UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Emily Thornberry – 2019 Speech on Sri Lanka

    Below is the text of the speech made by Emily Thornberry, the Shadow Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in the House of Commons on 23 April 2019.

    I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement and for the tone of his words, with which ​I wholeheartedly agree. I join him in commending the work of the British high commission in Colombo. Once again, it has demonstrated that in the very worst of circumstances for British nationals abroad, our consular services offer the very best of support. I am sure the high commission will continue to ensure that the families of the British nationals who have so tragically been killed in the attacks get all the support they need at this time of unbearable shock and sadness.

    I have full confidence in what the Foreign Secretary has said about the assistance that the Government are ready to offer to the Sri Lankan authorities, whether in relation to security and intelligence, or in relation to help for the forensic services. He has our support and our thanks for that.

    I know that there are many questions to be asked about who was responsible for the attacks and what could have been done to prevent them, but today is not a time for those questions. On this day of national mourning in Sri Lanka, as the first of those who were killed are buried and as the death toll continues to mount, it is simply a time for this House and this country to stand with the people of Sri Lanka, with the British families and with those from around the world who have lost loved ones and to express our shared solidarity and grief at the devastation that they have suffered. It is a time to stand in admiration at the way in which the Sri Lankan people and their Government have responded to this attempt to divide them by instead coming together in peace and calling for the unity of all communities. We in the west must do our part to help Sri Lanka to recover from this horror by continuing to visit that beautiful country and showing the terrorists they will not win.

    It is sadly apt that on St George’s day, when we mark both the birth and the death of Shakespeare, we are confronted with the latest example of what he once called “mountainish inhumanity”. That is the unspeakable inhumanity and evil of men who would walk into a group of peaceful Christian worshippers at prayer or happy foreign tourists having breakfast and blow these innocent people up, killing at least 320 people, including 45 children and an eight-year-old cousin of our good friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq). Dozens are still fighting for their lives in hospital and hundreds more have received life-changing injuries.

    When we ask how anyone’s mind could become so warped and depraved as to commit such an act, just as we did about the attack on Muslims in Christchurch last month and on Jews in Pittsburgh last October, we must not make the mistake of blaming religion. There is no religion on this earth that teaches that the way to salvation is blowing up innocent children or shooting people at prayer. We must also not make the mistake of saying that one act of evil begets another, that somehow this atrocity happened because of the atrocity in Christchurch. I believe that that is an entirely false narrative, one that excuses terrorism. We should never indulge it. Instead, we should call it out for what it is: an act born of pure, vicious mind-polluting hatred perpetuated by sickening, despicable individuals who do not worship God but death; whose only religion is hate and whose fellow believers in hatred and in death must be wiped from the face of our earth.

    But in these dark and terrible moments, I see one shred of light and one piece of definite proof that the narrative that says that evil begets evil and we reap what ​we sow is indeed a false one. That was the deeply moving statement made by Ben Nicholson, confirming the loss of his wife and two children in the blast at the Shangri-La hotel. I do not think there is any one of us who could understand what that grief would feel like. We would all have understood if Mr Nicholson’s reaction had been one of anger and hatred towards the people who had destroyed his family, but instead his response was filled with love for his wife and for his beautiful children. He rejected hatred, the hatred that had killed his family, and he responded to it with mountainish humanity: a humanity that no act of evil could corrupt, because, as Shakespeare also wrote:

    “unkindness may defeat my life, But never taint my love.”

  • Jeremy Hunt – 2019 Statement on Sri Lanka

    Below is the text of the statement made by Jeremy Hunt, the Foreign Secretary, in the House of Commons on 23 April 2019.

    Today, the flags in Downing Street and on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office are flying at half-mast following the horrific Easter day terrorist attack in Sri Lanka. With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to update the House on the attack and the UK Government’s response.

    On Sunday, multiple terrorist suicide bombings were conducted across Sri Lanka. Six explosions occurred simultaneously—three in churches conducting Easter day services in Colombo, Negombo and Batticaloa, and three more in hotels in Colombo popular with foreign visitors. Information is still coming in, but we know that over 300 people have been killed, and we know that at least eight of those, sadly, are British nationals. They include mother Anita Nicholson with her 14-year-old son Alex and 11-year-old daughter Annabel, teenage brother and sister Amelie and Daniel Linsey, and retired firefighter Bill Harrop with his wife, retired GP Sally Bradley. The whole House will want to pass on our deepest sympathies and condolences, as we digest a truly heartbreaking situation.

    I spoke to James Dauris, the British high commissioner in Colombo, earlier this afternoon, and I want to put on record my thanks to him, his team and all the employees of the British Council for their dedication in extremely testing circumstances. One locally employed British Council employee is in hospital with his wife, both with serious injuries, and our thoughts are also with them and their family. Our travel advice has been updated and remains the best source of information for any British nationals or family members who have concerns about the situation.

    Yesterday, I spoke to my counterpart, the Sri Lankan Foreign Minister, to express my thanks for the work of the emergency services in Sri Lanka, as well as to pass on our condolences to all the bereaved families. I also discussed what further support the UK might be able to offer. Her Majesty the Queen, the Prince of Wales and other members of the royal family have sent messages of condolence to the President and people of Sri Lanka, and the Prime Minister is expected to speak with Sri Lankan Prime Minister Wickremesinghe later today.

    These attacks were a primitive and vile attempt to sow division between people of different faiths. Religious tensions have caused some of the bloodiest battles in human history, and it is sombre and sobering that even in the 21st century attempts continue to set believers of different religions against each other. Our response must be to deny the perpetrators the satisfaction of dividing us by being united in our condemnation of the attacks and united in our support for religious tolerance— ​surely one of humanity’s greatest achievements. Just as after the equally horrific attacks on the two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, we must respond by bringing people together; that is the exact opposite of what the perpetrators intended.

    It has to be said that the sheer brutality of the attacks was stark. One pair of attackers, after detonating their first explosives in a hotel, waited for people to try to escape before detonating a second device. The device destroyed by security services at Colombo airport was most likely designed to target fleeing civilians. The attack was complex, tightly co-ordinated and designed to cause maximum chaos, damage and heartbreak.

    The UK will never stand by in the face of such evil. Today, we stand in solidarity with the Government and people of Sri Lanka, who have made enormous strides towards stability and peace following the conclusion of the civil war almost exactly 10 years ago. The Metropolitan Police counter-terrorism command has dispatched a team of specialists to Sri Lanka, including family liaison officers, to support the families of British victims and assist with the repatriation of deceased British nationals. A recent programme run by Interpol involved the training of 30 Sri Lankan forensic specialists and police officers by UK experts in disaster victim identification. We hope that that will be of additional support.

    The Government of Sri Lanka have declared a state of emergency as the investigation continues. More than 20 arrests have been made, and there are likely to be more people who were involved in the planning of this attack still at large. A large amount of improvised explosive device material has been recovered, including 87 low-explosive detonators that were recovered from a bus station. There are no verified claims of responsibility as yet. So far, 40 arrests have been made, and counter-terrorism activity continues. The Sri Lankan Prime Minister and President have both said publicly that there will be a thorough investigation into the incident and whether information was handled correctly, and it is important to let that process follow its course.

    To attack Christian worshippers at Easter, which is a celebration of peace and the holiest day in the Christian calendar, betrays in the attackers an absence of the most basic values of humanity. Just two days ago, the Prime Minister and I both noted in our Easter messages the dangers facing Christians around the world, 300 of whom are killed every month. In response to such acts, we must redouble our efforts to protect the freedom of religious minorities to practise their faiths, wherever they are. For that reason, the FCO has asked the Bishop of Truro to do an independent report into what more can be done to protect persecuted Christians around the world.

    The British Government will continue to give their wholehearted support to the people of Sri Lanka, and I am sure the House will join me in once again expressing our deepest sadness and sympathy to everyone who has been affected by these monstrous attacks. I commend this statement to the House.

  • Andrew Jones – Statement on South-Eastern Rail Franchise

    Below is the text of the statement made by Andrew Jones, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, in the House of Commons on 23 April 2019.

    In June 2017, the Department for Transport announced that the shortlisted bidders for the south-eastern franchise competition were: South Eastern Holdings Ltd; London and South East Passenger Rail Services Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary of Govia and the current incumbent; and Stagecoach South Eastern Trains Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary of Stagecoach Group plc.

    Subsequently, in December 2018, the Department exercised an extension with the existing south-eastern operator, London and South Eastern Railway, until 23 June 2019 to allow further time for the competition to identify the next operator for the franchise. The Department is now in the process of negotiating a further direct award which, subject to a successful negotiation, will run until 10 November 2019, with an option to extend the agreement until April 2020. We are taking these steps to ensure continuity of services for passengers. This additional time is necessary to deliver the best possible outcome for passengers and taxpayers alike. We will update the House in the usual way as soon as this work is concluded.

  • David Lidington – 2019 Speech at CYBERUK Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Lidington, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, at the CYBERUK Conference held in Glasgow on 25 April 2019.

    Good morning.

    It’s a pleasure to be with you in Glasgow, and it is appropriate that we’re meeting here. This is a city with a rich history of innovation, the home of the Scottish Enlightenment, the home of inventors like James Watt and the first Industrial Revolution. And today, Scotland is also home to a growing cyber community– there are three times as many cyber companies today than there were just a few years ago.

    So it’s fitting to be here in Glasgow, and to look at what’s coming next in cyber security. But I’d like first, I’d like to look back 30 years to November 2, 1988, when one of the first recognised cyber attacks, the Morris worm, wreaked havoc and crippled the fledgling internet for several days.

    Today, it seems a bit quaint to consider that a worm could take down a few thousand computers. It is two years ago since WannaCry, which affected over 100 countries and did an estimated billions of pounds in damage to the global economy. Although we’ve not seen anything quite on that scale since, there are a some concerning global trends that stand out.

    We’ve seen critical national infrastructure threatened by attacks like the short-term disruption at Bristol airport in September. We’ve seen private information comprised in large-scale data breaches of businesses like Marriott and Equifax. And we’ve seen consistent levels of attacks via company supply chains, like the infection of tens of thousands of Asus computers. And supply chains seem very much in the eyes of both criminals and hostile states as the soft underbelly of the private sector and providers of critical infrastructure.

    The threat continues to evolve rapidly. But thankfully, the UK is a global leader in the fight against cyber attacks. We have stood strong with our international partners to call out cyber attacks, to attribute where there is evidence so to do, and to set the standard for hardening national cyber defences.

    The National Cyber Security Strategy has revolutionised the UK’s fight against cyber threats as an ambitious, deliberately interventionist programme of action. During the last three years, we have put in place many of the building blocks to strengthen our cyber security and resilience, backed by an investment of £1.9 billion pounds.

    In 2016, we set up the world-leading National Cyber Security Centre to act as our single authority on cyber security. Countries around the world, including the US and Australia, have recognised NCSC as a global centre of excellence and many countries are now copying our model for cyber security.

    That also includes setting the standard in protecting our critical national infrastructure.

    I want to be very clear in the light of reports in the last 24 hours on one point in particular. The UK takes the security of our telecoms networks extremely seriously. We have rigorous and tested procedures in place today to manage risks to national security.

    Next generation networks like 5G raise security risks as well as opportunities for prosperity. That’s why the government commissioned a comprehensive review of the telecommunications supply chain. This is a serious study, based on evidence and expertise, not supposition or speculation.

    The government is committed to strengthen significantly this country’s security framework for telecoms. We will take whatever steps are necessary to ensure the secure roll-out of 5G and full fibre network. We will not countenance high risk vendors in those parts of the UK’s 5G network that perform critical security functions.

    The government’s approach is not about one company or even one country. It’s about ensuring stronger cyber security across telecoms, greater resilience in telecoms networks, and more diversity in the supply chain. We shall want to work with international partners to develop a common, global approach to improving telecoms security standards.

    As with any other review, certainly one of this complexity and this scale, the decisions will be announced in due course, and to Parliament first.

    We have also invested in cyber capabilities within law enforcement. National Cyber Security Programme funding has helped to train and equip staff at the National Crime Agency’s National Cyber Crime Unit, and has established dedicated cyber capability in all nine Regional Organised Crime Units.

    Meanwhile, our Active Cyber Defence programme is making good progress in automatically protecting UK internet users. Last year, it took down nearly 140,000 UK-hosted phishing sites.

    And we’re protecting the public sector, checking more than 4 billion queries to the internet every week, and blocking more than 1 million that are malicious. These are the kind of crude, high-volume attacks that have impact on people’s everyday lives, that compromise their identities and undermine the individual security of their bank accounts.

    So we’ve made considerable progress in government. More to do, yes, but considerable progress. But to build on this success, we need to demystify cyber security for the average citizen. We need to get away from the outdated image of WarGames and begin thinking more about botnets and malvertising.

    There remains a deep lack of awareness about these threats. Too often, in the corporate world, cyber resilience is seen as the responsibility of an IT department, when cyber security needs to be everyone’s responsibility.

    We saw, from WannaCry in particular, how a low-level lapse in cyber security can risk the compromise of a much wider network.

    The vast majority of cyber attacks can be prevented by putting basic cyber security measures in place. But nationally, only about a third of businesses and charities have a board member or trustee with specific, designated responsibility for cyber security. And even fewer have a system in place for when a cyber attack occurs.

    So all of us, including we in government, need to improve our efforts. That’s why, last month, I asked all government boards to appoint a representative for cyber security.

    Meanwhile, there are thousands of organisations outside government that can benefit directly from government expertise. So a few weeks ago I launched a new Board Toolkit designed by the NCSC to help FTSE 350 companies encourage discussions on cyber security between organisations’ board members and their technical experts.

    I also asked all boards to commit to achieving minimum standards in cyber security – and I’d encourage everyone here to do the same.

    We are partnering with nearly 600 private-sector organisations through our national Cyber Aware campaign to encourage citizens and small businesses to take simple protective steps that can prevent the majority of high volume, low sophistication attacks.

    And we’re already hearing great results from these programmes. We were recently contacted by the managing director of a small construction company who, thanks to advice from a cyber crime officer, was able to thwart an attempted invoice fraud. Doing that saved the company £125k and a contract that they had been negotiating for months.

    But there’s more we can do. That’s why, today, I am announcing that the NCSC will launch a new exercising initiative, called ‘Exercise in a Box’, designed to help organisations test their cyber resilience. This will be aimed at SMEs, at local government and the emergency services. It will be a free online tool, using scenarios based on common cyber security threats to enable organisations both to practice, and to test their responses to attacks in a safe environment.

    It will also provide bespoke guidance from the NCSC to help organisations to understand better the cyber risks they face, so that working together, we can build the UK’s cyber resilience to attacks, and target-harden ourselves against adversaries.

    But improving cyber security is not, and never will be, an exact science – it relies on partnerships to achieve lasting change. The geopolitical, technological and threat environment is constantly evolving. And we are seeking to meet these challenges, by building resilience regionally, nationally and internationally.

    Regionally, the UK government is working closely with the devolved administrations in areas like cyber skills and local government cyber resilience. That’s why, in the spirit of highlighting collaboration across the devolved administrations, I’m pleased to announce today that CYBERUK 2020 will take place in Wales. By sharing our expertise and helping to build vital skills together, we are working together to protect the whole of the UK from the threats of both today and tomorrow.

    We are working alongside FTSE 350 companies right across the UK to invest in pipelines of talent through our schools and universities. So far, more than 55,000 young people have participated in our Cyber Discovery and CyberFirst learning programmes, with a special focus on including more girls and more mid-career professionals.

    And internationally, we are promoting our cyber expertise. We have worked with allies to counter malicious cyber activity. And we’ve called out unacceptable behaviour, joining 19 countries, NATO and the EU, to attribute a range of cyber attacks to the Russian and the Chinese governments during the course of 2018.

    We are sharing best practices with allies. And across government departments, we are funding projects in more than 40 countries to help them defend themselves from emerging cyber threats.

    Now it’s time to look to the future. Our current National Cyber Security Strategy takes us to 2021. But, in the spirit of preparedness, we need now to consider our vision beyond then, and how we sustain long-term change.

    First, we want to reduce the risk from high-volume, low-sophistication cyber attacks. We need to build security right into internet-connected devices, systems and networks. And we must create a culture of cyber resilience among consumers themselves.

    Meanwhile, we must continue our work to tackle the most sophisticated and serious threats from hostile states and organised criminals alike. This means ensuring our agencies and law enforcement partners have the capabilities to counter malign activity, and modernising our deterrence posture so the UK is seen as a hard target. And we will continue to take a leading role in promoting a free, open, peaceful and secure cyberspace.

    Underpinning this, we want to build a sustainable ecosystem, with the companies, talent and research we need to remain world leaders in cyber security.

    It’s going to take time for our long-term investments to reap benefits. But with eight years of experience in national cyber security strategies, we can now focus government’s efforts where they’re going to be most effective, and move towards a more mature partnership in the public, private and third sectors.

    During the past four months, we’ve had three important reviews of the strategy from Parliament’s Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, from the National Audit Office, and from the Infrastructure and Projects Authority. I want to say plainly that we do not shy away from constructive criticism. Criticism of that kind can only help us to strengthen the UK’s defences.

    These reviews rightly said that our approach can benefit from independent external expertise, particularly from industry and the academic world. This means inviting more critical challenge at working level. It means investing more into academic research. And it means looking at the ways industry innovates against emerging threats.

    One of the other points made by these independent bodies is the need for more transparency and reporting. So, in an effort to boost transparency while balancing that against the inherent restrictions that the national security considerations involve, we will be publishing an update at the end of May this year on the effectiveness and impact of our interventions under the strategy.

    As Alan Turing said, “We can only see a short distance ahead, but we can see plenty there that needs to be done.”

    The task in front of us is great. The threats are evolving every day. But this is the same country whose citizens invented programming, the first computer and the World Wide Web.

    We are up to the challenge. But we cannot do this alone. Partnerships at the key to UK’s cyber security. This government considers industry and academia to be the catalysts in delivering long-term, effective, cultural change.

    We need partners like the ones here today, to be engaged, open and willing to work with us for the safety and security of all. So thank you for all you have done, and for all you will be doing in the future, to ensure that we remain stronger, together.

  • Theresa May – 2010 Speech to Association of Chief Police Officers

    Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May, the then Home Secretary, to the Association of Chief Police Officers and Association of Police Authorities National Conference, in Manchester on 29 June 2010.

    Not many people understand the weight of responsibility that rests upon the shoulders of a police chief constable. Like chief executives of large private sector companies, you manage multi-billion pound budgets, lead thousands of men and women, and devise strategies to succeed.

    Except, being a chief constable isn’t like being a chief executive at all.

    On Wednesday 2 June, Chief Constable Craig Mackey of Cumbria Constabulary went to work and found himself leading an armed police response to Britain’s worst mass shooting since 1996. Just days earlier, his officers had dealt with the tragic school coach crash near Keswick. And at the end of last year, it was Craig Mackey’s men and women who came to the rescue when Cumbria was devastated by floods. Being a chief constable is a job like no other – and I want to start by paying tribute to Craig and to all of you for the work you do.

    And let us not forget the work of the members of police authorities up and down the country. We might have our differences about the future of accountability in policing – and I’ll come to that later – but we all recognise the importance of listening to local communities. And I salute you for the dedication and sense of duty with which you serve your communities.

    Budgets

    I stand before you today as a new Home Secretary in a new government and I am about to tell you something that no Home Secretary has ever said before. I take no pleasure in that fact, because what I have to say is tough.

    Our country has the worst budget deficit of any major economy. The public finances are in the biggest mess that any of us have seen in our lifetimes. And as you saw in the budget, that means the Coalition Government is going to have to take tough action.

    Like almost all of my colleagues in the cabinet, I have to cut spending in my department. The spending review has not begun yet, so we don’t know the exact figures, but I must be clear. We are not talking about a spending freeze, or a reduction of one or two per cent. The cuts will be big, they will be tough to achieve, and cuts will fall on the police as they will on other important public services.

    In the Home Office, I will be ruthless in cutting out waste, streamlining structures and improving efficiency. But these practical measures can only go so far, and together we have to make sure that – despite the cuts – policing must remain visible and available to the public.

    Value for money

    So we are going to have to make sure that every penny of your budgets is spent in the most useful possible way. As I told the Police Federation conference last month, we will honour the existing pay deal for police officers negotiated with my predecessors. And we will stand by the deal for other police staff too.

    But we have to be realistic about what we can afford, so we will also undertake a review of police terms and conditions. Let me be crystal clear from the beginning: police officers and staff need to be ready, along with the rest of the public sector, to make sacrifices and accept pay restraint. It cannot be right, for example, that police overtime has become institutionalised. We may not win popularity contests for asking these difficult questions, but it is time for them to be asked.

    I want to work with you, the leaders of our police forces and members of police authorities, to make sure we get value for money wherever we can. I’ve said before that I don’t want to run the police, and I don’t – but there is no need to do everything 43 different ways.

    So in tandem with our reforms to make the police more accountable to their local communities, I am considering what matters should be delivered for the service nationally. For example, does it really make sense to buy in police cars, uniforms and IT systems in 43 different ways? Where central procurement is consistent with our desire to devolve responsibility and accountability downwards, and it saves money for the taxpayer, we will encourage it and facilitate it.

    I know that some of you have argued for mergers between police forces. I understand the operational advantages of large forces, particularly in relation to the most serious forms of criminal activity. But let’s get one thing straight: this government believes strongly in building strong local communities and giving the people who live in these communities a major role in the planning and delivery of the public services they use. In keeping with this belief in local democratic accountability, police force mergers will not be allowed to happen unless they are voluntary and unless they have the support of local communities.

    But of course, there is a lot that police forces can do in terms of sharing back office functions and procurement. And, to that end, I welcome ACPO’s offer to produce a national plan for the way the service does business. I’m eager to hear over the coming weeks from ACPO and the APA what progress has been made in putting together a project to meet the financial challenges of the future.

    I want that plan to look at what other matters are best reserved and what essential functions – such as criminal justice units, call handling and training – can be delivered more cheaply and effectively with other forces or partners. And I want that plan to identify where collaboration can strengthen the police response to terrorism, organised criminality and threats to the public that cut across force boundaries.

    We need to understand too the potential benefits of outsourcing, and not just in areas like human resources and finance. Some forces have already shown substantial savings in things like custody management.

    The ACPO plan will need to look critically at the size of these functions and the number of officers deployed. I am determined that frontline availability should increase even as budgets contract. I acknowledge that increasing the visibility and productivity of officers, PCSOs and other staff is a major challenge. But I firmly believe that it is a challenge that chief constables can – and must – meet.

    The matter of deployment and availability will be examined by HMIC in their value for money inspections later this year. And we will make sure that the review of remuneration and conditions of service recommends ways we can give chief constables more discretion over how to use their workforce flexibly and cost-effectively.

    Liberating the police to get officers onto the beat

    Because we need to think creatively about how to get officers from behind desks and onto the streets. And I’m pleased to say that we have, in our short time in government, already made some progress.

    We have long promised to scrap the ‘stop and account’ form in its entirety and reduce the burden of the stop and search procedures. I can announce today that these important commitments will be delivered by the end of the year.

    In my speech to the Police Federation, I promised to return charging decisions to the police for a broader range of minor offences. And I can announce today that there will be a phased rollout of the new arrangements from November.

    Essex, London, Thames Valley, Staffordshire and West Yorkshire have been testing these new charging arrangements. When they are rolled out across the whole country, up to 80,000 cases a year will be returned to the discretion of police officers.

    And I can also announce today that I am also scrapping the confidence target and the policing pledge with immediate effect.

    I know that some officers like the policing pledge, and some, I’m sure, like the comfort of knowing they’ve ticked boxes. But targets don’t fight crime; targets hinder the fight against crime. In scrapping the confidence target and the policing pledge, I couldn’t be any clearer about your mission: it isn’t a thirty-point plan; it is to cut crime. No more, and no less.

    I know that the Home Office hasn’t been the only guilty partner in creating all this bureaucracy. The criminal justice system can waste officers’ time, and I know that Nick Herbert, who is not only a minister in the Home Office but also the Ministry of Justice, is keen to hear your ideas about how to make it more efficient. Nick is going to be here all week, and is anxious to hear your views on this and any other subject that is bothering you. So please do make sure you speak to him.

    But we have to face the fact that some of this bureaucracy also stems from the forces themselves. When times are tight, when we are removing red tape imposed by the Home Office, it simply cannot be right that this bureaucracy is reinstated at a local level. Nor can it be right for remaining paperwork to be goldplated by forces. So I call on all of you, chief constables and police authority members alike, to take the same, radical approach to cutting bureaucracy as we are taking in Whitehall.

    The announcements I have made today are by no means exhaustive, and I want to hear from you about what else we can do to help you do your jobs more efficiently and effectively. Tell me precisely where bureaucracy is making your life harder for no benefit, and I will do whatever I can to change it.

    But the truth is that if we are going to make the police more visible, more available, and more accountable to the public you serve, then we have to go beyond these changes. We have to look again at the driver of all this bureaucracy, and that is the top-down model of accountability imposed on police by government.

    Swapping bureaucratic accountability for democratic accountability
    That is government’s way of doing things. Ask a bureaucrat to do something and he’ll create bureaucracy. It’s not really a surprise, is it? But we can’t sweep away the targets, initiatives and paperwork and leave nothing in their place. The police, like every public service, have to remain accountable. But they do not have to be accountable to bureaucrats in Whitehall – they should be accountable to the people they serve in their communities. So we will swap the top-down, bureaucratic accountability for local, democratic accountability, as we promised to do in the Coalition Agreement, and indeed as was promised in the manifestos of both Coalition partners.

    It means a directly-elected individual at force level, setting the force budget, agreeing the local strategic plan, playing a role in wider questions of community safety and appointing – and if necessary removing – the local chief constable.

    It means publishing accurate local crime data, so that maps can be produced showing exactly what crimes have been committed where.

    It means regular beat meetings for local communities to hold their neighbourhood policing teams to account. And I give you this assurance: none of these changes will compromise the foundation stone of British policing, your operational independence.

    That is the deal I am offering to you. I haven’t had time today to do more than outline some of its main principles. In the next few months, Nick Herbert and I will be in listening mode – and I urge you to use this opportunity to tell us how you think that these general principles should best be implemented.

    Later this summer, we will be bringing forward detailed proposals and introducing the necessary legislation to be implemented in this session of Parliament. Some of you will no doubt argue that this timetable is too ambitious. Some have suggested that what we should do is set up a Royal Commission to think about these matters for a couple of years.

    Frankly, these issues are too important to be put on the back burner. In this age of spending cuts and policing on a budget, our programme of police reform becomes more urgent, not less. So we will get on with the job.

    Our vision is a bold one, with a totally redrawn national policing landscape: more collaboration between forces, a review into the role and remit of the NPIA, a border police force as part of a refocused Serious and Organised Crime Agency, and, of course, directly-elected individuals to deliver local accountability. And I want you, the senior police officers, to think sensibly about a clearer and more transparent leadership role for ACPO in this landscape.

    Conclusions

    Times might be tough, and money might be tight, but there is no reason to check our ambition.

    What I have outlined today is a real plan to cut crime and anti-social behaviour. It’s not – as we’ve been used to – a bureaucratic checklist we expect police officers to follow. It’s a plan that gives responsibility to the police, accountability to the public, and the clearest sense of direction possible: your job is nothing more, and nothing less, than to cut crime. And I will do everything I can to help you do so.

  • Theresa May – 2010 Statement on Police Reform

    Below is the text of the statement made by Theresa May, the then Home Secretary, on 29 June 2010.

    I am today setting out some further details of the government’s approach to police reform. Policing governance has become distorted and over-centralised in recent years and the government is committed to ensuring that accountability and transparency are firmly at the heart of policing.

    The first step for reform must be the return of proper operational responsibility to chief constables and their teams and that for this to work effectively there needs to be a redesign of the current performance landscape. The police service needs more freedom from central control – fewer centrally driven targets and less intervention and interference from government. That is why I am announcing that we are abolishing the centrally imposed target on police forces to improve public confidence and we will scrap the Policing Pledge. Police forces need to be
    accountable instead to their communities.

    To achieve greater accountability, the public need better information about their police and about local crime. This is why we will make sure that crime data is published at a level that allows the public to see what is happening on their streets, enabling the public to hold the police and other local agencies to account for how they are dealing with problems in their area. We will also require police forces to hold regular ‘beat meetings’ to provide residents with the opportunity to put forward their concerns and hold the police to account.

    In the future, the establishment of a directly elected individual at force level, setting the force budget, agreeing the local strategic plan, playing a role in wider questions of community safety and appointing – and if necessary removing – the local chief constable, will strengthen local accountability for policing. We will publish further details on our reform of policing later in the summer, which will assist our discussions with the public and our partners, and inform the government’s preparations for the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill in the autumn.

  • Theresa May – 2010 Statement on English Language Requirement

    Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May, the then Home Secretary, in the House of Commons on 9 June 2010.

    I wish to inform the House that I am today announcing the introduction of a new English language requirement for migrants applying to come to or stay in the UK as a spouse. Changes to the immigration rules will be laid before Parliament to bring this policy into effect in the autumn.

    Non-European migrants joining a British citizen or non-European national settled in the UK will have to demonstrate a basic command of English in order to be considered for a visa. The rules will apply to spouses, civil partners, unmarried partners, same sex partners, fiances and proposed civil partners, and will be compulsory for people applying from within the UK, as well as visa applicants overseas.

    The Government believe that speaking English should be a pre-requisite for those wishing to settle here. This new English requirement for spouses will help promote the economic well-being of the UK, for example by encouraging integration and protecting public services. It will assist in removing cultural barriers, broaden opportunities for migrants and help to ensure that they are equipped to play a full part in British life.

    This is only the first step. We are reviewing English language requirements across the immigration system with a view to tightening the rules further in the future. We will inform the House of our conclusions in due course.

    Today’s announcement is one of a range of new measures the Government will be taking to ensure that immigration is properly controlled for the benefit of the UK. These include an annual limit on non-EEA migrants coming to the UK to live and work and measures to minimise abuse of the immigration system, for example via student routes.

  • William Woolcock – 1920 Speech on the Loyal Address

    Below is the text of the speech made by William Woolcock, the then Liberal MP for Hackney Central, in the House of Commons on 10 February 1920.

    I beg to second the Address in reply to the Gracious Speech from the Throne which has been proposed in such felicitous terms, if he will allow me to say so, by my hon. and gallant Friend at my side (Colonel Peel). I, like him, ask the indulgence of the House, and all the more so because I have to follow him in the brilliant contribution which he has just made. I am fully conscious that the honour of seconding the Address is in no sense a personal one. It is a compliment to the borough which I, in common with my hon Friend opposite, the Member for South Hackney (Mr. Bottomley), and my hon. Friend on this side (Lieutenant-Colonel Greene) have the honour to represent in this House. The Gracious Speech to which we listened this morning is indicative I think of the very full appreciation of the difficulties which face us at this particular time. I commend it to the House as much for the spirit which can be discerned in every line as for the remedial measures which are foreshadowed in it. We are proverbially slow in waging war and we are equally slow, I think, in realising the altered conditions in which peace is bound to find us.

    Once as a nation we realise the seriousness of the problem confronting us we proceed to deal with it in a truly British way. If I interpret the spirit of the Gracious Speech aright we have at last realised that reconstruction is more difficult than destruction, and, the nation having realised that, will, I feel sure, set itself, in the words of the Speech, “with goodwill for others with energy and with patience,” to ensure that lasting progress and social peace which we all desire. This House, and indeed, I am sure, the whole country, will be glad to see the reference to the price of foodstuffs and other necessary commodities, and whilst sharing in the pleasure that prices are appreciably lower in this country than elsewhere, will welcome the promise of legislation for large and far-reaching measures of reform. I am equally sure that the House will welcome the reference to the condition of trade in the outside world, and I think every hon. Member can from his own personal experience see evidences of a steadily increasing flow of trade, a state of affairs which is absolutely essential to the recovery of the financial condition which we formerly held.

    My hon. and gallant Friend has referred to many of the measures foreshadowed in the Speech, and I will therefore only detain the House in commenting on one or two. I would like, with the permission of the House, to say one word which is perhaps rather outside the Gracious Speech, and to refer to the Bill which is foreshadowed for fixing the hours of employment for adults. That Bill, I am sure, will to welcomed in this House very cordially by Members of all Parties. May I express the hope that we shall not only do something in the way of legislating for the hours which adults work, but that the House, with its large heart, will also be prepared to do something for those wage-earning children who, in addition to having to attend school, are too frequently now working unconscionably. This is not an opportune time for me to press that, but I ask the House to accord me their thoughts and their sympathy in that when the proper time does come.

    Custom has decreed that neither mover nor seconder of the Address shall say anything which shall be regarded as controversial in any way. My hon. and gallant Friend has certainly not said anything which could be regarded as controversial, and I desire to follow him in that particular, but I feel impelled also to say, just as he did, a word with regard to the reference to Ireland in the speech.

    We are witnessing a tragedy, a tragedy the consequences of which, both immediate and remote, who of us would attempt to define or set a limit to, a tragedy which one and all of us will have to take our share of responsibility in. The degree may vary, but nevertheless there is no Member of this House who will be able to escape responsibility for some share in the measures which are proposed. I therefore think that in these circumstances the House will readily seize the promised opportunity of considering anew the problem of Ireland.

    In this way alone can we satisfy our individual consciences, and in this way alone can we put ourselves as a nation right with the world. It seems to me that the whole of the Gracious Speech breathes the true spirit of reconstruction, and I believe there has been no time since the Armistice when the nation as a whole has been so ready to undertake the work. The part which Britain has played in the world in the past is no mean one, and if we will unitedly accept our heavy responsibilities and will seize our present opportunities, it will be equally great in the future. Our deeds still travel with us from afar, and what we have been makes us what we are.

  • King George V – 1920 King’s Speech

    Below is the text of the speech made by King George V in the House of Lords on 10 February 1920.

    My Lords, and Members of the House of Commons,

    I am thankful that since I last addressed you the final ratifications of the Peace Treaty with Germany have been exchanged in Paris, and that the state of war with that country which has lasted for more than five years has been finally brought to an end. I have accordingly despatched to Berlin a representative to act as Chargé d’ Affaires at that capital, and I am about to receive a German representative at My Court of St. James’s.

    I intend shortly to accord my ratification to the Treaties for Peace which have been signed with Austria and Bulgaria, and proposals will be laid before you for giving effect to these Treaties.

    I trust that it will be possible to conclude peace both with Hungary and Turkey at an early date. The negotiations concerning the Turkish peace which have already commenced are being pressed forward with all possible speed.

    A number of meetings between my Ministers and representatives of the Great Associated Powers have recently taken place in London and Paris and have confirmed the excellent relations which exist with all our Allies. I earnestly trust that, as the result of these meetings, a settlement of the long-continued Adriatic dispute will shortly be reached. In order, however, to assure the full blessings of peace and prosperity to Europe, it is essential that not only peace but normal conditions of economic life should be restored in Eastern Europe and in Russia. So long as these vast regions withhold their full contribution to the stock of commodities available for general consumption, the cost of living can hardly be reduced nor general prosperity restored to the world.

    I have had great pleasure in assenting to the proposal that the Prince of Wales should visit Australia and New Zealand and, should take the opportunity on his return voyage of seeing some of my West Indian possessions. He will, I feel confident, receive a cordial welcome everywhere both from old comrades in arms and from all classes of the community.

    Members of the House of Commons,

    The estimates for the service in the coining year will be laid before you in due course.

    My Lords, and Members of the House of Commons,

    The war has shaken to its foundations the economy of the national life, and the transition from war to peace has presented problems of unprecedented difficulty. I believe that our country and the Empire are making rapid strides towards stability and prosperity. The price of foodstuffs and other necessary commodities is causing anxiety to all the peoples of the world, but I am glad to say that prices in these islands are appreciably lower than they are elsewhere. This fact and the condition of trade with the outside world, especially of the export trade, serve to show that my people are proving no less successful in dealing with the troubles which war has left behind it than they were in enduring the war itself.

    If, however, we are to insure lasting progress, prosperity and social peace, all classes must continue to throw themselves into the work of reconstruction with goodwill for others, with energy, and with patience, and legislation providing for large and far-reaching measures of reform must be passed into law.

    The condition of Ireland causes me grave concern, but a Bill will immediately be laid before you to give effect to the proposals for the better government of that country which were outlined at the end of the last Session. A Bill to make further provision for education in Ireland will also be submitted to you. The absence of facilities for education for a considerable part of the child population in certain districts makes the question one of urgency, but care will be taken to make the measure compatible with the Home Rule Bill.

    It is imperative that the difficult problems which have arisen in connection with the coal-mining industry should be settled on an enduring basis. These problems will demand your anxious and early attention. In addition to an emergency measure to adjust the financial arrangements of the collieries to meet the abnormal economic conditions at present prevailing in the industry, you will be asked to consider proposals for the acquisition of coal royalties by the State, for the improvement of conditions in mining areas, and for the future ordering of the industry in the best interests of the community as a whole.

    Experience during the war showed clearly the injurious effects upon national efficiency of the excessive consumption of strong drink and the amelioration both in health and efficiency which followed appropriate measures of regulation and control. A Bill will accordingly be presented to you providing for the development of a suitable system for the peace-time regulation of the sale and supply of alcoholic liquor.

    Despite the increase of agricultural production during the war, the population of these islands is still dangerously dependent upon the supplies of food from Overseas, and the financial burden of purchasing such supplies in foreign markets against an adverse rate of exchange is very great. Uneasiness has also been caused by the unprecedented sale of landed property since the war. Measures will accordingly be proposed to mitigate any hardship which this operation may cause to the occupier, and to stimulate and develop the production of essential foodstuffs within the United Kingdom. A Bill will also be introduced to encourage and develop the Fishing Industry.

    A Bill will also be submitted to you for the after-war organisation of the regular and territorial armies and for regulating the navigation of the air.

    Among other important Bills which you will be invited to pass are measures dealing with Insurance against Unemployment, the regulation of hours of employment, and the establishment of a minimum rate of wage, and with the amendment of the Health Insurance Acts. Bills will also be introduced providing against the injury to national industries from dumping and for the creation of an adequate supply of cheap electrical and water power.

    Proposals will also be laid before you during the present Session dealing with the Reform of the Second Chamber, and it is hoped that time will permit of their being passed into law.

    And I pray that Almighty God may bestow His blessing upon your deliberations.

  • Hugh Rossi – 1985 Speech on Acid Rain

    Below is the text of the speech made by Hugh Rossi, the then Conservative MP for Hornsey and Wood Green, in the House of Commons on 11 January 1985.

    I welcome this opportunity to debate the report on acid rain of the Select Committee on the Environment, and with it the Government’s reply to the report. I am particularly grateful to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for having kept his promise to find time for the debate. Select Committee reports are not frequently discussed on the Floor of the House. Indeed, not a single Environment Committee report was debated in the House for the whole of the 1979–83 Parliament. This is the third debate accorded to the present Committee since it was appointed to the House a little over 12 months ago, so we are indeed fortunate. Having said that, I must add, without, I hope, appearing a little churlish, that I would have preferred a better time for the debate than a Friday immediately following the end of a curtailed recess. We are discussing a subject of growing importance, when public awareness is heightening, and I know that many colleagues would have wished to be present had they been able to alter their arrangements. However, I recognise the Government’s preference for a low-key parliamentary occasion on this subject, so I must be grateful for small mercies.

    This is an all-party report of a Committee composed of seven Conservative Members, three Labour Members and one Liberal Member. It is a unanimous report. I wish to thank my colleagues on the Committee for all the hard work that they put in over three months to produce it in record time. Therefore, this is a House of Commons occasion, when the Back Benches seek to give some guidance to Ministers, having carried out in-depth research into matters that we know their administrative duties deny them the time to investigate in the same depth. I trust, therefore, that the debate will not be diminished by party-political posturing.

    I say that directly to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) because I heard him on the radio this morning welcoming the report because it was “straight Labour party policy”. Until the report was published, I do not recall any great concern about the matter by the Labour party, certainly not in the general election campaigns of 1979 and 1983. Moreover, when I raised the problem of sulphur emissions when I was on the Opposition Front Bench during the Second Reading of the Control of Pollution Act 1974, I did not receive a very forthcoming reply from the Labour Minister of the day. Therefore, I find it hard to see a Labour policy, but I recognise opportunism when I see it.

    Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)

    The Labour party would reciprocate the spirit in which the hon. Gentleman started his speech, but he has now introduced the dimension that he sought to avoid. Does he not agree that we could close this point by saying that those who insist on and enthuse about the magic of the market must watch it carefully when we deal with national and international matters of environmental pollution?

    Sir Hugh Rossi

    I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for showing that he agrees that this should be a House of Commons matter, and should not be diminished by party political posturing. I thought it only right, having heard the hon. Member for South Shields on the radio this morning, to respond to him, because it was the only opportunity for me so to do.

    I now turn to the report. The term “acid rain” is a convenient and graphic description of the problems that we consider in it. The term is not used in its strictest sense. Not all that is covered by it is rain. We are equally concerned with dry depositions and so-called “occult” depositions, or mists, as we are with acidified rain water. Not all that is covered by the term is acid. We take into account the problems attributed to man-made ozone. However, there is a consistent common denominator. All with which the report is concerned are the products of the combustion of fossil fuels emitted into the atmosphere, which on return to ground level, either singly or in combination with one another or some other elements, cause damage to the physical environment. Therefore, acid rain is a result of burning coal or oil, whether in power stations, industrial plant, domestic boilers and grates or motor car engines, which corrodes buildings, destroys water life, damages forests, trees and plant life, and might be detrimental to human health.

    The Committee commenced its inquiry with a completely open mind, and came to the unanimous conclusion that action needed to be put in hand without delay to combat the effects of acid rain. The reasoning that led to our conclusions is set out in detail in the report. Our conclusions were reached after taking and evaluating evidence both here and abroad, much of it of a technical and scientific nature, in which we were assisted by our specialist advisers, Professor Alan Williams of Leeds university and Dr. Nigel Bell of Imperial college, London, to whom we are indebted for all their help and advice.

    The first matter that impressed us was the concern and anxiety over acid rain that we found on our visits to West Germany, where extensive tree and forest damage has been experienced, and to Scandinavia, where severe fish losses have been suffered through acidification of lakes and rivers. In those countries there is little doubt as to the cause, although some scientists have differed on how the effects have come about. In those countries, where damage is so extensive and obvious, there is a high level of public awareness and political pressure on Governments to act.

    By contrast, in the United Kingdom, there is no such awareness and, indeed, comparatively little scientific monitoring and investigation taking place. The reasons for that are several. First, because of our climatic conditions, prevailing winds and infrequent periods of summer anticyclones, we have so far escaped the obvious effects experienced in West Germany and Scandinavia. Secondly, the Clean Air Act 1956 and the tremendous benefits brought about by smoke-free zones have lulled us into a false sense of security. The London smog that killed some 4,000 people in December 1952 has been banished, and we enjoy 70 per cent. more winter sunshine in central London than in those years, and many species of birds and plants have returned to the area which, previously, could not survive there. That legislation was far in advance of that achieved by any other country. By getting rid of the visible atmospheric pollution, the grit and the soot, we believed as a nation that the problem had been solved.

    Thirdly, to that was added the tall chimney policy, as a result of which industrial smoke is sent high into the atmosphere and its contents carried by the prevailing winds many miles from source. In consequence, public anxiety subsided and scientific investigation was reduced to a very low level.

    There are large areas of the United Kingdom in which no monitoring of air quality has been taking place. The recording of acid deposition is patchy and primitive. Precious little has been done to study the corrosion of buildings for almost two decades. Inquiry into damage to trees and waterways has been uncoordinated and on a minute scale. Meanwhile, vast quantities of invisible sulphur dioxide and various oxides of nitrogen have continued to be poured out into the atmosphere from the burning of coal and oil.

    Today, the United Kingdom is the largest single emitter of sulphur dioxide in Europe outside the Soviet Union with something in the order of 5 million tonnes per annum. A similar picture emerges for nitrogen oxide where only western Germany produces more than we do.

    No one challenges the scientific fact that when sulphur dioxide is deposited on sandstone or limestone a chemical reaction takes place which reduces to powder the surface of the buildings with which they are made. The Committee had to talk to the architect for Cologne cathedral to discover that.

    When the Committee returned to the United Kingdom, it found that the Building Research Establishment had done no work on that for two decades; the CEGB had started investigating the problem some two years ago only; and the PSA had kept no central records. However, inquiries of the curators of several historical buildings revealed extensive and widespread damage extremely costly to repair.

    The Committee was also told in western Germany that the modern reinforced concrete structures suffer. The acid penetrates to the metal rods, causing them to corrode, rust and expand, fracturing the concrete fabric by internal pressure. No one, but no one, has been able to confirm that to the Committee in the United Kingdom because of a complete lack of study.

    When the Committee came to consider the effects upon water life, it found the scientific picture to be more complex. The extent to which water life is affected by depositions of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide depends upon the geology of the catchment area of the waters. There is no doubt that increased acidity of water kills vulnerable eggs and fry especially after snow melts when there can be a sudden surge of acidity. High levels of acidity leach toxic metals into the water which kill adult fish.

    The acid effect can be buffered in areas where there is calcium in the subsoil, so fish there suffer less than in areas where a comparable degree of acid deposition falls upon granite.

    In Sweden, 18,000 out of 20,000 lakes are acidified and some 4,000 have entirely lost their fish stocks. In Norway a survey of 2,840 lakes showed that 1,711 had lost their fish due to acidification. In the United Kingdom, the Committee found that fish loss is now being experienced in Scotland. A fish farmer in Dumfriesshire suffered serious unexplained losses until scientific research commissioned by him from Stirling university revealed that it was due to acidification of a burn from which he drew his water. Although the Committee does not have evidence, it understands that Wales is now expressing anxiety.

    Liming is recommended by some British sources as an antidote. There is no doubt that artificial additions of calcium can neutralise acidity. However, the Swedes consider that to be a temporary measure at best, and the Norwegians say that it is useless in fast-running waters. It cannot combat the acid surges from snow melt at breeding time. They argue that the remedy is to stop the emission of the acid at source and not to attempt to combat it when it has been deposited.

    The Committee found the effects on acid rain on trees and forests more difficult to investigate. That was mainly due to the fact that original observations in western Germany had again blamed sulphur dioxide as being the main culprit. It was suggested by some of their scientists that that released toxic metals in the soils, damaging fibre roots.

    More recent studies have shown that ozone produced as the result of a reaction between nitrogen oxide and hydrocarbons in sunlight is a significant cause of needle burn and loss to pine trees. It now seems to be generally accepted in western Germany and Scandinavia and by some scientists in this country that ozone is the principal factor in tree damage in western Germany and Scandinavia. In western Germany, the Committee found that some 50 per cent. of the forests are affected.

    However, it must be remembered that, whether sulphur dioxide or nitrogen oxide and hydrocarbons combining into ozone are the main culprits, all are the result of burning fossil fuels. The distinction lies in the source, as evidence shows that the motor car engine is equally culpable in the production of nitrogen and hydrocarbons whereas sulphur dioxide comes mainly from industry and power stations.

    So far, the United Kingdom can rejoice in that it seems to have escaped the serious effects that acid rain has had on water life and forests in other countries. Whether we are simply some years behind other countries in feeling the cumulative effects of acid deposition because we have been protected by our climatic conditions is impossible to say. That requires monitoring and research, which has not been taking place.

    Hence the several recommendations that the Committee makes for such programmes, which I am pleased to note that the Government have accepted, including those for the development of new combustion technology in industry, power stations and motor car engines for the reduction of emissions.

    I must express the Committee’s gratitude for the fact that 19 of its 21 recommendations have been accepted by the Government and are to be acted upon. However, we are disappointed that the Government are not prepared to recognise the need for urgent action to reduce emissions. The experience of other countries suggests that, while damage may be slow in coming, it spreads rapidly when it does come, and the first signs have already appeared in this country.

    The Committee feels also that we have a responsibility to our neighbours. Whilst our tall chimneys and prevailing winds enable us to export 70 per cent. of our sulphur dioxide production, saving ourselves from its worst effects, there is no doubt that we are causing severe damage in neighbouring countries.

    Good international relations are important, as the Government recognise in many other aspects of their policy. It is therefore inexplicable that the Government should refuse to accept the Committee’s recommendation to join the “30 per cent. club” to which some 20 countries already belong. The commitment would be to reduce sulphur emissions by 30 per cent. by 1993, taking 1980 as the base year. This country has already achieved a 20 per cent. reduction in four years, leaving only the remaining 10 per cent. to be attained over the next nine years. Instead, the Government offer in their reply to attain that 10 per cent. over 16 years—by the end of the 1990s. The principle is accepted but the time scale is extended for what is, in the Committee’s view, a dangerously long time. This cannot begin to be an exercise in international co-operation. Surely it is not necessary to be so excessively timid. It shows a regrettable lack of good neighbourliness.

    Curious about this aspect of the Government’s reply is the fact that, although they assert in paragraph 1.3 that they aim to achieve the 30 per cent. reduction by the 1990s, they do not say how they intend to achieve it. On the contrary. They go on to say that expenditure in curtailing flue gas desulphurisation in existing power stations cannot be justified.

    If this solution is rejected and it is known that new combustion technologies will not be available for several years, let alone installed and operating, will the Minister please explain the precise Government programme for the 30 per cent. reduction and how it is intended to be achieved? The reply is totally silent on that.

    The Committee also recommends that the Government embark, with our European partners, on a much more ambitious course than the 30 per cent. reduction; namely, the adoption of the EEC draft directive requiring a 60 per cent. reduction in sulphur dioxide emissions by 1995, again taking 1980 as the base year.

    The power stations in Britain are by far the largest emitters both of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide. The targets could be reached by the adaptation of some of the larger power stations and by requiring industry to install new technology as and when new factories are built.

    The cost to the electricity generating industry would be substantial — approximately £1.5 billion, or the equivalent of a rise of 5 per cent. in electricity charges. All this cost, however, would be spread over a 10-year period.

    It is perhaps understandable that the Government should have baulked at undertaking such a large expenditure, especially when their main preoccupation at present is to find every possible means of reducing public expenditure. It is even more understandable that the Government should have been reluctant when they have been receiving advice from not disinterested sources to the effect that it is by no means sure that the expenditure proposed would solve the problem.

    In our report, we have collated evidence from a variety of outside sources from which information has not been collated before; evidence which has not previously been considered by Government advisers and Ministers. We believe that all the evidence leads inexorably to the conclusions that we have reached and that sooner or later the Government will be obliged to recognise the validity of our conclusions.

    I can only express the hope that a more careful study will be made by the Government of the evidence that we have found and that they will then be moved to take urgent action before irrevocable damage is suffered, damage which in the long term will cost far more to mitigate than the sums posited in our report.