UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: 2018

  • Jim McMahon – 2018 Speech on the Greater Manchester Metrolink

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jim McMahon, the Labour MP for Oldham West and Royton, in the House of Commons on 20 March 2018.

    Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op) Hold on to your seat, Mr Deputy Speaker, while I take you through the history of Greater Manchester’s tram network. [Interruption.] We could have two hours on this, but if it is any help, I promise not to take us anywhere near that—unless there is trouble on the line and we get delayed.

    Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab) If my hon. Friend is going to give us a history of Manchester’s tram network, which I look forward to, will he join me in paying tribute to the man described as “Mr Metrolink” by the Manchester Evening News—Councillor Andrew Fender, without whom we might not have a Metrolink system at all, and who stands down from Manchester City Council in May after 41 years of dedicated public service?

    Jim McMahon Councillor Fender has been a real transport inspiration for many people in Greater Manchester. He is actually a very quiet and reserved character; he is not somebody who grandstands—who seeks attention. He works in the background and diligently gets on and does the work that is very complicated, often very technical, and requires a lot of time and dedication. I have absolutely no doubt that without the time that he put in to transport in Greater Manchester—not just the tram system but the bus network, and cycling routes especially—it would not be as advanced as it is. I think that is a very fitting tribute. I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention.

    Greater Manchester’s tram network opened in 1992 and is now the UK’s biggest light rail network. It is essential to Greater Manchester’s economy. We know how important transport is. It is important to get people from A to B, but it is also essential to do so efficiently, to make sure that we reduce congestion, that people can get to work affordably, and that there are routes that take people where they need to go for their employment or for leisure. People vote with their feet. The light rail system in Greater Manchester carries 41 million passengers every year. It covers 60 miles over 93 stops. However, as always in Greater Manchester, we are not content to stand still. We want to go even further.

    At the moment a new line is being built to Trafford Park, and that will provide fantastic connectivity to one of Europe’s largest employment sites. People across Greater Manchester will be able to travel through the city centre and on to Trafford Park, and capitalise on the jobs that are being created there. That builds on the success of the airport line, which will take people to Manchester Airport, one of our enterprise zones—also essential for getting people to decent, well paid, secure jobs, particularly now, and in the future too.

    Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP) I am ever mindful that the Government have committed to reducing pollution levels massively in our cities. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a working, modern, technology-friendly public transport system is essential for Manchester and other cities like it, and that the expansion of services into the ​south will attract more people into using the service, making it more effective, and therefore cost-effective, and benefit the environment as well?

    Jim McMahon That is a very important point about the benefits for the environment and the economy. At one point, I was slightly fearful that we were going to make a claim for an extension over to Northern Ireland, which would be a great day out, but I might struggle to—

    Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con) As the hon. Gentleman is talking about providing extensions, I would like to make a bid. At the moment, as he knows, East Didsbury is at the end of the line, as it comes out towards my constituency of Cheadle. We would love to see the line go all the way through to Stockport, as well as going to Manchester Airport, so that we would get true connectivity around the south of our area.

    Jim McMahon That is an important point. I will mention some potential routes later. There is a case to be made not only for the Didsbury line to be extended, but for a connection from Ashton through to Stockport and through to the airport, because as important as the connections in and out of Manchester city centre are, so too are the orbital links connecting the boroughs around Greater Manchester, beyond the city of Manchester. We should be ambitious; we need to create a transport vision that will guide us for decades. The people who laid the foundations for Manchester’s current Metrolink system came up with that idea—that nugget of how Greater Manchester could be different, and could be modern—many, many generations before it was built. It is important that we now take on that responsibility for the next generation, and plan that far ahead. I think Stockport ought to be the beneficiary of a tramline. I think we ought to be able to connect the whole of that eastern ring, too.

    The Oldham line, which is my particular interest, started construction in 2011 and opened in 2014. Work began in the year that I became council leader in Oldham and so we had the great success of work beginning on the line. It was previously a heavy rail line, which was then decommissioned, to be turned into a light rail system. Clearly, that caused a lot of disruption and not everybody was convinced that a tram coming through the town would pay dividends and ultimately be a benefit to it, given all the traffic chaos that naturally happens when we start laying tram tracks on the road network. Plenty of people said, “If you build a tram from Oldham to Manchester, surely people are just going to go to Manchester and that will be to the detriment of Oldham.” We said, “No, this is about that connectivity that makes us part of a great Greater Manchester. If Oldham sits in isolation, thinking it is an island, and does not capitalise on one of the best cities in the world, we are missing a trick.”

    It was important not just to capitalise on a great city, but to have a vision for Oldham that meant it could be the best Oldham it could be. Metrolink was very important as part of that vision and that future economy. Significantly, the phase 3 line saw an investment of £764 million. It also connected many key sites. Obviously, it connected through Oldham and on to Rochdale, but it also went through two previous housing market renewal sites. We ​know that where Metrolink stations are placed, there is a good effect on the housing market and demand in that locality. So Freehold, where the Metrolink stop is placed, was a key site for housing market renewal. We know the local authority is keen to see that being redeveloped, with the eyesore of the Hartford mill, which might be the subject of a future Adjournment debate, demolished to make way for decent, secure accommodation for people to live in and to create a thriving neighbourhood. Metrolink also connected the Derker community, where there was a lot of clearance as part of the housing market renewal project. Now it has fantastic family houses for people to live in, just a walk to the station, where they are connected to Rochdale, on to Manchester and further into the network—to connectivity that is vital for them.

    As I said, people vote with their feet. The old heavy rail system, with the clunker carriages we used to have on the old Oldham Mumps station, carried 1.1 million passengers a year, which was impressive, but nowhere near as impressive as the figure of 3.6 million people using the current Metrolink system on the same line. So we know this has a material effect on increasing passenger numbers, and the more people who go on the tram, the fewer the people who have to travel by car, because they have a genuine alternative, provided in a more environmentally friendly way.

    If the Government are serious about creating the northern powerhouse, it is crucial that we rebalance the UK’s economy. But we also need to understand that if all we do is benefit Manchester city centre and the south of Manchester, which have historically been the better performing parts of Greater Manchester, and we do not concentrate on north Manchester, which has historically underperformed compared with the south of Greater Manchester, we will miss an opportunity to make sure that every part of the northern powerhouse can benefit from future investment. Let me give some context on that, because this is not just about a northern Manchester bias and saying “Why does south Manchester get everything at our expense?” This is where the facts are. The gross value added return for Manchester south is £34.8 billion a year, which accounts for 68% of the total GVA for the whole of Greater Manchester. So we can see that an underperforming north Manchester—I am not saying south Manchester is necessarily overperforming—needs to do far better to rebalance and to contribute to that greater GVA. To do that, we need concerted and long-term investment planning—on transport, on housing and on schools. So this debate is about how we might achieve that.

    Those who have been on the Manchester Metrolink and gone on a real journey will perhaps bear with me while I take them on what could be a journey of the future, if the Government and Greater Manchester are willing to work together on this plan. I am going to concentrate on the potential of connecting Oldham with Middleton and then on to the Bury line at Heaton Park. Currently, when the tram comes down the Metrolink track and gets to Westwood station, it turns off to the left, towards Manchester. In the new journey we are taking today, however, the tram could continue straight down Middleton Road, towards the sunny climes of Middleton. People could benefit from a park and ride in Middleton town centre and go on further towards Heaton Park, and join with a Bury line that would connect them with Bury and that part of Greater Manchester.​

    Coming back, where the line currently carries on to Rochdale after Oldham Mumps, people could go on from Mumps, perhaps up Ashton Road or even along the disused railway line—which would be a cheaper option, although clearly not to the benefit of as many people—on to Ashton town centre, where the line currently terminates. There is nothing worse than a line that terminates; we could at least carry it on and make it nice and tidy. People could carry on straight to Ashton town centre and then, as the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson) said, there would be the potential of a loop to Stockport and on to Manchester airport. Suddenly, we are beginning to create what the Manchester Evening News has dubbed the “circle line”. That is a way to use public transport to create proper interconnectivity across Greater Manchester, just like the M60 motorway currently provides for car users. That would be a fantastic boost for many people accessing jobs and for our local economy and tourist industry.

    All that would also give Oldham a critical part to play as an important transport hub. It would not just be the place that people pass through; it would mean that Oldham Mumps, which is currently a strategic regeneration site, would be a critical point of interconnectivity between Bury, Rochdale, Manchester and Tameside, and perhaps further on if we have further extensions. Oldham would become an important place for investment and regeneration, and I believe it would be an important catalyst for the rebalancing of the Greater Manchester economy.

    To achieve all that, we need to be honest. Currently, financial modelling is heavily predicated on the question, “What does this mean for GVA return?” If we invest £1, what will be the pound-for-pound return in the local economy? This is where the way in which we assess capital investment in this country needs a fundamental rethink. There ought to be a measure to take human capital into account.

    What is our starting point if we want everybody to have equal opportunity to access well-paid, secure jobs and decent leisure and sporting facilities? To do that, we need to accept that different communities in Greater Manchester will start at different points and that a rebalancing will need to take place. It is important to bear in mind that we can rebalance in two ways: we can bring the highest-performing area down to the level of the lowest-performing area, so that they are equal but have to share scraps of the table, and the economy will suffer; or we can use investment to raise areas that are not currently performing as well as they could be, so that everybody thrives across Greater Manchester.

    To achieve that second option, we need a different way of assessing GVA return, because the truth is that on any assessment today, building a mile of Metrolink track in, say, Trafford would have a higher GVA return than building a mile of Metrolink track in Oldham, just because the starting point is very different. I do not believe that that is the way to generate an investment plan that rebalances the economy in the way we need it to be rebalanced.

    This debate is about setting out a potential route, but I am not precious about exactly which road or route the new tram line ultimately goes along. I am, though, passionate about Oldham realising its full potential. I am passionate about people in Oldham being able to access high-performing, decent, secure, well-paid jobs throughout Greater Manchester. I am desperate for ​young people in Oldham to recognise that their horizon is not just at the end of their street, but is much further away, and for it to be available to them because it is affordable and accessible.

    Let me tell a personal story. I have been helping my son to navigate the complex world of apprenticeships and college courses. We were looking at some apprenticeships in Trafford Park, which is not far away at all—we can get there by car in half an hour. My son was looking at engineering courses. The problem is that our bus system does not connect young people with Trafford Park in a way that means they can work shifts on those jobs. For instance, if a young person living in Royton wants to get to Trafford Park for a 6 am shift start, they would have to set off at 11.30 pm the night before, because the buses do not start until quite late in the morning. Therefore, if a young person cannot get a driving licence and a car to make their own way there, and they are reliant on public transport, which for people in Royton is a bus at the moment, straight away they are excluded from working shifts in one of the largest engineering employment locations in Europe. That just cannot be right.

    I am not saying in this debate that if all we do is to build a bit of Metrolink track, Oldham will be fixed. My point is much broader: we need to get transport in Greater Manchester right for the people who live in Greater Manchester. Significant effort has been made by the mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham, and by his team on the Greater Manchester combined authority. Sterling work has been carried out by Andrew Fender and by all the very dedicated officers that work at Transport for Greater Manchester. The truth is that much of this comes down to resource and investment. Unfortunately, in Greater Manchester, we have lost many local bus routes that would connect young people in particular with the job opportunities of tomorrow, and we need to see investment in that area.

    We also need proper capital investment that at least puts Greater Manchester on a par with London. We want Greater Manchester to thrive and to play an active part in the northern powerhouse, but the northern powerhouse cannot be done on the cheap; it needs investment on a par with that of this great capital city. Manchester deserves absolutely every penny of that investment. If we see even a fraction of it, we will see very different outcomes for young people in Greater Manchester.

    I urge the Government to get behind this. I am not necessarily talking about the A to Z route that we are proposing—that will come out of a feasibility report and a technical assessment of what is possible and, of course, it has much to do with patronage and whatever physical barriers may be in place. There should be no barrier to our desire to make Greater Manchester absolutely great. That can happen only if the Government come to the table, offer real investment and work with Greater Manchester to make sure that transport in the future is far better than it is today.

  • Liam Fox – 2018 Speech in Hong Kong

    Below is the text of the speech made by Liam Fox, the Secretary of State for International Trade, in Hong Kong on 21 March 2018.

    Good morning to everyone.

    It’s a real pleasure to finally be here, at the start of the GREAT Festival of Innovation in Hong Kong.

    For myself and the members of my team who have travelled from the UK, it almost seems surreal that this fantastic showcase is finally upon us. And a huge thank you to all of our people here from the UK and Hong Kong who have made this happen.

    For me, this festival offers an opportunity to look far into the future, exploring the technological developments that will unite the UK and Asia, and shape the world economy for up to a century or more.

    Innovation is, of course, a key focus of ours. My department was created in order to shape an independent trade policy for the United Kingdom, our first for more than four decades.

    A 21st Century trade policy must embrace the realities of the modern trading environment, and that means protecting, promoting and celebrating innovation.

    But the location of this festival lends it an extra significance.

    Hong Kong has always been one of my personal favourite cities – a global commercial hub that possesses a unique blend of drive, energy and dynamism.

    Of course, this city has, for centuries, been Britain’s gateway to Asia.

    Of course, we are not here to dwell on the past. But the ties of history and language that are shared by the UK and Hong Kong have put opportunities ahead.

    Our shared history is the preface of to our shared future. Now, the IMF predicts that, in the next two decades, 90% of global growth will be generated beyond the borders of the European continent.

    Much of this will be driven by the Asian economies, where new markets are growing to meet their own innovation revolution.

    The next few years will offer a golden opportunity for the UK to work with our partners across Asia to drive innovation and shape the future of global trade.

    The UK has the experience and capability in key industries – from technology and finance to education and healthcare – that make us the natural partner for the region’s burgeoning economies.

    This festival is hugely symbolic. Why? Because it comes at a time when the UK is seeking to deepen our trading ties with partners across the world.

    This not only applies to those emerging economies that will be the drivers of global economic growth, but also to long-established partners and friends with highly developed and complementary economic structures.

    And of course, Hong Kong is foremost among these.

    We have chosen to hold the GREAT Festival here in Hong Kong because our trading relationship with this city is, I believe, a model for the UK’s future trading partnerships.

    Both the UK and Hong Kong believe that agility and adaptability are the keys to an effective trade policy in an ever-changing and evolving global environment.

    And this approach is at the heard of what the Prime Minister has described as a truly ‘Global Britain’. We won’t be less engaged, but more engaged as we leave the EU, deploying the determination that Britain has always had to promote our values and help shape the global environment in our fast-changing world.

    Governments must be able to act quickly and effectively to changes on the ground, ensuring that new industries do not mean new barriers to trade but effective and efficient policy tolls to deal with them.

    The Strategic Dialogue with Hong Kong was one of the first of our new measures to be launched following the creation of DIT.

    We are already holding meetings, at official and ministerial level, to identify and remove those non-tariff barriers which currently impede trade flows between our two economies. Because there is much we can do, and businesses already do, to liberalise our trading practices without undergoing the process of negotiating a full free trade agreement.

    What underpins this is the recognition that we share values, goals, and a mutual commitment to global free trade, and built on that commonality.

    Earlier this year, I travelled to Davos in Switzerland to attend the World Economic Forum.

    The event was, as ever, extremely productive, and an invaluable opportunity for businesses and policymakers to come together and shape the future of global trade.

    In that respect, it is a lot like particular showcase – the GREAT Festival of Innovation.

    But the WEF also emphasised, to me, how unnecessary some of the perceived complications around global trade liberalisation really are.

    A Free Trade Agreement is, of course, a fine achievement for both parties, and should often be pursued as the ultimate goal.

    But it is simply too broad to be the first or only approach to bilateral trade liberalisation. Often, barriers can be lifted more quickly with an incremental approach which identifies existing common ground – the ‘low-hanging fruit’, if you like, of trade relations.

    There is no greater defender or advocate for the rules-based global trading system than the United Kingdom and multilateral agreements remain the gold-standard of trade liberalisation. Hong Kong is a strong and valued ally in this cause.

    Yet it is also true that the system possesses an inherent inflexibility. Too often, formalised policy frameworks have been left standing by progress and innovation, and by the technological developments that have accelerated globalisation.

    Let’s just think of the one great change we have witnessed – the development of the digital global economy. It’s hard to imagine now when it didn’t exist.

    In the UK alone, the digital economy supports around 1.4 million jobs, and the sector is growing 32% faster than the wider economy.

    In 2015, global e-commerce sales surpassed $25 trillion.

    Yet there exists no formal international framework governing these vast trade and capital flows.

    Of course, you do not need to hear this from me. Many of Asia’s most distinguished and innovative digital companies are here with us at this festival – one of the reasons we chose Hong Kong in the first place.

    Many of you might assert that your industry is doing just fine, having reached all its achievements without any multinational governance whatsoever.

    But any such measures would be designed not to stifle innovation, but to enhance it.

    But these disrupters are the Darwinians drivers of our economy. We all know the benefits that technology can bring to consumers and citizens.

    And, I want to see a wider discussion around how technology can help governments to facilitate trade and lead effective policy development.

    Later this morning, we will have a panel discussion on ‘The Future of Free Trade’.

    Much of the talk around the future of trade is focussed on the ‘trade disruptors’. These new technologies and industries are at the forefront of the shake up the global economy and are reshaping the way we approach international commerce.

    Those of us who are fortunate enough to be able to help shape trade legislation must ask ourselves how we can harness the power of innovation to enhance global opportunity and build a more prosperous future for us all.

    So technology may be a disruptor, but it is also a facilitator.

    One small example is my own department’s trade platform online – great.gov.uk.

    Government is using digital innovation to directly put exporters in the UK in contact with potential customers overseas.

    Similarly, by the same route, companies in Asia and around the world can access a searchable directory of British exporters, allowing them to quickly source their ideal product.

    It is a small but important step towards government embracing technology as a way to facilitate more traditional trade.

    But if we really want to harness innovation to open global trade, we must look at the transformative effect technology has had in lifting the burden of bureaucracy from certain industries.

    Now take personal finance, just as an example. Twenty years ago or more, if you wanted to take out a loan, you had to walk into a bank for a face-to face discussion with the manager.

    For those of you, remember what it was like, armed with your employment and income details, it was up to you to persuade the bank that you were able to repay the money borrowed.

    Today, you can take out a loan at the touch of button, or a tap of a smartphone screen you can achieve the effect.

    This is not because finance has somehow become less complex. Arguably, people’s personal finances and credit scores are more convoluted than ever.

    Rather it is because technology has removed the bureaucratic burden from the customer, and even from the bank manager, and delegated it to an algorithm.

    Even in medicine – my own profession in which I began my working career – patients can be assessed, and prescriptions issued through an automated online service.

    The fundamental contribution that technology has made to human existence has been to make complicated things simple. It probably says something about our nature that the history of innovation is a long string of labour-saving devices for us.

    And if technology can make paying your tax or booking a holiday more efficient and accessible, then why can’t it do the same for exporting?

    A bilateral or multilateral free trade agreement is, fundamentally, an attempt to make the system less complicated. It is an admirable an important goal and one which we must pursue with vigour at all time.

    But as well as making the world less complicated, we should also recognise that technology can be used to ease to improve the conditions of the people within the economic system.

    We cannot forget that innovation also has the potential to unlock vast swathes of the global economy, especially in the developing world.

    For years now, millions of Africans have been using mobile phone banking, in lieu of a reliable system of high-street institutions – an early innovation often overlooked outside the continent.

    E-commerce has also helped to neutralise at least to some extreme the barriers of geography and infrastructure that have sometimes stifled new ventures in undeveloped nations.

    And by allowing economic activity to take place within the home, it continues to emancipate women in particular across the globe into the world of work – entrepreneurism at the click of a mouse.

    But, as well as addressing the wider questions of technology and international trade, the GREAT Festival of Innovation also has a narrower and more immediate focus: the vast opportunities that exist between Asia and the United Kingdom.

    Our country has a richly-deserved reputation for excellence in innovation and technology.

    The UK boasts some 58,000 technology firms. In the last year, more venture capital in tech came to London than in Germany, France, Spain and Ireland combined.

    In many areas, the research and development capabilities of the UK have put us at the cutting-edge, creating the technologies of the future.

    In Bristol close to where I live and represent in parliment, a company called Graphcore is developing the next generation of computer processors.

    In Exeter, the Centre for Graphene Science are developing self-powering wearable tech that will allow electronic devices to be woven directly into clothing – not that far away from the images the young people were telling us about.

    And in Cardiff, the Compound Semiconductor Catapult is leading the way to find a high-capacity replacement for silicon chips.

    These companies are being aided in their endeavours by a government that is committed to technology and innovation.

    Our business-friendly regulatory environment and the lowest corporate tax rate in the G20 have helped to propel us to 1st place in Forbes’ Best Countries for Business survey.

    Our Industrial Strategy is ensuring that the investment, resources and infrastructure are in place to help innovators to thrive in every corner of the United Kingdom.

    And our ambition to build a truly global Britain is allowing UK companies to trade more freely than ever with our partners across Asia.

    Let me give you just one local example – the UK company OC Robotics are working here with Dragages Hong Kong to provide remote access technology for the construction of the undersea road tunnels between the mainland and Hong Kong International Airport.

    This is what is at the heart of the GREAT Festival of Innovation.

    The UK may have a lot to offer, but so does Asia especially Hong Kong. The festival is not about selling our products to Asian markets though we don’t mind if we do, but about building relationships and collaboration.

    The partnerships between UK and Asian firms that will be established at this festival and the networks that we build will shape the future not only of the UK, Hong Kong, and Asia, but of the world.

    The festival will showcase the very best of British and Asian innovation in how we will learn, how we live, how we work and how we play in the future, across multiple sectors.

    We are here not only to celebrate what we have, but to build a network that will drive innovation, develop new technology, and determine the future of global trade.

    We are at a truly exciting moment in history. We want to hear your opinions on global commerce, and learn from your expertise to unlock the opportunities of free and open commerce.

    If we innovate together, we can achieve so much.

    So, let’s discover the future. Let’s create tomorrow.

    Thank you.

  • Jeremy Hunt – 2018 Speech on Social Care

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jeremy Hunt, the Secretary of State for Health, on 20 March 2018.

    “Grow old along with me! The best is yet to be.”

    The famously optimistic line by Robert Browning might seem out of place to many worried about how we will cope with an ageing population

    In modern-day Britain, one of the most developed countries on the planet, our aspiration should be to prove those worries wrong. Because how we care for our most vulnerable citizens is the true litmus test of whether we are a civilised society – not only the care for older people but for younger disabled people who are living much longer.

    Progress has been made: the Better Care Fund is transforming the way councils and the NHS work together to treat the whole person: nearly 7 in 10 service users were extremely or very satisfied with their care and support over the last 3 years, and 81% of adult social care providers are rated as good or outstanding. Spending will rise by 9% this year, the number of care home agencies is up 55% since 2010, and we recently set out a new package of measures to protect care home residents from unfair practices.

    But today I want to be honest about how well we are meeting that litmus test. In truth, not well enough.

    Many families find it incredibly hard to access the care they want with or without means-tested support from the state.

    Many people employed in the system find themselves working too hard as they struggle with fragmented services coming under unprecedented pressure.

    The CQC has itself expressed serious concerns about the state of the adult social care market and the risks of provider exit.

    And that pressure is feeding through to the NHS with A&Es becoming overcrowded because hospitals find themselves unable to discharge patients who cannot access social care support packages.

    Behind these systemic issues sit many ordinary human beings in a great deal of distress. Families coming to terms with a relative with dementia. Older people living on their own who won’t admit they are lonely. Care home residents with clinical depression, as we know happens in 4 in 10 cases.

    So let’s be brutally honest. In a country that prides itself on kindness, neighbourliness and respect this does not sit easily, and we need to do better.

    Now no-one could accuse this or any government of not talking about the issue. In the past 20 years there have been 5 Green or White Papers, numerous policy papers, and 4 independent reviews into social care. So it would not be unreasonable to expect scepticism about yet another one this year – and as the new Health and Social Care Secretary I do rather feel the weight of stalled reform programmes on my shoulders.

    So in order to get things right this time I want to outline the 7 key principles that will guide our thinking ahead of the Green Paper. And in doing so I wish to pay tribute to the work done by Damian Green, my predecessor, on whose thoughtful foundations much of our thinking has developed.

    1. Quality

    The first key principle relates to the quality of care. 81% of adult social care providers are good or outstanding according to the CQC – testament to many hardworking and committed professionals working in care to whom we owe a huge debt of gratitude.

    But still too many people experience care that is not of the quality we would all want for our own mum or dad. They describe a daily visit from a rotating cast of care workers, perhaps as brief as 15 minutes, with barely time to get help washing or getting dressed and no time to build the friendly relationships that are only possible with proper continuity of care.

    And then, despite some improvements, we also still get cases of demonstrable neglect, such as a few weeks ago when a worker at a care home in Norwich was jailed for bullying vulnerable patients, including humiliating a resident with incontinence problems in front of others.

    So my first of the 7 principles will be that we need a relentless and unswerving focus on providing the highest standards of care – whatever a person’s age or condition. This means a commitment to tackle poor care with minimum standards enforced throughout the system so that those using social care services are always kept safe and treated with the highest standards of dignity and compassion – or as our Chief Inspector for Social Care puts it, that all provision passes the “good enough for my mum” test.

    Part of this will be tackling the unacceptable variations in quality and outcomes between different services and different parts of the country.

    How can it be, for example, that, according to the NHS atlas of variation, there is around a 90-fold difference in the over 75s’ rates of admission to hospital from care homes or nursing homes between the highest and lowest performing local authority areas?

    Over the last 5 years enhanced CQC inspections have been central to the journey of improvement that the NHS has been on. And thanks to the superb leadership of Andrea Sutcliffe and her team, those principles have been extended to the social care provider sector. No longer do we worry in the same way as before that abuses in a small minority of cases will go undetected for long periods and we see demonstrable improvements in the majority of cases when people are inspected a second time round.

    But the recent local systems reviews conducted by the CQC have demonstrated that an independent approach to reviewing commissioning as well as provision can also be a powerful force for good. These reviews have highlighted variation in performance between local authorities across a range of measures, including how the local authority commissions care from local providers.

    So we now need to ask whether the time is right to expand that approach, and one of the questions the Green Paper will pose is whether we can build on the learning from the introduction of independent Ofsted-style ratings for providers to spread best practice to commissioners as well.

    2. Whole-person integrated care

    Secondly we know that right now, despite many warm words, if you have complex needs our current health and social care system can be confusing and fragmented.

    An 85 year old living alone with multiple conditions such as diabetes and early stage dementia often faces a bewildering range of services and organisations.

    And the risk is that too often an individual and their family are passed from pillar to post, giving the same information repeatedly without receiving joined up, personalised care that makes them feel like a valued human being and not just another task on someone else’s to do list.

    So my second key principle is the full integration of health and social care centred around the person. We know when this happens people stay longer at home, healthier, more independent and needing fewer hospital services.

    There are many good examples of progress from around the country:

    In Waltham Forest they have introduced a managed network of care and support to meet the needs of local residents through individually selected services – and seen emergency admissions reduced by a fifth during 2015/16.

    In Leeds an integrated care record is now used by over 5,000 health and social care professionals so hospitals arrange faster discharges with care packages put in place more quickly.

    The Better Care Fund, too, has incentivised local areas to work more closely together, and many now have mature systems in place to bring together health and care services around the needs of their older populations.

    But the key to this progress is that users of the social care system should have just one plan covering all their health and social care needs based on a joint assessment by both systems. So today I can announce new pilots in Gloucestershire, Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire which will mean that over the next 2 years every single person accessing adult social care will be given a joint health and social care assessment and – critically – a joint health and care and support plan, where needed.

    Why does this matter? Because integration must never be a bureaucratic exercise that makes life easier for professionals but makes no difference to people using the services. We will fail if we only join up the structures – we have to focus relentlessly on joining up the actual care experienced by vulnerable adults and service users on the ground – and these 3 pilots are intended to be trail-blazers for how to get this right.

    3. Control

    My third critical principle is control. What matters to individuals and families is the ability to direct the care they receive and autonomy to lead the lives they want.

    Personalisation isn’t new, and there is a strong consensus that it is the right path to follow, but progress has often been slower for older people than for working age adults with disabilities. Whilst over 90% of older people receive some type of self-directed support, only around 1 in 6 take it as a direct payment with take-up stubbornly low for older people.

    Yet we know that the greater control people have over their care, the better their outcomes and the lower the cost. I heard the story of Malcolm Royle, who had dementia, from his son Colin. His personal budget meant that Malcolm no longer had to go to the day centre 8 to 5, but could have regular carers when he needed them. He got back control of his life – and we need to help everyone do this if they have the mental and physical capacity to do so.

    So I want to turbo-charge progress on integrated health and care budgets, making them the norm and not the exception when people need ongoing support.

    And today I can announce that we will be consulting on Personal Health Budgets, in order to achieve better integration for those with the greatest ongoing social care needs as well as health needs.

    And as part of that I commit that over the next 2 years in Gloucestershire, Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire – our 3 pilot areas – every single person with a joint care plan will also be offered an integrated health and care personal budget.

    Control also means transparency and access to reliable information. Where individuals and families have the necessary information to make informed choices, it usually drives quality up. Yet the truth, as set out in a comprehensive report by the Competition and Markets Authority last year, is that the current social care market is anything but transparent. We also need to make sure that anyone who needs to can get the right information to make a meaningful comparison between services so that they end up with a fair and straight deal on their choice of care provider. This isn’t just fairer, it will also spur quality and innovation in the sector.

    4. Workforce

    My fourth principle is to respect and nurture the social care workforce.

    People who work in care homes, who do home visits, who look after people with care needs with kindness and love in every street in every town – these are our society’s modern-day heroes. Often highly skilled, they are typically also the lowest paid.

    I am deeply proud that the introduction of the National Living Wage means that the average salary for a care worker in the independent sector has gone up by 4%, with those on the minimum wage seeing a pay rise of up to £2,000 since 2015.

    But to attract more people into this sector, financial support must be matched with recognition of the value of this vital work and action on the wider set of challenges facing the workforce.

    Today is World Social Work Day. So it is right to acknowledge that as a society we have ascribed too little value to these vital caring roles: yet the quality of care our parents get in their final years is as important as the quality of education our children get at the start of their lives.

    So it is time to do more to promote social care as a career of choice and to ensure there are better opportunities for progression into areas like nursing which span both the health and social care sectors. And we need coherent workforce planning that is better aligned with that now being undertaken by the NHS. Alongside social workers, occupational therapists and nurses in social care we have many care workers who could benefit or be inspired by new progression ladders similar to those that are being developed in the NHS including roles such as associate nurses and nurse degree apprenticeships. These must be as available to those working in social care as in the NHS.

    We have many registered professionals including social workers, occupational therapists and nurses in social care; and many more care workers and other unregistered professions. We need to ensure we have enough people within all of these skilled roles to support people to live the best possible lives. That means making sure that the new routes in to professions that we have developed for those working in the NHS, and the new roles such as nurse associates, also work for those wanting to build their careers in social care.

    We need to recognise that people move between the NHS and social care systems – and will do more so as the 2 systems join up. So part of our thinking must be to think about health and care workforce issues in a joined up way. I can therefore confirm today that later this year we will not now be publishing an ‘NHS 10 year workforce strategy’ – it will be an ‘NHS and social care 10 year workforce strategy’ with the needs of both sectors considered together and fully aligned.

    5. Supporting families and carers

    Ronald Reagan famously quipped that “the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see is a government programme.” A big danger in this debate is to see it purely as a government solution.

    So my fifth principle is to make the needs of carers central to our new social care strategy.

    Of course we need to foster the deep, innate and human responsibility we all feel to look after our loved ones, families and friends. But we should never take it for granted.

    If we can make it simpler to look after a loved one, if we can make it easier to juggle working and caring responsibilities, if we can encourage volunteering – whether by more flexible working, better employer support or harnessing new technologies, then that is what we should do.

    Over the past months we have been listening to the views of carers so ahead of the Green Paper we will publish an action plan to support them.

    And alongside support for carers, as a society we also must tackle the epidemic of loneliness. It is truly a scandal that over 30% of people in Britain over the age of 65 say that television is their main form of company. So the appointment of Tracey Crouch as Minister for Loneliness is a welcome sign of the Prime Minister’s personal determination to address this issue, and we will work with her as we develop the Green Paper to address the underlying causes of loneliness by building an active and creative partnership between the state, individuals and wider civil society.

    6. A sustainable funding model for social care supported by a diverse, vibrant and stable market.

    Person-centred care means nothing if the individual’s choice and control is undermined by a lack of high-quality services to provide the support they need. Too often we hear of people unable to find the care they want, or of services which are only available in some places but just don’t exist in others.

    We have to make sure that we have a vibrant and diverse base of care services for people to draw on. So the sixth principle running through our Green Paper will be the question of how we ensure a sustainable financial system for care, delivering a stable and vibrant market which delivers cost-effective, quality services for all including the debate we need to have with the public on the challenges of sourcing additional social care funding.

    We should not assume that the best long term answer will be necessarily the same for different age cohorts. There may be changes that are equitable and achievable for younger people that would not be either of those for the generation approaching retirement. And part of the outcome of this process must be much greater public understanding of where the costs – often inappropriately – currently lie both for the state and individuals in every age cohort.

    We also know the economics of the publicly funded social care market are highly fragile so we need to transform and evolve our models of care.

    We will therefore look at how the government can prime innovation in the market, develop the evidence for new models and services, and encourage new models of care provision to expand at scale.

    This will specifically include looking at the role of housing, including how we can replicate the very best models that combine a home environment with quality care and how we can better support people through well-designed aids and adaptations.

    We must also recognise the potentially transformative role of new technology. We British are good at innovation, although sometimes less good at its application: so let’s see the brightest and best new ideas put into action to help us tackle the challenges we face and that will help us stay at home independently for longer.

    Which is why the Ageing Grand Challenge announced as part of the Industrial Strategy needs to play a definitive role. Only last week the Government announced a new £98 million innovation fund to support healthy ageing. This funding will aim to catalyse public-private investment in technologies and innovations so that we don’t just invent great ideas here, we see them taken up throughout our system.

    Going forwards, I will be working closely with other government departments, industry, civil society, academia and local government to ensure we make the most of the opportunities that the Industrial Strategy presents.

    A more vibrant and diverse market offer will give people greater choice and more effective support. But it is also vital because if we do nothing to support people’s needs more creatively or efficiently, the cost of simply delivering these services today will double in a decade.

    And of course we must make sure there is a long term financially sustainable approach to funding the whole system.

    Resolving this will take time. But that must not be an excuse to put off necessary reforms. Nor must it delay the debate we need to have with the public about where the funding for social care in the future should come from – so the Green Paper will jump-start that debate.

    7. Security for all

    The final principle, which lies at the heart of this debate, is the question of security.

    We are proud that 70 years ago this country made a big statement of our values when we established the National Health Service. It is, to this day, the most powerful expression of what we believe in as a society, the central idea that no-one – rich or poor, young or old – should have to worry about affording good healthcare.

    But this year is also social care’s 70th birthday. The National Assistance Act that abolished the Poor Law and created many of the core elements of the modern social care system came into effect on the same day as the NHS Act.

    The National Assistance Act established a related but different principle: that of shared responsibility for care. Whilst the State has always accepted – and continues to accept – its duty to provide decent care for those unable to afford it – notably for those born with a disability or developing a care and support need early in life – our system has also reflected the principle of personal responsibility for care by individuals and families.

    And the principle of shared responsibility continues to be right and people should continue to expect to contribute to their care in the future as they prepare for later life – but we are clear that there has to be a partnership between the state and individuals.

    But the way our current charging system operates is far from fair. This is particularly true for families faced with the randomness and unpredictability of care, and the punitive consequences that can come from developing certain conditions over others.

    If you develop dementia and require long-term residential care, you are likely to have to use a significant chunk of your savings and the equity in your home to pay for that care. But if you require long-term treatment for cancer you won’t find anything like the same cost.

    So people’s financial wellbeing in old age ends up defined less by their industry and service during their working lives, and more by the lottery of which illness they get. We therefore need a system that includes an element of risk-pooling and, as the Prime Minister promised in the election campaign, we will bring forward ideas as to how to do this alongside their potential costs in the Green Paper.

    Conclusion

    The Green Paper will be published before the summer and will be framed by thinking on the 7 principles that I have set out today:

    quality and safety embedded in service provision

    whole-person, integrated care with the NHS and social care systems operating as one

    the highest possible control given to those receiving support
    a valued workforce

    better practical support for families and carers

    a sustainable funding model for social care supported by a diverse, vibrant and stable market

    greater security for all – for those born or developing a care need early in life and for those entering old age who do not know what their future care needs may be.

    Innovation is going to be central to all of these principles: we will not succeed unless the changes we establish embrace the changes in technology and medicine that are profoundly reshaping our world.

    By reforming the system in line with these principles everyone – whatever their age – can be confident in our care and support system. Confident that they will have control, confident that they will have quality care and confident that they will get the support they need from wider society.

    Let me finish by quoting the words of Fauja Singh, who at a mere 100 years of age became the oldest person ever to complete a marathon: “Anything worth doing”, he said, “is going to be difficult.”

    The path to a long-term settlement for social care, built around a strong social contract, has been equally long and arduous, and there will no doubt be further twists and turns.

    But Britain has a proud pedigree in establishing one of the first comprehensive healthcare systems in the world. Our innate sense of decency, kindness and common humanity will also drive us to the right solution for social care as it has for health.

  • Matt Hancock – 2018 Statement on Cambridge Analytica

    Matt Hancock

    Below is the text of the statement made by Matt Hancock, the Secretary of State for Digital, Media, Culture and Sport, in the House of Commons on 19 March 2018.

    The revelation this weekend of a serious alleged privacy breach involving Facebook data is clearly very worrying. It is reported that a whistleblower told The Observer newspaper that Cambridge Analytica exploited the Facebook data of over 50 million people globally.

    In our increasingly digital world, it is essential that people can have confidence that their personal data will be protected. The Information Commissioner, as the data regulator, is already investigating as part of a broader investigation into the use of personal data during political campaigns. The investigation is considering how political parties and campaigns, data analytics companies and social media platforms in the UK have used people’s personal information to micro-target voters. As part of the investigation, the commissioner is looking at whether Facebook data was acquired and used illegally. She has already issued 12 information notices to a range of organisations, using powers under the Data Protection Act 1998. It is imperative that when an organisation receives an information notice, it must comply in full. We expect all organisations involved to co-operate with this investigation in whatever way the Information Commissioner sees fit. I am sure that the House will understand that there is only so far I can go in discussing specific details of specific cases.

    The appropriate use of data is important for good campaigning. Canvassing someone’s voting intention is as old as democracy itself. Indeed, we do it in the House every day. But it is important that the public are comfortable with how information is gathered, used and shared in modern political campaigns, and it is important that the Information Commissioner has the enforcement powers she needs. The Data Protection Bill, currently in Committee, will strengthen legislation around data protection and give her tougher powers to ensure that organisations comply. The Bill gives her the powers to levy significant fines for malpractice, of up to 4% of global turnover, on organisations that block the investigations by the Information Commissioner’s Office. It will enhance control, transparency and security of data for people and businesses across the country.

    Because of the lessons learned in this investigation and the difficulties the Information Commissioner has had in getting appropriate engagement from the organisations involved, she has recently requested yet stronger enforcement powers. The power of compulsory audit is already in the Bill, and she has proposed additional criminal sanctions. She has also made the case that it has become clear that, in order to deal with complex investigations such as these, the power to compel testimony from individuals is now needed. We are considering those new proposals, and I have no doubt that the House will consider that as the Bill passes through the House.​

    Data, properly used, has massive value, and social media are a good thing, so we must not leap to the wrong conclusions and shut down all access. We need rules to ensure transparency, clarity and fairness, and that is what the Data Protection Bill will provide. After all, strong data protection laws give citizens confidence, and that is good for everyone.

  • Boris Johnson – 2018 Article on Vladimir Putin

    Below is the text of the article written by Boris Johnson, the Foreign Secretary, on 20 March 2018.

    To understand why 3 people lie stricken in Salisbury, look at Vladimir Putin’s actions inside Russia.

    Yesterday he was proclaimed the winner of an election that resembled a coronation, complete with a triumphant ceremony outside the walls of the Kremlin. Mr Putin’s leading opponent had obviously been banned from standing and an abundance of CCTV footage appeared to show election officials nonchalantly stuffing ballot boxes.

    One loyal functionary in Siberia used balloons in Russia’s national colours for the novel function of covering up a prying camera. “A choice without a real competition, as we have seen in this election, unfortunately is not a real choice,” was the verdict of the observer mission from the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).

    As he extends his grip on power, Mr Putin is taking his country in a dangerous direction. Throughout his rule he has eroded the liberties of the Russian people, tightened the screws of state repression and hunted down supposed foes.

    When a leader starts behaving in this way then no-one should be surprised if many of his compatriots feel drawn to the example of countries that observe a different scale of values. They will notice that plenty of nations hold elections where no-one knows the result in advance. They will see how free societies in Europe, America and elsewhere thrive and prosper precisely because people are able to live as they choose, provided they do no harm.

    They will understand how an independent media exposes the failings or evasions of democratic governments. And they will wonder why Russia cannot have the same? Mr Putin cannot give the straight answer, which is that he must deny Russia those freedoms in order to guarantee his perpetual rule. Instead, he has to send an emphatic message that asking awkward questions or turning against him carries a terrible price. Which brings us back to Salisbury. The use of a Russian military grade ‘Novichok’ nerve agent against Sergei Skripal and his daughter, Yulia, was very deliberate.

    As Ken Clarke pointed out in Parliament last week, the obvious Russian-ness of the weapon was designed to send a signal to anyone pondering dissent amid the intensifying repression of Mr Putin’s Russia. The message is clear: we will hunt you down, we will find you and we will kill you – and though we will scornfully deny our guilt, the world will know that Russia did it.

    There was a hint of this in Mr Putin’s first public response to Salisbury. He denied Russia’s culpability – of course – while carefully injecting a note of menace. “If it was military grade agent,” he said, “they would have died on the spot, obviously.”

    Obviously. After all, he had already told state television that traitors would “kick the bucket” and “choke” on their “pieces of silver”. Yet the Kremlin, accustomed to a tame official media, is clearly struggling to get its story straight.

    Since the Skripals and Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey were struck down on March 4, Russian officials and the state media have claimed variously that ‘Novichok’ never existed, or the stockpiles were destroyed, or they weren’t destroyed but mysteriously escaped to other countries.

    Alexander Shulgin, the Russian Ambassador to The Hague, told Sky News: “I’ve never heard about this programme, about this Novichok agent. Never.” But his memory suddenly improved when he appeared on Russia Today and said that Novichok had been developed by the Soviet Union. “There never was such a programme under such a codename in the Russian Federation,” he said. “However, in Soviet times research began to produce a new generation of poisonous substances.”

    This seemed to wrongfoot the Russian foreign ministry, whose spokeswoman, Maria Zakharova, declared on the same day that neither Russia nor the Soviet Union had created Novichok. “This programme is not the creation of Russia or the Soviet Union,” she said, before disgracefully pointing the finger at Sweden, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, America – and inevitably the UK.

    Meanwhile, other Russian officials have sought to conjure doubt and suspicion out of thin air. Alexander Yakovenko, the Russian Ambassador in London, questioned the absence of photographs of the Skripals in their hospital beds.

    His counterpart in Brussels, Vladimir Chizhov, accused Britain of breaking “consular conventions” because Russian officials had not been able to visit the Skripals.

    The response to the 2 envoys is so obvious that I can scarcely believe they require instruction. Sergei and Yulia Skripal have been in a coma since 4 March – as you would expect from victims of a nerve agent attack. They cannot give their consent to be photographed or receive visitors. Under the NHS Code of Practice, hospitals must have their patients’ permission before allowing this to happen.

    And I will make the point as delicately as possible: it is not obvious that the Skripals, of all patients, would welcome a visit from Russian officials. The Russian state is resorting to its usual strategy of trying to conceal the needle of truth in a haystack of lies and obfuscation.

    But when I met my European counterparts in Brussels yesterday, what struck me most is that no-one is fooled. Just about every country represented around the table had been affected by malign or disruptive Russian behaviour. Most had endured the kind of mendacious propaganda onslaught that the UK is experiencing today.

    This is how Mr Putin behaves at home; we should not expect anything different abroad.

  • James Bevan – 2018 Speech on Flood Prevention

    Below is the text of the speech made by Sir James Bevan, the Chief Executive of the Environment Agency, on 20 March 2018.

    A few weeks ago I visited the village of Sea Palling on the Norfolk coast. It was my first time there, and yet when we turned the corner and I saw an old row of houses just behind the huge sand dunes that lead to the beach, I had a moment of powerful déjà vu. I had seen this place before.

    And then I remembered where: in a documentary about the great floods of 1953, when an East Coast storm surge swept down the North Sea and killed over 300 people in Britain. In Sea Palling seven members of the same family died. The documentary I had seen contained a deeply moving moment in which one man, only a boy in 1953, told of the loss of his family in that row of houses at Sea Palling on that terrible day.

    So let us never get too romantic about the sea or our rivers: beautiful they are, and we must cherish and protect them, but when they rise up, they flood. And floods kill.

    The story so far: fifty years of astonishing successes.

    We have come a long way since that dreadful night back in 1953. Those floods were a wake up call for the country.

    In 1953 our flood defences were still primitive and incomplete. The great storm led directly to the construction of the Thames Barrier which today keeps London safe round the clock, and to the building of many other permanent flood defences up and down the country with a much higher standard of protection than ever before. Almost every day in this country, when rivers and tides rise, rain falls and storms blow, thousands of people sleep safely, unaware that they are being protected from flooding by those defences.

    In 1953, most people died because there was no system to warn them of the approaching storm surge. Today there is such a system: together with the Met Office, the Environment Agency runs a cutting-edge flood forecasting service that produces a daily forecast of flood risk for the coming five days for ourselves, the emergency services and local authorities. And when flood does threaten, from rivers or the sea, we warn people in the communities concerned, giving them vital hours in which to act.

    Since the last big floods in 2015 we have further upgraded our response capability. The Environment Agency now has over 6,500 staff trained and ready to deploy to help protect communities when floods threaten; 40km of temporary flood defences, 250 mobile pumps, 500,000 sandbags, 4 Incident Control Vehicles, and drones with real time video. We have built stronger partnerships for incident management, including with the army, with whom we train regularly for the next big flood event. And we have a new philosophy: Think Big, Act Early, Be Visible. That means that we are now deploying more people, more quickly, to more flood incidents than we have ever done before.

    I want to recognise today our great partners – the emergency services, the local authorities, the community volunteer groups and the armed forces, who make our country better protected in the face of the flood. And I want to recognise Environment Agency staff themselves, often the unsung heroes when floods hit, who will always go the extra mile for the people and communities we serve.

    As we have strengthened our capacity to cope with flooding incidents, we have also continued to build new schemes designed to reduce the risk of floods happening. The government is investing £2.6bn in flood and coastal erosion risk management projects between 2015 and 2021, most of them led and delivered by the Environment Agency. By 2021, 300,000 homes will be better protected.

    So as we reflect on how far we have come since 1953, the first thing we should do is celebrate our successes. And then we should sit down and rethink flood defence from first principles. Because what works so well now – and has done in the past – may not be enough in the future. Over the next fifty years, if we are going to give our country the best possible protection against flooding, we are going to need a different approach.

    The future: why we need a new approach

    Why is that? Let me start with some inconvenient truths:

    Inconvenient truth #1: flooding will continue to happen. While we are much better protected now than we were in 1953, we still can’t protect everyone, everywhere, all the time – and in a country like Britain it is unlikely that we will ever be able to do so.

    We are an exposed island in a stormy North Sea, subject to big coastal surges. We have a lot of rivers and a lot of coastline: in England, the Environment Agency manages flood risk on over 36,000 km of river and 9,000km of raised defences on the coast and inland. And as you may have noticed, it rains rather a lot in this country.

    So while we can reduce the risks of flooding, we will never eliminate them. This is not a popular thing to say, in particular to those who are at risk. But we have to deal with the world as it is not as we would like it to be. And if people are at risk, it’s our duty to tell them – and work with them to reduce that risk to the minimum.

    Inconvenient truth #2: the risks are rising. Climate change is driving more extreme weather. By the end of this century, sea level around Britain may have risen by a metre or more. We will be experiencing more violent storms and bigger rainfalls. All that means a greater risk of more, and bigger, floods. Meanwhile development and a rising population means more people will be in harm’s way. Most people in this country already live in cities, and by the end of the century both the proportion and the total numbers of city dwellers will be even higher. And most of our towns and cities are situated on rivers or the coast. So where most of the people live is where most of the risks are.

    Inconvenient truth #3: it’s not just the risks that are rising – the costs of mitigating those risks are also rising. Schemes designed to protect against more extreme rainfall and higher tides will tend to cost more than those which protect us against lesser risks. And flood defences aren’t a one time investment – they need looking after. As we add more defences to our existing schemes, and those schemes start to age, the cost of maintaining all the schemes we have will also rise. The investment is worth it – for every £1 we spend on a flood defence scheme, we usually get back £10 or more of benefits in terms of the costs of damages avoided. But it is a lot of investment, and there are many other calls on public money.

    The future: less concrete, more resilience

    So how should we deal with these challenges?

    More concrete – simply building our flood defences higher and higher – is not the answer. Or rather, it is not enough on its own. There will be places where it does make sense to invest in classic hard defences: the Thames Barrier, for example, will probably need to be replaced by another Barrier, with the associated flood walls, some time after 2070. And there will still be a role for concrete, and other hard defences, as part of many schemes: the successful Pickering scheme, for example, relies both on “soft” natural flood management measures like wood dams and a hard flood storage basin to slow the flow of water down towards the town.

    But in the face of the rising risks and costs, it won’t make sense to go on building ever taller, stronger and more expensive concrete defences as the default solution to flood risk. The engineering won’t work. And the humans won’t put up with it: you can only build a wall so high before people stop wanting to live behind it.

    The future: some principles to guide the debate

    So what is the right formula for managing flood risk over the next 50 or so years? I don’t want to lay out all the answers myself, partly because I don’t have all the answers, but mostly because I want us to develop those answers collectively. Today I want to issue an invitation to all of you, and the organisations you represent, to contribute to this debate.

    But while I don’t want to tell you the answer right now, I do want to suggest some principles that might help guide us towards it; and to identify the sorts of questions we should be asking ourselves.

    So, three principles for how to manage flood and coastal erosion risk in the future:

    First, do it together. Everyone needs to help meet this challenge: government, the Environment Agency, businesses, NGOs, local authorities, the emergency responders, communities, insurance companies, individual householders. All of us have a role to play, including anyone and everyone who lives in an area of flood risk. Many people will say that managing flood risk is the government’s responsibility or the Environment Agency’s responsibility; not theirs. I say that it’s everyone’s responsibility: if you live in an area of flood risk, you need to take some responsibility yourself. You should know whether you are at risk, you should know what you can do to reduce the risk, and you should take the action that you can. The Environment Agency helps make that possible by publishing comprehensive flood maps and guidance for every householder, which will allow you at the click of a mouse to find out whether you are at risk and how to better protect yourself.

    There are many people and communities across England who already do take precisely this approach, many of whom are with us today. I want to salute them, to thank them, and to encourage them to help make more people safer by sharing with other communities the action they’ve taken and the benefits this has brought.

    Second principle for reducing flood risk in future: push all the buttons. We have traditionally concentrated on hard flood defences. In future we will need to do more to reduce the risk before any water hits a flood wall; and more to make us more resilient when it comes over the wall – which it sometimes will. That means working more upstream to reduce the risk of flooding ever happening, and more downstream to ensure that when flooding does occur communities suffer minimum damage and recover with maximum speed.

    And that means taking all the actions available to us. We will need to:

    Prevent people and property being put at flood risk in the first place. There are many things we can do here. One is to ensure the right land use planning. The Environment Agency is a statutory consultee on all major development schemes. We have good relationships with the local planning authorities, and they take our advice 97% of the time. That’s good, but 100% would be even better. Another powerful intervention we can make is to help farmers farm in ways that don’t increase, and preferably reduce, flood risk. The government’s proposal that after we leave the EU we will have an agricultural policy that pays farmers public money for public goods, including reducing flood risk, is a great opportunity here.

    Protect communities at risk with a more flexible mix of hard defences (flood walls, sea defences) and soft solutions such as natural flood management.

    Respond even quicker and better when floods threaten, by continuing to improve our preparations, forecasting, warning and managing incidents.

    Recover more quickly after a flood, repairing the damage, restoring the infrastructure and rebooting the local economy.

    Adapt our homes, businesses and cities so that we reduce the damage that floods can do, making our homes, businesses, infrastructure and services more resilient.

    Accept that there will be some flooding of land and some coastal erosion. We will need to make more space on land for flood water, otherwise much of it will end up in people’s homes. And on the coast, while we will want to hold the line against erosion wherever that is possible, affordable and desirable, we have to recognise that in places it won’t be. So where there is no realistic prospect of stopping coastal erosion we will need to continue to pursue managed retreat.

    The future: asking the hard questions

    Third and final principle: think the unthinkable. If we are going to do the best we can for the communities we serve, we need to ask the tough questions:

    How much flooding is the country really prepared to tolerate, and (another way to ask the same question) how much is it prepared to invest to reduce the risk?

    I sometimes hear the argument that the Dutch take flooding seriously and we don’t, that they have made their country flood-proof and we should too. I have huge respect for the Dutch, and I do think there is much that we can learn from them. But England is not the Netherlands. The Dutch spend roughly the same as the UK on flood and coastal risk management, and nearly three times as much as we do as a proportion of their GDP. But their flood risk is existential: 2/3rds of their country’s GDP is below sea level and if the sea defences breach, much of their country will flood, so they simply cannot allow that to happen. And the level of protection they have is achievable and affordable because of the scale on which they are operating: the whole Dutch coastline is only the length of Essex’s.

    What is it exactly that we are trying to protect? Our current policy focuses on protecting houses. That’s an approach which everyone will understand and support. But the consequence is that most investment in flood defence currently goes to towns not rural communities, and that we don’t focus as much on protecting other assets – infrastructure, utilities, farmland. Should we change that? If so, how should we weight the balance in future?

    Who pays for flood defence? At the moment the bulk of the money that goes into flood risk management comes from the government, which means the taxpayer. Some argue that this is unfair, because it means that people who don’t live in an area of flood risk are effectively subsidising those who do; and bad policy, because it effectively incentivises people to stay in areas of flood risk when we should be incentivising them to leave; and that therefore people who choose to live in an area of flood risk should pay for their own flood defence. Personally, I don’t agree with that: I think that we are all citizens of this country, and we all have a duty to support each other in the face of whatever threats different communities face. The argument also fails to recognise that flood defences benefit those outside the flood plain as well as those in it, because they prevent the economic harm caused by flooding, which affects the country as a whole.

    Where I do think the iconclasts have a point is in saying that the government should not bear all or most of the funding burden of protecting the country from flood.

    Businesses, for example, benefit hugely from flood risk alleviation schemes, even though they normally don’t pay for them. If you are a big supermarket, your business model depends on your customers being able to get to you and being able to keep your lights and refrigeration on. If the roads are flooded and the power is out neither of those things are possible. So I do think we should be asking businesses, and others who benefit directly or indirectly from flood defence schemes, to contribute to their funding.

    The more funding that others – businesses, local authorities, community groups, NGOs – can contribute to the cost of flood defences, the more money we’ll have and the better our defences will be. And the more funders we have for a flood scheme, the greater the local ownership, the higher the levels of engagement in helping design the scheme, and the better the final result.

    One more question to reflect on: in future, do we want to defend every inhabited location, or should we consider permanently moving some communities which are at the highest risk? There are places on the coast and on some of our major rivers which are already costing millions of pounds a year to defend, and those costs will only rise over the coming decades. Some argue that it would be cheaper and safer to move the houses and the people than to carry on defending them where they are. I’m not saying we should do that: I know how important place and community are to people. I am saying we should be prepared to have the debate.

    So here’s my core message: our country is better protected now than ever against flooding; but 20th century methods won’t suffice for the 21st century challenges; which means that to meet those challenges, we will need to develop a different approach to flood defence in this country, building on all that we have already achieved.

    We in the Environment Agency will be doing some hard thinking of our own on the future, in the new National Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Strategy which we are now developing. In drawing this up we will want to consult the widest possible set of stakeholders.

    So let’s look for the answers together, and let’s not be afraid to ask ourselves the difficult questions. That might be uncomfortable. But we owe it to future generations. And we owe it to the lost citizens of Sea Palling.

  • Liam Fox – 2018 Speech on Britain and America

    Below is the text of the speech made by Liam Fox, the Secretary of State for International Trade, on 16 March 2018.

    Welcome.

    It’s a pleasure to be here at Thomson-Reuters with our close friends at British American Business – an organisation whose very existence is testament to the close and enduring ties between our 2 countries.

    And, as always, it’s great to be in the United States, a country with which the United Kingdom has so much in common and shares such a strong and enduring bond.

    If you read some sections of the international press, it might seem as though the UK is entering an economic meltdown, with uncertainty around the Brexit process driving commerce and investment away from our shores.

    It is an interesting hypothesis, but unfortunately for those commentators, one refuted by simple facts.

    In 2017, we saw the highest level of foreign direct investment projects landing in the United Kingdom in our history – hardly the hallmark of an economic slowdown.

    This was matched by an increase of some 14% in the value of our exports.

    In the year to October 2017 some £617 billion of British goods and services were sold overseas, narrowing the UK’s trade deficit by just under £11 billion.

    Partly as a result of this improved export performance, order books for British manufacturers are stronger than at any time since August 1988.

    We also saw a continued explosion of interest in British tech and innovation.

    The UK boasts some 58,000 technology firms. In the last year, more venture capital was invested in London than in Germany, France, Spain and Ireland combined.

    All of this adds up to an extremely positive picture for the British economy – an economy that already boasts record employment levels.

    Many of these are down to the record number of new investment projects that I mentioned earlier.

    These have contributed almost 108,000 new and safeguarded jobs to the UK employment market in 2016/17.

    My Department for International Trade regularly surveys the largest foreign direct investors in the UK economy.

    The fundamental reasons they give for investing in the country are always the same.

    We have a highly skilled workforce, produced by some of the world’s finest universities.

    We have a low tax, well regulated economy which fosters innovation and supports tech start-ups, and we have world-renowned legal system and protections for intellectual property.

    Like you, we speak English. We are in the right time zone to trade with the Asia in the morning and the United States in the afternoon.

    Those tech companies I mentioned earlier are reassured by our robust intellectual property laws – fundamentally, companies across the world trust the UK to protect their investments.

    Our success does not, of course, mean that there won’t be challenges ahead. And I appreciate that firms often crave continuity, and Brexit of course represents a break with the past.

    But the referendum result was not a signal of impending insularity.

    Rather, it was driven by the democratic principle that laws governing your life should be made in your own country, by people you have elected – a principal that you, our American cousins well understand.

    So I want to inject a note of reassurance and optimism. Britain is not turning away from the world. We are not turning away from Europe either – or the economic, political or personal bonds that have evolved over centuries.

    All we are doing is leaving the European Union.

    Brexit will open far more doors for Britain than it closes. For the first time in more than 4 decades, we will have an independent trade policy, that we can shape to meet the needs of our businesses, and those of our partners operating on UK soil.

    It is a once-in-a-generation opportunity for the UK to tap into the changing realities of global trade and ensure our future prosperity.

    In 2006, around 60% of the UK’s exports went to other EU countries. By 2020, this is predicted to fall below 40%.

    Cooperation and alignment will continue where necessary, but we should also strengthen our ties to our most important global trading partners, including the United States.

    The UK intends to be a global champion of trading freedoms, working both unilaterally and within international bodies such as the WTO to erode and remove barriers to trade.

    Free trade is fundamentally beneficial to mankind. And there’s a good reason for us to believe this.

    Both our countries have benefited enormously from open, capitalist economies. We are standing in one of the greatest cities on earth – built on the back of business, commerce and trade.

    The core insight of capitalism is that competition drives improvement and if competition is so good, why would you stop it at your border?

    History tells us that, when we trade more and welcome competition, we find that we all benefit –individuals, companies and countries.

    It benefits us as consumers to get more choice.

    It benefits industry as a whole – competition encourages innovation.

    And it has wider benefits. Britain and the United States have the world’s 2 largest foreign aid programmes.

    But as generous as they are, free markets have lifted more people out of poverty than every aid programme and charity combined.

    According to the World Bank the years 1981 to 2011 witnessed the greatest reduction in poverty in human history – it is no accident that those were the years when China opened-up and the Soviet Union fell.

    Of course, free trade does not mean trade without rules. It is entirely legitimate for states to take measures to protect against unfair dumping from abroad – we’re currently taking a Trade Bill through Parliament that will protect our ability to do just that.

    But in the long run, it is better for everyone involved if we resolve disputes multilaterally – that’s why we called for the G20 meeting in November at which this issue was discussed.

    We look forward to continuing to work closely with the United States and our allies around the world for co-operation on issues of mutual concern.

    Make no mistake – trade with America is one of Britain’s top priorities. How could it not be, when America is our single largest export market? Exports to America are twice those to Germany, our next largest market.

    That is why we are investing so much effort here: my department, the Department for International Trade, has staff in 11 locations across the United States.

    We are making as a government, up to $7 available billion in export finance for companies trading here.

    And we are working closely with the American government.

    Our joint Trade and Investment Working Group has been discussing issues such as encouraging small business exports, the technical transfer of existing EU-US agreements, and cooperation on financial regulation. It will hold its third meeting later this month.

    And we’re partnering on technology. American firms will be crucial to the success of a future British spaceport, and we are following up this month’s successful multilateral space forum by sending teams to major industry events such as the Space Symposium in Colorado Springs.

    In September we signed our first ever Science and Technology agreement, which began with us putting £65 million into a project at South Dakota to explore the physics of the early universe.

    So Britain is not turning inwards. We will have an independent voice at the World Trade Organization, and we will use that voice to push for more trade, more openness and a deeper and stronger liberal trading system.

    We will continue to have areas of policy where our interests coincide with the EU but we need to be free to pursue our own national interests where they differ.

    And because we believe in free trade, our interests are not in opposition to other countries – trade is not a zero-sum game.

    Open trade with Britain is in America’s interests and we have hundreds of billions invested in each other’s economies, maintaining jobs across both our nations.

    British companies create more jobs in America than firms from any other nation. In fact, UK companies employ over a million people in America and US companies employ over a million people in the UK.

    Trade and investment flows benefit both countries, I believe that politicians and business leaders in America appreciate this fact, judging by the number of positive comments about UK trade from members of Congress from both parties that I met yesterday in Washington.

    As you would expect, one of the reasons I’m in the US is to talk about steel. We are, of course, disappointed by the recent decision to raise import taxes on steel and aluminium.

    And this is an issue the Prime Minister and I have both discussed with the administration on a number of occasions.

    I am confident that, together, we will find a solution that reflects the reality of the strong national security and trade relationship that exists between the UK and the United States, and indeed between the wider EU and the United States. A solution that preserves the economic, commercial and security interests of us all.

    My department is helping to emphasise to political leaders across the US just how valuable those mutual interests are.

    Last year we published an analysis of the importance of UK trade to every single congressional district.

    For example, in the New York Tri-State area including Pennsylvania goods exports to the UK are worth approximately $7.8 billion a year.

    Service exports to the UK are approximately $15.1 billion.

    And 1,873 UK companies employ around 224,000 American citizens.

    To put it simply, our economic relationship is invaluable.

    The commercial bonds between the US and the UK are strengthened by cultural and personal ties.

    800,000 of our citizens live in each other’s countries.

    We speak the same language, almost – remember that there’s no other country America can trade with that has as many native English speakers as the UK.

    We are one of the few major economies to use the same legal system as you, or vice versa depending on your view of history. That makes things easier when you choose to invest.

    But it’s important we maintain those links – we cannot afford to let them atrophy under any circumstances, politics or economics.

    That is why I am here this week. And that is why I’d like to thank British American Business for all the work you and your members do to cultivate these vital links.

    Britain and America are an outstanding partnership, and what we have done together has truly shaped the world.

    Thank you.

  • John Glen – 2018 Speech to Innovate Finance Global Summit

    Below is the text of the speech made by John Glen, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, to the Innovate Finance Global Summit on 19 March 2018.

    Fantastic to see entrepreneurs, the giants of tech and finance, and the emerging players in FinTech under one roof…

    …to celebrate the success of UK FinTech…

    …and chart a future for the industry.

    But we don’t need to navigate too far from our shores to witness how far we have come.

    As a former Heritage Minister, I can see this link between our past, however ancient, and the present.

    We should walk over to Bloomberg’s new headquarters at Queen Victoria Street…

    …and admire the 405 Roman tablets found during its construction.

    My favourite is an old promissory note detailing the payment of 105 denarii from Tibillus to Gratus – which is now the earliest dated document found in Romain Britain.

    The irony that this was an ancient financial contract found in the heart of London…

    …on a tablet, roughly the size of an iPad…

    …didn’t escape anyone in the City!

    As it always has been: the fulcrum of our financial future is right here – in London, and across the UK.

    All of you are the levers – moving in tandem (and in healthy competition!) – to oil the engines of growth.

    The world is changing so quickly that it would be an act of hubris to predict anything.

    But one thing feels certain: you will all play a role in shaping that future.

    Because FinTech will continue to transform the way we live our lives.

    I’m very pleased to be here at IFGS kicking off UK FinTech week…

    … a week packed full of great events from Edinburgh, Leeds, the University of Durham, the London Stock Exchange, the FCA and the Treasury’s own International FinTech Conference…

    … I wouldn’t be doing my job unless I told you there is time for investors to register for this great event…

    … an opportunity to hear from the Chancellor and other global leaders…

    …about all we are doing to make the UK a great place to invest.

    I would like to thank Innovate Finance – at the epicentre of the FinTech ecosystem – for doing such a great job in supporting this mandate.

    This event is FinTech in microcosm…passion, drive, and ingenuity distilled into two days.

    It is only right that the sector is brimming with confidence – the UK is the best place in the world for FinTech…

    …and as Economic Secretary my mandate is to ensure it remains as such.

    Today I have two intentions…

    …first, to celebrate our status as a leading global FinTech hub…

    …the second is to look at how we remain the leading global FinTech hub.

    We are a leading FinTech hub

    I hear rumblings from across the Channel that President Macron is looking to drag you all over to Paris. And I understand why – it’s a great city. So, hop on a Eurostar, enjoy a weekend away, stock up on croissants etc. Then come on back to London on Monday morning to carry on making money/go back to work/crack on as you have been

    … because President Macron can’t argue against hard truths: that the FinTech sector is estimated to be worth over £6 billion to the UK economy…

    …generating a staggering 60,000 jobs across 1,600 firms…

    …a greater number than work in New York’s FinTech sector, or in the combined FinTech workforce of Singapore, Hong Kong and Australia.

    And London has been independently verified by Deloitte as Europe’s best city to launch a FinTech firm.

    They said of London: “it has “the ‘fin’ of New York, the ‘tech’ of the U.S. West Coast … all within a 15-minute journey on public transport”.

    For the pundits – the economic case for supporting UK FinTech is compelling.

    2017 was the best year on record for venture capital investment in UK FinTech.

    It saw £1.3bn invested – spanning 224 deals, representing a 153% increase on 2016.

    54% of this funding came from abroad: a strong, international, vote of confidence.

    This is not by accident but by design – we have the talent, the minds, the markets, and the regulatory and tax environment.

    And the UK is now in the enviable position of being the global leader in FinTech.

    We don’t want to shift gears, or resort to complacency – but keep up the momentum, and remain the global leader.

    What will this position of sustained global leadership look like? What are the ingredients to make this a reality?

    I can think of three: competition, capital, and connectivity.

    Competition

    I strongly believe that the free market is the key to create wealth and fuel innovation.

    Driven by this compelling economic logic, the government champions robust market competition.

    So we welcome innovation in the delivery of financial services that promotes competition.

    And we know that government has a role to play in supporting a competitive environment…

    …and we fully embrace our position as a partner of British enterprise and of FinTech.

    But government backing is not, and should not be a blunt or misdirected instrument.

    Our regulators also appreciate this: which is why they rank amongst the most robust in the world….

    …because the economy moves rapidly, so we need regulators to keep up and move at pace.

    Take the explosion of growth in crypto-assets.

    While the pipeline of opportunity presented by the underlying technology is immense, crypto-assets (such as Bitcoin) may pose risks.

    So in our upcoming Fintech Sector Strategy, the government will announce further work with the FCA and Bank of England to consider these issues in more detail.

    And more generally, policies have been implemented to intelligently support the environment in which FinTech operates.

    The FCA has risen to this challenge, setting up Project Innovate and the Regulatory Sandbox, seen as the global gold standard in terms of support for FinTech by a regulator.

    In 2015 the government also established the Payment Systems Regulator – the first of its kind worldwide – with statutory objectives to promote competition and innovation in payment systems.

    Government is in the privileged position to ensure that firms have both the right incentives, and the right environment to deliver cheaper, better products to consumers.

    Capital

    The firms you represent are the future: the digital economy is growing faster than the wider economy. Which is why this government is backing you to the hilt.

    At Autumn Budget 2017, the government launched a 10-year action plan to unlock over £20 billion to finance growth in innovative firms.

    This includes a commitment to support new technologies…

    …improving the domestic skills pipeline by expanding the range of technical education opportunities…

    …and overhauling the UK’s digital infrastructure, including rolling out our first 5G networks.

    But we’re not just helping companies get off the ground. We want to help you build your businesses into the sky.

    Since 2010, the government has reduced the rate of corporation tax from 28% to 19% today, the lowest in the G20.

    And we have legislated for corporate tax rate to fall further, to 17% in 2020.

    You will be able to keep more of what you earn, and invest more in yourselves to stay ahead of the pack.

    We are doubling annual investment limits in EIS and VCTs for knowledge-intensive companies, and their investors.

    We also know that it’s important that companies continue to evolve and stay ahead of the competition.

    So since 2013, we have doubled the generosity of R&D tax credits for SMEs.

    We are backing this up with direct support: since 2016, we have announced £7bn of investment in science and innovation.

    Connectivity

    Despite the strides made, FinTech is not “done” – we are very much at the start of this story.

    My priority is to ensure that FinTech continues to function in a way that works for all – and delivers benefits across society…

    …as a force for positive change right across the UK.

    FinTech has enormous potential to transform financial inclusion…

    …through the democratic power of information and universal connectivity.

    This connectivity is the natural by-product of such a dynamic ecosystem…

    …by expanding access to the unbanked and the underserved…

    …and unlocking invaluable support to people up, down, and across this country.

    FinTech is a route to ensure that this happens – by helping people make the most out of their money.

    Open Banking is a clear next step in this endeavour.

    It empowers customers to make the most of their data, sharing it with FinTechs, giving them access to a better range of tailored products.

    It opens the door to cheaper and more easily available loans for small businesses by making it easier for them to shop-around for deals.

    The government has also launched the Rent Recognition Challenge.

    Millions of families living in rented accommodation in Britain today are not getting access to credit.

    That is because, currently, a history of meeting your rent payments on time is not reflected in your credit score, and is not taken into account when you come to apply for a loan, such as a mortgage.

    The Treasury’s Challenge was designed to tackle this problem.

    It offers a £2m prize fund to UK FinTechs, to develop new solutions enabling tenants to collect their rental data, and share it with lenders and credit reference agencies.

    Today I am please to announce the six winners:

    Bud – a financial network allowing users to interact with all their finances in one place

    Canopy – a deposit-free renting service

    Credit Ladder – the UK’s first tenant rent reporting service for the private rental sector

    META Labs – who focus on harnessing digital data to support decision making

    Movem – a digital passport for tenant referencing

    RentalStep – a rental platform helping tenants boost their credit scores

    Conclusion

    Government has an important role to play in fostering a strong, enduring and competitive FinTech sector.

    But if Britain is going to continue to lead the way forward in world FinTech – it is ultimately down to you…

    …the companies, the universities, financial services firms, investors, accelerators.

    Collaboration and cooperation will be vital in bring further innovation to fruition.

    We won’t be resting on our laurels…

    …because that’s one of the things about this industry…

    …you have to keep moving, and you have to keep improving.

    I often hear it said that necessity is the mother of invention.

    But I challenge this…because it seems to me that our modern economy has exceeded the bounds of this proverb.

    If necessity powers invention, how then do we explain the explosion of creation…

    …that has come from mere curiosity…

    …from questions asked by frustrated minds trapped in the confines of the 9-5…

    …from students dreaming big in university halls?

    It is a sign of our times that invention is no longer birthed by necessity…

    …but by innovation which goes further than any of us thought necessary or possible.

    I look forward to taking this conversation forward with you all.

    Thank you very much.

  • Robert Syms – 2018 Speech on CERN Pensions

    Below is the text of the speech made by Sir Robert Syms, the Conservative MP for Poole, in the House of Commons on 15 March 2018.

    I rise to discuss the UK tax treatment of CERN pensioners, but the subject goes rather wider than purely CERN. I mention CERN only because I have two or three constituents who are quite exercised by recent changes.

    George Osborne brought in a change to do away with the concession whereby people with foreign pensions were taxed on 90% of their income, pushing that up to 100% in 2017-18. That has had a material effect on several of my constituents, but there must be people who worked for a number of organisations who are affected by the tax change when they land pensions back into the United Kingdom. I shall talk a little about CERN, but also about one or two other international organisations, because the more I look into this issue, the more complex it becomes.

    CERN was set up by UNESCO in 1954 as an international organisation, based in Geneva, to carry out fundamental research in high-energy physics. The UK was among its 12 founding members; today, there are 22 member states. The host nations are Switzerland and France, and most of those who work at CERN on a day-to-day basis live in either Switzerland or France, in or around the vicinity of Geneva. CERN served as a model for successful European collaboration, and several similar organisations, working in fields such as space research, have since been created, based on its structure.

    On retiring, CERN staff receive pensions in Swiss francs. They are not ungenerous pensions—some are in six figures—because these people are extremely able, talented scientists who have committed themselves to science. CERN staff can either stay in one of the host states or move elsewhere. Many member states offer favourable tax treatment to attract such staff to their country. They range from Austria, which allows CERN staff to retire tax-free, to Spain, Malta and Sweden, where low rates have been negotiated, typically in the order of 10%.

    The UK never gave any kind of special privileges to CERN retirees, but there was provision under our tax law that 90% of foreign pensions would be taxed. If someone is on a six-figure pension and the first £8,000 or £10,000 is disregarded, bringing them down in all the various tax brackets, that concession is worth having. CERN pensioners, who are particularly bright, have to decide where they are going to land themselves and their families when they have finished working. Many wish to move back to the UK, and they previously saw the UK Government’s more modest concession as attractive enough for them to retire to places such as Poole.

    I make one very important point about CERN pensioners: they have not benefited from UK tax concessions in any way. They do not get the 25% tax-free cash payment that a UK taxpayer gets. Effectively, they have earned their pension by working abroad for an international organisation in which we have a big interest. They have come back to the UK and then been given a slightly better tax position, probably in recognition of ​the fact that many people who have foreign pensions do not benefit from the reduced rate available to those who contribute to pensions in this country.

    Pensioners of other international organisations that are similar to CERN do receive special concessions from the UK Treasury. I understand that there are organisations that represent those who have worked for the UN, or its various agencies, and that discussions are going on about the appropriate rate. I also know that there are discussions about pensioners from the World Bank. A number of European organisations work under similar terms and conditions as CERN. Known as the co-ordinated organisations, they include: the Council of Europe; the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts; the European Space Agency; the European Organisation for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites; the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation; and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. The International Service for Remunerations and Pensions, which is based in Paris, is responsible for the pay and rations of all those bodies. As I understand it, the civil servants who work for these co-ordinated organisations are taxed on only 50% of their salaries.

    There are therefore examples of concessionary rates for organisations in which Britain participates, and my constituents have a very simple request: if the UK Treasury is not going to tax them on 50% of their income, which I somehow doubt that it will, they wish to go back to the 90% rate with which they were happy. Many decided to move back to the United Kingdom on the basis of that proposition. I stress that, because some of the pensions are high, over 20 years, the amount in question represents probably a couple of million pounds’ worth of sterling. We should bear in mind that the money is landed back in the UK in Swiss francs, and that it is not only taxed but spent in the United Kingdom.

    There is actually a very strong economic argument for making a pitch to people with good international salaries to come back to the UK to retire in order to feed the very important column that is UK invisible earnings. My constituents thought that they would be taxed at only 90%, but feel that the rules have changed, so they would like the UK Government to reconsider.

    When I asked the House of Commons Library what happened to civil servants who retired from the EU, I was told very politely that the EU taxed them and kept the money. I am very surprised that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs—it must be letting the side down—does not have any say over EU civil servants who retire back to the UK. I suspect that that is one of those fine points of detail that will be dealt with in the withdrawal negotiations. If those people were given a preferential arrangement, I would be extremely surprised if the UK Government were to change that and make those people’s pensions taxable at 100%.

    This complex area involves a number of tax treaties and several international organisations, all of which operate to a different range of rules. My essential point is that a few of my constituents who worked hard in the scientific sector and earned good pensions thought that they had a proposition that meant that they were taxed at 90%, but now feel somewhat aggrieved that the previous Chancellor has pushed their rate up to 100%. As I have said, that was not the most generous tax proposition—those of other countries are far more generous—but that rate was attractive enough to get ​these people to move to places such as Poole. I hope that the UK Government will consider the options. Given that this is a complex area, I wonder if the Minister might be willing to meet me and a few CERN pensioners to discuss the matter more fully so that we can get to the bottom of whether they are being treated fairly and reasonably.

    Finally, I congratulate the Minister on taking his post. He is among the Members on these Benches who I always thought was destined for high things. He had to start somewhere, and Economic Secretary to the Treasury is a fine and important post.

  • Boris Johnson – 2018 Comments on the Salisbury Attack

    Below is the text of the comments made by Boris Johnson, the Foreign Secretary, on 19 March 2018.

    Good morning. I have been very heartened already by the strength of the support that the UK is getting in respect of the incident in Salisbury and I think that is partly because they can see that Britain is acting [with] punctilious accordance with our obligations under the Treaty on Chemical Weapons and I would contrast that with how the Russians are behaving.

    Today the technical experts from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons are arriving in the UK to take the samples from Salisbury and in the meantime the Russian denials grow increasingly absurd. At one time they say that they never made Novichok, at another time they say that they did make Novichok but all the stocks have been destroyed. Then again they say that they made Novichok but all the stocks have been destroyed but some of them have mysteriously escaped to Sweden or at the Czech Republic or Slovakia or the United States – or even – America, or the United Kingdom.

    I think what people can see is that this is a classic Russian strategy of trying to conceal the needle of truth in a haystack of lies and obfuscation. And what really strikes me talking to European friends and partners today is that 12 years after the assassination of Alexander Litvinenko in London they are not fooling anybody anymore. There is scarcely a country around the table – here in Brussels – that has not been affected by some kind of malign or disruptive Russian behaviour and that is why I think the strength and the resolve of our European friends is so striking today. Thank you very much.