UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • 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.

  • Margot James – 2019 Speech on Designers

    Below is the text of the speech made by Margot James, the Minister for Digital and the Creative Industries, on 26 June 2019.

    Thank you for inviting me to speak at the Design Biennale summit and welcome to all those here today.

    I would like to congratulate the Biennale on its impact on the international design industry since its inception.

    I must also congratulate Sir John Sorrell and Ben Evans, the founders of this fantastic event.

    From what I have seen of the schedule, today promises to be a melting pot of ideas and fascinating discussions that will continue to strengthen this impact.

    This event promises to foster exciting international design thinking and to look more deeply at how design can make the world a better place.

    In many ways London is the design capital of the world, so it is a fitting backdrop for this truly unique event. We are all united by our common interest in design and our passion for how great design can boost our countries and cities.

    And how design thinking can revolutionise our approach to dealing with many of the challenges facing today’s society.

    Es Devlin’s choice of theme – Resonance – is very exciting.

    As Minister for Digital and Creative Industries, I am really interested in how the power of design resonates internationally.

    UK design is recognised the world over – the Tube map, the Mini car, the classic Penguin book covers. It is our calling card to the world.

    Design has the power to cross borders and provide links between cultures. It exports our values and culture to the world. And vice versa. This event shows the power of design to unite and facilitate collaboration.

    In an increasingly connected and digital world design resonates with people on an incredibly personal level.

    It alters accepted behaviours, shapes perceptions and helps to develop and transform societies and ways of living.

    Of course, design is also vital to the modern economy. From airplanes to websites, furniture to buildings, UK design exports continue to generate billions for our economy.

    I want design to be at the heart of our economic, cultural and social policies. And we are working hard to make this a reality.

    The Biennale brings together different nations to work together to explore a single theme. The varied interpretations of the theme and ideas demonstrated show the value of different perspectives and approaches to the issues of todays’ society.

    The Biennale is a great example of nations working together. This is ever more important in an ever more connected world.

    It demonstrates that design can be an exciting catalyst for such cross border collaboration, which is ever more important today.

    I look forward to seeing what the London Design Biennale 2020 brings. Thank you.

  • Theresa May – 2019 Speech on Housing

    Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May, the Prime Minister, in Manchester on 26 June 2019.

    Thank you very much, Gaby, and good afternoon everyone.

    It is a pleasure to be here with you all today, at Europe’s largest housing festival.

    I have to say, I was a little apprehensive when I saw where you were meeting this year.

    The last time I visited this venue it was hosting the 2017 Conservative Party conference – when, it is fair to say, I had one or two problems with my speech.

    But I have checked that the backdrop is good and solid.

    There is someone backstage with my cough sweets ready.

    And if anyone is planning on running on stage waving a P45.

    You are a little bit late.

    Because of course, in a few weeks from now I will be stepping down as Prime Minister.

    And it will fall to a new leader, a new government, to continue the vital work of making this a country where each and every person has a safe and secure home to call their own.

    Doing that was one of the challenges I set myself when I spoke from the steps of Downing Street a little under three years ago.

    And three years on, there is still much to do.

    But I am immensely proud of what you and I have achieved together.

    Because hand in hand, step by step and piece by piece, the government and the sector have begun to turn around the crisis in British housing.

    In our 2015 manifesto we promised to deliver a million new homes by 2020, a promise we restated at the general election two years later.

    Commentators and critics said it could not happen.

    But it is happening.

    Last year alone saw more additional homes delivered than in all but one of the previous 31.

    Since I became Prime Minister, the number of net additions has been growing right across England.

    Here in Greater Manchester the number of extra homes being created has risen by more than 12 per cent.

    In Nottingham, by 43 per cent.

    In Birmingham, by an enormous 80 per cent.

    The notable exception is London – where housing policy is in the hands of the Mayor, and the number of new homes being created has actually fallen by a staggering 20 per cent.

    But nationwide, the picture is bright.

    The number of affordable housing starts has been increasing year-on-year.

    And the latest projections show that, by this autumn, a million homes will have been added to our national supply in less than five years.

    A million homes for young families, for hardworking professionals, for downsizing retirees.

    A million homes giving more people the safety and security that many of us take for granted.

    A million homes that show that our promises are more than just words.

    It is a great achievement and one of which everyone involved should be proud.

    But it was never intended to be the final goal.

    The housing shortage in this country began not because of a blip lasting one year or one Parliament, but because not enough homes were built over many decades.

    The very worst thing we could do would be to make the same mistake again.

    So while it has taken a huge effort to get this far, we are only just getting started.

    The job is not done, the work is not over.

    And that is why, in contrast to previous administrations, the reforms I have concentrated on over the past three years have not just been about addressing the immediate shortage.

    Because, important though that is, we must also fight long-term structural problems with long-term structural action.

    And that means creating the conditions that guarantee a lasting supply not just of the homes we need today, but of the homes we will need tomorrow.

    For the first time in almost half a century we have a Ministry of Housing dedicated to that task – and, under its excellent Secretary of State, it is making exceptional progress.

    Our reforms of planning rules have made it easier to get more of the right homes built in the right places.

    For example we have given local authorities greater freedom to make the most of brownfield sites.

    We have standardised the way we assess the need for new homes in different areas.

    And we have made developers more accountable for delivering on their commitments.

    The £5.5 billion housing infrastructure fund is making it possible for developers to build on sites that were not previously viable, and giving new communities the infrastructure they need in order to thrive.

    Our funding for Garden Towns and Villages supports local authorities and developers as they create vibrant communities where people will be able to live, work and play for generations to come.

    And the Community Housing Fund is helping local people come together to plan and build the homes and facilities they want and need in their areas.

    Of course, there’s no point building the homes we need if nobody can afford to live in them.

    That is why we are restoring the dream of home ownership for a new generation – giving more than half a million households a step up the housing ladder with schemes like Help to Buy, and taking 80 per cent of first time buyers out of stamp duty altogether.

    It is no accident that the number of first-time buyers is at its highest level for more than a decade.

    So I am immensely proud to be leaving office with home ownership resurgent.

    After all, the idea of the property-owning democracy has been at the heart of Conservative thinking since Noel Skelton and a young Harold Macmillan first spoke of it almost a century ago.

    But too many governments – including, I am not afraid to say, the one in which I served as Home Secretary – have concentrated solely on boosting home ownership, as if supporting those struggling to find a home to rent was somehow contrary to such an aim.

    Under this government that attitude has changed.

    We recognise there are people for whom home ownership will be never be a realistic aim.

    That there are others for whom renting is an unavoidable reality at one time or another.

    And that some people simply choose to rent, especially if it allows them to live in an area they would otherwise struggle to afford.

    Being able to choose to rent a decent home in the place that suits you best is a vital part of a healthy housing system, one we see in every major developed economy.

    Across England, more than 18 million people from every walk of life woke up this morning in a rental property.

    And no government should ignore the needs of so many of its citizens.

    So yes, I want to see as many people as possible enjoying all the benefits of home ownership.

    But that should not stop us working to improve renting too – and this government has taken real action to do just that.

    First, we have moved to increase the supply of affordable rental properties in order to meet the rising demand.

    We have ended the forced sale of high-value council properties.

    Put £2 billion of extra funding into the Affordable Housing Programme with an explicit provision for building homes for social rent.

    And abolished the HRA cap so that local authorities are free to build once more.

    We are already seeing the results – just last week came the news that Liverpool is to start building council housing for the first time in three decades.

    Five year rent certainty has given housing associations the financial security they need to borrow, invest, and build.

    And changes to the National Planning Policy Framework, first announced in our ground-breaking Housing White Paper, have encouraged private sector developers to create more “Build to Rent” properties.

    But our truly radical reforms, our biggest breaks with the past, have come in our work to support those who rent.

    We are rebalancing the relationship between tenant and landlord, making major changes that will make an immediate and lasting impact on the lives of millions of families.

    In the private sector we have already capped the size of rent deposits and abolished letting fees, cutting the amount tenants have to find up front and making it harder for landlords and agents to take advantage of desperate house-hunters.

    Now we are going further.

    Because, if you rent a property it might not be your house but it is still your home.

    And to me, that means that if you pay your rent, play by the rules and keep the house in good order, your landlord should not be allowed to throw you out on a whim.

    It is simply not fair.

    So we are bringing to an end the practice of so-called “no-fault” evictions, repealing section 21 of the 1988 Housing Act.

    A consultation on the changes will be published shortly, with a view to introducing legislation later this year.

    For tenants in England’s four million social homes we have scrapped the so-called “pay to stay” policy and confirmed that this government will not pursue plans to abolish lifetime tenancies for new council tenants.

    We have retained supported housing in the welfare system – listening to those who know best about how to protect our most vulnerable citizens.

    And, most important of all, with our Social Housing Green Paper we are delivering a once-in-generation package of reforms and support for social housing.

    The fire at Grenfell Tower was a human tragedy on an unprecedented scale.

    But it also shone a much-needed light on the issues facing social housing and the people who live in it – not just within the Lancaster West estate, but right across the country.

    This year marks the centenary of what became known as the Addison Act, the post-war “Homes fit for Heroes” legislation that first provided government funding for council housing.

    Yet in recent decades and under successive governments, social housing became another victim of the single-minded drive for home ownership.

    The results were all too clear – both in the testimony we have heard from Grenfell tenants, and in the 8,000 conversations and submissions that informed the green paper.

    Across the country, people complained of living in substandard or unsuitable housing – and said they felt ignored and disrespected by their often remote and unaccountable landlords.

    I have always been clear that this green paper must not be simply an intellectual exercise highlighting the nature of the problem.

    It must be the practical first step in actually fixing it.

    So today I can announce that the next stage in the process, our action plan and timetable for implementing wide-ranging reforms of social housing, will be published in September.

    It will include the creation of a stronger consumer regulation regime for social housing, enhancing tenants’ rights and making it easier to enforce them.

    Changes to the way complaints are resolved, so that tenants know exactly how to raise concerns and can be confident their voices will be heard and acted on.

    Empowering residents still further by requiring landlords to demonstrate how they have engaged with their tenants.

    And a commitment to further boost the supply of high-quality social housing through the Affordable Homes Programme and other funding.

    A hundred years after the introduction of Britain’s first council houses, I want to see not just homes that people have to live in but homes they want to live in, homes they can be proud to live in.

    And that drive for greater quality, for higher standards, should extend right across the housing industry.

    For too long we have allowed ourselves to think there must be a trade-off between quality and quantity, that raising one means reducing the other.

    It is simply not true.

    I do not accept that, in 2019, we can only have sufficient and affordable housing by compromising on standards, safety, aesthetics, and space.

    That is why I asked the Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission to develop proposals for embedding beautiful, sustainable and human-scale design into the planning and development process.

    I look forward to reading the interim report next month.

    It is why the Ministry of Housing will shortly be launching a consultation on environmental performance in new build homes, with a Future Homes Standard that will give all new homes world-leading levels of energy efficiency by 2025.

    And it is why I want to see changes to regulations so that developers can only build homes that are big enough for people to actually live in.

    It was the Addison Act that brought modern space standards to English housing law for the first time.

    During the Bill’s second reading, the architect of the standards, Sir Tudor Walters, urged MPs to “take care that the houses planned in the future are planned with due regard to comfort, convenience, and the saving of labour”.

    It is a message we would do well to return to today.

    Because in the years since, the pendulum has swung back and forth between regulation and deregulation, leading to a situation today where England does have national standards – but ones that are largely unenforceable and inconsistently applied.

    Some local authorities include the Nationally Described Space Standard in their local plans, making them a condition of planning permission.

    But others do not.

    And even where they are applied, as planning policies rather than regulations they are open to negotiation.

    The result is an uneven playing field, with different rules being applied with differing levels of consistency in different parts of the country.

    That makes it harder for developers to build homes where they are needed most.

    And it leaves tenants and buyers facing a postcode lottery – if space standards are not applied in your area, there is no guarantee that any new homes will be of an adequate size.

    Now I am no fan of regulation for the sake of regulation.

    But I cannot defend a system in which some owners and tenants are forced to accept tiny homes with inadequate storage.

    Where developers feel the need to fill show homes with deceptively small furniture.

    And where the lack of universal standards encourages a race to the bottom.

    It will be up to my successor in Downing Street to deal with this.

    But I believe the next government should be bold enough to ensure the Nationally Described Space Standard applies to all new homes.

    As a mandatory regulation, space standards would become universal and unavoidable.

    That would mean an end to the postcode lottery for buyers and tenants.

    And an end to the era of too-small homes that keep the housing numbers ticking over, but are barely fit for modern family life.

    I reject the argument that such a change will make building less likely.

    In fact it will have the opposite effect – a more strictly applied minimum would remove the commercial disincentive to develop sites in areas with stricter standards.

    And by providing a clear and uniform national standard it will increase the possibilities for the kind of off-site manufacturing we see being pioneered here in the Northern Powerhouse.

    Thanks to this government and the people in this room we are already building more.

    Now we must build bigger.

    We must build better.

    And we must build more beautiful.

    The measures I have set out today will help achieve that.

    But while many of the programmes introduced over the past three years have laid the foundations for building the homes of tomorrow, it will of course fall on my successor as Prime Minister to see the job through.

    To maintain and build momentum.

    To keep the pressure on planners, developers, builders and, yes, the rest of government.

    And, when asked how to bring an end to the housing crisis in this country, to answer not just with numbers, but with ideas.

    To set out what homes will be built where and why.

    How they will be funded.

    What infrastructure will be needed to support them.

    What standard they will be built to.

    How local people and local councils will be persuaded to support them.

    And how you will protect, enhance and enforce the rights of the people who live in them.

    Because few other areas of public policy better demonstrate the rule that politicians who propose simple answers to complex problem are seldom being entirely honest.

    Promising to build however many homes is easy.

    But as you all know, getting the right homes built in the right place is considerably harder.

    There is no single silver bullet.

    No button to press or lever to pull that can magically make millions of homes appear overnight.

    It requires concerted action on many fronts.

    A thousand small changes that, when taken together, bring about the revolution we want and need to see.

    It is the political world’s focus on the grand gesture rather than incremental change that is partly responsible for the crisis we are dealing with today.

    Successive governments were unwilling to get into the detail of housing policy, so simply sat back and relied on the industry to build enough homes.

    Under this government that attitude has changed.

    There has not been a single, big bang moment.

    No one measure to grab the front pages and silence the critics.

    But quietly, step by step and day by day, we have been working with you to bring an end to the housing crisis.

    And the results speak for themselves.

    We promised a million more homes, we delivered a million more homes.

    We promised a better deal for renters, we have started to deliver a better deal for renters.

    We promised a whole new approach to social housing, and we are delivering a whole new approach to social housing.

    Because this is a government with a bold vision for housing and a willingness to act on it.

    A government that has delivered radical reforms for today, and the permanent structural changes that will continue to benefit the country for decades to come.

    There remains much to do.

    But over the past three years we have shown what can be achieved.

    Everyone in this hall can look back with pride at the change that has already taken place.

    And everyone in this country can look ahead to a future in which each of us has a safe, affordable place to call home.

  • Richard Burgon – 2019 Speech on the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill

    Below is the text of the speech made by Richard Burgon, the Shadow Lord Chancellor, in the House of Commons on 25 June 2019.

    I welcome the Bill. Labour supports the introduction of a no-fault divorce procedure, which we committed to in our 2017 general election manifesto, and we are pleased that the Government have acted, especially in the light of the troubling case of Owens v. Owens. We will therefore vote to support the Bill if a vote is called at this stage. We will use our time in Committee to amend the Bill, if need be, to ensure that it is the best law possible for those who are already going through a difficult time in their lives.​

    The existing procedure and law managing divorce and the dissolution of civil partnerships is not fit for purpose and is in clear need of updating. A fundamental problem with the existing law, which is set out for divorcing couples in the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and for the dissolution of civil partnerships in the Civil Partnership Act 2004, is that it requires people who seek a divorce to prove that the marriage has broken down, either by establishing fault on the part of one partner, or by showing that the couple have lived separate lives for a number of years. In reality, for those who cannot afford to live in two separate households for years in order to prove that their marriage has broken down, the only option currently available is to establish fault on the part of their partner. That is one way in which the current divorce law discriminates against women, particularly those on a low income, by reducing the options available to them to a fault-based divorce.

    Establishing of one of the three faults—adultery, unreasonable behaviour or desertion—can be difficult, and often heightens tensions at an already stressful time. We know the hurt that such heightened tension can all too often cause. There are widespread concerns about the increased risk of domestic violence faced by women who go through this fractious process. Surveys of people who have gone through the divorce procedure show that in excess of one in four people who go through a divorce have cited a fault that is not in fact true, simply because it is their only way to secure a divorce. This is plainly an unacceptable state of affairs, and it is right that the Government are now acting to address it.

    A conflictual process is deeply damaging to children’s life chances. Children will of course be better served by parents who co-operate, and if their parents have a constructive relationship. The law is a real barrier to that.

    Mr Ivan Lewis

    I reiterate the point I made earlier to the Secretary of State, who rightly talked about the impact on children of an acrimonious divorce. We need to protect children from the risk of abuse—everybody would accept that—but if a resident parent turns a child against a non-resident parent, that can cause massive long-term damage to that child. The current legal framework does nothing satisfactory to tackle that particular problem. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that now is the time to look again at what can be done differently in respect of the whole question of alienation and the impact on children?

    Richard Burgon

    My hon. Friend raises an important wider point. Further assistance and early intervention, which was mentioned by the Secretary of State, is required to protect all concerned.

    Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)

    There are very often issues with how the family courts go about these custody matters. I get lots of cases like this, as I am sure my hon. Friend does. It is an area that needs to be looked at. Equally, some lawyers—not all—can exacerbate the situation in the way they handle the case. I get lots of complaints about family courts, particularly with regard to who is right and who is wrong, and there is a lot of antagonism. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury South (Mr Lewis) said, this can be very damaging to children.​

    Richard Burgon

    That is why we are very supportive of mediation in family cases in general, and why we have made announcements in relation to legal aid and early family law advice. I hear my hon. Friend’s point about the role of solicitors not always being helpful, but there can also be problems when people end up being advocates for themselves.

    The need to apportion blame and ratchet up the acrimony is one of the main reasons that so many of us want to see an end to this fault-based law—not least because of the impact on children. For example, the present divorce ground of unreasonable behaviour requires allegations that are hardly ever challenged and can sometimes be exaggerated by one spouse against the other, which can exacerbate tensions between them. It also makes it more difficult to agree arrangements for children. Indeed, one of the most urgent reasons for these reforms is to alleviate the harm caused to children, including to their mental health, by acrimonious separations. For a child of a divorcing couple, the divorce can be one of the most difficult times in their life. As the Secretary of State has indicated, the introduction of a no-fault procedure should mean that the whole process can be quicker and less stressful for them. At an emotionally traumatic time, such as a divorce or separation, parents want and need support in order to put the best interests of their children first.

    This change to the law has public support and the support of family law experts. Margaret Heathcote— the chair of Resolution, which represents more than 6,000 family law practitioners and is a strong supporter of this change—said:

    “Every day, our members are helping people through separation, taking a constructive, non-confrontational approach in line with our code of practice. However, because of our outdated divorce laws, they’ve been working with one arm tied behind their backs.”

    In fact, the Secretary of State quoted her himself.

    Professor Liz Trinder, who led the Nuffield Foundation’s 2017 research into divorce law, is also supportive of these reforms, saying that

    “making people produce a ‘reason’ to obtain their divorce—as they are currently required to do—does not save marriages and instead just creates a meaningless charade that can create conflict, confusion and unfairness.”

    And Christina Blacklaws, president of the Law Society, said:

    “Making couples attribute fault…can escalate the differences between them in an already charged situation.”

    The recent case of Owens v. Owens highlighted a particularly iniquitous aspect of our existing divorce laws: the possibility for one party to attempt to refuse a divorce by defending it.

    Eddie Hughes

    Does the hon. Gentleman think this change will in any way lessen the seriousness of the marriage contract? Will people entering into it feel that they can do so more lightly because, from a purely contractual point of view, escaping from it is made easier by this legislation?

    Richard Burgon

    I know that marriage is technically a contract, but it seems strange to think of it that way when it is such a personal and emotional thing. I do not believe that this change in the law, which is welcome, will lead to an overall increase in the number of divorces in the long run. However, I do think that it will reduce ​the unnecessary tension, conflict, distress and damage to children in those divorces, which would take place in any event.

    In the case of Owens v. Owens, the family court judge refused to grant a divorce to Mrs Owens, who made the application for a divorce in 2015, despite finding that the marriage had in fact broken down. This was because she failed to prove, as required in the 1973 Act, that her husband’s behaviour was such that she could not reasonably be expected to live with him. Mrs Owens’s appeal was dismissed at both the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, leaving her unable to divorce her husband until 2020—a clearly unacceptable case. The judges who heard the case at both the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court expressed their dissatisfaction with the existing law, with Sir James Munby, the then president of the family division, suggesting that divorce law was based on a “lack of intellectual honesty”, and Lady Hale concluding that it was for Parliament to make any changes to the law. It is therefore right that Parliament is now able to take up this issue and make the reforms necessary to ensure that no one has to go through what Mrs Owens experienced in this case.

    The new divorce laws that we are considering today should aim to secure a number of desirable outcomes. They should ensure that people can separate as amicably as possible, keeping conflict to a minimum, so that the chances of reaching agreement are maximised and the risk of domestic abuse is as low as possible. Where there are children, their interests must be paramount, and a safe, secure and sustainable outcome for them should be promoted wherever possible. Unlike the existing system, these new divorce laws should not discriminate against women, especially those on low incomes. The new divorce and dissolution laws must also protect vulnerable and marginalised groups throughout the divorce process. In particular, they must not weaken the hard-won rights of LGBT people.

    One issue that has been raised by charities working to support victims of domestic abuse is that the Bill as drafted does not remove the bar on petitioning for a divorce in the first year of a marriage. This can leave women who are suffering domestic abuse trapped in the abusive marriage during that year. Will the Secretary of State address that issue during the passage of the Bill, and will he tell us whether he has met Women’s Aid and other charities to discuss these concerns?

    Since 2013, legal aid for divorce cases in England and Wales has been withdrawn by the Government—in most cases as part of a wider attack on access to justice that has had a very detrimental impact on family law cases. Groups including Citizens Advice have highlighted how legal aid cuts add to strain on divorcees, and more widely it is lower income people and those with children who are more likely to be litigating in person than any other group. Resolution, which was mentioned earlier, has previously stated that providing legal aid for a single, initial meeting with a lawyer would provide separating couples with clear “signposts” about their legal options and encourage more people to use mediation as an alternative to courtroom confrontation.

    Even with the welcome changes contained in the Bill, divorce will still be an often confusing legal process. There is a clear public interest in people being supported to achieve amicable resolutions to financial questions and arrangements for the care of children following a ​separation. Will the Government therefore commit to reintroducing legal aid for early legal advice for couples going through the divorce procedure?

    In conclusion, bringing our divorce laws into the 21st century can form an essential part of the efforts to protect women from domestic abuse, limit the damaging impacts that fractious separations can have on children and encourage amicable separations wherever possible. For those reasons, I am pleased to support these overdue reforms.

  • David Gauke – 2019 Statement on the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill

    Below is the text of the statement made by David Gauke, the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, in the House of Commons on 25 June 2019.

    I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

    Marriage will always be one of our most important institutions. It is vital to our functioning as a society, as we all know instinctively from our own lives and from the lives of family and friends. Rightly, then, none of us is indifferent when a lifelong commitment cannot continue, but it cannot be right for the law to create or increase conflict between divorcing couples.

    I am encouraged by the many colleagues and others who have told me that the law must change to take unnecessary conflict flashpoints out of the legal process. Like me, they believe in the importance of marriage but see the destructive effects of what the law demands. People going through divorce already have to face more than enough emotional upheaval without the conflict that can be created or worsened by how the current law works.

    I have reflected at length on the arguments for reform, on what people have said in response to the Government’s proposals and on the painful experiences we all know from talking to family and friends. I have heard from people who have been through divorce, from people who support divorcing couples through the legal process and from people who say they cannot afford to live apart for two years—without finally sorting out their finances—but, at the same time, cannot bring themselves to throw hurtful allegations.

    The Bill responds constructively to the keenly felt experience of people’s real lives. This is a Bill for anyone who agrees that the end of a relationship should be a time of reflection, and not of manufactured conflict.

    Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)

    I warmly congratulate the Government and the Secretary of State on introducing this Bill. I think I have married more people than anybody else in this House, in the transitive use of the word. I was always painfully aware that, when two people come together, it may well be that, in the end, they need to part, but the idea that they would have to prove in court all sorts of reasons for why the marriage had fallen apart—relying on the common law understanding of adultery, for instance—is just nonsense and adds to the sense of pain that there could already be within a family.

    Mr Gauke

    I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks, and this Bill is by no means anti-marriage. As he rightly says, this Bill seeks to ensure that, in those unfortunate circumstances where a marriage comes to an end, it comes to an end in a way that minimises the conflict between the parties. That, in my view, has to be a sensible way forward.

    Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)

    There is undoubtedly fault in a divorce but, in my experience from continual exposure at constituency surgeries, the attribution of that fault leads parents to use their children as weapons in a continuing battle with their former partner.

    Mr Gauke

    My right hon. Friend makes a good point, and it is worth bearing in mind that, where children are involved, it is all the more important that we minimise ​the conflict. The current requirement incentivises that sense of attribution of fault, which does nothing to ensure that the relationship between the two parents can be as strong as possible, and it is the children who lose out in those circumstances.

    Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)

    I have thought about this with care. Obviously, to practising Christians and those of other faiths, the end of a marriage is not to be taken lightly, but I am glad the Secretary of State has accepted the proposition put by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) that causing more conflict at the end does not help.

    Will the Secretary of State confirm that in no other respects any of the protections for often the more vulnerable party to a marriage, the woman, will be affected by this measure, particularly in relation to financial arrangements and the custody of children, and that it simply removes the evidentiary requirement for a fault to be attributed to one side or the other?

    Mr Gauke

    My hon. Friend, the Chair of the Select Committee on Justice, is right. This is about the attribution of blame and fault, and no more than that. Indeed, the protections in place for the vulnerable party remain just as they are. It is often the vulnerable party who suffers most from the need to attribute blame, because that can be difficult. In the context of domestic abuse, for example, it is striking how the likes of Women’s Aid have been very supportive of these measures because of their concern that there might be women trapped in marriages who do not want to attribute blame because they feel that may result in a further deterioration in the relationship.

    The truth is that when a marriage or indeed a civil partnership has sadly broken down and is beyond repair, it stops benefiting society and the people involved. At worst, continuing in a legal relationship that is no longer functioning can be destructive to families, and the law ought to deal with the reality of marriage breakdown as constructively as possible. The current law does not do that. The requirements of the divorce process at present can often give rise to a confrontational position, even if the decision to divorce is mutual. The incentive to make allegations at the outset, to avoid otherwise waiting for two years’ separation, becomes ingrained. Divorce is traumatic, and children are inevitably affected when their parents separate—that goes without saying. I agree that marriage has long proved its worth for bringing up children, but the reality is that not all marriages last. The law should deal with that reality as sensibly as it can. When a marriage has failed, we have to take a serious look at how to reduce conflict for everyone involved, not least for children. Research shows that it is conflict between the parents that has been linked to greater social and behavioural problems among children, rather than necessarily the separation and divorce itself.

    Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)

    I very much welcome the proposals in this Bill. Getting rid of the fault-based approach to divorce and the conflict is a good thing, as is ensuring that people do not have to wait for two years. Does the Secretary of State agree with me and with Resolution, the organisation for family lawyers, that we also need to provide earlier ​advice for cohabitees who believe that common law spousal rights might exist for them? Legal advice on whether such rights exist would be beneficial. Does he agree that including provision for early advice in the Bill would be welcome?

    Mr Gauke

    Obviously, this Bill’s focus is on divorce for those who are married. There is a point about advice where we can have a wider debate. I will focus my remarks today on the contents of the Bill and the argument I am making about the problems with fault in the current divorce system, and I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s support on that. Clearly, there is a debate to be had as to how we can provide support to couples, be that about reconciliation or in other contexts.

    Whatever family structure children grow up in, they benefit most from stable, loving and caring relationships with parents and other close family members. We are clear that when parents have taken this difficult decision, children’s best interests are served by minimising conflict during and after the legal process, to support co-operative parenting and positive parenting relationships. This Bill is in the best interests of children whose parents are divorcing. It will therefore remove the harmful requirement for wives, husbands and civil partners in England and Wales to hurl blame or to go through the waiting limbo of separate lives. It will help them move forward more amicably and constructively. It will make a genuine difference to many thousands of children and families who each year, sadly, experience divorce.

    It is 50 years since the Divorce Reform Act 1969 gave rise to the law we now have, and few of us will have known anything else. Some among us will have divorced under this law. All of us will be conscious of the bitter experience of friends and constituents who have. Even so, the existing law is not always understood. It allows divorce only on the ground that the marriage has broken down irretrievably. The court cannot hold the marriage to have done so unless it is satisfied of one or more of what the law calls “facts”. Three of the five facts—adultery, behaviour and desertion—relate to conduct of the respondent. The other facts are two years’ separation and five years’ separation, the difference being that two years’ separation requires both parties to agree to the divorce—the same applies to civil partnerships, except that the adultery fact is not available. But the fact someone chooses does not necessarily bear any resemblance to the real reasons the marriage or civil partnership broke down. Those reasons are often subtle, complex, and subjective. Who, if anyone, was responsible is a question that can be answered honestly only by the people in the marriage.

    We are probably all aware of situations where a couple have sadly grown apart over time and jointly agree to divorce The current law does not allow them to do so, unless they are first financially able to live apart for two years. They might be forced to present events in a way that serves the system; minor incidents become stretched out into a pattern of behaviour to satisfy a legal threshold, which then bleeds over into how a couple approach negotiations over arrangements for children and finances; or there may be a coercive relationship, where one partner is desperate to divorce but is too scared of the consequences of setting out the ​evidence of their partner’s unreasonable behaviour to the court. It should be enough that the relationship has irretrievably broken down.

    I do know where people are coming from when they say the requirement to prove a fact is useful, because they think that someone must be held responsible for the break-up of the marriage and that this requirement lets the court determine blame for that. The court, however, cannot do so, and the law does not require it to. Instead, making allegations or having to live apart in a marriage introduces conflict or makes it worse—this conflict can continue far beyond the legal end of the marriage and hurt children’s life chances. That is the reason for this reform.

    Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)

    I am grateful to the Secretary of State for the careful way in which he is taking us through these proposals and for his indication of support for marriage. Will he look, perhaps in the context of this Bill, at supporting marriages before they have broken down irretrievably and providing support where couples are under pressure, in order to reduce marital breakdown by intervening earlier?

    Mr Gauke

    The last two words, “intervening earlier” are key. Once the point of a divorce is reached, it is likely—the evidence suggests this—that it is too late. The question is: can we provide support earlier? In all honesty, I do not believe that the Bill provides the vehicle to address that point, because if we try to provide that support in the context of the divorce itself, we will be too late. Clearly however there is an argument—one that I suspect is for the next spending review—as to what assistance can be provided to couples at an earlier stage in the process. I completely understand where my hon. Friend is coming from and I very much agree that the point is about earlier intervention, but where someone is going through the divorce process, making that process more difficult and confrontation is counterproductive.

    Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Ind)

    Does the Secretary of State understand the circumstances where a resident parent turns children against the non-resident parent where no abuse whatsoever is involved? That causes estrangement for the child, often for many, many years. Is it not time that we found a legal framework—early intervention is important in this respect—to tackle this problem? I have only recently become involved in this campaign on parental alienation, and I was shocked that hundreds if not thousands of parents are estranged from their children because the resident parent seeks to manipulate the child against a non-resident parent for no reason whatsoever.

    Mr Gauke

    I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention on a matter that I suspect all of us have had experience of as constituency Members of Parliament as well as citizens. These circumstances are hugely difficult. To some extent, the existing divorce law can somewhat encourage that behaviour, because of the need to attribute blame, but he is right to suggest that this is a wider issue, one that is hard to address in the context of divorce. He is right to highlight the difficulties that can exist and how parents can be alienated from their children in what are difficult circumstances.

    When I became Justice Secretary last year, I was able to take a deeper look at the issue of divorce. What became clear to me was that making allegations does ​not serve any public interest. It needlessly rakes up the past to justify the legal ending of a relationship that is no longer a beneficial and functioning one. At worst, these allegations can pit one parent against the other. I remain deeply concerned that what the existing law requires can be especially damaging for children.

    The law on divorce and dissolution is out of step with the constructive approach that family law takes in other areas and that practitioners take every day. It is time to change that. Resolution is the lead organisation representing family lawyers who subscribe to a non-confrontational approach. Resolution’s chair, Margaret Heathcote, has said that

    “because of our outdated divorce laws”

    practitioners have effectively been working

    “with one arm tied behind their backs.”

    The Bill will change that.

    At the beginning of my speech, I spoke about the confrontational position that the law sets up and about its harmful impact on children. That confrontational position undermines not only good co-parenting but any prospect of reconciliation. I understand concerns about people being divorced against their will. The reality is that under the existing law the court can refuse a divorce only if a legal requirement is not met, and never simply because one party wants to stay married. Only about 2% of respondents say that they want to contest the divorce. Hardly anyone continues contesting all the way to a court hearing. Marriages are not saved at all by the ability of a spouse to contest the divorce.

    Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)

    When I got married, as a Catholic I did not think the option of divorce was open to us. I genuinely thought that under all circumstances our marriage would be forever; my wife decided otherwise. That was a very emotional time. Does my right hon. Friend expect that when the change comes in some people will find it easier to divorce and that there be a spike in the divorce figures? A period of reflection sometimes gives people the opportunity to save their marriage, and that opportunity might be missed under the proposed changes.

    Mr Gauke

    I agree with my hon. Friend about a period of reflection. In fact, the Bill will ensure that there is a longer minimum period of reflection for people in a marriage to consider whether reconciliation is the right course. The evidence suggests that by the time things get to that stage, reconciliation happens very rarely, but we are extending that period, so it is not really about making divorce easier but about making it less confrontational.

    On my hon. Friend’s point about whether we anticipate a spike in divorces, there is international evidence as to what is likely to happen following such a reform. I shall be open with my hon. Friend: there will be people who are currently waiting for two or five years for a divorce, and that divorce will be brought forward, so the likelihood is that there will be an increase because of that waiting list. However, the international evidence suggests that once that initial spike has been dealt with, in a steady state the divorce rate is unlikely to increase; it is likely to remain much the same. I hope it is clear to my hon. Friend that although we would anticipate that some divorces will be brought forward, the change is unlikely to increase the divorce rate in a steady state.​
    Let me turn briefly to the measures in the Bill: it does not create a new process, but instead retains the framework of the existing law and removes those aspects that are considered to cause conflict. The Bill therefore retains the two stages of divorce and dissolution orders. The Government believe that the need to confirm to the court that it may make the conditional order, and to apply to the court for the final order, means that a divorce or dissolution is never automatic and that the decision to divorce is a considered one, with opportunities for a change of heart right up to the last moment.

    The reform will retain irretrievable breakdown as the sole legal ground for divorce and dissolution. It will replace the current requirement to evidence irretrievable breakdown through a conduct or separation fact with a statement of irretrievable breakdown of the marriage or civil partnership. For the first time, couples will have the option to make this a joint statement, to reflect some couples’ mutual decision to divorce. It will remove the possibility of contesting the decision to end the legal relationship, as a statement of irretrievable breakdown will be conclusive evidence to the court that the marriage or civil partnership has irretrievably broken down.

    The reform will introduce a new minimum period of 20 weeks from the start of proceedings to the point at which the applicant—or applicants jointly—can confirm to the court that a conditional order may be made. I hope that that gives my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes) some reassurance about that moment of reflection. Our proposal will make the court process towards a conditional order less rushed and give couples further time to consider the implications of the divorce. Between 2011 and 2018, around two thirds of cases reached conditional order in less than our proposed 20-week minimum period. That included approximately one in 10 cases within eight weeks, and four in 10 cases between nine and 16 weeks. The Bill also modernises language such as “decree nisi” and “decree absolute”, to bring terms in line with the more modern terms used in civil partnership law.

    The reforms I have set out will deliver a system of divorce that is fit for the 21st century. It is time to end the blame game. The system we have now does not support the reality of marriage and civil partnership breakdown. It has been criticised as a system that

    “is, and always has been, a sham”.

    Those are the words of Sir Paul Coleridge, former family judge and chair of the Marriage Foundation, who, like all of us, believes strongly in marriage but sees that by reforming the law to remove from it unnecessary requirements that can fuel conflict, we will not undermine marriage and will support people to look to the future as they go through very difficult times. For that reason, I commend the Bill to the House.

  • Eddie Hughes – 2019 Speech on Ground Rents

    Below is the text of the speech made by Eddie Hughes, the Conservative MP for Walsall North, in the House of Commons on 25 June 2019.

    I beg to move,

    That leave be given to bring in a Bill to regulate ground rents charged on leasehold properties; to make provision for a cap on ground rents; to make property developers liable for the legal costs of leaseholders seeking to vary certain ground rent contracts; and for connected purposes.

    Mr Speaker, imagine for a moment that you own a lovely one or two-bed apartment with your family, or perhaps even a recently built house. You have lived there quite happily for a few years, but you decide it is time to move, perhaps because of schools, for work or to move up the property ladder. You are primed and ready to go, but the estate agent asks for a copy of your leasehold agreement and there in the small print you get hit with the fact that you cannot sell your property—you are trapped. Tens of thousands of people across the country are in this position, and it simply cannot be right. This leasehold ground rent scandal needs attention right now. In many cases, developers have created leases with feudal ground rent clauses that have since fallen out of favour with lenders, leaving owners stuck with an unsaleable property because prospective buyers cannot get a mortgage to purchase the property.

    In some cases, the ground rent doubles every 10 years. In others, it doubles just once. There are reports of lenders refusing to lend on what they deem as unreasonable or onerous ground rent clauses. Some will not lend if the ground rent exceeds 0.1% of the property value at any point during the lease. Leasehold campaigners argue that there are close to 100,000 people affected by terms that leave them with a ground rent in excess of 0.1% of the property value. I would argue that such circumstances are onerous. The result is an unsaleable property and, in many cases, the developer is long gone, having sold the freehold on to a distant investment company. They have, of course, made their money twice—not only from selling the leaseholds in the first place but from selling on the freehold.

    Ground rents can, of course, be peppercorn or set at a reasonable rate, and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government report shows that the market place is mixed, but it is important to clarify that ground rents have nothing to do with the maintenance of a building. They are simply an income for the freeholder. As the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mrs Wheeler), who has responsibility for housing and homelessness, told the MHCLG Select Committee:

    “One of the things I do find utterly fascinating is that a building might be beautifully maintained at a peppercorn ground rent or poorly maintained at £500 ground rent. The amount of ground rent payable is no indication of the quality of the maintenance and services provided.”

    There is nothing wrong with a freeholder taking a reasonable ground rent, but when that ground rent becomes onerous and stops someone selling their home it becomes a problem. The rights between freeholder and leaseholder need to be redressed.​

    As the Select Committee commented:

    “Any ground rent is onerous if it becomes disproportionate to the value of a home, such that it materially affects a leaseholder’s ability to sell their property or obtain a mortgage. In practical terms, it is increasingly clear that a ground rent in excess of 0.1% of the value of a property or £250—including rents likely to reach this level in future due to doubling, or other, ground rent review mechanisms—is beginning to affect the saleability and mortgage-ability of leasehold properties.”

    My Bill seeks to address this.

    The result of developers selling on the freehold to investors is that some freeholders are remote and uninterested in helping their leaseholders. Those who are interested charge unfair fees and legal costs for what should be a simple solution. I know of one such scenario in which there is a £180 charge just to discuss terms with the freeholder.

    The freeholder could of course just ignore the problem, or say no. There is currently no obligation on the freeholder to help to sort the problem out—except good will. It cannot be right that in 2019 we have leasehold properties unable to be sold because of ground rent clauses. Behind each problem is a person, an individual, a family, a couple or perhaps a small investor. They do not deserve to be forgotten and left high and dry, trapped indefinitely with their property.

    What can be done? Currently, the law allows 50% of leaseholders in a block of apartments to get together to buy the freehold—quite a task, and a long and expensive process if you just want to sell your property. Leaseholders could try to extend the lease, but again there is an elongated process, with expenses running into thousands of pounds. There is also the possibility that the leaseholder negotiates a variation of lease with the freeholder. This is also costly, and there is no onus on the freeholder to do the deal. It is probably the simplest solution but, with prohibitive expenses and no obligation on freeholders to engage, we have a postcode lottery of failure and success.

    The Select Committee noted:

    “The options for leaseholders with onerous ground rents are limited. House owners are entitled to pay to enfranchise after two years of ownership, thus removing any obligation to pay ground rent, onerous or otherwise. However, this would only be possible if the cost of enfranchisement…is both reasonable and affordable for the house owner. Flat owners, similarly, are entitled to enfranchise, although this is a much more difficult process, requiring the ​consent of 50% of the owners in a residential block… Otherwise, leaseholders are reliant upon the benevolence of their freeholder to remove unreasonable terms.”

    That is why I am proposing this private Member’s Bill.

    I am aware that the Law Commission is currently contemplating a solution to the thorny issue of onerous ground rents on existing leases, but I propose simple solutions. First, we need to create a legal obligation on freeholders to grant a quick and simple lease variation to leaseholders where ground rent prohibits a sale. Secondly, it is important that ground rents are capped at the lower of £250 per annum or 0.1% of the property value.

    I am also considering including an obligation on the original developer to foot the leaseholder’s legal bills in such situations. After all, why should families have to find a large sum to solve a problem not of their making? If the Bill progresses, I hope we will be able to shape it more specifically in Committee—I imagine that might be somewhat optimistic.

    Systems and institutions are supposed to serve the public, and I hope we can all agree that we cannot have people unable to sell their property. Drastic and immediate action is required. I believe there is growing concern on both sides of the House about leasehold properties, and the Select Committee should be commended for its excellent report. I am also pleased to see that the Competition and Markets Authority has taken this issue on board and is looking at mis-selling in this arena. I hope both the Government and the Select Committee will keep this under further review.

    I believe there is a wide cross-party consensus in Parliament on this issue, and the time for Parliament to intervene on the leasehold ground rent scandal is now. I hope hon. Members will help me to change the law to restore fairness in this sector and to stop people being trapped in unsaleable properties.

  • Therese Coffey – 2019 Statement on the EU Environment Council

    Below is the text of the statement made by Therese Coffey, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, in the House of Commons on 24 June 2019.

    The next EU Environment Council will take place on 26 June, in Luxembourg. I will be attending to represent the UK.

    On environment items, the main legislative focus will be a general approach on the regulation on water-reuse. In addition, there will also be an exchange of views on the environment implementation review (EIR), as well as the adoption of Council conclusions on a sustainable EU chemicals policy.

    Any other business (AOB) will include information from the Commission and the presidency on four items:

    Clean Planet for all: Strategic long-term vision for a climate neutral economy (information from the presidency);

    A discussion on current legislative proposals (information from the presidency):

    A discussion on regulation on LIFE; and

    A discussion on shipping monitoring, reporting and verification.

    Reports on main recent international meetings (information from the presidency and the Commission):

    Triple conference of the parties to the Basel (COP 14), Rotterdam (COP 9) and Stockholm (COP 9) conventions (Geneva, 29 April-10 May 2019); and

    Fourth session of the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA-4) (Nairobi, 11-15 March 2019).

    Communication on the draft integrated national energy and climate plans (presentation by the Commission).

    There are currently five member state led AOBs:

    Workshop on the “Future environment action programme” (information from the Austrian delegation);

    Possible European measures to support clean mobility and in particular, electromobility (information from the Bulgarian delegation);

    Conference on carbon pricing and aviation taxes (information from the Netherlands delegation);

    G7 Environment Ministers’ meeting (information from the French delegation); and

    Work programme of the incoming presidency (information from the Finnish delegation).

  • Philip Hammond – 2019 Statement on ECOFIN

    Below is the text of the statement made by Philip Hammond, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the House of Commons on 24 June 2019.

    A meeting of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council (ECOFIN) was held in Luxembourg on 14 June 2019. ECOFIN was preceded by a meeting of the European Investment Bank (EIB) Board of Governors:

    Annual EIB Board of Governors meeting

    The meeting included: statements from the Chairman, President and Chairman of the Audit Committee; a governors discussion; a presentation on the annual report of the Audit Committee; and a vote for partial renewal of the Audit Committee. The UK was represented by Mark Bowman (Director General, International Finance, HM Treasury) during the EIB meeting.

    Following this, EU Finance Ministers discussed the following at ECOFIN:

    Early morning session

    The Eurogroup President briefed the Council on the outcomes of the 13 June meeting of the Eurogroup, and the European Commission provided an update on the current economic situation in the EU.

    Banking union

    The Council endorsed the progress report on the banking union.

    Financial transaction tax

    The Council received a progress update in relation to the enhanced co-operation on financial transaction tax.

    G20 follow-up

    The Romanian presidency and Commission presented the main outcomes of the G20 meeting of Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors, which took place on 8 to 9 June in Fukuoka, Japan.

    European semester

    The Council discussed a horizontal note on the draft 2019 country specific recommendations, and progress towards the Europe 2020 targets.

    Stability and growth pact

    The Council adopted Council decisions and recommendations on the implementation of the stability and growth pact.

    Clean planet

    The Council held an exchange of views on a strategic long-term vision for a climate-neutral economy.

    Non-performing loans

    Under any other business, the Commission provided an update on the implementation of the action plan to tackle non-performing loans in Europe.

  • Lisa Cameron – 2019 Speech on Smart Cities

    Below is the text of the speech made by Lisa Cameron, the SNP MP for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow, in the House of Commons on 24 June 2019.

    The inspiration for this debate came from my visit to the mid-west USA last month with a cross-party delegation of MPs from the British-American parliamentary group. I admit to having been a bit of a technophobe prior to the delegation, and I still am a bit of a dinosaur when it comes to technology.

    I thought 5G is about higher speeds—that was my understanding of what we should expect. However, it appears from our learning on the visit that there is so much more to 5G and to smart cities than just higher speeds. It is actually about transformative technology and its ability to connect not just people but things—5G is designed to increase connectivity. We are talking about smarter motorways, smarter factories, smarter homes and smarter cities, and I would like to see capacity for smarter towns, smarter villages and smarter rural areas, because connectivity must be inclusive across the whole United Kingdom and across all areas.

    Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

    I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate. Smart cities is a wonderful programme, with Belfast leading the way in smart city urban innovation. Does she agree it is imperative that we share good practice and information throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to ensure that the UK, as a whole, is able safely and effectively to make the most of technology and to ensure that we are not at cyber-war with each other within the UK, at the expense of lost opportunities for everyone?

    Dr Cameron

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that important point. It is important that smart technology is used and regulated appropriately, and that communities buy into the technology so that they can benefit collectively, rather than be in opposition to and competition with each other. The hon. Gentleman’s point is well made and I hope the Minister will reflect on it in his speech, because it is important that all areas benefit from this new smart technology. In my constituency, we are looking at redeveloping our new town, which was built after the second world war; it was new and shiny then, and it improved our lives and wellbeing dramatically. We are looking to develop smart technology and for us to have smart, sustainable East Kilbride moving forward.

    With 5G, people will be able to control their home and car—everything—from a single device. I had always thought that autonomous vehicles were a bit pie in the sky, but having spoken to the technology leaders in the mid-west and internationally during the visit I know that this technology is already on the showroom floor and is now just being refined. So this is going to be happening. Autonomous vehicles—electric vehicles—can improve climate emissions, tackling CO2 , and reduce congestion, because we may be less likely to own vehicles in the future. We may have a share in these robot vehicles rather than own them, and they may come to our homes, take us where we want to go and then move on to the next person’s home and take them where they ​want to go. It will be like a robot taxi—that is how I would think of it. This would mean less congestion in our cities, because we will not all have to have cars and we might not all be travelling at the same time. Less car parking would be required in cities and in high streets, and we hope there would be a consumer benefit in terms of less cost. One question to the Minister is about consumer benefits and costs in the future, and how we make this beneficial for consumers.

    Toyota is designing multifunctional vehicles, able to serve as not only a taxi but a hospital shuttle, delivery van or mobile co-working space. I therefore ask the Minister to ensure that determinations in this regard are fully inclusive and adaptable for those with special needs and disabilities. I chair the all-party group on disability, and I was thinking about the impact of these vehicles on the Motability scheme; it will be essential to ensure that vehicles can be adapted for wheelchairs and for people with special needs.

    Space10 is the innovation hub run by IKEA and I understand it is piloting autonomous healthcare vehicles, which bring medical equipment and professionals to people’s doorsteps. I was reading in today’s The Times that 5G can enable hospital specialists to make a diagnosis remotely while patients are still in the ambulance, as faster connections can allow paramedics to perform ultrasound scans as clinicians watch live; it is happening in the ambulance and guidance can be offered on what to do through robotic gloves. This technology would boost survival rates by allowing more timeous diagnosis, reducing diversions to other hospitals. What often happens is that the initial diagnosis may change when the patient reaches the hospital and they then have to go to a different specialist hospital. This technology should the reduce the rate of those misdiagnoses and improve morbidity rates for patients, who will be able to get to surgery much faster.

    We will therefore have to look ahead and alter our training—of paramedics, health professionals, doctors, surgeons, nurses and so on—to ensure that we capitalise on this technology. A whole-government approach will be needed. I do not expect the Minister to answer all those questions tonight, but it would be useful to find out how this is going to be co-ordinated in the future.

    Jim Shannon

    The hon. Lady is right about co-ordination, and perhaps the Minister will respond on this issue. It is imperative that the four regions of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are part of this, so that Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and England are doing this together. Does she feel that when it comes to working on a policy and a strategy it is important that we all feel the benefits?

    Dr Cameron

    Yes, I absolutely think that. It is why, although this debate is on “Smart Cities”, I have placed such an emphasis on all areas of our populations—towns, villages and rural populations, too. That has to be right, both across the United Kingdom and internationally. Specialists in the health aspects I was speaking about can be international specialists from across the world, who are able to lend their expertise through this technology, so that it does not just connect the UK, but instead connects us to the EU—although some in this House are trying to disconnect us, following the vote—and right across the world. That is important to specialists internationally.​

    Traffic management may be a particular issue that can also be improved—I am sure we would all be glad to hear that—particularly for those who have long journeys in the morning. I see lots of congestion in London when I am travelling to the House of Commons each day.

    This technology may get people to the hospitals faster and police to critical incidents much more quickly. Our delegation heard in Chicago about how sensors on lampposts in high-risk areas are sensing gunshots in milliseconds, so that the police and emergency services can get to the area where someone has been harmed, both to apprehend those responsible and to treat those impacted much more quickly. So this technology is also aiding the police and emergency services, and such technology will also be expanded to look at sensors for fire and to respond to other types of difficulty that citizens can get into.

    The data can also be used to convict those responsible. On the visit, we asked questions about data security and GDPR—the general data protection regulation. It appears crucial that any and all of these advances must be developed with community participation. That was what really helped this to work in Chicago. There was buy-in from the local community, who had experienced the gun-related deaths, wanted something to be done much more quickly and were then agreeable to the data being collected in this way and used to the community’s benefit. That participation must be at the forefront, with communities on board.

    We all need education in this regard, as members of the community and as Members of Parliament and leaders within the community. We therefore need to make sure that our communities are aware of the new technology, understand how it might improve their lives and put in place appropriate consultation about the data usage that can come from it. I ask the Minister for training for MPs in this new technology and its implications for our constituencies, so that we will also then be able to try to improve training locally to make sure that all the agencies that will be affected should be on board and understand how to take this forward for the best benefit.

    I also heard about how 5G will also allow technologies such as augmented reality and virtual reality to become commonplace—so “Star Wars” fans may now be able to have their own Princess Leia moment. I even heard, in a local school I was visiting, Duncanrig Secondary School in East Kilbride, that a constituent who is an inventor has sought to bring holograms to children’s reading materials. They may soon be able to speak directly to Harry Potter when they turn the page and, thus, have a much more interactive experience with their reading development.

    The delegation heard that 5G had vastly altered infrastructure projects in South Bend. For instance, they were going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on new sewerage systems, similar to the billions being spent in London for the same reason.

    David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)

    Does the hon. Lady agree that the trip was worth while because a company in my constituency called InTouch, headed by John Walden, is now working with the sensor group EmNet on flooding logistics?

    ​Dr Cameron

    Yes, that is the value of the trip: we were able to make connections between the UK and the US, and between those who are developing the technology, to make sure that we share in the benefits seen in South Bend, which include the reduction of flooding through the use of new sensors in the sewerage system. The technology has save saved billions of dollars, because South Bend was going to have a whole new sewage pipe infrastructure but is now able to regulate the flow with the 5G and the sensors. These technologies are transferable to other areas of the world.

    The hon. Gentleman is assiduous in representing his constituents and the first thing he said when he spoke to EmNet was that he would make connections so that the benefits could be seen in his constituency. The technology can save money, and in South Bend the money set aside for new infrastructure can be spent elsewhere. London might consider at least liaising with South Bend and the innovative agency EmNet, which provides the technology there.

    I am pleased to be able to speak about these developments today. My concern, and my request to the Minister, is that the technology is made fully available in towns, villages and rural areas. Everywhere the delegation went, people spoke about smart cities, but the technology has to be rolled out elsewhere. In some areas of our constituencies, internet speeds are not at the appropriate level to enable children to do their homework, and we are still waiting for 4G in some areas. Rural areas in particular tend to be the ones that miss out.

    On rural areas, I read a magazine article by Tim Hulse that says that Beard Hill farm, which is part of the UK’s agri-tech strategy, now has robotic milking, and it seems to be working well. I am not quite sure how it works—perhaps I will get to visit it—but it seems to be helping most by milking the cows when they want to be milked, rather than their being on a regime, thereby improving the quality of the milk and improving the cows’ welfare. The Government are involved in work that is already being done in some rural areas, and I would like to find out more about that. What type of consultation and communication does the Minister have with the devolved Governments throughout the UK to make sure that, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, the benefits are shared throughout the different countries of the UK?

    I thank the Minister for hearing and responding to the debate. Will he ensure that we have not only smart cities, but smart towns and villages, and even smart small businesses? Big business is often able to capitalise on new technology, but how do we get it rolled out to small businesses so that they do not lag behind and can be competitive, too? Please do not forget our rural areas; they must benefit from the technology. What will the strategy be not only to ensure that technology is applied to things such as infrastructure, roads and autonomous vehicles, but to give us a good work-life balance and enable a focus on wellbeing? We should focus on wellbeing in the community, and the technology that is being developed will augment that. We have just had a debate on climate change, and the technology that is brought forward and in which we invest should improve our climate objectives, rather than undermine them. There are a lot of points for the Minister to answer, so I look forward to his response.​

  • Jeremy Wright – 2019 Speech to NSPCC Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jeremy Wright, the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport at the 2019 NSPCC Conference held on 26 June 2019.

    Thank you for the introduction.

    As most of you know when the internet began, it was a way for a relatively small number of scientists to talk to each other about their work.

    Today the internet is a way for all of us to talk and to hear from the whole world, and is increasingly where we conduct our professional, social and family lives.

    It follows that it is also a place where increasingly our children are growing up. As some of you will know 99% of 12-15 year olds are online, spending around 20 hours a week on the internet.

    And as we live more and more of our lives online, it becomes less and less acceptable, less and less sustainable for the protections, and the restrictions on bad behaviour that we expect and require in every other environment not to be present online.

    If in the society we want to live in, you couldn’t get away with it in print or broadcast media, or out in the streets, then you shouldn’t be able to get away with it online either. But right now, too often you can.

    Many of you deal with the real consequences of that discrepancy.

    And you have the right to ask us in government to act on the statement – if it’s unacceptable offline, it’s unacceptable online. I want to explain how we intend to do that and set out some of the challenges in doing so.

    Now lets be fair, some of the online platforms have begun to hear the voices of those who advocate for children, like so many of you here today, and to take some steps to make the online world safer.

    But it is not enough and it is far too reactive to tragedies, not proactive in preventing them. And many of these companies have themselves begun to accept that government must have a role here.

    We cannot accept self-regulation anymore, or co-regulation come to that. So if Government is to regulate, how should it do so?

    There are genuinely held and valid concerns about freedom of speech online and the need for innovation there to continue.

    Genuine and natural fears of government deciding what is right and wrong on the internet. But I think we have to keep in mind our objective of protecting people from harm.

    This is not about making rules for the internet that don’t exist elsewhere, it is about bringing the rules we live by to the world we increasingly live in.

    Another genuine fear is that in an environment that changes as fast as the internet does, where the threat landscape is very mobile, the rules get out of date fast.

    And that is why I believe the right way forward is a duty of care based model, which the NSPCC, among others, have so effectively argued for.

    What it means is that online companies who deal with user generated content, and facilitate searching for it, or sharing it, must do all they reasonably can to keep the users of their services safe.

    And of course the more vulnerable the users, including children, the more it is reasonable to expect.

    There will be codes of practice to help explain what the duty of care might involve, but the key point is that the overarching duty sits above them and means that no online company can say – as harms manifest themselves in new ways, as we know they will – that there was nothing in the code of practice about it, so I did nothing to keep my users safe from it.

    We expect, we deserve, and we will require that some of the cleverest companies in the world use their ingenuity to protect us, as well as to sell to us.

    So we will set out that duty in law. The next question is – how will that duty be enforced?

    There must be a regulator, independent of government, with the ability to administer the duty of care and the powers to sanction those who ignore it.

    Those sanctions must be significant to influence the actions of the big international companies that so many of these online entities now are.

    Significant in terms of the scale of fines, but also in other penalties and we will consider individual director liability or site blocking.

    Government must act but we also expect and will require online companies to act. But the truth is we all have to take action to keep ourselves, and our children safe online. Nobody is going to uninvent the internet or social media.

    And however effective the regulation I am proposing may be, it will not stop every piece of harmful content from reaching every one of us.

    So we need the skills and techniques to keep ourselves safe, and we need to teach them to our children. And we should require the new regulator and the companies it regulates to do more to give us these skills and techniques. So there is much to do and we should approach it with determination, but also, in my view, with humility.

    It’s important to listen to what people have to say about this White Paper and to make improvements where we can. We are consulting on it until the 1st July and I encourage you all to respond. It is also important for us to hear from young people themselves, and we have been doing that.

    One of my officials recently had the unenviable task of explaining a regulator and a duty of care to a group of 8-year-olds.

    But actually, they got it. And when asked what the punishment for a breach should be, one child said ‘a £100 fine’. Another, less forgiving student, said ‘No – it needs to be £500’.

    Well I can reassure those students and all of you that fines will be considerably higher than that. And I’ve been hearing from them myself, from a group of year 10 students in Solihull, to the Diana Award’s anti-bullying ambassadors here in London.

    And they all have experiences and interests to register in this process. It is in their interests most of all that we must get this right. It is also important to recognise that there is no comprehensive international model to follow.

    What is proposed in this White Paper means the United Kingdom will lead the world and we should be proud of that not intimidated by it.

    But we want others to act to protect other citizens of the digital world of all ages, so I am also speaking to policy makers and legislators in other countries to urge them to take a similar course.

    In all of this I need your help, your passion and commitment to a safer online world for our children translated into effective legislation and regulation.

    And I recognise the urgency of doing that, so I intend to publish the Government response to the White Paper consultation by the end of the year and to introduce legislation as soon as possible next year.

    We are doing as much as we can now to bring Parliamentary consensus on that regulation when it is brought forward.

    But even so, getting this right cannot be done immediately. And we should not wait for a new regulator to be established to take action on online harms. Neither should the companies which will become subject to that regulation.

    We’ve set out in the White Paper some of the work we are doing now to protect children online. For example, the UK Council for Internet Safety has developed an online resilience toolkit for users. Helped by many of you in this room.

    And government has funded the UK Safer Internet Centre to develop cyberbullying guidance which provides advice for schools on understanding, preventing and responding to cyberbullying, and an online safety toolkit to help schools deliver sessions.

    And I know you are hearing from my colleague, the Education Secretary, later today on, among other things, what we are doing to incorporate online safety into the school curriculum.

    We are making progress, but ensuring we are giving children the skills they need to go online is still a relatively new and emerging issue and there is more we could do.

    That’s why government will produce a new draft code of practice on child online safety to set clear standards for companies to keep children safe online.

    That will be published ahead of the new online safety laws.

    The draft code will set our expectations about what is required to keep children safe and will examine existing resources available, including whether specific guidance should be offered to parents and carers.

    And it will act as a one-stop shop for smaller companies to help them navigate the range of guidance already available, and fill any gaps if necessary.

    This will make it as easy as possible for companies to take practical steps to improve safety ahead of new laws.

    This work will complement the media literacy strategy which we announced in the White Paper.

    In addition to that, I have commissioned new guidance about the use of technology by platforms to ensure that children are protected from inappropriate content.

    This work will provide platforms with guidance establishing appropriate safeguards. We expect that guidance will be published in the autumn. So we recognise that our children are growing up in a changing technological world.

    And significant harms are emerging that are unique to the online world – such as cyber-flashing, deepfake pornography or the trauma of having private sexual images disseminated across the internet.

    We know from the NSPCC and others that sexting is a growing issue.

    You then have deeply worrying group behaviours such as viral suicide games, or sustained and co-ordinated campaigns of online abuse directed against individuals by particular groups in society.

    These paint a picture of an online world that I and you don’t want our children to grow up in.

    I have talked about how regulation structures need to adapt to change that, but the criminal law needs to keep pace too.

    So today, alongside colleagues in the Ministry of Justice, I have asked the Law Commission to review the current communications offences to establish whether the law is fit for purpose, and make specific recommendations about options for legal reform in this area.

    It will consider whether the non-consensual taking and sharing of intimate images could be more effectively dealt with by the criminal law.

    And it will also examine whether the legal framework around co-ordinated harassment by groups of people online is as clear and fit for purpose as it needs to be. This work will begin next month.

    So there is plenty of work being done and plenty more to do.

    Keeping our children safe online is complex because the online world is complex, and changing all the time.

    My priority in the 12 months I have had this job has been the development of proposals now set out in the Online Harms White Paper, that I believe will make a real difference in making that online world safer.

    I am proud of it. But I believe it can be made better.

    I hope you will help me do that and that together we make the United Kingdom the safest place to grow up online.