UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Matt Hancock – 2018 Speech on NHS Leadership

    Below is the text of the speech made by Matt Hancock, the Secretary of State for Health, at the King’s Fund on 28 November 2018.

    I want to talk to you today about how we create the right leadership culture in the NHS. So I’ve been looking at what we can learn from other organisations. But the truth is, there’s nowhere like the NHS.

    No other nation has what we have in the NHS. No other healthcare system is as comprehensive or as big. There’s no organisation on earth on the scale of the NHS that deals with life and death decisions every single day, often in highly pressurised and challenging conditions. So there’s probably a lot the NHS has to teach others.

    But that doesn’t mean we should be complacent or that we can’t learn from others – particularly when it comes to leadership. The only organisations that come close to the NHS in size is the US Department of Defence, McDonald’s, Walmart and the Chinese People’s Liberation Army.

    Missiles, cheeseburgers and groceries. On the surface of it, not a lot in common with the NHS. But look at McDonald’s, for example: they’re nowhere near as important as the NHS. What they do is spectacularly less complex. Yet they start leadership training at shift manager level. They drive leadership training through every level of their company.

    Restaurant managers learn how to develop a culture of continuous improvement, how to hold their teams and themselves accountable and how to apply best practice to their outlet. General managers learn how to create and execute business plans and analyse and improve performance. And then there’s apprenticeships, university degrees, a leadership institute and accelerated leadership development programmes.

    All that training, all that leadership development, just to sell more burgers. What the NHS does is so much more valuable, but can we honestly say that we place as much time, effort and importance on identifying, developing and supporting leaders? That we value it?

    Surely, the life-saving business requires at least as much emphasis on good leadership as the fast-food business? And it’s so important in the NHS. The best led trusts have the best performance; clinical, financial, staff and patient satisfaction.

    There’s no trade off ‒ there’s a correlation with leadership. So we need to have an open and honest conversation about how we get the right leadership in the NHS. Because leaders create the culture, and so many of the problems of the NHS can be solved by a just culture.

    So I want to focus on 3 things today: training, tech leadership and diversity.

    First: training. We need to train more people to be leaders in the NHS. I welcome today’s review by Sir Ron Kerr into how we can empower NHS leaders to lead.

    We need more clinicians becoming chief executives, so we need a pipeline of talent from the frontline to the boardroom.

    And we also need new people and new ideas from outside the system so we need more porous borders into the NHS.

    More outsiders, more insiders, more trained on their way up. What matters is we get the best leaders. And how we do it is by making sure they get the right, tailored training so clinicians learn how to lead, and external recruits at all levels learn how the NHS works.

    Every leader, from the ward to the boardroom, must get training and development throughout their careers. Now there’s some brilliant leaders and good stuff happening with, for example, the new Clinical Executive Fast Track scheme, the expansion of the NHS Graduate Management Training Scheme, and the Leadership Academy growing and moving to NHS Improvement.

    And I also welcome what’s happening outside the system with charities like The Staff College taking the best of what the military, business and education do on developing leaders and adapting that training for the NHS.

    I want to learn from The Staff College and embed it much more in how we develop our leaders. And from what people like Professor Stefan Scholtes is doing at Cambridge University’s Judge Business School, running a hugely popular MBA programme, taking mid-career clinicians and turning them into top-tier leaders.

    If there’s a golden thread running through all of them, it’s that we need to create leaders who are comfortable with challenge and change. Leaders who will create a ‘learn, not blame’ culture.

    A culture that’s less hierarchical, with greater autonomy at all levels. Where staff can challenge without fear. Where complaints are an opportunity to improve, not a need for cover-up and denial. Where whistleblowing is encouraged, patients are listened to and there is shared learning through training in teams.

    This matters. And it particularly matters in a high-risk job like healthcare, because everyone makes errors. Making mistakes is acceptable. It’s OK, everyone does it. What’s unacceptable is bad behaviour and failing to learn from mistakes.

    And because culture change comes from the top, I want to give you one small example of a mistake I made last week. I shared a link to NHS workforce figures on Twitter showing the numbers of GPs had risen by 1,000. The fact I shared is true, but I used figures that weren’t comparable.

    I was accused of deliberately trying to mislead people. I wasn’t, and the policy consequences are unchanged: we still need more GPs. But those figures were not the best way to show what was happening in the system so I deleted the tweet. I’ve learned from my error; I’m very enthusiastic about sharing good news about the NHS. That’s OK, but my lesson is to read the statistical footnote before you tweet and give a full representation of the facts.

    Now, I recognise that for you, correcting a mistake is not as simple as hitting delete. The consequences can be much more serious. But mistakes will happen despite our best efforts. What matters is that we admit mistakes, learn the right lessons and that we improve. And nowhere is a ‘learn, not blame’ culture more important than patient safety.

    The work Dr Aidan Fowler is currently doing to cement the right culture, one of continuous improvement, in the long-term plan, is vital to the future of the NHS. It is vital to creating the systems leadership I want to see embedded at every level across the NHS.

    So let me turn from training to tech, because this is another area where leadership has a crucial role to play.

    Now, you know tech is one of my 3 priorities, and there is a tech revolution happening across health as we speak.

    Improving technology is only a small part about the technology. It’s mostly about culture. Leaders must ensure their staff have the right skills to constantly innovate and continuously realise the benefits that technology can bring, from basic, good IT to the huge opportunities such as genomics, AI and digital medicines will bring to the NHS.

    That means we must have the right skills and capability in management and leadership. And technology is no longer just another department but is at the core of how every good organisation works.

    So if you’re a chief executive, I don’t expect you to know everything about tech, but I do expect you to have a chief information officer on the board who does. Because the best leaders know their own shortcomings and take action. They’re not afraid to seek out support, surround themselves with good people and empower others to take decisions if they have more expertise.

    In fact, Dr Eric Topol’s tech review is looking equally at the new technologies we want to see within the NHS, and the leadership and training we must see within the NHS to make best use of those new technologies.

    How are technological developments likely to change the roles and functions of clinical staff over the next 10 or 20 years?

    What are the implications for the skills required?

    What does it mean for the selection, training and development of current staff and future NHS workforce?

    Those are all questions he is asking and will report on in the new year to help NHS leaders plan and prepare for change.

    But there’s another major change I want to see in the NHS. So, third: I want to talk about diversity. And here I want to borrow a phrase from Idris Elba: what we seek is diversity of thought.

    Now, one of the most obvious form of diversity is what people look like. And if we look at racial equality, our leadership within the NHS looks spectacularly un-diverse, uniform in fact.

    40% of hospital doctors and 20% of nurses in the NHS are from a black or ethnic minority background. Yet, BME representation on NHS trust boards is only 7%. More than half of all NHS trusts in England have no black or ethnic minority staff at the very senior manager (VSM) level.

    Diversity of thought comes from gender too. Over 75% of the NHS workforce are women, yet at board level that figure is just 40%. We need 500 more women on boards to make them gender balanced.

    But it’s not just a question of fairness and justice. Diversity of leadership is a diversity of experience, a diversity of perspectives. Different ways of thinking, fresh ideas, new solutions to old and seemingly insurmountable problems.

    Diversity of thought is essential to the future of the NHS. It is essential to make the best, and most intelligent use, of the £20 billion a year extra we’re putting into the NHS.

    And this applies to outsiders coming in as much as it does to insiders moving up. It’s about the right attitude to training, to tech and to diversity. Because, at the moment, we don’t have enough leaders. At the moment, nearly 1 in 10 chief executive positions in the NHS aren’t permanently filled.

    That can’t continue. We need to support our leaders more, manage their careers better. We need to be able to plan for the future with confidence. We need to find 20 more people right now with the skills, grit and ambition to be an NHS CEO, and 30 more people to be a chief operating officer, just for us to stand still.

    So, we must embrace better training, tech leadership, and diversity of thought. Because the NHS is changing, society is changing, expectations are changing.

    The health and social care system of the future is going to more joined up and better integrated. It’s going to be less command and control, less top-down, less hierarchy. More autonomy. More about relationships and building a transformative culture. More about us, than me.

    What does that mean? Well, let me illustrate it with 2 stories that both involve janitors.

    The first ‒ and I have Scott Morrish to thank for putting me onto Margaret Heffernan’s book ‘Beyond Measure’ ‒ is the ‘paradox of organisational culture’ and how culture makes a big difference, but it’s comprised of small actions.

    She writes: ‘We measure everything at work except what counts…but when we’re confronted by spectacular success or failure, everyone from the CEO to the janitor points in the same direction: the culture.’

    The solution to creating a more ‘just’ culture isn’t to think big, she says, but to think small.

    ‘Small changes, listening, asking questions, sharing information…each of those small things generates responses that influence the system itself. And everyone, from the CEO to the janitor, makes an impact.’

    So good leadership starts with getting the small things right.

    And the second story involving a janitor is from when President Kennedy visited NASA after setting them the mission of reaching the moon. Kennedy stopped a janitor and talked to him. And the President said to that janitor: ‘Thank you for helping put a man on the moon.’

    Good leadership means making sure everyone feels valued and vital to the mission. Leadership is listening to people, empathising. Being open to challenge and change. Empowering people and being humble enough to admit you don’t know everything and you make mistakes.

    That’s the culture I want to see across the NHS. That’s the culture we must work together to create across the NHS. Only then can the NHS truly be the very best, which is what our citizens deserve.

  • Shami Chakrabarti – 2018 Speech to the Annual Bar and Young Bar Conference 2018

    Below is the text of the speech made by Shami Chakrabarti, the Shadow Attorney General, to the Annual Bar and Young Bar Conference in London on 24 November 2018.

    Friends, it’s a daunting privilege to speak to this conference at such a pivotal moment and to address my profession as the Shadow Attorney General for England and Wales. Some years ago the Sun newspaper called me “the most dangerous woman in Britain”. This, for attempts to defend the Rule of Law for everyone, even in times of adversity. That label was the gift that kept on giving with audiences around the country, with the prospect of standing ovations in Liverpool in particular, where people well understand the dangers of abuse and corruption without access to justice.

    So thank you for this opportunity to talk about what the bar represents to me, what it remains still – despite perhaps – all odds, and what it might yet and better be soon, and in the years ahead.

    I’m not the greatest valuer of possessions, but amongst the few that really matter to me, I cherish a framed photograph of me with my late mother in the autumn of 1994 when I was called to the Bar at Middle Temple. Middle Temple remains my Inn and a place that I will always regard as a second home.

    My parents were not lawyers, but hailing as they did from the Commonwealth, they saw the Rule of Law – as epitomised by the historic buildings of the Inns and Royal Courts – as one of the great treasures of the United Kingdom to which they came in the late 1950s and which was to become their permanent home. In their youth, before the advent of cheap and accessible long distance airline travel, they came to Britain via ocean voyages lasting weeks. The only members of each of their families to do this, they would have thought of themselves as great adventurers and hard workers. In the received language and wisdom of today’s “hostile environment”, they would no doubt be denigrated as “migrants”.

    I was raised on a literary, TV and cinematic diet of Rumpole of the Bailey, Twelve Angry Men and To Kill a Mockingbird. There was no doubt that some kind of career in the law was for me and neither I nor my parents were the slightest bit put off by our lack of connections with the professions.

    For just as we lived in a country of universal state primary and secondary education and with a National Health Service free at the point of use and envied all over the world, we lived in a land where if something of dangerous significance was going to happen to you, the prospect say of losing your liberty, home, job, child or right to stay in this country, you would have access to ultimately high quality legal advice and representation, regardless of your means.

    I read law just down the road at the London School of Economics, undeterred and unencumbered by tuition fees of any kind. What’s more, I received a full student maintenance grant which paid for my food, travel, rent and law books. Part time and holiday jobs paid for extras and I left college in 1991 with virtually no debt. Then things got trickier. There were fees for the Inns of Court School of Law – minuscule by the standards of today, but still more than I or my parents could readily afford – so it was two years before I could take up my place. Nonetheless, soon after I did, I was fortunate enough to obtain a funded pupillage that amongst other things, placed me on the housing ladder in central London, a stone’s throw from where I now live.

    So far so good – except imagine my embarrassment when I talk to the law students of today and remember that it was many of my generation in British politics who enjoyed similar advantages, only to pull the ladder up from underneath them in the form of introducing tuition fees, reducing student support and deregulating legal professional education.

    My learned friend Nick Thomas-Symonds is the MP for Torfaen in South Wales, Shadow Solicitor General and Labour rising star. Once more, he did not come from a legal or privileged family. After a distinguished academic career at Oxford, he was called to Lincolns Inn in 2004 with the benefit of a Lord Denning scholarship, a Thomas More bursary and a Hardwicke entrance award. Writing in the Times earlier this year, Nick signalled our intention under the next Labour Government, not just to end university tuition fees, but to end the racket of bar courses that offer too many places for too high fees to too poor students, many of whom have no prospect of the pupillage that remains the gateway to the profession:

    “The Bar, a small profession, requires high-quality entrants. It needs to be more reflective of the public it serves, and in doing so provide a more diverse pool of candidates for future judicial appointments. Nobody should be locked out of the profession because they cannot afford course fees. Nor should people who can afford the fees be charged thousands of pounds to train with no prospect of a career at the Bar.”

    He went on:

    “…there is an obvious solution that has the advantages of being radical and building on the fine traditions of the Bar. Let the Inns become the course providers. Let them train the smaller number of students who do have a genuine chance of pupillage, expand their scholarship and bursary programmes and build a profession of barristers from many different backgrounds. While the Inns are in London, there is no reason why they could not establish regional centres. For all the years of consultation, the best means to create the profession we all want to see was staring us in the face the entire time.”

    I repeat my colleague’s words for those who did not read the article, to put the profiteers on fair notice that change is coming and to promise to work with the Bar and the Inns enthusiastically and creatively on the best way to invest in the best future of the profession.

    That must of course include a radical reversal of the cold hand of Coalition austerity politics on legal aid and the court system. LASPO is a national scandal on a par with universal discredit and the hostile environment for migrants.

    It may not yet command the same newspaper coverage, but it is a similar agent of delivering misery. In contrast with the claims of politicians from all sides in the past, the law is not a bourgeois luxury but an absolute essential for everyone and especially the most vulnerable in society.

    Access to justice is a fundamental human right and the bridge between the civil liberties I sought to defend for most of my career, and the social and economic rights that are of my greatest concern today.

    Without accessible advice and representation, all other laws no matter how beautifully imagined and crafted, are as a dead letter in a sealed book. Housing, benefits, employment, family and immigration and refugee law cannot do the job of providing protection – whether against the state or other actors – without the legal services that the vulnerable so desperately need. Even the Human Rights Act, twenty years old this autumn – and still in tact despite Conservative manifesto pledges for its repeal – cannot do its work without lawyers to unlock it for all the people of this country.

    And whilst all austerity is a political choice, I cannot help but suspect that the particularly savage treatment of the Ministry of Justice with its 40 per cent cuts is especially ideological in leaving abuses of power unchecked.

    When younger, I never thought that I would see food banks next to investment banks in one of the wealthiest countries on Earth. Nor did I think I would see doctors, lawyers and teachers having to take to the streets like the industrial and agricultural workers of previous generations.

    But just as our country has become more unequal and polarised, our legal system is fast coming to resemble the Michelin starred restaurant next to the soup kitchen. The international super rich still have a taste for British justice, seeking to strike their deals with a view to settling their disputes here, or better still, in shadowy arbitrations in glamorous offshore tax havens with the aid of some of the finest and most expensively trained minds in our country.

    Meanwhile on the ground, several miles down from the Learjet and penthouse suite, the proportion of litigants with legal representation fell from 60 per cent in 2012 to just 33 per cent in the first quarter of last year.

    That means endless contested civil cases where one side has a lawyer and the other does not. That means domestic violence victims being cross-examined in person by their alleged abusers in the family courts.

    That means judges who remember the highest standards of justice, demoralised as they attempt the impossible task of being social worker, lawyer and adjudicator in one.

    And what does our Government offer by way of leadership, and hope to guide the profession through these present dire straits?

    As with Brexit rows concerning the Irish border, we are told the answer lies in technology. The same magical thinking that tells us that differing customs regimes can be established without a hard border, informs us that computer programmes and online courts can replace the hard yards of legal professional training and provision for all except the wealthiest amongst us.

    I would not dream of trying to patronise lawyers any more than I would TV presenters. Of course new technology can play a significant part in the preparation, presentation and delivery of the law. Let the robots come and do the brain numbing, back breaking work of document management and routine administration. But there are still some things that humans do better for other humans, some things that require empathy, experience and wisdom, whether in the tax haven, board room, Parliamentary chamber, police station or court room.

    The next Labour Government will seek to invest in the caring and professional infrastructure of the future and that includes the law. That means access to justice for everyone in this country and not only those who want to use the City of London as a boutique money laundering service off the coast of Europe. This is about improving equity and fairness amongst all our people of course. But also about providing high quality and rewarding employment for our children.

    Richard Burgon is our Shadow Justice Secretary and Lord Chancellor, and the MP for Leeds East. A trade union lawyer by background, he knows very well that far from being alien to working people, the law can be a vital tool in achieving social progress. At the South West London Law Centre on Thursday night, he promised that the next Labour Government will

    “usher in a golden age of law centres as engines of empowerment for working class communities in all their diversity.”

    I also want us to provide better support for the vital but often thankless work of the CPS, Serious Fraud Office and Law Commission in the years ahead. Unlike with the NHS – an almost universally popular socialist experiment that politicians can only do down by stealth – most people never think they are going to need the law until that dreaded day comes. So it has been too easy for too long for politicians of all persuasions to do the legal system and all those who work in it – down – and to do so in thought and word and deeds- culminating in obliterating cuts and so called reforms.

    I am proud to sit alongside Richard in a diverse Shadow Cabinet, one quarter of whom are lawyers, with half of them from the Bar – including a former and indefatigable Director of Public Prosecutions. Many of those who are not lawyers – including our Leader, Shadow Chancellor and Shadow Home Secretary – have long campaigned for human rights causes and are personally passionate about legal aid in particular.

    So our Government will never sit back whilst senior judges are branded “enemies of the people”. Even media barons of the page and screen should remember how quick they are to resort to the courts when they feel wronged and that as judges do not command armies, their authority can become dangerously fragile in the face of the worst kind of short sighted, self-serving populism.

    Nor, on my watch, will Ministers personally and constitutionally attack judges for decisions that go against them and which are for the time being inconvenient, unhelpful or even – in their view – wrong. We will never take pot shots at the judiciary for being “unelected” as has become too prevalent amongst even Prime Ministers with elite educations and who ought to have known better. Instead, we will celebrate the legitimacy that comes from independence for the referees of the Rule of Law.

    However in the face of so many critical forces, that same legitimacy and efficacy can only in my view, be enhanced by far greater diversity in background, not least in relation to the representation of women.

    This year, many have been celebrating one hundred years of some largely privileged women obtaining the vote. Some celebrate with statues and they surely have their place. However I prefer statutes, even to statues, if they can honour past struggles with real improvement in women’s reproductive, economic and legal rights today.

    Next year will mark 100 years of the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act and the first women being allowed into the profession of which, we at this conference are so proud to be a part.

    For my part, I would like to see Lincolns Inn posthumously admit Christabel Pankhurst, perhaps even to the Honorary Bench, of her father Richard’s Inn. But even more importantly, I would like us to begin a less complacent and more radical conversation about the representation of women in the senior echelons of the legal profession, and in particular, in the senior judiciary. For the avoidance of doubt, I do not see diversity and merit as being in tension but as marching hand in hand. I do not see the status quo on the planet, in this country and inevitably therefore in the law, as constituting a genuine meritocracy. That is why I want to serve in the most radical pro human rights and social justice Government since the Second World War.

    It is of course ideally wonderful when progress comes organically, consistently and without struggle. But sometimes it needs a positive kick start. So Labour legislated for all women shortlists for candidates. That’s why Labour has promised to look again at judicial appointments alongside legal education and legal aid. That is how I want to be able to celebrate next year – my twenty fifth anniversary of being called – and honour both the first home that my mother made for me and the second home that I found here with you all in the pursuit of the law.

    Thank you for listening.

  • Lucy Frazer – 2018 Statement on Enforcement Agents

    Below is the text of the statement made by Lucy Frazer, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice, in the House of Commons on 26 November 2018.

    The Secretary of State for Justice and I have launched a call for evidence on the implementation of reforms contained in the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, introduced by the Government in 2014.

    The Government are committed to ensuring that all enforcement agents (formerly known as bailiffs) treat debtors fairly and operate in a responsible and proportionate way. We also recognise that the enforcement of debt is necessary for both the economy and the justice system and that enforcement agents carry out a difficult role in often challenging circumstances. However, we have heard accounts of a minority of enforcement agents who use aggressive tactics and make people’s lives a misery. We are determined that such rogue practices should be stopped. To this end the Government will be actively examining the case for an independent regulator as part of the call for evidence.

    The 2014 reforms aimed to provide protection to debtors from the aggressive pursuit of their debt from enforcement agents, while balancing this against the need for effective enforcement. They introduced a set of rules which detail what goods an enforcement agent can and cannot take, how and when they can enter premises and what fees they can charge. They introduced mandatory training and an enhanced court-based certification process for enforcement agents. They also provided safeguards for vulnerable people so they are able to get assistance and advice, and required enforcement agents to be trained to recognise vulnerable people.

    The information gathered from our call for evidence will inform the Ministry of Justice’s second post-implementation review of these reforms.

    The Government published the first post-implementation review on 2 April 2018. They found that the reforms had led to many positive changes. This included improved transparency and consistency, both in terms of the enforcement process and the fees charged by enforcement agents. The report noted, however, that some enforcement agents were still perceived to be acting aggressively and not complying with the new rules.

    The paper includes questions about the complaints process following concerns raised that debtors are experiencing difficulties in making complaints about ​enforcement agents. We want to improve our understanding about the volume and nature of complaints about enforcement agents and how they are handled. We are also seeking views about whether the regulations around complaints sanctions need to be improved and if so how.

    The paper also asks questions about the implementation of the regulations concerning: safeguards to protect vulnerable debtors; the new training and certification process for civil enforcement agents; the requirement for enforcement agents to send standardised letters to debtors; and the regulations about the recovery of commercial rent arrears.

    A key part of the 2014 reforms was the introduction of a fee structure which clearly sets out what a debtor can be charged at each stage of the enforcement action. The fee structure was designed to incentivise debtors to settle their debt at the earliest stage possible. The paper includes questions about the impact of those reforms.

    The Government intend to complete the review of the implementation of the 2014 reforms before making a decision about whether further reform is necessary. Any prospective policy options will be presented in a public consultation.

    The call for evidence will collect evidence about the operation of both High Court Enforcement Officers and civil enforcement agents (also known as certificated enforcement agents or private bailiffs).

    It will run for 12 weeks to 17 February 2019.

    A copy of the call for evidence will be placed in the Libraries of the House and will be available online at www.gov.uk.

  • Alistair Burt – 2018 Comments on Ukraine

    Below is the text of the comments made by Alistair Burt, the Minister for the Middle East at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, in the House of Commons on 27 November 2018.

    I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary stated yesterday, we condemn Russia’s aggression against the Ukrainian vessels that sought to enter the sea of Azov on 25 November. We remain deeply concerned about the welfare of the Ukrainian sailors detained by Russia and call for their release urgently. Russia has again shown its willingness to violate Ukraine’s sovereignty, following the illegal annexation of Crimea and the construction of the Kerch bridge.

    The United Kingdom remains committed to upholding the rules-based international system, which Russia continues to flout. Our position is clear: Russia’s actions are not in conformity with the United Nations convention on the law of the sea or the 2003 Russia-Ukraine bilateral agreement, which provides free passage in the sea of Azov, including for military ships. The United Kingdom ambassador reiterated that position at emergency meetings held yesterday at NATO, the European Union, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and the UN Security Council.

    In response to Russian aggression, the Ukrainian Parliament agreed to impose martial law in 10 Ukrainian regions for 30 days, commencing at 09:00 local time on 28 November. We welcome President Poroshenko’s reassurances that martial law will not be used to restrict the rights and freedoms of Ukrainian citizens, and that full mobilisation will be considered only in the case of further Russian aggression. We also welcome the Ukrainian Parliament’s resolution confirming that presidential elections will go ahead on 31 March 2019.

  • Margot James – 2018 Speech at Government Innovation Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Margot James, the Minister for Digital and the Creative Industries, at the Government Innovation Conference held on 27 November 2018.

    May I say what a wonderful venue we are in today.

    My predecessor in the role of Minister of State for Digital and Creative Industries – Matt Hancock – told the House of Lords AI Committee last year that there is ‘a need in government for people who are at the vanguard…champions for the technology…alongside people who know the ins and outs of policy.’

    I look around the room today and am delighted to see people all around government departments who are ‘in the vanguard’.

    Since then, there has been a report from that Committee, a government response that I delivered with my colleague Sam Gyimah, and a debate – where it was stated that Departments themselves need to understand AI better.

    The same goes for Ministers by the way.

    We need to take those ideas from the vanguard, and make them mainstream for Departments across government.

    And there is already great work being done in government.

    The Department for Transport runs DfT Lab – which develops proofs-of-concept in agile 6-week sprints. They have used machine learning to identify road freight from satellite imagery in locations where there aren’t cameras, and built a system to optimise transport patterns of the future.

    The DWP are using AI to crack down on large-scale benefits fraud. Their system uses algorithms to reveal fake identity cloning techniques that are common among criminal gangs.

    The Home Office and ASI Data Science worked together to develop technology which can automatically detect terrorist video propaganda on any online platform, so that the majority of this content could be prevented before it ever reaches the internet.

    And I hope that same technology can be used in the fight against child abuse images online.

    A year ago the UK topped Oxford Insights’ Government AI readiness index – indicating we are the best-placed OECD country to implement AI in public service delivery, thanks to your great work on data, on fostering a vibrant environment for startups, and on the digitalisation of government.

    So today is very important. All of us, collectively, need to share with each other what we are doing.

    That means government working together with industry to seize the prize of a reported additional £232bn by 2030 – 10% of GDP.

    And it’s not all about economic value, but also the benefits it brings to individuals and families – from healthcare, to improving road safety.

    Earlier this year government and industry collectively committed to nearly £1bn of investment in the Industrial Strategy AI Sector Deal.

    Tabitha Goldstaub – who chairs the AI Council – is here today. The Council will have the important task of making sure that Sector Deal delivers. It’s important that we mention this today – not just because it’s about AI – but because it’s the one year anniversary of the Industrial Strategy this week.

    I was very proud as Business Minister to have had a part in developing it, and I’d like to pay tribute to my former boss, Greg Clark, an outstanding Secretary of State – who lives and breathes the Industrial Strategy and has really developed it so well.

    That £1bn is intended to kickstart how we address the Grand Challenge on AI and Data – to remain at the forefront of this revolution.

    To address the Grand Challenge, the whole of government, industry and civil society will need to work together.

    Artificial Intelligence holds the promise to transform productivity. The government has set the ambition to place the UK at the forefront of AI in its Industrial Strategy. We should also seek to seize this opportunity for public service to become more efficient and effective.

    To do so, the recent Budget initialised a review across government to understand where the biggest potential lies for adoption of these new technologies, to identify where combined investment can yield the greatest benefit.

    It will be led by the Office for Artificial Intelligence – a joint unit between DCMS and BEIS – working with the Government Digital Service.

    We established the Office for AI earlier this year following last year’s AI review led by Professor Dame Wendy Hall and Jérôme Pesenti.

    The Office for AI exists to be a central hub of policy expertise in AI across government. It delivers against commitments made in the Sector Deal around increasing access to data for AI startups, improving AI skills provision for the workforce, and driving adoption through missions and by other targeted means – all of which contribute to addressing the Grand Challenge on remaining at the forefront of the AI and Data revolution.

    So, today I’d like us to focus on the role data has in creating opportunities for AI. But equally important is driving adoption of AI and upskilling our workforce, to be able to use data and AI better.

    I’ll begin with adoption of AI.

    The full benefits for society and the economy that can come from AI can only be realised if it is widely used.

    We have used a Mission-driven approach to set out an aspiration to drive adoption of AI. Earlier this year we announced how we would use AI to improve the early diagnosis and treatment of chronic diseases, which pulls together effort across DCMS, BEIS and DHSC, the NHS, private sector and civil society.

    I’m so proud that the first Mission we announced was to deliver a transformation in the diagnosis of chronic diseases by Artificial Intelligence up to 2030.

    Cancer Research UK estimates that by 2033, if late stage diagnosis were reduced by 50% across four common cancers 56,500 more people diagnosed would be diagnosed at an early stage, resulting in 22,500 fewer deaths within 5 years of diagnosis, per year.

    It’s important to realise that’s not just an extra five years, but for many people they could have as much longer as if they’d not had the disease.

    It’s important to work with the expertise we have in government and the wider public sector to embed a culture of being intelligent customers when it comes to AI in public service delivery. We have engaged Office for National Statistics’ Data Science Campus and GDS to help us do this.

    DCMS has also seconded an official to work as a researcher at the World Economic Forum’s San Francisco-based Center for the 4th Industrial Revolution towards a framework for responsible public procurement of AI. This is intended to mesh with the Data Ethics Framework which has a new home in DCMS after moving from GDS and provide a set of steps a decision maker could follow to decide on how to best implement AI solutions. The team is also working to ensure everyone benefits from the opportunities presented by AI, to ensure that businesses have access to the AI talent they need to operate, and in order to support and drive economic growth.

    This currently involves the development of a new industry funded AI Masters programme, beginning with around 200 new AI Masters students in 2019 with expansion of this talent pipeline continuing year-on-year.

    In addition it involves work to attract, recruit and retain world-leading talent by creating a fellowship programme that is globally respected and attractive for researchers around the world to congregate in the UK – recognised with £50m of funding that was announced in the Budget.

    We are also supporting work towards an additional 200 PhD places in AI and related disciplines a year by 2020 to 2021. By 2025, we will have at least 1,000 government supported PhD places in AI at any one time.

    Our work is in partnership with employers and universities, through our UK AI Skills Champion Dame Wendy Hall and the AI Council.

    We are committed to increasing diversity in the AI workforce to ensure that everyone with the potential to participate has the opportunity to do so and will support upskilling, reskilling and lifelong learning to reach our aims.

    That’s why we doubled the number of Exceptional Talent visas to 2,000 to attract the brightest and best to live and work in the UK as well as training our own population.

    Now, onto data.

    There has been a huge programme of work in recent years to make sure we are promoting the open and transparent use of data.

    This goes back at least 10 years.

    In the government we are in a privileged position, as we collect a vast quantity of untapped data as part of the services we run.

    And as the UK moves rapidly towards a data driven economy, it means that we have a real opportunity to make the most of this.

    The government has already published over 44,000 datasets on data.gov.uk. This unprecedented level of openness has created so many benefits.

    This is one of several reasons we ranked top of Oxford Insights’ Analysis last year.

    We believe that innovation with data requires public trust. That’s why government has established the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation as another key part of addressing the Grand Challenge on AI and Data, the board of which was announced just last week – they held their first meeting yesterday.

    Leading public debate on this is crucial. There’s a great danger – if we get ahead of ourselves in government and industry, and allow public debate to fall behind, we fail to build the trust that is absolutely vital for the success of this endeavour. So, I think that the role of the new Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation is absolutely crucial in building that trust.

    The Centre is a world-class advisory body to make sure data and AI delivers the best possible outcomes for society, in support of its innovative and ethical use.

    And that Centre will become independent – it’s our intention to put it on a statutory, independent footing, as soon as we can get the necessary legislation in train.

    Innovation and ethics are not mutually exclusive. The Centre will work to deliver innovation with data, as well as ensuring its use – including for AI – is ethical.

    Data is a critical part of our national digital infrastructure – and fundamental to AI. It enables all kinds of services we use everyday from maps on our smartphones, to social media and payment processes. Without access to good quality data from a range of sources, AI technologies cannot deliver on their promise of better, more efficient and seamless services.

    Government is committed to opening up more data in a way that makes it reusable and easily accessible.

    However, of course not all data can, or should, be made open.

    Organisations looking to access or share data can often face a range of barriers, from trust and cultural concerns to practical and legal obstacles.

    It is extremely important that we address these.

    Last week, it was announced at the ODI Summit that ‘the Office for AI will work with the Open Data Institute to run a number of pilot data trusts – frameworks to enable safe, fair and ethical data sharing between organisations to solve common problems and bring societal and economic benefit.

    The Office for AI is working with the ODI to identify potential pilots – including unlocking sales data towards facilitating a circular economy by making packaging recycling more efficient, and around using data to bolster conservation efforts, among other examples.

    The ODI are also working on a further pilot project to prototype a data trust with the Mayor of London and the Royal Borough of Greenwich. City Hall is working on data trusts as part of its Smarter London Together Roadmap to support AI and protect ‘privacy by design’ for Londoners.

    This Greenwich project will focus on real time data from the Internet of Things, and will investigate how this data could be shared with innovators in the technology sector to create solutions to city challenges. Our ultimate aim is that Data Trusts encourage data sharing where it is not currently happening to deliver economic and societal benefit.

    Finally, onto the AI Council.

    Work is under way developing the AI Council, following the announcement of Chair Tabitha Goldstaub earlier this year – and Tabitha, we’re very grateful to you for the work you’ve put in to get the AI Council almost up to launch, and also to Skills Champion Professor Dame Wendy Hall.

    The AI Council is intended to be government’s ‘way in’ to industry – a partnership body. Just as in the public sector, where Office for AI works across government to address the Grand Challenge, we need industry – with government’s help – to take on some of this task.

    We want to make sure that the public sector can work hand-in-hand with the private sector to deliver more solutions that are truly transformative and revolutionise public service delivery.

    That’s a really great prize.

    Together, we can work drive adoption across public and industry sectors.

  • Theresa May – 2018 Speech at Antisemitism Reception

    Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May, the Prime Minister, at an anti-semitism reception held in Downing Street in London on 26 November 2018.

    Good evening everyone and welcome to Downing Street. As always at events like this it’s a real pleasure to share this remarkable house with some truly remarkable people. But I confess that, tonight, my emotions are somewhat mixed.

    Throughout 2018, I’ve had the privilege of taking in part in many celebrations of women and women’s rights.

    Events marking the centenary of British women winning the vote. The unveiling of the Millicent Fawcett statue. An unprecedented gathering of women MPs from around the world.

    But the joy of those occasions has been tempered by the resurgence of two age-old hatreds that many had dared to hope were becoming a thing of the past.

    2018 was the year in which Claire Kober, who is here today, stepped down as a council leader after facing a torrent of personal abuse in which, as she said, “the only thing worse than the sexism was the antisemitism”.

    It was the year in which journalist Karen Glaser felt compelled to write that “When my … mother came to Britain in the Sixties she stopped feeling scared of being Jewish. But now, 50 years later, she was feeling frightened again.”

    And it was the year in which Parliament heard women MPs, many of whom are here today, describing the deluge of vile misogynistic and antisemitic threats they receive on a near-daily basis.

    The research published at today’s conference, showing that Jewish women politicians are more likely to attract the attentions of far-Right hate groups, was deeply disturbing. But I doubt it came as much of a surprise to those who have been on the receiving end.

    In both data and anecdote, the evidence is clear: in 2018, in the United Kingdom, Jewish women are increasingly coming under dual attack. Abused for being women and abused for being Jewish.

    These attitudes are not limited to the far Right. As is so often the case with antisemitism, bigotry directed at Jewish women also comes from those who would never consider themselves to be racist, including within the women’s rights movement itself.

    Some Jewish women have been told that they’re not “real” feminists unless they publically disavow Israel’s right to exist, or been thrown off pride marches for flying rainbow flags that feature the Star of David. And as one British Jew put it earlier this year, “Going on a … women’s rights march can be a tricky affair when you find yourself marching alongside people carrying banners merging the Israeli flag with a swastika”.

    This kind of double-standard is often justified by the old canard that antisemitism isn’t really racism, as racism can only “punch down” and Jews are universally wealthy and powerful – an argument that is, in itself, deeply antisemitic.

    I have no time for equivocation. Antisemitism is racism – and any “equality” movement that indulges or ignores it is not worthy of the name.

    Because hatred and discrimination must be tackled wherever and however it rears its head. And I’m proud to lead a government that is doing so.

    We’re making sure courts have powers they need to deal with those who peddle hatred, asking the Law Commission to undertake a full review of hate crime legislation.

    We’re working to stem the rising tide of online bigotry, establishing a new Annual Internet Safety Transparency Report. The report will provide comprehensive data on what offensive content is being reported, what is being removed, and how social media companies are responding to complaints.

    We’re standing up for women’s rights at home and abroad– forcing companies to reveal their gender pay gaps, cracking down on modern slavery, backing the Women’s Business Council and more.

    We’re removing all hiding places for antisemitism, becoming the first government in the world to adopt the IHRA’s working definition – and all its examples.

    And we’re protecting Jewish people from the kind of violent attacks their community has experienced in the United States and Europe, which is why we continue to provide more than £13 million of funding to the Community Security Trust each year.

    But tackling the visible symptoms of hatred is only half the battle. To eradicate a noxious weed you must also remove its root, which is why we are also committed to educating people about where bigotry can lead.

    Standing in the heart of our democracy on a site right next to Parliament, the National Holocaust Memorial will be accompanied by an education centre that will lead a national effort to fight hatred and prejudice in all its forms. As the Chancellor announced in last month’s Budget, we will also provide £1.7 million for school programmes marking the 75th anniversary of the liberation of Bergen-Belsen.

    And we are continuing to support the Holocaust Educational Trust, not just backing its Lessons From Auschwitz programme but extending it to cover universities. The first students and university leaders to take part in the new scheme travelled to Poland just last week.

    The HET is just one of many bodies working hard to tackle the kind of prejudices you discussed at today’s conference.

    John Mann and the APPG on antisemitism have also done so much not just to highlight the scale of the problem but also to explore solutions, particularly with their work around online abuse – so thank you, John, for all your work.

    I’d also like to thank Sir Trevor Pears and everyone at the Antisemitism Policy Trust, who made today’s world-first conference happen… And the three women who chaired it: Luciana Berger, Theresa Villiers, and Dr Lisa Cameron – a trio that demonstrates how this is an issue that truly transcends party lines.

    But most of all, I’d like to thank each and every one of you.

    As Claire Kober said when she was bombarded with abuse, “to be tolerant is to be complicit”.

    So thank you for refusing to tolerate antisemitism and misogyny in any form.

    Thank you for refusing to be complicit and look the other way when confronted with bigotry of any kind.

    And thank you for lending your voices to the growing chorus that will drown out the sound and fury of the racists and the sexists.

    Freedom of thought and freedom of speech have never meant freedom to abuse and freedom to threaten.

    Antisemitism and misogyny have no place in this country.

    Hatred can be defeated.

    Hatred must be defeated.

    And, when I look around this room and see so many brave, dedicated men and women, I know that hatred will be defeated.

  • David Gauke – 2018 Speech on the Advocates Graduated Fee Scheme

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Gauke, the Lord Chancellor, at the Annual Bar and Young Bar Conference on 24 November 2018.

    Thank you Lucinda [Orr, Chair, Annual Bar and Young Bar Conference]

    And I am very pleased to have this opportunity to address you at your annual conference.

    Everyone in this room will have their own reasons for choosing a career in law:

    To give a voice to the voiceless. To improve lives. To help right wrongs. To pursue justice and fairness. To bring certainty and clarity to a complex world. To rise to the intellectual challenge.

    Fittingly, you are called to the Bar – for many, it is a calling.

    I recognise not just the contribution that comes from pursuing that calling but the importance of an independent Bar itself.

    For my own part, when I was studying law and as a trainee solicitor back in the 1990s, it was clear to me that the law shapes every aspect of our lives and of our country – our families, our relationships, our environment, our trade, the decisions of government.

    For example, when I worked on legal contracts, I saw just how important a clear and fair framework of rules is for businesses to make decisions, to invest and to resolve disputes.

    I thoroughly enjoyed my time working in law. What I learned helped me shape my politics and sharpen my desire to protect and influence those rules that govern us so they better help everyone fulfil their potential and support a prosperous economy.

    So I stand before you today as a proud former lawyer. When I started my career with Richards Butler more than 20 years ago, I never imagined that I would be the first solicitor to become Lord Chancellor.

    Without wanting to dwell on quite how long ago that was, it’s fair to say that the legal world I experienced then as a trainee solicitor is very different to the one I see today as Lord Chancellor. In the 1990s, the internet was in its infancy. Concepts like AI and machine learning were the preserve of science fiction. Today, they are a reality.

    The digital and technological revolutions are making waves across the legal sector, fundamentally changing the way we access and use services.

    The profession is also more diverse, open and inclusive – the theme of your conference this year.

    Given my legal background, I’m pleased to see more solicitors joining the Bench.

    Visible and vocal role models like Anne Molyneux at the Old Bailey and Lord Justice Hickinbottom, who I believe is the fourth solicitor to be appointed to the High Court, and who last year was appointed to the Court of Appeal.

    As Anne Molyneux herself has said: “I do not think of myself as a solicitor judge or a woman judge. I am a judge who is a woman and used to be a solicitor. These characteristics should not make a difference.” I agree. And I think there are important strides being made on diversity. For the first time, we have three female justices in the Supreme Court. And there is now a greater proportion of female pupils compared to male pupils.

    That represents good progress and much promise and potential for the future – but there is much more we need to do. Just 37% of barristers currently practising are women and just under 15% of QCs are women.

    Of people practising at the Bar, just under 13% are from a black, Asian and minority ethnic background. That falls to just 7% of QCs.

    I am committed to working with the Lord Chief Justice and members of the Judicial Diversity Forum to increase the overall diversity of the judiciary.

    To do that, we must also make sure there is proper support in place for potential judicial office holders. Programmes like the Judicial Mentoring Scheme ensures there are role models for lawyers looking to apply for their first judicial appointment.

    And the Bar Council, as a key member of the Judicial Diversity Forum, led on the development of the Pre-Application Judicial Education programme.

    Launching in spring next year, it will help ensure talented people from all backgrounds in the legal profession are given more support to apply to become a judge. This is positive action carefully designed to make a real difference.

    I am grateful to the Bar for their work on this and their ongoing commitment alongside the senior judiciary, Judicial College, Judicial Appointments Commission and the other legal professional bodies.

    But of course, as well as promoting access to the legal profession, it is ensuring access to justice itself that is so important.

    The ability for everyone to be able to access justice and receive representation is vital for a just society. That includes having access to criminal defence.

    Criminal defence advocates carrying out publicly-funded work in the Crown Court play an enormously important role in our justice system.

    I want to say to you that I do understand and recognise your concerns about the sustainability of criminal advocacy. I also recognise the work which goes into conducting complex cases.

    I know there are strong concerns and that feelings and passions have run high this year as we have sought to improve the current legal aid scheme.

    I have always believed that, given the importance of this criminal advocacy to our justice system, it is important to get any reform right.

    In August, we launched a consultation on proposals to spend an additional £15 million on a range of fee increases across the scheme.

    As throughout this process, we have been working with representative bodies of the legal professions, including the Bar Council, the Criminal Bar Association and The Law Society, and have carefully considered the consultation responses.

    I can announce today that on top of the £15 million we have already proposed, the government will commit a further £8 million of additional funding to the scheme. That brings the total increase to £23 million.

    This extra money will be mostly targeted at cases conducted by junior advocates to support continued investment in the profession.

    We will also bring a proposed 1% increase to all fees forward so that the rise comes into effect alongside the planned introduction of the new scheme, rather than from April next year.

    I also think it’s important to recognise that whilst these improvements must be given time to bed in, there is scope to further improve the way criminal advocates are paid so that we better reflect work done in an evolving and modernising justice system.

    Our best chance of succeeding in that task – in designing schemes which incentivise efficient and effective proceedings, in improving access to justice – is if the government and the legal professions work together.

    Because of that belief, I am committed to working closely with the legal profession to ensure that criminal defence advocacy is fit for the modern age, and is sustainable, so that people from all backgrounds can enjoy a decent career doing such important work.

    Now, as part of, and alongside access, the experience people have of justice and our courts is also important – for the public and legal professionals alike.

    It clearly isn’t right that some of our court buildings have leaking roofs, peeling paint, broken doors and out of order lifts. The impact of this isn’t just on the physical functioning of our courts, it has an impact on the morale of those who work in them and on the experience of those who use them.

    That’s why over the last two years, we have spent significantly more than in previous years on our court estate. Last month, we also secured an extra £15 million from the Treasury for maintenance and security of our court buildings.

    I am under no illusion that this is one step in a longer journey to make our courts fit for the future. But spending more this year on our courts will help to make some improvements to the estate as we continue with our wider programme to modernise services and move more of them online so they are easier to use and more efficient.

    We must ensure the justice system embraces the huge changes that are happening now and that are coming down the track in how people access services. That’s why we are looking to the future at how we can best empower people to access justice in ways that fit with how we live and work today.

    For example, the digital divorce service launched in May is reducing the stress faced by couples applying for a divorce.

    And reforms in the criminal justice system are making it work better for everyone too – from making pleas online for low-level offences to piloting a new digital system for the police, CPS, courts, judiciary and defence to allow a single shared view of case information online.

    I am grateful to the Bar for the contribution you are making to the court reform programme. I know there are strong feelings on this and we won’t agree on everything, but your insight is invaluable. I hope that many of you will be participating in the session led by Susan Acland-Hood later today.

    We also need to realise the huge opportunity that exists from harnessing the powers of new technology and innovation for our legal services.

    Our growing LawTech industry has the potential to open up the justice system and legal services sector like never before, not to mention the opportunities for those working in it.

    Technology is changing our world.

    If our justice system and our legal services sector is to remain internationally competitive, it can’t stand still. It needs to continue to change and embrace the technological revolution, as well as respond to the way people expect to be able to access justice and legal services.

    Today, lawyers must not only advocate, they must innovate. By doing this, I believe the UK can not only remain a world-leading provider of legal services but a powerhouse for new and innovative legal technologies, such as for SMART contracts.

    New technologies – underpinned by English law – and nurtured by a government committed to helping this burgeoning sector.

    Our £20 million Next Generation Services Fund is supporting innovation across the legal, accountancy and insurance sectors.

    I’m pleased to say we will be announcing the successful bidders for that investment shortly. This is on top of the £700,000 recently awarded to the Solicitors Regulation Authority to support AI innovations within the legal services sector.

    Alongside that investment, it’s important we also focus on the education and skills of the lawyers of today – and tomorrow – to ensure they not only survive, but thrive, in this new world of AI, Big Data and Smart Contracts.

    I was reading recently about an experiment you may be familiar with where 20 experienced lawyers in the US and an artificial intelligence system went head to head.

    The lawyers came armed with their brains, the AI system with machine learning and deep technology.

    The challenge was to spot risks in every day contracts. I’m afraid to say that AI won with an accuracy level of 94% compared to 85% across the human lawyers. But arguably more importantly, the AI system took just 26 seconds compared to 92 minutes.

    Now, you can either see that as a threat, or as an opportunity. It’s how we use this new technology that will be important. The lawyers of today – and tomorrow – will need the right skills in order to do that.

    The LawTech Delivery Panel I announced earlier this year, as well as acting as an international champion for the UK’s LawTech industry, will provide the strategic direction we need, for example on education, which will be covered by one of taskforces established by Panel.

    Realising the potential of the LawTech revolution here in the UK will be important to the competitiveness of our legal services on the world stage, particularly as we look to new markets after we leave the EU.

    On Brexit, as you will have seen, the UK and the EU have agreed the terms of the UK’s smooth and orderly exit from the EU. In parallel, both parties have also been working to set out a vision for a close and mutually beneficial future relationship.

    A draft of the Political Declaration was published on Thursday, and the Prime Minister is meeting the EU today ahead of leaders putting the deal to final agreement at the special November European Council on Sunday.

    The negotiations have been tough, and we have pushed the EU hard. We have not got everything we would want, but we have secured important commitments in a number of areas.

    The Political Declaration includes a commitment to conclude ambitious arrangements for services and investment, alongside new arrangements on financial services.

    Nevertheless, we know that leaving the Single Market will have implications for market access and that some UK and EU service suppliers will not enjoy the same rights as they do today.

    On civil judicial cooperation, the UK and the EU have agreed to explore a bilateral arrangement on matrimonial, parental responsibility and other related matters. In addition, the UK intends to apply to accede to the Lugano Convention.

    This deal provides certainty for the UK and avoids the very significant disruption associated with a no-deal exit. The precise details of our future relationship with the EU will be the focus of further negotiations once the UK has left on 29 March 2019, and we will continue to press for the best outcome for the UK justice system.

    The saying goes that ‘the wheels of justice turn slowly’.

    The transformation in the way people use and work in the justice system, as well as the white heat from the LawTech revolution, means those wheels are speeding up.

    Yes, there are challenges we need to overcome in the justice system – including challenges for the legal profession. I want to overcome them by working with you. It is important that the reforms we need to make to our justice system carry the general support of those who work in them.

    Within the context of that reform, I want to work with you to support and strengthen the legal profession, to make it more inclusive, more diverse and to put it on a sound footing for the future so it can continue to thrive in a rapidly changing world.

  • Michael Gove – 2018 Speech on Climate Change

    Below is the text of the speech made by Michael Gove, the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, on 26 November 2018.

    I want to begin on a personal note. I am fortunate as Secretary of State for the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to work alongside some of the most gifted, dedicated and impressive public servants in the country.

    Given the strength in depth of the departmental team, and their willingness to work so hard for the common good, it is invidious to single any one out.

    But there is one individual, and one team, to whom I, and we all in this country, owe a special debt.

    And that is to Professor Ian Boyd, Defra’s Chief Scientific Adviser, and his team.

    Everything we do at Defra has to be rooted in science. Whether it is reflecting on the future of food, farming or the marine environment, considering what our approach should be to the chemicals we use in agriculture, revising how we should manage our water resources, reviewing how we enhance biodiversity, assessing where the greatest productivity gains from new technologies might accrue or in a countless number of other different areas, policy must be shaped above all by evidence, reason and rigour. And there are few people more adept at assessing the evidence, deploying reason to make sense of it and applying the lessons for public policy with real rigour than Ian and his team. I want to take this opportunity today to put on record how profoundly grateful I am for his leadership.

    And there is perhaps no area of public policy where scientific rigour is required in shaping policy making than in dealing with the challenge of climate change.

    THE EVIDENCE ALL AROUND US

    Today, as we launch the fourth generation of our UK Climate Projections, it is clear that the planet and its weather patterns are changing before our eyes.

    Sea levels, for example – which we are becoming more accurate at measuring, thanks to advances in instruments and monitoring systems. In the 20th century the oceans rose around 15cm and the rate of increase has since quickened. Just since 2000, levels have risen around six centimetres, based on a global-average rise of 3.2mm a year. Our seas are storing increasing amounts of heat: around half of all ocean warming has occurred since 1997. Even as we take action to slow carbon dioxide pollution now, physics dictates that the climate will keep heating up for decades to come.

    Peer-reviewed scientific research states that the rapid warming is substantially due to the methane, nitrous oxide, and fossil fuel emissions we produce.

    The great ice sheets of Greenland and some parts of Antarctica are increasingly unstable. Rising seas are rendering the storm surges not only of hurricanes but also regular high tides more of a threat.

    THE IMPACT ON THE EVERYDAY

    Food and water security are affected, as is national security. Across the planet, people, plants, animals and also diseases are on the move, searching for habitats in which to thrive, escaping erratic and extreme weather events which deliver too much rain, too little rain, searing summer temperatures, colder winters.

    Science is clear that there will be changes in ecosystems caused by the climate. WWF’s recent Living Planet report revealed a 60% fall in global wildlife populations in just over 40 years. One of the main causes of this devastating decline is climate change.

    We cannot predict the net effects to ecosystems, but the likelihood is that many will be negative. Some native flora and fauna will struggle. Marine ecosystems will experience warmer and more acidic seas. New pests and diseases could thrive. Deteriorating soil quality and moisture, coupled with less reliable water supply, will reduce agricultural yields, as we have already seen this summer.

    Around the world, fears are growing for the existence of some low-lying countries – most of the 1,000 or so Marshall Islands, covering 29 slender coral atolls in the South Pacific, are less than six feet above sea level – and the future of a great number of coastal cities, including Miami, New York and Venice.

    And while climate change cannot be blamed for growing wealth inequality, it is the case that it disproportionately affects nations with the least resources to cope – nations which have also contributed least to emissions in the first place. In the coming years, they will expect the developed world to deliver what Mary Robinson, the former Irish president and environmental campaigner, calls ‘climate justice’ – sharing fairly the burdens and benefits of climate change and its impacts.

    Still Time to Act

    In all, 91 authors from 40 countries, including the UK, spent two years developing the recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change into the impact it is having on the natural world. They assessed over 6,000 scientific papers and received 42,000 expert comments.

    The final report – an impressive display of international collaboration – makes clear that the 1.5˚C warming limit is still within reach – if nations can act together. Panel members argue that in order to stay within the limit, global net greenhouse gas emissions produced by human activity need to be zero by the middle of the century.

    By 2050, we are committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80%, compared to 1990 levels. Since 1990 we have cut emissions by 42% – faster than any other G7 nation – and our economy has grown by two-thirds. Tackling climate change is not a binary process which requires us to champion the planet over national prosperity. Indeed market mechanisms, like reverse auctions for new clean energy capacity and the carbon price on electricity generation, have been hugely successful in delivering these cuts in emissions.

    You will know that reducing emissions in order to mitigate climate change in the UK is the responsibility of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, under the excellent leadership of my colleagues Greg Clark, the Secretary of State, and Claire Perry, the cabinet minister with responsibility for climate change. Their Clean Growth Strategy, published last year, set out a comprehensive suite of policies to meet our climate targets and to capture the industrial opportunities from clean growth. I also welcomed Claire’s letter to the Committee on Climate Change last month requesting advice on a net zero emissions target.

    Defra’s particular brief is to help adapt to a warming planet, supporting the developing world to do the same, and contributing to global diplomatic and scientific initiatives to understand climate change’s effects.

    But because we are also responsible for sectors of our waste policy, agriculture, landscapes and f-gases – Defra necessarily has a significant role in mitigation as well.

    In a moment, I will go into greater detail about the opportunities we have identified – within domestic agriculture and wider land use, our approach to storing and managing water, our reforms of resources and waste cycles plus international action to support other countries cope with climate change – to ensure that we are even better placed to manage future risks, adapt to threats and increase resilience and preparedness.

    First, however, I want to look at how climate change is reshaping our environment in slightly greater detail.

    FACTS ON THE GROUND

    Insurance data shows that between 1980 and 2016, the number of climate-related natural catastrophes, like flooding, rose several times faster than disasters with a geological source: erupting volcanoes, tsunamis, or severe earthquakes.

    In Africa, the Sahara Desert has grown in size by 10 per cent since 1920. Scientists believe that about two-thirds of the change might be down to natural cycles, and the rest to climate change. The Desert’s edges – defined by rainfall, or the lack of it – have crept northward and southward, reducing some countries’ ability to grow food. The Sahara has encroached 500miles into Libya for example, in winter months.

    Just recently in America, Hurricane Michael made landfall in the Florida panhandle in October with winds of around 155mph, making this the strongest storm to hit the continental United States since Hurricane Andrew in 1992. At least 32 people died as the hurricane tore through Georgia, North Carolina and Virginia, and more than a million people were left without power. Barely a month later and California’s wildfires are the deadliest in the history of the state, which in the past five years has experienced four of the five warmest summers on record. Towering ‘firenadoes’ engulfed brush, trees and scrub which was bone-dry because autumn rainfall again arrived late – and there has been up to 30% less rain than average. Tragically, for those who lost their lives and homes, the season of strong offshore winds began on schedule – fanning flames that would have spread less easily in damper conditions.

    It’s not only in typically hot, dry countries where extremes of weather are felt. Climate change is warming polar regions twice as fast as other parts of the world. In July this year, wildfires spread across Arctic regions in Sweden. While not unprecedented, the fires have become bigger over the past 15 years as boreal forests, tundra and peatlands dry up, meaning the fires are harder to put out.

    In the UK, we have experienced our own share of extremes. Nine of the 10 warmest years have occurred since 2002 and the mean sea level around the UK, corrected for land movement, has risen by about 16cm since the start of the 20th century.

    Already, the winter of 2013-2014 was the wettest on record for the UK. And then, between November 2015 and January 2016, we experienced the most rain ever in that period, saturating the ground and causing some of the most severe floods in a century.

    It will take a long time for people in Northumberland, Cumbria, Lancashire and Yorkshire to forget the devastation caused by Storms Desmond and Eva. Around 16,000 houses were inundated and some river levels were up to a metre higher than previous records. Communities were devastated, infrastructure was damaged, and for many families and businesses the financial hardship and emotional distress lasted long after the floodwaters had receded.

    As for 2018, during a six-week spell in summer, daytime temperatures consistently topped 30C. Wildfires burned for weeks on Saddleworth Moor and Winter Hill as well as other areas, damaging precious peat bogs and harming nesting birds such as curlews, the golden plover and lapwings. Crops wilted in parched fields and farmers had to dig into their winter silage to feed livestock struggling in poor grazing conditions.

    Now it is, of course, impossible for anyone to predict the future with absolute certainty. But we are in the UK fortunate to have climate scientists whose knowledge and experience are world-leading. In producing this first major update of climate projections for nearly 10 years, they have given governments, local authorities, land managers, national infrastructure bodies and other businesses an invaluable set of tools with which to assess the nature and scale of challenges, and take decisions accordingly. The projections – based on a range of emissions scenarios – will enable them to make sensible, practical choices based on scientific evidence that will save time, hardship and money when the storms do come.

    For the first time, there are international projections as well as regional projections. This means other nations will be able to use the data – to gauge the risks for food supply chains, perhaps, or check rainfall projections for the likelihood of localised flooding.

    The projections show quite clearly the benefit of limiting emissions.

    Under the highest emission scenario, warming by 2070 is in the range 0.9˚C to 5.4°C in summer, compared to the recent past (1981-2000).

    Sea levels are projected to continue to rise around the UK to the year 2100 – and reach higher levels than were forecast in the 2009 data. For London, under the high emissions scenario, levels are likely to be at least 53cm higher, and could be as much as 1.15m. That was not unexpected, however, and I can confirm that it has already been factored into our flooding adaptation planning.

    It is because we know further climate changes are inevitable – notwithstanding strenuous international efforts to limit their extent – that we are planning for a wide range of possible futures. It would be irresponsible in the circumstances to do otherwise. This is why we are aiming to limit warming to well below 2 degrees – but the environment agency is preparing for 4 degrees when planning flood defences. We know that every half a degree makes an enormous difference to outcomes. Keeping warming to 1.5˚C rather than 2˚C, as the Paris Agreement urges us to attempt, spares up to 10million people from being exposed to the risks of rising seas, according to the IPCC.

    CLARITY BEGINS AT HOME

    So what is Defra doing to meet this global challenge?

    Climate change will manifest itself most acutely in our hydrologic system: the intense rainfall of the winter, the arid heat of the summer, and rising sea levels will be how we experience climate change most immediately in our everyday lives. Using the best scientific evidence from our projections, we are taking action to improve our resilience.

    Flooding and coastal change

    Successive Governments have made good progress on mitigating flood risk, protecting lives and reducing the damage to our homes and businesses. Between 2015 and 2021, this Government is investing a record £2.6 billion in flood defences, maintained by colleagues from the Environment Agency. And we are on track to meet our manifesto commitment of better protecting 300,000 homes from flooding by 2021.

    We are also pioneering ‘natural flood defences’, which support biodiversity and sequester carbon while lowering the risk of flooding. In Pickering, in North Yorkshire, we have slowed the water flow from the uplands by planting trees, restoring heathland, and installing leaky dams. And in Medmerry, in West Sussex, the EA has actually realigned the coast, by allowing the water to breach the sea walls (creating new wetland habitats for wigeons and snipes): a new defence has been built to protect individual homes.

    But as the risk of flooding and coastal erosion increases, we need a new long-term approach. Government will publish a long term policy statement next year, and the Environment Agency will issue a new 50-year strategy, also next year. I believe these should explore new philosophies around flood and coast management.

    First, the need to achieve a balance between limiting the likelihood of flooding and upgrading our resilience to it when it happens. In other words, exploring how much to spend on reducing the risks that homes and businesses will flood, and how much to spend on helping people to cope if and when they are flooded. It will not always be possible to prevent every flood. We cannot build defences to protect every single building or reinforce every retreating coast line. We will be looking at ways we can encourage every local area to strive for greater overall resilience that takes into account all the different levers from land use planning to better water storage upstream, and tackles both flood prevention and response. We need our communities and infrastructure to be better prepared for floods and coastal change, so that they recover more quickly from the damage and disruption and, where necessary, to help people and communities move out of harm’s way.

    Second, the need for communities and businesses to work alongside government to reduce their own flood risk. We want to see more businesses designing in resilience when they invest in new buildings. The climate projections provide high-quality data about the nature of the risks to help steer these new flood investments.

    Droughts

    In the UK, we take for granted a plentiful supply of clean water. Yet our high population density means the available water per person is actually less than in many Mediterranean countries. And the experience of this summer, and the evidence of the projections, underscore the need to make our water supplies more resilient to a warmer climate in the future.

    We have a twin-track approach. On the supply side, we need to capture and store more rainwater. And on the demand side, we must conserve and use the water more efficiently once we have caught it.

    Since privatisation, water companies have invested around £140 billion in our water infrastructure. Earlier this year, I challenged them to focus more on investing in improved performance than on shareholder dividends. I am pleased to see that their latest business plans for the next spending period indicate good progress, with proposals for more than £50 billion of investment between 2020 and 2025. Ofwat will now scrutinise water companies’ business plans to make sure they have responded adequately to this challenge.

    Climate change, coupled with a rising population, will require new water supply infrastructure. In part because of company behaviour, in part because of regulatory barriers, we have not built any major new reservoirs in this country since the industry was privatised. So this week we are laying before Parliament a new draft National Policy Statement, setting out how we will expedite the construction of new infrastructure, like water transfers and reservoirs.

    Relying solely on new water infrastructure would prove expensive for bill payers and create pressures on the natural environment. So we will also tackle waste and excessive consumption of water. Since privatisation, leakage has fallen by a third. But we still lose three billion litres of water to leaks every day. That’s why I am setting water companies a stretching new target to halve leakage by 2050.

    Land

    The need to address climate change means we must also change how we use and manage our land, and do more to protect and restore our carbon-rich natural habitats and the wildlife they support.

    Agriculture

    On our agricultural land, more extreme weather will harm crop yields and make market prices more volatile. Some parts of the world will cease to be able to produce food because of rising sea levels or a lack of rainfall. UK farmers have the opportunity to play an even more important role in global food production as a result.

    And at the same time as managing these impacts, farmers must also be supported as we move towards a carbon neutral economy.

    We will use the powers in the Agriculture Bill to reward farmers who mitigate and adapt to climate change on their land through our new Environmental Land Management scheme. There are a range of potential measures which we can support farmers to implement that tackle climate change and improve productivity.

    Planting cover crops reduces carbon emissions from soil, improves soil health, and reduces runoff into watercourses. Agroforestry provides shelter for livestock from harsh weather, while improving soil and water quality and storing carbon. And since 2010, Defra has supported the industry-led greenhouse gas action plan for agriculture. This voluntary action has made an important start to emission reduction in agriculture. As our emissions targets become more stringent, we have to support farmers in their efforts to ensure emissions fall further.

    We are exploring how to reform fertiliser use, which will reduce climate-warming greenhouse gas emissions as well as biodiversity-harming ammonia emissions. And next year, we will start developing a new emissions reduction plan for agriculture, in which we will set out our long-term vision for a more productive, low-carbon farming sector.

    New technology will play a critical role in enabling the farming industry to meet these challenges. Precision farming will enable farmers to cut back on expensive, energy-intensive, and environmentally-harmful inputs, such as fertilisers. Vertical farming will effectively eliminate emissions from soil, while making more efficient use of land and increasing the resilience of crops to extreme weather.

    Land use

    Peatlands are our largest terrestrial carbon store and a precious habitat for wildlife. Yet despite some successful rewetting projects in recent years, just 13% of England’s peatland is in near natural condition. Next year, we will publish a new England Peat Strategy. This will explain how, over the next 25 years, we will improve the condition of our peatlands, so that they function better for the climate, wildlife, and people.

    Through this strategy, we want to restore our blanket bogs in the uplands. And for the first time we will aim to improve the condition of agricultural peat in the lowlands. These peatlands, which were drained centuries ago to enable productive agriculture, produce the highest emissions of all our peatlands. The East Anglian Fens are estimated to have between 30 and 60 harvests left before the peat is gone. Their degraded condition is bad both for the climate and for farmers who rely on these fertile soils.

    Universal restoration will not be possible given the importance of the land for food production. So I am today announcing a new task force, to generate new solutions for repairing lowland peat and build consensus among farmers, conservationists, and academics.

    Woodland is another critical natural asset for our response to climate change.

    Protecting our ancient woodlands and bringing more woodland into active management will help to improve the resilience to climate change of the wildlife that inhabits our forests. And planting more trees is a highly cost-effective method for storing additional carbon from the atmosphere.

    Through Countryside Stewardship and the Woodland Carbon Fund, we are making progress towards our target to plant 11 million new trees in this parliament. And we have supported the planting of over 15 million trees since 2010. But to meet future carbon budgets and our long-term target to increase woodland cover from 10% to 12% in England by 2060, we will need to significantly increase planting rates. That’s why next year, we will consult on a new English Tree Strategy in which we set out what benefits we value from trees and how we will accelerate woodland creation.

    We are also improving our package of incentives for forestry. In the Budget, the Chancellor announced a £50 million Woodland Carbon Guarantee scheme. This will pump prime the woodland carbon offset market, helping to stimulate private sector demand for offset units and driving more investment into forestry.

    We are looking at the opportunities to increase demand for domestic carbon offsets from compliance markets. We also announced a new £10 million fund for urban and street trees, which will sequester carbon emissions and bring these wondrous natural assets closer to people. And from 2024 our new Environmental Land Management scheme will reward land managers for the benefits provided by woodland creation and management.

    Resources

    As well as working with water companies, farmers and land managers to help meet the challenges of climate change we are also developing a new Resources and Waste Strategy.

    We will set out measures to improve resource productivity, maximising the value of products by increasing reuse and recycling, and minimising waste. We are determined to create a more circular economy.

    I have made it a particular priority of my department to end the environmental, economic, and moral scandal of food waste.

    Sent to landfill, food decomposes producing methane, a potent greenhouse gas. So we want to ensure more councils collect food waste separately and send it to anaerobic digestion plants to create green biogas for heating our homes and fertiliser to improve the soil.

    We should also try to prevent nutritious and healthy food being thrown away in the first place. That’s why, last month, I announced a new £15 million fund to redistribute surplus food that would otherwise have been wasted to go charities who help those most in need.

    International leadership

    Alongside the domestic action we are taking, we can also help other nations be more ambitious.

    We are a world-leader in supporting international development, both financially and through technical assistance. The UK is the third largest aid donor in the world, after the United States and Germany, and one of a handful of countries committed to, and also achieving, spending 0.7% of gross national income on official development assistance.

    Climate change and other interrelated environmental impacts are exacerbating poverty and erasing – or increasing the fragility of – development gains. And the crisis facing our natural world is growing.

    Protecting and restoring nature is essential for securing genuinely sustainable development. That is why we need to ensure that our funding for international development supports work to deal with climate change and biodiversity loss.

    The government has committed nearly £6 billion of funding between 2016 and 2020 to help developing countries both reduce emissions and build resilience to the impacts of climate change. Defra is spending part of this and my department, working with DFID, BEIS and the FCO, is prioritising projects and activities that can deliver benefits for sustainable development, poverty alleviation, and biodiversity, as well as climate mitigation and climate adaptation.

    An example of this is mangrove conservation and restoration. Mangroves are important habitats for a variety of important species. They are vital nurseries for many key commercial fisheries thereby supporting livelihoods. They sequester carbon emissions contributing to climate mitigation and do so up to six times as much as some tropical forests. And they reduce the impacts of climate change, by absorbing the energy of storms, hurricanes, and typhoons that will increase in frequency and severity as a result of climate change. This is essential for managing climate impacts facing coastal communities across the tropics.

    Many of these mangroves have been degraded and do not provide the full range of potential benefits. That is why I am today announcing an additional £13 million to fund mangroves restoration. This will support projects in small island developing states like Jamaica and those with high rates of deforestation like Colombia. We plan to scale funding to mangrove and other win-win nature-based solutions in the future.

    We need to make societies around the world much more resilient to climate change. The UK is leading international efforts on climate resilience for the UN Secretary General’s Climate Summit in 2019. We are also helping gather evidence on the actions needed to adapt to climate change ahead of the 2019 summit by co-convening the new Global Commission on Adaptation, co-Chaired by Ban Ki-moon, the former UN Secretary General; Bill Gates; and Kristalina Georgieva, CEO of the World Bank. Emma Howard Boyd, Chair of the Environment Agency – and our de facto climate resilience ambassador – is one of the commissioners.

    The 2019 summit is important and is intended to help build momentum in advance of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Conference of the Parties (COP26) in 2020.

    This will be five years after the Paris Agreement on Climate Change and levels of climate ambition will be reviewed and revised with the aim of closing the gap between current climate commitments and the well below 2°C objective. Key to securing these commitments will be significantly improving the availability of finance for climate adaptation in developing countries. That is one of the reasons why the UK has decided to prioritise climate resilience in 2019.

    Between now and 2020 it is also critical that we better connect the international climate negotiations with those focused on nature and biodiversity. It is impossible to meet climate mitigation and climate adaptation objectives without the natural environment, and we can’t save nature without tackling climate change.

    In 2020 China is hosting the Convention on Biological Diversity Conference Of Parties 15. This is an opportunity to push for a new international agreement, similar in scale and scope as the Paris Agreement on climate change, but focused on halting and then reversing the crisis facing the natural world. We will work closely with international partners and allies to secure the highest possible ambition agreement at CBD COP15.

    The UK has also been at the forefront of international efforts to control F-gases, a greenhouse gas found in some refrigeration and heating appliances. In 2016, we supported the Kigali amendment to the Montreal Protocol, which will introduce controls on the use of hydrofluorocarbons, a type of F-gas, from the start of next year. Estimates suggest this could avoid up to 0.5 degrees of warming by the end of the century.

    However, as countries develop economically, the growth of air conditioning is a major challenge for reducing emissions. So, as well as taking action domestically to implement the amendment, we’re supporting higher ambition internationally by making available an additional voluntary contribution of $2m to incentivise energy efficiency improvements alongside reductions in hydrofluorocarbons.

    Conclusion

    Collectively, collaboratively, we have the potential to protect and enhance our environment.

    The answers lie in support for greater scientific investment and innovation.

    Throughout history, the endeavour and imagination of scientists has redefined the limits of what is possible, and it is only by heeding scientific warnings more keenly than ever before and supporting scientific research more strongly than ever before that we can safeguard our planet and our species’ survival.

    Scientific knowledge is, always, a good in itself. In that sense, there can never be too much information. The more we know, the greater our ability to shape events for the better. But also the heavier the responsibility to act. When it comes to climate change we now, thanks to the efforts of the UK’s scientists know more than ever before the urgency of acting. Which is why not just I, but future generations, are so much in their debt.

  • David Lidington – 2018 Speech on Responsible Capitalism

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Lidington, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, on 24 November 2018.

    I really welcome the foundation of Onward and hearing about the work that this new think tank plans.

    It seems to me when I look back on those days, growing up and going to university in the late 1970s and early 1980s, it was a time of really exciting intellectual ferment on the centre right of British politics.

    I think what all supporters of a liberal free enterprise society – a responsible society that cares about the values expressed in communities – needs now is a resurgence of that intellectual energy.

    In those days that was brought about through the Centre of Policy Studies, the Institute of Economic Affairs, and the Adam Smith Institute. Today Onward is contributing to that renewal of ideas.

    That is important as today those of us who support free enterprise and the market economy are confronted by a paradox.

    On the one hand, living standards globally are higher than they have ever been in human history. That is largely down to the success of capitalism, free markets and free trade.

    Generations of people in Asia, South America and in many countries in Africa…

    … men and women whose parents and grandparents lived with the real fear of food running out if the harvest failed…

    … are now able to look forward to greater prosperity and security than ever before.

    In 1950 three-quarters of the world were living in extreme poverty; by 2015, fewer than a tenth were in that condition, despite a massive increase in the global population in that period of time.

    The global poverty rate is now lower than it has ever been in recorded history.

    That progress has led to knock-on improvements:

    Global illiteracy rates have fallen from a third in 1930 to less than one-fifth today.

    And child mortality – measured in terms of the percentage of children dying before their fifth birthday – has fallen tenfold since 1800 to 4.3% today.

    There have been real improvements in the developed world, too.

    We probably all know this from talking to our own parents or grandparents, but if you look at household goods – things like fridges, freezers, washing machines, dishwashers – which in the 1950s were considered luxury products are now seen as standard.

    Things that were once counted as the exceptional rewards for high living standards are now seen as a measure of the ordinary expectations.

    We carry smartphones in our pockets – giving instant access to information from every part of the world – which carry in them greater computing power than that of a mainframe computer a few decades ago.

    Customers are now able to get what they want, often the next day, after shopping from the comfort of their homes.

    Online retailing has cut costs and delays.

    One might have expected that this unprecedented rise in human prosperity should cause people to celebrate the success of free enterprise and of market economies.

    Yet that is not the case.

    Rather here in the United Kingdom, and in much of the developed world, what we see is a level of scepticism higher than for many years. Not just about the conduct of individual businesses or particular sectors, but about the virtues of the free enterprise system itself, on a scale that we haven’t seen for about 40 years.

    Citizens today are better informed than previous generations and young people today are increasingly motivated. They want and expect businesses to behave responsibly.

    And as they look at the world they conclude that that is not what they are seeing.

    Polling by the Legatum Institute shows that a majority of the British people now view capitalism as ‘greedy’ and ‘selfish’.

    That research actually found remarkable consistency across the generations on economic issues – and shared by Labour and Conservative voters alike.

    When asked for their top three word associations with capitalism, 32% of the public said ‘corrupt’ and only 7% said ‘for the greater good’.

    And earlier this year another poll found that 61% of ordinary working people feel they don’t get their fair share of the nation’s wealth.

    There are reasons for this scepticism.

    There is no doubt that the crash of 2008 and the downturn which ensued damaged people’s confidence in the virtues of free and open markets.

    Making matters worse has been the contrast between high profile examples of corporate excess or malpractice, and the reality for many families of squeezed living standards.

    Effective competition in markets – something that underpins public trust in those markets – has in too many markets stalled.

    Data from The Economist this week shows that over the last 20 years market concentration has risen in two-thirds of US industries; in Europe the trend is similar, with the average market share of the biggest four firms in each industry having risen since 2000.

    But of course, underlying this widespread public concern and to some extent public anger lies not just the events of the last ten years…

    … but the profound long-term changes in our economy and in assumptions about work and careers, changes being driven by globalisation and digital technology.

    Both those phenomena present us with great opportunities.

    Tens of millions of new customers around the world heading towards the kind of consumer expectations that are taken for granted in Britain or Germany or the United States.

    And new jobs and firms – indeed entirely new professions and occupations – being created by digital technology.

    So there is a paradox. Higher living standards around the world than ever before. A triumph of capitalism. Yet at the same time we see deep public discontent, for understandable reasons, with the very system that has made this prosperity possible.

    So how do we respond to this challenge?

    I want to touch on three ways we can go about doing so.

    Our philosophical approach, how we think about free enterprise and capitalism…

    … what government should do in its words and its actions…

    … and what business itself ought to be doing in order to restore its public reputation.

    In part what we need to do is to rediscover and renew the arguments that we made and won in the 1970s and 1980s about the success of a market system at meeting human needs and wishes, when compared with a model that looks instead to extensive state control.

    Debates that we thought perhaps had been won conclusively, but have now been reopened.

    To do that we have to engage with a generation for whom talk about the stagflation of the 1970s, or Trade Union power or the Soviet model, is at best a matter of remote history.

    For those of us who are older, we think back to the 1970s. The great impersonator of that time, Mike Yarwood, had a big show on Saturday evenings. He could take off six trade union leaders in a show and everyone would instantly know who those people were. You could not do that today.

    We have to deliver the key messages once again. You cannot distribute wealth unless it has first been created. Individuals and businesses are better at spotting opportunities and pursuing innovations than is government. A modern economy, in all its complexity and diversity, is something that no government, however good its intentions, will be able to micromanage successfully.

    And putting politicians in charge of everything from railways to electricity to water supplies, as some advocate, would mean there would be nowhere else to turn when things went wrong.

    We have to re-establish in the minds of today’s opinion formers and today’s public the principle that free enterprise, far from being incompatible with ethical values, is actually rooted in and depends upon a moral framework.

    This actually is something where we can look to history for guidance.

    The Harvard scholar David Landes in his book The Wealth and Poverty of Nations and the Cambridge historian and anthropologist Alan Macfarlane in The Culture of Capitalism have written about how it was the moral and cultural environment of European nations which enabled a capitalist economy to take off and to thrive.

    Indeed the father of free enterprise, Adam Smith, recognised that markets were, as my colleague Jesse Norman puts it in his recent biography, “living institutions embedded in specific cultures and mediated by social norms and trust”.

    Political stability, a sound currency representing a reliable store of value and medium of exchange, independent courts to resolve disputes, effective mechanisms to deter and punish corruption: these all help provide the essential foundations on which a market economy can flourish and grow and command public trust.

    And of course these foundations are made possible by governments and by parliaments – in other words by effective, but limited, state action. Indeed, many of the things upon which businesses rely – limited liability, patents, copyright, enforcement of contracts – are embodied in law.

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

    We saw that with the impact of the Factory Acts of the mid-nineteenth century and in the trust busting drive of Teddy Roosevelt in the United States.

    Roosevelt’s concern was not with big business per se – rather, he wanted to act to enforce what he termed a “rule of reason” on companies that grew through unfair practices rather than through reasonable means.

    Today we are acting with measures such as the proposed digital services tax, our work to implement the Taylor Review, our push for regulators to do more to protect vulnerable consumers, and our legislation to outlaw the practice of unscrupulous freeholders charging onerous ground rents.

    I cannot emphasise hard enough: these reforms are about restoring the reputation of the free market system by demonstrating that it can and it should work for everyone.

    This is not a task that government can undertake on its own.

    Part of the reason why the Government is responding is that companies themselves do not always act in a way that benefits the public good or delivers for working people.

    But increasingly, I sense that businesses are willing to rise to the challenge of strengthening faith in capitalism. Working with Jeremy Wright, I have introduced ways to use the Government’s buying power on public procurement to drive social value and promote a more diverse market…

    … and I have been heartened by the welcome that those proposals have had from many of the Government’s major suppliers.

    But there are habits too that need to change. The detailed information now held about consumers can be used by suppliers both for and against customers.

    Consider the loyalty penalty – where consumers who stick with their suppliers find themselves placed on the highest tariffs and actually end up subsidising other consumers.

    The Government has acted to stop this behaviour in the energy sector and we are willing to act in other markets too to make them work for people.

    The increased shareholder activism that we have encouraged in recent years, especially around executive pay, is also a vital element in renewing the public standing of free enterprise.

    Scrutiny by shareholders of the decisions of companies is making a real difference.

    It was after all the vocal opposition of shareholders that persuaded Unilever to abandon its plans to make Rotterdam its HQ.

    And it was condemnation, not just from politicians or even from campaigners but ultimately also shareholders, that led to the departure of Persimmon’s chief executive following the controversy over his bonus payment.

    By encouraging stewardship, active and diligent shareholders can improve the reputation of capitalism and I believe have a responsibility so to do.

    It is not enough to fix broken markets – we have to fix public perceptions of them too.

    We have to do so in a way that recalls the Prime Minister’s first speech on the steps of Downing Street – reaffirming the Government’s commitment to championing responsible capitalism and asking businesses for their part to accept their share of social and moral responsibility.

    So we should celebrate businesses that create wealth and provide jobs and livelihoods in communities across the country…

    We should drive effective competition – removing barriers to entry, making sure our competition powers are fit for purpose to regulate digital markets, and promote innovation.

    We should be clear about our expectations of businesses because public support for their licence to operate depends how they act.

    I think these are the steps that will help to break this paradox of capitalism.

    Business done right is a force for good.

    The best businesses play a highly positive role in society, not just by reacting to social or environmental problems, but by driving innovation and delivering products or services that meet consumer needs.

    The best businesses – whether that’s manufacturing or finance or technology – lead the way in putting social and environmental impact at the heart of what they do.

    The best businesses also lead the way on promoting diversity, tackling injustices, and encouraging talent regardless of people’s background.

    By taking these steps we can help raise standards, stimulate investment and drive long-terms returns, and continue that improvement in living standards which has been free enterprise’s greatest achievement.

    Companies acting more responsibly and markets working more competitively are the twin pillars of restoring trust in those free markets.

    Thank you very much.

  • Theresa May – 2018 Statement on Brexit

    Below is the text of the statement made by Theresa May, the Prime Minister, in the House of Commons on 26 November 2018.

    With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on the conclusion of our negotiations to leave the European Union.

    At yesterday’s Special European Council in Brussels, I reached a deal with the leaders of the other 27 EU Member States on a Withdrawal Agreement that will ensure our smooth and orderly departure on 29th March next year; and, tied to this Agreement, a Political Declaration on an ambitious future partnership that is in our national interest.

    Mr Speaker, this is the right deal for Britain because it delivers on the democratic decision of the British people.

    It takes back control of our borders. It ends the free movement of people in full once and for all, allowing the government to introduce a new skills-based immigration system.

    It takes back control of our laws. It ends the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in the UK and means instead our laws being made in our Parliaments, enforced by our courts.

    And it takes back control of our money. It ends the vast annual payments we send to Brussels. So instead we can spend taxpayers’ money on our own priorities, including the £394 million a week of extra investment into our long-term plan for the NHS.

    By creating a new Free Trade Area with no tariffs, fees, charges, quantitative restrictions or rules of origin checks, this deal protects jobs, including those that rely on integrated supply chains.

    It protects our security with a close relationship on defence and on tackling crime and terrorism, which will help to keep all our people safe.

    And it protects the integrity of our United Kingdom, meeting our commitments in Northern Ireland and delivering for the whole UK family, including our Overseas Territories and the Crown Dependencies.

    Mr Speaker, on Gibraltar, we have worked constructively with the governments of Spain and Gibraltar – and I want to pay tribute in particular to Gibraltar’s Chief Minister Fabian Picardo for his statesmanship in these negotiations.

    We have ensured that Gibraltar is covered by the whole Withdrawal Agreement and by the Implementation Period.

    And for the future partnership, the UK government will be negotiating for the whole UK family, including Gibraltar.

    As Fabian Picardo said this weekend:

    Every aspect of the response of the United Kingdom was agreed with the Government of Gibraltar. We have worked seamlessly together in this as we have in all other aspects of this two year period of negotiation. Most importantly, the legal text of the draft Withdrawal Agreement has not been changed. That is what the Spanish Government repeatedly sought. But they have not achieved that. The United Kingdom has not let us down.

    Mr Speaker, our message to the people of Gibraltar is clear: we will always stand by you. We are proud that Gibraltar is British and our position on sovereignty has not and will not change.

    Mr Speaker, the Withdrawal Agreement will ensure that we leave the European Union on 29th March next year in a smooth and orderly way.

    It protects the rights of EU citizens living in the UK and UK citizens living in the EU, so they can carry on living their lives as before.

    It delivers a time-limited Implementation Period to give business time to prepare for the new arrangements. During the Implementation Period trade will continue on current terms so businesses only have to face one set of changes. It ensures a fair settlement of our financial obligations – less than half of what some originally expected and demanded.

    And it meets our commitment to ensure there is no hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland – and also no customs border in the Irish Sea – in the event that the future relationship is not ready by the end of the implementation period.

    Mr Speaker, I know some Members remain concerned that we could find ourselves stuck in this backstop.

    So let me address this directly.

    First, this is an insurance policy that no-one wants to use.

    Both the UK and the EU are fully committed to having our future relationship in place by 1st January 2021.

    And the Withdrawal Agreement has a legal duty on both sides to use best endeavours to avoid the backstop ever coming into force.

    If, despite this, the future relationship is not ready by the end of 2020, we would not be forced to use the backstop. We would have a clear choice between the backstop or a short extension to the Implementation Period.

    If we did choose the backstop, the legal text is clear that it should be temporary and that the Article 50 legal base cannot provide for a permanent relationship.

    And there is now more flexibility that it can be superseded either by the future relationship, or by alternative arrangements which include the potential for facilitative arrangements and technologies to avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland. There is also a termination clause, which allows the backstop to be turned off when we have fulfilled our commitments on the Northern Ireland border. And there is a unilateral right to trigger a review through the Joint Committee and the ability to seek independent arbitration if the EU does not use good faith in this process.

    Furthermore, as a result of the changes we have negotiated, the legal text is now also clear that once the backstop has been superseded, it shall “cease to apply”.

    So if a future Parliament decided to then move from an initially deep trade relationship to a looser one, the backstop could not return.

    Mr Speaker, I do not pretend that either we or the EU are entirely happy with these arrangements. And that’s how it must be – were either party entirely happy, that party would have no incentive to move on to the future relationship.

    But there is no alternative deal that honours our commitments to Northern Ireland which does not involve this insurance policy. And the EU would not have agreed any future partnership without it.

    Put simply, there is no deal that comes without a backstop, and without a backstop there is no deal.

    Mr Speaker, the Withdrawal Agreement is accompanied by a Political Declaration, which sets out the scope and terms of an ambitious future relationship between the UK and the EU.

    It is a detailed set of instructions to negotiators that will be used to deliver a legal agreement on our future relationship after we have left.

    The linkage clause between the Withdrawal Agreement and this declaration requires both sides to use best endeavours to get this legal text agreed and implemented by the end of 2020.

    And both sides are committed to making preparations for an immediate start to the formal negotiations after our withdrawal.

    The declaration contains specific detail on our future economic relationship.

    This includes a new Free Trade Area with no tariffs, fees, quantitative restrictions or rules of origin checks – an unprecedented economic relationship that no other major economy has.

    It includes liberalisation in trade in services well beyond WTO commitments and building on recent EU Free Trade Agreements.

    It includes new arrangements for our financial services sector – ensuring market access cannot be withdrawn on a whim and providing stability and certainty for our world-leading industry.

    And it ensures we will leave EU programmes that do not work in our interests: so we will be out of the Common Agricultural Policy that has failed our farmers and out of the Common Fisheries Policy that has failed our coastal communities.

    Instead as the Political Declaration sets out, we will be “an independent coastal state” once again. We will take back full sovereign control over our waters. So we will be able to decide for ourselves who we allow to fish in our waters.

    The EU have maintained throughout this process that they wanted to link overall access to markets to access to fisheries. They failed in the Withdrawal Agreement, and they failed again in the Political Declaration.

    It is no surprise some are already trying to lay down markers again for the future relationship, but they should be getting used to the answer by now: it is not going to happen.

    Finally, the declaration is clear that whatever is agreed in the future partnership must recognise the development of an independent UK trade policy beyond this economic partnership.

    So for the first time in forty years, the UK will be able to strike new trade deals and open up new markets for our goods and services in the fastest growing economies around the world.

    Mr Speaker, as I set out for the House last week, the future relationship also includes a comprehensive new security partnership with close reciprocal law enforcement and judicial co-operation to keep all our people safe.

    At the outset we were told that being outside of free movement and outside of the Schengen area, we would be treated like any other non-EU state on security.

    But this deal delivers the broadest security partnership in the EU’s history, including arrangements for effective data exchange on Passenger Name Records, DNA, fingerprints, and vehicle registration data, as well as extradition arrangements like those in the European Arrest Warrant.

    And it opens the way to sharing the types of information included in the ECRIS and SIS II databases on wanted or missing persons and criminal records.

    Mr Speaker, this has been a long and complex negotiation.

    It has required give and take on both sides. That is the nature of a negotiation.

    But this deal honours the result of the referendum while providing a close economic and security relationship with our nearest neighbours and in so doing offers a brighter future for the British people outside of the EU.

    And I can say to the House with absolute certainty that there is not a better deal available. My fellow leaders were very clear on that themselves yesterday.

    Mr Speaker, our duty – as a Parliament over these coming weeks – is to examine this deal in detail, to debate it respectfully, to listen to our constituents and decide what is in our national interest.

    There is a choice which this House will have to make.

    We can back this deal, deliver on the vote of the referendum and move on to building a brighter future of opportunity and prosperity for all our people.

    Or this House can choose to reject this deal and go back to square one. Because no-one knows what would happen if this deal doesn’t pass. It would open the door to more division and more uncertainty, with all the risks that will entail.

    Mr Speaker, I believe our national interest is clear.

    The British people want us to get on with a deal that honours the referendum and allows us to come together again as a country, whichever way we voted.

    This is that deal. A deal that delivers for the British people.

    And I commend this Statement to the House.