UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Jeremy Hunt – 2018 Speech at Policy Exchange

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jeremy Hunt, the Foreign Secretary, at Policy Exchange on 31 October 2018.

    In 1826, my predecessor Foreign Secretary George Canning described the global balance of power as a “standard perpetually varying, as civilisation advances, and as new nations spring up and take their place among established political communities”.

    This was an era when South American countries were seizing independence from Spain and Portugal. The New World was beginning to upset the balance of the Old and Canning saw an opportunity for Britain. An opportunity to rethink British diplomacy, to seek new allies across the Atlantic, and thwart old foes France and Spain.

    Canning had his own bed in the Foreign Office and when not lying in it complaining about his gout, he ordered British emissaries to sign trade agreements with Mexico and Colombia.

    Times have changed. I have no bed in the Foreign Office and I am happy to inform you that I don’t have gout either. Well, at least not yet.

    But this country is at a pivotal, historic moment. The global balance of power is shifting once more and Post-Brexit, our place within it as well.

    And whilst at the same time our democratic values are arguably under greater threat than at any time since the fall of the Berlin Wall, I want to argue today that we can use our influence, our reach and power to defend our values by becoming an invisible chain that links the world’s democracies.

    Why we should reassess our global role

    With the backdrop of Brexit, there is no doubt that our role has to change.

    It is a legal and structural change it will have a profound impact on our foreign policy and whilst our commitment to European security remains unbreakable, the nature of our relationship with our closest neighbours will naturally change and we need to ensure this is a change for the better, not the worse.

    But it isn’t just Brexit that’s causing change, other events are even more significant. Let’s just take 3 examples:

    First: the rise of China and the Asian powerhouse economies. Their growth alters the balance of power with all the speed Canning foretold.

    In 1980, China comprised just 2% of the world economy. Today its 15%. By 2030, China is set to overtake the United States as the biggest economy in the world. By 2050, the combined economies of China and India will exceed the GDPs of the entire G7 – the US, UK, Japan, France, Germany, Canada and Italy – put together.

    Power always follows money so we must not underestimate the profound impact this will have.

    Secondly there is a growing threat to democracy and democratic values. It’s now clear that the spread of democracy has slowed, gradually come to a halt, in some respects even gone into reverse.

    We may be suffering what the scholar Larry Diamond described as “a democratic recession”. Last year, according to Freedom House, 71 countries suffered “net declines in political rights and civil liberties” and this is a reversal of what seemed like the inevitable onward march of democracy and democratic values after the lifting of the Iron Curtain.

    It is of more than symbolic importance that by 2030, for the first time in our lifetimes the world’s largest economy will not be a democracy and then we have to factor in something else, the growing threats to the long-established, rules-based international order.

    It is not just within countries that we see change taking place. The interaction between countries is changing too.

    Having a rules-based international order has made us more prosperous and successful than ever before in the history of humanity. But it is now openly questioned.

    Chemical weapons have been used to lethal effect in Syria and for the first time in our history, they have been used on the streets of Britain too.

    Free trade is under threat with the World Trade Organisation facing the most severe challenge in its history. If new trade barriers were to appear after Brexit, that would make things even worse.

    The international order that has existed since 1945 was, in large measure, a creation of Britain and its allies.

    At its heart was a simple credo: namely that the best way to create stability was to build a system where might is not automatically right, and one where every country, large or small, lives under the protection and security of the UN Charter.

    By and large, it succeeded: for the first time in history, the bleak vision of Thucydides, that “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must”, was no longer always automatically valid. The United Kingdom with its Empire declining and the United States in its ascendancy determined to find a better way. And through a pattern of alliances and multilateral organisations, that vision came into plain sight.

    But today that system is under threat. A new order is rising alongside the old. The democratic values that once bound us together are threatened. The post-war international order that we built to defend them is being questioned. And people are turning to its architects and asking: “what now?”

    In Britain, we’ve got to ask ourselves the same: what’s our plan? What’s our role? How can we strengthen and defend our way of life and the values we believe in?

    Britain’s future role

    To start, we must build on the strengths that are rooted in our national character.

    We are the home of parliamentary democracy. We have a profound belief in this country’s institutions that allow the peaceful transfer of political power.

    As an outward-looking, seafaring nation, we have long known how to build alliances in every corner of the globe. As a country endowed with the best universities, scientists, engineers, artists and authors – alongside, of course, the world’s language – we have immense reserves of soft power.

    We have kept our promise to spend 0.7% of national income on overseas aid, giving this country the third biggest development budget in the world and our history has also created special bonds with the most powerful democracy, the United States, and the world’s largest democracy, India.

    We have the closest of relationships with other parts of the English-speaking world, from Ireland to Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

    The success of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting this year in London, one of the biggest ever gatherings of its kind, also shows the enduring strength of our friendships within the world’s most important north-south alliance.

    Our network of friendships is unparalleled. But it’s underpinned by something more than shared history, shared language or shared culture.

    Those friendships are underpinned by the values – democracy, the rule of law, separation of powers, respect for individual civil and political rights, a belief in free trade – bind us. And when those values are under threat, Britain’s role – I would argue – is to defend them.

    Which is why to do so, we must become an invisible chain linking the world’s democracies.

    And we can have confidence that such an approach will work because alliances built on shared values are always more durable than those based on transactional convenience.

    We must remember that the impressive progress of modern history has happened not by accident but by design. Its continued success can’t be taken for granted. So it is up to us to strengthen our resolve, make the most of our unique position and forge an unbreakable chain that will hold those vital values that link our countries.

    Raising our diplomatic game

    So how do we do this?

    First, we must reinvigorate and expand British diplomacy. In the past you may have heard of retrenchment and retreat. Not any more.

    Today, I am announcing the biggest expansion of Britain’s diplomatic network for a generation, including 12 new Posts and nearly 1,000 more personnel.

    I can confirm that by the end of next year, we will open six new High Commissions in Lesotho, Eswatini (formerly Swaziland), the Bahamas, Tonga, Samoa, and Vanuatu.

    We will base new Resident Commissioners in Antigua & Barbuda, Grenada, and St Vincent & the Grenadines (nice job for someone).

    We will upgrade the British Office in Chad to a full Embassy and establish a new British mission to the headquarters of the Association of South-East Asian Nations in Jakarta.

    Thereafter, we will open new British embassies in Djibouti and Niger.

    By the end of 2020, we will send 335 more British diplomats overseas, and reinforce the Foreign Office in London with another 328 personnel. We will hire another 329 locally-engaged staff in our embassies around the world.

    In total, our network will gain 992 extra people, meaning we are represented in 160 countries – of the 192 countries of the UN, that’s the same as France and only marginally less than United States and China.

    At the same time, we will also strengthen our skills and expertise.

    Over the next 5 years we will build on William Hague’s far-sighted decision to reopen the Foreign Office Language School by increasing the number of languages taught from 50 to 70. The 20 new languages will vary from the Central Asian tongues of Kazakh and Kyrgyz, to Shona in Zimbabwe and Gujarati in India.

    Within the next 10 years, we will double the number of British diplomats who speak a foreign language in the country where they serve from 500 at present, to 1,000, meaning that getting on for half of our overseas postings will be staffed by linguists.

    We will also broaden the pool of talent we tap into for our Ambassadors.

    As we regain control of our trade policy, it makes sense to open up applications to external candidates, so that 1 or 2 positions every year might be filled by people with important experience from outside the civil service, especially the world of commerce.

    The strength of our network is its professionalism, and that’s what I think has given us what I believe is the finest diplomatic service in the world. But we must never close our eyes to the approaches and skills of other industries.

    I am sure there are experienced, multi-lingual businesspeople who would welcome the chance to enter the service of their country at this critical time and the Foreign Office of the future will welcome them to some of our key Ambassadorial posts.

    We will also ensure that those who champion Britain abroad better represent the country they serve.

    So this year we launched a new university outreach programme, visiting every part of Britain, to encourage applications from under-represented groups. This includes not just women and BAME candidates, but also those from backgrounds that have not traditionally felt comfortable applying for a career in the service.

    Finally, a small but I think important detail, is something that indicates how I intend our diplomacy to develop. When I arrived, we had secure phone connections in my office to the US, Australia, Canada and New Zealand. I have now added Japan, France and Germany to the list.

    It means a lot more technology in my office than in Canning’s day – but also allows for the strengthening of important alliances that he would have thoroughly approved.

    Diplomacy with a purpose

    Taken together, this amounts to a considerable investment in our service, its capacity and its future. Adding links to the chain that will allow us to play our part in uniting those countries who share our values.

    Now we must use that network to get to work.

    First, we must redouble our efforts to defend the rules-based international order. To do that, we need multilateral organisations that are fit for purpose. Reforming out-dated and bureaucratic structures is the best way to make sure the institutions they serve do not collapse.

    That means delivering UN reform, as advocated by UN Secretary General Guterres.

    It means fairer burden-sharing in NATO, which continues to be the bedrock of European security.

    It means WTO reform, so that we succeed in warding off the dangerous temptations of protectionism.

    It means reforming the World Bank, so its governance reflects the changing balance of the global economy.

    And it means reforming the structures of the Commonwealth, so there is proper accountability for the Secretariat and a more effective decision-making process.

    To strengthen that invisible chain between the democracies, we must also ensure we are better at acting in concert when we face real and present threats.

    That was shown to great effect after the nerve agent attack in Salisbury. Then, far from buckling in the face of Russian aggression, 28 democracies came together and expelled 153 Russian spies. The biggest coordinated expulsion in the history of diplomacy.

    When we act in concert, we are strong. When we act together, the price for transgression becomes too high for the perpetrator.

    But this nimbleness of response often eludes us. So I want our fine diplomats to find a way to do this more effectively. And that means going beyond traditional diplomacy focused on other governments and creating new partnerships, including with the private sector.

    Nor is it solely when we face security threats that we should strengthen the chains that connect like-minded countries.

    We must be better at standing together to defend the values we share. Whether that is: the prevention of sexual violence in conflict, the struggle against the illegal wildlife trade, or threats to freedom of expression.

    Because access to fair and accurate information is also something we should remember is the lifeblood of democracy.

    For that reason – and prompted in no small part by the tragic killing of the journalist Jamal Khashoggi – I am placing the resources of the Foreign Office behind the cause of media freedom. This campaign will be marked by a major international conference on media freedom that I will host in London next year.

    And finally, as we strengthen our diplomatic efforts, we must never forget the importance of speaking from a position of strength.

    Soft power matters but it is immensely more effective when backed up by hard power. In the last resort, we need to be able to call on our fine armed forces, whose importance was recognised by new funding in the Budget this week.

    So we will continue to spend at least 2% of GDP on defence, and we will replace our independent nuclear deterrent. And we will continue to call on others in NATO to play their part too.

    Conclusion

    Almost 200 years on, Canning’s law still holds: new nations rise and the global order changes. The apparently inevitable progress of democracy since the fall of the Berlin Wall is no more.

    Like Canning we must seize the opportunities that present themselves within the tumult. We must work to strengthen and defend our values across the globe.

    And as we face our post-Brexit future, Britain has a role to play. It is one that we are uniquely suited to deliver. Remembering our responsibilities. Not overstating our strength, but not understating it either. Because right now our history, our networks and our unique combination of soft and hard power gives us a real ability to shape the course of history in line with our values.

    So let’s play our part helping to build that invisible chain between those who share our values. And make it as strong and resilient as it needs to be as new nations rise and the world order is challenged anew.

  • David Gauke – 2018 Speech on Prisons

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Gauke, the Secretary of State for Justice, at the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners and the National Police Chiefs Council at the 2018 Partnership Summit on 1 November 2018.

    Introduction

    It’s a great pleasure to be here – I’m grateful to the Association and Council for inviting me to speak to you today.

    I want to start by saying thank you.

    Thank you for everything you and your teams do every day to reduce and prevent crime, to keep people safe – and feeling safe – in their communities.

    Your work, your dedication, your sense of public duty, is part of the reason the police continues to be one of the most trusted professions in our country.

    As the son of a police officer, I understand some of the difficulties and challenges that go with the job. Growing up, I soon learned about how the police had to put themselves in physical danger, had to drop everything in order to respond to an emergency, had to take responsibility when things got difficult. And the sense that society as a whole did not – could not – fully appreciate the nature of the role. So thank you.

    The justice system

    We talk a lot – and hear a lot – about ‘the justice system’. That system is in fact a web of connected and interacting agencies, organisations and professions.

    What happens in one part of the system can have a direct impact on another – and there is much we can share and learn from each other in different parts of that system.

    That’s why partnerships and collaboration, as exemplified by this summit, are so important if we are to rise to the modern-day challenges facing policing and justice.

    One of the main challenges is the changing nature of crime. The technology and innovation that is transforming our lives for the better is also creating opportunities for criminals. I will come, in a moment, to some of the particular threats we face in our prisons.

    But these new developments can frustrate our collective ability to ensure that justice is done – particularly when those crimes are complex, highly organised, and use methods that simply were not around 10 or even 5 years ago.

    So it is important that we continue to work together to tackle the emerging, as well as the enduring, challenges head on; to find smarter and more joined-up ways of working.

    Justice devolution: role of Police and Crime Commissioners (PCC’s)

    The need for that kind of approach is one of the reasons this government is proud to have played a role in establishing the offices of democratically-elected Police and Crime Commissioners across the country.

    The unique nature of your role allows you to view crime across the whole justice system in a way that is also rooted in your local area, as I see in Hertfordshire so often.

    In meeting many of you, what has struck me is your passion for, understanding of, and dedication to, your local areas and the people who live there.

    That’s exactly what these posts are all about – helping to deliver local results that are accountable to local communities.

    A really important role you have is around delivering victim and witness services – it’s a role I know you care a lot about and are ambitious for.

    For example, we’re seeing some PCCs take steps to improve monitoring of compliance with the Victims Code, as well as some PCCs developing innovative approaches to delivering services for victims.

    Take for example the work of Northumbria and Cambridgeshire who have developed single points of contact for victims and are bringing services together to reduce the need for victims to go through the ordeal of re-telling their story.

    I know other PCCs are taking a similar direction too.

    I’d like to thank the APCC and the NPCC for working closely with the Ministry of Justice on our recent Victims Strategy – and now helping us to deliver on the commitments in the Strategy.

    For example, we’re working with you on improving the information sent to victims and I know the NPCC lead for victims and witnesses, Assistant Chief Constable Emma Barnett, has set up a cross-agency group to look at the commitment in the strategy around simplifying the justice experience of victims.

    I know all PCC areas have also been working closely with us to make sure the right support is in place in the event of a major crime incident such as a terrorist attack. This will ensure that wherever a crime occurs, and wherever the victims and families live, they will be referred to the support they need.

    These are good examples of the work you do to bring together local partners and ensure the justice system as a whole meets the needs of communities. It’s why we committed in our manifesto to strengthen and enhance the office of PCCs.

    Both the Ministry of Justice and Home Office are already working very closely with you – and we’re making good progress in some important areas.

    The work we’re doing in cities like Manchester and London is showing what can be done, and I will be taking a very close interest in the results.

    Emerging data from places like Manchester shows that a whole system approach is associated with a 40% reduction in adult women being handed immediate custodial sentences, compared to a reduction of just 3% across England and Wales.

    Any future changes will, of course, need to be considered carefully and some areas are rightly out of bounds – the role of PCCs needs to respect judicial and prosecutorial independence, for example.

    But I think it is absolutely right that we look at areas where an enhanced role for PCCs could improve the justice system.

    To that end, we’re also working closely with you following our recent consultation on the future of probation and the expanded role that PCCs can play.

    I had the pleasure of meeting with a cross-party group of PCCs to discuss some of our proposals, and we have committed to further engagement over the coming months as we develop and refine our ideas.

    Tackling crime in prisons is tackling crime on our streets

    When we look at overall justice outcomes, I think it’s important to look at the strategic position prisons have in terms of crime.

    I believe prisons have emerged as a new front line in the fight against crime.

    The fact is, new technology and sophisticated approaches mean that prison walls alone are no longer effective in stopping crime – inside or outside of prison.

    Offenders who commit crime in prison have a disruptive, and often, devastating impact on the prospects of those who are trying to turn their lives around and who see prison as a pivotal turning-point in their lives.

    But the impact of that crime not only affects prison staff and fellow prisoners, but reaches far beyond the prison gate. While offenders are rightly separated from society, prisons exist within communities.

    There is a direct link between crime on the wings and landings and crime in our towns and cities. Ensuring there is less crime in our prisons means less crime in communities.

    Crime is being fuelled by organised gangs and networks who see prisons as a highly lucrative and literally captive market to push drugs like Spice, as well as mobile phones and other contraband into prisons. This creates a thriving illicit economy within a prison.

    As a result, we are seeing high levels of violence as individuals and groups vie for control of this internal market and enforce drug debts. Not to mention the effect the drugs themselves have in terms of violence. The availability of illicit mobile phones means more prisoners are committing online fraud and money laundering; harassing, extorting and threatening members of the public and grooming and victimising innocent people on social media – all from inside prison.

    Of course, if you’re a victim of crime, you don’t necessarily care about the type of criminal network behind it, or that it was committed from inside a prison. You see it as a crime – and you want justice to be done and for it not to happen to someone else.

    Whether a crime is committed on a prison landing or in the street, in a cell or in a shop – it is a crime. One of the primary purposes of prison is the protection of the public. We cannot allow our prisons to become incubators of crime. That puts prison officers and prisoners at risk, undermines rehabilitation and ultimately makes our streets less safe.

    Joint approaches to disrupting crime in prison

    That’s why we have been taking measures to make our prisons safer, crack down on the criminal gangs exploiting our prisons and we have been denying prisoners the space and means to prey on innocent – and often vulnerable – members of the public.

    As announced in the Budget on Monday, we will spend an extra £30 million this financial year, on top of the £40 million we announced over the summer, to further improve decency, safety and security in prisons.

    The Budget also provided funding for a new prison at Glen Parva in Leicestershire that will help us towards delivering on our commitment to building up to 10,000 new decent prison places.

    But as well as investment, creating safer prisons relies on multiple agencies working together in a coordinated way.

    Let me give you a specific example.

    Earlier this year, a highly dangerous criminal with significant influence in an East Midlands prison came to the attention of the Prison Service’s Serious and Organised Crime Unit and the police.

    During his time in prison, he was involved in the trade of drugs, assaulted prison staff and prisoners and was frequently found with improvised weapons.

    Collaboration between the prison and police made the difference here: it meant that we were able to seize illegal mobile phones which disrupted his criminal activity and resulted in charges being brought and his sentence extended.

    With this sort of joint work between police and the prison, he will find it a much tougher place to continue criminality.

    And last year, it was also through a joint operation by prison intelligence officers and police that, together, we broke up a major organised crime gang that used drones to smuggle £1.2 million worth of drugs, weapons and mobile phones into prisons across the UK.

    In the last few weeks, more joint operational work has led to a further 15 members of this gang receiving prison sentences of up to 10 years.

    I want to build on these successes by following and targeting the money behind the gangs.

    The Financial Investigations Unit I announced last month will track and seize the money that criminal kingpins use to deal drugs in prison – with police from the Eastern Region Special Operations Unit embedded within it, bringing their expertise and powers.

    And today, the government has announced its updated Serious and Organised Crime Strategy, which sets out how we will relentlessly disrupt the activities of high priority offenders, whether they are being investigated by the police, or managed by prisons or probation.

    Approaches to dealing with crime in prison

    It is right that we focus on this kind of intelligence-led and joint approach. But when crime does occur, we should be clear about how it will be dealt with and that those responsible are brought to justice.

    One of the most despicable crimes we see in prisons are attacks on prison officers. Over the last 3 years there has been a 59% increase in assaults on prison staff.

    That is shocking and sickening.

    Let me be clear: an attack on a prison officer – or a police officer, or an ambulance worker, on NHS staff, fire officers or other emergency workers – is an attack on all of us.

    That’s why I’m pleased we’ve changed the law and doubled the maximum sentence for attacking an emergency worker, including prison officers.

    This will send a clear message that assaults on those who serve and protect the public will not be tolerated and they will feel the full force of the law.

    Alongside changes to the law, we are taking steps to make the fullest use of the powers available to your forces, the CPS and the courts.

    When a prison officer is attacked, the suspected perpetrator may well be moved to another prison later and as a result another police force.

    This can cause delays and disruption to an investigation so, through close joint working between police and prisons, a new Memorandum of Understanding will make sure that police forces provide mutual assistance to each other when interviewing prisoner suspects.

    Over the last few months we have been working with the police and CPS to revise and re-issue the cross-agency protocol on how crimes in prison should be handled. The updated protocol will set the standard for how we tackle crimes committed in prison in the future.

    We are also investing in the training prison officers receive so they are able to collect and catalogue the evidence that is so crucial to prosecuting crimes in prison successfully.

    Collaborative models

    These are important practical measures, but we must also look more fundamentally at the models for policing our prisons.

    I know there are a number of operating models already being used by some police forces, including having a single point of contact for the prison or dedicated investigative officers. As a result, there is some really encouraging work going in some parts of the country.

    I want to particularly highlight the new unit set up within Greater Manchester Police. The unit is made up of police officers and detectives, supported by two lawyers from the CPS, who are dedicated solely to investigating crimes that take place inside HMP Manchester.

    Of course, this approach won’t be right in every area. There needs to be a tailored approach to cutting crime in prisons. But as you look at your own responses, I know you will come up with new and innovative ways of doing it that can then be replicated in other areas across the country.

    Conclusion

    Tackling this new frontier of crime in prisons doesn’t just keep prison officers and prisoners safe from harm, it keeps all of us safer – in the short term and the long term. It is vital for rehabilitation and to give those offenders who want to turn their back on crime the best chance possible to do so. But we will only be successful if we continue to embrace a spirit of collaboration that has been the hallmark of the successes we have already seen.

    I would like to take the opportunity to re-affirm my commitment to working with you in that spirit on tackling crime from within prison, but also as we strive for better outcomes across the criminal justice system.

    As PCCs continue to cement their place in the justice system, I am proud of the role this government has played in establishing and supporting them and I am confident that there is an even greater role for you to play in the future. I look forward to exploring the possibilities with you.

    In closing, let me reiterate my thanks – not just for the work you are doing with us at the Ministry of Justice but the work you do every day to protect the public from crime.

  • Chris Grayling – 2018 Speech on Airports

    Below is the text of the speech made by Chris Grayling, the Secretary of State for Transport, on 29 October 2018.

    Good morning everyone.

    It’s a real pleasure to join you again for your annual conference.

    And to start what I’m sure will be a day and a half of stimulating debate.

    When the AOA was first formed in 1934, the conference’s theme – the Airport of the Future – might have been an equally apt topic.

    But a keynote speaker 84 years ago would have needed a vivid imagination to predict the airports of the 21st century.

    Who would have dreamt that Gatwick, a former horse racing track, would become Britain’s second busiest airport?

    Or a couple of farms and a vicarage in leafy Cheshire would be transformed into Manchester Airport – with flights to every corner of the globe?

    Or that a collection of fields would one day make way for Birmingham Airport – now the Midlands’ gateway to the world.

    So Britain’s airports have undergone a remarkable change within a single lifespan – transformed from their early roots to the incredibly successful and safe industry represented in this room today.

    Importance of industry

    An airports industry that supports hundreds of thousands of jobs.

    That every week directly generates £270 million for the UK economy.

    And that plays a vital role in attracting inward investment to our country by connecting businesses at home and overseas.

    You are the reason why Britain today has the third largest aviation network in the world.

    Why we imported and exported £170 billion of air freight last year to countries outside the EU.

    Why passenger numbers have surged by 64 million in just 5 years.

    With 284 million people passing through our airports in 2017.

    And recent events have shown that the pace of change in the airport sector is accelerating.

    We’ve ended decades of dithering over Heathrow expansion with overwhelming support in Parliament for the National Policy Statement.

    There is massive investment going into airports around the country.

    At Manchester, Luton and Leeds Bradford for example.

    And you’ve rolled out new routes to cities in some of the fastest growing parts of the world – for instance the Middle East and China.

    Airports are becoming increasingly innovative.

    Finding new and diverse ways to benefit the economies and communities you serve.

    For example hosting business parks, where SMEs can grow with easy connections to markets and suppliers.

    And by providing education and training opportunities to attract more people into aviation careers – as we’re seeing at Stansted.

    And let’s not forget the smaller airports that maintain essential links for more isolated parts of the country.

    From Newquay in Cornwall to Inverness in the Highlands – these busy transport hubs help boost their local economies – making them even more vibrant.

    Brexit

    And it’s absolutely crucial that UK airports continue to thrive after we leave the European Union.

    Of course securing the best possible access to European markets is the ultimate goal of our negotiations.

    And with 164 million passengers travelling between the UK and EU last year – maintaining current agreements on air transport is clearly in the interests of everyone.

    But as we’ve made clear, it’s just common sense that we also plan for all possible scenarios – even if they are unlikely.

    The recent aviation technical notices we released set out the pragmatic approach that the UK would take in the event of a ‘no-deal’ exit.

    Those actions would help avoid disruption to air services, while supporting businesses and consumers. Not just here in the UK, but across Europe.

    We will also continue to seek new and improved bilateral Air Services Agreements with the rest of the world.

    Aiming, as we always have, to improve connectivity, choice and value for money for businesses and consumers.

    We want to continue participation with the European Aviation Safety Agency.

    But whatever the conclusion of negotiations, EU safety rules will be brought into domestic law through the withdrawal act.

    So we look forward to an outcome which not only maintains connectivity, but also allows British aviation to grow and thrive.

    And of course that includes capitalising on new, global opportunities.

    It has never been more important to demonstrate that Britain is open to the world.

    Open to collaboration.

    Open for business.

    And there can be no better way of doing that than through international air connections and our world class aviation industry.

    Aviation strategy and airspace modernisation

    Projections show that 435 million passengers a year could be passing through our airports by 2050.

    Passengers who are a benefit to Britain.

    Boosting tourism.

    Building business relationships across continents.

    Hundreds of millions of opportunities for Britain to grow.

    But we can’t take future success for granted.

    We need a long-term plan for sustainable growth.

    So that we better manage the impact of airport expansion on local communities.

    So that we improve surface access – making journeys to airports quicker, easier and greener.

    So that we address the environmental concerns of growth.

    And consider the passenger in everything we do.

    These things won’t happen on their own.

    They can only be achieved by government and industry working in partnership.

    And that’s why we are developing our aviation strategy.

    A comprehensive, long term vision for the sector up to 2050.

    A vision for enterprise and growth.

    That provides the right framework for the sector to grow responsibly.

    Let me give a couple of examples.

    Just as important as building new infrastructure or making best use of existing runways is how we optimise use of our skies.

    As air traffic grows, modernisation of airspace is an increasingly pressing issue.

    We need to get it right, for the benefit of the industry, passengers, and communities living under flight paths.

    We’ve already made good progress on this front with the publication of our airspace change framework last year.

    And as part of the aviation strategy we will be examining whether further policy is needed to support these changes.

    But we need your help and engagement too.

    To help us make best use of airspace.

    And growth cannot take place without considering the environment and local communities.

    Our recent Airports National Policy Statement highlights the government’s expectation that expansion will be supported by a strong package of environmental and community mitigations.

    And the forthcoming aviation green paper will set out proposals to enable sustainable growth across the country.

    But to do those things we need you to work with local neighbourhoods, the government and each other to the benefit of every airport across the UK network.

    And ultimately to the benefit of passengers.

    That’s what the aviation strategy is all about.

    We have to look at every stage of the passenger journey.

    Analyse key trends, and examine how airports can continue to respond to travellers’ changing needs.

    For while you generally do a great job at innovating to meet new customer demands.

    For instance your investment in new screening technologies that could speed up passengers’ journey through security.

    There is still more to be done to ensure all consumers can travel with confidence.

    Inclusive travel and borders

    Like providing full accessibility, for instance.

    Last year there were 3 million requests for assistive services in airports – a leap of two thirds in 6 years.

    And our aging population means demand is likely to further grow.

    There’s already been some excellent progress.

    This year 16 airports, including Edinburgh, Liverpool, Cardiff and Derry, were rated as very good in the CAA’s accessibility review.

    Up from just 6 in 2017.

    But there are still distressing stories.

    And the CAA reviews have found that some airports still need to make vital improvements.

    So it’s important we all up our game.

    That’s why in July we launched our Inclusive Transport Strategy – to ensure disabled people can travel confidently, easily and at no extra cost.

    And the aviation strategy provides a great opportunity to explore these issues across the airports sector.

    We are considering a range of measures including improved training for airport and airline staff and boosting awareness of assistive services at airports.

    While the CAA has recently released new guidelines on supporting passengers with hidden disabilities.

    In addition it’s vital that we demonstrate that the UK is fully open for business and to the world.

    So we want to limit delays at our borders too.

    As part of the strategy we are working with Border Force on ways of creating a smoother crossing for travellers through passport control.

    Without compromising security.

    And I thank the AOA and the aviation industry for your help so far on this work. Your input has been greatly valued.

    Green paper

    And I know that many of you have already contributed to the strategy‘s development so far.

    But we hope to hear even more from you.

    We will lay out the next steps of its development in a green paper this December (2018).

    To be followed by another consultation period before the final document is published next year.

    So I urge you to participate.

    This will be a great chance to shape the final strategy.

    And an opportunity for us to benefit from your experience and that of your customers.

    I can’t predict what will be top of the agenda at the AOA conference 8 decades from now.

    Or imagine how our airports will look in 2102.

    But I can promise that through the aviation strategy we are looking ahead to the challenges of the coming decades.

    I can tell you that your future in this country is bright.

    And I can guarantee that by working together we will set a course that allows Britain’s airports to continue to flourish.

    Thank you.

  • Nick Gibb – 2018 Statement on Teachers’ Pay Grant

    Below is the text of the statement made by Nick Gibb, the Secretary of State for Education, in the House of Commons on 24 October 2018.

    Today I am confirming the allocations for the teachers’ pay grant for 2018-19.

    The teachers’ pay grant was announced on 24 July by the Secretary of State for Education. This will be worth £508 million in total and will fully fund the 2018-19 ​academic year pay award to the end of the spending review period, over and above the 1% rise schools would have expected and been planning for.

    On 14 September the Department for Education published the rates and high-level methodology for the teachers’ pay grant.

    The grant will be paid to all state-funded schools and academies, including maintained nursery schools. This will be on the basis of pupil numbers in mainstream schools, and place numbers in special schools and other specialist provision. All schools will be funded for at least 100 pupils or 40 places.

    Funding for mainstream schools will be allocated on the basis of pupil numbers and each school will have a specific allocation which cannot be modified by the local authority.

    Local authorities will receive an allocation in respect of specialist provision in their area. This will be based on the number of places in each school, with all schools being funded for at least 40 places. The local authority will have the flexibility to allocate funding to the schools in their area, taking into account the particular circumstance of the schools and following consultation with them.

    Further details and guidance will be published on gov.uk.

  • Theresa May – 2018 Speech on Brexit

    Mr Speaker, before I turn to the European Council, I am sure the whole House will join me in condemning the killing of Jamal Khashoggi in the strongest possible terms.

    We must get to the truth of what happened – and my Rt Hon Friend the Foreign Secretary will be making a statement shortly.

    Mr Speaker, on the European Council, in addition to Brexit, there were important discussions on security and migration.

    First, at last Monday’s Foreign Ministers meeting my Rt Hon Friend the Foreign Secretary and his French counterpart secured agreement on a new EU sanctions regime on the use of chemical weapons.

    At this Council, I argued along with Dutch Prime Minister Rutte that we should also accelerate work on further measures – including sanctions – to respond to and deter cyber-attacks.

    The attempted hacking of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons in The Hague earlier this year was a stark example of the very real threats we face.

    We must impose costs on all those who seek to do us harm, regardless of the means they use. And this Council agreed to take that work forward.

    Second, in marking anti-slavery day, I welcomed the continued commitment of all EU leaders in working together to eliminate the barbaric crime of people trafficking.

    We reaffirmed our shared commitments to doing more to tackle the challenges of migration upstream.

    Following the Council, I met Premier Li of China, President Moon of South Korea and Prime Minister Lee of Singapore at the ASEM Summit.

    Since 2010, our trade with Asia has grown by almost 50 per cent – more than with any other continent in the world. I want to develop that even further.

    Indeed, Mr Speaker, the ability to develop our own new trade deals is one of the great opportunities of Brexit.

    So at this Summit we discussed how the UK can build the most ambitious economic partnerships with all our Asian partners as we leave the European Union. And we also agreed to deepen our co-operation across shared threats to our security.

    Turning to Brexit, Mr Speaker, let me begin with the progress we have made on both the Withdrawal Agreement and the political declaration on our future relationship.

    As I reported to the House last Monday, the shape of the deal across the vast majority of the Withdrawal Agreement is now clear.

    Since Salzburg we have agreed the broad scope of provisions that set out the governance and dispute resolution arrangements for our Withdrawal Agreement.

    We have developed a Protocol relating to the UK Sovereign Base Areas in Cyprus.

    Following discussions with Spain – and in close co-operation with the Government of Gibraltar – we have also developed a Protocol and a set of underlying memoranda relating to Gibraltar, heralding a new era in our relations.

    And we have broad agreement on the structure and scope of the future relationship, with important progress made on issues like security, transport and services.

    And this progress in the last three weeks builds on the areas where we have already reached agreement – on citizens’ rights, on the financial settlement, on the Implementation Period, and in Northern Ireland, agreement on the preservation of the particular rights for UK and Irish citizens – and on the special arrangements between us such as the Common Travel Area, which has existed since before either the UK or Ireland ever became members of the European Economic Community.

    Mr Speaker, taking all of this together, 95 per cent of the Withdrawal Agreement and its protocols are now settled.

    There is one real sticking point left, but a considerable one, which is how we guarantee that – in the unlikely event our future relationship is not in place by the end of the Implementation Period – there is no return to a hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland.

    The commitment to avoiding a hard border is one this House emphatically endorsed and enshrined in law in the Withdrawal Act earlier this year.

    As I set out last week, the original backstop proposal from the EU was one we could not accept, as it would mean creating a customs border down the Irish Sea and breaking up the integrity of our United Kingdom.

    I do not believe that any UK Prime Minister could ever accept this.

    And I certainly will not.

    But as I said in my Mansion House speech: We chose to leave; we have a responsibility to help find a solution. So earlier this year, we put forward a counter-proposal for a temporary UK-EU joint customs territory for the backstop.

    And in a substantial shift in their position since Salzburg, the EU are now actively working with us on this proposal.

    But a number of issues remain.

    The EU argue that they cannot give a legally binding commitment to a UK-wide customs arrangement in the Withdrawal Agreement, so their original proposal must remain a possibility.

    Furthermore, Mr Speaker, people are understandably worried that we could get stuck in a backstop that is designed only to be temporary.

    And there are also concerns that Northern Ireland could be cut off from accessing its most important market – Great Britain.

    During last week’s Council, I had good discussions with Presidents Juncker, Tusk and Macron, Chancellor Merkel and Taoiseach Varadkar and others about how to break this impasse.

    I believe there are four steps we need to take.

    First, we must make the commitment to a temporary UK-EU joint customs territory legally binding, so the Northern Ireland only proposal is no longer needed.

    This would not only protect relations North-South, but also, vitally, East-West.

    This is critical: the relationship between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK is an integral strand of the Belfast Good Friday Agreement. So to protect that Agreement we need to preserve the totality of relationships it sets out.

    Nothing we agree with the EU under Article 50 should risk a return to a hard border, or threaten the delicate constitutional and political arrangements underpinned by the Belfast Good Friday Agreement.

    The second step, is to create an option to extend the Implementation Period as an alternative to the backstop.

    Mr Speaker, I have not committed to extending the Implementation Period.

    I do not want to extend the Implementation Period – and I do not believe that extending it will be necessary.

    I see any extension – or being in any form of backstop – as undesirable. By far the best outcome for the UK, for Ireland and for the EU – is that our future relationship is agreed and in place by 1st January 2021.

    I have every confidence that it will be. And the European Union have said they will show equal commitment to this timetable.

    But the impasse we are trying to resolve is about the insurance policy if this does not happen.

    So what I am saying is that – if at the end of 2020 our future relationship was not quite ready – the proposal is that the UK would be able to make a sovereign choice between the UK-wide customs backstop or a short extension of the Implementation Period.

    And Mr Speaker, there are some limited circumstances in which it could be argued that an extension to the Implementation Period might be preferable, if we were certain it was only for a short time

    For example, a short extension to the Implementation Period would mean only one set of changes for businesses – at the point we move to the future relationship.

    But in any such scenario we would have to be out of this Implementation Period well before the end of this Parliament.

    The third step, Mr Speaker, is to ensure that were we to need either of these insurance policies – whether the backstop or a short extension to the Implementation Period – we could not be kept in either arrangement indefinitely.

    We would not accept a position in which the UK, having negotiated in good faith an agreement which prevents a hard border in Northern Ireland, nonetheless finds itself locked into an alternative, inferior arrangement against our will.

    The fourth step, Mr Speaker, is for the Government to deliver the commitment we have made to ensure full continued access for Northern Ireland’s businesses to the whole of the UK internal market.

    Northern Ireland’s businesses rely heavily on trade with their largest market – Great Britain – and we must protect this in any scenario.

    Mr Speaker, let us remember that all of these steps are about insurance policies that no-one in the UK or the EU wants or expects to use.

    So we cannot let this become the barrier to reaching the future partnership we all want to see.

    We have to explore every possible option to break the impasse and that is what I am doing.

    When I stood in Downing Street and addressed the nation for the first time, I pledged that the government I lead will not be driven by the interests of the privileged few but of ordinary working families.

    And that is what guides me every day in these negotiations.

    Before any decision, I ask: how do I best deliver the Brexit that the British people voted for.

    How do I best take back control of our money, borders and laws.

    How do I best protect jobs and make sure nothing gets in the way of our brilliant entrepreneurs and small businesses.

    And how do I best protect the integrity of our precious United Kingdom, and protect the historic progress we have made in Northern Ireland.

    And, if doing those things means I get difficult days in Brussels, then so be it. The Brexit talks are not about my interests. They are about the national interest – and the interests of the whole of our United Kingdom.

    Serving our national interest will demand that we hold our nerve through these last stages of the negotiations, the hardest part of all.

    It will mean not giving in to those who want to stop Brexit with a politicians vote – politicians telling the people they got it wrong the first time and should try again.

    And it will mean focusing on the prize that lies before us: the great opportunities that we can open up for our country when we clear these final hurdles in the negotiations.

    That is what I am working to achieve. And I commend this Statement to the House.

  • Guy Opperman – 2018 Speech at PLSA Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Guy Opperman, the Minister for Pensions and Financial Inclusion, at the Pensions and Lifetimes Savings Association on 18 October 2018.

    Thank you very much indeed, and thank you to the PLSA for inviting me.

    It is good to be back, I’m not quite in Steve Webb territory of repeat appearances but to misquote Mark Twain, rumours of my demise, or the government’s demise have been grossly over-exaggerated.

    As you know, I asked to do this job, I wanted very much to do this particular job and I hope that I will be able to continue and I hope I’ll be coming back next year. And whilst I welcome the chance to be here, I love Liverpool, if you want to hold it somewhere in the true North, rather than somewhere halfway up England then my suggestion is that Hexham is a delightful venue, and really if you haven’t been you should go soon.

    It is very true to say that in the last year we have seen a significant and large number of changes designed – I believe – to improve savers’ experience. In fact, in my last speech last year, I set out a number of those particular matters. But there were a key 4 things that I tried to explain that we were working on.

    The creation of the Single Financial Guidance Body, expansion of auto enrolment, the Defined Benefit white paper and the feasibility study for the Pensions Dashboard.

    Now I’m going to change the habit of every single Pensions Minister for a very long period of time, by setting out not in great detail, auto enrolment, and the many things we’ve done in that area. But I do accept that the dashboard, for example, has taken longer than I would’ve liked. There are good reasons why and I’ll be discussing those later on today.

    When I spoke last year about the Single Financial Guidance Body, this was the first bill that the government brought in after the 2017 General Election. And you may think that we’re all focused on Brexit and other things, but the truth is the first thing the Prime Minister asked us to take through the House of Commons was a bill to provide pensions guidance and to provide financial capability on an ongoing basis.

    So it is something we have worked absolutely hand in glove with the Treasury on, and I’m delighted that we’re up and running. We have, in Hector Sants and John Govett, outstanding leadership for this organisation, we have the new non-executive directors who have been appointed, I’m meeting the organisation on a regular, almost weekly basis, to discuss financial capability generally, and more specifically the long-term strategy they have to take things forward.

    At the same stage, we have taken forward the DB white paper, and we have looked at consolidation on an ongoing basis.

    We have consulted on The Pensions Regulator’s powers, and my apologies, I missed the speech from Lesley earlier today, but the aim of the new powers it seems to me, is quite clearly to enable the regulator to be clearer, quicker and tougher so that they can be more proactive and get involved earlier, and then if necessary, and this should be in exceptional circumstances, punish wrongdoing when employers make changes which could adversely affect their pension scheme.

    We’re currently considering the responses to this consultation along with the feedback, and we are in a position that the publication of the conclusions will be towards the end of this year.

    Now, aside from the DB white paper, we have made changes to legislation this year that have made it easier for DC schemes to move members to a new scheme should they wish to exit the market, or consolidate.

    Fundamentally, and I want to make this clear. I and the government are in favour of consolidation and superfunds. We genuinely believe that big is better and we believe that consolidation within superfunds offers and alternative option for schemes and sponsors that have no realistic option of being able to fund an insurance buyout now or in the foreseeable future.

    We believe that superfunds will not only incentivise sponsors to improve funding levels, but will also reduce the risks created by future employer insolvencies.

    However, whilst we welcome this innovation, we need to ensure it is managed safely. We need to set perimeters and parameters which strike the right balance between enhancing member protection, being affordable for employers and commercially viable.

    Consolidation within superfunds offers an alternative option for schemes and sponsors who have no realistic prospect of being able to fund an insurance buyout now or in the foreseeable future.

    We believe that superfunds will not only incentivise sponsors to improve funding levels, but will also reduce the risks created by future employer insolvency.

    However, whilst we welcome this innovation, we need to ensure it is managed safely. We need to set perimeters and parameters which strike the right balance between enhancing member protection, being affordable for employers and commercially viable.

    Once we have confirmed our position and approach we will of course engage with your good selves and I hope to announce this consultation on DB consolidation very shortly.

    As you’ll see, in this speech, there are an awful lot of consultations coming shortly.

    As you’re aware we set out a range of proposals in the DB white paper. Our intention is to legislate for them as soon as possible; I’ll talk about the statutory process later today.

    I want to talk a little bit more about the TRIG work on reducing transfer times.

    I have been pleased to hear that the PLSA has publicly committed to supporting the work being progressed by the TRIG group.

    I know that many schemes, including personal pensions and master trusts, are already signed up to standards and platforms which allow for routine DC to DC transfers in 10 to 12 days, and I sincerely applaud those industry bodies who have made this commitment.

    However, I do want to take this opportunity now to encourage all pension schemes – specifically those who have not already signed up to any standards or platforms – to adopt this approach. Given that we can fly to the moon in less than a week, given that we can invade the Falkland Islands in about 21 days, it seems to me that 100 days is too long to transfer.

    It is quite clear that there is work to do to ensure there is an equal standard in the industry, and I’m committed to do that.

    But I’m a firm believer in encouraging the industry to lead from the front. So I encourage you all to collaborate and to take action to ensure that those schemes whose performance is lagging behind are encouraged to change their processes.

    As part of that I want to talk about Ruston’s work on Simplified Annual Benefit Statements.

    I want to give my full support to the work the PLSA are doing to develop retirement income targets, and the work Ruston is doing to build agreement across the industry for a Simplified Annual Benefit Statement. I regard this as utterly key.

    One of the key points coming out of our review of automatic enrolment in 2017 was that engaging people in pension saving is a shared responsibility – it’s not just government, it will require government, the industry, the advisory community and employers all having roles to play, and to play them collectively.

    The review called on industry and others to be creative, and to work together, and the PLSA’s work in this area is an example of how that can happen.

    The development of the Simplified Annual Benefit Statement is a testament to what you can do together frankly. I believe it is a simple and more engaging statement focused on user needs. We’ll be hearing more about it in the conference I know, and I’m sharing a stand with Ruston at a later stage today.

    But it’s an example of the industry working together, and I want to thank all the team, and it’s not just Ruston, there’s a huge amount of people that have got behind it, for the work they’ve done.

    We’ve also introduced regulations that will ensure DC pension schemes are more transparent about how much members pay.

    We laid the Administration and Disclosure (Amendment) Regulations in February. Schemes will now have to publish details of all member-borne costs and charges on a rolling basis between this November and next.

    I know there remain a few people who believe that members don’t care about, or won’t understand the costs and charges they pay. But I do think that costs matter and transparency matters. This is not the only thing which matters, but it is a factor. And I’m not aware of any other financial products with uncertain returns where members are not told what it will cost them.

    So, I really want to thank all the members of the Independent Institutional Disclosure Working Group for their work to agree templates for disclosure to pension schemes. But I believe that transparency – sunlight is the best disinfectant – is actually something that will aid all of you.

    I want to turn, if I can, to the issue of sustainable and responsible investments, and the nature of the particular investment.

    I accept that it is a difficult and tricky issue for someone in my position to give an opinion on to independent trustees.

    But the government has also undertaken some important work to clarify on pension schemes and how they invest, specifically when trustees consider their fiduciary duty in relation to environmental, social and governance factors.

    Our recent consultation on this issue attracted more than 3,000 responses. For a pensions consultation that’s a very large number of responses. It is I believe an indication that as more people begin to save, and begin to understand how their pension savings are invested, we could see a significant and realistic step change in the engagement and interest of this new population of savers.

    I believe that investing for social, environmental, economic and climate change issues, remains a topic we should be passionate about. I welcome the work that parts of the industry have done – led by Elizabeth Corley – in creating a culture of social impact investment. I will continue to engage across and beyond government to identify how we might remove barriers and make it easier to invest in a way that supports the sort of world we want to live in, going forward.

    But we’re not just doing that, we’re doing a number of different things in this area, and it merits discussion today. I’m excited about the work that the Treasury, led by my colleague John Glen, with whom I’m working absolutely hand in glove, have contributed on Patient Capital – another group with many representatives of industry from here today bringing forward radical proposals and compelling arguments about how we make it easier to invest in innovative and unlisted firms, and other assets such as unlisted infrastructure.

    As an aside, one of the things I’d like to see pensions schemes do more is to look again at their investment strategies. The DC scheme consolidation is gathering pace as we know. This means we will have larger master trusts who will increasingly be free to move beyond equities, gilts and bonds – important as those assets are – and to start to look at investing directly in firms, in infrastructure, in housing, and in a different way frankly to how they have on a traditional basis.

    This is something that I wish the industry to consider, to look at and it’s certainly something I’m discussing with industry on an ongoing basis. In the meantime, the department will be looking at how we can address this, how we can remove barriers and we will be considering what announcements can be made on this topic in the coming months. But as always my door is open.

    The next thing I want to talk about is the mid-life MOT. I think this is something I’ve personally championed until I’m blue in the face.

    The reality of the situation is this: every single one of us here, receives interventions on a public health basis, at all particular stages. So if like me, you’re reaching a certain age, my GP is announcing that various parts of my anatomy are going to fail unless I come to see him as a matter of urgency. If like me, you get a text from your dentist saying I really haven’t flossed enough and need to come and see him again. Or if like my missus, you’re getting the regular invites and updates to have the standard sort of checks that are absolutely life-preserving to public health in the modern era, then you will appreciate that to their credit the Department of Health, and health professionals have engaged with us as a wider community to do preventative health in a way that is genuinely transformational.

    The reality is that we don’t really do that in finance. Almost all of you are in the business of finance. I believe that the sea change will be as we go forward, that there is proper intervention one way or another to engage people, not just with their pension savings but with a whole host of other matters, whether it is their health outcomes, their retraining, their long-term employability, and so much more.

    But it’s something that we’ve taken forward as a department. I believe that it’s in your interest because I think that the more that we engage people at an earlier stage in their long-term retirement and savings plans, it’s going to be better for the industry.

    We’ve been working over the summer, as a department, with a number of employers, and I’d particularly like to praise Aviva who have done a mid-life MOT test, and have done a trial and a pilot in their Norwich office. I went to see them and I’ve met many of the people that were engaged in that pilot.

    And there’s one really interesting thing about a mid-life MOT, if you are an employer, you will probably be thinking this is the sort of worthy thing that HR would like us to do and that will cost my business, in certain circumstances; I might do it because it’s a good thing in terms of employee management but it’s not actually going to bring me any commercial benefit to the business.

    I genuinely believe you could not be more wrong, and the evidence I believe from the Aviva pilot and the other pilots that are ongoing, will show absolutely conclusively, that if you wish to retain your people, your 20-year people who have absolute muscle memory of your business, if you wish to have a real understanding of how you’re going to have the people that are 40, 50 and 60 continuing to work for your business and making sure that they continue to push your business forward, then a mid-life MOT is something that helps them do that. And the drop-out rate – taking advantage of pension freedoms, taking advantage of the change in lifestyles – is much lower for those doing a mid-life MOT.

    So I’m a massive fan of this, there are other companies who are beginning to embrace this, I would be doing a disservice to the endless lobbying that Tom McPhail does to me if I didn’t make the point that Hargreaves Lansdown are offering a mid-life MOT to all of their staff, and my point would be simply this: if you are in the business of selling finance to all of your customers, what are you doing for your individual staff? Because if they aren’t engaged with finance, and financial decisions and an awareness of their situation, frankly I don’t know who is.

    So I believe it’s something we should get behind, and at the same stage we are working on a number of other things.

    The 2 photos here I have to say something, it’s a fair point to say that I’m working with the lovely Jack Dromey and obviously on CDCs we’re working with Royal Mail and the CWU. I’d like to say, we’re so tight we held a joint meeting, it’s not often I invite a Labour shadow minister into the Department for Work and Pensions, but we held a joint meeting to try and make sure we are joined up in the way we do this.

    The longer-term viability of pensions legislation means that by and large if you aren’t working together on a cross-party basis you will not get things through.

    If you haven’t noticed the Prime Minister doesn’t enjoy the largest majority. Obviously everything is going fine, but you do need to work together. And it is absolutely the case that Jack and I are speaking together on a regular basis, mostly in a nice way, occasionally robustly. But we are working very hard to bring things forward.

    The reality of CDCs is that we’ve been working hand in glove on a regular basis, meeting with Royal Mail, the CWU; they are with the department literally on a bi-weekly basis. And we believe we are very, very close, I would love to have stood up here today and said ‘here is the consultation’ but we’re not quite able to do that. But we are very close to announcing the consultation on CDCs. It is something that we have been working hard on to ensure we have the legislative and regulatory framework, which would work best for such schemes in the UK.

    Any changes we make to facilitate CDCs have got to work for both the employers and members, and must have the adverse impact upon the rest of the pensions system. But we are making tremendous progress, and contrary to popular belief we’re also making tremendous progress on the Pensions Dashboard.

    Everyone agrees, and I don’t think there’s any doubt whatsoever, and I’m sure I’ll be grilled later on to within an inch of my life if I was in any doubt. Everybody agrees that a Pensions Dashboard, facilitated by government, led by industry, will be truly game-changing. I certainly believe that.

    As I set out in my written statement given to the House of Commons in September, we are going to make this happen, we remain utterly committed to making the dashboard a reality – you shouldn’t read too many things in the newspapers that’s for sure – and the feasibility study, examining ways to facilitate an industry-led dashboard is still under way. It is genuinely true that the department is in daily contact with the industry; if we haven’t contacted you individually my apologies but I promise you we’re contacting a lot of people. I’m unable to make a specific announcement today, and I’m sorry that that’s something I can’t do, but I promise you the work that has been done in assessing the feasibility of the Pensions Dashboard, has made it clear that while we shouldn’t underestimate the size and complexity and difficulty of the challenge, at the same stage this is something that we passionately want to do.

    The simple point is this, very often people will come to any government, particularly this government and say ‘we want you to do this’. It’s quite clear that the government has a role to play in the dashboard, a very significant and real role, and I don’t shirk from that in the slightest but at the same stage so does industry, so ask what you’re doing to make this happen. This is something that can only happen on a collective basis.

    I want to finish on 2 final points.

    I want to renew my desire for all of you to work with me in the financial inclusion space.

    It was a massive honour that the Prime Minister decided to make me the Minister for Pensions and Financial Inclusion, and I think the 2 are utterly linked and over the course of the last year, I have drawn a number of conclusions, one of which is that increasingly, customers want all information in a mobile or laptop friendly form. Fintech is transforming banking, without a shadow of a doubt, it is transforming savings and in my view, pensions will be next.

    At the same time, I’ll make the point again, you all have to ask what you’re doing to enhance financial inclusion amongst your own staff and amongst the customers you have.

    I want to end on what I consider to be the elephant in the room, which is Brexit.

    It’s clearly nothing to do with a speech to the PLSA but I think it’s important.

    It’s easy to get bogged down in the process of our exit from the European Union.

    For my part though, I’m more interested in the future after our departure, I’m more interested in ensuring we are able to be positive and optimistic about our place in the world, that we’re able to say in a few years’ time ‘look at how we’ve embraced tech, look at how we’ve embraced flexible working, look at how we’ve embraced automation, look at how we’ve embraced lifelong education and training and how that has impacted on the country, on who we are and who we want to be.

    I want to be able to say ‘look at how we have confronted the politics of anger and rage and nationalism, and replaced it with quiet hope and positive optimism and an ability to rationally disagree, rather than to abuse’. I want to be in a position that we look at how we have reshaped our role in the world, while still championing equality, while still championing international aid, while still upholding human rights and the rule of law. And look at how we have remained open and inclusive.

    Yes it is the case that this country wants greater control but at the same time, that is the kind of country I am striving for. I think we all accept we are on a journey, and a difficult journey but if we work together, if we commit to, in the future, to being a sunny, optimistic, positive country, then I believe that if we work together we can make this happen. Thank you very much.

  • David Lidington – 2018 Speech at the Stock Exchange

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Lidington, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, at the London Stock Exchange on 24 October 2018.

    Well thank you very much indeed for the invitation to open trading today and to mark this, the first, the inaugural, and I’m sure by no means the only or the last, London Stock Exchange Group’s cyber security conference.

    We’ve got every reason in this country to be proud of the United Kingdom’s position at the front of the global digital revolution – driving our prosperity and enhancing our national security. We have seen a rise in the number of new cyber technology companies, right across the UK, who are helping to keep some of our biggest enterprises secure.

    But of course, with that opportunity comes risk. We’ve also seen a significant increase in malicious cyber activity globally – both from hostile nation states and from cyber criminals. And only last week The National Cyber Security Centre reported that it is defending the United Kingdom from around 10 significant cyber attacks every week.

    And that’s why cyber security remains a top priority for the government and why, two years ago, we launched the National Cyber Security Strategy.

    At the very heart of the government’s response was the creation of the National Cyber Security Centre, bringing together the best intelligence and expertise. Right here in the City, the NCSC’s valuable partnership with the Bank of England and its suppliers is helping to build cyber security into the heart of a number of next generation systems. And I am delighted to announce this morning, that Faster Payments – now called Pay.UK – will be the latest scheme to benefit from this collaboration. It will ensure that every payment processed in the United Kingdom is done so safely and securely.

    The financial sector has, for a long time, recognised the cyber risk posed by criminals and by states, and I know that financial companies routinely considers cyber security as part of an overall approach to business risk.

    In fact, we in government have taken best practice from the financial sector. We’ve launched the GBEST scheme, for government, based upon the sector’s CBEST model. And this will improve government systems to identify and to act against sophisticated and persistent cyber attacks.

    And I think the finance sector in the UK should be commended for the initiatives they have taken and the standards they have set.

    But the government’s latest Cyber Security Breaches survey showed a significant proportion of companies overall in our economy are still not adopting the basic cyber security precautions that are needed. More than two in five businesses identified breaches in the last twelve months. Despite that, two thirds of FTSE 350 boards say that they have had no training in how to deal with a cyber incident.

    There is still a lot more to do – and our ability to build the necessary resilience in the face of these challenges, relies on the strength of our collective action and expertise.

    Now last week, I really enjoyed being at UK Finance, and it gave me great pleasure to give the government’s full backing to a new initiative to further cement the growing partnership between industry and the public sector. Early next year, we will establish the Finance Sector Cyber Collaboration Centre. This will build on existing industry expertise and exploit the NCSC’s Industry 100 scheme, it will be led by UK Finance in alliance with 20 financial institutions.

    As government, we recognise that cyber security is everyone’s responsibility. We must learn from – and support – one another. For example…

    …By taking part in our annual FTSE 350 Cyber Governance Health check – which is now open – you can benchmark the cyber security of your organisation against your peers and understand where you can improve your resilience to cyber attacks.

    And I believe our efforts are bearing fruit. The UK’s cyber security industry is making an enormous contribution and is generating more than £5 billion to our economy.

    It benefits from strong support from government, including specialist expertise and world leading academic institutions which are providing much needed access to funding, targeted support and also testing facilities. There has never been a better time to invest in our high-quality and home-grown cyber security start-ups and emerging businesses – there are now more than 800 of those across the UK.

    Those businesses, supported by the government’s Industrial Strategy, provide world leading products and services to buyers right across the world – injecting innovation into our economy to build a UK fit for the future.

    We consider it vital that all organisations should embrace and embed cyber security, from the boardroom down. This isn’t only about minimising operational, financial and reputational risk. Building resilience amongst employees and customers can also be a catalyst for far greater change.

    That’s why I will be meeting a number of FTSE 350 Chairman to discuss how the government’s new Board Toolkit will help you better understand cyber risks and also to seek the ideas of business leaders on how to make our nation more resilient.

    So, to look ahead to the challenges and opportunities of the future, I look forward to continuing to work together with you in the financial sector, and business more widely, to protect both our national security and our joint economic prosperity.

  • Hugh Jenkins – 1966 Speech on Pirate Radio Stations

    Below is the text of the speech made by Hugh Jenkins, the then Labour MP for Putney, in the House of Commons on 22 June 1966.

    I rise to draw attention to the Government’s attitude to pirate radio and television. I think that the adjournment of the House has never been more welcome. As I stand here we see dawn coming in through the windows. I hope that this debate may be seen, looking at it in retrospect, as heralding the dawn of a new attitude by the Government to this whole question.

    There has been a tendency perhaps to dismiss pirate radio as a matter of no great importance and no great significance, as something which is a passing episode, but the extraordinary and tragic events of the past 24 hours have perhaps impressed everyone, the Opposition as well as the Government, that piracy is piracy in whatever aspect it occurs. We have seen the hi-jacking of a pirate station, Radio City, and the taking over of that illegally occupied tower by another group equally illegally occupying it. We have seen this culminate in the shooting to death of the chief of one of the pirate ships and the captain of another accused of murder.

    We might have been more prepared for this had we considered that piracy is an aspect of anarchy. When the Government condone anarchy, as in effect they have been doing in the last two years, the gangsters soon take over. We might have been warned of this as this is not the first time that murder has taken place as a result of radio piracy. There was a murder on a Dutch ship some time ago. This is not something to be regarded as unimportant and a sort of pleasantry.

    When the circumstances of the financing and management of Radio Caroline and of Radio City are investigated, we shall find that some respectable newspapers, notably the Financial Times, have been weaving a romantic web around some operations which will not look too well when the light of examination is brought to bear upon them.

    The Government presented us more than a year ago with a document in which they set out the decisions of the European Agreement For The Prevention of Broadcasts Transmitted From Stations Outside National Territories. Article 2 of that Agreement said: Each contracting party undertakes to take appropriate steps to make punishable as offences, in accordance with its domestic law, the establishment or operation of broadcasting stations referred to in Article 1, as well as acts of collaboration knowingly performed. 2. The following shall, in relation to broadcasting stations referred to in Article 1, be acts of collaboration:

    (a) the provision, maintenance or repairing of equipment;

    (b) the provision of supplies;

    (c) the provision of transport for, or the transporting of, persons equipment or supplies;

    (d) the ordering or production of material of any kind, including advertisements, to be broadcast;

    (e) the provision of services concerning advertising for the benefit of the stations.”

    The Government have announced their intention to implement this agreement and to make these things illegal. It is extraordinary that, since that announcement, organisations which are normally regarded as respectable business organisations should continue to support these pirate stations although in full knowledge that the Government were to introduce legislation to make them illegal. One would have thought that it would have been proper for these business organisations to have ceased to support these pirate radios by discontinuing advertisements. That they refused to do so reflects discredit on them. Other countries have found it possible to get rid of pirate radios, but the United Kingdom is being regarded as a sort of refuge for buccaneers who have been rejected by more resolute Governments in Holland, Scandinavia and elsewhere and who have found shelter in and around our shores.

    If we can, by international agreement, stop tankers reaching a port in Africa surely we can, with equal international agreement, prevent ships nearer our own shores breaking the European agreement to keep the air free from piracy.

    The Postmaster-General has told us of the possible dire consequences of the usurpation of wavelengths, but the Government continue to find excuses for doing nothing to stop that which my right hon. Friend condemns.

    When the pirates get into difficulty all available services are deployed to enable them to get back to their stations to continue their piracy. I understand that in the recent fracas on Radio City one group of pirates actually appealed to Scotland Yard to help them to resist the infiltration or attacks of the other group of pirates. According to last night’s Evening Standard senior Scotland Yard officials are considering whether they should go to the aid of one side to help them resist the hijacking of the other. The only thing that Scotland Yard should be considering, but what they have not considered, is how to help the Government to eject the pirates. They should not be intervening in what is an internal competition in illegality.

    Many of these pirates are not even on ships. The towers from which they operate have been brought inside territorial waters. They have no licences, and last December the Postmaster-General decided that the time had come to act. In February the Ministry of Defence said that it was too dangerous for the Armed Forces. Perhaps the police could help, but my right hon. Friend said no, the magistrates did not have proper jurisdiction. I am advised that this is not so. They have jurisdiction under the Wireless Telegraphy Act and under the Magistrates’ Courts Act of 1952. I am advised on good authority that the arguments advanced to this effect by Sir Alan Herbert are legally valid. Why is it that the Government have not decided to act? Why is it too dangerous for the Navy or even marines to do here what the policeman regards as part of his job—going in and arresting law breakers?

    Why did the Chancellor of the Exchequer refuse to consider my own proposal that the cost of advertising on pirate radio should be disallowed as an expense for tax purposes, thus starving the pirates out if they are too dangerous to arrest? The consequence of that refusal is that the advertising organisations have now recognised the pirates, and the audience must be substantial, for they are paying up to £80 for a 30-second spot.

    Here, perhaps, lies the secret of the Government’s inaction. A lot of people are listening to the pirates, and the B.B.C. has lost its grip on the audience for popular music on sound radio. Perhaps the Government do not really know what to do about it.

    I hope that my right hon. Friend will comment on the following proposals which I put forward as a possible solution to the problem. The Government should set up a new public authority, called, perhaps, the Television and Radio Authority. It would be quite separate from the existing authorities, which would continue as at present. The new authority would run the fourth television channel, which is needed if the University of the Air is to get off the ground in a big way, and it might also transmit some pay-television programmes, which have had a surprising success in their first test.

    The new authority’s immediate task would be to set up a national radio network in competition with the B.B.C. It would replace the pirates, who should be given immediate notice to quit and evicted. The new service would aim to be popular. It would, in the first instance, transmit the same sort of programmes as the pirates are transmitting. It would do that, perhaps, on a medium wavelength which, if necessary, could be borrowed from the B.B.C, though it might be found by international agreement. It would transmit simultaneously on v.h.f., and on these wavelengths would act as a national feeder station for local radio stations which would be set up locally under local boards of directors, with local authority participation.

    The new authority would be capitalised by public finance, but it would be allowed to accept advertising. The local stations would be allowed to accept local advertising. It would, as it were, be a mixed economy of the air.

    By this means, several problems would be solved. First, we should be able to rid ourselves of the pirates, without depriving the audience of their “mush”. Second, we should break the sound monopoly of the B.B.C. The very existence of the pirates is proof that this needs to be done. Third, we should have established a parent for local radio. Local radio needs a national parent, but it should not be the B.B.C. The flavour of the B.B.C, in my judgment, is good; I enjoy it myself; but many people do not, and they should not be deprived of choice. If anyone says that the three B.B.C. sound programmes provide all the choice that one could want, I point to the success of the pirates. Clearly, the B.B.C. is not catering for that huge audience. I do not believe that the Corporation should be forced to cater for them, if it does not want to, and neither do I believe that it should be forced to accept advertising.

    Here, I suggest, is the answer: a new authority, publicly capitalised, publicly owned, but accepting advertising revenue, providing a national service and source of a local service which would provide means of stimulating interest in local activities, facilities, music, sport and so on.

    I recognise that there are difficulties. One of them is the absolute need to reach agreement with the performers’ and writers’ unions. In my opinion—I speak here entirely for myself—this would not be impossible if the new authority were prepared to transmit a proportion of live or specially recorded material and to pay for all broadcasts on a royalty basis so that every time a commercial gramophone record was broadcast, the performer or, perhaps, his union or organisation on his behalf received a payment.

    These are the lines along which, I suggest, the problem should be tackled. It should be tackled now, and not allowed to drift. The more it is allowed to drift, the more difficult it will be to solve and the less credit the Government will deserve or get for tackling it. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to tell us that he believes that the Government have been perhaps encouraged or shocked by the events of the last 24 hours and jerked into action which only if it is determined and quick action, will be forgiven for being belated.

  • Sarah Newton – 2018 Speech on the Employment and Support Allowance

    Below is the text of the statement made by Sarah Newton, the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work in the House of Commons on 17 October 2018.

    This written statement is a further update to the House on progress in correcting historic ESA underpayments and paying arrears.​
    The Department began work to assess cases in December 2017. For that stage of the exercise we expect to review around 320,000 cases, of which around 105,000 are likely to be due arrears.

    We now have a team of over 400 staff working through these cases and have paid around £120 million in arrears. We expect to complete the vast majority of this part of the exercise by April 2019, and have to date completed all cases where an individual is terminally ill and responded to the review, thereby ensuring they receive due priority.

    The announcement in July to pay cases back to the point of conversion requires us to review an additional 250,000 cases, of which we estimate around 75,000 could be due arrears. We will undertake this work through the course of 2019. We now have a team of over 400 staff working through these cases, with a further 400 due to join the team through October and November, and will be assigning more staff to review the additional 250,000 cases. This will enable us to complete this important activity at pace.

    The Department is publishing an ad hoc statistical publication today setting out further detail on the progress it has made in processing cases and revised estimates of the impacts of this exercise, including details of the number of claimants due arrears and the amounts likely to be paid. This will be published on gov.uk.

    There are currently around 2.3 million working-age people on employment and support allowance. In 2018-19, £54 billion will be been spent on benefits to support disabled people and people with health conditions this year, which is over 6% of all Government spending and a record high.

    A frequently asked question guide will also be will be deposited in the Library of the House for further information.

  • David Gauke – 2018 Statement on Justice and Home Affairs Council

    Below is the text of the statement made by David Gauke, the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Justice, in the House of Commons on 18 October 2018.

    I attended the Justice and Home Affairs Council for Justice day on Thursday 11 October in Luxembourg.

    The Council reached a general approach on the insolvency restructuring and second chance directive.

    During the discussion on e-evidence legislation, Ministers agreed not to include real-time interception within the scope of the regulation and asked for further work on the extent of the obligation to notify other states when data is sought direct from a service provider. I offered to share UK experience from our bilateral discussions with the US on a data access agreement, which was welcomed by the Commission.

    With regard to the draft conclusions on the application of the charter of fundamental rights in 2017, 20 member states, including the UK, supported the Netherlands proposal for the adoption of “presidency conclusions” given the lack of consensus for Council conclusions.

    The director of the Fundamental Rights Agency presented his annual review of the fundamental rights situation in the European Union (EU), noting rising levels of hate crime, including anti-Semitism, and ​discrimination faced by immigrants and minority groups. He also referred to Roma communities living without basic amenities such as electricity and water. Member states noted these concerns.

    The Commission updated Ministers on implementation of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO). The European Council will discuss the proposal to extend the EPPO to cross-border terrorism offences.

    The discussion on enhancing mutual trust focused on the importance of mutual recognition, while noting the importance of an independent judiciary and the rule of law. The UK intervened to recognise the mutual benefits of continued co-operation, and the UK’s commitment to the principle of mutual trust. The presidency will prepare conclusions on mutual trust for the December JHA Council.

    The Commission presented its communication on securing free and fair European elections, including protection from personal data misuse and cyber incidents.

    The Home Secretary attended Interior day.

    The Commission set out ambitious plans for a stronger, more effective European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) including a standing corps of 10,000 officers, which would provide substantial support to member states in protecting the external border. Member states underlined their support for a stronger Frontex, but expressed concerns about the size of the standing corps, its impact on national authorities and the consequences for member state competence on border protection.

    The Commission briefly presented the new return directive recast and member states discussed accelerated borders procedures, linking the asylum and returns processes, with asylum claims processed as close to the border as possible and, if refused, the failed asylum seeker returned fast and smoothly. Some member states focused on the need to maximise third-country co-operation on returns and readmission of own nationals. Member states were divided on the mandatory nature of the border procedures. Some member states supported manifestly unfounded claims at the border leading to an entry refusal rather than a returns decision.

    Over lunch, Ministers discussed the EU’s comprehensive “whole of route” approach to tackling illegal migration. The Home Secretary focused on strengthening the EU’s response to human traffickers and smugglers advertising online, and boosting our work with African partners on economic development, strategic communications and behavioural insights to prevent migrants from starting dangerous journeys to Europe.

    Ministers also discussed the balance between solidarity and responsibility. The presidency, supported by some member states, proposed broadening the idea of “solidarity” to avoid compulsory reallocation of refugees to member states who reject this, but who are content to make substantial contributions to other aspects of migration management, including external partnerships with third countries.

    The Council discussed the JHA funding programmes within the next multi-annual financial framework. The UK will not participate in these programmes as a member state. The presidency called on member states to establish a strong steering structure to ensure the optimal use of funds. Member states supported provisions to step up co-operation with third countries on migration, but raised questions around flexibility and allocations to member states.​
    The presidency updated on progress on the files within the common European asylum system (CEAS) package. The Dublin IV proposal, as it links to the issue of solidarity and burden sharing, will be discussed among leaders at the October European Council.