UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Gordon Wilson – 1985 Speech on Heating Bills

    Below is the text of the speech made by Gordon Wilson, the then SNP MP for Dundee East, in the House of Commons on 4 December 1985.

    The subject of the debate is the effect of poor summer weather on the elderly and the very young. Before coming to that, I must say that the debate on the Northern Ireland (Loans) Bill evoked memories of 1975 and devolution. It is one of the paradoxes of this place that Northern Ireland is to be offered devolution when it does not want it, while Scotland, which wants it, cannot get it.

    I want to turn the attention of the Minister and the House to the problem facing many elderly and very young people because of the poor weather during the summer —if summer be the right description. In recent years a considerable amount of attention has been drawn to the instances of fuel poverty, but most of the concern was about the effects of winter weather on the frail, elderly and the families living on the margins of income.

    Those on supplementary benefit and heating allowances hope that during the summer they can save to pay their winter electricity, gas and coal bills. Many hon. Members will have experience of constituents approaching them at the end of winter with high bills that they have great difficulty in paying under the current supplementary benefit rates. Indeed, they have been faced with the prospect of disconnection.

    Some of those people were able to cut their arrears during the summer months when they could turn off their heating systems, or perhaps put something aside towards the bills for the winter months. We must recognise that this is not an academic matter, nor is it purely a case of the discomfort that many families experience because they cannot afford sufficient fuel. It can be one of life and death.

    Age Concern has looked into the matter. It has said, based upon a survey done as far back as 1972, that some 70,000 Scots pensioners are at risk from hypothermia. If, however, one scales it up to the present population aged over 65 years, I am informed that the figure is now nearer 130,000.

    The problem medically for the elderly, although it applies also to children in their first year of life, is that they sometimes have difficulty in being able to sense changes in temperature. The young have no control over their clothing or the way in which they react. The elderly frequently do not notice changes in temperature up to something like 5 degrees Centigrade. That is why they can be at risk and, before they know it, they can be in danger.

    There are between 3,000 and 5,000 deaths per year in Scotland from cold-related illnesses. Some 20 per cent. of all Scottish houses —and that may be an underestimate —have a problem with dampness. In 1972 the Wicks report when it came out made it clear that pensioners spend over twice as much of their budget on fuel as the average of all households. Indeed, that same report demonstrated that 88 per cent. of people who would have liked more heating cited expense as the reason for not having it. They deliberately economised on fuel because they felt they did not have the resources with which to pay for it. We are now dealing with the problem of the population becoming progressively older so that at present some 17 per cent. of the Scottish population is over pensionable age.

    I do not pretend that this is a purely Scottish problem. Other areas of the United Kingdom suffer from climatic variations, but I trust that it is stating the obvious to point out that the Scottish climate, because of our northerly location, suffers from harsher weather conditions. It is a matter of indisputable scientific proof that it is 20 per cent. more expensive to heat a house in Glasgow than it is to heat a similar house in Bristol. In Aberdeen the comparable figure is 30 per cent., while there are many more upland and exposed households where the weather is windier and colder. Nor is it just the case that cold weather is more severe. People also have to cope with a longer winter, lack of sunshine, shorter days, greater wind velocity and a higher rainfall, all part and parcel of living further to the north in winter. It is not surprising, therefore, that electricity consumption is 25 per cent. and 50 per cent. higher in the south and north board areas respectively compared with consumption in England.

    If any further proof were needed, a glance at a recent written answer given to the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) shows not only that official hypothermia death returns are running in the first half of 1985 at record levels but that Scotland accounts for some 33 per cent. of all the deaths where mention is made of hypothermia on the death certificate. As we know, the official returns on the death certificate, because of the difficulty of diagnosis, represent only a small proportion of those who die from cold-related illness.

    All this has been compounded by the 1985 summer. Apart from the month of October, it was simply appalling. Cumulative Scottish weather conditions were found to be the worst for a century. From July to September rainfall was 200 per cent. to 300 per cent. above normal. Sunshine was less that 75 per cent. of the usual. This has had a direct impact on heating. People had to heat their homes right through the summer. During the summer quarter, fuel consumption rose dramatically. Compared with 1984 gas consumption went up by 20 per cent. and electricity in the south of Scotland electricity board area by 12 per cent. Figures have not been made available for the hydro-board area, but might be greater because it covers the more northern latitudes. Increases in coal were also sustained in different areas, to upwards of 20 per cent.

    It is not surprising that during the summer fuel arrears have arisen. Many people have used up the savings that they had kept for fuel consumption during the winter. This is serious, because the graphs show that deaths among the elderly rose by 20 per cent. and among the very young by 40 per cent. in winter, as compared to summer. This phenomenon does not occur in similar age groupings in Scandinavia. Part of the blame lies in the poorer quality of housing. With lack of insulation, a disproportionate amount warms the external environment, and there is no real programme of upgrading, and what there is seems to be under attack. It is one of the stupidities of Government policy that in 1981 –83 they paid out something under £15,000 million of fuel benefits, actual or reputed, but provided only some £18 million for basic insulation.

    The whole point is about ability to pay. on 28 November, the Government acknowledged the exceptionally bad weather conditions, when the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food gave a subsidy to farmers, for fodder for their cattle. What about the people who also had to put up with the cold, wet and windy summer? So ​ far, there has been no announcement, although winter has struck early and most bitterly. The benefit system is inadequate, unfair and unjust.

    The House knows that I have before called for a cold climate allowance. Instead, there is the severe weather allowance, which I prefer to call a warm climate allowance because it favours payment in the south rather than in the north. Last year, 170,000 payments were made in England, but none in Scotland, although lower temperatures were prevailing in our country.
    No one in Scotland will miss the severe weather allowance when it is abolished. It does not give us any help —a case of cold comfort for the Scots, and southern comfort for the English. In any event, the system has been declared illegal by the Social Security Commissioner, but the Government are silent, and I hope that the Minister will say something to clear up the position, and about the guidelines. Will the scheme last, and will any back-money be paid to all those people who applied last year, but failed to get a bean out of the system?

    In plain language, the scheme is daft. It is unfair to those living in normally cold areas. It is confusing for benefit officers, and if it is confusing for them, how much more confusing must it have been for the general public? The elderly could not predict whether the cold temperatures would last long enough to bring clown the average and so trigger off the payments. Old folk had no way of knowing whether they could afford the extra heat. The winter has struck early, and the fear of the size of the fuel bills is the greatest disincentive to the elderly in keeping warm. After the summer, many could have difficulty in paying for fuel, and be in a more difficult and harsh position than last year.

    The Government cannot be complacent about the trend in deaths. It is immoral to give extra cash to keep animals alive when people either die or face the misery of being trapped in cold and draughty homes. It is necessary to give help to the farmers, in view of the bad summer, but, if the Government are willing to give it to the farmers, they should also be prepared to help other people. The Government cannot abolish fuel allowances. Adequate allowances are the only guarantee for aged and low-income families that they will have any chance of keeping themselves warm in this and future winters. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond sympathetically to my case.

  • Clare Short – 1985 Speech on Silentnight Plc

    Below is the text of the speech made by Clare Short, the then Labour MP for Birmingham Ladywood, in the House of Commons on 3 December 1985.

    I beg to move,

    That this House gives its fill support to the employees of Silentnight plc who are on strike; notes that the workforce of the company have shown great forbearance in the face of an aggressive and obdurate management, that the union agreed to forgo a claimed pay rise for three months in return for an undertaking by the company of no further redundancies, but that the company broke the agreement eight weeks later by declaring another 52 employees redundant and that the present strike was supported by a ballot of the workforce; condemns the company for refusing a union offer to submit the dispute to binding arbitration and for dismissing those on strike; further notes that the company’s claim that it cannot afford a pay rise costing £210,000 in a year fits oddly with its ability to pay out dividends to family shareholders of £700,000; and calls upon the company to lift the dismissal notices and negotiate, and upon the Government to use its influence to bring an end to this dispute.

    I begin by making it clear that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), deeply regrets his absence tonight and has asked me to put on record for the House and the Silentnight workers his regret that his duties have taken him elsewhere.

    We have chosen to debate this dispute partly because we and the Silentnight workers want a settlement of this six-month dispute. We believe that if the Government were willing, they could use their influence to settle the dispute. We do not accept the Government’s amendment and their suggestion that they find the dispute regrettable. If they did, they could use their influence to bring the dispute to an end.

    We also wish to debate the dispute because of its wider implications. We want to know whether there are the kind of industrial relations the Government are now seeking. We hear much about a new atmosphere in industrial relations and about management’s right to manage. We want to know whether the Government intend to return us to 19th-century industrial relations and to the bitterness and conflict that we see in the Silentnight dispute. We are all aware of examples of this style of industrial relations from our own constituencies.

    In my constituency there was a similar bitter dispute that ended some months ago at Kenwal Brothers in Middlemore road. It lasted 19 weeks. It was a small textile workshop with appalling conditions and illegal rates of pay. The workers learned that the rates were illegal and that there were such things as wages councils which were meant to protect them. They learned of their rights, and it was not because the wages inspectorate came to inspect the offices. The workers joined a trade union. The owner conceded the minimum rates under the wages council and shortly afterwards deliberately provoked a dispute which lasted 19 weeks.

    At the request of the workers, I was involved in meetings with the owner. He told me that he deeply regretted the dispute, that everything that he had built up in his working life was now lost and that he would have to sell up. Once the mostly Asian women workers at Kenwal Brothers decided that they could not go on with their strike, the owner reopened his business and took on more workers, as I understand it, at illegal rates of pay. Again the wages inspectorate has not intervened. We have ​ a strong sense of community in Ladywood, however, and the owner is finding it difficult to obtain enough workers. My hon. Friend could tell similar stories of a deterioration of industrial relations which the Government seem to describe as an improved atmosphere.

    The Silentnight dispute has been going on for six months. It has caused enormous hardship to those who are on strike and has also caused the company’s first loss. The half-yearly figures published in October showed an £828,000 group loss compared with a £1·1 million profit for the same period last year. The company, it seems, is willing to damage its financial interests as well as the livelihoods of its 346 workers, for purely ideological reasons.

    The Government may wish to claim that the dispute has nothing to do with them. That is the implication of the amendment that they seek to move tonight. That claim does not stand up to scrutiny when we look at the record of the company, its involvement with the Conservative party and the record of Ministers and their entanglement with the company.

    Mr. Robert Atkins (South Ribble)

    The what?

    Ms. Short

    I shall come to what I am implying. Mr. Tom Clarke, who is a chairman of the company, is a member of the Conservative party and was until recently president of the Skipton Conservative association. His links with the Tory party got him an OBE from the present Government for services to industry. It also got him a visit from the Prime Minister—certainly a Minister—in 1983, who described him as “Mr. Wonderful”. We want to know from the Minister tonight whether the Government still consider him and his industrial relations policy wonderful.

    Even worse, in the Adjournment debate on 6 November initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), the Under-Secretary of State for Employment, the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Mr. Trippier)—we notice that he is not answering for the Government tonight and wonder whether that is some form of an apology—defended the management of the company and gave a misleading account of the dispute, taken, we believe, from a misleading company briefing published for the purpose of that debate. He made some wild and unsubstantiated allegations about violent conflict in the course of the dispute. Much of this was misleading and untrue. It is likely that some of it will be repeated this evening so my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley will deal with the allegations in some detail later.

    Mr. Dave Nellist (Coventry, South-East)

    My hon. Friend referred to allegations of violence or intimidation—at least, that was the implication of her words. Is she aware that, after the 5,000-strong rally on Saturday in Barnoldswick in support of the strikers, Mr. David Marshall, the regional official of the Furniture, Timber and Allied Trades Union, was attacked and injured by two men with sticks? If pickets had attacked management representatives, right hon. and hon. Members on the Government Front Bench and every Tory newspaper in Britain would have been talking about or reporting acts of violence and intimidation. When union officials are on the receiving end of sticks, there is total silence from Ministers and Tory newspapers.

    ​Ms. Short

    I was not aware of that, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for having put the matter on the record.

    In the Adjournment debate to which I have referred, the Minister cannot claim that he was being impartial about the dispute and expressing the regret that the Government claim in the amendment that the dispute has been continuing for some time. He made no attempt to encourage conciliation and a settlement. Indeed, he said that the Prime Minister was right to praise Mr. Clarke, and added:

    “We need more people like Tom Clarke.”—[Official Report, 6 November 1985; Vol. 86, c. 103.].

    I shall tell the House what the local newspaper, the Lancashire Evening Telegraph—

    Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)

    That is a good newspaper.

    Ms. Short

    thought of the remarks of the Minister, the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen. Its editorial of 8 November reads:

    “What kind of employment minister is the one likely to appear more responsible—one who seeks to end a strike or one who fans the flames of the dispute?

    We ask this because of the apparently crass and partisan behaviour of Rossendale and Darwen MP Mr. David Trippier, No. 2 at the Department of Employment”—

    I do not know whether the Minister is No. 2 in the Department—

    “during the Commons debate into the bitter, 22-week dispute at the Silentnight works at Barnoldswick, where some 500 employees were sacked after striking over a pay claim.

    For we believe Mr. Trippier comes out of it very badly—in seeming to take sides and so wasting the opportunity to use his office to get both sides together. He is sufficiently experienced to know that no dispute is ever solved by intransigence, but his line in the debate can only prolong that attitude.

    If his stance were prompted by a belief that the public generally does support governmental moves to curb over-reaching trade union power, he has made the mistake of going too far into the realm of pure union-bashing, something which, we believe, goes beyond most people’s idea of political responsibility.

    So in declaring his support for this employer and saying that the country needs more like it, Mr. Trippier overlooks the fact that firms cannot thrive in the atmosphere of polarised industrial relations and that it is the duty of a responsible employment minister to promote the alternative.”

    We hope that tonight we may get a rather different attitude from the Department of Employment.

    The history of the dispute is well known. There have been articles in The Guardian, The Times and the Daily Mirror and a programme on Channel 4. That is quite remarkable for a relatively small localised dispute. It is surprising that it received such strong national coverage. Perhaps the reason is that the injustice is so gross. It is a typical example of the shifting mood in industrial relations which the Government seem anxious to promote.

    In January 1985, the company asked the workers to forgo a wage increase for between three and four months to avoid job losses. The workers agreed to that. In April 1985, the company reneged on the deal and declared 56 redundancies. The workers accordingly requested their pay increase. The company refused and said that it could not afford to pay it. The trade union made inquiries to ascertain whether that was true and undertook some research. It found that the claim was false.

    It found, first, that from January 1984 to January 1985 the company made a profit of £595,000; secondly, that the Silentnight group of companies made a profit of £2·5 million; thirdly, that the chief executive of the company, ​ Mr. Tom Clarke, received a £5,000 a year increase, bringing his salary to £50,000 a year; fourthly, that a family trust called Famco, which is composed of Mr. Tom Clarke and immediate members of his family, received £646,000 this year in dividends from group profits; and, fifthly, that it would have cost only £250,000 over 12 months to pay the members of the union their nationally agreed wage rise. These are the economic facts of the dispute.

    In May, there was a ballot at the company on the refusal to honour the award. The result was that 352 workers voted for industrial action and 203 against out of a work force of 700. The ballot produced a 3:2 majority in favour of industrial action. The company remained obstinate and refused arbitration on a number of occasions. Despite what the company is putting out in its briefings and what the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen, said in the Adjournment debate, the union declared itself willing to go to arbitration in the absence of any terms. It did so because it was not possible to reach agreement on terms. The union has been anxious throughout the dispute to go to arbitration and the company has refused to do so.

    As a result of the failure to come to an agreement, a go-slow started on 10 June. Again, the workers were anxious not to strike. They decided merely to take some action to promote negotiations with the management. Immediately the go-slow started, shop stewards were summoned by the management and told that if the workers were not working normally in 10 minutes, they would be suspended and sent home. The result was that 200 were suspended. The remaining workers walked out. Three factories came to a standstill and, in July, 346 workers received dismissal notices. They are still on strike.

    Those workers want—and we want—the Government to use their substantial influence with the company to arrive at a settlement and get the workers back to work. Are the Government willing to use their influence in that way? Is the Minister willing to say that he thinks that the dismissal notices should be withdrawn and that there should be negotiations? If he is not, we are forced to conclude that this is an example of the industrial relations that the Government are trying to promote and that this is what they mean by management’s right to manage. If that happens, we know that there will be more and more bitter conflicts of this sort throughout the land which will bring benefit to no one.

  • Jack Dormand – 1985 Speech on the Northern Region

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jack Dormand, the then Labour MP for Easington, in the House of Commons on 3 December 1985.

    I beg to move,

    That this House condemns Government policies which have brought to the Northern region the highest rate of unemployment in the United Kingdom outside Northern Ireland, shown callous disregard for the region’s traditional industries, failed to provide adequate measures for the attraction and creation of new jobs and brought about a lowering of the quality of life; and demands a fundamental change of policy to end this savage decline.

    It is significant that we are using part of our first Opposition day of the Session for a debate on the northern region. It is significant not only because we recognise the region’s many problems, but because the Opposition realise the value of the north’s contribution to the country, to the industrial development of Britain in the past and its potential for the future.

    Most of the region’s difficulties arise from its high unemployment which remains the highest in the United Kingdom outside Northern Ireland. It has held that unenviable position in the unemployment league since the Government came to office in 1979, and the position has worsened since that date. In October 1979 there were 99,900 people unemployed in the region—7·3 per cent. There has been no reduction in any year since that time. In October of this year there were 227,500 unemployed—a disgraceful rate of 18·1 per cent. The north has lost 219,000 jobs since 1979, 125,000 of them in manufacturing. It has lost 30,000 jobs in the service sector, while 369,000 service sector jobs have been created in the United Kingdom. The Government make great play these days about the service sector, but apparently that does not apply to the north.

    However, that is not the whole story. In the north, 440,000 people earn low wages. They are paid below what the Council of Europe calls the decency threshold. That figure represents 42 per cent. of the work force in the north.

    When I asked the Prime Minister on 21 March about unemployment in the north, she replied:

    “The wages in that region are also comparatively high.”—[Official Report, 21 March 1985; Vol. 75, c. 986.]

    She said that that might be related to the high unemployment. All I can do is repeat what the right hon. ​ Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) said of the Government recently—that they must live in a different world from the rest of us.

    Those statistics are especially relevant to what was said by the present chairman of the Conservative party, then the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, in a debate on the north on 15 July 1981:

    “I share and understand the concern at the levels of unemployment in the region, and that concern is recognised in our regional policy, which gives such a high priority to the North of England.”—[Official Report, 15 April 1981; Vol. 3, c. 354.]

    In view of the figures that I have just quoted, heaven help those who do not get such high priority.

    George Bernard Shaw once said:

    “You can get used to anything, so you have to be very careful what you get used to.”

    Those are wise words. I confess that I have become extremely worried that the people of the north will get used to the low standard of living brought to the region by the Government.

    I chose a quotation from the former Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry in 1981 for a specific reason. At that time, the Government’s new regional policies were beginning to take effect. Some might have thought, “Let us give them time to work.” Those regional policies were introduced with such a fanfare in 1979 by the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, now the Secretary of State for Education and Science. They were so good and effective that they had to be changed again last year, although the changes last year were instituted as part of a cost-cutting operation. The words “flexibility” and “cost-effectiveness”, which were bandied about so much at the time in relation to regional aid, were euphemisms for the biggest cuts ever made in regional provision. On the Department of Trade and Industry’s own admission, total aid to the north during the past six years has been cut by no less than 57 per cent. If the Minister has received any praise for the new system from employers, local authorities, trade unions or anyone else, the Opposition would like to hear it.

    That brings me to the nub of the problem, and to what the Opposition believe to be the essence of the debate. How much longer must we wait for the Government’s policies to work? That is a perfectly legitimate question to ask. If six and a half years of Tory government is insufficient time, any impartial judge would say, “Enough is enough. Confess your failure and start anew.”

    Of course, we know what the answer will be. When the Minister replies, he will give a catalogue of events dressed up as progress. However, he had better remember the words of the Under-Secretary of State for Employment—I am glad to see him in his place—in an Adjournment debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) as recently as 22 October 1985. In his typically straightforward and whimsical fashion, referring to the Prime Minister’s recent description of success stories in the northern region, the Under-Secretary of State said, “Alas, they are few.” We admire his truthfulness and perception, but he had better be careful. He might drown in the sea of crocodile tears which the Prime Minister continually sheds for the north.

    I shall be so bold as to anticipate two points with which the Minister will regale us. He will tell us that organisations in the north have responded positively to the ​ youth training scheme and that the Manpower Services Commission plans to provide more than 25,000 places for young people in the north this year. He is perfectly entitled to report such progress, if progress it be—[Interruption.] The Minister laughs. What worries me and my hon. Friends is that the Government appear to believe that those places are an adequate substitute for what we call real jobs. I do not say that some of the experience gained by some youngsters is not valuable. However, I advise the Minister to listen to the colourful language used by some youths in my constituency when describing their experiences. I beg the Government to begin thinking about permanent, productive employment for our youngsters.

    The tragedy of the position was starkly illustrated a fortnight ago by the devastating reply from the chairman of the Conservative party to a northern newspaper reporter, who asked whether he agreed with the view being expressed in the north that there would be a lost generation—a generation of youngsters who would never obtain permanent jobs. The right hon. Gentleman said that he thought that could possibly be the case. When I hear such an admission, I wonder how some members of the Government can sleep soundly in their beds at night.

    The Minister will also tell us about the Government’s generous treatment of the coal industry, which plays an important role in the economy of the north. We shall be told not to worry because NCB Enterprise Ltd. will take care of all the problems caused by pit closures. However, we have some questions to ask about that. Why, if it is such an important and necessary organisation, was it not established until late 1984? Pits were closing long before then, and the Government and the NCB were determined long before the miners’ strike to accelerate the closure programme. The scheme is barely in operation now. If it is the best way of coping with job losses in the coal industry, why was it not established in 1982 or 1983? After all, the Government have had the exact parallel experience of the steel industry.

    Secondly, why was the pitiful sum of £5 million allocated to NCB Enterprise Ltd? The Government partly answered that question by shortly afterwards increasing the sum to £10 million, more recently increasing it to £20 million, and saying that more money will be made available should it be necessary. It is difficult to imagine a more pusillanimous, hesitant or muddled attitude to any Government policy. Perhaps the real reason is that their heart is not in it.

    In the context of a completely misguided policy for the coal industry, I hope that the scheme will make some contribution to the well-being of mining areas in the north, but my recent experience shows its limitations. A fortnight ago I had the pleasure of opening a new factory in my constituency. I was delighted that such a well-known company as Bowaters Containers should come to the area. That factory employs 16 workers now and hopes to increase the number to 40 within a few months. Exactly one mile from that factory is Horden colliery, which the NCB proposes to close with the loss of 900 jobs. The pit will go through the new review procedure, but if, like so many pits in the north, it must close, NCB Enterprise Ltd. will have to perform little short of miracles in the area. The Government have been completely ham-fisted in this matter. Any rational and caring Government would have provided a bridging period for an area with such difficulties.

    The Government can refer to one success in the region—

    Mr. Roland Boyes (Houghton and Washington)

    Before my hon. Friend leaves the point about the problems of jobs for coal miners, may I ask whether he agrees that another travesty of justice by this Government is the decision to close the development corporation which has the task of creating industry? My hon. Friend has raised this matter many times. Does he agree that the corporation could have created jobs for the miners?

    Mr. Dormand

    I was just about to make that point.

    The Government can refer to one success story—the record of the three new towns in the area—but I do not believe that the new towns will get a mention as the Government have reached new heights of lunacy by deciding to abolish the development corporations in 1988.

    Washington, Aycliffe and Peterlee cover a very large sub-region of the north. They have attracted thousands of new jobs and will continue to do so. They also have ready access to excellent road, rail and sea communications but—I hope that the Minister will acknowledge this—their great appeal is to offer what is called a “one stop” deal for companies. The proposals now being made simply do not meet that criterion. With an accelerated pit closure programme, can the Government believe that there will be no further use after 1988 for the expertise and dedication of the staffs of the new town corporations? The Government’s decision in this matter epitomises their misjudgments and misconceptions about the northern region. I ask them to reconsider a decision that was based purely on a doctrinaire attitude.

    The motion refers to the quality of life in the northern region—and having a job makes the biggest single contribution to that. The Government have failed abysmally in that respect. There are, however, other factors to which I am sure my hon. Friends will wish to refer.

    The state of the environment is an important factor in the quality of life. As vice-president of the Northumbria tourist board, I would be the first to praise the attractions of that part of the region. The beauty of most of Cumbria is self-evident, but there is a considerable legacy of the industrial revolution, and present-day heavy industry also leaves scars on the region. I could give horrific descriptions from my own constituency, but I prefer to mention two recent reports. The Commission on Energy and the Environment published its report “Coal and the Environment” in 1981, an the 10th report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution was issued as recently as 1984. I regret to say that both reports give special mention to the northern region. They make very depressing reading, but the Government’s response to the recommendations in both reports has been negligible. When will the Government take action on those recommendations?

    It would be more than a gesture for the Government to make arrangements with the Arts Council to increase the grant to Northern Arts. Northern Arts, which does an excellent job for the region in difficult circumstances, receives most of its income from Tyne and Wear county council which, as the Minister will know, is soon to be abolished. An act of positive discrimination is needed, but perhaps that is too much to hope for from such a philistine Government.

    If the Government are serious about helping the northern region, they should change and strengthen their regional industrial policies by establishing a northern development agency, structured and financed on the lines of the Scottish and Welsh Development Agencies. The Government could also transfer Civil Service jobs to the region. The Labour party has not forgotten that one of the first acts of the 1979 Tory Government was to cancel the arrangement to transfer 1,000 Civil Service jobs to Cleveland. Since then, not one Civil Service job—as I know, having asked many parliamentary questions on the matter—has come to the north. The Government could also establish research and development agencies in the region now that there is considerable evidence that firms tend to stay in the area where the new products are developed.

    The Government could improve their regional policies by accepting the advice of their friends in the CBI. The CBI adopted Labour party policy at its annual conference two weeks ago when it said that the Government should spend directly on reducing unemployment rather than on cutting income tax. The north needs £300 million-worth of road improvements and repairs. That is the CBI figure, not mine. The northern CBI last month said that the picture in the region was very mixed. Some companies are finding a worsening of the position. The heavy capital sector is still depressed and more orders are needed for shipbuilding and ship repair companies. The situation in six months is likely to be even less hopeful. If the Government will not listen to the Opposition, perhaps they will heed their own supporters in industry and business.

    The last thing that the Opposition want to do is give the impression that the north is a dull, dreary, desolate place, lacking excitement, beauty, enjoyment and culture. In fact, the opposite is the case, despite our history, which has involved hard and dangerous work in heavy industry, the destruction of large parts of the landscape and an almost total lack of interest by Conservative Governments.

    Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed)

    The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the Government’s lack of interest and touched on the idea of an economic development agency for the north. Why did the Labour Government, of which he was a member, resist the pleas by Labour Members and others to take the opportunity offered by a devolution programme for Scotland and set up a regional development agency for the north?

    Mr. Dormand

    The hon. Gentleman has got his facts wrong. He has been a Member of this House long enough to realise that it is not possible for any Government to implement a full programme. He has obviously forgotten that the Labour party’s manifesto at the last election specifically mentioned a development agency for the north.

    The region’s greatest resource is its people. They are responsible, proud and hard working. Any employer who has come to the north will agree with that statement. The people would like the opportunity to demonstrate those qualities in full measure. The Prince of Wales, in his recent statement on the so-called northern employee attitude, could not have been more wrong. It ill becomes one in his comfortable position to present such an inaccurate picture of northern workers.​

    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean)

    Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that references to the royal family in aid of debate are not in order.

    Mr. Dormand

    In a modern society it is not unreasonable to expect to have a job, to live in a decent house in a pleasant environment, to benefit fully from the education system and to rely on the Health Service. The Opposition believes that the northern region is being denied those basic rights. In the circumstances, it is not surprising that Tory Governments have such meagre support in the north. If the Government refuse to recognise the reality of the situation, refuse to change direction and ignore the Opposition’s pleas, we shall not be surprised if they receive even less support in future.

  • Julian Ridsdale – 1985 Speech on Health Services in North-East Essex

    Below is the text of the speech made by Julian Ridsdale, the then Conservative MP for Harwich, in the House of Commons on 29 November 1985.

    I am grateful for this opportunity to raise the subject of health services in northeast Essex, especially at this time. Strong feelings have been aroused in my constituency about the threatened closure of a small children’s ward and a proposal to shut a radiotherapy unit and a medical rehabilitation centre. I am concerned because these actions led to the Health Service being given a bad name, because a new general hospital has been built and considerable extensions are planned for the main hospital in my constituency.

    We all know the expression, “spoiling the ship for a ha’porth of tar.” I call this “spoiling the good name of the Health Service for the lack of even a penny’sworth of political sense.” We need care, not management consultants. What is the use of spending all these millions of pounds on new hospitals and ruining it all by closing down such a small, valuable children’s ward and two other valuable units?

    Yesterday, I received a letter from one of my constituents showing a very human reaction. He commented on a pamphlet issued by the health authority entitled, “Clacton Coastline—a real community hospital.” My constituent said:
    “We are a community. We have our young. We have our middle-aged and elderly as well as our psychiatric and mentally handicapped. In times of illness, we all need treatment and care as near to our homes as possible.”

    I stress the words

    “as near to our homes as possible.”

    It is all very well having grandiose hospitals 20 or 30 miles away, where excellent treatment can be given, but it is important to ensure that the treatment and care provided are as near as possible to the people needing the care. Just to show how cynical one’s constituents become, my constituent states in a postscript:

    “Does the leaflet contravene the Trades Description Act?”

    It is a shame that the good name of the Health Service is ruined by such actions by the health authority. Those actions have made it a million times more difficult to get over to the people what is being done to improve the Health Service locally and nationally.

    We welcome the opening of the new general hospital in Colchester. We welcome the development at Clacton hospital in 1986, which will include an additional ward, day hospital places for psychiatric and psychogeriatric patients and an improved X-ray service. We welcome the promise to build phase 2 of the Clacton hospital extension which will provide 50 badly needed beds for the elderly. I have pressed for that extension for a considerable time.

    In spite of the improvements, we are considering cuts in these sensitive areas. Why? Strong feelings have been aroused among more than 500 people who, last Saturday, marched against these closures. I know that 500 people in East Anglia do not take to the streets unless they feel strongly about something. Twenty three thousand people have signed the petition against the closure, and there are 13,000 signatures against the threatened closure of the radiotherapy unit at Colchester. We are to face cuts in three areas: the children’s ward, the Passmore Edwards medical rehabilitation centre in Clacton, and, possibly, the ​ radiotherapy unit at Colchester, which will follow soon after the opening of the new district hospital. That would mean that patients must travel to Chelmsford.

    During the past few years Clacton has also seen the closure of the Middlesex convalescent home and the maternity home, while, at the same time, there has been the acceptance of greater responsibility within the community for the care of the mentally retarded. All have resulted in considerable savings for the local health authority.

    Directly I heard about the threatened closure of the children’s ward I asked the north-east Essex health authority to withdraw the proposal. There is a conflict of medical opinion, but I have had the full backing of general practitioners and the Clacton hospital throughout the dispute. Again this week I asked the authority to give way, but again it refused. As the authority has refused twice, and bearing in mind the petitions and marches, I hope that the authority will put the case to the Minister for his decision.

    Three years ago, when we agreed to the closure of the maternity home, we reached a compromise by accepting that the children’s ward in Clacton hospital should be turned into a maternity ward, and that a place should be found for a children’s ward of six beds. Despite accepting that agreement, the health authority is adamant that it now wants to close the ward. Is it not understandable that strong feelings and local anger have been aroused by the decision? If adequate research had been carried out, we would not have had any of the trouble, and, more particularly, the unnecessary anxiety placed on the seriously ill. People with cancer have enough to contend with, without all the worry and extra burden of having to travel long distances for treatment.
    I do not believe that the local health authority realises that 46 per cent. of householders in Clacton are without transport, or is aware of the distances that must be covered to the nearest district hospital.

    Sir Antony Buck (Colchester, North)

    Everyone in Essex and East Anglia is grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the matter. I hope that he will stress that the arrangements for the treatment of cancer are still at a consultative stage, and that he, like me, will have been sending large numbers of letters and making representations about it.

    Sir Julian Ridsdale

    My hon. and learned Friend, like all of us, takes a great interest in health facilities in northeast Essex. I agree that the arrangements are at a consultative stage, but I do not think that the authorities realise the difficulties that arise from announcing consultation. Good government flourishes in the dark. It is far better to have consultation between the people who must make the decisions without making it public. A great deal of worry has been caused by that not being the case.

    Many cancer patients must rely on public transport to take them to their radiotherapy centre. The extra miles to Chelmsford will place an additional burden on an already overstretched ambulance service, just as it will if the children’s ward is closed, and all young patients are sent to Colchester. It would also be difficult and expensive for young mums to get to the new hospital to visit their children.

    Regarding the proposed closure of the Passmore Edwards medical rehabilitation centre, the district should develop its own facilities, but that will take about five years. Until then I am against the closure.

    In short, we feel that we have been treated unfairly by these threatened closures. If more money must be found for north-east Essex, let me make some suggestions where we may be able to find it.

    I fear that as long as north-east Essex stays in the northeast Thames regional health authority, we shall not get a fair deal. We would be far better off, and our problems far better understood, if we were in the East Anglia health authority. How can an authority that deals with the problems of London understand the problems of the country districts? The health problems of an urban area are entirely different from those in country areas. The problem of distances is not understood. That is one reason for the difficulty that we are having in north-east Essex.

    North-east Essex is the worst funded region in the north-east Thames region. We are not getting our fair share of the region’s revenue. I draw the Minister’s attention to the performance indicators taken from the Health and Social Service Journal of 26 September 1985, of which I have sent him a copy. Our performance indicator shows north-east Essex at 82, while the London boroughs are double that figure, with Islington at 194. Will Ministers keep up their pressure in their reviews of the Thames region to accelerate a redistribution within the region? Will they please take a far tougher line with London and speed up the process of shifting resources to Essex? I hope that the Minister, in his reply, will tell us what action has been taken to see that a much more fair redistribution takes place.

    Will the Minister also deal with the more equitable redistribution of national health resources? The authority claims that it is all very well to achieve equity at a faster speed when there is adequate growth, but where there is a modest amount of cash a redistribution has become far more difficult. It claims that that has resulted in a real cut in the region of 0·3 per cent. It goes on to say that, when it takes into account the fact that, due to increasing numbers of elderly persons and advancing technology, 1 per cent. growth is needed merely to stand still, the financial problems become real indeed. Will the Minister comment on that?

    The second national problem, and a more difficult one that affects us, is the shortfall in pay awards. Is the funding of the health authority, allowing for 4·5 per cent. inflation, adequate, bearing in mind that major groups have reached the pay norm? This is costing £350,000 in the current year and will cost £1·2 million next year if the gap is not met. Unless that is sorted out quickly the health authority tells me that next year planning will become difficult.
    I hope that as a result of what I have said my hon. Friend will be sympathetic to the problems that we face and understand the reasons for the strong feelings that exist. We must find a fair solution to those problems and not spoil the good name of our National Health Service, of which we have good reason to be proud.

    Again, I underline that we are just not getting our fair share from the north-east Thames regional health authority. I ask my hon. Friend to press the north-east Thames authority, which, after all, considers London as its major objective, to see that we get our fair share of funds. We have made our sacrifices, but it is up to the ​ authority now to do what it can to help with the small sums of revenue that these closures entail. I am sure that it could easily afford it if it got the redistribution right.

  • Damian Hinds – 2019 Speech at NSPCC Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Damian Hinds, the Secretary of State for Education, at the NSPCC Conference on 26 June 2019.

    Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon. Have you ever been in a restaurant where you’ve seen somebody meeting up with old friends and taking a photo of the food in front of them? And it almost seems like the photo of the food is more important than the food itself. Or have you heard a conversation where somebody says, that was a really good walk. It’s just a shame I wasn’t wearing my Fitbit.

    Or have you ever seen that thing, or even possibly done that thing yourself, standing on the pavement, looking at your weather app, and it says the weather’s fine. And you feel a raindrop on your head, and just for one split second you think, I wonder which one’s right?

    Well, ladies and gentlemen, if we struggle sometimes with the blurring of reality that we get with technology, imagine how much harder it is for our children. And for kids growing up now, we have come a long way since Photoshop. Now it seems, sometimes that every photo might have some sort of filtering applied to it. The certainties of the world can’t be banked on anymore, and in the most acute cases have caused children falling victim to people who are pretending to be something and someone that they are not.

    Now, at this point, before going too much further, it’s obligatory for the person standing on the stage to explain that he or she is not, in fact, a Luddite. And I do appreciate the huge potential that there is for technology both in education and further beyond. And actually, to be fair to me – and I’m keen on being fair to me – I think my CV actually bears out that I am not a Luddite and I have a lot of belief in the power of technology.

    When I was a teenager – although this bit isn’t on my CV – I was what these days would be called a coder. We used to call it a programmer. I wrote games, and I even managed to sell a few – just a few – by mail order. When I did my first job, I went to work for the computer giant IBM, and I learned about some of the transformational effects that technology could have on businesses. And in the early 2000s, I found myself working at a hotel company running the e-commerce operation for the European division. And we set ourselves, at that time, a crazy target that one day, 10% of hotel bookings might be made on the internet. So, I do understand the power of technology, but these days I’m also concerned about some of its effects.

    Those of you with children – and I guess, everybody here one way or another – works with children. You will know that you don’t really have to persuade kids to engage with technology. The challenge, usually, is to get them to disengage sometimes.

    Actually, I want this generation growing up in our country to be the most techno-savvy generation we’ve ever known, but I also want it to be one of the most techno-savvy or the most techno-savvy groups of young people in the world, so we can make the most of the rapid technological revolution that we are seeing. So we’re putting quite a lot of resource, money – £84 million over time – and a network of hubs around the country to promote the learning of computer science. I want more kids growing up being masters of the machines.

    But it’s not when young people are producers in technology that I worry about. It’s when they are… I need my clicker. I knew there was something I’d forgotten. It’s when they are consumers. And you will know that the amount of time that young people now spend on the internet is really quite significant. And how that manifests itself, you talk to teachers…

    And when you talk to teachers, you hear this regularly, that teachers worry about the effect of the amount of time that kids spend online, on concentration, on sleep. Sometimes I hear teachers in reception year talking about the effect on school readiness. And later on in school careers it’s well documented, some of the issues that we have around mental health.

    So although technology and the use of it can be incredibly beneficial to young people, there are definitely downsides. And I suggest it’s not just a question of what individual piece of content might we find harmful. Actually, I find, talking to parents and talking to teachers, they want a bit less time spent online.

    And of course, the way that the various apps and so on are designed, they are designed with what’s called stickiness in mind. Because ultimately most apps of this sort rely on advertising revenue, of course you want to have people being as long as possible on your site. Shouldn’t be surprised about that. It’s a commercial motivation. But it does mean that kids are then spending longer on than we might like.

    Look, kids have always enjoyed watching television or listening to music sometimes, for hours on end. But at least with children’s television, eventually you would get interrupted by either the end of children’s television programming for that day or some content which was factual or educational in some way. Now with the way that autoplay works, and the way that social media works, actually you’re not interrupted by anything at all. You can keep on going and keep on going round and round.

    And, of course, it’s parents who ultimately are in control, but for parents, sometimes it’s just not as easy as it should be to exercise that control. I don’t know if I’m alone here. I will ‘fess up that when I myself have tried to use parental controls, it turns out to be not quite as straightforward as I would like to think I was capable of.

    And even when you do master it, you discover that when you set a control on the hardware, it doesn’t necessarily translate over to the software. And if you set it on one app, it doesn’t necessarily translate over to another app. And I would like to see all of these things being made easier. I wonder why it’s not possible, actually, to have them as the default setting in many cases, that then you would adjust away from a restrictive parental setting, if you were so minded.

    And we have good reason to be concerned and to want to do more. Because, although we think about the internet, rightly, as a global thing, actually it turns out we have a particular issue in this country. There was a new survey came out last week from the OECD. They call it TALIS survey, which looks across different countries and asks questions of teachers across a whole range of subjects.

    And this was one of them. I don’t want to read too much into this, because it’s based on survey data. But nevertheless, the results for our country are so, kind of, out of line with the average for the countries surveyed, that they warrant further investigation and further thought. The frequency, the prevalence that head teachers responding to the survey in England said that they came across either instances of hurtful information being posted online or a student having unwanted electronic content – these were in secondary schools, I should add – was significantly greater than it was in many of those other countries.

    So it’s natural that we want to make sure we’re doing everything we can to protect children and to make sure that childhoods can be as happy as possible. And when things go wrong on the internet, when they go wrong with social media, it’s really important that help is available, help and redress. And so organisations like the Diana Award and what they do on bullying is incredibly important. Internet Watch Foundation in terms of taking away some of the very worst material off the internet is very important, too.

    But I think it’s also really important… And this is where the school system comes in, not on its own but along with other organisations, in building up resilience of children. And most of the building up of resilience is really about quite old-fashioned stuff. It’s nothing to do with technology at all. It’s about, you know, your self-belief, your ability to stick with a task, your focus on goals, your belief that you can do stuff. And when things do go wrong, being able to bounce back.

    And, you know, I think in our school system, the development of character and resilience in this way is absolutely instinctive to teachers. It runs through their veins. But there’s many other ways, actually, that we can help build up character and resilience as well, everything from taking part in sport to joining a membership organisation to doing a Saturday job, all kinds of purposeful activity that helps to build up resilience.

    And it’s closely related to, but not quite the same thing as, in some ways, a slightly more new-fashioned thing, which is about mental health and wellbeing. I say new-fashioned because we just have more focus on it now than we used to. We have more awareness of mental health issues. We are trying harder throughout society to help to support people’s mental health and wellbeing, and that goes for children as well.

    So, in schools we are bringing in health education as a mandatory subject in both primary and secondary, and that’s going to include mental health education, from quite a young age. Starting to talk about, you know, how you cope with the ups and downs of life, self-regulation, being able to stop frustration turning to anger turning to rage. All the things that, hopefully, can help to keep relatively low-level mental health issues as low-level mental health issues.

    We’re also running one of the biggest, or possibly the biggest ever trial of its kind in schools of various techniques and programmes to help to support children’s wellbeing, such as mindfulness. Obviously, you can tell, this is a Venn diagram. There’s a circle missing. There’s a third circle which goes here as well. So far, everything we’ve talked about, building up your character, your drive, self-belief and so on, all of it could help you to be good at all sorts of things, including some bad things.

    But, of course, we want children to grow up with virtues and values. And this is particularly significant and important in the context of the internet and social media, because, you know, children are the victims of bullying on social media. They’re the victims of people saying nasty things. But of course, more often than not, it’s also children doing it. And so, if we are to make the internet and technology a friendlier kind of place, actually that’s a shared responsibility for everybody, in terms of how they, themselves, behave on it.

    So, character and resilience, mental health and wellbeing, virtues and values. These are the core attributes, I suppose, that we tend to want all of our children growing up with. And they’re important, as well, when it comes to the use of technology and the internet. But I wanted us to go further, because I think the other thing which can really help to build up children’s resilience to problems online is to understand it as deeply as possible.

    So, today, we are launching our new guidance on teaching online safety in school, and it is a fusion of parts of the relationships education curriculum, the citizenship curriculum, and the computing curriculum. And it’s based on the premise that if you really understand the technology, you’re less likely to get used by the technology. So, you know, you understand the anatomy of a URL. You understand an IEP address.

    Actually, then, even when the technology changes, your knowledge is somewhat future proofed for how it will develop. But it’s not just about understanding technology, it’s about understanding technique. So, you know, we tend to quite often focus on the outputs, if you like, of bad stuff online, people trying to defraud you, people pretending to be someone they’re not, in the worse cases grooming of a minor. But actually, you’re more likely to not be a victim of these kind of things, and indeed what may come after them, because we don’t know what the successor to phishing will be, but there will be something else.

    You’re more likely to have resilience, to have resistance to those things, if you understand how they come about. So understanding how network effects work on the internet, how somebody could manage to come across as being something or someone other than they are, how companies, kind of, work out how to target a particular advert for a particular product at you through tracking your behaviour online.

    And at the very most elemental level, discussing and understanding what people’s motivations might be. Why people behave differently when they’re behind a computer screen than when you meet them in real life. Why companies want to get your information from you, get your data to be able to make a commercial advantage point. Why people might have an interest in spreading fake news. So in these ways, I think we can help to make people more resilient to things going wrong.

    But, of course, it shouldn’t only be about building up young people’s resilience, and sometimes I hear from people who think this is the only thing you need to do. Make people aware of the dangers, help them to deal with them, get a sense of perspective, and that’s what you need to do. Well, that’s not how we deal with anything else in life.

    We don’t say, well, of course people are going to try and sell you cigarettes. We just advise you to say no. You know, we don’t think that the most important, or the way to stop unwanted contact from adults is just to teach children to be wary of strangers. We do those things as well, to help to build up their resilience and their resistance, but we have to tackle harms at source.

    And I suggest there are three big types of harm that we need to think about. Actually, there’s a fourth as well, which is really acute harms at the most extreme end, when we talk about child abuse, when we talk about terrorism. But beyond that, there are these three areas. And we hear quite a lot around worries around the promotion of, for example, suicide or eating disorder or self-harm. And that is, indeed a terrible thing, but there’s another level as well, which I call prevalence and normalisation.

    So even if you’re not actively promoting some of these harms, just the very fact of more and more children coming into contact with information about it can have a damaging effect. I don’t know about you, but I managed to get through more or less my entire childhood without knowing much about self-harm, and I didn’t have that sheltered a childhood.

    My worry is that with more and more children coming across more and more content, in every group there will be a certain percentage whose curiosity is pricked, and of that group there will be a certain percentage who want to take it further. And so, prevalence and normalisation we need to worry about more than we have in the past. And finally, there’s personal behaviour, and that’s what I was talking about earlier. The fact that, for children and young people, when we talk about bullying and so on, it’s also about the way that they behave.

    So there is some great stuff going on. The online harms white paper in this country is truly, you know, world-leading, actually, and we hear that from other governments around the world. And I’m sure others will want to emulate parts of it, learn from parts of it, learn from what happens. And of course, we’ve got the regulator to come. I very much welcome the ICO’s consultation on Safer by Design, and also some of the wider debate that that has sparked.

    Let me dwell for a minute, if I may, on age. And obviously we have different ages of which we consider children to become adults, but I think there is a risk in the phrase digital age of consent. It has a very specific meaning, to do with the GDPR regulations and the use of data, but we must be very careful not to think that there is something inherently different about the internet which means children should be protected in a different way or a lesser way than we would want to protect them in any other context in the world.

    But I think we can and will go further. Ultimately, of course, the internet is a global thing. We have global institutions, these days, to talk about trade, talk about climate change, to talk about scientific cooperation. I think that we’re going to have to move towards, and we should move towards, eventually, having a global approach, global institutions looking at these issues around technology and young people.

    And, of course, then there’s the tech companies themselves. There is legislation coming on the duty of care, but no one has to wait for legislation to do something. I want tech companies to be using their very clear and very extensive talents right now to be working out what more they can do to help to protect our children. I want them to be thinking about whether they can cooperate more with other companies to make parental control, make parental choice easier.

    Maybe one of them will be really bold and stick out in front, and notwithstanding the competitive nature of these markets, maybe they’ll be bold and say, actually, we’re going to try and reduce the amount of time that children spend on our site by changing the design, by changing the way that it works.

    I started talking about grownups, and it’s probably a good place to finish, because, of course, we set the context. And you’ll be relieved to hear I’m not here to start lecturing parents or anybody else, and if I did I’d be on extremely thin ice. My own New Year’s resolution was to put my phone away while I was sitting at the dinner table with my children. Which, by the way, itself doesn’t happen quite as often as I would like. But that when we had family time, there would be no phones involved. You ask my kids how I’m doing, they’ll say, Daddy’s doing pretty well. Give him seven out of ten.

    That’s not really good enough, I realise. And actually, for all of us, it is difficult. You know, I remember when you would go to a concert and everybody would have a lighter in the air, you know? Now it’s a phone in the air. And I want to say to myself as well as to everybody else, let’s enjoy the moment. You know, the ability to record, to store masses of electronic data, does lead us down strange avenues sometimes.

    You remember that film The Lives of Others, which showed the ridiculousness of the Stasi storing all these recordings and all these people, far more than anyone could ever possibly listen to. These days it’s more about the lives of ourselves. And we have 28,000 photos of our children at home. I’m not sure when we’re ever going to get round to looking at them all.

    But at least, for us, for grownups, for everybody in this room, that’s a choice. What we’re talking about here, and why I’m so pleased that NSPCC is putting on this conference today, is about how the world is being shaped, the world into which our children are growing up. I think it’s difficult to overstate either the potential for good that there is from technology, or the risks and harms. I commend you for what you’re doing. I hope that what we’re doing in education, and particularly the new guidance that we’re issuing today, is going to have a positive effect, and thank you for the invitation.

  • Christian Matheson – 2019 Speech on Football Regulation

    Below is the text of the speech made by Christian Matheson, the Labour MP for the City of Chester, in the House of Commons on 26 June 2019.

    I beg to move,

    That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish an independent regulator of football clubs; and for connected purposes.

    On 9 March this year, supporters of Blackpool football club went to watch a home match for the first time after a four-year boycott of home fixtures. The reason for their protest was the mismanagement, as they saw it, of the club by its owners, Owen and Karl Oyston. It was more than simply mismanagement, though: the fans believed that the Oystons had been bleeding the club dry, not just failing to invest but taking large sums of money out. Indeed, a High Court judgment found that the Oystons had “illegitimately stripped” £26.77 million from the club.

    Previously, as Nick Harris reported in the Daily Mail, Mr Oyston senior was the highest paid person in English football in the 2010-11 season, when Blackpool were in the premier league, receiving an eye-watering £11 million, with only Wayne Rooney reportedly coming close to similar remuneration, yet there was nothing the supporters could do within the existing structures of the game to force a change of ownership and stop their club being ransacked. Unable to prevent the mismanagement by the Oystons, the supporters had to take things into their own hands, and eventually launched a boycott of home games to deny Blackpool’s owners their money. The supporters received support from fans of other clubs and from the national supporters’ organisations, but little support from the football authorities. To get to the point at which the club is now being sold, it has taken four years of their not doing the one thing that binds them together and defines them: watching the football team they love.

    If this was a one-off, I would feel sorry for Blackpool fans, pleased that they have almost won their campaign, and move on, but it is not a one-off. Coventry City fans are in an even worse situation. Who can forget the 1987 cup final, with players such as Micky Gynn, Brian Kilcline, Keith Houchen and Steve Ogrizovic, and manager John Sillett dancing on the Wembley turf with the FA cup? This once proud club is being driven into the ground by its owners, Sisu, which is an investment firm based offshore—its ultimate owners are not clear. Coventry City have had to find a ground-sharing option some 18 miles from Coventry, at Birmingham City, as the legal wrangle continues between Sisu, Wasps rugby union football club and Coventry City Council. Sisu is answerable to no one; indeed, according to the Coventry Telegraph, it made no public statement between 2016 and March this year.

    Further up the M6, Bolton Wanderers, another of the great names in English football, is now in administration, and is so badly managed that staff have not been paid and other clubs are assisting with payroll and even providing food banks to support employees. I recall going to the old Burnden Park in 1994 to watch Everton play against Bolton in the FA cup, and meeting the ​great Nat Lofthouse. How can the club of the Lion of Vienna now be resorting to food banks as it is run into the ground?

    This is not a recent phenomenon. In 1997, the owner of Brighton & Hove Albion closed the old Goldstone Ground, without making any alternative provision, so that he could sell off the site and make millions from property development. My own hometown club, formerly Chester City football club, was driven into the ground by a succession of owners who used it either as a tax-dodging scheme or in one case—it has been alleged—as a front for laundering ill-gotten gains from criminal activity. The club dissolved and was reborn as a fan-owned club, which has been challenging at times, but those challenges have never included deliberately running the club down and syphoning off cash.

    The concern for supporters is that they are only ever one bad owner away from these types of problems, and that they have nowhere to turn for help. The FA and the leagues have an owners and directors test, but this might be relevant only in the case of, for example, previous criminal convictions. A group like Sisu can turn up at Coventry and bleed the club dry, with no intention of investing in its future, and the FA can do nothing.

    I have given just a few examples of clubs with question marks over the way they are being or have been run. We can currently add to that list Notts County, Gateshead and Bury—last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Frith) petitioned the High Court on behalf of supporters in his constituency—and in the recent past Portsmouth, Hartlepool, Charlton Athletic and more. There are too many to be isolated cases, which suggests there is a broader problem that needs to be addressed.

    When I served on the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, I raised this issue with Greg Clarke, the chairman of the FA and a decent man who I believe genuinely wants to do his best for football. I asked him whether there was nothing the FA could do about unscrupulous owners; Mr Clarke replied that it can look into the backgrounds of potential owners—he was referring to the owners and directors test—but cannot do anything about a person who is simply bad at running a football club. The FA has devolved such matters to the leagues, but the leagues are membership organisations, and any rules or regulations have to be voted in by their own members—those very same club owners. The worst sanction is a points deduction for going into administration, but that is hardly relevant in the cases I have described.

    Football needs independent regulation—that is, regulation independent of the owners, who have a vested interest. The making of rules or regulations about football clubs, and decisions on their application, should not be the task of the professional football clubs or the people who own and manage them. That regulation could and should be done by the Football Association, in the interests of the game as a whole. A regulatory body under the auspices of the FA, adequately funded and suitably staffed, with effective regulations and the power to enforce them, could restore faith in the running of the game.

    Of course, there are ways in which the owners and directors test can be improved, but it will never be foolproof. Not all bad owners start out bad. A regulator ​should be there to educate, advise and support. Punishment and sanctions should be the last resort. The good owners should have nothing to fear; they should benefit from reflective improvements throughout the game. This Bill would bring into being an independent regulator with the powers to undertake independent and forensic audits of clubs’ directors and financial activities, where sufficient concern has been expressed about the management of the club, to report to the FA with recommendations for action, to address any deliberate financial mismanagement, or, of course, to decide that there is no case for further action.

    There would be limits. I remember, for example, going to The Valley in November 1998 to watch Everton play Charlton. As I arrived there, I was horrified to learn that the then Everton chairman, Peter Johnson, had just sold our totemic striker Duncan Ferguson to Newcastle, behind the back of the manager. I wanted Johnson out, but a bad decision such as that would not necessarily require independent scrutiny. I am concerned about consistent behaviour to run a club into the ground. Similarly, I recall one previous owner of Chester City, an American, who sacked the manager and started to pick the team himself. That is bad management, as referred to by Greg Clarke, but it is not destructive management, using the club for nefarious means, and is unlikely on its own to fall under the scope of the regulator described in the Bill.

    Ideally, it would be the Football Association that would undertake these activities, but in the absence of action an independent regulator is needed so that the scandals of Brighton, Blackpool, Coventry and Chester City are a thing of the past and supporters have somewhere to turn to in their desperation. Perhaps now the Football Association will take the opportunity to consider bringing forward proposals of its own to address this problem. I urge it to consider the suggestions of the Football Supporters’ Association, which I have consulted closely in preparing the Bill.

    Although the directors of a football club may be the legal owners, they are surely only the custodians on behalf of the whole family of supporters of each club. If they are unable to act in the best interests of the club ​and the team, and are seen to be acting in their own interests to the detriment of the club, that cannot be allowed.

    If I do not like Tesco, I can go to Sainsbury’s. If I am still unhappy, I can go to Asda, Waitrose, Aldi or Lidl, but we cannot do that with a football team. Football supporters have a profound sense of loyalty, identity and belonging to a club, which cannot be transferred at the first sign of trouble. In my case, I am the fourth generation of my family to support Everton, I was born into that tradition—you cannot manufacture it. Most supporters would say exactly the same of their club.

    Football is a great unifier, bringing the nation together—this applies equally to each of our four home nations—in great moments of unity, as well as being something that we can talk about to complete strangers and bond over in the pub or by the coffee machine. That is why, when we have so many other critical issues to consider in this House, this Bill is important. Football matters to so many people. At a time when our country is so divided, football, in common with all sports but perhaps more than any other sport, can bring our country together again. When fans such as those of Blackpool, Coventry or Bolton Wanderers are treated as abysmally as they have been, while their owners bleed the clubs dry, there has to be a mechanism for giving them an outlet to redress their grievances, because at the moment they have nowhere to go. I would prefer the Football Association to do this, and hope that it will do so, but if it cannot we must support the supporters with a tough and independent regulator. The Bill does that. I commend it to the House.

  • Stuart McDonald – 2019 Speech on Immigration

    Below is the text of the speech made by Stuart McDonald, the SNP MP for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, in the House of Commons on 26 June 2019.

    I beg to move,

    That this House regrets that the outgoing Prime Minister’s legacy will be her hostile environment policy and her unrealistic and damaging net migration target; calls for a fundamental change in the Government’s approach to immigration, refugee and asylum policy to one based on evidence, respect for human rights and fairness; welcomes the contribution made by migrants to the UK’s economy, society and culture; rejects regressive Government proposals to extinguish European free movement rights and to require EU nationals in the UK to apply for settled and pre-settled status; and recognises that a migration policy that works for the whole of the UK will require different policy solutions for different parts of the UK, particularly given Scotland’s demographic and economic profile.

    I am very grateful for the opportunity to introduce this debate on what is such a crucial subject—the urgent need for Parliament to draw a line under a dismal decade of dreadful and sometimes disgraceful migration and asylum policies. It is sad, but the plain truth is that the Prime Minister takes a massive share of responsibility for those policies, which were driven by her awful net migration target and her ramping up of the horrendous hostile environment policies—the twin pillars of her drastic reign at the Home Office. Rather than tackling burning injustices right across the field of immigration and asylum policy, her policies created them. Yet Parliament must also take its share of the blame, because too often MPs not only failed to oppose her but actively cheered her on, and, collectively, we should put that right today.

    Pretty much everybody in this Chamber knows that the net migration target is a load of utter baloney. It was a number plucked from thin air. It was utterly unachievable and undesirable from the outset. It created a numbers-obsessed Home Office pursuing ever more restrictive policies, regardless of the damage to families, our higher education system and our economy. Tens of thousands of couples were split apart and children divided from their parents.

    Universities were put at a competitive disadvantage not just by more restrictive immigration rules, particularly regarding post-study work, but by the message that was sent right around the globe. Small and medium-sized businesses were effectively excluded from recruiting from beyond the EU. The net migration target and its relentless failure problematised and politicised immigration numbers and has substantially contributed to the political mess that this country is in today.

    Last week, the Home Secretary described the net migration target as “crude” and said that it should be ditched, and he is 100% right. Nobody with a brain cell could demur from that view, yet for years this Parliament failed to stand up to that nonsense. Every quarter, a new set of immigration statistics would be published showing the target missed by a country mile—yet again. The Official Opposition would table an urgent question, not to attack the stupid target but to criticise the Conservatives and Liberal Democrat coalition for failing to meet it. In response, the coalition would pledge to get tougher still. What a dreadful climate—a three-party ​bidding war on who would be better at clamping down on migration to reach an arbitrary number. We must never return to those days.

    It is good that the Home Secretary wants to ditch the net migration target, but it makes sense to ditch the hostile environment along with it, as the two are inextricably linked as a package. If one does not make sense, neither does the other. Alongside endlessly restricted visa rules, the hostile environment was a truly wicked means by which a net migration target would be achieved. However, as the independent chief inspector has pointed out, the Home Office never lifted a finger to monitor the impact that the hostile environment was having.

    I want to focus on one key component of the hostile environment: the right to rent scheme. These measures have

    “a disproportionately discriminatory effect, and I would assume and hope that those legislators who voted in favour of the scheme would be aghast to learn of its discriminatory effect”.

    Those are not my words, but the words of Mr Justice Martin Spencer in the High Court, who in ruling the whole scheme unlawful went on to say:

    “Even if the Scheme had been shown to be efficacious in playing its part in the control of immigration, I would have found that this was significantly outweighed by the discriminatory effect…In these circumstances, I find that the Government has not justified this measure, nor, indeed, come close to doing so.”

    That is a hostile environment in a nutshell: no evidence that it achieves anything positive, hugely discriminatory, totally unjustified and illegal. I trust that legislators who voted in favour of it are aghast. We should tell the Home Office today to accept that ruling instead of appealing it on the shameful grounds that the discrimination can, in some way, be justified.

    It is fair to say that we were all aghast when we saw the hostile environment at its most vicious—the utter scandal of Windrush. Yet here we are still waiting for the lessons-learned review and waiting for it to be published in the very near future. As I have said before, it would be charitable to the Home Office and to the Prime Minister to say that they were reckless about the effect that the hostile environment would have. At worst, they took a conscious policy decision in the knowledge that there would be collateral damage, but deemed it acceptable. Warnings from the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants and many others went unheeded. Concerns expressed by high commissioners from the Caribbean were ignored. The impact assessment for the Immigration Act 2016 did everything but use the term “Windrush children” when explaining its likely negative impact. The Government ignored every single one of these warnings. The outgoing Prime Minister simply pressed on with ramping up the climate of checks at every turn, fully aware that it would be often close to impossible for many Windrush children, and others, to prove their legal position. Jobs and homes were lost; people were detained and removed. Statues and annual Windrush celebrations will not wash. A more fitting response would be to end the hostile environment that caused so much harm and hurt to the Windrush generation in the first place.

    Contrary to what we have heard from too many on the Government Benches, this was not just one sad and isolated administrative error that could be quickly rectified. The disastrous impact of the hostile environment—essentially a half-baked, back-door ID card—does not ​start or end there. Its victims are a huge and varied group: the 9 million British citizens without a passport who struggle because 43% of landlords and landladies say they are less likely to rent to such citizens, now that the hostile environment has made them petrified of getting right-to-rent checks wrong; the thousands of children who are unable to afford the citizenship they are entitled to or the leave to remain that they qualify for; the children who do have leave to remain but who are brought up in families with no recourse to public funds; the hundreds—perhaps thousands—of Eritreans who were wrongly refused asylum on the basis of the Home Office’s dodgy country guidance, many of whom are now street-homeless and destitute; and the several thousands of students wrongly caught up in the Test of English for International Communication teaching scandal who were wrongly presumed guilty after the company that messed up the testing in the first place was then allowed to clean up its own mess.

    Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)

    I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will remember that a little while ago I raised the issue of constituents of mine who do not possess Android telephones, and therefore have to make a 500-mile round trip to the document scanning centre in Edinburgh. The Government say that it will be possible to do complete the process on an iPhone within the year, but the point is that broadband coverage in parts of my constituency is patchy to say the very least. Does that not mean that people who, with the best will in the world, would like to remain are being hampered in their efforts, which will in turn hit businesses in remote parts of my constituency that depend on EU nationals?

    Stuart C. McDonald

    I agree wholeheartedly. I will come shortly to the issue of the 3 million EU citizens in the UK and how we risk repeating some of the mistakes that were made when the Windrush scandal broke. I just want to finish the list of those who have already been affected by the hostile environment, which includes the people who the Home Office agrees have been victims of trafficking, but who it does not think even merit a short period of leave to remain. The list of people impacted by the hostile environment goes on and on.

    Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)

    The hon. Gentleman said he would come back to the point made by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone). Will he also use this opportunity to clarify for anyone watching this debate that cases of constituents needing to travel 500 miles will happen only during the initial trial phase, and that when the full scheme is rolled out people will be able to complete the process through the post office or—[Interruption.] SNP Members are shouting, but we have to put both sides of the story so that we do not unnecessarily raise alarms when there are other methods that people can use to apply for the scheme.

    Stuart C. McDonald

    The hon. Gentleman makes a fair enough point, but the Home Office still has to do more to make the EU settlement scheme as accessible as possible. I will return to these points in due course.

    Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)

    My hon. Friend does an excellent job on the Home Affairs Committee. Does he agree that the hostile environment is alive and well today in Glasgow, with the Home ​Office contractor Serco threatening to make 300 asylum seekers homeless, after they have been labelled as failed asylum seekers? This is a perfect example of the hostile environment and hostile action in the city of Glasgow.

    Stuart C. McDonald

    I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. I look forward to supporting his Adjournment debate on the issue tomorrow. I will shortly come to the asylum system as a whole, as it is one area where we need absolute root-and-branch reform.

    Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)

    On the subject of the hostile environment, does my hon. Friend share my horror at a document that I found yesterday on the Government’s website relating to trafficked women from Nigeria, which says that

    “trafficked women who return from Europe, wealthy from prostitution, enjoy high social-economic status and in general are not subject to negative social attitudes on return”?

    Does he agree that this is abhorrent language, and that the Government should immediately change this documentation and this attitude?

    Stuart C. McDonald

    My hon. Friend’s point speaks for itself. That is truly abhorrent.

    The Prime Minister’s explicit and almost dystopian goal was to create the hostile environment, as if we can hermetically seal off the wicked illegal immigrants while the rest of us go about our business as usual. It was an approach that reached its absolute nadir with the horrendous “Go Home” vans—a disastrous episode that encapsulated everything that is wrong with the policy and precisely illustrated the key point here, which is that the hostile climate that the Government seek to create affects every single one of us. The hostile climate should be destroyed with its partner in crime: the net migration target.

    I have outlined the sad legacy of the outgoing Prime Minister on migration policy. With her departure and influence totally removed from the Home Office, this is a time for radical reform, including rolling back most of her policies and putting evidence-based policy making, human rights and fairness at front and centre.

    Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)

    As part of that change in policy, would the hon. Gentleman agree that we have to look at lifting the ban on genuine asylum seekers being able to work and contribute to the economy of the country, rather than forcing them to live on a pittance and not giving them the dignity they deserve?

    Stuart C. McDonald

    I wholeheartedly agree; I know the hon. Lady has tabled an amendment to the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill on that subject, as we did during the passage of the Immigration Act 2016, so her amendment will have our wholehearted support. I was pleased to be at an event yesterday evening with a coalition of organisations working towards that goal, and I hope the Home Office is listening.

    In fairness, there have been little green shoots of recovery under the new Home Secretary and the Immigration Minister. I have welcomed the work to extend the resettlement scheme, for example. There have also been warm words on other possible areas of reform, but they are as yet a million miles away from the fully fledged reform agenda and actions we need.

    ​Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)

    Many people come to see me in my surgeries about family visit visas. The hostile environment is extending to such a degree that people cannot bring their family members over for a visit, because there is a presumption that they will stay once they are here. The Home Office is so bogged down in its attitude towards anybody who wants to come to the UK that we are not able to make progress. Should there not be wholescale reform of the system?

    Stuart C. McDonald

    There should indeed be wholescale reform of the visit visas and related decision-making processes. Families find themselves in a particularly horrendous position because the family visa rules have been tightened so much that so many family members cannot come here permanently. But when they come to visit, they are then accused of coming here under false pretences in order to stay deliberately, so they are in a Catch-22 situation. I will return to family visas in a moment. The point I am trying to make is that if we do not learn the lessons from these disastrous mistakes, we are bound to repeat them, and there is a serious risk that the Government are going to do just that with the 3 million EU citizens.

    As an increasing number of voices across the House—including the Home Affairs Committee—have said, the EU settled status scheme has a fundamental flaw at its heart. Even with the best will in the world and even with the Home Office pulling out all the stops to try to make the scheme work, hundreds of thousands of EU nationals in this country will not be aware of or understand the need to apply. They will lose their rights overnight and will be thrown even deeper into the hostile environment than the Windrush generation. The Government must therefore enshrine the rights of EU nationals in law, leaving them to use the settled status scheme as a means of providing evidence of status, rather than actually constituting the status itself. The Home Office must listen; otherwise this Parliament will have to make it listen to protect our EU citizens from the same disastrous fate as the Windrush generation.

    Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)

    The situation is even worse for seasonal workers who are not permanently settled here, is it not? The whole hostile environment attitude has driven perhaps the most stupid policy from this Government, who will ask 60,000 seasonal workers—essential labour—from the European economic area to go home and then perhaps invite 2,500 of them back on an expensive pilot scheme to do the work that the 60,000 people did previously. Has not this whole attitude just delivered some of the most sclerotic policy making that any of us can remember?

    Stuart C. McDonald

    My hon. Friend makes a very valid point. The Government have shown such a tin ear to calls from across the House to implement a new seasonal agricultural workers scheme. Our answer to that problem is, of course, continued free movement plus a seasonal agricultural workers scheme, and we look forward to the Government actually listening to all those calls—not just from political parties here, but from the industry itself.

    Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)

    I want to take the opportunity of the Minister being here to intervene, because the Scottish Affairs Committee ​has been looking at the very issue of seasonal workers. We have found that the hostile environment is having an impact on a Government pilot by making it as difficult as possible for visas to be secured in a Government pilot scheme. The Government are asking for extra fees—over and above—to get people here to see whether they can work in the Government pilot. Does not that that just demonstrate the excesses of the hostile environment—that it even applies to Government pilots?

    Stuart C. McDonald

    I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I commend the work that his Committee has done in this area. It would be useful if the Home Office paid close heed to it.

    I have discussed what we need to do to avoid repeating the mistakes of the Windrush generation.

    Douglas Ross

    The hon. Gentleman is outlining some concerns about the implications of people not applying for settled status. Does he therefore take exception to his SNP colleague, an MEP for Scotland, publicly saying that he will not apply for settled status and in that way encourage others to follow suit, which may see them fall through the gaps?

    Stuart C. McDonald

    Every individual must make their own call about whether they want to apply. I, for one, would certainly encourage all my constituents and all the EU nationals watching this to sign up for the scheme, but that does not take away from my essential point that they should not be asked to apply to stay in their own home in the first place. These rights should be enshrined in law right now.

    It is not just in terms of the 3 million that we need radical change. All across the field of immigration, there is a massive job of work to do to help to fix the lives that have already been messed up by migration policies and to ensure that we avoid messing up so many more—to build a system that actually benefits our economy and society instead of undermining them and sowing division. Everyone in this House will have had many cases, as we have already heard, where we think that the rules are unfair.

    This debate provides an opportunity to make the case for reform as we look ahead to the next chapter in immigration law form. I want to mention four areas very briefly, but there are a million more that I could flag up. First, I turn to the issue of families, which has already been raised. In pursuit of the net migration target, this country has adopted almost the most restrictive family rules in the world, with an extraordinary income requirement and ludicrously complicated rules and restrictions on how that requirement can be met. Over 40% of the UK population would not be entitled to live in this country with a non-EU spouse. The figures are even worse for women, for ethnic minorities, and for different parts of the UK. The Children’s Commissioner previously wrote a damning report about the 15,000 Skype children—there must now be many, many more—who get to see their mum or dad only via the internet, thanks to these rules, which force too many to pick between their country and their loved ones. It is appalling that the Home Office seems determined to extend these rules to EU spouses so that many more thousands of families will be split apart. We should be ditching these awful rules, not making more families suffer.​

    Secondly, there is citizenship. I have met with the Minister representatives of the Project for Registration of Children as British Citizens, and I know that last week she met the organisation, Let Us Learn. The Home Secretary has acknowledged in evidence to the Home Affairs Committee that over £1,000 is an incredible amount to charge children simply to process a citizenship application when they are entitled to that citizenship. The administrative cost is about £400, so over £600 is a subsidy for other Home Office activities. There is no excuse for funding the Home Office by overcharging kids for their citizenship. At the very least, the fee must be reduced to no more than the administrative charge. More broadly, we need to reduce the ridiculous fees that are being charged across the immigration system, especially to children.

    Christine Jardine

    The hon. Gentleman is making a very important point. I want to mention something that recently came to my attention at a surgery. A former EU national who is now a British citizen is concerned about the implications for them, if we leave the European Union, of the way in which the immigration laws have been written. Even though the settled status scheme might seem unclear, the situation is not clear for those who have already taken out citizenship either.

    Stuart C. McDonald

    The hon. Lady makes an interesting point. I do not know whether she is planning to contribute to the debate; if so, she can speak more about that.

    Thirdly, our immigration detention system remains outrageously bloated, and detention without time limit makes the UK an outlier in Europe. We detain too many people for too long, including many vulnerable adults, such as torture survivors, who should never be detained at all. It is a national scandal and an affront to the rule of law, as myriad reports have shown. We have had some small forward steps from the current Home Office team, but also some missteps. We need radical reform so that detention is a matter of absolute last resort and not routine.

    Fourthly, there is our asylum system, which could command a whole debate in itself. There can be few areas that require as big an overhaul. We need to ensure better-quality decisions and proper financial support. We must support the wonderful coalition urging the Government to lift the ban on asylum seekers working. We need a better managed move-on period and properly accountable and funded systems of accommodation. We need a caseworking system so that we are never left with dreadful mass evictions like those we look set to see in Glasgow.

    Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)

    The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent series of points, particularly now that he has come on to the asylum system, which is a subject close to my heart. Does he agree that if we want to show the world that we are truly an outward-facing, internationalist country—as I believe everyone in this House would agree we are; it is part of our values—then the asylum system is in urgent need of reform to make sure that refugees are truly welcome, and to live up to the findings of the Home Office’s own recently published report on refugee integration? There is a lot we could do right now. Even in the next three weeks, we could make it possible for asylum seekers to work after six months.

    ​Stuart C. McDonald

    There is a host of opportunities to improve the asylum system. Only last week, we debated refugee family reunion rules. We have already passed on Second Reading a Bill to change those rules, yet it has been held up in the system, thanks to the Government.

    I have briefly mentioned four issues, but there are a million others that other Members of Parliament will touch on, such as visas for religious workers, visit visas, lack of appeal rights, lack of legal aid, the complexities of the tier 2 system, visas for fishing vessels, visas for agricultural workers—and so on and so forth. The truth is that our immigration and asylum systems are truly in a mess.

    That brings me on to the Government’s proposals for our future immigration system—their White Paper. Next to none of these issues is addressed in the White Paper at all. The bit of the immigration system that is a disaster is the bit that is being left largely unreformed. In fact, it is being rolled out so as to apply to EU nationals in future. The one bit of the immigration system that works perfectly well—free movement of people—is being annihilated. The Government have their priorities completely the wrong way round. I love free movement and my party is passionate about its benefits. We deeply regret that these amazing rights are in danger of coming to an end. All the evidence is that it is beneficial economically—for growth, for productivity and for public finances. In Scotland, in particular, it has transformed our demographic outlook. From a country of net emigration, we are now a country of positive in-migration. We have benefited hugely culturally and socially.

    Of course, the quid pro quo is that we will lose our free movement rights too. I have benefited from free movement, as I know many Members in the Chamber have. I regret that this Government want to prevent future generations from enjoying the enormous benefits that so many of us have enjoyed. People did not vote to end free movement, contrary to what the Prime Minister says. This is the Prime Minister’s red line, not the people’s. Simply repeating ad nauseam that we are “taking back control of our borders” is not an argument and it is not leadership. Real leadership is looking at the evidence and saying that free movement is an enormous benefit that we should treasure and keep.

    We welcome the gradual change in approach from the Home Secretary towards one-size-fits-all migration policy making. We welcome his announcement that the proposed new £30,000 threshold will be reviewed, including the possibility of regional and sub-state variations within the UK.

    However, I must emphasise that this is just a small start—baby steps. There are so many other features of the proposed new immigration system that are causing huge concern. Scotland’s economy relies disproportionately on small and medium-sized enterprises. The tier 2 system is not designed for SMEs. Its bureaucracy and expense make it inaccessible for many businesses, which therefore instead recruit from the EU if they cannot do so locally. Reducing the threshold does not fix that; it simply means businesses jumping through administrative hoops and expense simply to recruit workers they could previously have recruited under free movement.

    Thangam Debbonaire

    Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the work done by Hope not Hate and British Future establishes that the British people are behind ​what he is arguing for? Most people actually value immigration; they just want a system that is fair, accountable and transparent. That is what I believe all of us here would want.

    Stuart C. McDonald

    I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. I think that all sensible people would be behind the arguments I am making.

    The other point about reducing the threshold is that it does not fix the fundamental problem that ending free movement risks a demographic time bomb for Scotland, with implications for its workforce, its economy and its public finances. The Scottish Government have proposed ways in which additional Scottish visas can help to play a part in addressing that, learning from systems such as the Canadian system. I want the Home Secretary and the Immigration Minister to engage constructively with those proposals. But ultimately the best answer to the challenges Scotland faces is continued free movement.

    We need to recognise that under the outgoing Prime Minister, migration policy has gone horribly wrong. The current Home Secretary accepts that the net migration target was wrong. The High Court says that key planks of the hostile environment were discriminatory and unjustified. Let us ditch both. Let us learn from the past and not repeat these mistakes, particularly regarding the 3 million. If the new system is to work for all of the UK, it will have to include different rules for different parts of it. Let us seize this opportunity to turn over an entirely new leaf on immigration and asylum policy.

  • Tobias Ellwood – 2019 Statement on Armed Forces Day

    Below is the text of the statement made by Tobias Ellwood, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence, in the House of Commons on 26 June 2019.

    I beg to move,

    That this House has considered Armed Forces Day.

    It is a real honour to open this debate to celebrate Armed Forces Day. It is an opportunity for us to say thank you to those in uniform who serve this country. It is an opportunity for us to express our gratitude to those who are in the regular service, the reserves, the cadets and those who served in uniform, our brave veterans. Also part of the armed forces community are the mums, dads, children, girlfriends, partners, wives and husbands; those who are in the immediate surrounds of those who wear or wore the uniform. On behalf of a grateful nation, I hope the House will join me in saying, “Thank you. Today and this week is all about you.”

    This is the eleventh annual Armed Forces Day, and each year the event becomes bigger and bigger. I am pleased to say that the Defence Secretary will be going to Salisbury this weekend. That city is of course famous for its 123 metre spire, but it is also the home of 3rd Division. It is therefore quite apt for her and others to be celebrating our armed forces in Salisbury. The Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), the Procurement Minister, will be visiting Wales and the Minister for the Armed Forces, my right hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster) will be visiting Scotland.

    I had the real honour of visiting Lisburn at the weekend. As somebody who served there during the troubles, how inspiring it was to be able to stand there in the high street with the Mayor and various dignitaries to watch the parade of our soldiers, sailors, air personnel and cadets. They were able to walk through the town and receive the gratitude not just of those in elected office, but of the thousands of people who lined the streets. Armed Forces Day is not just about parades, but the open day that takes place afterwards. I am very grateful to the people of Lisburn and indeed to the people of the rest of Northern Ireland. The year before, I was in Coleraine.

    Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

    The Minister was also in Bangor in North Down. I was alongside him—that is how I know.

    Mr Ellwood

    I have made so many visits to Northern Ireland, but they do not blur into one and the hon. Gentleman is right. The point I am trying to make is that when I and others served there, there was simply no chance of being able to walk down any high street in uniform and there was absolutely no chance of the civilian population being able to express their gratitude. The change is absolutely fantastic and very welcome.

    Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)

    I would like to give my right hon. Friend a vote of confidence, because I know he played a very big part in the D-day commemoration events in Normandy. I had the great honour of going on to the Boudicca and meeting the veterans. I would also like to thank the Defence Secretary and the staff, who were absolutely magnificent in organising that event. It was simply extraordinary and a total success. I just wanted to say that to the Minister directly, because we owe him great thanks for all that.

    ​Mr Ellwood

    I am grateful for those kind comments. I not only thank my hon. Friend for what he has done, but pay tribute to the sacrifice made by his father, who was part of the Normandy landings and who received the Victoria Cross—

    Sir William Cash

    The Military Cross.

    Mr Ellwood

    The Military Cross, I beg your pardon. He was killed on Hill 112 at the very beginning of that advance. I will come to what happened there and to the fact that I was on board the Boudicca with 90-year-olds who stayed up later than I did, drank far more than I did and were up earlier than I was the next day.

    Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)

    I join the Minister in paying tribute not only to current armed forces personnel, but to ex-servicemen. Will he add to the list of those he is congratulating and thanking the merchant seafarers, particularly at the Normandy landing? Many civilians took to their boats at very short notice to help to liberate Europe.

    Mr Ellwood

    The hon. Gentleman has jumped ahead of me, but I absolutely am happy to pay tribute to the work of the merchant seafarers. They supply our surface fleet and submariner fleet and logistically keep them at sea. They played such a critical role in the Normandy landings and do so today as well, and he is right to point that out.

    Today is Reserves Day—I declare that I am a reservist—and we should pay tribute to them. Hon. Members might be aware that many are wearing their uniform today with pride, and I point out in particular that many reservists are part of the Whitehall family. Yesterday at the Foreign Office, we invited all those civil servants who not only work hard for the Government and our country in their day jobs but wear the uniform as reservists. They are in all three services, and it was wonderful to see the variety of support not just from the organisers who put this together to show that there are those who can do both jobs, but the other employers that allow and give time to our service personnel so that they can be reservists, as well as working for them.

    Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)

    I cast my eye towards the side Gallery during Prime Minister’s questions to see our hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (James Cleverly) wearing his uniform—the uniform of the Royal Artillery—and, as the Minister mentioned, I look forward to welcoming the Minister for the Armed Forces to our Stirling military show on Saturday. I think that it would be a really good thing if our serving personnel and our reservists have more opportunities to wear their uniforms in public. The more that the public see those who wear the uniform and have the opportunity to thank them in person, the more the bond will be strengthened between the public and those who serve them so selflessly in the Queen’s uniform.

    Mr Ellwood

    My hon. Friend makes a very important point. If any of us travel to the United States for business or otherwise, we will see—in any airport or high street—that if there is somebody in uniform, others will go up and simply thank them for their service. Those people are completely unknown to them but simply do that out of a sense of duty and pride. Perhaps we are a bit reserved in this country, but we should do that more, particularly with veterans. I am really pleased ​that one thing I have managed to do is enlarge the veterans’ badge. It was so small that someone had to invade that person’s body space to realise that it said “Veteran”. It is now twice the size, so it really jumps out at people. I hope that that will be the green light so that if anybody sees that badge, they go up to that person and say, “Thank you for what you have done for our country.”

    Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)

    Will the Minister also thank the many veterans charities around the UK who help and support veterans to adjust to civilian life? I am thinking particularly of the Coming Home Centre in Govan, which I regularly support with letters to ensure that they get adequate funding. Will he say something about that and encourage MPs to get involved in helping veterans charities to get the funding that they need and deserve so that they can help veterans?

    Mr Ellwood

    The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to heap praise on our veterans charities. There are around 400 service-facing charities of different sizes. Some of the large ones that we know well, such as Combat Stress and Blesma, have been around for 100 years or so; others, which aim to keep the name of a loved one alive, are just starting up. They do incredible work, and it is so important that we honour and respect that, but we must also make sure that their work is co-ordinated, because resources are limited, and it is important that charities work together in synergy to ensure that we provide the best possible service for those who require it.

    Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)

    The Minister makes an important point about the need for proper integration and co-ordination of the charities supporting our veterans. I join in his remarks about Reserves Day. Having served in the reserves for 12 years, I think it is important to acknowledge the sacrifices made by reservists. Thousands of them have served on operations overseas. We should recognise the impact that may have had on their personal life, and they should not be forgotten when it comes to supporting veterans.

    Mr Ellwood

    Sometimes reservists step forward to fill the gap when there is a shortfall in the regular components of a unit or formation. I know from when I served—I am looking around at others who have served—that after a number of days, no one can tell the difference between reservists and regulars; that is how good these people are. Also, with the character of conflict and conventional warfare changing, we need the skillsets and specialisms found on civilian street. That is another reason why reservists make an important and growing contribution to our frontline capabilities, so I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman.

    There are three objectives for Armed Forces Day. The first is to do with showcasing what the armed forces do. We need to recognise that the profile of our armed forces has changed. Iraq and Afghanistan are no longer in the headlines all the time. However, that does not take away from the fact that we are involved in more than 20 operations and exercises around the world. At any moment, about 4,000 members of our Royal Navy are at sea or working overseas; 7,000 members of our RAF are working overseas; and 10,000 members of our Army are deployed on operations or exercises. That is a major commitment. It is us looking beyond our shores, ​helping other countries and making our mark across the world. Those operations cover the full spectrum of capability, whether they involve the interdiction of drugs in the Caribbean, countering piracy, dealing with a resurgent Russia in the skies of eastern Europe, still mopping up extremism in Iraq or Afghanistan, or helping upstream with the stabilisation challenges in African countries, together with our Commonwealth friends.

    Let us not forget what happens closer to home. When we are required to support civilians here in dealing with flooding, or in Operation Temperer, when the police require extra support to deal with terrorist attacks, it is our armed forces who stand in harm’s way. It is because of our armed forces that we can sleep at night, knowing that our country and its interests are absolutely defended. What we try to do, through Armed Forces Day, is explain that. That is important because the footprint—the outreach—of our armed forces is shrinking. All those in our age group probably know of somebody who served—perhaps our parents, and definitely our grandparents. Our bond with them is a reminder of what they did for our country. We are aware of the duty they performed, and perhaps of their sacrifice. I am horrified to say it, but we could get our entire armed forces into Wembley stadium. That is how small our armed forces have shrunk, so civilians’ direct exposure to our armed forces is ever smaller. It is critical that on Armed Forces Day, we celebrate, show and educate the public on exactly what our armed forces do.

    Trudy Harrison (Copeland) (Con)

    Like many colleagues across the House, I went out to speak to constituents who had come to talk to us about the “Time is Now” lobby. Will my right hon. Friend also explain what the armed forces are doing about the climate change challenge?

    Mr Ellwood

    My hon. Friend has raised an important point. I shall deal with the threats that we face in a minute, but she is right to point out that a campaign to do with climate change is taking place outside the building at this moment. I believe that, in the long term, climate change is the biggest threat that we all face but need to face up to. If we are to be the custodians of values and standards, that must include looking after our planet, in which regard Britain can take a leading role.

    The second point that I wish to stress is that Armed Forces Day is all about civilian society saying thank you to our armed forces. It gives civilians an opportunity to say, “We are really grateful for what you are doing.” That does not just mean us, perhaps through speeches in the Chamber; it does not just mean the town mayor taking the salute as the parades walk by; it does not mean just the crowds showing their appreciation by clapping and saying, “Thank you very much indeed.” It also means our being able to say, “Thank you for keeping us safe,” and ensuring that we do so regularly.

    This is a one-day event when we say thank you, but a thank you should be said on every single day of the year, and the importance of that should be reflected in the armed forces covenant. We highlight the event and it has a profile, but we have that duty every day—not just the Ministry of Defence, but every Whitehall Department. That is why it is so critical that the Ministerial Covenant and Veterans Board, which brings together ​the responsibilities of other Departments, can point the finger and say, “The NHS: is it providing the necessary services? Local government: is it providing the necessary housing, or are we disadvantaging the people whom we promised we would look after?”

    Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)

    As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the armed forces covenant, I am delighted that we are having this debate. The Minister has touched on the impact of other Departments and Veterans Gateway, and how they should be working together. Does he agree that there is a significant problem with the Home Office in respect of serving personnel and their families, especially Commonwealth soldiers who need visas?

    Mr Ellwood

    Not for the first time, I find myself in agreement with the hon. Lady. We have had Westminster Hall debates on this issue, and we have made the case for the Home Office to reconsider. There has been a communications problem, in that those who are making the trip have not been made aware of the consequences of bringing family members. We are correcting that, but no one should be hindered from doing what is best, given the contribution that our Commonwealth friends make to our armed forces. We shall have to see where things move in the next couple of months and what the appetite will be, but I am absolutely behind the hon. Lady in wanting this matter to be addressed.

    Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)

    My right hon. Friend was explaining what Armed Forces Day does to acknowledge the efforts of our current armed forces. Does he agree that it is also a time to remember those who lost their lives while pursuing their military careers? Just this week, there has been a fantastic community effort. A memorial at Califer Hill in Moray had become overgrown, as a result of issues that I do not want to go into. So disappointed were currently serving and previous members of the military that the memorial to three Tornado operatives—Samuel Bailey, Hywel Poole and Adam Sanders—had become overgrown that members of the community got together to tidy it up. That is a great thing that they do, not just on Armed Forces Day but all year round.

    Mr Ellwood

    I am really pleased to learn that the memorial is being given the reverence and support that it needs, and is being cleaned up so that people can actually see it. I try to distinguish between this day and Remembrance Day, because Remembrance Day is about thanking and reflecting on the fallen. I want Armed Forces Day to be a celebration and also an outreach, educating people about the positive aspects of our armed forces.

    The armed forces covenant falls, almost, into three parts. It asks organisations to support our regular personnel, and there have been nearly 4,000 signatories. We have seen companies give deals and special discounts to those in the regular forces. The covenant also covers the reserves; it asks companies to make sure that if someone signs up to be a reservist, they get time off to go and do their annual camp and training and so forth, and they are not impeded or have to use their holiday time. I stress that anybody who allows their employees to go away for a number of days finds that those employees will come back all the richer from their learning and what they have experienced, to the benefit of the employer.

    ​Ruth Smeeth

    Does the Minister agree that we as employers in this House—every single Member of Parliament—should become covenant employers in our own right and that the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority should work with us to deliver that? We should not have to go through the MOD to deliver that; we should all be encouraging everybody to promote the covenant both in this place and in our constituencies.

    Mr Ellwood

    Let us go further than that: shall I write to IPSA and invite it to become a signatory to the covenant? Perhaps that is what should happen.

    Ruth Smeeth

    That would be a wonderful intervention by the Minister, but I have tried to make that suggestion in private to IPSA and have not been very successful, so any help the Minister can give me to ensure that IPSA allows us all to become covenant employers would be very welcome.

    Mr Ellwood

    I suspect that following this debate IPSA will be more aware that there is an invitation heading its way.

    Another organisation that I hope is well aware that there is an invitation on the way, because I have written to it, is the BBC. I make the following point directly—although the BBC will probably cut this because our debate is being broadcast by BBC Parliament. Our veterans—2.5 million of them—are changing in profile. Sadly, in the next 10 years that number will diminish and go down to 1.5 million, because we will lose the second world war generation. The television is so important to many of these elderly people, who are on their own and use it for company and so forth; we have heard all the debate about this. I simply ask the BBC to look carefully at this issue. Its contribution to the covenant could be to allow our veterans to continue having that free TV licence. I have written to the BBC but have yet to have a reply; I look forward to receiving something in the post very soon indeed.

    Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)

    There has been consensus thus far in this debate, but I must point out that one way of achieving that would be to bring it in-house; let the Government of the day decide. The provision was in our manifesto and we are willing to introduce it, and it was in the right hon. Gentleman’s party manifesto as well. Let us keep those TV licences free for the over-75s.

    Mr Ellwood

    The hon. Gentleman makes his point and it is now on the record—unless the BBC has cut that bit as well.

    I need to stress the issue of perception, because another aspect of Armed Forces Day is to correct the perception that somehow if someone joins our armed forces they might be damaged by their service. Nothing could be further from the truth: those who serve are less likely to go to prison, less likely to want to take their own life and less likely to be affected by mental health issues. If anyone is affected by any of those issues, then absolutely the help should be there, and we spoke about the importance of veterans support and indeed what comes from the Government too. The idea that those who serve are damaged is perpetuated in society; the Lord Ashcroft report underlined that, and we need to change it. We need to change it for two reasons. First, it ​does nothing to help recruitment and the next generation wanting to sign up for our armed forces. Secondly, it does nothing for those who have left the armed forces and are seeking a job, as they might therefore not get that job. They might not gain employment because their employer has a false idea that somehow they are damaged. We need to change that.

    Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)

    Although I agree with much of what the Minister is saying about employers, we must also recognise that neither a reservist nor a full member of the armed forces is an employee. The Minister has implied on the Floor of the House that he does not agree that members of the armed forces should be treated as employees. Does he think that it would help with recruitment if he said that they should be?

    Mr Ellwood

    I think the hon. Gentleman is being pedantic; I think he knows exactly the spirit in which I support the armed forces. If he wants to discuss this after the debate I will be more than happy to do so, and I will listen carefully to his speech if he wants to elaborate on that. My commitment to all those who serve and their ability to get into employment is second to none, as I hope is reflected in the comments I have made.

    Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)

    I absolutely echo the support of everyone in this Chamber for the current members of our armed forces and for our veterans. Most of the veterans I see in my surgery are suffering for one reason: their mental health is suffering as a result of post-traumatic stress disorder. We live in a rural area, and they need quite specialist treatment. Even with the best will in the world, and with the covenant, they are not able to access that support. Will the Minister make a commitment today that any member of the armed forces who is suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder will be able to access Defence mental health services at whatever time after they have left service, because PTSD often crops up more than six months after they have left?

    Mr Ellwood

    The hon. Lady highlights the challenge that we face. While someone is serving in uniform, their mental health and physical health are the responsibility of the MOD, but once they depart from the armed forces—or, indeed, if they are part of the family in the armed forces but not wearing a uniform—that is the responsibility of the NHS. The NHS has good facilities in some areas, but they are less good in others. They are getting far better: the TIL service—the trauma intervention and liaison service—is the first port of call for anybody with the challenges that the hon. Lady mentions. We also have complex treatment centres up and down the country, but they are still in their infancy and we need to get better from them. I absolutely hear what she says, and this is exactly why we have the Ministerial Covenant and Veterans Board to point the finger and say, “Please look, this is the support that we require.” The NHS has just received £21 billion extra. Let us see some of that money go into creating parity between mental and physical health.

    James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)

    My right hon. Friend makes an extremely important point about looking after our veterans and their mental and physical health and all that, but he must not allow himself to be ​diverted from the important point he was making, which is that we have 200,000 extremely fit and active members of our armed services, very few of whom are suffering in those ways. The point of Armed Forces Day is to celebrate the fantastic service that they make to our nation. Of course we must look after those who are disabled in one way or another, but we must none the less celebrate those who are fit, healthy and active, and serving the Queen.

    Mr Ellwood

    I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend does in supporting the armed forces’ profile in Parliament. It is absolutely paramount in educating others. He is absolutely right to say that we need to keep this in perspective and celebrate the positive side of being in the armed forces, while not forgetting our responsibility and duty to look after those who are less fortunate or require support.

    Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)

    I apologise to the Minister for coming in late. The covenant has now been going for about 10 years. What percentage of its objectives have been realised in areas such as mental health, housing and employment? It has been going for a very long time and I would like to know how far we have come. Has he had any discussions with the British Legion about this?

    Mr Ellwood

    That is mapped out in our annual report, and, if I may, I will send the hon. Gentleman a copy of it. He is absolutely right to suggest that we should not be complacent about the importance of setting the bar ever higher. This is one of the toughest things that I have found in getting parity across the country, not least because responsibility for this is devolved to the other nations.

    I can finally get to my third point on what the armed forces are actually about: the bond of the communities themselves. I am looking round the Chamber, and I can see representatives of the places where people have served. There is a symbiotic relationship between the garrison, the base or the port and the surrounding conurbation. Let us take Portsmouth, Aldershot and Plymouth as examples. Those places have a long history of relationships between those in the garrison and those who are working outside. Spouses and partners will seek work in those places, and children will need to be educated there. It is absolutely paramount to get all those things right, and we must ensure that we celebrate that as well. Armed Forces Day can highlight and illuminate the bond between organisations, and it is important for us to focus on that.

    That brings me to the issue of veterans, which my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash)—who has now departed—raised earlier. Madam Deputy Speaker, I know that you want me to conclude soon, but it is worth focusing on this issue for a minute or so, if I may. We owe a duty of care to our veterans. I was on board the Boudicca for that incredible journey, taking people who did so much 75 years ago at the turning point in the war. It was humbling to be with those soldiers, who landed in the biggest maritime invasion that has ever taken place, with 150,000 people on those five beaches: Omaha, Utah, Gold, Sword and Juno. I discovered that Juno was originally going to be named after jellyfish. ​Ours were all named after fish—goldfish, swordfish and so forth—but Churchill was not going to have a beach landing, at which people would die, called “Jelly”, so it was changed.

    I spoke to some of those veterans. I asked one in particular, “What’s it like coming here?” He said, “It reminds me of when Britain was great.” That sent a bit of a shock through me about where we are today and the role that we have taken. Perhaps we have become a little risk averse in what we do, and in our willingness to step forward as a force for good. We should reflect on that.

    The veterans strategy, which I touched on earlier, is critical to bringing together and co-ordinating charities and the work that we do, to ensure that support is there. Part of that is ensuring that there is a transition process, and that when people leave the armed forces they transition back into civilian society with ease. Of those who participate in the official transition process, which can last up to two years, 95% are either in work or employment within six months, which is very good to see.

    Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)

    I represent Darlington, which is the nearest major town to Catterick garrison. I see what the Minister is talking about day in and day out. Does he think that we do enough to celebrate, and to highlight to people who might be considering a career in the armed forces, the support that is available to people leaving, and the breadth of successful careers that veterans enter into, from teaching to running their own businesses? All kinds of things are possible, and sometimes we do not explain and highlight enough the support that is available to people as they leave.

    Mr Ellwood

    The hon. Lady is right to point out the challenges for somebody who has perhaps done three tours of Afghanistan on the general-purpose machine gun. How do they put that in their CV and then sell it to, say, a civilian organisation? There is not a lot of call for that, unless they are some soldier of fortune who is looking for mercenary work, which I hope would not be the case.

    We need to ensure that this can be turned around, and the skillsets can be recognised. That must happen in two phases. First, we must explain to companies what the skillsets are, and our Defence Relationship Management organisation does exactly that. Secondly, we must ensure that the individual who is in uniform and who is departing can learn the necessary skills and gain civilian qualifications on their way out, so that they can land in civilian street best armed to face the future.

    James Gray

    Will the Minister pay tribute to some very good companies? FDM springs to mind, which has so far placed 500 personnel in the IT industry, and does great work. To pick up on one detail, when people leave the armed forces they tick a form that gives them the option of a variety of interests and industries in which they might like to be retrained. For some reason, there is no box for the land-based industries: farming, game keeping and so forth. Will he change the form to allow soldiers to opt for land-based careers, for which, after all, they are well qualified?

    Mr Ellwood

    I was not aware of that. I would be delighted to have a meeting with my hon. Friend. Perhaps we can take the matter forward and see what we can do. Absolutely, we should not miss any such opportunity.​

    While we celebrate the armed forces we must look to the future and ask why we have our armed forces. They do not just defend our shores and promote prosperity; perhaps for Britain more than any other country, they project global influence. It is in our DNA to participate and be active on the international stage, to move forward, and to have an understanding of the world around us and to help to shape it. We will lose that ability if our hard power cannot keep up with the changing character of conflict.

    As I see it, we are facing greater danger than at any time since the cold war. However, in the cold war, we had three divisions in Germany alone. We had 1 (British) Corps; now we are down to one warfighting division just in the UK. We are pleased to have an aircraft carrier, with a second on the way, but the fact that the Navy’s budget did not change has affected the rest of the surface fleet. We are pleased to have the F-35 and the P-8 maritime patrol aircraft, which are excellent, but in the Gulf war we had 36 fast jet squadrons—today we are down to six. Our main battle tank has not been updated for 20 years, and our Warrior has not been updated for 25 years.

    The money needs to come. We need to invest more in our defence if we are to keep that profile, but the threats are changing and becoming more diverse. There is not just a single threat—not just a resurgent Russia or a rising China—and extremism has not disappeared, but cyberspace will take over as the area of most conflict. Data, not terrain, will be the prize, and we will become all the more vulnerable as 5G and the internet of things take over.

    We are becoming ever-reliant on an automated world, but how vulnerable we become, and how our world closes down, if that world is interfered with in any way. Two thirds of our universities are hacked or attacked in any year, so we need to build resilience. A hundred years ago we developed the RAF, which moved away from the other armed forces—we created a new service. I pose the question of whether we now need a fourth service, one to do with cyber and our capability to lead the world’s understanding of not just resilience, offensive and defensive, but of the rules of engagement, too.

    Somebody could attack this House of Commons, and we would not know who it was. We would not understand where the threat came from, but it would affect us, Even if we found out who it was, to whom do we go to complain? Who sets the rules of what is a responsible response? How do we retaliate?

    These are questions that we should be asking ourselves, and we should work with our allies to defend western values.

    Several hon. Members rose—

    Mr Ellwood

    I will conclude, if I may.

    We constantly talk about the erosion of the rules-based order, but we do not say what we will do about it. China was not included in the Bretton Woods organisations that were created after the second world war. Somebody, some nation, who understands how the world is changing needs to step forward and articulate where we need to go. Otherwise, we will see a new cold war between the United States and China, and we will see these threats become greater and greater.​

    As we say thank you to those who have served and are serving, what are we doing about it? What role do we see ourselves playing? We have become distracted by Brexit in this vortex of discussing something that has taken our mind off what is happening around the world. The world is changing fast. I believe it is in our DNA to step forward, as we did 75 years ago, and help craft the world into a better place. That requires greater investment in our armed forces.

    I conclude as I began, by saying thank you to all those who have served, all those who do serve and all those who want to serve, and the families around them. We owe you a debt of gratitude, and we are very grateful for your service.

  • Kevin Hollinrake – 2019 Speech on Disabled Access at Thirsk Station

    Below is the text of the speech made by Kevin Hollinrake, the Conservative MP for Thirsk and Malton, in the House of Commons on 26 June 2019.

    I am grateful to you for granting this important debate, Mr Speaker, because train travel has never been more popular or important. Around 20,000 miles of railway track criss-cross our island, and altogether, we made 1.8 billion rail journeys last year—a 3% rise on the previous year. I am a frequent rail user, boarding a train every week at York or Thirsk that whisks me to Westminster to represent my constituents, and then boarding another to return home to glorious North Yorkshire in time for my surgeries and visits at the weekend. Importantly, this week the Government legislated for a target of net zero carbon emissions by 2050. Using public transport is one way that we can help to tackle climate change and improve air quality.

    Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

    This week, most Members across the House took the decision to drive for that net zero carbon outcome for the UK, but that can be achieved only if more people make use of public transport. The fact that those who are disabled are precluded from using many railway stations, such as Thirsk, due to the lack of facilities is absurd. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government must, in future policy relating to climate change targets, enable all people to travel on public transport, not just those who are able-bodied?

    Kevin Hollinrake

    The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. As I will say later, around 40% of stations do not have access for disabled people, and we know that disabled people are accounting for a greater and greater proportion of our population, so this is hugely important. I am grateful for his intervention.

    We need to encourage train use for all users and facilitate access to stations. Trains allow us to commute and explore the length and breadth of our country, from Thurso in the very north of Scotland to St Ives in Cornwall, both of which, I must mention, are replete with step-free access for disabled passengers. This is the essence of the problem: these essentials cannot just be for those who are in the physical prime of their life. Trains and the 2,500 stations that they pass through should be made more accessible for everyone. Everyone, including disabled people, the elderly and parents pushing prams, should have the same opportunity to travel by train.

    In particular, Thirsk railway station in my constituency is in need of accessibility improvements, which will make a real difference to people’s lives. As with most stations, trains travel through Thirsk extremely quickly—I have stood on the platform when trains come through at over 100 miles an hour—but Thirsk is unique in that it has an island ticket office and platforms stationed between the tracks. Concrete steps are the only way to access the ticket office and platforms. Passengers must reach the ticket office and both platforms by navigating a barrow crossing across the high-speed railway line. This can be a very difficult and even traumatic experience for the elderly, disabled passengers, parents with pushchairs or people heaving heavy suitcases. Thirsk is not alone: ​40% of railway stations in England, Scotland and Wales do not have step-free access, and research found that over a third of working-age disabled people had experienced problems using trains in the last year as a result of their disability. A solution is much needed.

    The railway industry is on the right track: it is encouraging more people to travel by train using the disabled persons railcard; carriages have been adapted; and I regularly see ramps on platforms, and kindly staff going above and beyond to facilitate access for passengers. Information is also improving and becoming more widely available to disabled users. National Rail has published an access map online, which is a great resource for disabled passengers, but it also highlights the limited access they have to railway stations in my constituency. I quote the entry for Thirsk station:

    “customers should note that access to all platforms is via a barrow crossing which is reliant upon staff assistance, and cannot be accessed outside of staffed hours.”

    Fortunately, we are starting from a good place in this debate, as improving access to our railway stations for disabled passengers is very much a key priority for the Government. As for further down the line, Network Rail is working towards an entirely accessible transport network by 2030, in which there will be assistance if physical infrastructure remains a barrier. That timetable will remind those of us who remember train travel before privatisation of the British Rail slogan, which is apt: “We’re getting there”.

    I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary and the Minister, whom I met to discuss these issues and our bid to the Access for All funding programme. Access for All is providing £300 million of additional funding to make 73 stations more accessible by 2024. Unfortunately, Thirsk is not one of them. I felt that our campaign was good, and was building up a head of steam. It had strong support from Graham Meiklejohn at TransPennine Express, Grand Central, Graham North for North Yorkshire County Council, Professor Abrahams of the Northallerton and Thirsk Rail Users Group, members of the public, and of course me. I am grateful to all those people, with whom I work very closely on this issue.

    Our bid was unsuccessful. Apparently, we fell short on footfall. However, the number of users on these routes continues to increase. There was a 3.6% increase this year, and the population of Hambleton is expected to grow by 4% by 2035, which of course will mean more disabled and elderly people there. I am disappointed that our bid was unsuccessful, but to be fair, I am not sure that we adequately highlighted the fact that there is no unaided access to any platform at Thirsk station. We need to revisit our bid, make it more compelling, and point out the growing issues at the station. According to the Rail Delivery Group, in 2018, there were 6,700 people using a disabled person’s railcard in my constituency. That is up from 4,200 in 2015—an increase of 59%. It is great that more people are saving money on their journeys, ​but what is the point of encouraging the use of that railcard if its users are deterred from using the train, or simply cannot access the platform?

    According to the Office for National Statistics, nearly one in five people in England and Wales have some form of disability. Leonard Cheshire estimates that almost 45,000 journeys are made by disabled people at Thirsk station each year. The Equality Act 2010, which I know the Minister is very familiar with, urges the Secretary of State to make regulations to allow disabled persons to travel without unreasonable difficulty in safety and reasonable comfort. I call on the Minister, the Secretary of State and the Department for Transport to ensure that that can happen at Thirsk railway station.

    I appreciate that funds are always in short supply; there is no magic money tree. Elected representatives, including my colleagues in the Department, must always consider those footing the bill—the taxpayer—and, of course, value for money. I am keen to work with the Department, TransPennine Express, local authorities and local enterprise partnerships to find a solution. I am very flexible in my approach to ensuring better access to the station. Rather than putting in two lifts, one on either side of the bridge, there is perhaps a business case for putting in a lift on one side of it, and for moving the ticket office on the platform to the other side. That would be a cheaper option. It would save us perhaps around £1 million in our bid. It will be interesting to see what further funding might be made available to facilitate that solution.

    As I say, there are alternative cost-effective solutions. I would be keen to hear more from the Department about what can be done. I invite the Minister to Thirsk—it is always a pleasure for anyone to visit Thirsk—to meet the groups I mentioned and help develop a plan. Facilitating access is something we can all get on board with. I look forward to working with Ministers to develop a plan to improve disabled access at Thirsk station and, over time, to see better access to public transport for all.

  • Liam Fox – 2019 Speech on Exporting and Trade

    Below is the text of the speech made by Liam Fox, the Secretary of State for International Development, in London on 26 June 2019.

    1. Introduction

    Perhaps I could start with a question. Of these Government Departments, which has the biggest budget?

    Justice, Defence, the Home Office, International Trade. Answers on a postcard. Well, last year Defence came out top, with £28.4 billion. The Home Office was second at £10.8 billion. Third was Justice at £6.3 billion. The Department for International Trade was way down the list. But what might surprise you is the size of the gap between International Trade and the other Departments. In fact, DIT’s budget was less than a tenth of the Ministry of Justice’s, at around £400 million.

    Now, this is in no way to suggest other Departments are over funded or that justice, the police or the defence of the realm are not vital spending priorities. I could hardly say otherwise as the former Defence Secretary!

    2. DIT in context

    But I wanted to put my remarks here in context because there is an untold story here, which I’m going to set out today.

    I am proud to lead a department which has a direct impact on our prosperity.

    In 2017/18 alone, we helped UK businesses export goods and services worth around £30.5 billion, against our total exports of around £645 billion.

    And based on analysis by the Institute for Economic Affairs, DIT estimate that this could potentially generate around £10 billion for the Exchequer.

    Over 2016/17 and 2017/2018 we supported more than 3,500 inward investment projects, creating and safeguarding over 190,000 jobs.

    So my point is that we have some amazing ‘bang for your buck’ given the resources and for the taxpayer’s investment.

    Yet for all this success there is an implicit warning. Global Britain cannot be built on a shoestring.

    As the UK leaves the EU, it is vital that Government aggressively promotes and finances international trade and investment, and champions free trade: promoting the private sector companies that are the wellspring of our national prosperity.

    Economies in South Asia, East Asia and Africa are becoming more and more prosperous, driving demand in precisely those sectors in which the UK excels.

    Ensuring Britain succeeds in this new era means having the right tools to ensure we can unlock the global economy, which will in turn support the UK economy.

    And to sell Britain abroad we need to understand two things. First, the markets we are selling into and the opportunities that they have to offer. And second, our overseas network also has to understand what Britain has to sell in goods and services, constantly updated by our sector teams here in the UK.

    If the United Kingdom is under-armed – if we fail to rise to the opportunities and challenges of a rapidly changing global economy – there are plenty of competitor countries who may be better resourced or equipped. We must ensure that Britain is not left behind in the global trade race.

    3. The case for DIT

    Now, according to the International Trade Centre, the UK has an untapped potential of £124 billion in the export of goods alone. That’s companies that could be exporting because their peers do but are not choosing to do so.

    And fulfilling this potential means being serious about the scale of the challenge posed.

    As we prepare for life after Brexit, we must embrace the opportunity to connect into the markets of the future.

    The global economy is changing, as you all know, at a staggering pace. The population is projected to increase to 9.8 billion by 2050, and will become better educated, wealthier and more urbanised.

    It is predicted that the share of global GDP of the seven largest emerging economies – including China, India and Turkey – could increase from around 35% to nearly 50% of global GDP by 2050, which would mean that they overtake the G7.

    Last year Africa had five of the world’s fastest-growing economies.

    Africa’s GDP has been predicted to double between 2015 and 2030. And the African Development Bank has estimated that by 2060 there could be 1.1 billion middle class Africans: quite a big consumer market.

    This is a golden opportunity for high value UK goods and services to find new consumers and business markets.

    And we are working at the moment to deliver the Prime Minister’s ambition for the UK to be the largest G7 investor in Africa by 2022.

    Yet, notwithstanding that, the Department for International Development has more staff in Kenya than the Department for International Trade has in the whole of the continent from Egypt to South Africa.

    This is not to say that our international development efforts are too large, or that they are in competition with our international trade and investment promotion efforts.

    However, if we want to have greater influence, if we want to sell more goods and services abroad, if we want to encourage more British businesses to invest and operate overseas, and overseas firms to locate and invest in the UK, then we must invest in the capabilities required.

    And this means striking a new balance between our spending priorities – not just focusing on how we divide our national income, but how we grow that income too.

    Within whatever spending envelope comes out of the next Spending Review, we must ensure that we prioritise those areas that will generate economic growth and wealth creation for our country in the future.

    4. Free & fair trade

    Over the past three years, I have spent a great deal of time talking about the benefits of free trade. Open, free and fair trade, rooted in a sound and relevant international rules-based trading system has repeatedly shown itself to be of huge benefit to both individuals and states; producers and consumers; and in both developed & developing countries alike.

    And I say consumers because, all too often, we focus on producers without setting out the benefits of free trade to household incomes: keeping prices down and ensuring competition and diversity of supply.

    In fact, I sat through an International Trade Ministers’ meeting where I had my watch out to see how long it would take anyone to say the ‘c’ word: 52 minutes before anyone mentioned consumers.

    As the world’s emerging and developing economies have liberalised trade practices, prosperity has spread, bringing industry, jobs and wealth where once there was only deprivation.

    According to the World Bank, the three decades between 1981 and 2011 witnessed the single greatest decrease in material deprivation in human history. Or, as Francis Fukuyama put it in his recent book “Identity”, the percentage of children dying before their fifth birthday declined from 22% in 1960 to less than 5% by 2016.

    A billion people taken out of abject poverty in one generation. That is why it is morally unthinkable to reject free and open trade.

    Now, as with many freedoms, free and open trade can seem like an inherent fact of life. But the reality is that these freedoms and the benefits that they bestow have been hard-won. They must be continually defended from the siren-call of protectionism, which would tip the global balance in favour of the rich against the poor, the strong against the weak, and the developed against the developing.

    And it is worth reminding ourselves of the positive narrative around free trade and the improvement of the human condition, because in the world around us, there is a rising chorus of protectionism which threatens to drown out the case for a free and open global trading system.

    New barriers, which were touched upon in the last session, many of them invisible, are emerging around the global economy, creating new impediments to the open commerce that is the lifeblood of global prosperity.

    What is worse, many of these impediments are being introduced by G7 and G20 countries – the very nations who have prospered most from the open, liberal trading system of recent decades.

    Research by the OECD has shown that protectionist instincts have grown since the financial crisis of 2008. By 2010 G7 and G20 countries were estimated to be operating some 300 non-tariff barriers to trade: 300. By 2015 this had mushroomed to over 1200 non-tariff barriers to trade. Now protectionism can be seductive but is a dangerous affair. I have described it as the class A drug of the trading world – it can make you feel good at first, but it can prove disastrous in the long term.

    It is economically destructive, preventing us from reallocating global resources effectively. It is also socially regressive because those on lower incomes spend a higher proportion of their money on goods than services so tariffs and barriers will hurt the poor more. And we will all pay the price if those denied the opportunity of global prosperity turn their backs on the partnerships and cooperation that underpin global security.

    We all have to ensure that those who have most benefited from open and free trade do not pull up the drawbridge behind them and deny the same benefits to others. Why? Because I have never believed that trade is an end in itself, but a means to an end. Trade is a means to an end. Trade is a way in which we spread prosperity more widely. That prosperity underpins social cohesion, that social cohesion in turns underpins political stability and that political stability is the building block of our collective security. If you interrupt that continuum of trade and investment, do not be surprised if you get unwanted consequences, politically, economically or in terms of security.

    5. DIT’s role in ensuring a thriving economy

    Now the Department for International Trade has been key in ensuring we are in a better position to achieve our aims.

    We have been working as never before to help businesses take full advantage of global opportunities, ensuring the UK remains a leading destination for international investment, assisting outward direct investment for UK companies into overseas markets, and negotiating market access for UK exporters.

    Last year we launched a new Export Strategy: to encourage, inform, connect and finance businesses of all sizes with the goal of increasing our exports from 30% to 35% of our GDP moving us to the top of the G7.

    We have convened the Board of Trade for the first time in 150 years to champion trade and investment promotion across whole of the United Kingdom.

    We have created an overseas network of Her Majesty’s Trade Commissioners selected for their expertise in particular markets, building our regional trade plans and securing market access across the globe.

    We have our world-leading export credit agency UK Export Finance, celebrating its 100th birthday this year, with a £50 billion capacity , available in 65 international currencies, to ensure that no UK export fails for lack of finance or insurance: and at no net cost to the taxpayer. 77% of the businesses that UKEF supported in 2017/18 were small and medium-sized enterprises: a step change from the situation previously in terms of that business relationship.

    And, recognising that it takes more than one business to deliver an export contract, I was very proud to announce earlier this month that UKEF has extended eligibility for its support to companies in exporters’ supply chains: not just end stage exporters themselves.

    And this will enable these firms, from car parts suppliers to food packagers – who play a crucial role in supply chains but do not directly sell goods or services themselves overseas – to access the support they need to thrive, including in vital areas such as cashflow.

    We have also launched the UK’s first ever public consultations on new trade agreements – with the United States, Australia and New Zealand, as well potential accession to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, or CPTPP: easier said in the morning than after a drink in the evening!

    6. DIT’s global competitors

    And there is pressing reason for these efforts. It is no secret that countries across the world are ramping up their trade and investment promotion efforts.

    President Macron’s ‘Choose France’ initiative is openly seeking to attract businesses who may be looking to relocate from the UK.

    And the Dutch Government has hired more personnel to optimise support for British companies to move from the UK.

    And yet despite this, the United Kingdom continues to be the top destination in Europe for attracting foreign direct investment: reaching a record high on the latest figures to the end of 2018.

    For the first time in more than four decades, Britain has the opportunity to reach out to the wider world as an independent trading nation, and a global champion of free, fair, rules based international trade.

    And, in the shape of the Department for International Trade, the UK has an ideal – and indeed unique tool – to realise that opportunity to drive growth in a post-Brexit economy.

    And unlike many of our strategic partners such as Australia, or Canada, the United States or the European Union, the United Kingdom is unique – and I wonder how many people understand this – unique in carrying responsibility for export promotion, trade finance, trade remedies, exporting licensing and international negotiations in a single government department.

    It is one of the most important and farsighted legacies of Theresa May’s time as Prime Minister of this country.

    And DIT unites all the UK’s trade capabilities, bringing together the government’s international economic levers to give us a truly competitive ‘Trade Advantage’.

    It puts trade front and centre of the national agenda, a focal point to create the conditions for UK businesses to be competitive on the world stage.

    And as the only department with a network both in the UK and overseas, DIT is uniquely positioned to engage directly with business, with the high levels of expertise and global reach that those businesses need to exploit new opportunities.

    7. Aligning trade and development policy

    Now, it is not just about structures. As you will know it is also about priorities.

    It means ensuring that trade is at the forefront of the foreign policy agenda, as well as our development agenda, so that we can use the new policy freedoms which will be realised after we leave the European Union to better align our international policy goals.

    This means recognising the key role of trade in boosting global prosperity and security, and giving developing nations a chance – a real chance – to trade their way out of poverty on a sustainable basis.

    The Government is working hard to ensure development and global prosperity are at the heart of UK trade and investment policy, enhancing market access for poorer countries and ensuring that they can take advantage of this access through trade-related assistance that we give.

    We are committed to bringing trade and development policy closer together, investing to build a safer, healthier, more prosperous world and helping countries in the developing world leave aid dependency to become our trading partners of the future.

    This includes our £1.2 billion cross-Whitehall Prosperity Fund , to promote economic reform and development in countries eligible for ODA.

    And this will help tackle poverty and unlock new opportunities for UK businesses in strategically important markets such as India, China, Brazil, Mexico and South-East Asia.

    8. Global Economic headwinds

    And I believe the need for all this this is now stronger than ever. It will be no secret to those of you in this room this morning that significant headwinds are growing across the global economy.

    Last month, the OECD forecast of world GDP growth in 2019 and 2020 were revised down to 3.2% and 3.4% respectively.

    At the same time, global trade growth forecasts have been revised down significantly: by 1.6 percentage points to 2.1% for 2019 – the weakest rate since the height of the financial crisis.

    And for the first time in decades, the system of free, fair, rules based multilateral trade which underpins our prosperity, has itself come into question.

    The World Bank has identified that mounting protectionism and a broad-based increase in global tariffs could translate into a possible annual decline in global trade of 9%, or over US $2.6 trillion relative to the baseline in 2020.

    Of course, the strength of the UK economy has so far bucked the trend. The employment rate is at a record high, while the unemployment rate is at a 45-year low. Wages are growing faster than inflation.

    British exports stand at a record high of £645.8 billion – a year-on-year increase of 4% at a time when global trade growth has been slowing.

    And, as I have already pointed out, latest figures from UNCTAD found that the UK has once again been confirmed as the number one destination for FDI in Europe – hitting a record high of almost £1.5 trillion in stock – more than Germany and France combined.

    Nevertheless, for all its successes, we must acknowledge those headwinds in the global economic outlook in which we operate, and the risks which we therefore face.

    We need to take the measures in cooperation with our international economic partners to ensure those risks are mitigated, standing up for our belief in free trade and the free trading system.

    Otherwise there can be no guarantee that our economy will not be affected by adverse trends.

    9. Conclusion

    So we must be ready for whatever the future holds.

    The UK can only meet its global ambitions and drive prosperity at home – during a time of fierce international competition and global economic challenges – if it puts trade at the top of our agenda.

    That is why, at this critical juncture in our national history, it is essential we are appropriately equipped so the UK can boost its competitiveness, forge new and enhanced trade relationships around the world, and thus achieve our full economic potential.

    We have a once in a lifetime opportunity to realise our country’s potential as an outward looking, Global Britain.

    A country that promotes prosperity worldwide by helping developing countries to trade their way out of poverty.

    A country that champions free, fair, rules based trade, abiding by and shaping world-class standards and the international rules-based trading system.

    But we cannot do this on a shoestring and we must be willing to prioritise our spending to where it will lead to greater wealth creation and growth, providing us with the future funding of public services such as health, education and defence.

    Failure to take the scale of the challenge seriously will mean we may lose out on the potential of a new golden era of British trade.

    The opportunity is out there for the taking. And we must embrace it: with confidence, with optimism, and above all, with courage. Thank you.