UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Chris Skidmore – 2019 Statement on the Competitiveness Council

    Below is the text of the statement made by Chris Skidmore, the Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation, in the House of Commons on 22 May 2019.

    The Internal Market and Industry Day of the Competitiveness Council will take place on 27 May 2019. Katrina Williams, Deputy Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom to the European Union, will represent the UK.

    The Research and Space Day of the Competitiveness Council will take place on 28 May 2019. Chris Skidmore MP, Minister of State for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation, will represent the UK.

    Day one—Internal Market and Industry

    The Internal Market and Industry Day will consider a number of non-legislative items, including a competitiveness “check-up”. Attendees will be asked to debate and agree the adoption of conclusions on “a new level of ambition for a competitive single market” and “an EU industrial policy strategy: a vision for 2030”. This will be followed by the adoption of “conclusions on the competitiveness of the tourism sector as a driver for sustainable growth, jobs and social cohesion in the EU for the next decade”.​

    Under any other business, there will be updates on the following current legislative proposals: (a) the directive on cross-border conversions, mergers and divisions; (b) the directive on the modernisation of the EU consumer protection rules; (c) the directive on representative actions for the protection of the collective interests of consumers; and (d) the regulation on the general safety of vehicles.

    The presidency with also provide information on better regulation and the forum dedicated to the auto industry. Finally, the Finnish delegation will provide information on the work programme of the incoming Finnish presidency.

    Day two—Research and Space

    The Research and Space Day of the Competitiveness Council will begin with a session on space, during which the Council will hold a policy debate on “strengthening Europe’s role as a global actor and promoting international co-operation, space diplomacy and contributing to building the global space governance”.

    The Competitiveness Council will then break for the 280th European Space Agency (ESA) Council where the UK, as an ESA member state, will vote on the ESA resolution “space as an enabler”. The Council will then reconvene for the 9th EU-ESA Space Council where there will be an exchange of views and adoption of conclusions on “space as an enabler”.

    The research session will start with a policy debate concerning “research and innovation as a driving force for a more competitive European Union”. Finally, the Finnish delegation will provide information on the work programme of the incoming Finnish presidency.

  • 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 23 May 2019.

    A meeting of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council (ECOFIN) was held in Brussels on 17 May 2019. The UK was represented by Mark Bowman (Director General, International Finance, HM Treasury). The Council discussed the following:

    Early morning session

    The Eurogroup President briefed the Council on the outcomes of the 16 May meeting of the Eurogroup, and the European Commission provided an update on the current economic situation in the EU. Ministers then discussed the possibility of the European Investment Bank developing country strategies. Lastly, the Commission updated on the state of play on negotiations on the definitive system of value added tax.

    Excise duties

    The Council discussed the directive on general arrangements for excise duty (recast), the regulation on administrative co-operation of the content of electronic registers, and the directive on the structures of excise duty on alcohol and alcoholic beverages.​

    Current financial services legislative proposals

    The Romanian presidency provided an update on current legislative proposals in the field of financial services.

    International meetings

    The Council held an exchange of views on digital taxation in the international context, and the presidency and Commission updated the Council on the outcomes of the G20, IMF and World Bank spring meetings that took place in April. The Council then mandated the Economic and Financial Committee to approve the terms of reference for the upcoming G20 meeting in June. Lastly, the Finnish delegation debriefed the Council on the first meeting of the Finance Ministers coalition for climate action.

    European semester

    The Council adopted conclusions on the outcomes of the 2019 in-depth reviews of macroeconomic imbalances in member states as part of the macroeconomic imbalances procedure; and the implementation of 2018 country-specific recommendations.

    Institutional cycle priorities

    Under the non-legislative AOB, the presidency informed the Council on the follow-up discussions in regards to priorities for the next institutional cycle in the ECOFIN area.

    Working lunch

    Following on from the discussions at April informal ECOFIN in Bucharest, EU Finance Ministers held a working lunch to discuss the challenges of labour mobility and their potential solutions, followed by an exchange of views on the way forward in areas of the economic and monetary union, specifically in regards to the reform support programme.

  • Theresa May – 2019 Resignation Statement

    Below is the text of the statement made by Theresa May, the Prime Minister, in Downing Street, London on 24 May 2019.

    Ever since I first stepped through the door behind me as Prime Minister, I have striven to make the United Kingdom a country that works not just for a privileged few, but for everyone.

    And to honour the result of the EU referendum.

    Back in 2016, we gave the British people a choice.

    Against all predictions, the British people voted to leave the European Union.

    I feel as certain today as I did three years ago that in a democracy, if you give people a choice you have a duty to implement what they decide.

    I have done my best to do that.

    I negotiated the terms of our exit and a new relationship with our closest neighbours that protects jobs, our security and our Union.

    I have done everything I can to convince MPs to back that deal.

    Sadly, I have not been able to do so.

    I tried three times.

    I believe it was right to persevere, even when the odds against success seemed high.

    But it is now clear to me that it is in the best interests of the country for a new Prime Minister to lead that effort.

    So I am today announcing that I will resign as leader of the Conservative and Unionist Party on Friday 7 June so that a successor can be chosen.

    I have agreed with the Party Chairman and with the Chairman of the 1922 Committee that the process for electing a new leader should begin in the following week.

    I have kept Her Majesty the Queen fully informed of my intentions, and I will continue to serve as her Prime Minister until the process has concluded.

    It is, and will always remain, a matter of deep regret to me that I have not been able to deliver Brexit.

    It will be for my successor to seek a way forward that honours the result of the referendum.

    To succeed, he or she will have to find consensus in Parliament where I have not.

    Such a consensus can only be reached if those on all sides of the debate are willing to compromise.

    For many years the great humanitarian Sir Nicholas Winton – who saved the lives of hundreds of children by arranging their evacuation from Nazi-occupied Czechoslovakia through the Kindertransport – was my constituent in Maidenhead.

    At another time of political controversy, a few years before his death, he took me to one side at a local event and gave me a piece of advice.

    He said, ‘Never forget that compromise is not a dirty word. Life depends on compromise.’

    He was right.

    As we strive to find the compromises we need in our politics – whether to deliver Brexit, or to restore devolved government in Northern Ireland – we must remember what brought us here.

    Because the referendum was not just a call to leave the EU but for profound change in our country.

    A call to make the United Kingdom a country that truly works for everyone. I am proud of the progress we have made over the last three years.

    We have completed the work that David Cameron and George Osborne started: the deficit is almost eliminated, our national debt is falling and we are bringing an end to austerity.

    My focus has been on ensuring that the good jobs of the future will be created in communities across the whole country, not just in London and the South East, through our Modern Industrial Strategy.

    We have helped more people than ever enjoy the security of a job.

    We are building more homes and helping first-time buyers onto the housing ladder – so young people can enjoy the opportunities their parents did.

    And we are protecting the environment, eliminating plastic waste, tackling climate change and improving air quality.

    I know that the Conservative party can renew itself in the years ahead. That we can deliver Brexit and serve the British people with policies inspired by our values – security, freedom, opportunity. Those values have guided me throughout my career.

    But the unique privilege of this office is to use this platform to give a voice to the voiceless, to fight the burning injustices that still scar our society.

    That is why I put proper funding for mental health at the heart of our NHS long-term plan.

    It is why I am ending the postcode lottery for survivors of domestic abuse.

    It is why the Race Disparity Audit and gender pay reporting are shining a light on inequality, so it has nowhere to hide.

    And that is why I set up the independent public inquiry into the tragedy at Grenfell Tower – to search for the truth, so nothing like it can ever happen again, and so the people who lost their lives that night are never forgotten.

    Because this country is a Union.

    Not just a family of four nations.

    But a union of people – all of us.

    Whatever our background, the colour of our skin, or who we love.

    We stand together.

    And together we have a great future.

    Our politics may be under strain, but there is so much that is good about this country. So much to be proud of. So much to be optimistic about.

    I will shortly leave the job that it has been the honour of my life to hold – the second female Prime Minister but certainly not the last.

    I do so with no ill-will, but with enormous and enduring gratitude to have had the opportunity to serve the country I love.

  • Susan Elan Jones – 2019 Speech on Excessive Speeding

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • David Lidington – 2019 Speech at Cutlers’ Feast

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Toby Perkins – 2019 Speech on Unauthorised Encampments

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

    I beg to move,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Rebecca Long Bailey – 2019 Speech on British Steel

    Below is the text of the speech made by Rebecca Long Bailey, the Shadow Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, in the House of Commons on 22 May 2019.

    I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement.

    This is indeed very worrying news for the workers, their families and the communities who rely on British Steel directly in Scunthorpe, Skinningrove and Teesside and all the way through the supply chain. At least 25,000 people will be worried sick this morning, wondering whether they will have a job this time next week.

    As the Secretary of State knows, however, the sector is critical to our manufacturing base and is strategically important for Government procurement from rail all the way through to defence. It is therefore imperative, given that the Government now have some control via the official receiver, that this business is stabilised and confidence is given to customers, workers and businesses right across the supply chain. The message from the Government today must be that British Steel is one of the linchpins of our industrial strategy and to that end they will move heaven and earth to ensure business as usual continues.

    It is reported that the owner, Greybull Capital, was asking the Government for a loan of £30 million. The shadow Minister for steel, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss), asked for more information yesterday, but we were given none. Can the Secretary of State confirm today what the asks of British Steel were in the negotiations? Were they just the reported £30 million or was that part of a wider package of measures to support steel production?

    I welcome the publication of the accounting officer’s assessment, but can the Secretary of State confirm Greybull Capital’s reasoning in asking for a loan, while reportedly being unwilling to put money on the table and simultaneously investing over £40 million in a French steelworks last week?

    The Secretary of State has said in his press statement today that he will

    “pursue remorselessly every possible step to secure the future of the valuable operations in sites at Scunthorpe, Skinningrove and on Teesside”,​
    and I welcome that. I also welcome the indemnity he has referred to, but can he outline exactly what other possible steps he will be pursuing in the coming days? Do they include bringing British Steel into public ownership as Unite the union and the Labour party have called for? Do they include discussions with other interested stakeholders to examine options for saving the company, including with Network Rail, which procures 95% of its rails from the Scunthorpe site? It is clear that we simply cannot countenance warm words and no real action as was the case with the SSI steelworks almost four years ago.

    The truth of the matter is that the cost of British Steel collapsing is far greater than any short-term outlay the Government must make now. The Institute for Public Policy Research has estimated that British Steel’s collapse could lead to £2.8 billion in lost wages, £1.1 billion in lost revenue and extra benefit payments and that it could reduce household spending by £1.2 billion over 10 years. This is a significant economic disturbance, if the Secretary of State would like to dust off his state aid handbook.

    We know Network Rail sources 95% of its rails from Scunthorpe. Last year, Network Rail signed a £200 million contract with the company. The loss of this supply could have serious consequences for Network Rail’s cost base and the quality of the steel used to maintain and upgrade the British rail network. Notwithstanding the great commitment by Network Rail to British Steel, however, we also know the Government’s wider public procurement of UK steel has been disappointing, with only 43% of steel used in Government projects traced to firms based in the UK, according to UK Steel analysis. So will the Secretary of State confirm today what steps he is taking to positively procure British steel for more of our key infrastructure projects?

    Finally, there is no doubt that the UK steel industry is in a difficult place. Uncertainty about future trade with the EU and the dangling prospect of no deal are having a severe impact. Domestic issues like uncompetitive electricity prices, business rates and lack of support for steel in the so-called industrial strategy are also undermining the sector’s ability to compete, but UK steel has a proud history in the UK and there is no reason why this cannot continue. The ball is in the Government’s court: they can take action now to save British Steel and support the wider industry, or they can accept that their legacy will, yet again, be industrial decline. We in the Opposition know which side of history we want to be on, and I hope the Secretary of State wants the same thing.

  • Greg Clark – 2019 Statement on British Steel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Ian Blackford – 2019 Speech on Brexit

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Jeremy Corbyn – 2019 Speech on Brexit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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