UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: 2018

  • Mike Penning – 2018 Speech on Hemel Hempstead Urgent Care

    Below is the text of the speech made by Sir Mike Penning, the Conservative MP for Hemel Hempstead, in the House of Commons on 13 March 2018.

    First, may I say what a privilege it is to have secured this Adjournment debate this evening, and how proud I am of my constituents who for so many years have been fighting the changes and particularly the cuts to healthcare in the Dacorum area where my constituency sits? In particular, I thank Edie and Ron Glatter and the Dacorum Hospital Action Group and its fantastic chair Betty Harris, who is very poorly; they have been fighting this campaign for many years. I also pay tribute to the fantastic work our local BBC radio station, BBC Three Counties, has done over the years, in particular that of the excellent journalist and reporter Justin Dealey; without his work, this debate would probably not have taken place.

    For the national health service to carry on being the world-class service it is today, the public, our constituents, need to have faith not only in the fantastic doctors, nurses and porters and those who run the frontline services, but in the management of our hospitals and health provision. I am sorry to say, however, that the trust and feeling of commitment we need from our health service management in our part of the world are not just broken, but have completely failed.

    I will not go into the history because tonight I want to talk about the urgent care centre, but the history of what has been happening to out-of-hours and urgent care, including A&E, in my constituency has been going on for many years. The previous Labour Administration decided to close the A&E and all acute services at the Hemel hospital after they had already been closed at the St Albans hospital, with all services moved into a Victorian hospital next to a football ground in Watford. We will not dwell on that tonight, however, but will come back to it on another evening.

    As part of the sop to my community, we were given an urgent care centre—24/7, seven days a week, throughout the day and night—and next to it a walk-in GP centre. I was therefore surprised when Ms Fisher, chief executive of the West Hertfordshire Hospitals Trust, phoned me just before Christmas to say that, sadly, the urgent care centre would have to temporarily close on safety grounds at night. I was shocked by that, not least because the A&E in Watford struggles greatly, so the more people we can encourage to use other NHS facilities instead, the better. I said, “This is happening over Christmas which is one of the busy times,” and was told, “Don’t worry, Mr Penning, it’s only a temporary thing and we’ll have it open again just after Christmas.” They then put out a press release headed “Temporary overnight closure of Hemel Hempstead Urgent Care Centre”. Interestingly, that press release is still on their website today. I actually printed it off before I came into the Chamber this evening. As I go through my comments, Members will realise just how false that statement was.

    One of my constituents then contacted Three Counties Radio, and Justin Dealey, its excellent reporter— acquired an interview with the said Ms Fisher, the chief executive of West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust. It was quite a long interview, in which Ms Fisher indicated:

    “This is a short-term measure which is us acting in the interest of patient safety because, for the next few weeks over the festive period, we are unable to secure GP cover.”

    I think most people would understand that, but not if they knew that the GPs were working in the room next door. But that is a separate issue. Justin went on to suggest that surely Ms Fisher understood that local constituents would have real concerns, and asked her whether she would be concerned if she lived in the area. She said:

    “I completely understand their concerns, but what I want to reassure the residents of Hemel is that if there were to be any permanent change it would be our absolute intention to include people fully”

    in that decision. She went on to say that

    “legally we would be obliged to consult for a permanent change of that nature.”

    That press release was issued not before Christmas this year but in December 2016. We have had no night provision at all in Hemel since then. Everybody has to go for urgent treatment to Watford A&E. Alternatively, they have to dial 111, which is an excellent service, but after they have been triaged they apparently get sent to Watford A&E. Watford has just come out of special measures, and I praise the work that has been done at the hospital but there is still a lot more to be done.

    Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP) I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I sought his permission to intervene on him beforehand. He is outlining very well the issue with the Hemel Hempstead urgent care centre. Does he agree that, although there is immense staffing pressure, closing or scaling back on urgent care units and minor injury units only adds to the pressure on A&Es? There must be more investment in these mid-level centres if we are to prevent the A&Es from crumbling under the weight of the work they have to do.

    Sir Mike Penning I clearly agree with my hon. Friend. It was kind of him to come and tell me that he wanted to intervene on me on behalf of other parts of the country that are facing similar pressures.

    This was not about money. Normally, when our constituents come to talk to us, especially about the health service, it is about money. They tell us that they are really concerned that there is not enough money to provide the services, but on this occasion we were told that this was nothing to do with money. It was to do with the contractual problem with the GPs. We kept on asking what was going to happen, and then—completely out of the blue and still without consultation—we were told that the Government had said that there should be no more urgent care centres and that they should become urgent treatment centres instead. I was repeatedly told that it was the Government saying that this should be done. I asked whether the Government had said that the centre should not be open 24/7. I was told no, but that we had to move to being an urgent treatment centre. In the past couple of weeks, the unit has changed from being an urgent care centre to being an urgent treatment ​centre. Interestingly enough, that means that paramedics and nurse practitioners are running the facility, and in many cases—without being rude to our GPs—they have more skills than a basic GP. I have to declare an interest, in that I was a military paramedic, so I am slightly biased about these things.

    But was there a consultation before that decision was made, not just to close the UCC but to change to a UTC? No, there was not, even though it is a legal requirement to have one. We are now in a consultation, however. I could not believe it when I first heard this, but I have now heard from several constituents that in the actual meetings that took place—not when people were writing in—when different plans and options were being put to my constituents, a member of the clinical commissioning group staff was at the table trying to convince the public what sort of option they should go for. If we are going to consult the public, surely we should trust them and then have the confidence to listen to them.

    What I find really fascinating about what is happening in my part of the world is that people from nowhere near my constituency—from the other side of Watford—are being consulted. They would never come to my facility in a million years—unless they just happen to be in the area—but they apparently have the same rights in this consultation as my constituents, who are again losing facilities hand over fist. Those other views are being taken into consideration because they happen to be part of the trust area. My constituents just scratch their heads and say, “This is illogical.” This facility, even though it is part of the NHS and anybody could come to it, is obviously being used by the largest town in Hertfordshire and the other towns and villages within Dacorum. However, I have no problem with the people of St Albans being consulted over this, because they are clearly part of the process.

    Trust has been severely damaged. A highly paid chief executive of an NHS trust went on the radio—telling an MP is one thing, but going public is another—and tells listeners, “This is temporary. Please do not worry; it will all be okay. By the way, if I did actually change the service, that would be illegal because I have not consulted.” Frankly, when they then did not consult—the UCC is quite clearly never going to open again—that breaks the trust.

    I have raised the accountability issue in the House before. It is absolutely right that my good friend the Minister on the Front Bench does not make decisions about what A&Es and UCCs are open and how many beds there should be. Those are quite clearly clinical decisions that should be based on knowledge and demand in the area—that is not what happened when our A&E was closed—but we seem to have moved from one extreme to another. I am told that if we want to challenge the consultation, the only way is to put the decision to judicial review based on the consultation. We tried that when the A&E was closed and we got a judicial review. The judge was generous and said, “You have a moral case, but you probably don’t have a clinical case. You don’t have a case in law, because the consultation was done.” However, if the consultation was a complete sham or did not take place at all, where do we go?

    I have asked Ministers, I have tabled questions and I have been to see the Secretary of State. At the end of the day, who are these people accountable to? I know that ​we can go to the health committees at the local council, but they do not have the powers to say that an individual or a trust has brought the NHS into disrepute, and yet that is what has happened here. Nobody was twisting the chief executive’s arm to go on the radio and say what she said. We all listened to it—I got a transcript the following morning—and I sat with Justin and said, “Well, that’s it, Justin. We’re okay.” I was not at all happy about the facility being closed over the 2016 Christmas period, but at least we knew that GPs were going to be recruited and that we were going to get there.

    However, the exact opposite has happened. We are not getting the GPs back, and now the facility being open 24 hours a day is only one of the options. I know that the Minister’s notes will say how many people used to go to it at night and so on, but half the problem was that it was never properly promoted. There are access issues at the A&E because so many people are turning up and being triaged when a huge percentage of them do not need to be at an A&E but somewhere else within the NHS. I would argue that they should be at a UCC or UTC or that a GP should come out to them, but that is a separate issue because hardly any GPs make home visits in my constituency.

    I know exactly how things work, because I was a Minister for a while and know about the advice that comes down from the trust and the clinical commissioning group, which will say things that are different from what I have said. However, I can honestly say that if there is one issue in my constituency that absolutely unites every political persuasion on my patch, it is the acute health provision in my constituency. We pushed a coffin on a hospital trolley all the way from Hemel Hempstead Hospital to Watford, to indicate that lives would be lost. We had debate after debate with the ambulance service, which said, “Don’t worry, we can get the ambulances there on time.” It probably could, if it rushed them through on a blue light in the middle of the night—if an ambulance was available. Because of the previous Administration’s botching of the regionalisation of the ambulance service, there are often not that many ambulances available, even though the ambulance depot is on my patch.

    People do not want to clog up A&E; they want to have the confidence that there is somewhere safe that they and their kids can go for treatment. We have no idea what the conclusion of this retrospective consultation will be. We have no faith that even if the conclusions are in agreement with what we want, we will actually get it. Not all my constituents agree with me, but in a treatment centre I would rather have a highly qualified paramedic nurse practitioner than—I have to choose my words carefully here—an ordinary GP, simply because the paramedic nurse practitioner has so much experience in that area. That is where the modernisation of the health service has been so brilliant. But after telling me that the decision was not about money, it is, frankly, disgusting to sit people down at consultation meetings and try to convince them that it would be better if the centre was not open 24 hours a day.

    I hope that the Minister understands how passionate we are about the matter. My constituency is 17 minutes from London and it shares a boundary with yours, Mr Speaker. People in the top part of my constituency all go to Luton and Dunstable—quite rightly so; it is an ​excellent facility—and those in the bottom part of my constituency, or anyone who comes off the M1 and the M25, end up going to Watford for their acute care.

    I want Watford General Hospital to succeed. I think the location of the site is completely ludicrous, and we need a new general hospital for the growing population in our part of the world. I know that you have pressures on housing, Mr Speaker, as we have. But I want the houses, because I want people to have somewhere to live—so many families are struggling at the moment—and if we are to build those houses, we need facilities, such as schools and everything else. When my constituents go to bed at night, they need to know that the urgent care centre is open in case something happens; and that if they cannot cope, we can blue-light them to Watford or to Luton and Dunstable.

    I have tried for weeks and weeks to get this Adjournment debate. My hon. Friend the Minister is lucky, because I had been asking for a 60-minute debate in Westminster Hall. We may yet end up there, but that will depend a lot on what he says from the Dispatch Box.

  • Boris Johnson – Statement on Salisbury Attack

    Below is the text of the statement made by Boris Johnson, the Foreign Secretary, on 13 March 2018.

    The first thing is to get over to our friends and partners exactly what has happened, and that’s what we’ve been doing today. As the Prime Minister explained yesterday, this is a brazen attempt to murder people – innocent people – on UK soil. The policeman is still in hospital.

    It’s overwhelmingly likely, or highly likely that the Russian state was involved. And the use of this nerve agent would represent the first use of nerve agents on the continent of Europe since the Second World War.

    Clearly what we’re doing today is giving Russia until midnight tonight to explain how it came to be that Novichok was used on the streets of Wiltshire. If they can come up with a convincing explanation then obviously we will want to see full disclosure of that to the Organisations for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons in The Hague.

    If not, then clearly we will want to be announcing the UK response, and that would come tomorrow. In the meantime, what we’ve been doing is talking to friends and partners, explaining what we see as the high likelihood of Russian State agency.

    I’ve been very encouraged so far by the strength of the support that we are getting. I think in particular from President Macron of France, Sigmar Gabriel, my German counterpart, and from Washington, where Rex Tillerson last night made it very clear that he sees this as part of a pack of increasingly disruptive behaviour by Russia – the reckless use of chemical weapons that stretches from Syria to the streets of Salisbury. I’ve been encouraged by the willingness of our friends to show support and solidarity.

    It’s important that we wait until the deadline has passed. You’ve got to do this correctly. We’ve given the Russians until midnight to explain how the Novichok could have come to be on the streets of Britain. We cannot exclude that they have an explanation and we will want a full disclosure to the chemical weapons watchdog in the Hague. If not, there is a package of measures that we would use.

    It is very important that people understand the gravity of what has happened and the outrage that the British government feels about the use of nerve agents, use of chemical weapons, against innocent members of the public, against an innocent police officer, on UK soil. We will make sure that our response is, as I told the House last week, commensurate but robust.

  • Philip Hammond – 2018 Spring Statement

    Below is the text of the speech made by Philip Hammond, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the House of Commons on 13 March 2018.

    I am pleased to introduce to the House the first spring statement. The UK was the only major economy to make hundreds of tax and spending changes twice a year, and major international organisations and UK professional bodies alike have been pressing for change. In 2016, I took the decision to move to a single fiscal event in the autumn, giving greater certainty to families and businesses ahead of the new financial year and allowing more time for stakeholder and parliamentary engagement on potential fiscal changes.

    Today’s statement will update the House on the economic and fiscal position, report progress on announcements made at the two Budgets last year and launch further consultations ahead of Budget 2018, as I set out today in my written ministerial statement. I will not be producing a Red Book today, but of course I cannot speak for the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell).

    I am pleased to report today to the House on a UK economy that has grown in every year since 2010—an economy that, under Conservative leadership, now has a manufacturing sector enjoying its longest unbroken run of growth for 50 years, that has added 3 million jobs and seen every single region of the UK with higher employment and lower unemployment than in 2010, that has seen the wages of the lowest-paid up by almost 7% above inflation since April 2015 and that has seen income inequality lower than at any time under the last Labour Government. That is solid progress towards building an economy that works for everyone.

    So I reject the Labour party’s doom and gloom about the state of the nation. Every Wednesday, we have to listen to the Leader of the Opposition relentlessly talking Britain down, and every year since 2010 we have had to listen to the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington predict a recession—none of which has actually happened. So if there are any Eeyores in the Chamber, they are on the Opposition Benches; I, meanwhile, am at my most positively Tigger-like.

    As I contemplate a country which faces the future with unique strengths.

    Our language is the global language of business.

    Our legal system is the jurisdiction of choice for commerce.

    We host the world’s most global city, and its international finance and professional services capital.

    Our companies are in the vanguard of the technological revolution.

    While our world-class universities are delivering the breakthrough discoveries and inventions that are powering it.

    British culture and talent reaches huge audiences across the globe.

    And our tech sector is attracting skills and capital from the four corners of the earth.

    With a new tech business being founded somewhere in the UK every hour.

    Producing world-class products including apps like TransferWise, CityMapper,

    And Matt Hancock.

    Mr Speaker.

    Today the OBR delivers its second report for the fiscal year 2017-18.

    And I thank Robert Chote and his team for their work.

    It forecasts more jobs.

    Rising real wages.

    Declining inflation.

    A falling deficit.

    And a shrinking debt.

    The economy grew by 1.7% in 2017, compared to 1.5% forecast at the Budget.

    And the OBR have revised up their forecast for 2018 from 1.4% to 1.5%.

    Forecast growth is then unchanged at 1.3% in 2019 and 20, before picking up to 1.4% in 21 and 1.5% in 22.

    That’s the OBR’s forecast Mr Speaker.

    But forecasts are there to be beaten.

    As a nation, we did it in 2017.

    And we should make it our business to do so again!

    Our remarkable jobs story is set to continue.

    With the OBR forecasting more jobs in every year of this parliament.

    And over 500,000 more people enjoying the security of a regular pay-packet by 2022.

    I am pleased to report that the OBR expect inflation, which is currently above target at 3%.

    To fall back to target over the next 12 months.

    Meaning that real wage growth is expected to be positive from the first quarter of 18-19, and to increase steadily thereafter.

    Mr Speaker.

    I reported in the Autumn that borrowing was due to fall in every year of the forecast.

    And debt to fall as a share of GDP from 2018-19.

    The OBR confirms this today.

    And further revises down debt and borrowing in every year.

    Borrowing is now forecast to be £45.2 billion this year.

    £4.7bn lower than forecast in November.

    And £108bn lower than in 2010 which, coincidentally, is almost exactly the total cost of the additional spending pledges made by the Labour party since the general election in June last year; it has taken them just nine months to work up a plan to squander the fruits of eight years’ hard work by the British people.

    As a percentage of GDP, borrowing is forecast to be 2.2% in 17-18.

    Falling to 1.8% in 18-19, 1.6% in 19-20, then 1.3%, 1.1% and finally 0.9% in ‘22-‘23.

    Meaning that in 18-19 we will run a small current surplus, borrowing only for capital investment.

    And we are forecast to meet our cyclically adjusted borrowing target in ‘20-21 with £15.4bn headroom to spare.

    Broadly as forecast at the Budget.

    Mr Speaker,

    The more favourable outlook for borrowing means the debt forecast is nearly 1% lower than in November.

    Peaking at 85.6% of GDP in 17-18.

    And then falling to 85.5% in 18-19, then 85.1%, 82.1%, 78.3%, and finally 77.9% in 2022-23.

    The first sustained fall in debt in 17 years.

    A turning point in the nation’s recovery from the financial crisis of a decade ago.

    Light at the end of the tunnel, another step on the road to rebuilding the public finances that were decimated by the Labour party. And it is one that Labour would again place at risk, because under Labour’s policies, our debt would not fall over the next five years; it would rise by more than £350 billion to more than 100% of our GDP, undermining our recovery, threatening investment in British jobs, burdening the next generation and wasting billions and billions of pounds more on debt interest. There is indeed light at the end of the tunnel, but we have to make absolutely sure that it is not the shadow Chancellor’s train hurtling out of control in the other direction towards Labour’s next economic train wreck.

    Mr Speaker.

    In Autumn 2016, I changed the fiscal rules to give us more flexibility to adopt a balanced approach to repairing the public finances.

    Reducing debt.

    Not for some ideological reason.

    But to secure our economy against future shocks.

    Because we in the Conservative Party are not so naïve as to think we have abolished the economic cycle.

    Because we want to see taxpayers’ money funding our schools and hospitals, not wasted on debt interest.

    And because we want to give the next generation a fair chance.

    But I do not agree with those who argue that every available penny must be used to reduce the deficit.

    And nor do I agree with the fiscal fantasists opposite who argue that every available penny should be spent immediately.

    We will continue to deliver a balanced approach.

    Balancing debt reduction against the need for investment in Britain’s future.

    Support to hard-working families through lower taxes.

    And our commitment to our public services.

    Judge me by my record, Mr Speaker [political content removed].

    Since Autumn Statement 2016, I have committed to £60 billion of new spending.

    Shared between long-term investment in Britain’s future.

    And support for our public services.

    With almost £9 billion extra for our NHS and our social care system.

    £4bn going into the NHS in 18/19 alone.

    And as I promised at the Autumn Budget.

    More to come if, as I hope, management and Unions reach an agreement on a pay modernisation deal for our nation’s Nurses and Agenda for Change staff.

    Who have worked tirelessly since the Autumn in very challenging circumstances to provide the NHS care that we all value so highly.

    £2.2 billion more on education and skills.

    And £31 billion going to fund infrastructure, R&D and housing through the National Productivity Investment Fund.

    Taking public investment in our schools, hospitals, and infrastructure in this parliament to its highest sustained level in 40 years.

    And at the same time we have cut taxes for 31 million working people by raising the personal allowance again in line with our manifesto commitment.

    Taking more than 4 million people out of tax altogether since 2010.

    Freezing fuel duty for an eighth successive year, taking the saving for a typical car driver to £850 compared with Labour’s plans, and raising the national living wage to £7.83 from next month, giving the lowest paid in our society a well-deserved pay rise of more than £2,000 for a full-time worker since 2015.

    Since becoming Chancellor, I have provided an extra £11 billion of funding for 2018/19.

    To help with short-term public spending pressures.

    And to invest in Britain’s future.

    In the longer term, I can confirm that, at this year’s Budget I will set an overall path for public spending for 2020 and beyond.

    With a detailed Spending Review to take place in 2019.

    To allocate funding between Departments.

    That is how responsible people Budget.

    First you work out what you can afford.

    Then you decide what your priorities are.

    And then you allocate between them.

    And if, in the Autumn, the public finances continue to reflect the improvements that today’s report hints at.

    Then, in accordance with our balanced approach, and using the flexibility provided by the fiscal rules.

    I would have capacity to enable further increases in public spending and investment in the years ahead.

    While continuing to drive value for money to ensure that not a single penny of precious taxpayers’ money is wasted.

    A balanced approach.

    Getting our debt down.

    Supporting our public services.

    Investing in our nation’s future.

    Keeping taxes low.

    Building a Britain fit for the future.

    And an economy that works for everyone.

    Updates since the Budget.

    Mr Speaker.

    There is much still to do.

    Since Autumn 2016 we have set out our plan to back the enterprise and ambition of British business and the hard work of the British people.

    A plan to unleash our creators and our innovators.

    Our inventors and our discoverers.

    To embrace the new technologies of the future.

    And to deliver the skills we will need to benefit from them.

    To tackle our long-standing productivity challenges.

    And to say more loudly than ever that our economy will remain open and outward-looking.

    Confident to compete with the best in the world.

    We choose to champion those who create the jobs and the wealth on which our prosperity and our public services both depend.

    Not to demonise them.

    Mr Speaker,

    The shadow Chancellor is open about his ideological desire to undermine the market economy, which has driven an unparalleled increase in our living standards over the past 50 years. We on the Conservative Benches reject his approach outright.

    The market economy embraces talent and creates opportunity.

    Provides jobs for millions and the tax revenues that underpin our public services.

    So we will go on supporting British businesses.

    We are reducing business rates by over £10 billion.

    And we committed at Autumn Budget 2017 to move to triennial revaluations from 2022.

    Today I am pleased to announce that we will bring forward the next business rates revaluation to 2021 and make the triennial reviews from that date.

    We will launch a Call for Evidence to understand how best we can help the UK’s least productive businesses to learn from, and catch-up with, the most productive.

    And another on how we can eliminate the continuing scourge of late payments – a key ask from small business.

    Because Mr Speaker, we are the champions of small businesses and the entrepreneur.

    Since the Budget, we have made substantial progress in our negotiations with the European Union.

    To deliver a Brexit that supports British jobs, businesses and prosperity.

    And I look forward to another important step forward at the European Council next week.

    But we will continue to prepare for all eventualities.

    And today my RHF the Chief Secretary is publishing the Departmental allocations of over £1.5 billion of Brexit preparation funding for 2018-19 which I announced at the Autumn Budget.

    Our Modern Industrial Strategy sets out our plan to keep Britain at the forefront of new technologies.

    With the biggest increase in public R&D spending for four decades.

    Much of this new technology depends on high-speed broadband.

    And today I can make the first allocations of the £190 million local full fibre challenge fund announced at Autumn Budget and confirm £25 million for the first 5G testbeds.

    As our economy changes, we must ensure that people have the skills they need to seize the opportunities ahead, so we have committed over £500 million a year to T-levels—the most ambitious post-16 reforms in 70 years. From next month, £50 million will be available to help employers to prepare for the roll-out of T-level work placements. Last week the Education Secretary and I chaired the first meeting of the national retraining partnership between the Government, the TUC and the Confederation of British Industry. I can reassure the House that there was no beer and no sandwiches—not even a canapé—but there was a clear and shared commitment to training in order to prepare the British people for a better future ahead. Next month our £29 million construction skills fund will open for bids to fund up to 20 construction skills villages around the country.

    We’re committed as a government to delivering 3 million apprenticeship starts by 2020 with the support of business through the apprenticeship levy.

    But we recognise the challenges the new system presents to some small businesses looking to employ an apprentice.

    So I can announce today that my Right Honourable Friend the Education Secretary will release up to £80 million of funding to support those small businesses in engaging an apprentice.

    We publish a consultation on improving the way the tax system supports self-funded training by employees and the self-employed.

    And because we currently understand more about the economic pay-back from investing in our infrastructure than we do about investment in our people.

    I have asked the ONS to work with us on developing a more sophisticated measure of human capital.

    So that future investment can be better targeted.

    Mr Speaker, we’re undertaking the largest road building programme since the ‘70s.

    As Transport Secretary, I gave the green light to fund the new bridge across the River Mersey in 2011.

    And I was delighted to see it open late last year.

    The largest infrastructure project in Europe, Crossrail, is due to open in just 9 months’ time.

    We’re making progress on our plans to deliver the Cambridge-Milton Keynes-Oxford Corridor.

    We’re devolving powers and budgets to elected mayors across the Northern Powerhouse and Midlands Engine.

    We’re in negotiations for city deals with Stirling and Clackmannanshire, Tay Cities, Borderlands, North Wales, Mid Wales, and Belfast.

    And today we invite proposals from cities across England for the £840 million fund I announced at the Budget to deliver on their local transport priorities.

    As part of our plans to spread growth and opportunity to all parts of this United Kingdom.

    And at the heart of our plan for building an economy that works for everyone is our commitment to tackle the challenges in our housing market.

    With an investment programme of £44 billion to raise housing supply to 300,000 a year by the mid-2020s.

    And today I can update the House.

    We are working currently, with my Right Honourable Friend the Housing Minister, with 44 authorities who have bid into the £4.1 billion Housing Infrastructure Fund, to unlock homes in areas of high demand.

    We are concluding housing deals with ambitious authorities who have agreed to deliver above their Local Housing Need.

    And I can announce today that we have just agreed a deal with the West Midlands to have committed to deliver 215,000 homes by 2030-31, facilitated by a £100 million grant from the Land Remediation Fund.

    And my Right Honourable Friend the Housing Minister will make further announcements on the over the next few days on the Housing Infrastructure Fund.

    We will more than double the size of the Housing Growth Partnership with Lloyds Banking Group to £220 million, to help providing additional finance for small builders.

    And London will receive an additional £1.7 billion to deliver a further 26,000 affordable homes, including homes for social rent, taking total affordable housing delivery in London to over 116,000 by the end of 2021-22.

    Mr Speaker, my Right Honourable Friend for West Dorset has outlined his initial findings on the gap between planning permissions granted and housing completions.

    In a letter which I have placed in the Library of the House.

    And I look forward to his full report at the Budget.

    And I am delighted to inform the House that an estimated 60,000 First Time Buyers have already benefited from the Stamp Duty relief I announced at the Autumn Budget. I remind the House that the Labour party voted against this.

    In the Autumn, we published a paper on taxing large digital businesses in the global economy.

    And today we follow up with a publication that explores potential solutions.

    And I look forward to discussing this issue with G20 Finance Ministers in Buenos Aires at the weekend.

    We also publish a call for evidence on how online platforms can help their users to pay the right amount of tax.

    We will consult on a new VAT collection mechanism for online sales.

    To ensure that the VAT consumers pay actually reaches the Treasury.

    And we will call for evidence, too, on how to encourage cashless and digital payments, while ensuring cash remains available to those who need it.

    Mr Speaker.

    This government is determined that our generation should leave the natural environment in a better state than we found it.

    And improve the quality of the air we breathe.

    So we will publish a call for evidence on whether the use of non-agricultural red diesel tax relief contributes to poor air quality in urban areas.

    And following our successful intervention to incentivise green taxis, we’ll help the Great British White Van driver go green with a consultation on reduced VED rates for the cleanest vans.

    And follow up on the vital issue of plastic littering and the threat to our oceans.

    With a call for evidence to support us in delivering on our vow to tackle this complex issue.

    It will look at the whole supply chain for single use plastics.

    At alternative materials.

    Reusable options.

    And recycling opportunities.

    And it will look at how the tax system can help drive the technological progress and behavioural change we need.

    Not as a way of raising revenue.

    But as a way of changing behaviour.

    And encouraging innovation.

    We’ll commit to investing to develop new, greener, products and processes.

    Funded from the revenues that are raised.

    And as a downpayment Mr Speaker, we’ll award £20m now from existing departmental budgets to businesses and universities, to stimulate new thinking and rapid solutions in this area during the call for evidence.

    Mr Speaker,

    We are delivering on our plan.

    With a balanced approach.

    Restoring the public finances.

    Investing in our economy and our public services.

    Raising productivity through our modern industrial strategy.

    Building the homes our people need.

    Tackling the environmental challenges that threaten our future.

    Embracing technological change, seizing the opportunities ahead.

    As we build our vision of a country that works for everyone.

    An economy where prosperity and opportunity are in reach of all.

    Wherever they live.

    Whatever their gender, colour, creed or background.

    Where talent and hard work alone determine success.

    A beacon of enterprise and innovation.

    An outward looking, free-trading nation.

    One that is confident that our best days lie ahead of us.

    A force for good in the world.

    A country we can all be proud to pass on to our children.

    And, I commend this statement to the House.

  • Damian Hinds – 2018 Speech at Association of School and College Leaders’ Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Damian Hinds, the Secretary of State for Education, at the Association of School and College Leaders’ Conference in Birmingham on 10 March 2018.

    I’m delighted to have this opportunity to speak directly to school and college leaders here at ASCL – two months into the job.

    Secretary of State for Education is a hugely exciting role to be taking on. But I also feel the weight of responsibility, the enormous responsibility of working with this whole sector – the lecturers, the social workers, and, of course, with teachers and with school leaders like yourselves.

    What you and your teams do is one of the highest callings, the noblest of roles, with an impact on our society, far, far into the future.

    In my first couple of months, I have had the opportunity to visit some of our nurseries, schools and colleges in different parts of the country.

    And, everywhere I’ve visited, I have been so struck by the hard work, the care, the imagination shown by teachers and leaders – their dedication to doing the best for their pupils.

    So, I’m going to begin today with a thank you.

    We have, together, been striving harder than ever to make sure every child in this country gets the very best education – so that when they finish their formal education they have the knowledge, the skills and the qualifications that set them up for life, whatever path they take.

    A core part of our approach has been to hand power back to headteachers, because we know you are the ones best placed to make the right decisions for your schools.

    And thanks to your efforts, and to the dedication of teachers across the country, our schools are improving.

    Since 2010, there are now 1.9 million more children attending good or outstanding schools. More children are studying the key subjects that can keep their options most open. And the attainment gap between disadvantaged children and their more affluent peers has shrunk by 10% since 2011.

    Our national curriculum and the new rigorous GCSEs have put England’s system on a par with high performing countries.

    And we will look to keep raising our game, investing in the vital subjects of the future like maths, coding and modern languages; making sure that the next generation is best prepared to face the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead.

    I know that education is, above all, a people business. Syllabus, technology, structures – these things all matter. But ultimately it is about people: the teacher, the head teacher, the lecturer, the support staff.

    There can be no great schools without great teachers. To motivate children, to make knowledge meaningful, to inspire curiosity. The quality of teaching matters more than anything else; and it matters even more for disadvantaged pupils.

    Right now, we have so many brilliant teachers in our schools – the best generation of teachers yet. And my top priority is to make sure this does remain an attractive and fulfilling profession.

    But, with rising pupil numbers, and a competitive employment market, I do recognise that employment and retention are difficult for schools – and it is not getting easier.

    And, clearly, one of the biggest threats to retention, and also to recruitment, is – as Geoff (Geoff Barton, ASCL general secretary) says – on workload.

    Too many of our teachers, and our school leaders, are working simply too long hours – and too often on tasks that the evidence shows are not helping children to learn.

    We need to get back to the essence of successful teaching; strip away the workload that doesn’t add value and give teachers the time and the space to focus on what actually matters. Trust teachers to teach. That’s in the interests of teachers but it is also in the interests of children.

    As Geoff has set out you, as leaders of your schools, you have the power to drive real change. You are the ones who can help to meet this challenge directly and it is, ultimately, your actions that will make the most difference.

    But I fully understand that you don’t operate in a vacuum, you react to, you respond to, you operate in the context and climate around you. And two of the most powerful forces in shaping that environment are the Government and Ofsted.

    When I talk to teachers one thing I sometimes hear is this question: are we actually all on the same side?

    And that’s why I was so keen that today you would see up here Amanda (Amanda Spielman, Chief Inspector for Schools), Geoff and me together, standing together. Because we are all on the same side, and we all need to take collective ownership of the workload burden on schools.

    Now I do realise, of course, that I am not the first person to talk about this – I’m not the first person probably to stand here and talk about this.

    A lot of work has already taken place, and including in your schools.

    But, clearly, we need to go further.

    The issue of teacher workload is not new. It is one of the great unsolved issue in schools for well over a decade.

    Eight years ago, just before I became an MP for the first time and before the change in government in 2010, I spent a week in a secondary school in my constituency. Now you could make the very legitimate criticism that it wasn’t a typical school and it’s absolutely true that my constituency is a relatively affluent area.

    But this was a comprehensive intake, local authority maintained secondary school.

    I learnt a lot there. I learnt a lot in that week.

    Now I know in the intervening years a lot has changed. But I am also struck by what hasn’t changed in those intervening years; what I hear in schools today, compared to what I heard then, before the change in government in 2010.

    And one of the things that hasn’t changed is how often the subject of workload can come up in conversation.

    Teachers then were also having to spend too much time on non-teaching tasks out of proportion to how much those things would help children improve.

    So as we all know, it isn’t a problem with a quick fix.

    It is not as simple as going around searching for bits of bureaucracy that day by day you can cross off.

    It is a deep-seated, endemic issue and multiple forces play a part in it – and I want to go through some of those now.

    First, I do want to acknowledge the government’s part in this – because the pace of change has been fast these past 8 years, as indeed, to be fair, it was pretty quick in many of the preceding years as well.

    These changes have been important and necessary and we are now seeing their positive impact. As I’ve said, schools and teachers have risen remarkably to the challenge and raised standards. But I recognise that you now need a period of greater stability.

    That is why – beyond those changes already announced and which are working their way through the system – apart from those, for the rest of this parliament there will be:

    – No new additional statutory tests or assessment for primary schools;

    – No further changes to the national curriculum; and

    – No more reform of GCSEs and A levels.

    I will also look at the accountability system and how it can drive unnecessary workload.

    I know that the current accountability regime can feel very high stakes for school leaders – and this does then filter down to all staff.

    Now, I don’t think anybody can argue that we should dispense with accountability – it is crucial. And we must continue to hold schools to high standards – because children only get one chance at their education and they deserve the best.

    But I’m also clear accountability must also lead to the right support, at the right time.

    I want the default assumption to be firmly and increasingly about effective support for headteachers, so that they can receive the tailored help they need to help turn their schools around and move them further forward.

    I also know that schools can at times feel accountable to multiple masters, and even subject to multiple ‘inspections’. That is why I will be making a statement – following consultation with ASCL and others – to clarify the roles of the different actors in the system.

    We do need to ensure that headteachers have clarity about how the system works. We need a transparent, supportive system, where schools know the rules, but they also know the roles, of every player within it.

    That is why I want us to work together – government and the Regional Schools Commissioners, Ofsted, local authorities, teachers and unions – to make this a reality.

    But what about the immediate challenges in schools?

    I think we need to confront the fact that there are practices that have developed and spread based on beliefs about what Ofsted or what the government want to see, or required to see happening in our schools. And that, at their worst, these simply don’t help to improve outcomes for children, but do make life more difficult for teachers.

    And so you hear things like:

    – we need to colour code our marking like this in this way;

    – we need to fill in all these repeated forms or make these data entries about who is making progress and who is not; and

    – we need to give the senior leadership team extensive lesson plans every week.

    Why? Because Ofsted and others demand this of us.

    Yet, Amanda – who you’ll hear from in a moment – and Ofsted are clear that they don’t need all of this. And we’ll hear a little more on that later on.

    School leaders are increasingly rejecting these practices and developing more effective strategies.

    Such as 15 schools in Wigan which replaced various forms of deep marking with verbal feedback instead, leading to a reduction in workload and improvements in pupil outcomes.

    Or Whitley Bay High School which, working with two schools in the North East, have created coherent long-term curriculum plans, making it easier for teachers to share high-quality lesson resources, reducing the time teachers spend making their plans.

    Or Linton Village College which replaced onerous and ineffective whole school data drops, empowering subject leads instead to only collect data when it fits with their subject-specific curricula and teaching.

    I want all school leaders to be able to trust your teachers and make decisions you think, that you know, are in the best interests of children.

    My department has worked with Ofsted on their positive myth-busting work on inspections. And I want to build on this today with the launch of a video, making clear the things that we – and they – do not expect, because there is no evidence that they work.

    We want to demonstrate a clear, united approach on tackling workload. And our key message is that you have our backing to stop doing those things that add to workload but don’t actually help children to do better.

    No one should be asking you for those things, and no one else should be telling you it is what Ofsted or government expect.

    And to anyone who says otherwise – please play them that video.

    I am also working with teachers, school leaders, Ofsted and unions to create an online workload reduction toolkit.

    This will help schools identify what is eating up teachers’ time away from the classroom and offer practical solutions.

    In particular, we need to tackle the propensity of schools to collect more and more data, even when there’s no clear benefit to pupils.

    So I am going to bring together a high level group of sector experts and teachers to look at the kind of data and evidence schools are collecting and look at what, and who, is driving that. And they will work with me on a set of actions, which we will publish by the end of the summer term.

    As part of this, I also want to look at the role of technology, which Geoff also talked about. In so many other walks of life, modern technology has been a time-saver. But I know for many teachers it can sometimes feel like technology has had the opposite effect – actually adding to the work that needs to be done.

    Of course, technology can never replace the role of the teacher in a classroom. And we know that there have been times in the past when technology has been used to promote some of the fads and gimmicks that have spread around the school system – despite a lack of evidence on how this will help children learn.

    My goal is to support schools to use technologies in ways that actually reduce the workload burden, while supporting teachers to deliver great lessons.

    I understand that if we want to really tackle workload, then we also need to look at the broader questions around teacher recruitment and, particularly, retention.

    This needs to begin by setting out an overarching strategy on both.

    So, my Department will develop this plan, working with the profession – including ASCL and the teaching unions – identifying clearly what steps we will take. This strategy will cover areas like workload, professional development, career progression, flexible working and entry routes into teaching.

    In particular, I recognise that teachers need additional support and the highest quality development in the early years of their career, when the learning curve is inevitably at its steepest. This is what can attract more of the best graduates into teaching, set them up for success and keep them in the profession.

    That is why our plans to strengthen Qualified Teacher Status are so important. Our consultation has just finished – with over 2,000 responses – and I’m very grateful to all those of you who took the time to respond.

    We will be taking these plans forward, working hand in hand with the profession, and we will set out the next stage of this process by the summer.

    I also think it is particularly important that we do more to make sure teachers have ready access to high quality teaching materials that they can choose to draw on, with the confidence that they are used and approved by their peers.

    At the heart of great professions is the concept of building on the best practice and body of knowledge that has gone before. And I want to make it easier for teachers to do that throughout their careers.

    That is why, as a starting point, I intend to use our new Curriculum Fund to make it easier for schools and teachers to share and access high quality teaching resources.

    And I will work with the profession to help teachers to access a broad set of quality curriculum and teaching materials that teachers and leaders can adapt for their schools and classes, without having to write them from scratch.

    Finally, we will continue to work on making flexible working more possible, and easier for schools and teachers. The modern world demands this, and if teaching is to remain attractive to the next generation, it is a challenge we will all have to meet.

    As part of this, my department will be launching a new recruitment website that will help schools to recruit teachers and reduce costs – and we will adapt this specifically to help teachers to pursue flexible working, including job shares.

    Conference, I certainly do not think we’re going to fix all of this overnight – but I do promise to stick with it. I commit to you that I will work with all of you, I will work with ASCL, I will work with the other unions, I will work with Ofsted, I will work with the Regional Schools Commissioners, with teachers up and down country – with every part of our education system.

    I think between all of us we have the opportunity to do something materially different here: to change the culture in schools and to reduce workload for the long-term.

    As I said at the start, ultimately education is all about people. And my top priority must be to support you as a profession, helping to build on your successes, and making sure that all children get the world-class education they deserve.

    And I very much look forward to working with you.

  • Matt Hancock – 2018 Speech on the Future of the Media

    Matt Hancock

    Below is the text of the speech made by Matt Hancock, the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, at the Oxford Media Convention on 12 March 2018.

    We meet at a time of great change. Over the past generation, we have lived through some of the most radical changes since the invention of the printing press.

    At the heart of the digital revolution is an unprecedented collapse in the cost of gathering and transmitting information.

    And since gathering and transmitting information is at the heart of what you do, it’s little wonder the media is probably affected more than anything else.

    Not everyone thought that this would be the case. Take the American commentator Clifford Stoll, who wrote in Newsweek magazine in 1995: “Try reading a book on disc. At best, it’s an unpleasant chore: the myopic glow of a clunky computer replaces the friendly pages of a book. And you can’t tote that laptop to the beach. Yet some predict that we’ll soon buy books and newspapers straight over the Internet.”

    He said “The truth is no CD-ROM can take the place of a competent teacher, no computer network will change the way government works… and no online database will replace your daily newspaper”.

    Newsweek, of course is now digital only.

    But he wasn’t the only one who underestimated the transformative effect of technology on our media and on our society.

    And last time that the change was this big, the invention of the printing press brought about the fall of the established feudal order, the Thirty Years War, the end of the power of the church, and then ultimately paved the way for the Renaissance and the Enlightenment.

    And I just hope we can make the path smoother this time round.

    The world has changed, and today I want to look to the future.

    I only hope my speech will fare a bit better than Clifford Stoll’s article.

    But Stoll was not all wrong. He went on to say:

    “What the Internet hucksters won’t tell you is that the Internet is one big ocean of unedited data, without any pretence of completeness. Lacking editors, reviewers or critics, the Internet has become a wasteland of unfiltered data. You don’t know what to ignore and what’s worth reading.”

    Sound familiar?

    There are a multitude of challenges facing our media today. Falling newspaper circulations, declining advertising revenues, changing consumption and wholesale disinformation.

    Trusted, sustainable, high quality media is needed now more than ever.

    Yet the established media also face urgent challenges to reflect and represent the citizens they serve.

    I want to take a moment to examine these challenges, through three lenses:

    Accuracy. Sustainability. And diversity.

    And to ask “what is the role of Government in a liberal democracy as we navigate these turbulent times?”

    Accuracy

    The first area I want to look into is accuracy, where we’re seeing real threats to our media; to our society as a whole; is disinformation, also known as ‘fake news’.

    Now let us not pretend that journalism has always been an error free business.

    News is fast paced and mistakes can happen as stories change and new facts emerge. We all know the strapline for over-enthusiastic journalists: not wrong for long.

    But there is a difference between a mistake under the pressure of a deadline and deliberate disinformation designed to disrupt.

    According to last year’s Reuters Institute Digital Survey, only 43 per cent of the UK population felt they could trust the news most of the time.

    We know that some of the problem is state-sponsored. Russia, for instance, persistently deploys its state-run media organisations to manipulate democratic institutions.

    Some of this disinformation comes from people who simply see a business opportunity.

    A recent MIT study showed that falsehoods are 70 per cent more likely to be retweeted than stories verified by fact-checking authorities.

    Clicks of course mean money and so there are financial incentives to publish sensational stories, with little regard for their accuracy.

    A Buzzfeed report showed that two of the most widely shared fake news stories in the whole of 2016 originated from the same small town in Macedonia, where fake news can be a primary source of income.

    Commercial clickbait is in some ways easier to deal with, and the platforms have taken action.

    This toxic combination of political and financial motives is not just concerning, but can also be downright dangerous.

    We saw a number of widely shared fake news stories after the Manchester terrorist attack, including reports of another attack at Oldham Hospital. This caused panic and alarm and added unnecessarily to the workload of our fantastic emergency services.

    We reap massive benefits in this country from our free, open and accessible media. But we must act to deter those who want to take advantage of this to cause harm.

    And this ultimately matters to anyone who believes in our way of life in a liberal democracy.

    From Cicero to Rousseau, thinkers throughout history have underlined the importance of a successful democratic discourse.

    And we should aim for a discourse in which all sides accept objective facts, and then we can dispute what to do about the world we live in. To quote the legendary Guardian editor C.P. Scott “Comment is free but facts are sacred.”

    And this is why fake news is corrosive. It both allows a discourse in which uncomfortable facts are dismissed as fake news, and allows fake news – in other words lies – to underpin political opinions and decisions, even having been debunked.

    Of course fake news has always been around. There’s a quote that Mark Twain is said to have said – “a lie gets half the way round the world before the truth gets its shoes on”. Although even that quote is disputed, so maybe that’s fake news as well…

    But this inherent human behaviour is multiplied by technology, and it corrodes our democratic discourse.

    It’s no good just complaining about it. We must act.

    First things first, this impact of technology underlines the need to support some existing institutions.

    I firmly believe that for all its faults, if we didn’t have the BBC, today we would want to invent it. My God it can be infuriating, and bureaucratic, and desperately in need of more diversity of thought.

    But the BBC is our best bulwark against fake news and I celebrate its role in British public life, and I pay tribute to the stewardship of Lord Hall of Aunty.

    And I want to see the BBC do yet more around the world. I’m delighted at the World Service expansion. We strongly support its foreign language services, like Persian, Pidgin and Pashto, and we want to see it do more.

    Like the civil service, the principle of objectivity is drilled into its culture, and I want public service broadcasters to be more muscular in asserting their judgement and objectivity.

    While more reflection is needed domestically on the BBC’s institutional and subconscious biases, this objectivity is vital. And let’s be clear what objectivity means.

    Objectivity means stating this fact is wrong, and that fact is true, and not giving any airtime to total nonsense at all. Where facts can be established, your duty is to tell the truth.

    Objective reality exists. Your job is to find it and tell it. Have confidence, broadcasters. Your country needs you!

    But our existing institutions are not enough. We must work on technological solutions.

    I welcome recent moves by Facebook and Google to use technology to prevent the spread of fake news online, through algorithms that promote trusted news rather than dubious sources.

    I applaud solutions, like we’ve seen from Twitter, to tackle the use of online ‘bots’ that aim artificially to boost fake news.

    Tech companies are starting on their journey to maturity. The adolescents who moved fast and broke things now accept that they have a responsibility to society, a duty of care to curate an online world of trust, not fakery. But we are in the foothills, and there’s a lot of growing up to do.

    Part of the solution also lies in education. Our schools and our curriculum have a valuable role to play so students can tell fact from fiction and think critically about the news that they read and watch.

    But it is not easy for our children, or indeed for anyone who reads news online. Although we have robust mechanisms to address disinformation in the broadcast and press industries, this is simply not the case online.

    Take the example of three different organisations posting a video online.

    If a broadcaster published it on their on demand service, the content would be a matter for Ofcom.

    If a newspaper posted it, it would be a matter for IPSO.

    If an individual published it online, it would be untouched by media regulation.

    Now I am passionate in my belief in a free and open Internet. But freedom does not mean the freedom to harm others. Freedom can only exist within a framework.

    Digital platforms need to step up and play their part in establishing online rules and working for the benefit of the public that uses them.

    We’ve seen some positive first steps from Google, Facebook and Twitter recently, but even tech companies recognise that more needs to be done.

    We are looking at the legal liability that social media companies have for the content shared on their sites. Because it’s a fact on the web that online platforms are no longer just passive hosts.

    But this is not simply about applying publisher or broadcaster standards of liability to online platforms.

    There are those who argue that every word on every platform should be the full legal responsibility of the platform. But then how could anyone ever let me post anything, even though I’m an extremely responsible adult?

    This is new ground and we are exploring a range of ideas…

    including where we can tighten current rules to tackle illegal content online…

    and where platforms should still qualify for ‘host’ category protections.

    We will strike the right balance between addressing issues with content online and allowing the digital economy to flourish.

    This is part of the thinking behind our Digital Charter. We will work with publishers, tech companies, civil society and others to establish a new framework…

    …that protects users and their rights online, and offers opportunities alongside obligations for businesses and platforms.

    Trusted brands will help us to tackle this important issue.

    Everyone in this room, whether print, broadcast or online, has a part to play in providing reporting that everyone can trust.

    People are increasingly looking for trust in the midst of a sea of uncertainty.

    A sustainable, healthy and trusted press is a beacon for our democracy and that it is what we must keep in our sights.

    Sustainability

    This brings me on to sustainability, the second lens on the future.

    The Internet has been an immense force for good, connecting people around the world.

    And in so doing, it has turned the established order on its head and raised real questions about the sustainability of high quality journalism.

    UK newspaper circulations have halved since 2001. And although digital ‘clicks’ are rising, the average revenue per digital media user is only 8% of a reader in print.

    Local newspapers are particularly under threat, with over 200 closing since 2005. They play a vital role in binding together communities and holding local politicians and authorities to account.

    We need to make sure the fourth estate can survive and thrive in the face of rapidly developing technology, and that it’s appropriately rewarded for the content it creates.

    The role for Government is to work out what’s a public policy goal, and what is the natural impact of a disruptive new technology.

    And I’m clear about this:

    Sustaining high quality journalism is a vital public policy goal. The scrutiny, the accountability, the uncovering of wrongs and the fuelling of debate is mission critical to a healthy democracy.

    After all, journalists helped bring Stephen Lawrence’s killers to justice and have given their lives reporting from places where many of us would fear to go.

    And while I’ve not always enjoyed every article written about me, that‘s not what it’s there for.

    I tremble at the thought of a media regulated by the state in a time of malevolent forces in politics. Get this wrong and I fear for the future of our liberal democracy. We must get this right.

    I want publications to be able to choose their own path, making decisions like how to make the most out of online advertising and whether to use paywalls. After all, it’s your copy, it’s your IP.

    The removal of Google’s ‘first click free’ policy has been a welcome move for the news sector. But I ask the question – if someone is protecting their intellectual property with a paywall, shouldn’t that be promoted, not just neutral in the search algorithm?

    I’ve watched the industry grapple with the challenge of how to monetise content online, with different models of paywalls and subscriptions.

    Some of these have been successful, and all of them have evolved over time. I’ve been interested in recent ideas to take this further and develop new subscription models for the industry.

    Our job in Government is to provide the framework for a market that works, without state regulation of the press.

    We have launched an external review to examine the sustainability of this country’s press, to propose solutions to protect the future of high quality journalism.

    The review will be led by Dame Frances Cairncross. Frances will bring her experience as a journalist, in business and in academia to bear on the thorny and complex questions at the heart of press sustainability.

    Panelists include Peter Wright, a former editor of the Mail on Sunday.

    Polly Curtis, Editor in Chief at the Huffington Post.

    And Geraldine Allinson, who is chair of the KM Media Group.

    The Cairncross review will…

    take a clear-eyed view of how the press is faring in this new world…

    explore where innovation is working well…

    … and explore whether intervention may be required to safeguard the future of our free and independent press.

    The review will take evidence, report and publish recommendations within a year. We’re confident that we will find solutions that can help both the industry and the Government tackle these issues.

    This is not about Government regulating the media, and nor is it about propping up old business models that have stopped being viable.

    Rather, it is about making sure that we don’t wake up in five years’ time to find that high quality journalism has been decimated and our democracy damaged as a result.

    It may be that the market will create new, viable business models for high quality journalism, and indeed some of those new models have already started to appear.

    Just look at the FT, the Spectator and the Economist. Three publications, all founded in the 19th century, reinventing themselves and attracting new readers at a phenomenal rate.

    But high quality news is so important to our democracy that we need these success stories across the board, and to have the right market structures to do so. This is about acting in time, before irreversible damage is done to our news industry.

    Our nation has a distinguished history of a fearless and independent press. I made the decision not to reopen the Leveson Inquiry and not to commence Section 40, so we could focus on these big questions of the future.

    But I do want to see high standards. I want to see IPSO’s low cost arbitration system working, so anyone, of whatever means can get redress. It can’t be right that, in some places, a large front page mistake can still get a tiny page 18 correction.

    For high standards of ethics and high quality media of all forms is critical to our democracy.

    Our broadcasters are also being impacted by these seismic changes. And as Sharon White said last week, young British teenagers recognise the name YouTube more than they do the BBC. That is a striking fact.

    So broadcasters also need to be on a sustainable footing. As we leave the EU, and the relevant directives, we are exploring options for mutual recognition.

    Our goal is to allow for continued transfrontier broadcasting, which is good for Britain, and good for the rest of the EU too. And I look forward to working with all our broadcasters to make this happen.

    Diversity

    This brings me to the third lens through which I want to look at the future of our media: diversity.

    For our media to thrive, be relevant and trusted in the years to come, it needs to serve all of our communities and all parts of our country.

    The future of our media must have diversity at its heart.

    Diversity of gender, of race, of sexual orientation. Of social background and of region. Diversity when it comes to attitude, and disability, and personality type.

    In the inspiring words of Idris Elba, diversity of thought.

    The media has a special responsibility to reflect the nation it serves. There was a time when an Oxford Media Convention could have doubled up as a university reunion.

    Likewise, I could forgive you for being sceptical when you see a white, middle-class man in a suit talking to you about diversity. But this is a moral imperative for everyone.

    And I care about it not just because it is right.

    I care about it because it’s good business sense too: I’ve never seen a decision that can’t be improved by discussion with a diverse group.

    And I care because I care about my country. And a media with one set of assumptions based in one postcode in the capital can’t possibly reflect, represent or serve the country as a whole.

    High quality media is public service, and it’s got to serve the public.

    We’ve seen some good progress in recent years.

    For the first time, diversity, both on screen and off screen, has been enshrined within the BBC Operating Licence. This diversity will help fulfil the BBC’s Charter commitment to distinctiveness.

    We are taking action to make sure people with disabilities affecting sight or hearing can have equal access to video on demand platforms.

    And we have seen the launch and development of Project Diamond, to capture a range of diversity data directly from TV programmes.

    But there is so much more to do. Publishers and broadcasters should be a mirror for their communities, and represent the wide variety of views and perspectives that make this country so great.

    The publication of gender pay gap data has shown that transparency can shine a light on inequality and bad practise.

    I would call on all broadcasters and publications to publish your data on all diversity characteristics, not just those you are compelled to by law.

    Because this isn’t going away.

    Diversity is about regional representation as well.

    Local papers play a crucial role in this and we are working hard to give them the support and sustainability that they need.

    And there is also a role for publicly owned broadcasters, who need to do more to share their considerable benefits more widely across the UK.

    As the BBC has shown with the successful relocation of 2,500 roles to Salford, public service broadcasters can transform communities and build new creative hubs across the UK. BBC Breakfast and Five Live have had a markedly different tone and feel since their move.

    But more than two thirds of UK producers are based in London and the South East, while the vast majority of people live elsewhere.

    This limits the spread of jobs, prosperity, and opportunity outside the capital, and limits the representation of local views and interests on TV.

    I’m delighted that Channel 4 is creating a new National HQ, outside London, and increasing its out-of-London commissioning to over 50%, stimulating our creative economy across the country.

    There’s a huge swathe of interest, and I’m sure they will see some fantastic bids from across the UK.

    This will lead to a greater reflection, both on and off-screen, of the regional diversity of the country, and will support creative clusters across the UK.

    It’s what the public want, and I pay tribute to the vision and leadership of Alex Mahon in making it happen.

    And I hope that others will look to follow her lead.

    Conclusion

    So, our media faces challenges like never before.

    Each way we turn, long held assumptions are turned on their heads.

    But the solutions are within our grasp.

    Technology will not slow down; it will get only faster and smarter.

    Yet the essential human yearning for truth; for a story; for belonging and understanding, will surpass this technological age and endure.

    We face many hurdles. Yet among this turbulence I tell you this:

    There is no place on Earth with more of a chance, with more rich depth or more capability.

    More able to make this work and shape the future.

    The choices we make; the decisions we take as we face foursquare the new challenges and new chances of the age we live in will shape our country and our world for generations to come.

    So let us face them together. And let us rise to the task.

  • Theresa May – 2018 Statement on Salisbury Attack

    Below is the statement made by Theresa May, the Prime Minister, in the House of Commons, on 12 March 2018.

    With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to update the House on the incident in Salisbury – and the steps we are taking to investigate what happened and to respond to this reckless and despicable act.

    Last week my Rt Hon Friends, the Foreign and Home Secretaries, set out the details of events as they unfolded on Sunday the 4th of March.

    I am sure the whole House will want to once again pay tribute to the bravery and professionalism of our emergency services and armed forces in responding to this incident, as well as the doctors and nurses who are now treating those affected.

    Our thoughts, in particular, are with Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey who remains in a serious but stable condition. In responding to this incident, he exemplified the duty and courage that define our emergency services; and in which our whole nation takes the greatest pride.

    Mr Speaker, I want to pay tribute to the fortitude and calmness with which people in Salisbury have responded to these events and to thank all those who have come forward to assist the police with their investigation.

    This incident has, of course, caused considerable concern across the community. Following the discovery of traces of nerve agent in Zizzi’s restaurant and The Mill pub, the Chief Medical Officer issued further precautionary advice. But as Public Health England have made clear, the risk to public health is low.

    Mr Speaker, I share the impatience of this House and the country at large to bring those responsible to justice – and to take the full range of appropriate responses against those who would act against our country in this way.

    But as a nation that believes in justice and the rule of law, it is essential that we proceed in the right way – led not by speculation but by the evidence.

    That is why we have given the police the space and time to carry out their investigation properly.

    Hundreds of officers have been working around the clock – together with experts from our armed forces – to sift and assess all the available evidence; to identify crime scenes and decontamination sites and to follow every possible lead to find those responsible.

    That investigation continues and we must allow the police to continue with their work.

    Mr Speaker, this morning I chaired a meeting of the National Security Council in which we considered the information so far available. As is normal, the Council was updated on the assessment and intelligence picture, as well as the state of the investigation.

    It is now clear that Mr Skripal and his daughter were poisoned with a military-grade nerve agent of a type developed by Russia.

    This is part of a group of nerve agents known as ‘Novichok’.

    Based on the positive identification of this chemical agent by world-leading experts at the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory at Porton Down; our knowledge that Russia has previously produced this agent and would still be capable of doing so; Russia’s record of conducting state-sponsored assassinations; and our assessment that Russia views some defectors as legitimate targets for assassinations; the Government has concluded that it is highly likely that Russia was responsible for the act against Sergei and Yulia Skripal.

    Mr Speaker, there are therefore only two plausible explanations for what happened in Salisbury on the 4th of March.

    Either this was a direct act by the Russian State against our country.

    Or the Russian government lost control of this potentially catastrophically damaging nerve agent and allowed it to get into the hands of others.

    This afternoon my Rt Hon Friend the Foreign Secretary has summoned the Russian Ambassador to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and asked him to explain which of these two possibilities it is – and therefore to account for how this Russian-produced nerve agent could have been deployed in Salisbury against Mr Skripal and his daughter.

    My Rt Hon Friend has stated to the Ambassador that the Russian Federation must immediately provide full and complete disclosure of the Novichok programme to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.

    And he has requested the Russian Government’s response by the end of tomorrow.

    Mr Speaker, this action has happened against a backdrop of a well-established pattern of Russian State aggression.

    Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea was the first time since the Second World War that one sovereign nation has forcibly taken territory from another in Europe.

    Russia has fomented conflict in the Donbas, repeatedly violated the national airspace of several European countries, and mounted a sustained campaign of cyber espionage and disruption. This has included meddling in elections, and hacking the Danish Ministry of Defence and the Bundestag, among many others.

    During his recent State of the Union address, President Putin showed video graphics of missile launches, flight trajectories and explosions, including the modelling of attacks on the United States with a series of warheads impacting in Florida.

    While the extra-judicial killing of terrorists and dissidents outside Russia were given legal sanction by the Russian Parliament in 2006.

    And of course Russia used radiological substances in its barbaric assault on Mr Litvinenko. We saw promises to assist the investigation then, but they resulted in denial and obfuscation – and the stifling of due process and the rule of law.

    Mr Speaker, following Mr Litvinenko’s death we expelled Russian diplomats, suspended security co-operation, broke off bilateral plans on visas, froze the assets of the suspects and put them on international extradition lists. And these measures remain in place.

    Furthermore our commitment to collective defence and security through NATO remains as strong as ever in the face of Russian behaviour.

    Indeed our armed forces have a leading role in NATO’s Enhanced Forward Presence with British troops leading a multinational battlegroup in Estonia.

    We have led the way in securing tough sanctions against the Russian economy.

    And we have at all stages worked closely with our allies and we will continue to do so.

    We must now stand ready to take much more extensive measures.

    Mr Speaker, on Wednesday we will consider in detail the response from the Russian State.

    Should there be no credible response, we will conclude that this action amounts to an unlawful use of force by the Russian State against the United Kingdom.

    And I will come back to this House and set out the full range of measures that we will take in response.

    Mr Speaker, this attempted murder using a weapons-grade nerve agent in a British town was not just a crime against the Skripals.

    It was an indiscriminate and reckless act against the United Kingdom, putting the lives of innocent civilians at risk.

    And we will not tolerate such a brazen attempt to murder innocent civilians on our soil.

    I commend this Statement to the House.

  • Theresa May – 2018 Speech on International Women’s Day

    Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May, the Prime Minister, on International Women’s Day on 8 March 2018.

    For more than 100 years, International Women’s Day has called on us to stand together and celebrate the tremendous achievements of women in every country around the world.

    This year, it is particularly significant for us here in the UK because it coincides with a very significant centenary, the moment when some women were given the right to vote here in the UK.

    Today, it may seem extraordinary to us that women in this country were not only denied the right to vote until that time, but had to fight so hard for it.

    And yet despite the huge political, social and economic strides that we’ve taken forward since, we know there are areas where things are simply not right.

    Over the past year we have seen something of a watershed moment.

    I am of course referring to the women who have broken the silence on pervasive sexual harassment with the powerful “Me Too” movement;

    Spoken out about instances where – incredibly – a pay difference still exists between themselves and men carrying out the same work.

    And called out the bullying and harassment some – particularly those in public life – face online.

    Much work remains to be done in all those areas, but today I want to turn to another issue.

    Because today everybody gathered in this room is here because we are all united in one single aim: bringing an end to abhorrent and life-shattering domestic abuse.

    Across the country thousands of women endure unimaginable abuse in their homes, there are women who know what that means on a daily basis, often at the hands of those they are closest to, every single day.

    I believe we need nothing short of a complete change across the whole of society in the way we think about and tackle domestic abuse. That’s why today we are launching a consultation on our proposals for new laws, stronger powers and new prevention measures.

    And the trouble is too often women and men – although mainly women – suffer in silence and endure the most terrifying behaviour.

    We’ve tended to always think of it in terms of violence, but sometimes it means other forms of abuse that may not involve physical harm but certainly should be criminal. And so for the first time the Bill will provide a statutory definition of domestic abuse that includes non-physical abuse such as economic abuse. And we won’t let anyone trivialise these forms of abuse.

    The Bill will recognise the devastating impact domestic abuse has on families, by creating a statutory aggravating factor which will allow for tougher sentences in cases involving children. For too long, the approach was taken that children are not affected. It is time we recognise that they are.

    It will create new Domestic Abuse Protection Orders, drawing on the strongest powers from existing orders to allow police and courts to intervene earlier.

    It will establish a Domestic Abuse Commissioner, to hold public bodies to account, and act as a national champion for victims.

    And we will build upon the work I started at the Home Office – putting Clare’s Law – the Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme which allows anyone to ask if their partner has a violent history – onto a statutory basis; giving victims of domestic abuse the same range of protections in courts as those who have suffered from modern slavery or sexual offences; and further strengthening the ground-breaking offence of controlling and coercive behaviour in a family relationship, which we introduced in 2015.

    I am grateful for the work that so many of you do with the police, and those in the criminal justice system and other public services, to ensure that victims are given the support that they need, when they need it. I know that, for too many years, too many people in power did not take this issue seriously. That is why, as Home Secretary, I commissioned Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary to inspect every police force on their response to domestic abuse, ensuring that each force took action wherever the law enforcement response fell short of what it needed to be.

    I also understand just how important it is for those fleeing violent partners to have a safe place to go, and our recent injection of £20 million for accommodation-based services is already providing 2,200 additional beds in refuges and safe accommodation benefiting 19,000 victims.

    But I know there are concerns about our proposals on how supported housing will be funded in the future. So I want to make clear that I am committed to delivering a sustainable funding model for refuges and to ensuring that there is no postcode lottery when it comes to provision across the country. That is why I want to work with all the charities and organisations working on the front line to get your ideas on how we can get this right.

    And we want your input. Those working with those affected and those who have gone through it. You know what will work and what will not.

    This morning I visited Safe Lives and heard first-hand the harrowing accounts of women who have suffered at the hands of abusers.

    And I would like to pay tribute to all those survivors here today and beyond who show such bravery in speaking out, and to all of you working so hard to support victims and raise awareness. Thank you. You do an incredible job, often in very difficult circumstances.

    This is an issue that unites us all – whatever your background or political party. I am grateful to MPs and Peers of all parties for their tireless campaigning on behalf of survivors, and hope that we can work together to build a real consensus around these proposals.

    We need to get this legislation right. We need to hear from the widest range of voices possible: experts, charities, frontline professionals, and as many people affected by abuse, from as many walks of life, as possible. So I urge all of you here today to encourage others to contribute with this consultation.

    Every year many lives are ruined. Children witness appalling scenes and suffer lasting trauma and emotional damage.

    No woman and no child should ever spend their days living in fear, suffering domestic abuse and fearful of speaking out.

    A century ago, women fought for their independence, for their right to be heard. Today, we have come a long way but the fact we are gathered here today to talk about the continued issue of domestic abuse shows we still have a long way to go.

    We also have a great challenge. So, a hundred years on, let’s fight with the same vigour, the same determination. And let’s be the ones to consign domestic abuse to the past.

  • Liam Fox – 2018 Speech on UK Exporters

    Below is the text of the speech made by Liam Fox, the Secretary of State for International Trade, on 8 March 2018.

    Good morning.

    It’s a pleasure to be here today at the British Chambers of Commerce Annual Conference, and a privilege to be invited to address the representatives of some of this country’s most distinguished businesses.

    For more than a century and half, the constituent chambers of the BCC have protected and promoted Britain’s businesses.

    In all that long history, the chambers have always been resolutely outward-facing, and eager to support global ventures.

    And that expertise is especially valuable at this pivotal moment for our country.

    If you read some of our national publications, you could be forgiven for thinking we were about to enter some kind of economic black hole. Nothing could be further from the truth.

    We are seeing record foreign direct investment here in the UK; and our outward direct investment stock is now at £1.2 trillion, bringing prosperity at home and abroad.

    Our country’s traditional strengths are prospering just as much as our new ones. We’re seeing record tech start-ups – 8,000 in the last year; but manufacturing order books are also well above their long-term trend.

    Our employment levels are at an all time high and our exports of both goods and services are booming as an increasingly large global middle class is able to access the high quality products that Britain has to offer.

    Investors continue to show their confidence in the UK. When we ask them why they choose the UK they tell us that our legal system is second to none, we have a skilled work force, a low-tax and well-regulated economy, cutting edge tech, some of the world’s best universities, we speak English and we are in a great time zone for global trading. Some black hole.

    In fact, it is a time of historic opportunity.

    There are great prizes for our economy as we leave the EU in this era of globalisation, if we have the courage to grasp them.

    In fact global trade is leading our economy forward: exports rose by over 11% last year, 6 times faster than the economy as a whole. They reached well over £600 billion in 2017 .

    The EU will always be a very important part of that, and this government has been clear that we want a deep and special partnership with the EU.

    But we cannot let the practices and patterns of the past constrain the opportunities of the future.

    In just 10 years the proportion of our exports that go to the EU has dropped by 11 percentage points.

    And this is not a one-off change. Over the next decade or so, 90% of global economic growth is expected to be from outside the EU.

    That could be reinforced as a higher proportion of trade comes from services, and transport costs for goods decrease: both of these trends could reduce the importance of geographic distance.

    In my speech at Bloomberg last week, I spoke about how patterns of global trade were changing, and how shifting global prosperity will change the pattern of demand for goods and services.

    I will not repeat all the arguments here. But if you consider the fact that, by 2060, there are predicted to be 1.1 billion middle class Africans – all demanding luxury food, cars, consumer goods and services – then you can begin to glimpse the potential that the future holds.

    And London is the global financial centre with the closest time zone to the African continent, and therefore a natural choice to finance this growth.

    China is another example. Because the Chinese economic phenomenon is now 40 years old it’s easy to become inured to the statistics, and forget how vast this opportunity is.

    But every year China adds an economy the size of Switzerland to its GDP.

    By 2030 China will have 220 cities with more than a million people. The whole of Europe will have 35.

    Last month the Prime Minister and I went to China, for me the second visit in a month. While I was there I met the mayor of Wuhan, a city of which few in Europe have heard. Yet it has a booming economy and a population larger than London. It’s this kind of dynamism the UK can tap into.

    No one knows the capability of British businesses better than you. Our firms are world-leading repositories of talent, knowledge and expertise.

    But the government is not complacent here; and we can never rest on our laurels. We are building the economic base that will help our country compete on the world market.

    Our firms lead the world on innovation, research and the deployment of new technologies. Nonetheless, we have committed to raising the proportion of our GDP spent on research and development to 3%, which would put us in the top quartile of OECD countries.

    And UK businesses have unbeatable offerings on healthcare, infrastructure and education, that have enabled us to build a trade and development programme that is the envy of the world.

    Nonetheless, our modern Industrial Strategy is making sure we have the right infrastructure, market frameworks, skills base and business support to build a strong economy.

    My department is also working with businesses across the country to increase exports and investment.

    Many are members of the British Chambers of Commerce. Some are represented here today.

    They are the wealth-creators of society. Everything that my department does is designed to help them in that role.

    Department for International Trade advisers based in 108 countries around the world are providing targeted support for those high-value export and investment opportunities that contribute the most to the UK economy.

    And DIT also has an extensive range of resources available to SMEs and new exporters.

    In 2016 to 2017 UKEF provided £3 billion in support, helping 221 UK companies sell to 63 countries around the world. 79% of these companies were SMEs.

    And we are currently piloting a new Global Growth Service, increasing our support for those medium sized businesses with international ambitions.

    I understand that elements of DITs offer to companies is remarkably similar to Export Britain – the BCCs own online resource.

    This allows us almost unlimited scope to work together.

    And of course, DIT will forever be indebted to the BCC for the tireless work that you have done for the UK’s exporters.

    Today is, of course, International Women’s Day. One of this gathering’s key themes is diversity in business, and I am pleased that the BCC takes gender equality as seriously as the government.

    I am proud to lead one of the best-performing departments in Whitehall when it comes to women in senior roles.

    But there is more to do, and the British government is committed to achieving gender equality at all levels of society, and in all walks of life.

    Internationally, we have championed the cause of e-commerce which offers unique opportunities for women, including those in the developing world, to have a future in the global economy.

    It is a future that we all want to see.

    But this country is also facing a wider choice about its own future.

    Because we should not just be looking to maximise our existing opportunities – not when the pattern of global trade is due to change so significantly.

    We have to look for and create new opportunities.

    So our approach should not be premised on simply identifying how much of our current relationship we want to keep, but what we need to prosper in a rapidly changing global environment.

    Before leaving the European Union, the UK’s trade policy is centrally coordinated from Brussels, exclusively in the interests of the EU.

    Soon, we will have more control over our own economic and political destiny than at any time in the past 4 decades.

    This government, and the Department for International Trade, is clear about the kind of Britain that we want to build.

    We want a Britain that is open to the opportunities of the world – a country that treads a path to prosperity based not in protectionism, but in openness and economic cooperation.

    It is a vision that is, I believe, shared by many of you in this room.

    And it’s a vision that can be shared by many overseas, if we have the courage to embrace the opportunities of the future.

    We want to maintain our existing links with partners outside of the EU.

    We’re negotiating our new schedules at the WTO. We’re working to roll-over existing EU trade agreements – and we’re taking the Trade Bill through Parliament to give us the powers we need to do that.

    But we also want to sign new agreements with key partners.

    And we also want to use this opportunity – a seat at the international table for the first time in 40 years – to instil our values in the international system.

    Regulation is a good example of this. Thanks largely to the WTO’s success in lowering tariffs, technical and regulatory barriers to trade have become comparatively more important.

    Yet too often regulatory reform is presented as simply lowering standards.

    This is a straw man invented by those who take a generally anti-trade view. No-one wants a regulatory race to the bottom – least of all the UK, where our comparative advantage lies in quality not price.

    It’s not about high regulation versus low regulation, but good regulation versus bad regulation. Often you can achieve the same aim from regulation through a different route.

    For example, cars made under EU and US regulations have similar safety records, despite very different standards.

    That’s why we should move away from regulatory identity and towards regulatory equivalence – starting, as the Prime Minister said last week, with our future trade relationship with the EU.

    If we can get likeminded countries to follow our lead, the opportunities are enormous – they would increase growth in our trading partners and therefore increase demand for our goods and services.

    For me, the firms represented by these chambers are a source of inspiration.

    Time and again, they have proved themselves infinitely adaptable.

    Time and again, they have proved that they are forward-looking, and willing to rise and meet the challenges and prospects of a new era.

    Time and again, they have driven this country to new heights of wealth and prosperity.

    We are on the verge of a bright, prosperous future. The opportunities are there for the taking. We need only the courage to seize them.

    Thank you.

  • Baroness Sugg – 2018 Speech on Aviation

    Below is the text of the speech made by Baroness Sugg, the Aviation Minister, on 6 March 2018.

    Introduction – impressions of industry

    Good evening ladies and gentlemen.

    Thanks for that welcome.

    It’s an absolute pleasure to join you tonight (6 March 2018), and thank you to Ed and the AOA for inviting me to speak.

    It’s not often you get the opportunity to address so many distinguished figures from across the industry.

    It gives me the chance to talk a little about my first 4 months as Aviation Minister.

    Four busy, but fascinating months.

    I’ve really enjoyed getting around the country – I now spend most of my Fridays meeting organisations of all shapes and sizes.

    I’ve seen how Luton Airport’s investing for the future, and met the apprentices who’ll be part of that future.

    I’ve visited Gatwick and heard about its new flights to places like Buenos Aires and Singapore.

    I’ve seen how excellent surface access to Southampton Airport is making passengers’ journeys so much easier.

    How Newcastle Airport’s just reported record passenger growth.

    And how Heathrow has been consulting on its plans for a possible third runway.

    I’ve been trying to meet as many of you as possible.

    What I’ve encountered over these 4 months has been hugely impressive.

    An ambitious, innovative, and rapidly evolving aviation industry with a clear understanding of its importance to Britain’s future. But also a clear appreciation of its responsibilities too.

    I’ve been struck by the way you’re all competing fiercely. Yet you come together as a single, unified industry to meet common goals.

    And it’s that same sense of shared purpose that I feel as Aviation Minister, and that the department’s aviation directorates feel too.

    We are dedicated to working with you.

    Supporting you.

    Championing you.

    And when there are problems, finding solutions with you.

    Industry success

    As I said, it is great to see so many people here tonight. And you have a lot of shared success to celebrate.

    Record passenger numbers in 2015, 2016, and then again in 2017, with more records broken for Stansted, Edinburgh, Leeds Bradford, Glasgow.

    And many more.

    Investment in airport facilities around the country is continuing.

    Air freight was up 10% last year. Gatwick’s cargo volumes soaring by a quarter.

    And East Midlands forecasting that the annual value of non-EU trade passing through the airport has exceeded £10 billion for the first time.

    Then there’s the proliferation of new routes all over the world, from regional airports, to countries like the USA, Canada and further afield

    All evidence of a dynamic, evolving industry.

    But we cannot take future success for granted.

    Without investment and growth, we’d lose our competitive edge.

    So I and the DfT are right behind you, doing our best to support you and look out for your interests.

    The UK aviation sector is the third largest market in the world, and we want to continue being a competitive and leading global partner.

    In order to do this, we need to keep asking ourselves some fundamental questions.

    How do we maintain our competitive edge in the face of rapidly expanding markets overseas?

    How can we build and sustain a consensus around the need for growth?

    How can we manage the impact of that growth on the environment – particularly carbon emissions and noise?

    How can we harness the power of new technology and data?

    How can we ensure consumers’ interests are protected?

    How can we keep passengers and cargo safe and secure?

    And how do we best forge a new future outside the European Union?

    The government cannot answer these questions alone.

    The only way to address them is to continue the constructive and collaborative approach that we have all developed, and taken, in civil aviation.

    Aviation strategy

    That’s why our new aviation strategy will be rooted in partnership between government and industry.

    It will ask those challenging questions and more.

    It is our shared willingness to do this and think creatively together that will ensure we continue to be a global success.

    The strategy will set a new framework for a safe, secure and sustainable aviation sector.

    With the connections Britain’s economy will need to continue growing up to 2050 and beyond.

    It will consider areas where government can make a real difference – including our borders, which for many passengers are their first experience of coming in to our country.

    I will work with the Immigration Minister, Caroline Nokes, and the Director General of Border Force, Paul Lincoln, who are both with us tonight, to deliver a secure border, that allows swift entry to the country for legitimate passengers and goods, and that demonstrates Britain is open for business.

    Growth and Expansion

    Central to demonstrating this is supporting the growth of aviation through expansion.

    That’s why in October 2016 the government selected a new northwest runway at Heathrow as its preferred scheme for delivering new airport capacity.

    Among the reasons for this decision was the potential for strengthening the links between our network of regional airports and our major international hub.

    In the immediate term we need to follow the recommendation from the Airports Commission to make the best use of the capacity which already exists at all our airports.

    We will soon be setting out how best to achieve this as part of the next steps in our development of the new aviation strategy.

    Airspace

    Another major priority for the strategy is to develop the way that UK airspace is managed, in order to achieve a cleaner, quieter, more efficient aviation sector.

    I was fascinated to visit Swanwick recently and learn more about the work of NATS controllers.

    And also plans for wider airspace modernisation.

    Including a feasibility assessment of potential future airspace demands of airports in Southern England.

    Something that is long overdue.

    The government has confirmed it will implement proposals for.

    A new Independent Commission on Civil Aviation Noise (ICCAN).

    Changes to noise compensation policy.

    And more accurate navigation of flight paths through the use of new technology.

    Environment

    A modern airspace is just one of the ways we can make flying greener.

    Together the government and industry have made important progress in recent years.

    In addition to introducing new noise policies, we’ve also made progress on carbon.

    In 2016, we agreed the first ever sector-based global climate change deal with the goal of carbon-neutral growth for international aviation from 2020.

    New generation aircraft and engines are cleaner and quieter such as EasyJet’s new Airbus A320 NEOs.

    I was pleased to see all this excellent work highlighted when I attended the launch of the ‘Sustainable aviation progress report’.

    Again I was struck by how our industry achieves its goals when it works together.

    Community engagement

    Throughout all this work, we must never forget the communities that we serve.

    A major challenge for us all is to improve engagement with local communities.

    We need to consider those living in areas surrounding airports, and how we explain what we’re doing to make best use of capacity and airspace, and reduce the environmental impacts of flying.

    I know that airports are keen to grow. But in order to do so, we need to ensure you have the support of the communities around the airport.

    That is why community engagement is vital, and I know many airports represented in this room tonight have made significant progress in this area.

    Consumer

    But of course aviation is also about the millions of people up and down the country that take flights every year.

    So we need to continue putting the passenger at the heart of everything we do.

    But about serious issues that affect the travelling public. Issues like those we saw last week when severe weather hit the country.

    I want to thank you for the way you responded.

    To minimise disruption.

    And to advise, help and support passengers whose flights were delayed or cancelled.

    Great service is a powerful tool in keeping passengers coming back.

    It is the human face of the aviation industry that passengers value.

    The personalised care and service provided by airport employees or cabin crew on aircraft.

    And it is for this reason we must redouble efforts to tackle the problems that undermine people’s overwhelmingly positive experience of air travel.

    Dealing with disruptive passengers.

    Providing quick and efficient compensation when justified.

    Making sure there’s support to help disabled or elderly passengers.

    And ensuring we respond when things go wrong.

    The importance of this was brought home late last year with the sad collapse of Monarch.

    Despite how challenging this was for all involved, it clearly showed that by government and industry working together, we were able to successfully deliver the largest peacetime repatriation in UK history.

    I thank those in government, the CAA and across industry, including many of you in this room, that worked tirelessly to bring our citizens home, and who also provided new opportunities for staff who lost their jobs.

    It’s imperative that we learn from this, and listen to the views of those affected.

    So Peter Bucks’ review has been tasked with finding a solution that allows the orderly wind down of an airline as it enters insolvency.

    Ensuring that it can repatriate customers as an integral part of the process.

    Security

    Part of the consumer journey is the interaction with airport security.

    No issue is more important in keeping passengers safe.

    Last week the Home Secretary and I were in Washington talking to the US government and industry from both sides of the Atlantic, about the terrorist threat and how to address it.

    Another example of how we are at our best, coming together to achieve shared goals.

    Security standards in UK airports are second to none.

    The excellent work of our new force of overseas aviation security liaison officers is helping ensure that passengers get improved protection at airports abroad.

    Thanks to your innovation.

    And by hosting overseas delegations who come to see aviation security at its best.

    You are instrumental in raising standards globally.

    As the five terrorist attacks in the UK in 2017 vividly demonstrated, the threat is real.

    Which means we need to keep innovating to try and stay one step ahead.

    And I certainly welcome your continued collaboration.

    Brexit

    Before I finish and let you get on with your dinner, there is of course one last subject I should address – Brexit.

    The Prime Minister set out our ambitious, yet credible, vision for a future economic partnership last Friday.

    And specifically on aviation, she announced the UK’s intention to seek participation in EASA.

    I know this confirmation will be very welcome to everyone in this room.

    The fact it was part of the Prime Minister’s speech shows the importance of aviation and aerospace to our Brexit negotiations.

    And how vital it is that we get a positive deal for the industry.

    A positive deal will be crucial for both the UK and the EU.

    My officials and I are working with the third countries where air services are currently governed by EU agreements, to ensure that new, replacement arrangements are in place after we leave the EU.

    Despite some reports to the contrary, talks so far have been positive and we have made significant progress.

    It is obviously a high priority to provide reassurance for our industry, and I would like to thank you for your engagement and support in this area.

    It has been incredibly helpful to hear all your concerns and priorities.

    And as negotiations progress, we will of course continue to work closely with you.

    Conclusion

    My main messages tonight are.

    I, and the rest of the government will work with you at every stage to address the challenges we face.

    We are committed to ensuring the aviation strategy represents the interests of every airport across the country.

    I’m incredibly proud to be your Aviation Minister, and to champion our world-leading aviation sector.

    So I will do what I can to represent your interests.

    To support sustainable growth.

    Which, with your help, will make Britain a stronger, more competitive and more prosperous country.

    Thank you.

  • Nusrat Ghani – 2018 Statement on Wheelchair Spaces on Buses

    Below is the text of the statement made by Nusrat Ghani, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Department for Transport and Assistant Government Whip, in the House of Commons on 7 March 2018.

    Government believes that where people live, shop, go out, or park their car should not be determined by their disability and recognises the importance of accessible transport networks in supporting disabled people to live independent lives and fulfil their potential.

    In January 2017 the Supreme Court handed down its judgment in the case of Paulley vs FirstGroup PLC, concerning the “reasonable adjustments” which must be provided by bus operators to enable wheelchair users to access the on-board wheelchair space.

    The Supreme Court judgment states that FirstGroup’s policy with regard to use of the wheelchair space was insufficient to meet the requirements of the Equality Act 2010, and that bus drivers should be required to do more than simply request that a person vacates the wheelchair space, including suspending the journey if needed. The judgment did not provide clarity on precisely what action a service provider should require its drivers to take or how the needs of both passengers in wheelchairs and other bus users, disabled or otherwise, should be taken into account.

    In order to understand the implications of the judgment for disabled people, the bus industry and other passengers, and to identify actions for government and others to take to ensure that required adjustments can be provided on buses we established a stakeholder ‘Task and Finish Group on the Use of Wheelchair Spaces on Buses’ (the group).

    The group’s report to ministers stated that:

    Our view is that drivers need to play an active role in ensuring that the wheelchair space is made available for passengers in wheelchairs, which includes requiring other passengers to move where necessary, but that drivers also need more powers than they have currently to enable them to do this effectively.

    The group agreed that that whilst wheelchair users should be granted access to the on-board wheelchair space they may not be the only passengers who rely on using it, but that where other passengers do not have such a need they should be expected to vacate the space in order that it can be occupied by a wheelchair user.

    The group made 4 specific recommendations:

    That the Public Service Vehicles (Conduct of Drivers, Inspectors, Conductors and Passengers) Regulations 1990 (the Conduct Regulations) are amended to enable drivers to remove passengers from the bus who unreasonably refuse to move when requested from the wheelchair space

    The associated guidance is amended to better reflect the behaviours expected from drivers and passengers with respect to use of the wheelchair space

    Further work is conducted to consider how best to raise public awareness of the behaviours expected from passengers with respect to the wheelchair space, for example a public awareness campaign, or improved signage on buses

    That conditions of carriage and disability awareness training best practice guidance are updated to reflect the fact that passengers will be required to move from the wheelchair space should it be required by a passenger in a wheelchair

    I am grateful to the group for their careful consideration of this complex issue.

    Government agrees with the group that the wheelchair space should be available to those who need it and that the balance of measures proposed, supporting bus drivers to facilitate access to the wheelchair space, and creating an environment where the needs of disabled passengers are recognised and respected should help to overcome the barriers still faced by some disabled people when using bus services.

    In accepting the group’s recommendations in principle we will begin a process of further engagement to understand the specific experiences of a range of stakeholders affected by the wheelchair space issue, including wheelchair users, parents travelling with young children, and bus drivers – with a view to bringing forward a package of measures in 2018, informed by the group’s recommendations and our further consideration, to support access to the wheelchair space.

    Disabled people make 10 times as many journeys by bus as by rail, and it is essential that the services they rely upon to access education, employment, social and leisure activities are accessible to them. We hope that in supporting access to the wheelchair space for those who need it we will help many more disabled people to travel with confidence.

    Copies of the Task and Finish Group’s report to ministers and accompanying letter have been placed in the House libraries.