Tag: 2019

  • Theresa May – 2019 Speech at London Tech Week

    Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May, the Prime Minister, on 10 June 2019.

    Thank you. I am delighted to be at Here East to launch London Tech Week.

    Of all the events I go to as Prime Minister few I think have the energy and excitement of the week ahead – and few tell us so much about the power of technology to transform the very world we live in.

    How we harness that technological change and how we support you as pioneers of that technology is fundamental not only to the future of our entire economy – but the vision that I set out on my first day as Prime Minister – to build a country that works for everyone.

    I profoundly believe that technology can change people’s lives for the better.

    And indeed over the course of my own lifetime I have seen extraordinary advances.

    A year after I was born, the first ever satellite – Sputnik 1 – was launched into orbit around the earth, and several years later President Kennedy declared the US mission for man to land on the moon. Now, we have left the outer edges of our solar system.

    In the 1960s, computers were the size of rooms and not very fast. Now we all walk around with an incredibly sophisticated computer in our hands.

    And when I was working at the Association for Payment Clearing Services in the 1990s, I remember we were looking at how great it would be, rather than cash, to use a single card to pay for everything.

    It took a while for that technology to catch on – but last year there were 7.4 billion contactless transactions, up nearly a third from the year before.

    As Bill Gates once said: “We always overestimate the change that will occur in the next two years and underestimate the change that will occur in the next ten.”

    And we should not underestimate the scale of change over the next ten years, and the dramatic ways in which it is set to transform our world.

    It will bring opportunities for high-skilled and high-paid jobs in new sectors and new industries – the like of which we can only begin to imagine.

    And I am determined that we should seize these opportunities and spread the benefits of this future growth to every part of our country.

    But along with the opportunities that technological change will bring, is also uncertainty.

    We face profound challenges over the changing nature of work and what it will mean for the jobs of the future and the skills our young people will need to do them.

    We face profound questions about how we generate our future energy supplies in a sustainable way; how we travel; and how we harness new technologies such as Artificial Intelligence while ensuring that it cannot be exploited by those with malevolent intentions. So that technology is the force for progress that we all know it can be.

    And the only way to build an economy and country that works for everyone is to be at the forefront of working to answer those questions.

    That’s why I have put harnessing the power of technology to seize these opportunities and meet these challenges at the heart of our modern industrial strategy.

    It is a strategic long-term commitment – a partnership between business and government to make Britain the best place in the world in which to start or grow a business.

    It gets the fundamentals right – investing in infrastructure at local and national level, delivering the biggest ever long-term increase in R&D in our history. With a 2.4% of GDP target for R&D that is not about a single parliamentary term, but rather a decades-long commitment meant to transform the whole economy, and harness the opportunities presented by emergent technologies and new industries.

    It invests in equipping people with the skills they need – and the skills you need as dynamic tech-driven businesses – so you can succeed in an ever changing and ever more competitive global economy.

    And crucially it seeks to get us on the front foot in seizing the opportunities of technology and meeting the four grand challenges of our time – driving clean growth, breaking new ground in methods of future mobility, meeting the needs of an ageing population, and leading the world in Artificial Intelligence and Data.

    And that is why we have set defining missions:

    To use new technologies and modern construction practices to at least halve the energy usage of new buildings by 2030.

    To put the UK at the forefront of the design and manufacturing of zero emission vehicles and for all new cars and vans to be effectively zero emission by 2040.

    To establish the world’s first net-zero carbon industrial cluster by 2040 and at least one low-carbon cluster by 2030.

    To ensure that people can enjoy five extra, independent years of life by 2035.

    And to use Artificial Intelligence and Data to transform the prevention, early diagnosis and treatment of chronic disease by 2030.

    And we are backing these ambitions with action. Take Quantum as an example.

    It is set to have a profound impact on our everyday lives.

    Quantum devices might be able to see round corners.

    Quantum processors could model chemical reactions that would be beyond any existing supercomputer. This technology could transform computing, imaging and communications. We cannot put a limit on its potential – just as we could never have estimated how far and fast the Internet would transform our lives.

    The UK is already a global leader in Quantum, but I want to do more.

    So today we are investing over £150m towards this new technology, including how we can unlock its commercial value, and secure the benefits for the UK economy.

    In areas like this where the UK leads, we must also promote what we do around the world, and strike partnerships in research and best practice with key international partners.

    Because while we are not alone in identifying the Challenges that every other country will also have to grapple with – we can be at the forefront in finding answers.

    Delivering our Industrial Strategy internationally can have a real impact at home. It will drive UK exports, secure inward investment and mean local companies can expand into new global markets.

    To support this, we will launch future economy trade and partnership missions to world regions, each focused on one of our Industrial Strategy Grand Challenges. The first four of these will take place this year and act as a catalyst for sustained engagement on issues of trade, cutting edge research and the future of public policy.

    Because strengthening our knowledge networks will ensure we stay on the front foot.

    This is about backing Britain for the long-term.

    With Government playing an active role: working to provide the eco-system in which innovation can flourish.

    There is no part of that vision for our future success that does not involve the people in this room. Because even now it seems an anomaly to talk about a “tech” sector, as something separate from the rest of the economy. Digital technology – like earlier revolutions such as the printed word, or electricity – is rapidly becoming integral to everything else we do.

    And I am incredibly proud that the UK is at the heart of that revolution.

    Already we are one of the best places in the world to start and grow a tech business. British Tech is growing over one and a half times faster than the rest of the economy, adding more than one hundred and thirty billion pounds to our economy every year.

    We have a first-rate financial sector eager to invest, and last year tech venture investment was the highest in Europe. Our regulatory environment is second to none.

    We are home to extraordinary talent with the largest tech community in Europe. And when WhatsApp recently announced it will be opening a London office – it referenced the cosmopolitan nature of our workforce as a major reason in this decision.

    One of the great attractions of our business environment here in the UK, is that our consumers are innovative and always keen to try new things out. That is why we lead the world in online commerce, and why contactless payment in this country has grown so quickly.

    And of course, while we are here to celebrate London Tech Week, you can find tech thriving up and down the country: from gaming in Dundee and “Silicon Suburb” in Edinburgh, to fast-growing clusters in Manchester, Bristol, Bath and beyond.

    Oxford and Cambridge have outperformed Paris in producing ten unicorns, while Manchester – with five – has produced as many as Barcelona and Madrid combined.

    And it is fantastic that tech companies around the world are backing Britain today, with news of further investment totalling £1.2 billion. I am looking forward to meeting a number of these key investors later on, as well as the leaders of some of the UK’s biggest tech start-ups.

    British tech is thriving.

    But if we are going to maintain our position as a global leader, our challenge is how we develop British Tech and make it even better.

    We want this to be the place everyone thinks of – and comes to – first when they want to develop their world-changing tech ideas.

    This is a challenge shared between industry and Government.

    You tell us what matters most is building a competitive environment where you can thrive, and access to talent.

    I want to make sure Britain stays the best place in Europe to launch and grow a start-up.

    So I am delighted that leading figures from the tech community – including Cindy Rose – have agreed to undertake an industry-led Tech Competitiveness Study, reporting later this year.

    It will consider how to build on the UK’s competitive advantage, and what we can do better.

    I’ve heard from businesses that we should set up a major new hub, or series of hubs, for tech – one-stop shops where international investors and UK businesses can connect effectively with the sector.

    And the study will look closely at the case for this too.

    On talent, we want the brightest and the best to come to the UK.

    Our future immigration policy will clearly be at the heart of this.

    So that’s why in the immigration White Paper, we committed to looking at how ambitious start-ups can bring in skilled workers, taking into account the particular needs and circumstances of the tech industry.

    The Immigration Minister will use her roundtable this week to engage with you further on this issue, and we are also talking directly to countries like Canada and Denmark to understand best practice.

    We also know that delays to hiring skilled migrant workers can hold back business – so that is why in the White Paper we set an ambition to significantly improve the overall processing time to 10-15 working days, up there with the best systems in the world.

    But talent is more than just about mobility – it’s about home-grown skills too.

    And that’s why we’ve made coding compulsory at primary school.

    And it’s why we have invested £100 million for up to one thousand new AI PhDs and launched a new prestigious fellowship scheme for top AI researchers.

    Today, I can announce we are going further.

    We are creating up to 2,500 places in AI and data masters conversion courses around the country, starting next year.

    These courses will help people who have originally trained in other degree disciplines to contribute to the ongoing AI revolution.

    As part of this, we will fund up to 1,000 scholarships to ensure we open up these opportunities to everyone, no matter what your background.

    And as Government opens up doors for people across the country, I want to see the sector do more to reach out to diverse groups, where I believe there is huge untapped potential.

    Getting talent right is crucial for the future of the sector.

    But, to be truly competitive globally, we need to look wider than talent too.

    Creating the right conditions for growth also means we have a framework that inspires confidence. I firmly believe the right regulation is what makes capitalism work.

    It’s been true of previous technological revolutions.

    Both Government, and the sector as it becomes more mature, now see smart regulation as part of a thriving digital economy, rather than a threat to innovation.

    There are two ways in which we need to make this technological revolution work in the UK – how we create a fair market, and how we protect citizens.

    I want to thank Professor Jason Furman for his excellent work showing how we can boost competition in digital markets.

    And I am pleased that Professor Furman has today agreed that he will advise on the next phase of work on how we can implement his recommendation to create a new Digital Markets Unit.

    Building a strong environment for business also means ensuring we maintain the public’s trust in a rapidly changing environment.

    We all agree there are legitimate concerns about how technology is used, and Government has a role to play in setting standards for industry.

    Our Online Harms White Paper, published earlier this year, sets out our approach to protecting citizens, while maintaining an environment where business can thrive.

    And to get it right, we want to work with you – and I am pleased that industry has been working thoughtfully with both the Digital and Home Secretaries on the details.

    Our response to online harms, though, is not just about how Government and business come together.

    It’s also about how you work together as an industry.

    I was struck at last month’s Extremism Summit in Paris at how powerful it was to have the world’s top companies coming together with a joint statement of action.

    And I want to see this spirit of cooperation continue as we face both the opportunities and challenges ahead.

    Because today as we sit on the cusp of the next great industrial revolution, we have the opportunity to work together and ensure that the advances we see transform our world for the better, and for the benefit of everyone.

    Government will back you all the way.

    But it will also take your talent.

    And if ever we needed any more evidence of the energy and creativity that exists here in the UK – then we only need to take a look around us at where we are today.

    A home to exciting businesses and innovative enterprises – at the very place which broadcast to the world the amazing success story of the 2012 Olympics.

    Your ingenuity, your expertise and your vision are what are going to propel us to Britain’s success stories of the future.

    You are the reason why Britain is home to some of the most exciting tech businesses in the world.

    So let us work together, and create a Tech Nation that truly is worlds apart.

  • Chris Skidmore – 2019 Speech at Launch of Smart Export Guarantee

    Below is the text of the speech made by Chris Skidmore, the Minister of State for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation, on 10 June 2019.

    Ladies and gentlemen – good afternoon. It’s great for me to be here with you during London Tech Week – an event which I’ve been looking forward to since I took the job of Science Minister back in December.

    And it’s even more exciting for me now, because as well as my usual brief – which covers science, innovation, higher education and agri-tech, among many other topics – I’m currently looking after the energy and clean growth portfolio.

    And all of these things, I think, fit together in a very real, and very important way.

    Just under a year ago we received the landmark report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on the impact of global warming of 1.5 degrees; a report which provided the clearest picture yet of the catastrophic impacts of rising global temperatures.

    We immediately sought the advice of the Committee for Climate Change, asking what we needed to do to accelerate our own decarbonisation, and how we could make this benefit bill-payers and businesses alike.

    We received the Committee’s response in May. The report is comprehensive and authoritative and the advice is clear: limiting climate change is achievable. But it will take a tremendous effort – across all sectors of the economy, in all corners of the country – to meet our goals. And a huge surge of innovation to ensure that we can continue to prosper through this transition.

    Recently, I’ve been making a series of speeches on our national R&D investment, and our plans to increase spending on innovation to 2.4% of GDP, rising to 3% in the longer term – an increase that will affect every area of our lives. We’re putting two-and-a-half billion pounds into our efforts to decarbonise across the board, giving us a great chance to be at the cutting edge of the technologies of the future.

    Many people say that we’re in the early years of a fourth Industrial Revolution, a change just as profound as the birth of the steam engine and mass production, or the dawning of the digital age. But my colleague the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Michael Gove, has rightly identified that we’re entering into an agricultural revolution too – how we use our land will have to change, just as everything else will.

    Farmers of course know this all too well, having been on the front-line last summer when temperatures were extraordinarily high, and food production became particularly challenging.

    It might be this understanding that has inspired our agricultural sectors to embrace innovation, whether that’s exploring vertical farming to reduce waste and preserve our soil, using AI to monitor the relationship between bees and their environment to keep both in better health, or adopting precision agriculture techniques to improve crop yields and reduce fertiliser use. We have even begun using robots to plant, grow and harvest crops – as successfully trialled by Harper Adams University with its ‘Hands-Free Hectare’ project, which has attracted global interest.

    I think that this gives us a glimpse into how we’ll be producing food in the future. These are all crucial developments, and each can make a major contribution to reducing our carbon footprint. But today, I want to focus in on another area where we could see real change: energy.

    Of course, you don’t have to look very hard to see that, over the years, there has been a great deal of change here.

    Go back 50 years or so and you’d find the landscape unrecognisable – literally so, for anyone who can remember the smog and soot of the mid-20th century. In fact, a hundred years ago, and just a few meters away from here, the Coal Drops – which are now being converted into a retail quarter – would have been filled with piles and piles of pitch-black coal, delivered from South Yorkshire and dispersed into London by narrowboat and horse-drawn cart.

    Nor is it just the fuel that’s changed. Back in the 1960s and 70s, electricity was provided by your local electricity board – and that was about all you knew. If more energy was required, someone would phone someone, who would in turn phone someone else, until, eventually, someone in a power station was tasked with increasing the flow of coal into the furnace.

    Coal was king, while solar power and offshore wind were considered curiosities – or even fantasies – if they were ever considered at all.

    But today, the story is entirely different. In 1970s and 80s – and even into 1990 – to power our nation we burned through 70 million tonnes of coal each year. Just last week we saw an 18-day run of coal-free days – something we haven’t seen since the dawning of the first industrial revolution. And this morning, none of our power was being generated by coal.

    This is a real testament to our flourishing renewables sector. In 2010 we had just under 10 gigawatts of renewable electricity. But at the end of last year, we’d more-than-quadrupled that. Last quarter, 54% of electricity generation was from low carbon sources, and on the 14 May this year a quarter of our power came from solar – these are the best results we’ve ever seen.

    In the wider green economy, we’re employing some 400,000 people in green jobs, and we’re aiming to see that number increase to as many as 2 million over the next decade.

    And these are jobs throughout the country:

    In Hull, Siemens Gamesa have employed over 1,000 people at their turbine blade factory

    On the Isle of Wight, MHI Vestas have installed a new blade mould in their factory, creating 1,100 jobs and adding more than £40 million to the local economy. While in Fawley the same company have turned a decommissioned oil-fired power plant into a state-of-the-art painting and logistics facility for their 80-meter turbine blades

    And in places like Grimsby and Barrow-in-Furness, people are seeing the economic benefits of new investment in operations and maintenance facilities for offshore wind.

    The Offshore Wind Sector Deal, launched on 7 March, has committed to looking at the technologies of the future, working across the R&D sector and institutions, which will provide the UK with significant export opportunities, including digital and robotic technologies for surveying and operations and maintenance, and next generation technologies contributing to cost reduction and grid integration.

    So not only are we decarbonising, we’re also diversifying – bringing these new technologies in, alongside natural gas and nuclear, to modernise our approach to energy. At the same time, we are building flexibility and reliability into a new, digitalised, decentralised system, through the rollout of smart meters and the deployment of technologies such as batteries and smart appliances, as outlined in our Smart Systems and Flexibility Plan.

    We are already seeing more generation located closer to people’s homes, an increase in energy demand as electric vehicles begin to take off, and a huge passion for climate-conscious policies and green products among the British people.

    Our citizens want to do the right thing, and to be trusted to make their own decisions – exactly what this government wants to see too. Crucial to this effort is empowering both individuals and businesses to take control of their energy use; ensuring that people have the means to do what works for them, and are rewarded for their efforts.

    So today, I’m really pleased to announce our new plan to develop small-scale, low-carbon electricity generation here in the UK. Supplier led and subsidy free, we’re calling it the Smart Export Guarantee, or SEG for short, and its legislation has been laid in Parliament today – meaning it will be implemented before this year is done.

    At its most basic, the SEG is a guarantee that those homes and businesses that supply their own low-carbon electricity – through solar panels on the roof, for example, or an anaerobic digestion plant on a farm – will have the chance to sell their excess electricity to the grid through a market mechanism. They’ll be known as ‘exporters.’ Most electricity suppliers – any with more than 150,000 UK customers – will be required offer at least one ‘export tariff’, which will be the means through which this low-carbon electricity is bought and sold.

    The precise details of the tariff – such as length and level – will be for suppliers to determine, but there are a few core conditions, not least that exporters must be paid for what they produce, even when market prices are negative.

    We expect to see these suppliers bidding competitively for electricity to give exporters their best market price, while providing the local grid with more clean, green energy. Indeed, since we first consulted on the SEG we are seeing great signs that the market is gearing up to rise to this challenge, with some suppliers, such as Bulb and Octopus, offering or trialling export tariffs to small-scale generators.

    As the Secretary of State has set out previously, it is now time to move away from deployment through subsidy – paid for through a levy on bills – and towards a more market-based approach. This will benefit consumers, and will spur the sector to take advantage of innovation in technology and processes to reduce costs.

    In line with our Industrial Strategy, our aim is to enable the small-scale low-carbon generation sector to fairly access the wider energy market and deliver clean, smart and flexible power. This will extend the benefits of a smarter energy system more widely, which will aid ambitions to further reduce emissions.

    And perhaps most exciting of all, the SEG will benefit from an overlap with other parts of the low carbon transition, from electric vehicles to home storage and smart tariffs.

    A key motivation for the SEG is enhancing the role that generators can play in driving forward a smarter energy system, using smart meters and time of use tariffs, which will allow more consumers to benefit from flexible electricity prices.

    Under the previous Feed-in Tariffs scheme, exported electricity was largely unmeasured, flowing back to the grid without metering. Under the SEG, exports will be metered, supporting the roll-out of smart meters and ensuring compatibility with the rise in use of both electric vehicles and storage batteries.

    So In the home of the future, customers could generate solar power, use that power to charge their car and go for a drive; then, when they came home, they could sell the power left in the car’s battery back to the grid at a time of peak demand – so at a better price for them, while taking some of the load burden off national generation.

    All of this will mean that there has never been a better time for innovative, low-carbon products and services to come to market. And with this legislation, we will ensure that we achieve that smart, green, flexible future we all want to see.

    This is an evolving field – one that is welcoming to any business or individual that is ready and willing to develop new ideas and new technology. As I often say to the young people I speak to – whether I’m wearing my University Minister hat or my Science Minister goggles – great ideas can come from anywhere.

    That’s why as well as talking to all of you, this London Tech Week I’m pleased to announce the winners of our Energy Entrepreneurs’ Fund.

    Since first running in 2012, the EEF has been one of the pillars of our Energy Innovation Programme. So far it’s supported 133 projects, leading to more than 300 new jobs being created, more than 100 patents being filed, and more than £100 million of private sector investment.

    And I’m delighted to say that we’re maintaining this excellent record, with today’s announcement of the 19 winners of Phase 7 of the fund.

    These winners, whose details we’ve published today, will be receiving a share of over £8 million to support the development of their technologies in energy efficiency, power generation, and storage – technologies which will, of course, be essential to the SEG, and to that home of the future.

    Maybe it’s because I’m coming to this portfolio with fairly fresh eyes, but it’s been a revelation for me to see the terrific progress we’re making, and the many, many reasons we have to be optimistic about green growth in this country.

    As I said back at the beginning of my speech, we all know that we’re facing down a huge challenge, but I’ve seen a tremendous level of engagement from businesses and individuals throughout the UK, and as much as I know the enthusiasm is there, I want to make sure it spreads to every single person in this country.

    It’s one of the reasons that we’re so keen to host COP26, which we’re negotiating at the moment. Of course there are other countries that have a great story to tell, and have every right to host, but I think what we’re doing here is truly exceptional, and is setting a precedent for the rest of the world to follow. After the success of Green GB Week, I have no doubt we’d do an excellent job with COP.

    But that’s something for the future. For the time being, I’m delighted by the Smart Export Guarantee, and I’m really excited to see the difference it will make in the years ahead. There are benefits in this for consumers, and plenty of opportunities for the sector and its suppliers too.

    We’ve seen the energy landscape change over the centuries, and I think we’re about to see it change again for the better. A cleaner, leaner system – with the British people at its heart – is on its way.

    So I hope you’ll take that optimism with you into the rest of this week, and I want to thank you all for listening today.

    Thank you.

  • Theresa May – 2019 Statement on Grenfell Tower Inquiry Panel Members

    Below is the text of the statement made by Theresa May, the Prime Minister, in the House of Commons on 5 June 2019.

    The fire in Grenfell Tower on 14 June 2017 was an unimaginable tragedy that should never have happened. The Government set up the Grenfell Tower Inquiry to get to the truth about what happened, deliver justice for victims, survivors, bereaved families and the wider community, and to ensure that such a terrible tragedy could never happen again.

    Section 7 (1)(b) of the Inquiries Act 2005 allows me to appoint panel members to the inquiry panel at any time during the inquiry. I have recently announced that Professor Nabeel Hamdi and Thouria Istephan will be appointed to the inquiry panel for phase 2 of the inquiry’s work.

    Professor Nabeel Hamdi is a widely accomplished academic with an international reputation in housing and participatory design and planning. Thouria Istephan is an experienced and highly respected architect with a professional focus on health and safety. She is a partner at Foster + Partners and has a range of skills and experience directly relevant to the issues that the inquiry will be investigating in phase 2 of its work.

    Given the extent of the tragic circumstances surrounding the fire, we should not be surprised by the scale and breadth of issues to be investigated that have emerged from the inquiry’s work. Phase 2 of the inquiry will be the largest phase in terms of the number and range of issues to be considered and I am confident that these appointments will ensure that the inquiry panel has the diversity of skills and expertise necessary for the scope and complexity of issues to be addressed by phase 2 of the inquiry’s work.

    I wrote to the Chair of the inquiry, Sir Martin Moore-Bick, before recess informing him of my decision and to seek his consent to the appointments in accordance ​with section 7(2)(b) of the Inquiries Act 2005. Sir Martin replied on 29 May 2019 consenting to the appointment. Our exchange of letters can be found on gov.uk: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/names-of-grenfell-tower-inquiry-panel-members-announced- 30-may-2019

  • Lord Callanan – 2019 Statement on the General Affairs Council

    Below is the text of the speech made by Lord Callanan, the Minister of State for Exiting the European Union, in the House of Lords on 5 June 2019.

    I represented the UK at the General Affairs Council (GAC) in Brussels on 21 May 2019. Until we leave the European Union, we remain committed to fulfilling our rights and obligations as a full member state and continue to act in good faith. A provisional report of the meeting and the conclusions adopted can be found on the Council of the European Union’s website at:

    https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/meetings/gac/2019/05/19/

    Multiannual financial framework 2021-2027

    Ministers discussed the structure of external action expenditure during the 2021-2027 multiannual financial framework (MFF). Discussion centred around the neighbourhood, development and international co-operation instrument (NDICI), and the European development fund (EDF). Ministers focused on the Commission’s proposal for integrating the EDF into the EU budget. The Commission stated that this would streamline previous spending on external action by bringing together 12 programmes; a single and larger fund would have more ​flexibility to respond to emerging priorities. Several member states argued that the European neighbourhood should remain a separate fund or ring-fenced within the NDICI, due to the need to prioritise Europe’s near neighbours.

    Preparation of the European Council on 20-21 June 2019: Annotated draft agenda

    Ministers discussed the annotated draft agenda of the European Council on 20-21 June. The agenda included the 2019-2024 strategic agenda, the 2021-2027 MFF, climate change and countering disinformation.

    The majority of member state interventions focused on climate change, the strategic agenda and enlargement. Ministers were keen to balance ambitious goals with maintaining the global competitiveness of the EU, and being able to address citizens’ needs effectively. A number of member states suggested that the Sibiu declaration should be incorporated into deliverable goals for the strategic agenda. Under discussions on enlargement, some member states hoped that progress would be made at the June European Council to allow accession talks with North Macedonia and Albania.

    I intervened to welcome the Sibiu declaration on the strategic agenda. I also highlighted our commitment to combat disinformation in the EU through the joint action plan, as well as domestically, through the White Paper on online harms and the Cairncross review on upholding high quality journalism.

  • John Glen – 2019 Speech on Women in Finance

    Below is the text of the speech made by John Glen, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, at the Women in Finance Summit held on 6 June 2019.

    It’s a pleasure to speak with you this morning on a subject that is right at the top of my priorities.

    Women in Finance really is central to the success of UK financial services, and our prosperity more broadly.

    Not because of social pressure or reputational risk – but to help us meet the challenges and opportunities of the global economy.

    In the future, we will never be able to compete with the likes of China or India when it comes to raw numbers, or sheer financial and political clout.

    The single most decisive factor in our success will be the expertise found within our workforce.

    And if the UK is to remain a leading centre for global finance, then we cannot afford for people with talent and skill to pass the sector by.

    Nor can we afford for experienced and capable individuals to be prevented from rising to the top.

    I know many of you recognise this too.

    As such, I hope you’ll forgive me if I don’t repeat all the traditional arguments in favour of workplace diversity.

    It might have been necessary 10 or 15 years ago; but this is 2019. One would hope that the benefits are plainly apparent across the industry – and certainly to this audience.

    Nor do I intend to simply reel of the normal list of Government platitudes and policies as you might expect from a ministerial speaker.

    You’ve already discussed the Treasury’s Women in Finance Charter in the previous session.

    And many of the 330 organisations that have already signed-up are represented today.

    Instead, I want to talk about how we can translate our shared commitment into meaningful, measurable, improvement.

    As City Minister, I certainly hear all the right noises about diversity and inclusion.

    Corporate leaders tell me they ‘get it’.

    They have an action plan. They hold forums. They bring in experts.

    And yet the gender pay gap in financial services remains the largest of any sector within our economy.

    On average a woman earns 64 pence for every one pound earned by a man.

    There is no great mystery behind this disparity. The simple fact is men are disproportionately represented in senior roles which naturally attract better salaries.

    For all the noise and activity – for all the supposed commitment within the sector – there are still too few women reaching the top.

    Is it because companies are choosing quick and superficial wins over long term cultural change?

    Or perhaps they were only interested in window dressing in the first place?

    I have certainly heard some horror stories in my time.

    Reports of firms filling gender balanced shortlists but with no real intention of employing the women concerned.

    Or creating new seats for women in the boardroom in roles that are peripheral or – worse – roles that set them up for failure.

    These are anecdotal examples – one hopes they aren’t accurate.

    But somehow the very public commitment to diversity and inclusion throughout the sector isn’t cutting through.

    Earlier this week, I had the opportunity to visit the headquarters of Man Group.

    It’s one of the firms that is making progress.

    They’ve introduced a global parental leave policy. All new parents – men and women alike – are entitled to the same full pay and the same, extended, 18-week leave allowance.

    I wanted to speak to a cross section of women who work there to understand their perspective more broadly.

    I was particularly taken with the comments of one classics graduate who is now co-managing a billion-euro hedge fund.

    She made the point that the perception that financial services is all about complex maths and spreadsheets can put people off. It doesn’t reflect many aspects and skills required for the job. Emotional intelligence also matters.

    Alongside the requirement for hard quantitative analytical skills is the need to understand the complex inter-personal dynamics and culture of an organisation you might want to invest in.

    This point about perception came up time-and-again during our conversations.

    Take role models as an example.

    We often look to CEOs and industry ‘big names’. But if they are so far removed from your own experience or career path, what impact can they really have on your aspirations?

    People need realistic case studies. Role models with backgrounds they recognise. Attributes they can emulate.

    And I think perception also plays an important part in answering why we’ve not seen more progress in achieving a greater gender balance across the sector.

    There’s little point in having the right policies on parental leave, for example, if new mothers or fathers feel that taking their entitlement will harm their career.

    Likewise, there’s little point in permitting flexible working if staff feel they’ll be poorly judged if they work at home.

    Indeed, truly enlightened firms should be willing to publish the data to prove they practice what they preach.

    And the most inclusive firms are those where managers lead by example.

    Because if managers aren’t taking the leave they’re entitled to – or if they’re burning the midnight oil in the office night after night – is it any wonder if their staff feel obliged to do the same?

    It’s clear that having the right policies isn’t enough by itself – the culture must be there too.

    Of course, some countries have gone down the route of legislation.

    In Sweden new mothers and fathers are obliged to take their entitlement of parental leave, and that’s been the case for several decades.

    My instinct is that isn’t the right solution for the UK at present.

    I’d much rather tap into the spirit of competition that exists within the sector by sharing best practice to inspire – or provoke – firms to do better.

    And there are plenty of companies that are making progress toward their targets.

    Lloyds has a leadership development programme which has seen women being promoted at a rate 5 times greater than the average across the firm.

    Nationwide reviewed their maternity leave policy and consequently. designed a new returners programme to help ease mothers back into work.

    And at PwC all staff, at every level, have diversity linked objectives against which their performance is assessed.

    This kind of approach matters because everyone has a role to play in creating an inclusive culture.

    Everyone is a leader of some sorts, even if it’s just by setting an example for others to follow.

    And it’s important to hold people to this obligation – just as firms need to be held to account for the overall progress they make.

    This leads us back to the Women in Finance Charter

    The next annual review will begin over the summer.

    And I will be taking a personal interest in the submissions we receive.

    I don’t expect to see complete transformations overnight.

    But I do expect to see signs that you are making headway.

    Putting in place policies and programmes which will deliver consistent progress in the years to come.

    Because signing the Charter is not a ‘tick in the box’ – it’s a solemn commitment to do what must be done to right this wrong.

    So let me draw this together.

    I’ve raised a few awkward questions today, but I make no apology for asking them – nor are they for me to answer.

    Ultimately, the onus is on the sector to ask itself whether it is willing to translate warm words into the tough, tangible action which is necessary.

    I’m proud to be your advocate.

    Barely a day goes by when I don’t speak in Parliament or in public about the contribution that financial services make to our economy, or the potential it offers for the future.

    I will always try to name firms that represent the best of the sector, as I have done today.

    But nor will I shy away from highlighting where the sector is falling short; and where it needs to do more.

    And the hard truth is we still have a long way to go.

    So the time has come for real leadership.

    No more gestures.

    No more warm words.

    Decisive action is required.

    I must now return to Whitehall to prepare for a Parliamentary debate this afternoon.

    But I would encourage you to take inspiration from one another’s achievements and from all you’ve heard today.

    And to never lose sight of what we’re working toward.

    A financial sector where no one is forced to choose between their family and their career.

    A sector where anyone can succeed on the strengths of their talents alone.

    A sector that is not only more open, but more resilient, more dynamic and more successful too.

  • Chris Skidmore – 2019 Speech at the Arts and Humanities Research Council

    Below is the text of the speech made by Chris Skidmore, the Minister of State for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation, at the Arts and Humanities Research Council on 6 June 2019.

    Good evening. It’s a great pleasure to be invited to deliver tonight’s lecture here in Burlington House. And, as a Fellow of the Society of the Antiquaries which calls it home, it’s only right that I’m going to be talking about the value of the Arts and Humanities – both to universities and to contemporary society.

    The last time I spoke at the Society was in 2013 when I launched my book, Bosworth: The Birth of the Tudors. As many of you know, I’ve attempted to try and achieve a work-life balance that involves juggling policy and public service, with a personal passion for exploring the past and continuing to write history.

    I continue to do so, not for any financial reward or material gain: but because, like many of you here this evening, I am drawn by that overwhelming desire to understand, to comprehend, how different, how similar, previous generations are to our own, and to understand them on their own terms, for their own sake.

    It is not something that can ever be fully measured, or its value codified by some anonymised data collection processor.

    Indeed, my own graduate outcome data was only salvaged at the last moment, in the final week before I turned twenty nine, when to my surprise I was elected as the Member of Parliament for Kingswood. That brought to a sudden end any hopes I might have had of my first career path of choice, and dream of entering academia.

    I must admit to feeling rather guilty, however, being in the presence of the AHRC this evening. I firstly wanted to take this opportunity to get something off my chest, and to say thank you for the support that the Council gave me as a masters and doctoral student in the early 2000s.

    And to apologise that I never finished the DPhil that I was funded for.

    I hope that I can be forgiven: I wanted to say, however, that what I learnt then, the skills that I acquired, the knowledge and research that I began, I hope did not go to waste.

    Indeed, while I can’t account for the end quality of the work I undertook, I do recognise absolutely the value that it brought me.

    And it is to that theme of value, and the value of the humanities, which I wish to reflect upon this evening. Tonight also marks – exactly to the day – the start of my seventh month in office as Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation. A milestone which I have to admit I didn’t think I’d get to when I took the role on in December!

    I have been especially keen since then to highlight the role of the Arts and Humanities when it comes to, not just understanding, but also tackling the major challenges we face in society today.

    Indeed, this has been a guiding principle in my approach to both sides of my ministerial portfolio to date, which – thanks largely to binary government divides – sees me cover the higher education side of my brief as a Minister in the Department for Education, and the science, research and innovation element as a Minister in the Department of BEIS.

    But I’ve always been keen to build bridges between these two portfolios and to do everything I can to bring both sides of my brief together.

    That’s why, in my first major speech I made back in January, I set out my vision for a “unity of purpose” – where I didn’t just try to link up the teaching and research sides of my portfolio, but also bring together technical and vocational education with that which is traditionally considered academic.

    In this vision, I emphasised the need for people to be free to embark on the type of education that suits them, at any time that is right for them. This means embedding flexibility at the heart of the system and enhancing the portability of qualifications – to allow for the ‘step-on step-off’ approach that many people need.

    I was convinced then that we should build bridges to make this happen. And I am pleased now to see how my ambition to create a more fluid and joined-up post-18 education landscape that works for learners of every age has been reflected in the so-called Augar review.

    And since this is my first speech since the Panel’s report was published last week, it’s only right that I thank Philip Augar and the independent Panel for their hard work over the past year and a half.

    It isn’t easy being in the spotlight while working on recommendations that could transform the post-18 education landscape as we know it. And I know the sector has been watching closely to see what recommendations emerge about the future funding of provision.

    I understand the anxieties.

    Indeed, even before the report was released, I made clear my concerns over some of the initial leaks, such as the speculation over a three-‘D’ threshold to enter university.

    And I’m pleased to see that proposal didn’t make the cut. If it had done so, it would have been completely regressive, and would have shut the door on opportunity for so many people whose lives are transformed by our world-leading universities and colleges.

    But the recommendations from the report are now out there. And I’m keen to work with the higher education sector over the coming months to consult on the proposals and hear the different views.

    One of the questions I’ll be addressing as part of this reflection period is what the report means for the future of the Arts and Humanities, and what it says about how we value these disciplines in society today? For my part, I’ve always been clear that high-quality education in a range of subjects is absolutely critical for our public services and is culturally enriching for our society.

    But we must be careful not to confuse high-quality with high-value, for they are two different concepts, with two very different outcomes.

    High Quality is something that we should all aspire to, whether in our work, our research, our teaching. Many universities and many courses already are world leading: you don’t need me to repeat the fact that four out of the top 10 global leading universities are in the UK, 18 in the top 100, but I will. For I want to see that figure rise even further over time.

    I hope that our reforms to Higher Education, with the establishment of the Office for Students, which will be fully operational from 1 August this year, will help embed and achieve that focus on quality which must be continued. At the heart of the OfS’ mission will be to embed greater transparency within our HE system. Institutions will be held account both for their performance on access and participation, but they will also be accountable through the transparency duty that will provide more information than ever before.

    At the same time, additional transparency comes in the form of the Longitudinal Education Outcomes Data, which after a decade, is beginning to bring forward tranches of data from students who graduated back in 2008. I fully understand the importance of data on the returns of higher education. It’s through this that we’ll continue to improve and maintain the high quality and standards we have become known for across the globe. And I’m pleased to announce the data advisory committee I set up to support me will be meeting formally with me for the first time next month.

    However, I also understand that data, in its current form, cannot measure everything. And until we have found a way to capture the vital contribution that degrees of social value make to our society – degrees like Nursing or Social Care – then we risk overlooking the true value of these subjects. The same goes for the Arts and Humanities.

    Although some people around us may argue that the contribution of these disciplines to society may be less tangible, their influence is all around us.

    I challenge the critics to imagine a world without art, without music, without literature. Without people who can think outside the box or challenge ideas.

    All this comes from the critical thinking that knowing about different cultures, philosophies and languages provides us.

    It is a product of a centuries old understanding of the liberal arts, and how they can shape minds for the future. What might be ‘low value’ to one man, might to others represent money well spent on acquiring knowledge for its own sake, expanding one’s cultural horizons, learning to empathise and reflect upon the human condition, applying it to the challenges for the future.

    There is a place for knowing which subjects have the potential to generate higher salaries in the future– not least for those students who want to make sure they make the right choice of subject and institution for them. For those who wish to know this information, it is also important to highlight the economic benefits of studying creative subjects too.

    And, actually, the story isn’t all negative for those studying creative subjects. The latest Longitudinal Educational Outcomes (LEO) data show us that women studying creative arts, in particular, can expect to earn around 9% more on average than women who don’t go into higher education at all. And the highest returning creative arts course can significantly increase female earnings by around 79%. So, a creative education can certainly be the right choice for a number of people.

    That shouldn’t come as a surprise.

    After all, our Industrial Strategy recognises the importance of the Creative Sector in the UK economy, as being an absolutely vital one.

    My government has sought to invest in that sector, providing film tax credits for example to encourage films such as Star Wars or the series Game of Thrones to be filmed here. These fantastic billion dollar industries have chosen the UK as their destination of choice because we have chosen to make a commitment to the arts for the present.

    Since becoming a Minister seven months ago, I have sought to demonstrate our continued commitment to the arts and humanities through our Industrial Strategy, not just for the present but for the future also.

    As I said back in January, these subjects are “the very disciplines that make our lives worth living”. They enable us to think critically and communicate. They give us a moral compass by which to live. They boost our appreciation of beauty. And they help us make sense of where we have come from and, indeed, where we are heading to. That’s why I set out early on that “the last thing I want to see is value judgements emerging which falsely divide the Sciences and Engineering from the Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences.”

    In fact, some of you may have noticed that I even used my first speech to push the parameters of my job description somewhat.

    In it, I declared that “although I am officially Minister for Science, I take great pride in wanting to be Minister for the Arts and Humanities as well – disciplines which enrich our culture and society, and have an immeasurable impact on our health and wellbeing”.

    And I have stood firmly by that conviction.

    It wasn’t without coincidence that I gave my first speech at RADA – one of the oldest and most prestigious centres of dramatic art training in the UK.

    And it certainly hasn’t been unintentional that I have visited several specialist creative arts institutions as part of my ongoing tour of the UK higher education sector.

    In the thirty-or-so institutions I have visited to date, I’ve seen first-hand the value that the Arts and Humanities bring – not just to the students studying these disciplines, but also to the wider UK society.

    In my first month in the job, I spoke to Technical Theatre students at St Mary’s University Twickenham, who had chosen to take two-year, accelerated degrees specifically to allow them faster access to specialist jobs in our world-leading dramatic arts sector.

    I’ve sat down with students at Ravensbourne University to talk about their passion for fashion and the creative arts. And they told me how their studies have opened up opportunities for them, which they otherwise wouldn’t have dreamed of.

    When I went over to Ulster University, I saw for myself how graduates in the arts are supporting Northern Ireland’s growing creative industries cluster – famous for film and TV productions like Game of Thrones, Derry Girls and The Fall.

    And closer to home in London, I’ve met students on photography courses at London South Bank University, which lead to near 100% graduate employment.

    I’ve spoken to students from across the globe at the Royal Academy of Music, who have come here to study and learn, thanks to the world-class reputation of our conservatoires.

    And, most recently, I’ve seen one of the UK’s most successful institution-led business incubators – which is not at a scientific or large research-intensive university as you might expect. But is actually to be found at the Royal College of Art, where it is nurturing high-value businesses and attracting worldwide investment.

    What I’ve learnt from my visits so far is that the Arts and Humanities are absolutely vital to our nation’s success and prosperity – not just in terms of transforming the lives of those that study them, and enhancing their future prospects. But bolstering our economy and putting the UK firmly on the map as world leaders in creative education.

    I can certainly see how the arts and culture contribute more than £10.8 billion GVA to the UK economy – a figure published by the Creative Industries Federation just last month.

    And I can certainly understand why prospective students from around the world are looking to come to the UK for a truly world-leading education – one which embraces creativity, design and critical thinking as part and parcel of the course. Recently we launched our International Education Strategy, setting for the first time an ambition to ensure that we have 600,000 international students studying in the UK by 2030.

    I’ve held many bilateral meetings with education ministers from across the globe over these past six months, most recently holding several round tables with countries ranging from Egypt to Thailand: it has been striking to observe that what they most admire about the UK Higher Education system is not only its quality, but its ability to produce graduates with deeply ingrained critical thinking skills- skills which we know are the essence of a humanities education.

    The Arts and Humanities are not just powerful disciplines in their own right.

    They have the potential to help other disciplines, sectors and industries to do so much more as well. And we should be harnessing this power now, for the good of our society, as well as for our future health and prosperity.

    It was exactly this sentiment that I put forward in a speech I gave a couple of months ago at a joint British Academy and Royal Society event to mark the 60th anniversary of C. P. Snow’s “Two Cultures” lecture. In it, I reflected on how far I have come in my own personal appreciation of the different disciplines – having started out in the Arts and Humanities as a Tudor historian, but having had the enormous privilege in this job to learn so much more about the Natural and Physical Sciences as well. And, specifically, what can be achieved when the Arts and Sciences – or the “two cultures – combine.

    And I’ve since seen the power of this myself in my own work.

    As you’ll probably know, my most recent book tells the story of Richard III and his threefold role as brother, protector, king.

    Through studying original manuscripts – in the way a historian knows how – I follow his life through to the bitter end, where he was killed by Henry VII’s forces at the Battle of Bosworth Field.

    However, I realise that’s not the only way of approaching Richard III’s story.

    Just last month, on a visit to Aston University, I was lucky enough to meet Professor Sarah Hainsworth – Pro-Vice-Chancellor and Executive Dean of the School of Engineering and Applied Science.

    Now, you’re probably wondering what a Tudor historian and a forensic engineer have in common!

    But what if I tell you that among Sarah’s many accomplishments is her experience in helping to establish the exact manner of King Richard III’s death?

    After Richard III’s skeleton was discovered in Leicester in 2012, Sarah used her forensic expertise to analyse the wound marks found on his bones. And she was able to confirm he was indeed killed by a sword or a battle-axe spike that was thrust four inches into his head.

    In total, her team confirmed Richard III suffered eleven wounds around the time of his death – nine to his skull and two to the rest of his body.

    Now, I admit that’s perhaps a bit too much unexpected grim detail for a lecture on the value of the Arts and Humanities. But the point is, while my approach through historical scholarship can provide colour to Richard III’s life, it is Sarah’s approach through the Sciences and Engineering that can confirm the facts and the harsh realities of his death.

    But both approaches complement each other enormously.

    Without the wider meaningful narrative that I’ve been able to provide through traditional scholarship in the antiquaries, Sarah’s findings would be just a static fact. A clinical diagnosis, detached from the wider history of that period.

    Yet, without Sarah’s scientific validation of Richard III’s death, my narrative account would remain hearsay, or a version of the truth as yet unproven.

    So, what we’re seeing here is the two disciplines coming together and working in unison to enhance our understanding of the past.

    And this merger of the “two cultures” has other benefits too.

    Today, we live in a world where around 50% of the UK population have a degree by the time they are 30. Still not enough in my opinion, and certainly not enough if we are to compete as a knowledge economy for the future internationally.

    As Universities Minister, I’m keen that nobody is deterred from pursuing a particular discipline just because it appears that studying it isn’t for people like them.

    This is a principle, which applies equally to the Arts and Humanities as it does to Science and Engineering. Thankfully, one mitigating factor to this is the fact that our disciplinary landscape is continually evolving. And there can be no doubt that, over time, traditional disciplinary boundaries have become more blurred, and subject definitions far more elastic.

    As technology has developed and time has moved on, new subjects have emerged out of old ones. Interdisciplinary studies have become far more commonplace. And multi-disciplinary approaches have become more desired – not just within academia itself, but by businesses, industry and government.

    Part of this is down to our recognition of the fact that we have to tackle the world’s grand challenges now, before it’s too late. And these challenges, themselves, are not constrained within individual disciplinary boundaries. Indeed, the grand challenges we face today are formed at the intersection of the traditional disciplines – where the Arts, Humanities, Natural Sciences and Social Sciences meet.

    How can we ensure that as we live longer, we can continue to live well and healthily?

    In our ambition to tackle global warming and reduce our use of carbon, how can we adapt life around the home to reach a net-zero target?

    As our cities become more populated, how can we sustain a transport ecosystem that is both clean and improves the mobility of the population to increase economic growth?

    The solutions to these challenges can only be met when we bring together our cultural, political, economic and technological know-how.

    That’s why we have an added imperative, now, in 2019, not just to recognise the value of individual disciplines in their own right, but to see their potential to achieve great things when combined.

    I always point to the success of the UK video games industry as a case in point.

    The UK games industry is a relatively new sector but one which is already at the heart of the UK’s creative industries powerhouse – generating over £1.5 billion for the UK economy each year.

    And all this is powered by the coming together of different disciplines. By the fusing together of different types of knowledge. By the bringing together of the best of the Sciences and the Arts.

    To create a successful video game, it doesn’t just take good coders and computer programmers. But it takes the input of psychologists and anthropologists to understand the needs and drivers of the user. And it takes musicians, artists and storytellers to draw the user in, to create powerful narratives and to make the game attractive.

    That’s why recently we announced our £34 million ‘Audience of the Future’ investment in twelve ground breaking immersive entertainment projects that seek to combine the latest technology in augmented and virtual reality with new methods of crafting narratives, to reach out to new audiences. This has included an investment in Aardman Animations teaming up with the gaming company Tiny Rebel, to produce an immersive story telling experience which will be told around key locations in Bristol.

    For innovation doesn’t just need to happen in technology and science: the same must be the case for the arts and humanities also.

    But it is the joint application of the humanities with emerging technologies that will also further innovation. The big technology brands of our time have long known this.

    Take Apple for instance.

    Apple’s success doesn’t just rest on its state-of-the-art technology. But its appeal lies equally in its design and artistry. The physical feel of its products.

    And as Apple’s founder, the late Steve Jobs, once said:

    “Technology alone is not enough… It is technology married with liberal arts, married with humanities that yields the results that make our heart sing”.

    But the interweaving of the Sciences and the Arts is not just something that exists for our own entertainment and aesthetics. Or for our own gratification and pleasure.

    And this isn’t about simply turning STEM into STEAM for the sake of it. The Arts and Humanities cannot be added, as some kind of adjunct, to the sciences.

    I passionately believe that they must run in parallel, a horizontal thread across all scientific disciplines that helps to inform, explain and evaluate.

    After all, all technological advance has the same subject at its fore: the human.

    The Arts and Humanities are also what makes science ‘useable’. It’s no good developing a cure for a pandemic like Ebola, for example, if you don’t have the anthropologists, the linguists or the lawyers to make the science work on the ground. To bring the product to market. To win the trust of the people.

    And at a time when trust in knowledge and expertise is constantly threatened by the lapping tides of populism, we need the humanities more than ever to be able to reach out and communicate the value of science and research more than ever.

    That also means thinking very differently about how we invest in research for the future.

    The government is committed to investing 2.4% of GDP, both public and private in research and development by 2027. That investment would simply allow us to stand still, at the OECD average. I’ve been making a series of speeches on how we can achieve this target, and what needs to be done to make real the scale of investment for the future.

    This includes investing in the researchers of tomorrow, the people who we actually need to do the research on the ground, estimated at some 260,000 extra researchers.

    Now not all these will be in universities. Indeed, as some of the examples I have used reflect, much cutting edge research is taking place in the industries of the future, the animation studios, the games companies, the tech spin outs who we need to foster.

    But we need to adapt our own approach to research grants and investment if we are to reflect how the modern world of research operates.

    That’s why I was delighted that the AHRC is formally awarding the National Trust the status of a Independent Research Organisation. This recognises the excellence of the Trust’s current research and is a major step towards the charity’s ambition to embed research at the heart of all its activities.

    New ways of doing research, particularly by reflecting upon the merger of disciplines is vital if we are to stand any chance of meeting the huge environmental, societal and technological challenges of the future I’ve just mentioned. The Government’s Industrial Strategy sets out these “grand challenges”. And tackling them is seen as key to improving our productivity and improving people’s lives – not just in this country but right across the world.

    The first four of these grand challenges are focused on the global trends that will transform our future, and include Artificial Intelligence (AI) and data, ageing society, clean growth, and the future of mobility.

    And all of these issues are central to my own role in government – not just under my science, research and innovation brief, but also as part of my new role as Interim Minister of State for Energy and Clean Growth, where I am proud to lead the charge to reduce emissions, decarbonise our economy and invest in renewable technologies.

    To do all these things and more, we need the Arts, Humanities and Sciences to work together – to help us seize the benefits that new technologies will bring and to help us mitigate risks along the way. Take AI, in particular.

    If we’re going to continue to push forward the frontiers of knowledge in this area then we’re going to have to work across all the disciplines – not only to enable us to unlock its full potential, but to ensure we are developing and deploying this new technology ethically – with consideration to others and the world around us. We have already witnessed the horrors that can occur when science becomes detached from ethics and the moral compass the Arts and Humanities provide.

    From the human experiments in Nazi concentration camps. To the dropping of the atomic bomb. Post-war science has had to learn the hard way from these abuses of humanity.

    That’s why the modern-day pursuit of knowledge has collaboration at its core – not simply to allow us to easily exchange ideas with one another, across borders and across disciplines, but to ensure the principle of humanity is firmly embedded at the heart of our research. To prevent us repeating the mistakes of our past. And to make sure we learn the lessons from history.

    That’s why I welcome the focus on the humanities as part of the EU’s new Horizon Europe Science Programme for 2021-2027, for it seeks to embed the humanities and the role they play in scientific discovery for the future. It is my ambition that we associate as fully as possible into Horizon Europe, to be able to play our role in shaping the future of Western Civilisation for the twenty first century.

    In the world of science diplomacy, we need to re-evaluate and re-think our role on the global stage. That’s why I published last month the UK’s first International Research and Innovation Strategy, setting out our global ambitions for new research partnerships and collaborations.

    These collaborations aren’t simply about marrying scientific excellence, important though that is. They are based around recognising our responsibility in the world to the future sustainability of our planet, and the development of some of the poorest countries in the world.

    Working to ensure that innovation and invention are purposed to the benefit of all humanity. That is a mission which I believe is an ethical one, that doesn’t place profit at the top of its agenda, or seek to advance the power of one state above another.

    Instead we seek to shape a new international science and research agenda, shaped around sustainable development goals, for a shared future prosperity, improving the condition of all human beings. That is an agenda that has the humanities at its heart.

    And it is the inclusion of the humanities, running like a golden thread through all scientific collaborations and projects that will protect the future of Western science, maintaining its focus on excellence, but excellence for a human purpose.

    The Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences have always been central to the way we ‘do’ science in our post-war world. Ensuring all the time that we understand the repercussions of the technology we’re developing. And making sure we don’t forget what happened when we abused it in our dark past.

    A world without the Arts and Humanities would not just be a sad and boring world. It would be a completely dysfunctional world. A world without progress. And a world where ideas could never get off the page. A world without the Arts and Humanities would also be a very poor world. The creative sector is not just a booming part of the UK economy in its own right, but it’s also the backbone to many other sectors and industries – providing the creative talent that bring products and services to life.

    And for as long as we remain global leaders in creative education, the Arts and Humanities are what are going to strengthen our country’s place on the world stage. To ensure we remain the go-to place for students, entrepreneurs and business leaders the world over.

    That’s why, as Minister for the Arts and Humanities, I’m determined to promote the strength of these disciplines as we move forward into the future. And I’ll be doing all I can to endorse their place in our world-class higher education sector, as well as our society at large.

    Thank you.

  • Andrew Adonis – 2019 Speech to the IPPR on Reversing Beeching

    Below is the text of the speech made by Andrew Adonis, the former Secretary of State for Transport, at the IPPR on 7 June 2019.

    Today I set out a plan for systematically reversing the Beeching rail closures in respect of large towns, and districts of cities, which lost their rail services in past decades. The plan would lead, starting now, to the reopening or creation of at least a hundred stations serving around two million people.

    Much of this would be by reopening mothballed or freight-only lines, and reinstating stations on existing lines. Rebuilding a few stretches of completely dismantled lines – mainly fairly short, connecting large towns to their nearest existing main line – would also be involved. This is a practical, sensible, green, affordable policy, and I set it out as a key building block of transport policy for the next decade.

    Let me begin with background and context.

    As a boy I was an unusual kind of train nerd. I was never a train spotter. Rather, at the age of 13, I wanted to be chairman of British Rail because I was fascinated by railway timetables and by improving public transport connections between places.

    I was equally interested in bus timetables, and wanted British Rail to take charge of them so that trains and bus timetables could be integrated and published together, with a single national timetable serving every town, village and district of every city in the country. I even wrote my own integrated national timetable, with 483 tables, and sent it to Sir Peter Parker, then Chairman of British Rail. All I got was an acknowledgement, which I thought impolite so I wrote to tell him so. I didn’t get a reply to that one.

    All this happened partly because I was at a remote boarding school where life depended on a train service to London from a station in the Cotswolds – Kingham – which was threatened with a post-Beeching closure in the late 1970s. And there was no proper bus service to get from Chipping Norton, the local town, to Kingham station, or most of the neighbouring villages.

    I suppose I was an unusually politically active 13 year old so I wrote again to Sir Peter Parker to protest. This time his office sent me back a polite letter with some passenger numbers showing that traffic on the Oxford to Worcester line, which served Kingham, was poor and didn’t justify the current service.

    I was sure that British Rail was lying about these numbers. It was obvious to me – and made me very angry – that the proposed reduction in services would be the prelude to closure of the line, which had been steadily run down since Beeching, decimating not only my school but the whole community around Chipping Norton which depended on Kingham station. And I was sure that Sir Peter Parker simply didn’t understand this.

    So I organised my friends to descend on Kingham station and count the number of passengers on all the trains over a 24 hour period. The British Rail figures were way too low. I thereupon wrote to Sir Peter Parker again and became active in a new lobby group called the Cotswold Line Promotion Group, which is still going today.

    To cut a long story short, the Oxford to Worcester line was saved, the service was improved not reduced, traffic is now huge, and the stations of Hanborough, Charlbury, Kingham, Moreton-in-Marsh, Honeybourne, Evesham, Pershore, and the through trains which serve them from London Paddington to Worcester and Hereford are the lifeblood of the Cotswolds. Years later I learned that Sir Peter Parker had lived at Minster Lovell in the Cotswolds and used Charlbury station. So I think I know what really happened.

    Anyway, there is a plaque to Peter Parker on Charlbury station platform – on platform 1 that is. There are now two platforms thanks to the investment in re-dualling the line in the noughties, I opened the new platform as Transport Secretary, with the local MP, David Cameron, in 2009. I went with him afterwards to his constituency cottage and showed him the plans for HS2 and urged him to make it a cross-party project. He did, and it is the second best thing he did as prime minster, after equal marriage.

    Another thing I did at the Department of Transport was to begin a piecemeal policy of reversing Beeching closures affecting large communities and strategically important inter-urban routes. My key decision in this respect was to reinstate the Oxford to Bicester line for inter-city services through to London Marylebone, including a completely new station – Oxford Parkway – which now generates significant traffic, boosting the connectivity and economy of north Oxford and the towns and villages to the north of Oxford.

    The Oxford to Bicester project was a far greater success than I envisaged when deciding to do it. No one explained to me at the time quite what happens in Bicester Village, which was an unexpected bonus. The line is now being rebuilt right through to Milton Keynes, Bedford, and Cambridge, restoring virtually the whole line closed in 1967, with new stations at Calvert, Winslow, and one south of St Neots, and west of Cambridge, all prime locations for new housing.

    In pioneering the Oxford-Cambridge project I was strongly influenced by my experience of the Cotswold Line, and the success in the 1980s and 90s of the first new stations and line reopenings which took place, including Milton Keynes and Bristol Parkway, and the Thameslink Bedford-Brighton service enabled by the reopening of the Snow Hill tunnel under the City of London.

    The case for a systematic – not piecemeal – policy of reversing the worst mistakes of Beeching is now overwhelmingly strong. Look at the last decade. London Overground, reinventing and extending the North London Line which was a designated Beeching closure which didn’t happen although the service became virtually non-existent, is one of the most successful public transport upgrades in history. The Welsh Government’s reopening of the Valley line from Ebbw Vale to Cardiff and the Scottish Government’s reopening of the Waverley line from Edinburgh to Galashiels and Tweedbank, have also been great successes. The problem on all three of these routes hasn’t been viability but overcrowding, with traffic greatly exceeding projections.

    All this is in the context of a wider explosion of rail travel. Passenger numbers are now far higher than at their pre-Beeching peak before most people had cars.

    Other European countries are also reversing rail closures of decades ago. In parts of Germany, particularly those run by the Greens, there is now a systematic policy of re-opening lines. The Southern German state of Baden-Wuttemberg has successfully reopened two major lines in recent years from Tübingen to Herrenberg and Radolfzell to Dettenhausen. It now has plans for re-opening 41 – yes 41 – more lines, with a decision to be taken next year on 15 priority projects.

    There is also work by economists demonstrating that, across Britain, the long-run impact on communities of losing rail services has been devastating in terms lost population and jobs, particularly affecting young people.

    I have been particularly influenced by a Centre for Economic Performance study, published last year, which shows that the fifth of Britain most exposed to rail station closures between 1950 and 1980 saw twenty-four percentage points less growth in population by 1981 than the fifth which were least exposed.

    Indeed, the communities most exposed to rail closures suffered a real population decline, which is shocking. Also, among post-war new towns, those with the worst rail connections fared worst, led by Washington in the North-East, which incredibly lost its rail service under Beeching in the same year – 1963 – that the new town was designated and started to be built. Milton Keynes, the most successful new town, only got a station in 1982, 15 years after the new town was started, despite the West Coast Main Line going through the middle of it. Since the opening of the station, Milton Keynes has grown into a veritable city – and now, right next to the station, it houses the headquarters of Network Rail.

    The Centre for Economic Performance study also shows that the places that suffered the worst rail cuts also saw a shift away from skilled workers and a shift towards older populations as the young moved to better connected areas.

    The long-run effect of Beeching, it suggests, is nothing short of a population transformation of the UK. Had the Beeching cuts not taken place, population in London and the South East might have been at least 5% lower, with population higher elsewhere in England. The population of London is projected as 8.9% lower without Beeching, to the benefit of England more widely.

    One final point related to the CEP study. The policy of Ernest Marples, who appointed Beeching, was essentially to replace rail with motorways. But the places losing rail access were not those targeted by improvements in road access and the motorway network. While major towns and cities mostly got motorways and kept their railways, giving them a significant connectivity and productivity gains, the Beeching-ed towns and communities suffered a double whammy: they lost their rail services and mostly got nothing in return – except haphazard bus services which were often withdrawn and even where they remained offered less good connectivity over time as road congestion increased.

    But we are where we are, so what should be done now? There are some 30 large towns across England with populations above 25,000 which lack rail connectivity. Significant parts of major conurbations, particularly in the West Midlands and the North-East, are also rail deserts and these also need restored or new rail connections.

    These are the top priorities for reversing Beeching. My proposal is a Reverse Beeching plan with the following three elements:

    First, reopen stations on existing lines which serve sizeable population centres.

    Second, reinstate and upgrade mothballed or freight-only lines which serve major population centres. A key effect of this to enable the creation of more metro lines serving cities and their conurbations, constructed like the existing London Overground and the lines on the Manchester, West Midland, Tyne and Wear and Merseyside metros, from a combination of reopening or enhancing existing lines and supplementing with on-street tram lines where needed to get services into and through town and city centres.

    Third, plan and build entirely new stretches of track where essential to connect large towns, or city districts, to the rail network, often on the alignment of Beeching closures but without reopening the entire lines which were often much longer.

    Let me say more about each of these.

    First, reopening new stations. As a rule of thumb, any population centre of more than 10,000 with an existing railway line should have a station.

    Many of these would be within existing cities. It is an arbitrary facet of history that some cities have multiple stations and while some have just one. Compare Exeter, with seven stations, with Norwich which has just one, although they have similar populations. Norwich could and should have three stations on existing lines, and if there was a tram going north to Hellesdon and Drayton that could create a metro system for the city.

    Leicester is three times the size of Exeter and Norwich, and it too has only one station. It should have at least three. A new station at Woodley and Sonning, a suburb east of Reading towards Maidenhead on the Great Western Main Line, would serve a community of 40,000 and could be the prime minister’s legacy if she reads this lecture in the next month.

    A similar mix and match approach at Oxford could build a hugely productive cross-region metro by opening stations at Wolvercote, Yarnton, and Kidlington on existing passenger lines, reopening the current goods-only line to Cowley with a station also at Littlemore, and rebuilding the short line from Radley to Abingdon, maybe as a tram to get it into the town centre of Abingdon – population 33,000. I went on the special last train from Oxford to Abingdon and back in 1984 – it was obviously a catastrophic mistake dismantling the line even at the time.

    A similar approach should be taken in Cambridge, with a new Cambridge South station on the existing London line, then rebuilding – for light rail – the closed line to Haverhill to the south east, population 27,000, while also reopening, going north, the missing link of line from March to Wisbech, population 31,000, which together with the proposed reopening of the Oxford to Cambridge route with new stations to the south-west of the city would transform the connectivity of the whole Cambridge region.

    Second, reinstating and upgrading mothballed or underused lines.

    At least four such lines should be opened as soon as possible.

    The Burton-on-Trent to Leicester line, goods-only since passenger services were withdrawn in the 1960s, would serve the towns of Coalville, Ashby-de-la-Zouch and Swadlincote among others. This line comes into Leicester through heavily built up districts where there could also be stations. With new and reopened stations in the towns and Leicester, this would serve a rail neglected population of about 150,000 on this line alone.

    The 7-mile Bristol to Portisbury and Portishead line, currently freight only, would be a major commuter route into and within Bristol and is already projected for reopening.

    The 21-mile Leamside line in the North-East, mothballed in 1991 and closed to passengers by Beeching, would provide vital connectivity to Washington, Wardley, Penshaw and Houghton-le-Spring, going north to Gateshead and Newcastle and south to Durham. The new stations alone would give rail connectivity to a population of 150,000 as well as enhancing connections between Newcastle, Gateshead, and Durham and providing a vital relief line for the congested East Coast Main Line north of its future junction with HS2, HS2 in effect being a giant relief line for the East Coast Main Line south of York.

    The freight line north of Newcastle from Benton to Blyth (population 37,000) and Ashington (population 27,000) should also be reopened for passengers, giving through services to Newcastle and Morpeth. This would be a vital lifeline to large deprived former mining communities which desperately need better public transport connections.

    Other short stretches of completely rebuilt line which would be transformational include Newcastle-under-Lyme, population 75,000, to Stoke-on-Trent; Skelmersdale, population 38,000, to Kirkby enabling services to run through to Liverpool and Wigan; Daventry, population 26,00, to Weedon, connecting to the West Coast Main Line; the lines to

    Abingdon, Haverhill, and Wisbech already mentioned; Cirencester, population 20,000, to Kemble, linking into the main line to Swindon and London. In all seven of these cases, a few miles of new track, mostly on pre-Beeching alignments, would transform the connectivity and economies of existing large towns. I also think there is a case for a short line or tram from Benfleet to Canvey Island, population 40,000, and highly deprived on the Thames Estuary.

    Three facts say so much about the state of metropolitan England: the are 122 rail or metro in Greater Manchester; only 80 on the West Midlands. By comparison with both, there 640 in Greater London.

    Birmingham and the West Midlands, woefully underserved by commuter rail and light rail, should be a key priority for Reversing Beeching. It is imperative to re-open, as extensions to the West Midlands Metro, the old Black Country line from Stourbridge and Brierley Hill to Dudley, Wednesbury and Walsall; the line from Walsall to Sutton Coalfield; and the old Camp Hill line should also be reopened between King’s Norton and the central station of Moor Street. New stations on existing lines should include Willenhall and Darlaston on the Wolverhampton to Walsall line. Handsworth Wood station should also be reopened.

    On the Manchester Metro, extending to Middleton, near Rochdale, population 43,000 and highly deprived, is a priority.

    A point on buses and guided busways. In a few major towns guided busways have been – or are being – built to promote the connectivity which used to come from rail. Gosport to Fareham, Dunstable to Luton, Leigh to Manchester, and St Neots to Cambridge are prime cases, all four of them long guided busways., in some cases on pre-Beeching rail alignments. I’m not generally a fan of buses pretending to be trams or trains, but there are more pressing priorities than upgrading existing rapid transit schemes, and so I would leave these to prove themselves.

    What about costs and timescales?

    I can’t estimate what the final cost of this Reverse Beeching would be. It depends how far it is taken once started. But if it’s phased and there is guaranteed year-by-year funding, with projects prioritised, this isn’t an issue at the outset.

    The thing is to get started now. And the way I would do this is simple. The M4 Relief Road has just been cancelled, saving £1.4bn. The ludicrious tunnel proposed for the A303 under Stonehenge, which I cancelled a decade ago but has resurfaced for political reasons at a projected cost of £2.3bn, should also be cancelled. Add in a few other politically motivated but unjustified road schemes and you have an initial £5bn Reverse Beeching fund. More if you can secure local contributions and other regeneration funding. That’s enough to make a bold start on the first set of Reverse Beeching projects, which should be agreed through a competitive evaluation next year.

    If Brexit were stopped, there would be more money still.

    Britain’s Heritage Railways also have a part to play. The story of our heritage railways and their extraordinary collection of steam and slightly more modern engines, and restored carriages, is remarkable. Indeed it is a powerful testament to the social revulsion at Beeching: between them 460 stations, as many as Northern Rail, and 562 track miles, the distance from London to Mallaig on the north-west coast of Scotland, all saved from the Beeching Axe or indeed earlier closures. A number of heritage railways serve notable towns such as Swanage on the Dorset coast, Minehead in West Somerset and Bridgnorth and Bewdley on the Severn Valley Railway. I would provide state funding to these excellent community and heritage enterprises to run commuter trains as well as their heritage trains. But I know this is a thorny area, and I suggest there be a review of the relationship between heritage railways and the national rail network and how they might collaborate to mutual advantage. I know the two people who should lead it: Julian Glover, who was special advisor to David Cameron and Patrick McLoughlin and is now leading a review of the national parks and, Richard Faulkner, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, the distinguished president of the Heritage Railway Association. They would do it brilliantly.

    Almost everything I have said so far refers to larger towns and cities. In aggregate their population is of course huge. But one of the most significant social and economic challenges in Britain is the future of smaller towns and rural communities which also suffered grievously from the Beeching axe. It is important to note in this context that the figures I gave at the outset from the economic study on the negative impact of Beeching included a swathe of small towns and villages which accounted for the overwhelming majority of the 3,700 railway stations closed between 1950 and 1980. These weren’t all stations like the Adlestrop of Edward Thomas’s poem –ironically the next stop up the line from Kingham until it was closed in 1966 – where “no one left and no one came on the bare platform” – but rather stations which played a vital part in the life of their communities.

    Roger Liddle makes this point to me in respect of his native Cumbria, where the loss of the 32 mile line from Penrith to Keswick and Cockermouth is still sorely felt, and undoubtably harmed and still harms those towns and their wider communities. The same is true of all the more sparsely populated counties across the United Kingdom, and is particularly keenly felt in, for example, East Lincolnshire, Mid Devon, the Isle of Wight, and the whole of Northern Ireland.

    In the case of Devon, a lot turns on strategic decisions which need to be taken on the main line Plymouth to Exeter route. Reopening the full 60-mile mid-Devon Okehampton and Tavistock line, may be justified as a secondary inter-city route, given the propensity of the Dawlish coastal route to be closed or indeed washed away. If so, this might get this Reverse Beeching project over the line, taken together with the potentially large regeneration benefits for mid-Devon, Plymouth and Exeter.

    My best answer to the wider issue of rural connectivity is a dramatic improvement in bus services, including innovative forms of on-demand buses, a kind of publicly organised Uber share. And it would help if these buses and quasi-buses featured routinely in on-line travel and mapping services, including connections with rail services. However, where towns far smaller than 25,000 are fairly close to an existing rail line and in clear need of regeneration, there may be a case for restoring a Beeching closure. I think for example of extending the Barnstaple line to Braunton and Ilfracombe on the north Devon coast. On the Isle of Wight, there is a strong case for extending the Ryde to Shanklin line down to Ventnor on the southern coast.

    On Northern Ireland, the scandal of the wholesale dismantling of the north of Ireland’s railways, far worse than Beeching in relative terms, particularly those serving Derry-Londonderry and crossing the border merits a whole lecture. The key priority is to get fast direct services from Derry to Belfast and Belfast to Dublin, neither of which presently exist. But the precondition of course is actually to have a government in Northern Ireland, since this is a devolved matter requiring also close transport planning partnership with the Republic of Ireland, which hasn’t alas happened hitherto.

    For completeness, and as an admission of failure, can I say that I have drawn a logistical blank on how credibly to provide rail connectivity to the following very large towns: Waterlooville (north of Portsmouth), Witney (Oxfordshire), Halesowen, Harborne (Birmingham), and Ferndown (north of Bournemouth). I would welcome suggestions for each of these.

    To sum up, if I was back at the Department of Transport, as successor to Chris Grayling, the permanent secretary would doubtless tell me that all this is a bit too bold. Not quite in the league of ferry companies with no ferries, but bold nonetheless. As they told me a decade ago about HS2, electrification, the Oxford-Bicester re-opening, and the Trans-Pennine upgrade. To which my reply would be: Beeching and other rail closures from 1950 to 1980 reduced rail mileage by 42% – 8,000 miles – and closed 3,700 stations.

    If the state can shut down 3,700 stations and 8,000 miles of track in 30 years, it can reopen a hundred or two stations and miles of track in the next decade or two. Don’t let the ghost of Sir Peter Parker tell you otherwise – or I will be there with a clipboard, counting the numbers to prove you wrong.

    Annex

    Initial list of 92 ‘Reverse Beeching’ stations to be reopened or created for the first time (not including extensions already underway to Manchester Metro).

    Abingdon

    Aldridge

    Arley

    Ashby-de-la-Zouch

    Ashton Gate (Bristol)

    Ashington

    Balsall Heath (Birmingham)

    Bartlow

    Bedlington

    Bewdley

    Blowers Green

    Blyth

    Bordesley (Birmingham)

    Braunton

    Bridgnorth

    Brierley Hill

    Burton on Trent

    Calvert

    Cambridge South

    Canvey

    Choppington

    Cinder Bank

    Clifton Bridge (Bristol)

    Coalville

    Darlaston

    Daventry

    Desford

    Dudley Port

    Dudley Town

    Felling

    Gateshead

    Golds Hill

    Great Bridge

    Gresley

    Grove and Wantage

    Ham Green

    Hampton Loade

    Handsworth wood (Birmingham)

    Hartshill

    Haverhill

    Higley

    Horseley Heath

    Hotwells (Bristol)

    Ilfracombe

    Ilkeston

    Kidlington

    Kings’ Heath (Birmingham)

    Leicester (two new stations)

    Linton

    Little Bytham (between Grantham and Peterborough)

    Littlemore

    Manchester (all currently underway extensions to Manchester Metro)

    Merry

    Middleton

    Moira

    Mortehoe

    Moseley (Birmingham)

    Newbiggin-by-the-sea

    Newsham (for Blyth)

    Norwich (two new stations on existing lines)

    Okehampton

    Pedmore

    Pill

    Portisbury

    Portishead

    Round Oak

    Rushden

    Sandiacre

    Seaton Delaval

    Sedgley

    Seghill

    Shipyard

    Streetly

    Sutton Park

    Swadlincote

    Swanage

    Tavistock

    Ventnor

    Wantage

    Wardley

    Washington

    Waterfront

    Wednesbury

    Wellington

    Willenhall

    Windsor

    Wolvercote (Oxford)

    Woodley and Sonning (Berkshire)

    Woodville

    Wootton Bassett

    Wrafton

    Yarnton

  • Kelly Tolhurst – 2019 Statement on the Post Office Network

    Below is the text of the statement made by Kelly Tolhurst, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, in the House of Commons on 4 June 2019.

    I wish to provide an update to hon. Members on the steps that the Government are taking to ensure the long-term sustainability and resilience of the post office network.

    The Government set the strategic direction for Post Office Limited, to maintain a national network accessible to all and to do so on a sustainable financial basis and allow the company the commercial freedom to deliver this strategy as an independent business.

    We recognise the Post Office’s distinct social purpose and the important role post offices play in communities across the country, which is why our 2017 manifesto committed to safeguard the network, protect existing rural services and work with the Post Office to extend the availability of business and banking services to families and small businesses in rural areas.

    Between 1997 and 2010 the post office network reduced in size by 37%, resulting in the loss of over 7,000 post offices. Since 2010 we have invested over £2 billion in the network. This funding sought to increase the viability of the network by making it more accessible, modern and tailored to customers’ needs while reducing the long-term burden on the taxpayer.

    The Government have no programme of post office closures. Post Office Limited has opened over 400 branches since April 2017 and the Government are committed to ensuring the long-term sustainability and resilience of the network. We not only place a contractual commitment on Post Office Limited to maintain a network of 11,500 branches, but also stipulate stringent access criteria to ensure that this large network is accessible to citizens across the country. More than 93% of the UK population live within one mile of their nearest branch, with more than 99% within three miles.

    There are now over 11,500 branches and the post office network is at its most stable since 2013, having changed in size by under 1% over this period. This overall change accommodates a level of churn in what is an extremely diverse network, as branches close and are replaced, and Post Office Limited is therefore used to working quickly with local stakeholders to provide replacement services.

    Government subsidy ensures that branches serving our rural communities that need additional support receive it so that they can stay open. In order to provide value for money for the taxpayer the subsidy to the post office has reduced. This fact reflects the progress that the business has made: returning to profit after 16 years of losses, providing a stable network and reducing its reliance on the taxpayer.​

    Beyond 2021, Government remain committed to ensuring the long-term sustainability of the network and will work with Post Office Limited to achieve this.

    It is crucial that running a post office is attractive and sustainable for postmasters, and they should be fairly remunerated for the services they provide. Post Office Limited’s successful renegotiation of the banking framework with 28 high street banks, announced on 15 April, secured a significant increase in the overall fees they receive from the banks. As a result of this, they will double and, in some case, treble the rate that agents receive for processing deposits from October 2019. For example, in a main post office branch, postmasters will receive £8.16 for processing a £8,000 cash deposit, compared with the £3.12 they currently receive.

    98% of the post office network is franchised and postmasters are vital to the delivery of the network. The remuneration for delivering post office services should be combined with a successful retail offer in order for postmasters to thrive in today’s competitive retail environment.

    The Government have rightly moved with the times as many of us now prefer to access services online. Whilst this has an impact on the Post Office, we cannot ignore people’s desire to transact with Government digitally from the convenience of their own homes. However, we are also committed to ensuring that its services are accessible to all citizens and the post office network does and will continue to play a key role in this.

    We are committed to working with Post Office Limited and our postmasters to develop the business and offer, in order to maintain the delivery of services that our constituents want and need, so that the Post Office remains at the heart of communities across the country.

  • David Gauke – 2019 Statement on Justice Devolution to Manchester

    Below is the text of the statement made by David Gauke, the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, in the House of Commons on 4 June 2019.

    On 31 May the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), signed a refreshed memorandum of understanding (MoU) for justice devolution with Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA).

    This agreement replaces the current MoU, published in July 2016. It details the priority areas for the delivery of justice outcomes within GMCA. The commitments agreed between the Department (Ministry of Justice) and GMCA build on the previous agreement, recognise new challenges, and identify new opportunities for developing a broader, more integrated approach which improves outcomes and experiences for victims, witnesses, and offenders, as well as the communities and neighbourhoods in which they live.

    The aim of the MoU is to increase local influence and improve partnership working to increase efficiencies and reduce reoffending. Delivery will take place within the context of the whole system approach to public services which is advocated by GMCA. The MoU fits with the Government’s priority to reduce reoffending and our 2017 manifesto commitment to further enhance the role of police and crime commissioners.

    The areas covered in this refreshed MoU are youth justice, smarter justice, adult offender management and the victim’s journey. In summary:

    Youth justice

    With the aim of targeting resources where they can be most effective, the MoU focuses on adopting a preventive, problem-solving approach which puts the people in the right service at the right time. This includes establishing a local consortium to focus on resettlement from custody and prioritising specified cohorts in youth justice policy initiatives, including data sharing. The focus of this section aligns with the youth justice board (YJB) national standards which were published earlier this year.

    Smarter justice

    We will work towards greater family involvement to support compliance with regular judicial supervision. Along with GMCA we will develop inter-agency planning to increase confidence in community sentences and ensure pre-sentence reports identify vulnerable cohorts. There will also be work carried out to help identify where family-centred principles are best integrated at different points in the system.

    Reforming adult offender management

    We want to optimise the opportunities created through the new probation model to improve delivery within the context of Greater Manchester’s unified approach to ​public services. This will include a programme of work to support increased viability of community disposals and to co-design approaches to delivery of probation services that support place-based integration. We will also explore co-commissioning options through the Greater Manchester reform investment fund.

    The victim’s journey

    We will work with GMCA as they seek to improve services for victims to provide a seamless service by using innovative approaches, including digital path- ways, jointly evaluating the effectiveness of nationally ​commissioned services for victims, agreeing a programme to develop stronger links and ways of working at local level for the benefit of witnesses in GM and working to understand the impact of the criminal injuries compensation scheme on victims of terrorism.

    This summary covers the main commitments of the MoU. It is available in full at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/moj-gmca-memorandum-of-understanding-for-justice-devolution. Work will begin now to ensure we jointly deliver these commitments.

  • Bim Afolami – 2019 Speech on Transport in Hertfordshire

    Below is the text of the speech made by Bim Afolami, the Conservative MP for Hitchin and Harpenden, in the House of Commons on 4 June 2019.

    I rise to discuss transport in Hertfordshire. I am an MP for Hitchin and Harpenden—the MP, not an MP; there is only one, at least at the moment. Transport affects us all—not just Hertfordshire, but all counties and everybody in the House—but it particularly affects my constituency, and today I want to draw the House’s and the Minister’s attention to two specific issues: first, the train system and commuters going in and out of London from the stations of both Hitchin and Harpenden—both main commuter stations into London; and secondly, the looming expansion of Luton airport and the constant disruption faced by many of my constituents and others across Hertfordshire, including the constituents of many of my colleagues.

    I will start with trains. When thinking about our transport system in Hertfordshire, we must have a sense of balance. Better public transport is essential. I do not know anybody on either side of the House who would disagree. We recognise that people in Hertfordshire want better public transport. Yes, they want better roads as well, as it so happens, but they want better public transport. They also want to maintain their standard of life. They moved, often from big towns or cities, principally London, because they did not want to be there. Hertfordshire is a much more rural county than many people realise, and the green belt is very precious to many of my constituents. It is important to bear that in mind when thinking about what infrastructure improvements are needed.

    In particular, on the subject of Luton airport, I spoke to the Minister earlier today. I know how much he understands and cares about these issues, despite being relatively new to his brief. It is important that infrastructure such as airports is used for the benefit of all and is mindful of the negative externalities and impacts on many people in Hertfordshire and in particular my constituency.

    Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

    As the hon. Gentleman says, infrastructure and better funding for transport are important not just in his constituency but across the whole UK. Does he agree that decent infrastructure is necessary to every community and that, although issues such as potholes might not be high on the register for some, for those of us who want investment in our local communities, good infrastructure is the starting point, and that requires good planning and good funding, and these two must go hand in hand?

    Bim Afolami

    I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Good infrastructure matters. It is the difference between being a developed advanced country and not being one. The ability to get into work in a timely manner is critical to the economic and social wellbeing of a country, particularly in constituencies such as mine that rely on commuting. He talks about potholes and roads. I will come to this later. Roads are the essential lifeblood of pretty much every small business, of people taking their kids to school, visiting family, seeing friends or just conducting everyday business. These things may appear small, but they are critical.​

    That leads me to trains. Many in the House will have heard me talk many times about trains. I can see my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (James Heappey) in his place. He has heard me bang on about this many times.

    James Heappey (Wells) (Con)

    I never tire of it.

    Bim Afolami

    Hitchin station in north Hertfordshire serves 3.2 million passengers a year—1.3 million more than nearby Letchworth. Everybody in the House will be aware of the debacle in the rail industry in May last year with the big timetable changes, which did not go well. Like many others, Hitchin suffered severely, although there were some improvements. People going from Hitchin into central London no longer have to change at King’s Cross St Pancras but can run all the way through the core of London to the south of London, which many constituents have told me is a significant improvement that has considerably improved their commute. That should be noted and welcomed.

    That said, there are significant problems with the timetabling, particularly with overcrowding. This is a big problem, and not just because it is uncomfortable; it can often be a health problem, especially in the summer—and we are getting into warmer weather now. For anybody who has a disability or is pregnant or feeling ill, it can be a significant problem when commuting to and from work. The overcrowding is basically due to the fact that since the timetable changes there are fewer peak time trains from Hitchin and the ones remaining stop more often going into London. This increases the overcrowding.

    The Minister or any of the millions of people watching might think me just another MP whingeing about his local train service, because that is what local MPs do, and that is partly true, but unless the things that local MPs bring to this House, often after being begged by constituents, get heard, and unless constituents can see they are being heard and that their concerns are being acted on, there will be a crisis of trust not just in the local MP, but in the Government and Parliament as a whole, as a means to resolve the issues that people face. On these sorts of issues, I urge people—I know that the Minister, being a very good champion of his own constituency, understands and cares about this—to think about these things very deeply. Constituents email or write to their MPs, but they have better things to do; they do it because it matters and significantly impacts on their lives.

    The Department for Transport does not run all the trains. It is not in charge of every driver of every route. The Transport Secretary does not determine every train timetable in and out of Hitchin or anywhere else. The Department sits atop a structure that includes Network Rail, which is responsible for the infrastructure and stations, principally, and for timetabling, and the operators —in our case, GTR—which are responsible for running services under franchise agreements with the Department. My contention is that GTR has not treated Hitchin as a major station. It has treated it as just another station in north Hertfordshire and not adequately appreciated the fact that it is the main station in that area, and this has had real consequences.

    To best illustrate these consequences, rather than use my own words—we have heard enough of those already—I thought I would gather up some emails that I have received in only the last 72 hours about the train service ​from Hitchin. Constituent 1 told me—I will not name them because then they might appear on Google and it would all be terribly embarrassing, but I will quote them directly:

    “I am still to gain an answer from GTR as to why the station of Letchworth has seen such vast improvements in service over the past 12 months whilst the Hitchin service remains relatively unimproved. Letchworth now has the same frequency of peak trains as Hitchin (despite the fact that Hitchin has almost double the annual usage) as well as gaining Direct services”

    —to London—

    “(which Hitchin commuters had previously lost). As a committed campaigner for a greener future yourself I can see no logic in the fact I can now drive to Letchworth station rather than walk to nearby Hitchin, and still get to London faster?”

    Here is another example, from Mandy.

    “Please can you explain to me why every time there is a school holiday”

    GTR

    “are totally unable to run anything approaching an acceptable service?”

    Chris writes:

    “Hello Bim…Can I ask what can and will be done? The service provided…is abysmal and must be a serious consideration when people of our age are looking to relocate out of London. It must also affect the prosperity of the area as so many of us commute. The costs are enormous yet the service is poor at best.”

    Mike says:

    “Hi Bim,

    The trains are worse than ever, it’s been a complete disgrace since the May timetable changes. Most seem to be around lack of staff? I don’t understand…

    Are you able to find out if they’re lying to us? I just want to be able to get to work in the morning and home in the evening.”

    I will not continue, but I have received those emails over the last 72 hours, and I have received hundreds more over the last 12 months. This is a real problem with which I believe GTR has manifestly failed to deal. What do we need? The answer is quite simple. In Hitchin, we need more peak-time trains leaving between 07:30 and 08:30, and more peak-time trains arriving between 18:00 and 18:45. I ask the Minister to deal with that specifically in his response.

    Let me now turn to Harpenden, the equally loved station in my constituency. GTR has been pretty unwilling to accept that any changes are necessary, but in the case of Harpenden it has openly admitted that its actions last May caused severe difficulty. It has been quite candid about that, and has engaged with me several times on the subject of the station and the trains. That culminated in a meeting that I arranged in February this year with representatives from St Albans, Luton, Bedford and, obviously, Harpenden: commuter groups, local MPs, officials from GTR, and various people who decided to turn up. That was a big room.

    The stated aim of the meeting was to deal with the problem at Harpenden, because everyone in the room recognised that there was a problem. Honest, open views were exchanged, and by the end of the meeting everyone had agreed that Harpenden needed at least two more peak-time services that would otherwise stop at Luton, because the number of commuters between Luton and London was infinitesimal compared with the number at Harpenden. That was agreed by everyone in the room—except the hon. Member for Luton South (Mr Shuker). The hon. Gentleman is not here and ​cannot defend himself, and I do not blame him for what he said. He felt that the issue affected his station, he did not want to be on record as having accepted that any station in his constituency had “lost” services to Harpenden, and he objected.

    GTR manifestly failed in its duties. It is no way to run a process to accept that there is a problem—everyone is in a room with all the passenger loading data, the information and the evidence, and everyone agrees that in Harpenden services are needed from Luton rather than Bedford or St Albans—and then to hide behind an effective veto from a local MP. I do not believe that that is the way to run a service.

    This afternoon I spoke separately to the Minister and to the rail Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones). Will the Minister commit himself, on behalf of the Department, to meeting me, various officials from the Department—if he wishes—and local commuter groups, along with GTR, to establish, finally, how we can broker some sort of agreement on a solution to the problems faced at both Hitchin and Harpenden? That would be welcomed not just by me but, most important, by my constituents. Then, finally, we might achieve a resolution and an endgame to the problems that we face.

    A connected, although separate, issue is the long-proposed rail freight site at the Radlett aerodrome, on the same line, which may not be advantageous to commuting services. Will the Minister confirm that the Government are no longer seeking to include that in their rail freight plans for the south-east?

    I have dealt with the issue of trains. Let me now turn to the issue of Luton airport, which, surprisingly enough, is in Luton. It is in Bedfordshire, which is right next to my constituency. Constituents of mine live less than 200 yards from the runway. It is a rapidly growing airport: it handles more than 16.6 million passengers a year; and passenger numbers over the last 10 years have grown by over 80%.

    If the House will indulge me, I will explain why I am particularly concerned about Luton airport beyond the fact that the disruption to my constituents from both noise and air pollution has grown significantly. Luton airport is owned by London Luton Airport Ltd on behalf of Luton Borough Council, which is also the planning authority hitherto responsible for approving increases in the allowed numbers of passengers. In December 2017, Luton Borough Council put forward a plan to expand Luton airport—a huge expansion, going up to 38 million passengers, which was later reduced to 32 million. I think, however, that everybody can appreciate that that is a significant increase from the current limit of 18 million passengers.

    I am completely opposed to this proposal for expansion of Luton airport, but that is a subject for another day, because the processes of how it will be submitted are still being gone through and the Government have already accepted that the increase is so great that the application will go to the Planning Inspectorate at central Government rather than be decided by Luton Borough Council. I would make this point about Luton airport: it is not the right place for a major airport the size of Gatwick. Its location on a plateau means that topographically it is closed by fog and bad weather ​much more frequently than most airports in the south-east. The dense pattern of settlements around Hertfordshire and that part of the country—whether Hemel Hempstead, Harpenden, St Albans or large villages—means that significant numbers of towns and villages face growing amounts of noise and air pollution and traffic on rural roads, and particularly in my constituency.

    Returning to Luton Borough Council’s role, to be frank, my constituents—and, I know, many constituents in Hertfordshire generally who are overflown by planes from Luton airport—do not trust the council on this issue, because there is a conflict of interests: Luton Borough Council owns Luton airport. I want to be very clear that I am not alleging any specific illegality or impropriety—I have no evidence of that—but, as all of us here know because we are politicians, the appearance of fairness is often as important as fairness itself and there is a significant trust deficit between my constituents, many people in Hertfordshire and Luton Borough Council and its role vis-à-vis the airport.

    In December 2013, Luton Borough Council approved a proposed expansion of 9 million—from a limit of 9 million passengers to 18 million passengers. That proposal was in 2013, so only six years ago, but it was meant to take place over a 15-year period up until 2028, and the project was designed to be a balanced one that matched growth with mitigation measures for traffic, air pollution, noise pollution and the like. On the face of it that seems a broadly acceptable way of proceeding, or at least it seemed so at the time.

    Since then I am afraid we have seen a lot of growth; in fact, as I have said, we are already getting up to the limit of 18 million passengers in 2019, despite the fact that we are only meant to get to that point by 2028. There has been lots of growth but no mitigation. In fact it has been worse than no mitigation; things have got worse—things have been going backwards. Noise for my constituents, which blights them every single day—and night, as I will come on to—is getting worse and worse and worse for those who are unlucky enough to live beneath a flight path.

    Luton airport is now in breach of a key noise control planning condition known as the night noise contour. Broadly speaking, limits were set on how much night noise there should be and Luton airport has exceeded that limit. Here I come to the problem with Luton Borough Council: guess which body will be making the decision on whether Luton airport will be able to breach its agreed planning condition, which was expressly designed to limit noise that affects Hertfordshire? That body is Luton Borough Council.

    People might think that, just because the council owns the airport, it would not necessarily approve any expansion, and that is of course true. I am sure that it will say that there are strict Chinese walls in its organisation, and perhaps there are. However, Luton Borough Council receives more than £20 million from Luton airport from dividends alone, and we can see the direct incentive to make the airport grow as fast as possible so that Luton gets the gain from the growth. I accept that there is significant economic gain for Luton; I do not deny that. However, the pain—in terms of increased traffic on small rural roads, increased noise and air pollution and significant disturbance—will come to my constituents and the people of Hertfordshire. Luton gets the gain and Hertfordshire gets the pain.​

    Does the Minister agree that planning conditions governing aviation noise and emissions are a key part of maintaining the balance between growth and environmental protection to which the Government’s aviation policy framework aspires? Does he condone the failure of Luton Borough Council to enforce a key planning condition despite the fact that the airport has breached the condition for the past two years and that a further breach of the same condition is predicted for this year? Will he, on behalf of his colleague, the aviation Minister in the other place, agree to the aviation Minister or another Minister from the Department sitting down with me and other local representatives and campaign groups from Hertfordshire to discuss whether the decision should be called in, in the light of the breach of the noise planning contour at Luton airport, such is the disturbance that this is imposing on my constituents?

    We spoke about roads and potholes at the beginning of the debate, and I want to put on record that Hertfordshire County Council is doing its level best to improve the state of its roads. It has done well, and I call out Councillor David Williams, the leader of the county council, for working hard on this and making it a focus, but the council needs more money. I urge the Minister and the Department to keep in mind that we are not there yet. The money has increased, but there needs to be significantly more to improve the state of our rural roads in Hertfordshire and across the country.

    On the roads we have cars, and we also have buses. Buses are the lifeblood of rural areas for elderly people or those who cannot afford a car. They cannot get anywhere without an adequate bus service, but in many parts of my constituency the local bus services have worsened and are inadequate. The village of Redbourn is an example, and I call out Councillor Victoria Mead for her absolutely fantastic campaigning to improve the bus service from Redbourn. Various villages to the south of Hitchin also have failing bus services that need support and improvement, and I urge the Minister to take a look at this issue in rural areas. How can we help our local bus services? I will work with him on anything that he and the Department wish to do.

    I am a realist; I know that there is no magic wand. These issues are structural—whether they involve trains or Luton airport—and they take time. They are complex and difficult, and as I have said, the Government are not the only actor involved. However, I am asking the Government—in addition to answering the precise questions that I have mentioned—to lean in a bit more heavily on the side of the people and against the interests of GTR, which is not taking my constituents’ concerns adequately into account, and against the unbridled, unfettered growth of Luton airport by Luton Borough Council, which is pursuing this reckless growth and profit without taking Hertfordshire residents into consideration. Let us work together to ensure that we improve the lives of the Hertfordshire residents that I and many other colleagues are here to represent.