union should not necessarily change our approach on cooperation — even as we diverge.

    Services

    These principles are true, not only for goods, but also for services.

    They form an essential element of both the United Kingdom and the European Union’s economy.

    Both collectively and individually, we have been leading the way in opening up the trade in services across borders.

    And our new partnership should keep with this tradition.

    Our objective is that services can be traded across borders, in areas ranging from highly regulated sectors — such as financial services to modern ones such as artificial intelligence.

    Even here, we will need a common set of principles to underpin our new partnership in services.

    An obvious starting point for this is our shared adherence to common international standards.

    To ensure that there is no discrimination in highly regulated areas between services providers.

    Our approach here must be evidence-based, symmetrical and transparent.

    But, of course, for such an approach to be lasting over time, there will need to be a couple of further things in place.

    First, there must be continued cooperation between our public authorities, building on their long history of working together.

    And second, we must have an effective dispute resolution mechanism.

    This should provide for clear and proportionate remedies for any dispute which might arise.

    You wouldn’t expect that arbitration to be in the UK courts, nor can it be the European Court of Justice.

    It must be appropriate for both sides, so that it can give business the confidence it needs for this partnership will endure.

    Movement of workers

    But services trade is not only about regulation.

    Even in today’s modern world, services are often still provided in person, on the ground.

    This means people must be able to move to provide those services.

    While the free movement of people will end when we leave the EU, the UK has been clear that this does not mean pulling up the drawbridge — or doing harm to our shared interests.

    The UK will continue to welcome people, both from the EU and around the world, who want to work and contribute to our society.

    Services provisions are commonplace in trade agreements today but as in other areas and given where we are starting, the UK and the European Union should seek to go beyond existing arrangements and existing precedents.

    And in many cases, the ability for people to move to provide services will not be enough.

    They will also have to have their qualifications recognised.

    Again, another area where our unique starting point is important.

    Currently, many UK qualifications are recognised across the European Union and vice versa.

    Since the creation of the current recognition system in 1997, nearly 26,000 UK qualified professionals have succeeded in getting their qualification recognised in another Member State.

    And after the UK leaves the European Union, the quality of training received at British universities and the high standards needed to gain these qualifications will not change.

    And we are sure the same is true for the European Union.

    We have recognised and trusted these qualifications on the current basis for over two decades.

    And that’s why we would like to agree a continued system for the mutual recognition of qualifications to support these arrangements.

    How we get there

    So one of the biggest questions we face is how we get from where we are currently to this new partnership.

    But as we work out the path together, I would urge us all to think creatively about how we can best exploit our unique starting point.

    But no matter what approach we take, both sides will need time to implement those new arrangements.

    And, that’s why the Prime Minister set out in her Florence speech that we want to secure a time-limited transition period.

    And that would mean access to the UK and European markets would continue on current terms.

    Keeping both the rights of a European Union member and the obligations of one, such as the role of the European Court of Justice.

    That also means staying in all the EU regulators and agencies during that limited period which, as I say, we expect will be about two years.

    This means that companies will only have to prepare for one set of changes, as the relationship between Britain and the European Union evolves.

    There are three main reasons we see the need for such a period.

    Number one — it allows the UK Government the time to set up any new infrastructure or systems which may be needed to support our new arrangements.

    Number two — it allows European Union governments to do the same.

    It should not be forgotten that, our new arrangements may well require changes on the EU’s side as well as on the United Kingdom’s side.

    For example Calais, which sees over two and a half million road haulage vehicles come in from Dover each year.

    They’ll have to accommodate for that.

    And number three — and most importantly — it avoids businesses in both the United Kingdom and the European Union having to take any decisions before they know the shape of the final deal.

    Without such an implementation period, some of these decisions would need to be taken in the near future on the basis of guesswork.

    And that is why we want to agree this period as soon as the European Union have a mandate to do so.

    There is urgency to this; for all 28 Member States, including the UK and Germany, and for our businesses and citizens.

    My message to you is that when it comes to an implementation period, and our economic partnership, you are not detached observers you are essential participants.

    Conclusion

    Now I’ve laid out what I think the solutions, and even the opportunities, can be as we leave the European Union and forge a new relationship over the coming decades.

    But I am under no illusions.

    I know that the negotiations currently underway are difficult and they will be into the future.

    Despite all this, as the United Kingdom exits the European Union, I have no doubt that the future for all 28 members is bright.

    We’re very lucky, the Brits and the Germans.

    We live in prosperous countries, whose inhabitants enjoy great lives, and great cultures.

    Who have freedom and privacy, justice and democracy, with strong economies that support people into work, and provide a safety net for people who can’t.

    And we’re lucky enough to live in a world where technology and globalisation — while challenging governments — creates huge opportunities.

    Our future will be brighter still if we achieve the positive, ambitious partnership we are aiming for.

    It’s one that is unprecedentedly close.

    That allows for the freest possible trade in goods and services.

    And that recognises that Brexit means that things must change but takes account of our unique starting point, as the basis for a new order.

    And a new, exciting and enduring relationship between the United Kingdom and Germany as friends and allies into the future.

  • Nick Gibb – 2017 Speech on School Business Professionals

    Below is the text of the speech made by Nick Gibb, the Minister of State for School Standards and Minister for Equalities, to National Association of School Business Management National Conference on 16 November 2017.

    It is a pleasure to be back again at the National Association of School Business Management National Conference. Can I just start by wishing CEO Stephen Morales a speedy and full recovery from his accident at the weekend. As I said last year, school business professionals play a crucial role in schools, freeing teachers and headteachers to focus on delivering a knowledge-rich education and improving the life chances of pupils. Your expertise helps shape the strategic direction and governance of schools.

    Which is why it is important to celebrate NASBM moving to Institute status. This is an important step for the status of your profession and for school leadership and governance as a whole. It is yet another milestone in the journey of school business professionals, as you become an integral part of the school system.

    The role of the school business professional has never been more important. As part of a school’s senior leadership team, many of you play a vital role in setting strategic direction. Having started my career as an accountant at what was then Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and Co. – before the firm merged and became KPMG – I know that an analytical approach to detail and prudent financial management should be the basis of any decision-making.

    This understanding should be at the heart of all organisations, whether private or public sector. A forensic interrogation of the detail and a careful management of resources frees an organisation to operate more efficiently and more effectively. For schools, this means improving the use and deployment of resources and freeing teachers to focus on what is most important.

    School business professionals play a vital role in strategic and financial management, which enables more teachers and headteachers time to be given over to teaching a high-quality, knowledge-rich curriculum. This allows for more money to be spent on evidence-informed CPD for teachers, to improve pedagogy and develop staff in preparation for future leadership responsibilities. And it provides greater opportunities for those essential intangibles that are so vital to providing a great education for all pupils, such as extra-curricular programmes and educational visits.

    As the old saying goes: look after the pennies and the pounds will look after themselves. But I know your role goes much further than that. The strategic oversight and the financial expertise that you bring to schools gives teachers and headteachers something that is even more valuable than extra financial resource; a skilled school business professional gives teachers more time.

    Research supports this, having produced strong evidence to suggest that a high quality, skilled school business professional can ease workload, saving headteachers up to a third of their time. We want more schools to benefit from this, which is why we want to enhance entry routes and options for professional development.

    We want to grow and support your workforce and we have supported NASBM to ensure there are quality apprenticeships available for school business professionals. This includes a route for school business directors through the level 6 Chartered Management Degree Apprenticeship.

    And we are working to encourage known school business professional networks to expand, as well as supporting professionals to set up new networks. Our aspiration – over time – is that every school business professional should be able to join a network.

    We want teachers and headteachers to understand how a strong school business professional can help improve their school and reduce workload.

    Teachers dedicate their working lives to improving the life chances of the pupils they teach. It is the duty of government to free teachers from the bureaucracy that too often prevents them from using their time as productively as possible and as they would like.

    Upon taking office in 2010, the government scrapped 20,000 pages of unnecessary regulation and guidance, freeing teachers to focus on teaching. We are working with Ofsted to bear down on time-consuming tasks that do little to improve pupil attainment. For example, the scourge of ‘triple marking’.

    But there is more that needs to be done. The past 7 years have seen significant change in the school system as our reforms bed in. Teachers and headteachers have responded well to the more rigorous national curriculum; the new GCSEs have been received well by the profession; and we are bringing stability to assessment in primary schools.

    These reforms are raising standards:

    – Thanks to the focus on phonics reforms, this year, 154,000 more pupils are on track to becoming fluent readers than in 2012
    – The proportion of pupils fulfilling the science pillar of the EBacc has risen from 62% in 2010 to 91% this year
    – And the gap between disadvantaged pupils and their more affluent peers shrunk by 9.3% at KS2 and 7% at KS4 between 2011 and 2016

    We all owe our thanks to teachers and our admiration for what they have achieved. Since 2010, there has been a transformation of the school system, improving the life chances of pupils, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds.

    But teachers deserve more than our thanks. Government should support teachers to make their workload more manageable and provide them with more time to focus on what is most important: raising academic standards for all.

    School business professionals can and do play an important role in giving teachers back their time. You are the key levers that enable the employees of every school to most productively use that time.

    We want to see increased recognition of the value of school business professionals across the country. I look forward to working with the Institute of School Business Leadership (ISBL) to raise the status of school business professionals and develop the expertise of the hardworking professionals already driving improvements in our school system.

    Teachers and headteachers – supported by school business professionals – now enjoy far greater control over the destiny of their own school. Academy freedoms accentuate the greater autonomy enjoyed by teachers, but the government has given greater powers to all teachers.

    Greater powers now exist to deal with disruptive behaviour, which for too long blighted English education. Importantly, the government granted anonymity if teachers faced allegations from parents or pupils.

    The scourge of the ‘Ofsted teaching style’ has been eliminated. No longer does Ofsted make judgements about the pedagogical approach used by schools. Teachers are trusted. Instead, they are judged on the ends they achieve.

    Pedagogy is now a matter for teachers. It is a subject that is hotly contested in vibrant debates, which are increasingly being led by teachers: sharing platforms with academics at ResearchED; debating with intellectuals at the Institute of Ideas; and flooding the blogosphere with insightful critiques of received wisdom. This is the new normal in teaching.

    Teachers have seized their profession and are shaping the future. The great explosion of ideas that has emerged in the past few years has changed teaching forever. Unshackled from the grips of conformity, teachers have begun to question the previously unquestionable.

    Tom Bennett’s tireless campaign to improve school behaviour means that poor behaviour can no longer be dismissed as a consequence of uninspiring lessons. The days when classroom management is seen as the sole responsibility of the classroom teacher might – finally – be numbered. As Tom Bennett makes clear in his report Creating a Culture, managing pupil behaviour requires a whole-school ethos where classroom teachers are supported by senior staff.

    High expectations pervades so much of what teachers are now demanding. Consider the contributions to ASCL and PTE’s recent pamphlet ‘The Question of Knowledge’, which makes the powerful case for a knowledge-based curriculum.

    Luke Sparkes and Jenny Thompson, architects of the success of Dixons Trinity Academy – a free school in Bradford that ranked in the top 10 schools nationally for progress achieved – described the ongoing, teacher-led quest to raise standards, writing, I quote:

    A knowledge-based curriculum is about harnessing the power of cognitive science, identifying each marginal gain and acting upon it; having the humility to keep refining schemes of work, long term plans and generating better assessments.

    Government can take some credit for providing inspirational teachers with the freedom they needed, but the impetus comes from the profession seizing the opportunities that have become available.

    Consider the books that teachers now recommend to each other. Writing for the Chartered College of Teaching earlier this month, Elizabeth Royde reviewed Daisy Christodoulou’s masterful debunking of previous educational orthodoxy, ‘7 Myths About Education’. Her decision to conclude the review with a quote from the book was particularly powerful. Discussing the hyperbolic rhetoric of those opposed to teacher-led instruction, Daisy Christodoulou wrote the following:

    It is a baffling overreaction: to move from a legitimate criticism of mindless rote-learning to the complete denial of any kind of teacher-led activity. The solution to mindless rote-learning is not less teacher instruction, it is different and better teacher instruction.

    This quotation sums up the step-change there has been over the past few years. Teachers have claimed their voice. No longer will sound-bite criticisms be enough to dictate how teachers teach. Informed by a nuanced understanding of the evidence, teachers will no longer tolerate bland pronouncements from those who presume to be in a position of authority. Evidence is becoming the new currency in the marketplace of education ideas.

    Debate – as it has done for the last few years – will continue to rage. The freedom seized by the profession means that all will have a voice, but ideas will be weighed and will be discarded if found wanting. The heterogeneity of debate has encouraged a hundred flowers to bloom.

    Innovative academies and free schools – of varying and differing stripes – provide opportunities to test empirically different approaches to the curriculum and pedagogy. Twinned with the vibrant debate amongst teachers and academics, exemplary schools will serve to test ideas. The theoretical will become empirical, shaping debate and advancing our understanding.

    Free from government intervention, the feedback loop needed for a self-improving school system is now taking shape.

    The most successful innovative schools – such as Dixons Trinity Academy, which registered a Progress 8 score of 1.22 and an EBacc entry rate of 81% – are now beacons for others to copy. Dixons Trinity proudly stands as a living counter example that discredits the notion that outstanding education is somehow the preserve of the wealthy or those who live in the London. This school demonstrates unquestionably that all children – wherever they live in the country and whatever their family background – can achieve outstanding academic results.

    These schools are a bitten thumb, if you like, to all who clamour for contextualising achievement and a consequent lowering of standards. They represent a teacher-led fight to show what it is possible to achieve.

    But that is not to say that government cannot play a vital role in raising standards. The government overhauled the national curriculum, ensuring that children are taught the knowledge they need to thrive in an ever more globalised world. We have put an end to grade inflation and introduced more rigorous national assessments.

    Thanks to the hard work of teachers and headteachers, the strategic support and expertise provided by school business professionals, and the reforms that we have brought in since 2010, there are now 1.8 million more children in schools rated good or outstanding than there were in 2010.

    In July this year, to support schools to continue to drive up standards for pupils, we announced an additional £1.3biilion for schools and high needs across 2018-19 and 2019-20, in addition to the schools budget set at Spending Review in 2015. This means that funding per pupil for schools and high needs will, at a national level, be maintained in real terms for the next two years.

    And following our announcement in September 2017, in September 2018, for the first time, under the national funding formula, school funding will be distributed based on the individual needs and characteristics of every school in the country. The new NFF will provide for an increase in funding in respect of every school, allocating a minimum of £4,800 for each secondary school pupil and £3,500 for every primary school pupil in 2019-20, nationwide.

    Fixing our outdated, anachronistic and deeply unfair school funding system is another example of the good that government can do, creating a level playing field from which professionals can do what is best for their schools.

    But, as you will all be aware, the challenge does not stop there. Of course, whilst the way schools are funded is important, it is also vital that schools themselves continue to get the best value from their resources, to improve pupil outcomes and promote social mobility. Alongside our substantial investment, we are committed to helping schools improve their efficiency in order to achieve this.

    Incisive analysis of how school funding is spent can dramatically affect the success of a school in delivering for pupils. The expertise and strategic view that a school business professional can bring to financial decision making is beyond question, and we want more schools to benefit from this expertise.

    School efficiency must start with – and be led by – schools.

    Central to this is our approach to integrated curriculum and financial planning. Curricula should be inherently integrated with good financial planning. We know that this integration is pivotal to school efficiency.

    We want to highlight and develop the support, guidance and tools that are already available to help you to maximise your schools’ efficiency and long-term financial health.

    Currently, we are helping schools to get the best value from their non-staff expenditure through the ambitious initiatives set out in the Schools’ Buying Strategy, which was published last January. In particular, we have made positive progress with the Buying Hubs and are on track to start delivering support to schools in the North West and South West pilot regions early in the New Year.

    Further, we have helped schools to procure better value goods and services on areas all schools purchase thanks to our recommended deals. Schools can save on average 10% on their energy bills, or 40% on printers, photocopiers and scanners. We intend to expand these deals where it would help schools for us to do so.

    And over the summer, we launched an updated and significantly improved benchmarking service for schools, based on feedback and user testing with school business professionals.

    We will continue to build on this offer. When a school is at risk of falling into financial difficulty, it is right to intervene – directly with academies, or working with local authorities in the case of maintained schools. In these cases, we will deploy experienced efficiency experts to provide direct support to schools.

    The government is on a mission to support schools to use their resources as efficiently and effectively as possible. We’re looking forward to working with the Institute for School Business Leadership in this joint endeavour, which is why it is a pleasure to be here today to celebrate your move to institute status.

    Thanks to your strategic oversight and governance, and the hard work of teachers and headteachers, the school system has gone from strength to strength since 2010. Thank you for everything you have done, and will do in the future, to improve standards in our schools and to drive social mobility.

  • Sajid Javid – 2017 Speech on the Housing Market

    Below is the text of the speech made by Sajid Javid, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, on 16 November 2017.

    Thank you, and good morning everyone.

    Half an hour ago, the official figures were published showing that the number of new homes in England increased by more than 217,000 last year.

    That represents the highest level of net additions since the depths of the recession, and it’s the first time in almost a decade that the 200,000 milestone has been reached.

    Yesterday, the Housing Minister Alok Sharma, he signed the papers that will allow housing associations to be reclassified as private sector organisations.

    Freed from the shackles of public sector bureaucracy, associations will be able to concentrate on their core, crucial mission – building homes.

    Later this morning, the Prime Minister will be in north London meeting with families living in new, high-quality social housing.

    They’re just some of the families to benefit from last year’s 27% rise in the number of new affordable homes.

    And they’ll soon be joined by many more thanks to the £9 billion that we’re investing in affordable housing.

    Now, all that is just the tip of the iceberg.

    Because this is a government that is getting things done.

    A government of deeds, not words.

    We’ve doubled the housing budget to deliver a million more homes, including hundreds of thousands of affordable ones.

    We have reformed planning rules, leading to record levels of planning permissions being granted.

    We have fought bureaucratic inertia and vested interests and we have freed up unprecedented levels of public sector land.

    We’re providing hundreds of millions of pounds of finance for small and innovative builders to accelerate construction speeds.

    And tens of thousands of derelict homes are being brought back into use…

    The list goes on and on.

    So yes, we’ve done a lot.

    Yet it is painfully obvious that there remains much, much more to be done.

    217,000 net additions means 217,000 more people or families with a roof over their heads.

    217,000 places where people can put down roots and build their life.

    But fixing the broken housing market will require a much larger effort.

    The figures that have been released today show that we have started turning things around.

    But they are only a small step in the right direction.

    What we need now is a giant leap.

    You wouldn’t know it if you listened to some people.

    Even today, I still hear from those who say that there isn’t a problem with housing in this country.

    That we don’t need to build more.

    That affordability is only a problem for Millennials that spend too much on nights out and smashed avocados.

    It’s nonsense.

    The people who tell me this – usually baby boomers who have long-since paid off their own mortgage – they are living in a different world.

    They’re not facing up to the reality of modern daily life and have no understanding of the modern market.

    The statistics are well-worn but they do bear repeating.

    Nationwide, the average house price is now 8 times the average income.

    The average age of a first-time buyer is now 32.

    People in their early 30s are half as likely as their parents were to own their home.

    A third of all men in their 30s are still living with their parents – a stat that will send a shiver down the spine of all mums and dads everywhere!

    Where once it would have taken an average couple 3 years to save for a deposit – 3 years – it will now take a quarter of a century. Assuming, of course, they can afford to save at all.

    And last year, the average first-time buyer in London needed a deposit – a deposit – of more than £90,000.

    £90,000!

    That’s a lot of avocados.

    Now, like some kind of noxious oil slick, the effects of our broken housing market are spreading slowly but steadily through all our communities and all demographics.

    And if we fail to take decisive action, the impact will be not just be felt by those who are directly touched by it.

    And that’s because your home is so much more than just the roof over your head.

    It’s not the backdrop to your life, it’s a fundamental part of it – and of society too.

    Our home is supposed to be our anchor, our little patch of certainty in an uncertain world.

    And once you have that certainty, that stability, then you can start to put down roots.

    Start making friends.

    Become part of your community.

    You can begin to play your role in those Burkean “little platoons” that have long been at the heart of much political thinking, for 2 centuries or more.

    So our homes are engines of society, and they’re also engines of social progress.

    In purely fiscal terms, yes, but in so many other ways.

    A safe place where children can do their homework, spend time with their parents.

    It’s much, much harder to get on life if you’re constantly forced to move from school to school, from place to place because your parents can not afford the rent.

    And homes are the rocks on which families and communities are built.

    If, like me, you believe in the importance of a strong, stable family unit, if you got into politics to help protect it, then you must also accept that homes should be made available.

    You simply must.

    At the heart of British life – is the idea that if you work hard you are free to enjoy the rewards.

    It’s an idea that has been articulated by countless politicians over many generations.

    But it’s an idea that is fundamentally undermined by our broken housing market.

    Because working hard no longer guarantees rewards.

    There is no guarantee that you will be able to afford a place of your own, to buy your own home, build your own life, pass something on to your children.

    With wages swallowed up by spiralling rents, there’s not even a guarantee that you’ll be free to spend your money on what you choose.

    Opportunity is increasingly limited not by your own talents but by your ability to make a withdrawal from the Bank of Mum and Dad.

    The generation crying out for help with housing is not over-entitled.

    They don’t want the world handed to them on a plate.

    They want simple fairness, moral justice, the opportunity to play by the same rules enjoyed by those who came before them.

    Without affordable, secure, safe housing we risk creating a rootless generation, drifting from one short-term tenancy to the next, never staying long enough to play a real role in their community.

    We risk creating a generation who, in maybe 40 or 50 years, reaches retirement with no property to call their own, and pension pots that have not been filled because so much of their income has gone on rent.

    A generation that, without any capital of its own, becomes resentful of capitalism and capitalists.

    And we risk creating a generation that turns its back on the politicians who failed them.

    A generation that believes we don’t care.

    We must fix the broken housing market, and we must fix it now.

    Tomorrow will be too late.

    February’s white paper, that set out our broad vision for doing so.

    It described the scale of the challenge and the need for action on many fronts.

    Since then we’ve been putting it into action, laying the foundations for hundreds of thousands of new homes.

    But I’m about as far from complacent as it’s possible to get.

    So I’m not about to let myself – or anyone – think that the battle is already won.

    I’m going to keep on pushing for much more change, keep on seeking answers to the questions that need to be asked.

    Can and should central government take a bigger, more active role in building homes?

    Our vision for Garden Villages and Garden Towns have been well received by planners and residents alike.

    But should we now be more bold, taking the concept to the next level and creating larger Garden Cities?

    How can we get more land into the system, freeing up more sites on which to build?

    Despite what some claim, our green and pleasant land not about to turn concrete grey.

    Twice a day, more of Britain gets covered by the incoming tide than is currently covered by buildings.

    England is the most developed part of the UK, yet less than 10% of its land is urban.

    Building the homes that we need does not mean ruining vast tracts of beautiful countryside. It doesn’t mean that at all.

    It just means working with local communities to make sensible, informed decisions about what needs to be built and where – and finding the right sites on which to do so.

    Many of those sites are already part of the urban landscape.

    Bristol was quick to sign up to the pilot scheme that we set up for a Brownfield Register.

    As a result, another 248 sites have been identified right across this city.

    And none of them require the loss of a single piece of greenfield land.

    But whether in cities or the countryside, the key to unlocking new sites is infrastructure.

    The right infrastructure can make private development viable.

    It can make new communities places where people actually want to live.

    And it can make development acceptable and attractive to existing communities.

    Tomorrow, the National Infrastructure Commission will publish its report on the opportunities on offer if we open up the Cambridge-Milton Keynes-Oxford corridor.

    I’m very much looking forward to what Lord Adonis has to say.

    That’s because infrastructure has to be at the heart of any major development. And as Secretary of State I will make sure make sure that it is.

    Too many commentators seem to think we have to choose one solution and stick with it, whether that’s planning reform, it’s infrastructure, it’s training or it’s investment.

    That couldn’t be further from the truth.

    There are many, many faults in our housing market, dating back many, many years.

    If you only fix one, yes you’ll make some progress, sure enough.

    But this is a big problem and we have to think big.

    We can’t allow ourselves to be pulled into one silo or another, and I don’t intend to let that happen.

    So there is much that central government can do.

    But, acting alone, we won’t be able to do anything.

    Fixing the broken market requires action on many fronts, and from many actors.

    That’s why we’re here today.

    I never need an excuse to come back to Bristol, the city where I grew up, my home town.

    Being here this morning means I can visit my mum’s in time for lunch!

    She makes the best lamb samosas this side of Lahore!

    But this city – and the site we’re on today, Temple Meads Quarter – is also a great example of how different agencies and different groups of people can work together to deliver the homes we need.

    When I was a kid, the Temple Meads area was a picture of decline – neglected, run-down, under-used.

    The sorting office building had stood empty and increasingly derelict since 1997.

    Today, the whole area is being reborn as a new urban hub, a modern and sustainable place to work, to learn, to play and to live.

    Appropriately enough, the list of business tenants includes HAB, the innovative housing start-up co-founded by Kevin McCloud.

    They’re just down the road at Temple Studios.

    We’re building homes for businesses, so that businesses can build homes for us!

    The transformation of Temple Meads has many parents, but at its core is a local authority that’s pro-development and a government agency – the Homes and Communities Agency – that’s willing to use all of the powers at its disposal.

    Now you couple that with a Local Enterprise Partnership that’s serious about building, a combined authority that’s committed to delivering the right infrastructure, can-do attitude from the superb West of England Mayor Tim Bowles, and a private sector that’s ready to meet the challenge… The results, they speak for themselves.

    This kind of collaboration brings results, and I want to see these kind of results replicated right across the country.

    And that means a huge range of different groups working together to tackle the many faces of the housing challenge.

    For starters, I want the Homes and Communities Agency to be less cautious, to be more aggressive, and to be more muscular.

    To take its foot off the brake and use all the tools we’ve created for it.

    The agency is taking that approach here at Temple Meads, and the results are clear for us to see.

    Now it’s time to repeat that success right across the country.

    The private sector developers must also play their part, building more homes more quickly.

    They’re great at securing planning permissions – but people can’t live in planning permissions.

    The government is actively removing barriers to build-out.

    As the white paper said, we’re tackling unnecessary delays caused by planning conditions.

    We’re making the process of dealing with protected species less painful.

    And we’re committed to tackling the skills shortage and boosting the construction workforce.

    We’re giving the industry the support that it needs, and I expect the industry to respond by getting shovels in the ground.

    That’s why the white paper also set out plans to increase transparency and accountability, so everyone can see if a developer is dragging its feet.

    Now, I’ve been very clear about the need for an end to unjustifiable land banking.

    But the sector should remember that it’s not just government that wants to see this happen.

    It’s a time of national shortage, and in this kind of time British people will not look kindly on anyone who hoards land and speculates on its value, rather than freeing it up for the homes our children and grandchildren need.

    Then there are the housing associations.

    I’ve talked before about my admiration for the work they do.

    They kept on building throughout the recession.

    They’re on course to deliver 65,000 new homes a year by next year.

    And many of those homes will go to be people who would otherwise be simply unable to afford them.

    Housing associations are run like big businesses – after all, they have assets worth about £140 billion.

    But they deliver an incredible social good, providing good quality homes for millions of people right across the country.

    They have such an important role to play in getting homes built, which is why this government has not hesitated to give them the resources they need to succeed.

    Just in the past month or so we’ve given them certainty over rental income and increased by £2 billion the fund from which they can bid for cash to build homes for social rent.

    And today, as I said at the start of this speech, we’re reclassifying housing associations, taking them out of the public sector and off the government’s balance sheet.

    I know it sounds like a piece of bureaucratic box-ticking.

    But the results will be far-reaching.

    Freed from the distractions of the public sector, housing associations will be able to concentrate on developing innovative ways of doing their business, which is what matters most: building more homes.

    Finally there is the most important cog in the housing and planning machine, local government.

    Some councils – most in fact – are doing very well.

    Where that’s the case, where councils are showing real drive and ambition, the government will back them every step of the way, including with the kind of housing deal we’re negotiating here in the West of England.

    And in the areas where supply and demand are most badly mismatched, where most homes are unaffordable to most people, I want to give local authorities the tools they need to build more – and that includes financial help.

    I want to help local authorities because most of them deserve that help.

    They’re recognising their responsibilities and they’re stepping up to meet them.

    But too many still leave much to be desired.

    It’s more than 13 years since our existing local plan process was first introduced, letting England’s 338 planning authorities set our how and where they expect to meet their residents’ needs for new homes.

    Yet, incredibly, more than 70 still haven’t managed to get a plan adopted.

    Of these, 15 are showing particular cause for concern.

    Deadlines have been missed, promises have been broken, progress has been unacceptably slow.

    No plan means no certainty for local people.

    It means piecemeal speculative development with no strategic direction, building on sites simply because they are there rather than because homes are needed on them.

    It means no coherent effort to invest in infrastructure.

    It means developers building the homes they want to sell rather than the homes communities actually need.

    And so on.

    It’s very simple: unplanned development will not fix our broken housing market.

    It will most likely make things worse.

    I do believe in localism above all else, which is why I’ve been willing to tolerate those who took their time to get the process moving.

    What mattered most was that they got there in the end.

    But today is the day that my patience has run out.

    Those 15 authorities have left me with no choice but to start the formal process of intervention that we set out in the white paper.

    By failing to plan, they have failed the people they are meant to serve.

    The people of this country who are crying out for good quality, well-planned housing in the right places, supported by the right infrastructure.

    They deserve better, and by stepping in now I’m doing all I can to ensure that they receive it.

    To the other authorities who are lagging behind, don’t think for one minute that you’ve got away with it.

    That you can ignore agreed deadlines or refuse to co-operate with your neighbours.

    Get your plan written.

    Get your plan adopted.

    I’ve shown today that I will take action if this doesn’t happen.

    I will not hesitate to do so again.

    I’ve talked a lot today about housing supply.

    After all, building more is the single biggest challenge that we face.

    But this government’s housing policy goes way beyond that.

    Our homes and our lives are completely intertwined, which is why we’re determined to make the housing market work better at every stage of your life.

    We’re building more houses so that you don’t have to spend your childhood crammed into the kind of overcrowded accommodation I grew up in.

    We’re making the rental market fairer, more transparent and more affordable, so that when the time is right and you can leave home you can get a place of your own without being ripped off.

    We’re introducing longer tenancies, so you can plan ahead, put down roots, and you can start saving for that deposit.

    We’re creating a supply of affordable, appropriate homes for first-time buyers so that, when you’re ready, you can get a foot on the housing ladder in the same way your parents did.

    And we’re helping you take the step up to buy your own home by putting billions of pounds into schemes like Help to Buy.

    We’re tackling rogue managing agents who hit leaseholders and tenants with unfair charges.

    And we’ve launched a crackdown on abuse of leasehold so that desperate young buyers don’t get stuck with a costly, unsellable asset.

    We’re reforming the whole process of buying and selling homes, so that as your family grows and your needs change you can move up the property ladder with the minimum of stress and expense.

    We’re making sure that developers offer a proper supply of suitable smaller homes so that you downsize once you get older.

    And we’re encouraging the construction of more sheltered and supported housing, so that the right kind of homes are there for you in your old age.

    Faced with the crisis of the Second World War, Churchill demanded “action this day” so the country could rise to the challenge.

    And, faced with an unprecedented housing crisis, that’s what you’re going to get from this government.

    Real action, day after day, week after week, to give this country a housing market that works for everyone.

    In next week’s Budget you’ll see just how seriously we take this challenge, just how hard we’re willing to fight to get Britain building.

    But, as I’ve said, central government can only do so much.

    If we’re going to fix our broken housing market, if we’re going to repair the damage that’s being done to our society and communities, if we’re going to make good on our promise to the next generation then, just like in Churchill’s day, we all have a role to play.

    We all have to roll up our sleeves and get to work.

    Most important of all, we all have to ask ourselves what kind of country we want this to be.

    Do we want this to be a nation where people who work hard can afford a place of their own?

    Where strong families are raised in stable, close-knit communities?

    Where ordinary working people can save for retirement and pass something on to their children?

    I know I do.

    That’s why I’m totally committed to building more of the right homes in the right places at the right prices.

    So is the Prime Minister.

    So is the Chancellor.

    So is this government.

    It’s a national crisis and it’s one we’re ready to meet.

    The question is, are you ready to join us?