UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: 2019

  • Susan Elan Jones – 2019 Speech on Excessive Speeding

    Below is the text of the speech made by Susan Elan Jones, the Labour MP for Clwyd South, in the House of Commons on 23 May 2019.

    The subject of my Adjournment debate—excessive speeding and driving bans—is very serious. I do not like reading out speeches, but this is a pretty technical issue and there are many factual points that I want to raise, so I apologise in advance that I will be doing a little more reading than I would like. I emphasise that this is an immensely serious issue of great concern around the country. I will be asking three questions at the end of my speech. I hope that the Minister will be able to answer them directly, but if, for any reason, she cannot do so in the detail that we would all like, I would appreciate a written response from her.

    I want to emphasise two key points about excessive speeding and driving bans: first, the need for tougher action to tackle speeding offences; and, secondly, the need to explore how technology can be used to improve road safety and reduce the number of unnecessary deaths that occur on our roads. According to the most recent official statistics from the Department for Transport, in 2017, in the UK, there were 24,831 serious injuries in road traffic accidents reported to the police, with 1,793 people killed in road traffic accidents—nearly five people a day. I am worried about the 9% increase in fatalities among motorcyclists and the 5% increase in pedestrian fatalities between 2016 and 2017. While I welcome the slight fall of 4% in fatalities among car drivers, we all know that the figure is still far too high. Any fatality on our roads is one fatality too many.

    In 2017, the custody rate for motoring offences was 1%. When an offender was sentenced to immediate custody, the average length of a custodial sentence was only 8.2 months. In 2017, the number of offenders directly disqualified from driving actually decreased by 8%—from 63,000 in 2016 to 58,000 in 2017. This concerns me, and I know it concerns many others, too.

    I do not think that any of us will be surprised by the fact that speeding is the most common driving offence on UK roads. It currently accounts for around one fifth of road fatalities. In 2017, across Wales as a whole, 500 drivers a day were caught speeding. I appreciate that velocities differ, and I am concentrating on the highest speeds, but that is still a worrying statistic. In 2017, according to House of Commons Library statistics, just under 20,200 speed limit motoring offences were recorded by North Wales police alone—a 73% increase on the number recorded in 2011. About 86% of the speed limit offences were recorded through cameras, such as fixed-place speed cameras. Of the 20,200 or so speeding limit offences recorded by North Wales police, most resulted in a fine, with fewer than 3,000 leading to the driver facing court action. The sentence for the vast majority of those who were subsequently convicted at court was just a fine.

    It is my strongly held belief that collisions and road traffic accidents are not inevitable and that we should not accept them as such. Cycling UK has stated that whereas society expects high safety standards in various aspects of our lives in which there are inherent risks, there sometimes seems to be a different culture on the ​roads. I agree with its calls for greater use of lengthy driving bans, both as a penalty and in order to protect the public. Convicted drivers consistently avoid driving bans by resorting to claims that such a ban will cause them “exceptional hardship”. In January 2017, according to Cycling UK, almost 10,000 drivers were still allowed to drive even though they had amassed 12 points or more on their licence, and that is despite the fact that those who accumulate that many points should automatically face disqualification from driving.

    Brake, the road safety charity, has echoed calls for those who have 12 points on their licence to be prevented from invoking the argument of “exceptional hardship” and instead face an automatic driving ban. This is something I strongly agree with. Drivers who have accumulated more than 12 points on their licence have, in my view and that of many others, been given ample opportunity to comply with the law. They have instead shown a repeated disregard for driving safely and legally. I believe that they should not be allowed to continually flout the law and face little more than a fine.

    Guidance from the RAC states that if someone has been caught speeding and the offence is referred to court, they could face an instant driving ban. However, magistrates will generally consider imposing a ban only if someone has been caught driving at more than 45% over the speed limit. That means that they would need to be driving at more than 51 mph in a 30 mph limit, 85 mph in a 60 mph limit or—for heaven’s sake—100 mph in a 70 mph limit. There is little uniformity between the speeds offenders drive at or the offences they commit, and the punishment imposed.

    Many examples could be cited, but let me set out a couple from north Wales. A motorcyclist who was caught driving at 138 mph in a 60 mph area on the A5 not far from Corwen got a fine of just over £600 and a 90-day driving ban, so he was back on the roads three months later. There was also the driver of what the press referred to as a “supercar”. He was banned from driving for 56 days for driving at 122 mph, again on a single carriageway road with a 60 mph limit.

    Last year I submitted a written parliamentary question to ask the Ministry of Justice how many drivers who have been subject to a driving ban go on to commit further driving offences after their ban has expired. I am concerned that the Department’s response was that it does not hold such data.

    In the road safety factsheet that it published last year, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents made a very important point:

    “There is no doubt that inappropriate speed is one of the most serious road safety problems on Britain’s roads, and causes death and injury to thousands of people each year. Unfortunately, the public has not yet accepted the danger caused by speeding drivers in the same way as the danger caused by drink-drivers.”

    Many of us will remember the 1970s and 1980s when there was quite a different culture surrounding drink-driving. None of us would ever want to return to that, but a real case can be made that we are in the same place today in terms of excessive speeds on our roads.

    I think it is time for us to review and increase the length of driving bans. I also believe that we need more police monitoring of rural roads. According to the Institute of Advanced Motorists, those are roads on which most fatal crashes take place. We should also take note of a recent report by Brake, which was based on an ​extensive survey of drivers. The report questions whether the legal limit on single carriageway roads should be 60 mph. The Brake report noted that fewer than a quarter of drivers—23%—stated that 60 mph was a safe speed for a vehicle on a road on which there may be people on foot, bicycles and horses. The report also noted that drivers either wanted, or were ambivalent about, a reduction to the default 60 mph limit on rural roads, with fewer than one in five—19%—objecting to a reduction. That survey gives us food for thought.

    I turn to technology, and specifically what technology now makes possible. I believe that we can and should do a lot more to effectively utilise technological developments so that we reduce the number of driving offences and the causalities that result from them. I know that Ministers have made positive statements in this regard, and I really hope that we can progress well on this.

    Intelligent speed adaptation—ISA—is a system that compares the local speed limit to the vehicle speed. As well as advising the driver when they are exceeding the speed limit, an ISA system can limit engine power when necessary to help to prevent the driver from exceeding the current speed limit. The European Transport Safety Council has described intelligent speed adaptation as

    “probably the single most effective new vehicle safety technology currently available in terms of its life-saving potential”.

    The council expects that, with mass adoption and use, ISA could reduce collisions by 30% and deaths by 20%. In June 2015, the London Mayor and Transport for London announced that ISA would be trialled on 47 London buses. According to the results of the trial, which were announced in March 2016, TfL found the technology to be “particularly effective” when buses drove through zones with a 20 mph limit, and the technology ensured that the buses taking part in the trial remained within the speed limit between 97% and 99% of the time. In the light of the trial, TfL has required all new buses entering service from 2017 to have this technology fitted.

    The technology is not just applicable to commercial vehicles, and the European Transport Safety Council is calling for ISA to be fitted on all new vehicles as standard. I think that that is an extremely good idea. In France, it is mandatory for all motor vehicles to carry a breathalyser, and fines are imposed on drivers who are found to be in breach of that obligation. A step up from that is an alcohol interlock. Alcohol interlocks are breathalysers that require the driver to blow into a breathalyser before they can begin to drive. If the driver tries to start the car while over the drink-drive limit, the vehicle is immobilised. Let me be clear that I am not suggesting this for all drivers, but there is a strong case for making it a condition that people who have been convicted of drink or drug-related driving offences must use the technology when they get their licence back.​

    Alcohol interlocks are already mandatory in Belgium for repeat drink-drive offenders. Many other European countries, including Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Poland and Sweden, have introduced either compulsory or voluntary alcohol interlocks for drink-drive offenders. In the UK, the Durham police force is carrying out a voluntary trial of such devices for those convicted of drink-driving. The Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety—PACTS—suggested in its October 2017 report commemorating 50 years of the breathalyser that the UK Government should review the potential role of alcohol interlocks. I strongly agree with that.

    According to Wasted Lives, an award-winning young driver education programme, road collisions are the biggest killer of 15 to 24-year-olds in the UK. House of Commons Library research shows that, despite making up only 7% of drivers, young people aged between 17 and 24 represent nearly 20% of people killed or seriously injured in car crashes. Those statistics show that we need more action to keep younger drivers safe. There is also a serious case for a graduated driving licence, and I welcome the UK Government’s pilot scheme in Northern Ireland.

    A further measure that could be implemented is the greater use of telematics devices, which track and score individual driving behaviour, with the information then used to calculate insurance premiums. Telematics insurance offers an incentive to drivers to drive carefully and safely, because the better the policyholder’s driving, the lower their premium. Telematics devices can record maximum and average speeds, acceleration, braking, cornering and impact. Research by LexisNexis Risk Solutions concludes that telematics insurance has done more to cut accident risk than any other road safety initiative aimed at the young driver market.

    Perhaps the Minister will also consider the merits of using telematics devices to monitor the driving behaviour of those who have previously been banned from driving. It could be made a condition of a licence return following a driving ban that a telematics device is fitted in the offender’s car. Any driver found to be repeatedly driving carelessly or dangerously, and hence continuing to pose a danger to other road users, could then have their licence revoked.

    In 2015, a driver on the A495 near Bronington in my constituency was filmed performing two dangerous overtakes on a blind bend. Video evidence of the dangerous manoeuvre was captured by the dash camera of a car behind him, and the footage was used as evidence to secure the overtaking driver’s conviction for dangerous driving. In response to the increasing number of such submissions from members of the public, Operation Snap was launched in December 2017. The initiative was initially devised and piloted by North Wales police and the Road Casualty Reduction Partnership, and has now been adopted across Wales. The campaign allows the public to submit footage from helmet or dash cameras and smartphones to Welsh police forces via a website. The police can then use such footage to investigate and prosecute driving offences.

    Since the official launch of Operation Snap, an average of 140 videos and images a month have been uploaded through the website, with the footage used in a number of prosecutions. It is an important initiative. The Transport Committee’s 2016 “Road traffic law enforcement” review concluded that if there is to be effective enforcement of ​speed limits as the number of dedicated road policing officers falls, the use of technology will be essential—I totally agree.

    I conclude my speech with three main questions for the Minister. First, what will she do to ensure that tougher action is taken to tackle speeding offences, and will she ensure that more lengthy driving bans are awarded? Secondly, will she consider removing the “exceptional hardship” argument as a way for drivers who accumulate more than 12 points on their driving licence to avoid deserved driving bans? Thirdly, what will she do to explore ways in which technology can be used to improve road safety, particularly with regard to European Transport Safety Council recommendations? I look forward to hearing from the Minister, and to us all working together to do whatever we can to stop accidents and fatalities on our roads. It is very important that we tackle this issue.

  • David Lidington – 2019 Speech at Cutlers’ Feast

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Lidington, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, in Sheffield on 23 May 2019.

    Master and Mistress Cutler. Lord Lieutenant. High Sheriff. Lord Mayor. My lords, ladies and gentlemen. It is an honour to speak at the 383rd Cutlers’ Feast here in Sheffield.

    Now I have to admit that as a Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, I received an invitation to speak in Yorkshire with some trepidation!

    But your warm welcome has put me at ease, and I have to say: it’s a true pleasure to be away from Westminster. At least here at the Cutlers’ Feast, the knives are only out for loin of lamb.

    In a similar spirit, I’d like you to consider the humble table fork in front of you. When the Company of Cutlers was founded nearly four centuries ago, the fork was considered a flamboyant affectation suitable only for Italians and their pasta. But it was popularised in the British Isles by the Elizabethan writer Thomas Coryat, who described this strange new utensil in his 1611 travelogue, Coryat’s Crudities.

    Ultimately, as you know, the fork was adopted by the Company of Cutlers, who took this strange pronged instrument, and laid it on tables around the world. But you might not know that in doing so, they may have changed the course of human evolution – by popularising the fork, it gave humans an overbite. So, Cutlers, I lay the responsibility for any jokes about British dentistry firmly at your feet!

    Indeed, the people of Sheffield have always been quick to adopt innovation. And we know that this is a city whose history is built on its innovation in steel.

    It is the steel forged in Sheffield that built British bridges and railways that have stood for centuries.

    It is the steel forged in Sheffield that has improved lives around the world, from yes, the cutlery on our tables, to the biomedical implants used to help people walk again.

    And it is steel forged in Sheffield that, today, is used in British nuclear submarines which are helping to secure our national defences.

    Steel is a crucial part of our British heritage – and its future success. It’s a vital part of the economy of this region. And that is why the government is committed to supporting the steel sector in every way possible.

    On that note, I would like to say a few words in the wake of the deeply unwelcome news this week about British Steel. I know that in recent weeks, my colleague, Business Secretary Greg Clark, has worked tirelessly with British Steel, its owner Greybull Capital, and lenders to explore all potential options for the company’s future. We share your commitment to ensuring the success of the British steel industry, but Government must act within legal parameters. And I think that this Government’s record speaks to its support.

    We’ve successfully pressed for the introduction of trade defence instruments to protect UK steel producers from unfair steel dumping.

    We’ve published pipelines of national infrastructure projects to help the steel industry prepare for future demand, and introduced steel procurement guidance to ensure that wider social and environmental effects are taken into account.

    To help manage energy costs, we’ve provided more than £291m in compensation to the steel sector since 2013 and created a £315m fund to help businesses with high energy use to cut their bills and transition UK industry to a low carbon future.

    And we’ve allotted £66m through the Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund to help industries like steel to develop radical new technologies, because steel has always been at the heart of innovation. And this government is dedicated to ensuring it remains so.

    We are so focused on innovation because the city of Sheffield, and the history of the North of England, has shown us time and again that it can create widespread change, not only revolutionising manufacturing, but helping to create a better way of life. However, in order for that change to happen, innovation needs to be nurtured and managed effectively.

    The Industrial Revolution saw Sheffield transformed from a market town to a city recognised around the world. This transformation was fired by incredible entrepreneurialism but also supported by government action – whether in maintaining and extending free markets, opening up infrastructure or improving working conditions.

    Today, as we drive forward a Fourth Industrial Revolution, we may face a very different landscape. But some of the challenges remain the same.

    As now, Sheffield’s industries were intimately connected to the global economy, with steel forged from Russian iron being exported and sold to American markets.

    As now, new technology brought both prosperity and challenges, as some workers enjoyed higher incomes but others worried whether automation would affect their jobs and those of their children.

    As now, the desire to expand industry was balanced with an awareness of how it could impact the environment and public health, and an expectation that business should be a force for good.

    So we must learn from the lessons of the past to ensure we are ready for the future.

    Over the centuries, as trade and markets have grown, governments have been at their most successful in reforming and renewing capitalism when they have driven effective competition and recognised the social dimension of free enterprise.

    This government has made significant advances in addressing these challenges. That’s in part due to our modern Industrial Strategy, which aims to build on our strengths, close the productivity gap between different regions and drive growth more evenly across the country.

    Our strategy builds on our ambition to create a Northern Powerhouse, by investing in growth deals, schools and transport across the region. Sheffield’s success is central to this and today, our reforms are working in this city and beyond to create a more innovative business environment, a workforce that’s fit for the future, and infrastructure to support growth.

    Here in Sheffield, companies like Boeing, Rolls Royce and McClaren are partnering with Sheffield University, one of the top one hundred universities in the world, and using an open source research model to create cutting edge technologies at the Advanced Manufacturing Park.

    In fact I was delighted to read in the papers today that Sheffield University has just become the top UK higher education centre for engineering income and investment; a clear measure of business confidence in this region.

    Sheffield steel helped to shape the world. And the innovation we see flourishing here today has far-reaching effects, not just in this region, but for the wider national and global economy too. So we need to encourage more of that innovation, right across the country. That’s why we have invested record amounts in research and development, with the aim of raising total R&D to 2.4% of GDP by 2027. And this government is doing more to help grow emerging industries, with incubator funds, productivity reviews and sector deals in aerospace, construction and artificial intelligence.

    We also need to ensure that our workforce is fit for future challenges. In 1978, there were 4,000 students in Sheffield and nearly 45,000 people working in the steel industry. Today, those numbers are nearly reversed – which tells us a lot about how the economy is changing.

    It’s why our investment in higher education, technical education and apprenticeships is so important – as well as the work we are doing to create a National Retraining Scheme, which will ensure no-one is left behind by automation but are able to acquire new skills.

    But the success of this area can never be driven just by policy emanating from Whitehall. Economic growth also relies on strong local leadership. That’s why I’m delighted to see such enthusiasm in Yorkshire for devolution.

    I know this hasn’t always been easy. Some have questioned whether ministers, council leaders and mayors of different political parties could really work on this together effectively. But one thing that has always struck me throughout my time in politics is that – whatever their political differences – everyone involved is fundamentally trying to improve the lives of the people they serve.

    The Sheffield City Region deal is a landmark step on this journey, which will bring £900 million of investment to the local area. And the people of this region are now starting to feel the benefits of greater local partnership and investment, through work on projects like the Sheffield SuperTram. So let me reassure the Senior Warden, this government is committed agreeing local industrial strategies to spur innovation in communities around the country.

    The motto of the Cutlers is Pour Y Parvenir a Bonne Foi – To Succeed through Honest Endeavour. And that is exactly what we aim to do. To create a fairer, fitter economy for the UK, that will succeed through hard work and the innovative spirit of its people.

    The pressure might seem immense. But out of this crucible, we will forge an economy for Britain that is bold, strong and ready to face the future.

  • Toby Perkins – 2019 Speech on Unauthorised Encampments

    Below is the text of the speech made by Toby Perkins, the Labour MP for Chesterfield, in the House of Commons on 22 May 2019.

    I beg to move,

    That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make it a criminal offence to demand money to vacate an unauthorised encampment; and for connected purposes.

    The relationship between the Traveller community and the resident community is one of the most tense of any in our society. As Members of Parliament, we are often contacted to support those caught up in the unhappy collision between the two groups, and successive Governments have failed to bridge the gap. By the sheer weight of Members who have volunteered to be sponsors of this Bill, I know that I am not the only Member who has faced such issues in my constituency. Usually, getting other Members to be co-sponsors of a Bill is an arduous and time-consuming task that requires the calling in of favours—or at least a good deal of doleful pleading. In this case, I had secured the requisite 11 volunteers within a few minutes of emailing round my request for sponsors. Indeed, as many as 41 right hon. and hon. Members have expressed an interest in being supporters of the Bill.

    The Bill would build on current legislation to make it a specific offence for people to demand money to vacate an authorised encampment, which has happened in my constituency on several occasions that I have been made aware of. It is worth saying that I entirely understand that the Traveller community faces a good deal of prejudice and discrimination. I also think it is lamentable that successive Governments, and perhaps this one in particular, have spoken the language of supporting Traveller communities while failing to take the requisite steps to ensure that there are an adequate number of legitimate sites. We in this place will make the job of our overstretched police forces a much easier one if we ensure that there are sufficient legitimate sites.

    I have to confess that some may see my own contribution as a little two-faced: I am happy to call for more sites, but when the recent local plan for the borough of Chesterfield went out for consultation, I considered all six of the potential venues that the council identified for a Traveller site to be inappropriate. I do recognise that if we wait for a resident community that positively demands a site, we will be waiting a long time, but the planning guidance needs looking at, because all the sites identified in Chesterfield were on council estates in built-up communities, and were clearly inappropriate and would lead to greater division and unrest in the community. Surely other sites that are more remote from other housing estates would make more sense than these collisions being inflicted on a specific estate and community.

    Having said all that, it is perfectly possible to have every sympathy about the lack of authorised encampments and still be horrified by some of the practices that we have all experienced in respect of unauthorised encampments. In particular, it is clear that, far from simply requiring a place to stay for a few days, many Travellers have seen the disquiet that their visit causes as an opportunity to use fear to earn and, indeed, to demand money. A number of different pieces of legislation already address the issue of trespass and encampments, ​but my Bill will deal with the specific offence of demanding money to leave a site that people are not entitled to be on in the first place.

    Three weeks ago, I was contacted by an information technology firm in my constituency called Coolspirit, which is based on the Bridge business park in Dunston in Chesterfield. Coolspirit employs more than 20 people and had been notified that Travellers had moved on to its car park at 7 pm that night. The owner, Damon Robertson, attended and attempted to encourage the Travellers to leave. He explained that their use of his car park would prevent his staff from attending work the following day. Immediately, the Travellers suggested that he pay them £2,500 to leave the site, alongside making threats to him, his wife and his property. They also informed him that it would cost him a lot more than that to employ bailiffs to remove them from the site. To his amazement, the police officer who eventually attended seemed to think that this was an offer worthy of consideration.

    Coolspirit was not alone in feeling utterly abandoned by the forces of law and order and as though the law was kinder to those who were breaking the law than those who were attempting to uphold their legal rights. Eventually, after my intervention, the police took a more helpful approach. It is only fair to acknowledge that the Derbyshire police and crime commissioner, Hardyal Dhindsa, has taken a very proactive approach in attempting to get these offences policed more robustly. Too often, though, the experience of businesses and landowners is that the victims are on the wrong side of the law.

    The incident I have outlined was not the first time that the strategy of using an illegal encampment to extort money had been used in Chesterfield. Last August, Travellers arrived on the cricket square at the famous Queen’s Park cricket ground in Chesterfield on a Friday night, just an hour before a junior cup cricket final was due to start. Dozens of parents and supporters, plus the 22 children who were due to play in the cup final, arrived only to discover that play was impossible because of a caravan sited on a good length just outside the off stump, with further vehicles pitched up at gully, square leg and extra cover.

    The chairman of the cricket club approached the Travellers and asked them if they would mind moving 60 yards or so on to the bank—there is large amount of park land just beyond the cricket pitch at Queen’s Park—so that the children’s cup final could take place. He explained that the children had worked hard to get to the cup final and that their parents were all excited about watching them play. Again, he was told that the Travellers would be willing to move 60 yards on to the bank, but that the inconvenience would not come cheap: they would require £10,000 and the return ferry fares to Ireland to move.

    In doing research for the introduction of my Bill, I learned of the case of Thwaites brewery in Blackburn. An even bigger group of 20 caravans arrived on site, ultimately costing about £350,000 in damage and stolen goods. Again, the Travellers made financial demands, in this case asking for £20,000 to leave the site. The police’s first question to the brewery owners was, “Are you insured?” Let us stop for a moment and ask, as legislators, what kind of law and service we are presiding over when ​the first question that the police ask a victim of crime is not, “Is an offence being committed?” but, “Are you insured?”

    In that case, the police eventually—and uniquely, as far as I have been able to establish—prosecuted the Travellers for the offence of blackmail alongside the criminal damage prosecution, although the chief executive of Thwaites brewery, Richard Bailey, told me that he believes the blackmail prosecution was sought only as an addendum to the criminal damage case. When I asked the Government how many blackmail prosecutions there have been for the offence of demanding money to leave a site that someone is on unlawfully, they confirmed that they did not hold that data. My diligent staff have worked night and day to try to find other examples of convictions for that offence under existing legislation, and they have been unable to find any.

    It is not enough for us in this place to allow public authorities, whether the police or councils, to expect private landowners to pay thousands of pounds to regain unfettered access to their own land because of the failure of public authorities to provide adequate authorised facilities and our failure as legislators to provide usable legislation and policing resources to support landowners to rid their sites of illegal occupants. The Bill will not address all the issues, but it will at least create one new tool for the police and landowners and will discourage those people who might be tempted to try to raise money through demanding cash to leave premises that they should not be on in the first place.

    This issue is causing a huge deal of distress, fear and mistrust, and it stands with us as MPs to tackle these issues, at a time when Parliament is passing precious little other legislation. The Bill enjoys cross-party support, and I know it will be popular not just among Members from all parties but, more importantly, among business owners and families across the land. I encourage the Government to find time in their schedule to support the later stages of the Bill.

  • Greg Clark – 2019 Statement on British Steel

    Below is the text of the statement made by Greg Clark, the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, in the House of Commons on 22 May 2019.

    With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about British Steel.

    It was announced this morning that the court has granted an application by the directors of British Steel to enter an insolvency process. Control of the company will now pass to the official receiver, an employee of the Insolvency Service, who will run a compulsory liquidation. The official receiver has made it clear that British Steel employees will continue to be paid and employed, and the business will continue to trade and to supply its customers while he considers the company’s position. In fact, employees were paid early, with the May payroll being run yesterday through cash being advanced by the company’s lenders.

    As the House will recall, I made a statement on 1 May setting out details of a bridging facility that the Government agreed to provide to ensure that British Steel was able to meet its obligations under the EU emissions trading scheme, which fell due on 30 April. The Government provided the facility to purchase allowances worth £120 million against the security of 2019 ETS allowances, which are currently suspended pending ratification of the withdrawal agreement.

    Without this facility, British Steel would have faced a financial pressure of over £600 million—the ETS liability, plus a £500 million fine. This would not only have placed British Steel in an insolvent financial position, but the charge attached to its operational assets would have been likely to prevent any new owner from acquiring these assets in the future. This transaction demonstrated the Government’s continuing willingness to work closely with all parties to secure the long-term success of this important business.

    Following this agreement, the Government have worked intensively with the company for many weeks to seek solutions to the broader financial challenges it has been facing. The Government and individual Ministers can only act within the law and this requires that any financial support to a steel company must be made on a commercial basis. In the case of the ETS facility, this was based on the security of future ETS allowances.

    To provide liquidity to the business in the face of its cash-flow difficulties the Government were willing to consider making a cash loan to the company and worked hard to investigate exhaustively the possibilities. However, the absence of adequate security, no reasonable prospect that any loan would have been repaid and the shareholder being unwilling to provide a sufficient cash injection itself meant that this did not meet the required legal tests.

    I am placing in the Library the accounting officer’s assessment of these proposals, drawing on professional and legal advice, which concludes:

    “It would be unlawful to provide a guarantee or loan on the terms of any of the proposals that the company or any other party has made or any others we have considered. You must note that such an offer cannot be made legally and that by making it you would be in breach of the Ministerial Code.”

    The insolvency removes Greybull from day-to-day control of British Steel. Given the Government’s willingness to help secure British Steel’s future, demonstrated in the ETS facility, and the discussions that have taken place ​in recent weeks, the Government will work closely with the official receiver and prospective new owners to achieve the best outcome for these sites.

    The Government have provided an indemnity to the official receiver, who is now responsible for the operations. We will take every possible step to ensure that these vital operations can continue, that jobs are secured and that the sites at Scunthorpe and Skinningrove and on Teesside continue to be important centres of excellent steel-working. During the days and weeks ahead, I will work with the official receiver, the special managers and a British Steel support group of trade unions, management, suppliers, customers and the local communities to pursue remorselessly every possible step to secure the future of these valuable operations.

    This is a very worrying time for everyone associated with British Steel. Each one of British Steel’s sites has a proud record of steelmaking excellence, and I am determined to see it continue. Britain and the world will continue to need high-quality steel, and British steel is among the best in the world. Today is a very big setback for these operations, but it is far from being the end and we will take every step possible to secure a successful future for these vital assets, both people and plant.

  • Ian Blackford – 2019 Speech on Brexit

    Below is the text of the speech made by Ian Blackford, the SNP MP for Ross, Skye and Lochaber, in the House of Commons on 22 May 2019.

    It is customary to thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of her statement. It was some surprise that we all saw the statement being delivered not in the House of Commons but elsewhere yesterday. Why was the usual protocol of Parliament being the first to hear such statements from the Prime Minister not followed?

    Let me give the Prime Minister some friendly advice: this deal is dead. Stop the charade, and let us get on with putting the decision back to the people once and for all. The headlines this morning cry of doom. Conservative Members are concentrating on ways to mount a leadership coup. Where are they? That is exactly what they are doing this afternoon—they are not here to support the Prime Minister.

    This is no way to run a Government. The Prime Minister is asking MPs to vote for a deal that takes Scotland out of the single market and eventually out of the customs union. That simply cannot be allowed to happen. This is a rookie Government attempting to blackmail MPs. If we look behind the smoke and mirrors, we see a new, revised deal that has not even been negotiated with Brussels; a second EU referendum, but only if we vote for the Bill; a possible temporary customs union that a future UK Government could change and the European Union has dismissed; and a trade tariff arrangement that the former UK representative to the EU has described as “the definition of insanity”.

    None of what the Prime Minister announced yesterday was discussed with the devolved Government in Edinburgh. This goes to the heart of the problem. In December 2016, the Scottish Government published a compromise position, which was rejected without discussion. Scotland’s voice has been ignored time and again. Brexit has meant powers being stripped away from the Scottish Parliament. There is no respect for the devolved Administrations by this Government. Westminster has ignored Scotland.

    This is a sorry mess. Look around—there is no support for the Prime Minister’s deal. This deal faces an even bigger defeat than the last vote. Tomorrow, communities will make their voices heard in our democratic European elections. A vote for the Scottish National party is a vote to stop Brexit, a vote to stop this economic madness and a vote to respect Scotland’s decision in 2016. The Prime Minister has lost the confidence of her party. Parliament will not support her, and she has lost the trust of the people. It is time to go, Prime Minister. Will you do it?

  • Jeremy Corbyn – 2019 Speech on Brexit

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jeremy Corbyn, the Leader of the Opposition, in the House of Commons on 22 May 2019.

    I thank the Prime Minister for an advance copy of the statement. In fact, I received it yesterday when she made an appeal entitled, “Seeking common ground in Parliament”. Where did she make that appeal? Not in Parliament, but in a small room just down the road.

    It is now clear: the bold new deal that the Prime Minister promised is little more than a repackaged version of her three times rejected deal. The rhetoric may have changed, but the deal has not. I thank the Prime Minister for her letter, but it offers no change on a customs union, no change on single market alignment, and no dynamic alignment on environmental protections. This Government are too weak, too divided, to get this country out of the mess that they have created. For more than two years, the Prime Minister bullishly refused to consult the public or Parliament.

    She did not seek a compromise until after she had missed her own deadline to leave, and by the time she finally did, she had lost the authority to deliver. That became evident during the six weeks of cross-party talks that ended last week—talks that were entered into constructively on both sides to see if a compromise was possible.

    But while those talks were going on, Cabinet Minister after Cabinet Minister made statements undermining what their colleagues in the room were offering. The Foreign Secretary, the Leader of the House, the International Trade Secretary and the Treasury Chief Secretary all made it clear that they would not tolerate a deal that included a customs union, while Tory leadership contender after Tory leadership contender took it in turns to make it absolutely clear that any compromise deal would not be honoured. Therefore, no matter what the Prime Minister offers, it is clear that no compromise would survive the upcoming Tory leadership contest. The multiple leaks reported from the Cabinet yesterday show that the Prime Minister could not even get the compromise deal she wanted through her own Cabinet, and it is clear that the shrunken offer that emerged satisfied no one—not her own Back Benchers, not the Democratic Unionist party and not the Official Opposition either. No Labour MP can vote for a deal on the promise of a Prime Minister who only has days left in her job.

    Even if the Prime Minister could honour her promises, the deal she is putting before us does not represent a genuine compromise. Her 10-point plan is riddled with contradiction and wishful thinking. First, the Prime Minister pretends she is delivering something new with a temporary customs union. This is not a compromise— ​it is just accepting the reality. Under the withdrawal agreement, we will already be in a temporary customs union through the transition period, which can last up to four years, and if not, we will enter the backstop, which, in effect, keeps us in a customs union, too, without any say.

    Secondly, why would this House legislate for a plan that has already been comprehensively rejected by the European Union? The Government want to align with the European Union on goods to keep frictionless trade, but they also want to pursue trade deals that would undermine this process. It is simply not compatible. The technology they need to continue to pursue their Chequers plan simply does not exist. It has already been ruled out by the EU as illegal, impractical and an invitation to fraud. The Government have failed to provide any economic analysis to show that this would make us better off. Why would the House support such a chaotic and desperate approach?

    Labour set out a sensible compromise plan over a year ago, including a comprehensive and permanent customs union with the EU that gives us a say, which would allow us to strike trade deals as part of the world’s biggest trading bloc, bringing investment, while maintaining the highest standards. It is credible and achievable, and the best way to protect industry, manufacturing and jobs—something that this Government are woefully indifferent to, as the latest crisis in the steel industry shows today. The Government must be prepared to step in and take a public stake to save thousands of high-skilled jobs at British Steel—a foundation industry for any major economy. Instead, the Tory obsession is for striking trade deals with the likes of Donald Trump. They prioritise chlorinated chicken, further NHS privatisation and deregulation over protecting supply chains and jobs in this country.

    On workers’ rights, we have yet to see the full package the Government intend to bring forward, but many people in the trade union movement remain very sceptical. As Frances O’Grady of the Trades Union Congress said yesterday:

    “This reheated Brexit deal won’t protect people’s jobs and rights.”

    On environmental protections, it is clear that the Prime Minister is not offering dynamic alignment and that under her proposals the UK would fall behind in a number of areas, with only a toothless regulator under the control of the Environment Secretary in place of binding international commitments to protect our environment.

    Finally, on a confirmatory vote, I am sure that nobody here will be fooled by what the Prime Minister is offering. Will she tell us now, if this offer is genuine: will she give her party a free vote on this issue or will she, as before, whip against a confirmatory referendum? If the Government truly believe this is the best deal for the economy and for jobs, they should not fear putting that to the people.

    For too long, our politics has been seen through a prism of leave or remain. This is dividing our society and poisoning our democracy. It means that vital issues are being neglected—the crisis in our schools and hospitals, the housing crisis and the cruelty of social security policy and universal credit. Our country needs leadership to bring us together. However, this Prime Minister is ​not the person to do that. Throughout the last three years, she has made no attempt to unite the country. She has been focused only on keeping her divided party together—and it has not worked. Her time has now run out. She no longer has the authority to offer a compromise and cannot deliver. That is why it is time for a general election to break the Brexit deadlock and give the country a say.

  • Theresa May – 2019 Commons Statement on Brexit

    Below is the text of the statement made by Theresa May, the Prime Minister, in the House of Commons on 22 May 2019.

    Before I make my statement, may I too recognise the work of Yvonne Marie Blenkinsop and others, and indeed all those who have campaigned over the years to ensure that those in the workplace can have the degree of safety and security that they need?

    With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the Government’s work to deliver Brexit by putting forward a new deal that Members of this House can stand behind.

    We need to see Brexit through, to honour the result of the referendum and to deliver the change the British people so clearly demanded. I sincerely believe that most Members of this House feel the same—that, for all our division and disagreement, we believe in democracy, and that we want to make good on the promise we made to the British people when we asked them to decide on the future of our EU membership. As to how we make that happen, recent votes have shown that there is no majority in this House for leaving with no deal, and this House has voted against revoking article 50. It is clear that the only way forward is leaving with a deal, but it is equally clear that this will not happen without compromise on all sides of the debate. That starts with the Government, which is why we have just held six weeks of detailed talks with the Opposition—talks that the Leader of the Opposition chose to end before a formal agreement was reached, but which none the less revealed areas of common ground.

    Having listened to the Opposition, to other party leaders, to the devolved Administrations and to business leaders, trade unionists and others, we are now making a 10-point offer to Members across the House—10 changes that address the concerns raised by right hon. and hon. Members; 10 binding commitments that will be enshrined in legislation so they cannot simply be ignored; and 10 steps that will bring us closer to the bright future that awaits our country once we end the political impasse and get Brexit done.

    First, we will protect British jobs by seeking as close to frictionless trade in goods with the EU as possible while outside the single market and ending free movement. The Government will be placed under a legal duty to negotiate our future relationship on this basis.

    Secondly, we will provide much-needed certainty for our vital manufacturing and agricultural sectors by keeping up to date with EU rules for goods and agri-food products that are relevant to checks at the border. Such a commitment, which will also be enshrined in legislation, will help protect thousands of skilled jobs that depend on just-in-time supply chains.

    Thirdly, we will empower Parliament to break the deadlock over future customs arrangements. Both the Government and the Opposition agree that we must have as close to frictionless trade at the UK-EU border as possible, protecting the jobs and livelihoods that are sustained by our existing trade with the EU, but while we agree on the ends, we disagree on the means. The Government have already put forward a proposal that delivers the benefits of a customs union but with the ability for the UK to determine its own trade and development policy. The Opposition are sceptical of ​our ability to negotiate that and do not believe that an independent trade policy is in the national interest. They would prefer a comprehensive customs union with a UK say in EU trade policy, but with the EU negotiating on our behalf.

    As part of the cross-party discussions, the Government offered a compromise option of a temporary customs union on goods only, including a UK say in relevant EU trade policy, so that the next Government can decide their preferred direction. We were not able to reach agreement, so instead we will commit in law to let Parliament decide this issue and to reflect the outcome of this process in legislation.

    Fourthly, to address concerns that a future Government could roll back hard-won protections for employees, we will publish a new workers’ rights Bill. As I have told the House many times, successive British Administrations of all colours have granted rights and protections to British workers well above the standards demanded by Brussels. I know that people want guarantees, and I am happy to provide them. If passed by Parliament, this Bill will guarantee that the rights enjoyed by British workers can be no less favourable than those of their counterparts in the EU—both now and in the future—and we will discuss further amendments with trade unions and business.

    Fifthly, the new Brexit deal will also guarantee that there will be no change in the level of environmental protection when we leave the EU. We will establish a new and wholly independent office of environmental protection, able to uphold standards and enforce compliance.

    Sixthly, the withdrawal agreement Bill will place a legal duty on Government to seek changes to the political declaration that will be needed to reflect this new deal, and I am confident that we will be successful in doing so.

    Seventhly, the Government will include in the withdrawal agreement Bill at its introduction a requirement to vote on whether to hold a second referendum. I have made my own view clear on this many times—I am against a second referendum. We should be implementing the result of the first referendum, not asking the British people to vote in a second one. What would it say about our democracy if the biggest vote in our history were to be rerun because this House did not like the outcome? What would it do to that democracy and what forces would it unleash? However, I recognise the genuine and sincere strength of feeling across the House on this important issue. To those MPs who want a second referendum to confirm the deal, I say that you need a deal and therefore a withdrawal agreement Bill to make it happen. Let it have its Second Reading and then those MPs can make their case to Parliament. If this House votes for a referendum, it would require the Government to make provisions for such a referendum, including legislation if it wanted to ratify the withdrawal agreement.

    Eighthly, Parliament will be guaranteed a much greater role in the second part of the Brexit process: the negotiations over our future relationship with the EU. In line with the proposal put forward by the hon. Members for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) and for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), the new Brexit deal will set out in law that the House of Commons will approve the UK’s objectives for the negotiations. MPs will also be asked to approve the treaty governing that relationship before the Government sign it.​

    Ninthly, the new Brexit deal will legally oblige the Government to seek to conclude the alternative arrangements process by December 2020, avoiding any need for the Northern Ireland backstop coming into force. This commitment is made in the spirit of the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady), passed by this House on 29 January. Although it is not possible to use alternative arrangements to replace the backstop in the withdrawal agreement, we will ensure that they are a viable alternative.

    Finally, tenthly, we will ensure that, should the backstop come into force, Great Britain will stay aligned with Northern Ireland. We will prohibit the proposal that a future Government could split Northern Ireland off from the UK’s customs territory, and we will deliver on our commitments to Northern Ireland in the December 2017 joint report in full. We will implement paragraph 50 of the joint report in law. The Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive will have to give their consent on a cross-community basis for new regulations that are added to the backstop. We will work with our confidence and supply partners on how these commitments should be entrenched in law, so that Northern Ireland cannot be separated from the United Kingdom.

    Following the end of EU election purdah, the withdrawal agreement Bill will be published on Friday so that the House has the maximum possible time to study its detail. If Parliament passes the Bill before the summer recess, the UK will leave the EU by the end of July. We will be out of the EU political structures and out of ever closer union. We will stop British laws being enforced by a European court. We will end free movement. We will stop making vast annual payments to the EU budget. By any definition, that alone is delivering Brexit. By leaving with a deal we can do so much more besides: we can protect jobs, guarantee workers’ rights, and maintain the close security partnerships that do so much to keep us all safe. We will ensure that there is no hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland, and we can bring an end to the months—years—of increasingly bitter argument and division that have both polarised and paralysed our politics. We can move on, move forwards, and get on with the job that we were sent here to do and what we got into politics to do. That is what we can achieve if we support this new deal.

    Reject the deal, and all we have before us is division and deadlock. We risk leaving with no deal, something that this House is clearly against. We risk stopping Brexit altogether, something that the British people would simply not tolerate. We risk creating further division at a time when we need to be acting together in the national interest. We also guarantee a future in which our politics becomes still more polarised and voters increasingly despair as they see us failing to do what they asked of us. None of us wants to see that happen. The opportunity of Brexit is too large and the consequences of failure too grave to risk further delay. In the weeks ahead, there will be opportunities for MPs from all parts of the House to have their say, to table amendments, and to shape the Brexit that they and their constituents want to see.

    In time, another Prime Minister will be standing at this Dispatch Box, but while I am here, I have a duty to be clear with the House about the facts. If we are to deliver Brexit in this Parliament, we will have to pass a ​withdrawal agreement Bill. We will not do so without holding votes on the issues that have divided us the most. That includes votes on customs arrangements and on a second referendum. We can pretend otherwise and carry on arguing and getting nowhere, but in the end our job in this House is to take decisions, not to duck them. I will put those decisions to this House because that is my duty and because it is the only way that we can deliver Brexit. Let us demonstrate what this House can achieve. Let us come together, honour the referendum, deliver what we promised the British people, and build a successful future for our whole country. I commend this statement to the House.

  • John Glen – 2019 Speech at the Building Societies Association Annual Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by John Glen, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, on 23 May 2019.

    Thank you, Stephen [Stephen Mitcham, Chairman].

    It’s a pleasure to be asked to speak at your Annual Conference, particularly in this 150th Anniversary year.

    A century-and-a-half is quite an achievement for any organisation.

    Throughout this time the Building Societies Association has been keeper of the flame, for the movement and its members.

    Over the years you’ve weathered all sorts of economic storms and existential threats. In more recent times, you survived de-mutualisation in the 1990s and the Global Crash of 2008, and today you represent almost a quarter of the mortgage market.

    And I think it’s worth taking a moment to consider why it is that the building society movement has endured.

    In answering that question, it’s perhaps fitting if I start by quoting the man who was Prime Minister back at the time of your founding.

    It was Benjamin Disraeli who said that “the secret of success is constancy of purpose.”

    For all the changes we’ve seen in our society and our economy, the building society movement has remained true to its original values.

    In 2019, as in 1869, building societies continue to put the interests of their members first.

    They continue to be rooted in the communities they serve.

    And they continue to ensure our financial service sector caters for everyone in our society.

    This is borne out by the strength of the sector today, with more than 40 different organisations, serving 25 million members in 1,500 branches across the United Kingdom.

    As I will explain in a moment, this diversity and competition in high street lending has never been more necessary than it is today.

    But first I should also add a special word on credit unions.

    It’s good to see so many represented here today, including BSA’s newest member, Scotwest.

    I know how vital credit unions are to the people and communities you serve.

    This was reflected in the Parliamentary debate I responded to on Tuesday this week, with many members from across the House speaking up for credit unions.

    As some of you know, the government is developing a prize-linked savings scheme to encourage individual savers, and help raise awareness of credit unions more widely.

    It’s a first step…because whether you can trace your pedigree back to 1869 or not, I want to see mutuals of all types prosper and grow.

    I’d like to use my remarks to set out why I think it’s so vital that building societies and credit unions keep on innovating and adapting…

    …so they can continue to apply their values and principles in a changing society.

    Of course, given the changes we’ve seen over the past 150 years, who can predict with any certainty what the next 150 may bring?

    Here in Westminster it’s difficult to see past next week…

    And yet despite the short-term political uncertainty, I’m in no doubt of the forces that will shape the future of our financial sector.

    I refer to the ‘three Ts’ – Trust, Technology and Talent.

    Let’s take each of them in order, starting with Trust.

    A decade on from the financial crash, I know how hard the sector has worked to rebuild public trust.

    But the task of making our financial services work in a way that is sustainable and responsible is an unending one.

    And we must never stop working to ensure our economy is sufficiently broad and inclusive to serve everyone in our society.

    This challenge is particularly acute when you consider the demographic pressures we face as a country.

    We have a generation of young people starting out in life, for whom the traditional expectations about job security, home ownership and pensions seem to be slipping further into the distance.

    At the other end of the financial journey, we have more people living longer. One in 3 children born today will live to see their 100th Birthday, with all that entails in terms of financial security and social care.

    Balancing the two is not easy – but balance them we must.

    Because if we are to maintain people’s faith in our financial system, then it must evolve to serve their changing needs and expectations.

    I know the building society movement is in the vanguard of these efforts.

    Take housing.

    In November, I was pleased to speak at the launch of BSA’s report on Intergenerational Mortgages.

    I know that Saffron has launched a guarantor mortgage, while Marsden is the latest building society to offer a ‘joint borrower, sole proprietor’ mortgage.

    These two schemes take into account the financial circumstances of family members in order to give first time buyers a leg up onto the property ladder.

    I recently met the Ecology Building Society, which offers Green Mortgages for self-build properties and discounted borrowing for home improvements.

    That’s another great example of how the mortgage market can respond to the needs of society, and of the generations to come.

    As for retirement lending, it’s hugely encouraging to see regional building societies like Leeds, Nottingham and Loughborough offering retirement interest-only mortgages.

    And we’re starting to see this on a national level, with Nationwide offering a retirement interest-only mortgage alongside traditional equity release and capital repayment products – all backed by a joined-up advice service.

    These examples are proof that regulation and innovation are not mutually exclusive.

    It is possible to be a responsible lender while remaining accessible to people at every stage of their financial lives.

    And fresh thinking can transform even the most traditional areas of business.

    The subject of fresh thinking naturally leads to the second ‘T’ – Technology.

    You don’t need me to remind you of the extent to which technology is changing the market, particularly for high street lenders.

    But the question is – Do we sit back and let technology do its work? Or do we seize the opportunity to meld and align this revolution in a way that works for society?

    It probably won’t surprise you to hear me say I choose the second option.

    Yes, technology can provide more sophisticated and more convenient services, to the benefit of customers and businesses alike.

    But it’s true financial potential is to be found in being a catalyst for a smarter, more resilient and inclusive system.

    And that requires us to come together, roll-up our sleeves and get to work.

    First, to ensure that the benefits of technology can be harnessed across the sector, from the big national institutions to the smallest community cooperative.

    And second, to ensure that the benefits are felt throughout society: not just the wealthy or comfortable, but those who struggle with complex financial circumstances.

    I’m really pleased that you have Conference sessions planned for tomorrow under the theme of ‘Digital Mutual’.

    Meanwhile, our Financial Inclusion Forum brings government, business and civil society together to help find new solutions.

    Nationwide is one of the institutions that have picked up the baton.

    It’s ‘Open Banking for Good’ Challenge offers £3 million to FinTech companies that can come up with new apps and services to help financially squeezed households in this country.

    Fifty applications have been whittled down to 7 start-ups, which are now taking their ideas forward.

    At a time when many see Open Banking solely through a commercial lens, this is a much-needed demonstration that it can offer a social purpose too.

    The third and final ‘T’ is Talent.

    The single most critical element in the future of financial services – and our wider economy – is the availability of skills in the sector.

    We need people with the courage to think differently; the agility to move with the times; and the ambition to grasp the opportunities before us.

    To find these people, we must look to society in all its breadth and diversity.

    All the research shows that a more inclusive workforce is better for employees, better for businesses and better for customers.

    But across the financial sector – including building societies – there are sadly too few women represented in senior leadership roles.

    As some of you know, HM Treasury published the Women in Finance Charter three years ago.

    It asked financial service companies to commit to greater representation of women in senior leadership roles in the near term, with the long-term goal of an equal gender balance.

    BSA has shown real leadership by signing the charter.

    It sends a signal to the rest of the sector that this is the right thing to do.

    Twelve individual building societies have also signed up and I would encourage the 35 BSA members who haven’t yet done so to do likewise.

    The next step for everyone is to turn that public commitment into tough, tangible, action.

    I congratulate those who have met their first round of targets for increasing female representation in senior management this year –

    …Capital Credit Union…and Leeds, Market Harborough, Nottingham, Progressive and West Bromwich Building Societies.

    It’s good to see progress.

    But we still have a long way to go.

    And I do intend to hold your feet to the fire on this matter.

    As a sector, you pride yourself on being locally-focused and community-minded.

    In so many areas, your ethos is in line with public frustration and sentiment.

    So, frankly, I find it difficult to understand why this matter should be any different.

    Gender balance is a business imperative as well as a moral one.

    It’s not about displacing current leaders – it’s about creating a talent pipeline by thinking about who you recruit and how you nurture them over the course of a career.

    Because in a world that is increasingly global, increasingly competitive and increasingly digital, we simply cannot afford for people with the talent and skills we need to pass the sector by.

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

    Let me begin to draw this together.

    I’ve highlighted some of the ways the Building Societies Association is leading the sector to innovate and adapt.

    Of course, there are plenty of other examples I could have chosen.

    Like Yorkshire Building Society’s workplace saving scheme.

    Or Nationwide’s not-for-profit house building programme.

    Or Newcastle’s leadership in signing up to the alternative dormant assets scheme for smaller building societies and banks.

    All of which represent the innovation that is found across the sector.

    So my closing message to you today is to keep on doing all the things you do.

    Keep on serving local communities.

    Keep on bringing forward new ideas for greater collaboration – building trust, harnessing technology and sharpening talent.

    And, most importantly, keep on putting people first.

    Because like Disraeli said, constancy of purpose is the key to success.

    So, to end, I’d like to congratulate the Building Societies Association for all that you have achieved, and all that you will achieve.

    Because I have confidence that you have as much to contribute to our country in your next 150 years as you have in your first.

  • Andrea Leadsom – 2019 Resignation Letter

    Andrea Leadsom

    Below is the text of the resignation letter sent by Andrea Leadsom, the Leader of the House of Commons, to Theresa May, the Prime Minister.

    Dear Prime Minister

    I am proud to have served in your government since 2016, first as your environment secretary and for the last two years as leader of the House of Commons, and pay tribute to the excellent work of my civil servants in both roles. More recently, setting up the new complaints procedure, putting in train the restoration of the Palace of Westminster, introducing proxy voting for MPs, proposing a new strategy to support early years, and ensuring the timely delivery of our legislative programme, my role as leader of the Commons has been highly rewarding, and I am grateful to have had these opportunities.

    I stayed in cabinet to shape and fight for Brexit. There have been some uncomfortable compromises along the way, but you have had my determined support and loyalty in your efforts to deliver Brexit as our shared goal.

    I no longer believe that our approach will deliver on the referendum result, for the following reasons:

    1. I do not believe that we will be a truly sovereign United Kingdom through the deal that is now proposed;

    2. I have always maintained that a second referendum would be dangerously divisive, and I do not support the government willingly facilitating such a concession. It would also risk undermining our union which is something I passionately want to see strengthened;

    3. There has been such a breakdown of government processes that recent Brexit-related legislative proposals have not been properly scrutinised or approved by cabinet members;

    4. The tolerance to those in cabinet who have advocated policies contrary to the government’s position has led to a complete breakdown of collective responsibility.

    I know there are important elections tomorrow, and many Conservatives have worked hard to support our excellent candidates. I considered carefully the timing of this decision, but I cannot fulfil my duty as Leader of the House tomorrow, to announce a bill with new elements that I fundamentally oppose.

    I fully respect the integrity, resolution and determination that you have shown during your time as prime minister. No-one has wanted you to succeed more than I have, but I do now urge you to make the right decisions In the interests of the country, this government and our party.

    It is therefore with great regret and with a heavy heart that I resign from the government.

    Andrea Leadsom.

  • Tom Watson – 2019 Speech on the WhatsApp Data Breach

    Below is the text of the speech made by Tom Watson, the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, in the House of Commons on 15 May 2019.

    Here we are again: another day, another major data breach from a Mark Zuckerberg company. I am glad that the Secretary of State is with Facebook today, because we can suggest a number of questions for him to put to Facebook.

    First, what has happened? Spyware called Pegasus, created by the Israeli security company NSO Group, has been used to hack the phones of lawyers and human rights activists. The news reports read like a nightmare: a dystopian world of tech-enabled total surveillance. The spyware transits malicious code via a WhatsApp call. The target does not even need to answer the call for the phone to be infected. According to ​The New York Times, once the spyware is installed, it can extract everything: messages, contacts, GPS location, email and browser history. It can even use the phone’s camera and microphone to record the user’s surroundings. That is terrifying.

    About 1.5 billion people worldwide use WhatsApp and millions are here in the UK. Many of them will have been drawn to the service for its unique selling point: end-to-end encryption that ensures user privacy. Now we find that a gap in WhatsApp’s defences has enabled complete violation of that privacy. What is the Minister doing to work with GCHQ, the National Cyber Security Centre and tech industry players to protect the UK’s digital communications and privacy?

    Media reports say that WhatsApp contacted the US Department of Justice earlier this month when it found out about the hack, but when was the Minister notified about it? When was the Information Commissioner informed? How many users in the UK are affected? Have those affected been notified? If the Minister does not know the answers, will she commit to updating the House when she does?

    The spyware was licensed for export by the Israeli Government. What assurances can the Minister provide to social media companies that any digital surveillance products that the UK exports will not be misused to track and monitor human rights defenders? The particular vulnerability of WhatsApp was the voice over internet protocol—the process for receiving calls over the internet. As telecoms companies modernise, they are all moving away from calls over copper lines and phasing in calling via the internet. What is the Minister doing to ensure that those companies do not have vulnerabilities such as those we are discussing today?

    The attack looks as if it was carried out by malicious actors, possibly other state actors, trying to close down journalists, dissidents, human rights activists and lawyers seeking justice, but exactly that kind of surveillance was given legal basis in the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, which the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) and I fought in the courts and won concessions on. The Government want tech companies to build back doors into their services, but this is an example of what happens if malicious actors find those doors: those who are fighting for justice and what is right come under attack. The Government must not allow that to happen.