UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Damian Hinds – 2018 Speech at National Association of Headteachers Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Damian Hinds, the Secretary of State for Education, at the National Association of Headteachers Conference on 4 May 2018.

    I’m delighted to join you here today, and for the opportunity to speak directly to so many heads and school leaders.

    Since I started this job in January, one of my first priorities was to go out and visit schools, visit nurseries, visit colleges.

    You can read a lot of papers and talk to a lot of officials in the civil service – but nothing beats meeting the people who bring education to life.

    And, of course, no two schools are the same but what I’ve seen everywhere is this enormous passion, enormous level of commitment and dedication that you just don’t see in every profession.

    With so many teachers telling me how deeply they enjoy what they do. The creativity. The freedom. The joy of learning, helping to develop young minds.

    Looking around this conference room, I know that all of you want to lead great schools, to create a culture where teachers love their jobs and where children do their best.

    As Secretary of State for Education, my simple ambition is for all children, whatever their background, to go to a good school where they are inspired to learn and can fulfil their potential.

    I want us, together, to narrow the gap for the places left behind and provide better opportunities for the children who have the hardest start in life.

    And in aiming for this I know that in education there is nothing more important than the people who are making it happen.

    When I ask people to think back to their own days of school – about what they most remember from school, what made the difference for them, I have yet to hear anyone mention the smartboard. Or textbook, or a computer, or an exam. It is always Ms Smith or Mr Davies.

    There are no great schools without great teachers and leaders.

    And of course great schools thrive under great leaders – which is why I want to work with you. It’s why I am determined to champion your profession.

    Working with you to raise its status, helping to attract and retain more brilliant people to teach in our schools.

    In short, I will do everything in my power to make sure teaching remains one of the most fulfilling jobs anyone can do.

    One of my most urgent tasks is, therefore, to look at the barriers that can drive teachers, and leaders, out of the profession and may put people off in the first place.

    Top of the list here is workload. Workload comes from different places.

    Sometimes it can come from schools themselves, and policies on marking and data collection for example.

    It can come directly from specific requirements set by government.

    But it can also come indirectly from the pressures inherent in the accountability system.

    And today I’m going to talk quite a lot about those pressures and about that system.

    I don’t need to tell anybody here that accountability is vital. Children only get one shot at an education and we owe it to them that they can get the best, where they are being let down we need to act quickly – so no one ends up left behind.

    But, that sort of action is rarely needed.

    In fact, standards in our classrooms are higher than ever. 89% of schools, and 90% of your primary schools, are rated Good or Outstanding by Ofsted.

    This is not to say that the system that we have right now is working perfectly.

    We all know that if we went outside this room and tried explaining to someone not in the education sector, about Regional Schools Commissioners, Ofsted, MATs, coasting, below the floor – they would look pretty blank.

    But what I’ve found from speaking to many of you these last few months is that even within the profession and within the sector, there can be confusion.

    Confusion about the different actors within the system…who has the power to do what and on what basis, the exact circumstances that could lead to enforced structural or leadership change at a school.

    All of this means that the spectre of our accountability system can loom large over schools.

    Fear of inspection. Fear of a single set of bad results. Fear of being forcibly turned into an academy – all of this can create stress and anxiety, and that can percolate through the staff.

    Ladies and Gentlemen, we can do better than this.

    As members of NAHT you are, of course, doing your own thinking about accountability, and I want to work closely on this with you.

    But I also wanted to come here today with something that I think itself is very important.

    School leaders need better clarity on how the accountability system will operate, the consequences that can flow from it – and the roles of the actors within it.

    So I am publishing today a statement that sets out key principles for how I see the system working in future – the next step will be consulting with you and colleagues on the details.

    I urge everyone to read the statement in full but in essence it comes down to this:

    We have many excellent schools in this country – schools with great leaders, great teachers.

    And I have a clear message to these schools and their leaders – we, I trust you to get on with the job.

    Ladies and Gentlemen, I trust that you know better than us – better than me, better than the Department for Education – how to improve your schools. You don’t need government getting in your way.

    We will, of course, take action where a school is failing – on those rare occasions where, frankly, the leadership isn’t there to make the improvements needed then we must act decisively and make structural change where it’s necessary.

    But these are the measures of last resort – and I believe every school must be absolutely clear on the rare circumstances when this would happen – and when it wouldn’t.

    Ofsted is the body that can provide an independent, rounded judgement of a school’s performance – data alone can’t tell the whole story.

    So I want to move to a system where, when it comes to educational underperformance, we only enforce academy conversion, leadership change or changing the trust a school is part of when there has been an Ofsted Inadequate judgement.

    So that means we will not be forcibly turning schools into academies unless there is that judgement.

    Now, I firmly believe that becoming an academy can bring enormous benefits to schools and their pupils.

    Increasingly, becoming an academy also means schools coming together in a Multi Academy Trust, sharing expertise, working collaboratively, driving improvements.

    Hundreds of schools every year voluntarily choose that route – to become an academy and join a Multi Academy Trust. And I want this to be a positive choice for more and more schools.

    So I want to move away from forced academisation being seen as this punitive threat that can also hang over schools that are not failing.

    But we must have a system that does more than just deal with failure. Which is why we will work to identify schools at risk… But we will also do so in the right way, making a clear offer of support for the current school leadership.

    This support would come from Teaching Schools or other high quality school improvement providers – people with a proven track record.

    I intend this to replace the current confusing system of having both a ‘below-the-floor’ standard and ‘coasting’ standards for performance.

    There will be a single, transparent data trigger at which schools will be offered support in this way. We will consult on how this single measure should work.

    And as I said earlier, school leaders above this threshold will know that they have full freedom to get on with their job – without interference.

    What does this mean for how we work with schools?

    I know that right now schools can sometimes feel accountable to multiple masters.

    Regional School Commissioner representatives going into schools and performing visits that can feel a lot like inspections – making additional requests for data.

    And that is something that comes about for well-intentioned reasons. But it can be confusing for schools. And I’m afraid it plays its part in helping to create a culture that drives some unnecessary workload for you and your teachers.

    Ladies and Gentlemen, this will end.

    Ofsted inspectors are the only people who should be inspecting schools – the clue is in the name.

    Commissioners commission.

    Ofsted inspectors inspect.

    Which means no more RSC initiated visits that can feel like inspections with those extra demands for data, adding to bureaucracy – more time for schools to get on with the job that they’re doing well.

    I’ve been talking here about the standard of education provided in schools.

    I will also be looking at how we can support schools that are in financial trouble or take action where there has been a serious breakdown of governance. I will be setting up far more robust oversight and challenge when it comes to the financial performance of academy trusts.

    And there must also be improvements in the governance of MATs as they grow in size and number, and how we, on behalf of the public, hold them to account – and again, we’ll seek your views on this.

    The need to bear down on workload is not a new thing.

    In 2014, the Department for Education launched the Workload Challenge. Thousands took part and, overwhelmingly, people talked about the sheer volume of lesson planning, marking and data management which was too often being driven by fear of inspection rather than for the benefit of the child.

    Since then we have worked closely with Ofsted and others to bust myths about inspections.

    I recently made a video with a clear message with myself alongside Amanda Spielman and others – committing to schools that you won’t be judged for cutting back on excessive bureaucracy.

    And let me say again – neither Ofsted or DfE require you to do things like annotated seating plans, triple marking, deep marking, dialogic marking, colour coded marking, excessive monitoring of a child’s progress…

    The video has now been watched more than 75,000 times, and I hope you will all, not only watch it but share it. And if anyone does tell you that Ofsted require this or that, please show them that video too.

    There’s more to come from us on this. One area which many of you have raised with me is how the pressure to collect assessment data and evidence of progress has grown dramatically over the years.

    In response, I have established a workload advisory group to look into this issue and publish recommendations.

    And I am pleased to announce that this group will be chaired by Professor Becky Allen and the membership will include teachers and school leaders, as well as Ofsted and the unions – and I very much welcome NAHT’s commitment to take part.

    I also want to urge heads and leaders to play their part.

    As I visit more and more schools, I discover that there isn’t a uniform story on workload – teachers’ experiences are very different; and schools’ policies and practices are very different too.

    I urge you to ask questions like: Do we need this much data collection? What does this extra time spent marking add?

    And yes, Government has responsibility too.

    In our drive to raise standards these last seven years, we have made great strides together.

    However, the pace of change has been fast and that is why I’ve said that there will be no more new statutory tests or assessments for your schools, beyond those already announced, for the rest of this parliament as I’ve already announced.

    And I will continue to work with NAHT and others to make sure that schools successfully embed and have the time to adapt to the changes that have already been announced and are coming through.

    Of course, all of us here have a shared goal of making sure teaching remains an attractive, fulfilling profession.

    Yes, teacher numbers are at an all time high and more people are returning to teaching this year – but, still, we know that staff turnover is a real challenge for schools.

    Actually not just for schools. With record employment there has been increased demand for talented graduates altogether.

    We’ve brought in schemes like the student loan reimbursement pilot for new graduates.

    But we need to go further and that’s why over the coming months we will be developing an overall recruitment and retention strategy.

    We will take an unflinching look at the things that discourage people from coming into teaching or make them consider leaving.

    We will also look at how we support teachers to get better at what they do and hone their expertise as well as career progression, whether they want to get into leadership as you have, or stay and develop in the classroom.

    I particularly want to support teachers early in their careers, when I know some new teachers feel a bit like having been chucked into the deep end before they’ve really learnt to swim.

    And so I’m pleased we are setting out our initial response to our QTS consultation today.

    Following strong support, I’m happy to announce that we will be introducing an enhanced offer of support for new teachers – including extending the induction period to two years.

    And we will work with the profession to develop a new early career framework that will set out all the training and mentoring a teacher is entitled to in those first years.

    I am committed to working with the profession to understand how to deliver these proposals and the resources needed to make them work.

    It’s not just the early years though – I want teachers to be able to develop and progress through clearer career pathways, including for those, as I said, who want to stay in the classroom as experts.

    You’ve said you want professional qualifications including in a specialist subject – so we will work with the sector to support these new qualifications.

    I’m also announcing today something that has been called for by the profession for some time – a new £5 million sabbatical pilot.

    This will allow more established teachers to do something else for a period, whether that’s working in an industry relevant to their field or doing academic research – or indeed coming to DfE to help shape policy.

    Now, finally, I want to turn to an issue which I know is top of your minds.

    I certainly don’t pretend I can just stand up here at this podium and say a few words that will solve all of the challenges that you face in schools today.

    It is true that schools get more funding than they used to but it is also true that society asks much more of schools than we did a generation ago.

    It is true that if you compare our schools to other countries… according to the latest OECD data, per pupil, our schools get more government funding than countries such as Germany.

    But there have also been real cost pressures on schools – pensions, National Insurance.

    So, yes, it is challenging for schools making the numbers add up and I do pledge to work with you to bear down on some of the cost pressures as best as we can.

    Working closely with you to make sure schools do get the best deals possible and can target precious resources at the frontline.

    I want a close, collaborative relationship with you, with this profession, whether on reforming accountability, or reducing the data burden, strengthening professional development or reducing cost pressures.

    I’m clear that our retention and recruitment strategy would be nothing without your voices, your expertise… heads, teachers, support staff and unions.

    We have a powerful opportunity to raise the status of this profession, for teaching to remain one of society’s most fulfilling roles…meaning that every child has the chance to fulfil their potential.

    And I pledge to work with you all to make this a reality.

  • Sajid Javid – 2018 Statement on Windrush

    Below is the text of the statement made by Sajid Javid, the Home Secretary, in the House of Commons on 30 April 2018.

    I am honoured to have been asked this morning to become Home Secretary. I start by making a pledge to those of the Windrush generation who have been in this country for decades and yet have struggled to navigate through the immigration system: this never should have been the case, and I will do whatever it takes to put it right.

    Learning about the difficulties that Windrush migrants have faced over the years has affected me greatly, particularly because I myself am a second-generation migrant. Like the Caribbean Windrush generation, my parents came to this country from the Commonwealth in the 1960s; they too came to help to rebuild this country and to offer all that they had. So when I heard that people who were long-standing pillars of their communities were being impacted for simply not having the right documents to prove their legal status in the UK, I thought that that could be my mum, my brother, my uncle or even me. That is why I am so personally committed to, and invested in, resolving the difficulties faced by the people of the Windrush generation who have built their lives here and contributed so much.

    I know that my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd), felt very strongly about this too. Mr Speaker, please allow me to pay tribute to her hard work and integrity and to all that she has done and will continue to do in public service. I wish her all the very best. I will build on the decisive action that she has already taken. A dedicated taskforce was set up to handle these cases; more than 500 appointments have been scheduled, and more than 100 people have already had their cases processed and now have the necessary documents. We will continue to resolve these cases as a matter of urgency.

    We have made it clear that a Commonwealth citizen who has remained in the UK since 1973 will be eligible to get the legal status that they deserve: British citizenship. That will be free of charge, and I will bring forward the necessary secondary legislation. We have also been clear that a new compensation scheme will be put in place for those whose lives have been disrupted. We intend to consult on the scope of the scheme and we will appoint an independent person to oversee it. I hope that I can count on the full support of all hon. Members to make this happen as soon as possible. I end by making one thing crystal clear: we will do right by the Windrush generation.

  • Penny Mordaunt – 2018 Speech on Syria

    Below is the text of the speech made by Penny Mordaunt, the Secretary of State for International Development, in the House of Commons on 30 April 2018.

    Let me take this opportunity to put on record that the aid workers who have been attacked in south Sudan are very much in our thoughts. Aid workers should never be a target, and I am sure that the whole House will want to send our good wishes to them and their families at this difficult time.

    I want to update the House on the United Kingdom’s support for the people of Syria. I am keenly aware that Members are deeply concerned about the level of suffering experienced by millions of Syrians. The United Kingdom has shown, and will continue to show, leadership in the international humanitarian response.

    In the eighth year of the conflict, the plight of the Syrian people remains grave. The Syrian regime appears to have no intention of ending the suffering of its own people, although the opposition have placed no conditions on peace negotiations. The barbaric attack in Douma on innocent civilians, including young children, was yet another example of the regime’s disregard for its responsibility to protect civilians. Some may seek to cast doubt over the attack and who was responsible for it, but intelligence and first-hand accounts from non-governmental organisations and aid workers are clear. The World Health Organisation received reports that hundreds of patients had arrived at Syrian heath facilities on the night of 7 April with

    “signs and symptoms consistent with exposure to toxic chemicals.”

    Regime helicopters were seen over Douma on that evening, and the opposition do not operate helicopters or use barrel bombs.

    Assad and his backers—Russia and Iran—will attempt to block every diplomatic effort to hold the regime accountable for these reprehensible and illegal tactics. That was why the United Kingdom, together with our United States and French allies, took co-ordinated, limited and targeted action against the regime’s chemical weapons capabilities to alleviate humanitarian suffering. Britain is clear: we will defend the global rules-based system that keeps us all safe. I welcome the support that we have received from Members and from the international community. We will work with the United Nations and the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons to create a new independent mechanism to attribute responsibility for chemical weapons attacks. We will work with France on the International Partnership against Impunity for the Use of Chemical Weapons, and we will work with the EU to establish a new sanctions regime against those responsible for chemical weapons use.

    In wielding its UN veto 12 times, Russia has given a green light to Assad to perpetrate human rights atrocities against his own people. This is a regime that has used nearly 70,000 barrel bombs on civilian targets; a regime that tries to starve its people into submission, although the UN Security Council has called for unhindered humanitarian access; a regime that has continued to obstruct aid to eastern Ghouta and removes medical supplies from the rare aid convoys that do get in; a regime that deploys rape as a weapon of war, with nearly eight out of 10 people detained by it reported to have suffered sexual violence; and a regime that deliberately bombs schools and hospitals, and targets aid workers and emergency responders as they race to the scene to help.

    We must support the innocent victims of these atrocities. All warring parties must comply with the Geneva conventions on the protected status of civilians and other non-combatants. There must be an immediate ceasefire, and safe access for aid workers and medical staff to do their jobs.

    We also want to adapt what we do to the new reality of this war. That is why I have announced the new creating hope in conflict fund with USAID, to work with the private sector to find new technology to save lives in conflict zones. Britain will establish a humanitarian innovation hub to develop new capabilities to hinder regimes that appear determined to slay innocent men, women and children.

    Our aid has made a difference. Despite the horrific violence meted out by Assad, we have been able to prevent mass starvation and large-scale outbreaks of disease. When we are able to reach the people who need our help, our aid works. We are the second largest bilateral donor to the humanitarian response in Syria. Since 2012, our support has provided over 22 million monthly food rations, almost 10 million medical consultations, and over 9 million relief packages. But the suffering continues. Some 13.1 million people are now in need of humanitarian assistance. Over half of Syria’s population has been displaced by violence, with nearly 6 million seeking refuge in neighbouring countries. In north-west Syria, an intensification of hostilities and the arrival of an additional 60,000 people from eastern Ghouta is stretching scarce resources. Today, 65% of the population of Idlib—over 1.2 million people—have been forced from their homes.

    At last week’s conference I announced that the UK will provide at least £450 million this year, and £300 million next year, to alleviate extreme suffering in Syria and to provide vital support in neighbouring countries. This will be in addition to our support for the second EU facility for refugees in Turkey. We have now committed £2.71 billion since 2012, our largest ever response to a single humanitarian crisis.

    Our pledge will help to keep medical facilities open to save lives. We will deploy protective equipment to keep medics and rescue workers safe. We will deploy antidote stocks to treat any further victims of chemical weapons. We will train doctors and nurses to treat trauma wounds. We will focus on education, making sure that every child in the region has access to quality education even in the most trying circumstances, on steps to protect civilians, and on ensuring that those responsible for attacks face justice.

    We will help to support the millions of Syrian refugees sheltering in neighbouring countries. Our friends in the region—Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey in particular—continue to demonstrate extraordinary generosity by opening their doors to millions fleeing the conflict in Syria. We must continue to offer them our fullest support. Last week I also announced that the UK will host an international conference with Jordan in London later this year. It will showcase Jordan’s economic reform plans and aspiration to build a thriving private sector, and mobilise international investment.

    There are refugees who cannot be supported in the region: people requiring urgent medical treatment, survivors of violence and torture, and women and children at risk of exploitation. We will work closely with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees to identify those most at risk and bring them to the UK. We are helping but, with Russia’s support, Assad continues to bomb his own people, and that is why so many continue to die and so many have fled their homes.

    There can be no military solution to the Syrian civil war. As UN special representative Staffan de Mistura said in Brussels last week, the Assad regime risks a pyrrhic victory unless it and its backers engage in a genuine political process. Only this can deliver reconciliation and the restoration of Syria as a prosperous, secure and stable state. The UK will continue to support the efforts of the UN, under the Geneva process, to this end.

    The obstacles remain serious. The regime has shown no inclination to engage seriously so far, and the Security Council remains divided. But the international community cannot, and should not, resign itself to failure. The costs for Syria, for the region, and for the wider international rules-based system are too great. The Foreign Secretary was in Paris last Thursday to discuss with key partners how we should intensify our efforts to bring this conflict, and its causes, to an end. While we actively work to find a political solution, the UK will continue to stand alongside the people of Syria and the region to do what we can to alleviate human suffering, and to demand immediate access for aid workers to all those who need our help. I commend this statement to the House.

  • Claire Perry – 2018 Speech at Aurora Spring Forum

    Below is the text of the speech made by Claire Perry, the Minister of State for Energy and Clean Growth, on 20 March 2018.

    It is wonderful to be back in Oxford, not only because of many happy memories, but also to be in a city that is central to so many energy breakthroughs.

    In 1976 Professor Goodenough formed a research group from around the world to tackle the intractable problem of how to make batteries rechargeable.

    And these great minds struggled, they even had to call out the fire brigade when experiments went wrong… But of course in 1980 they published their findings in Materials Research Bulletin.

    The world took notice – the lithium ion battery changed the world, although it meant that officials could pester ministers at any time, day or night.

    So many academic innovations have sprouted from this academic powerhouse, from nuclear fusion research at Culham to Professor Snaith’s new understandings of perovskites which could transform solar power.

    And it is harnessing the value of this sort of world changing innovation that we want to see right across the UK, and particularly in the energy portfolio.

    That’s why this government has set out the biggest ever increase in public research and development investment; three billion pounds more invested every year by 2021.

    And it is that focus on innovation, research, development, commercialisation which underpins the Industrial Strategy.

    Looking at how we invest in Britain’s historical straights to create the high-growth firms and well-paid jobs is essential to redress many of the imbalances of our economy, and make sure we are fit for the future. And our modern Industrial Strategy doesn’t just celebrate engineering developments, it celebrates ideas.

    That’s why it’s so great to be hosted by Aurora today, a relatively new energy research company, trying to do things differently…

    … and one that has already grabbed a leading position across Europe.

    And that was one of the reasons we tapped into one of Aurora’s founding directors, to ask for his wisdom and his experience of the energy sector, to lead the Independent Cost of Energy Review.

    This was commissioned as a no-holds barred look at how we deliver more affordable energy, to look at how we keep the lights on, while decarbonising, how we create innovation, and how we balance those relationships and those responsibilities between the public sector and the market.

    The review has sparked a debate, a vibrant debate if I might say, about how we actually get to an energy market where active consumers, not producers, are central; where the pyramid of supply and distribution is turned upon its head; where we realise the potential of the investments we’ve been making now for many years in new clean energy technologies.

    And where we implement ideas and spending according to a framework. One of the frameworks we’ve been using a lot in the Clean Growth Strategy which I authored last year, is the idea of a triple test that investment makes sense if it decarbonises, if you can see a cost trajectory so that means you don’t burden consumers with expensive innovations over the long term, and where you actually create and leverage a strategic innovation that means you can export that technology globally.

    And since Dieter’s Review was published, we have also published the Industrial Strategy White Paper, which once again emphasised the importance of energy to our economic success.

    And showed a reliable, affordable, and smart energy system provides the backbone for a stronger, fairer, and more productive society.

    And how new technologies, AI, big data, EVs, autonomous vehicles are not just disruptive in their own sector but are also hugely disruptive to the energy sector as well.

    And how creating the conditions for success for fair competition is so central to innovation.

    And also how energy systems are central to the broader challenge of clean growth, 1 of the 4 Grand Challenge of the Industrial Strategy. An energy system that underpins, benefits from and accelerates the transformation of our economy.

    And Dieter’s Review covered very eloquently many of these arguments. Much of his diagnosis is compelling, articulated brilliantly.

    He talks about the disruptors that are coming along in this sector, the move from passive to active demand, more and more zero marginal low cost clean generation.

    We are now buying at prices unimaginably low compared to just a few years ago. Access to cost-effective storage technologies that scale; linking in electric mobility into the grid.

    Dieter says that these changes are happening regardless of what government does, whether we like it or not, this is the way the market is moving.

    And so for me the job of government is to re-examine the bits that we do, the bits of the market that we are involved in, the frameworks, the policies, the regulation that we put in place, to make sure that they are fit for purpose.

    That they encourage this innovation, they increase competition, and they don’t have unintended consequences down the road.

    And I think if we manage these changes well, the historic tension between cost, CO2 and security becomes irrelevant.

    It’s a little bit like the conversation we have for clean growth, where some had always imagined that a green future meant hunkering down in caves.

    Recessions are really good for cutting carbon emissions, and there are still politicians out there who would rather like that to be the case.

    But actually, if you look at what the UK has done when it has decarbonised more and grown faster than any other G7 nation since 1990, that these 2 things go hand in hand.

    And it’s the same with the age-old energy trilemma.

    And of course, if it’s the UK innovators who develop the technologies to achieve those goals, we reap those industrial and economic benefits, bringing home the benefits of the world’s pivot to this low-carbon future in a way that generates highly productive jobs and growth at home.

    So Dieter’s Review brings that challenge to life, and without front-running the response to the consultation, I did want to dwell on three of his findings, not all 68 of them, don’t worry.

    The first was the necessity for more active management of the system.

    The huge increase in distributed generation, the opportunity for more demand-side response, and the potential for creating new demand for electric heating creates a requirement for a less passive local grid.

    Grid management is hard enough in the current top-down system, the idea of having intermediates and end-states of supply and demand I think is incredibly challenging.

    And so, Dieter’s proposal for the system of neutral regional systems operators is extremely interesting. And it’s part of the process that we’re already going through, which has already seen us create a much more independent systems operator role for National Grid.

    Dieter’s review challenges us to consider whether and how we should go further. The network industry has come forward with initial proposals, which we’re looking at, many of them suitably ambitious.

    But we will be working closely to ensure that these go beyond ‘business-as-usual’ and deliver the framework that we need to move us to this future. We have to get this right.

    And secondly, Dieter’s eye-catching proposal for the equivalent firm power auction is worth dwelling on. When considering this, I am mindful that many of the tools are actually working well.

    I know we’ve taken a fair share of criticism for how we got here, but if you look at what the tools are delivering, CfDs are delivering offshore wind at 57 pounds per MWh with every prospect of further reductions, and with an industry that is being created as part of that supply chain, right across the UK.

    The Capacity Market is giving confidence to industry that there is no risk to supply at keener and keener prices. And of course the ‘Beast from the East’ tested the resilience of the systems right across Europe and the UK. I think there are lessons to be learned, but overall our gas and electricity systems proved robust and responsive.

    The market frameworks we had in place provided National Grid with the tools they needed.

    Dieter’s challenge is how do we evolve today’s arrangements, so they can adapt to this pace of change and achieve this end-state that we want to see going forward.

    And the Capacity Market is obviously a key part of that evolution.

    So later this year, we will be conducting a formal review to mark 5 years since this introduction, asking some key questions:

    Have we got the penalty regime right? Are the outcomes of the market aligned, not just with the security of the energy system, but with the triple test I described, and the ambition we have in the Industrial Strategy?

    Should it be open to new technologies, like renewables as we are seeing in Ireland? How do we include battery technology into this mix? How do we work with demand-side response and small-scale gas installations, which have already confounded prior expectations?

    Understanding and answering these questions will help simplify the system in line with Dieter’s recommendations, whilst maintaining robust energy security and delivering on our triple test.

    But as we consider these changes, we have to create market structures and regulation that continue to make the UK one of the leading destinations for energy investment.

    I think that clarity of regulatory structure and confidence in the system are a hugely important part of that. As we look to the future, I think it’s worth reflecting on the work that we’re doing now to ensure well-regulated, competitive markets deliver value and service for customers. That markets work for customers in a way that consumers perceive industry they should.

    We’ve seen huge improvements in the efficiency of our home energy system, thanks to the smart regulation insulation measures.

    I’ve given lie to the argument that all this stuff we do, the investing in the future of energy, is somehow putting up prices.

    Whilst we’ve seen a policy price increase, bills have gone down in the average household because of excellent improvements in energy efficiency, and as we made clear in the Clean Growth Strategy.

    We want to build on that success. I’ll be reviewing the ECO obligation very shortly, which I want to pivot as much as possible to helping those living in fuel poverty, making sure that it provides a much better route to market for innovation technology in the home efficiency space.

    We’re regulating so that landlords have to ensure the homes they let are cheaper to run.

    We’ve exempted many of our energy-efficient industries from many of the levies that we have brought forward. And we’ve also taken tough decisions in 2015 to cut subsidies while focusing resources on strategically important sectors like offshore wind and nuclear.

    And just this month you may have seen that I brought forward the Price Cap Legislation, with very strong cross-party support.

    This is not an attempt to set energy prices in Westminster.

    This is an attempt to help the market speed up its evolution to a more competitive marketplace.

    We have a problem in this market as in so many others, which is asymmetry of customer information: a group of highly enabled, digitally-savvy consumers who are able to take advantage of switching deals that are on offer given the new entrance on the market, and then a much larger group of those who are not as aware or as able to take advantage of those opportunities and worryingly tend to be older, less wealthy, less educated, often more vulnerable.

    And we know that the market is working hard with its regulator to address many of those problems… But we want to make sure that that acceleration continues. That’s why we’re bringing forward a time-limited, intelligent intervention in the market to help reset this market to ensure it works for consumers.

    And it’s part of a huge package of work that is coming forward:

    smart meter roll-out

    faster switching

    half-hourly settlements

    midata portability

    Together this will mean that switching will be almost instantaneous and extremely easy to do. Dieter has made clear proposals in this area about what the cap should include. It is quite rightly being developed by Ofgem and I’m sure they will be listening carefully to Dieter’s recommendations when they bring forward the cap.

    That cap will be in place by the end of this year.

    Dieter’s review also makes absolutely clear that government has an important role to play in new nuclear. Dieter calls it a societal choice, as to whether to invest in nuclear.

    But for us, it’s more than that. For us, nuclear has a crucial role to play in creating a diverse, reliable energy supply that reduces our CO2 emissions, creates a cost trajectory that we can see going forward and contributes enormously to the Industrial Strategy, to the creation of exportable innovation and capability.

    I have no doubt that nuclear is a vital part of the mix both in the UK and for the global community to meet its Paris commitments.

    It is also a sector that can deliver innovation, growth, and high-quality jobs for the economy.

    But to get these benefits, we have to get costs down.

    And this is a joint partnership between government and industry.

    For me it’s about innovation. It’s about understanding how new technologies techniques, whether it’s digitisation, modular manufacturing, whatever it is, can help simplify and standardise the nuclear new-build process, and potentially find new markets for that technology.

    I’m extremely mindful of the role of government in supporting new nuclear…

    We’re studying the results of the NAO report carefully.

    If we can get this right, we can maintain our position at the forefront of nuclear innovation. That, for me, is an example of the Clean Growth Grand Challenge in action.

    But whether it’s nuclear, or the rest of the energy supply, we have got to think hard about the policy and regulatory changes that we bring forward and be mindful of the unintended consequences that can happen, not just currently, but over a decent period of time going forward.

    The government’s ambition is for the UK to have the lowest energy cost in Europe for both households and businesses, whilst delivering on our CO2 targets and ensuring security of supply. We don’t know how markets will look in 50 years’ time.

    There are so many disruptive technologies out there, from digitalisation, AI, the continued galloping fall in the cost of clean technology.

    For me, this is the most exciting moment in the energy industry in the UK since privatisation, and this change will only accelerate going forward.

    More renewables, coal getting off the system by 2025, increasing amounts of distributed energy, more storage, more demand-side, more local generation; again inverting this pyramid, from passive consumers and the top-down approach, to energy moving up and down the system.

    And that’s before we confront the challenge that a more electrified heating system may place on the system. If you look at the Clean Growth Strategy, we’re looking at what hydrogen pathway looks like, what increased electrifications looks like; there are radical changes coming forward that will hugely impact the investment decisions we take.

    And for me, central planning of anything, whether it’s of an economy or an energy system, means taking often poor choices for short-term ends, and stifling innovation.

    The way to get beyond that is to put the consumer, not the producer, at the heart of energy policy.

    Firms who create value for consumers – whether they’re large energy-intensive industries, or little old ladies paying on standard variable tariffs – the firms that create the value and deliver the service for those consumers, not the firms which are best at lobbying government, are the ones that are most rewarded by investment and by market share.

    A system where market participants who innovate and can reduce both costs and emissions over time, thrive. That is the challenge we all face, whether it is government, regulators or indeed incumbents. That is the market that we want to see coming forward.

    If we get it right, the astounding opportunities that are out there, both in solving our own energy problems and solving the energy problems of the world are just immense.

    Helping the world’s poorest countries never build a coal-fired power station, but moving straight to a distributed, renewable policy, using some of our climate finance to make that happen.

    If we can unlock that future, then the opportunities for UK-based innovation, economic growth and job creation are absolutely immense.

    And again, I pivot back to the Industrial Strategy.

    The people in the room will know about the Faraday challenge, the first beneficiary of one of the major investments to come out of the Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund…

    Investing where we have a comparative advantage in technology, where we have an industry working from a position of strength,

    … we already manufacture 1 in 5 of the electric vehicles sold in in Europe,

    … overflowing any benefit into the renewables industry where distributed storage is what will unlock possibilities going forward

    … and bringing it all together in a public- private way that drives jobs and growth and innovation and ultimately productivity.

    And so, this ambition of a clean low cost innovative energy supply that works for customers, creates strong supply chains, really is built on incredible innovation and knowledge and development, just like we saw in Professor Goodenough’s lab.

    That is the prize that is out there for us.

    And ultimately, we want to seize that opportunity, create those long-term commercial advantages in the UK, but make sure that when we commercialise and bring them to market, that IP is also kept in the UK and contributes to our economy going forward.

    Thank you very much.

  • Amber Rudd – 2010 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made by Amber Rudd, the Conservative MP for Hastings and Rye, in the House of Commons on 17 June 2010.

    I am grateful for the opportunity to deliver my maiden speech. I congratulate all new Members who have spoken so ​elegantly and eloquently, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry), whose maiden speech was well conceived and comfortably delivered.

    I represent the constituency of Hastings and Rye. Of course, it is only us who call our areas constituencies. To my constituents, the constituency is home, where they live and where they bring up their families, and I will never forget that. Some six weeks since the general election, I still get a little lost going from one room to the next, and between staircases and lifts, but I remain impressed, humbled and not a little relieved to be in these historic corridors and as part of this historic coalition.

    Part of my responsibility is to live up to the example of the previous Member of Parliament for Hastings and Rye, Michael Foster. He was the epitome of a good constituency MP. He was immensely popular, not just because of the individual acts that he did for local residents, but because of his high visibility locally and his successful lobbying of the then Government for additional funds for the town. Unfortunately for him, his popularity grew in inverse proportion to that of his Government, but I recognise that, through his service, he set a very high bar—one that I shall try to reach and, hopefully, at some stage exceed.

    The fruits of Michael Foster’s success are evident in Hastings. We have a new train station, further education college, and university centre, and two new state-of-the-art office developments. However, physical regeneration has not yet translated into economic regeneration. Our offices are still largely empty, the train services are still poor, and on the index of multiple deprivation, Hastings remains 29th from the bottom. We have some of the lowest wages and highest unemployment in the whole country, let alone the south-east. Cynics might be forgiven for thinking that Labour’s regeneration has been a triumph of style over substance so far. The make-up is in place, but I am afraid that the wrinkles are still very much there.

    But deprivation is only one part of Hastings, and Hastings is only one part of an area of contrasts and variations. My constituency feels very much like a microcosm of the country, with urban and rural areas, with farmland adjacent to idyllic estates, and with idyllic villages next to deprived wards. We are the custodians of England’s most famous date—perhaps more famous than 6 May 2010.

    Let me introduce colleagues to the wonderful aspects of my constituency. Hastings, Rye and the village of Winchelsea were all parts of the Cinque ports, which were put together in the 11th century to keep out seafaring invaders, and for the mutual benefit of trade and fishing. Each place has its own unique character. I urge Members to spend their summer holidays with us. They can enjoy local produce, the source of modern English history, top-quality entertainment, fresh air and exercise—and for the more sedentary among us, there are fish and chips and slot machines. They can even walk in genuine dinosaur footprints, which may appeal to some Labour Members.

    Tourism is an essential ingredient of what we have to offer. Hotels and boarding houses boast that they have been popular with visitors since 1066—visitors, of course, have not always been so popular with them. We have fantastic beaches, wonderful countryside and arguably ​the world’s most remarkable heritage. We have flourishing language schools, visited by students from all over the world, and a community that welcomes them with open arms, not to mention open tills, because we need the business.

    Like many towns, we suffer from the coastal problem of being at the end of the line. Looking at previous maiden speeches over the past 40 to 50 years, I see that there has been a recurring theme: transport. The A21 to Hastings needs renewing and improvement. Our survival and prosperity depend on access. There is no point having wonderful facilities if people cannot access them. It unquestionably puts off employers and tourists, both of whom we need, that it is so difficult to get to our part of the world. I am talking of a constituency where 43% of the work force are in the public sector. We are like an island. We know which way the tide is going; we need to attract the private sector to try to take up some of the unemployment. I fear that much of the money that has already been spent in my constituency will fail to improve the economy if we do not do something about that. For too long, we have been the underprivileged cousin of the south-east. Many of my constituents have suffered terribly from an economy that has simply left them behind.

    I have two important considerations for my constituency of Hastings and Rye. The first is transport. I recognise the particular financial situation in which we find ourselves—there must be cuts; we have inherited a difficult legacy. However, I urge Government Front Benchers not to make them to vital infrastructure projects, on which everything else depends. In my constituency, they are a link road to open up the area to more jobs and more employers, improvements to the A21, and better rail transport. We must be accessible to prosper. Conservatives understand above all the importance of enterprise and encouraging private sector growth so that families and communities can grow on their own.

    We have discussed the high-skilled economy, and I agree that we all need that for our country to advance. However, I would like to draw hon. Members’ attention to a very old trade. In Hastings, we have the largest beach-launched fishing fleet in Europe. In Rye, we have an important port and fishing fleet. They have been treated shamefully in the past 15 years. In the 1990s, there were 44 fishing vessels leaving Hastings; now there are 20, and the fishermen eke out a precarious living. Those men earn their living in a traditional, honest and environmentally friendly way, battling with the sea and the dangers of the deep. However, the common fisheries policy, as enforced by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, has made their lives impossible. In 2005, there were prosecutions of those fishermen. The role of Government must be to help people, not put them out of business. Their way of life needs bailing out. Our Fisheries Minister understands the issue and the urgency and has visited Hastings twice, but we cannot wait for a full renegotiation of the common fisheries policy. We need change now, with the cod season approaching and difficulties ahead of us. We need a Government who protect our fisheries and our fishermen. I urge particular consideration of coastal towns.

    The Government recognise the importance of promoting private sector growth. I hope that we can demonstrate ​that in Hastings and Rye by supporting better transport links and securing a fairer deal for fishermen. All we ask is a fair wind and an even keel.

  • George Eustice – 2018 Statement on Agriculture and Fisheries Council

    Below is the text of the statement made by George Eustice, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in the House of Commons on 26 April 2018.

    The Agriculture and Fisheries Council took place in Luxembourg on 16 April. Counsellor Rory O’Donnell represented the UK.

    The most substantive agricultural item was a presentation by the European Commission setting out a proposal for a directive on “unfair trading practices in business-to-business relationships in the food supply chain”. The Commission’s presentation highlighted the UK’s Groceries Code Adjudicator (GCA) as an example of best practice in this field. The UK outlined its agreement with member state action to tackle unfair trading practices, but stressed the need for any proposed EU-wide legislation to protect well-functioning existing national systems.

    The Bulgarian presidency also provided the Council with an update on food losses and food waste, following the adoption of Council conclusions on tackling food waste in June 2016. The Council reaffirmed its commitment to meeting UN sustainable development goal 12.3 on food waste.

    For fisheries, the focus of this Council was a presentation by the European Commission outlining a proposed multi-annual plan for fish stocks in western waters. The UK welcomed the proposal’s alignment of the western waters plan with the approach taken in the North sea plan, while reminding Council of the need to find solutions for by-catch stocks in the context of meeting the landing obligation.

    Four further items were discussed under “any other business”:

    the Spanish delegation requested clarification on interpreting the landing obligation in article 15 of the common fisheries policy

    the presidency informed the Council of the outcomes of the TAIEX workshop on the role of wildlife in animal health management

    the Polish and Danish delegations presented information on African swine fever

    the European Commission informed Council about a proposed regulation on the transparency and sustainability of the EU risk assessment in the food chain.

  • Penny Mordaunt – 2018 Statement on Syria and the Brussels Conference

    Below is the text of the statement made by Penny Mordaunt, the Secretary of State for International Development, in the House of Commons on 27 April 2018.

    The Syrian regime’s continued and systematic blatant disregard for international humanitarian and human rights law has resulted in an unprecedented humanitarian catastrophe. Medical facilities, schools and aid workers appear to have been deliberately targeted, aid has been blocked to starve communities into submission, and rape and sexual violence have been deployed as routine weapons of war.

    13.1 million people are now in need of humanitarian assistance, including 5.6 million with acute needs. In addition, over half of Syria’s population has been displaced by the violence, with 5.6 million seeking refuge in neighbouring countries.

    Since the conflict began seven years ago, the UK has been at the forefront of the international response. We are the second largest bilateral donor to the crisis. Our support to Syria and the region since 2012 has provided humanitarian assistance to 17 million people, including over 27,000,000 monthly food rations and over 10,000,000 vaccines, and helped over 7.1 million children gain a decent education.

    But now, in the eighth year of the conflict, the humanitarian needs of the Syrian people remain as grave as they have ever been. It is clear that the regime has no intention of ending its people’s suffering. The barbaric chemical weapons attack in Douma on innocent civilians, including young children, was yet another example of the regime’s flagrant disregard for its responsibility to protect civilians.

    We must not turn our backs on their suffering. That is why at this week’s Brussels conference for Syria and the region, I announced that the UK will provide at least £450 million this year, and £300 million next year ​to alleviate the extreme suffering in Syria and provide vital support in neighbouring countries. We have now committed £2.71 billion to the Syria crisis since 2012, our largest ever response to a single humanitarian crisis.

    Our pledge will help keep medical facilities open so doctors and nurses can save lives, and will help support the millions of Syrian refugees sheltering in neighbouring countries.

    Our friends in the region, Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey in particular, continue to demonstrate extraordinary generosity in opening their doors and communities to millions fleeing the conflict in Syria.

    We must continue to offer them our fullest support. Not least because as the trajectory of the Syrian war has worsened, our collective interests in a stable and prosperous region have increased. Jordan’s resilience and prosperity are critical to the long-run interests of the region. That is why, in addition to the support to the region provided in our pledge, I announced that the UK will host an international conference with Jordan in London later this year: to showcase Jordan’s economic reform plans, its aspiration to build/enable a thriving private sector, and to mobilise support from international investors and donors.

    But money alone is not enough. We continue to support the UN-mediated process as the surest path to peace. But while we work towards a political solution in the future that can end this suffering once and for all, we must not give up on improving conditions in the present. In this spirit, I called upon those present at the conference to join the UK in calling for concrete actions to enable greater protection for civilians and aid workers now. That means an immediate ceasefire and immediate safe access so that brave aid workers and medical staff can do their jobs and help the most vulnerable and the most desperate without fear of attack.

    The UK is a global leader within the Syria response. I am proud that at this week’s conference, we demonstrated clearly that we will not turn away from the suffering of the Syrian people—we will continue to lead the response in working with others to call out atrocities, mobilise funding, demand access for aid, protect civilians and ultimately, work towards a solution that can put Syria on a path to peace.

  • Nick Raynsford – 1986 Speech on the West London Hospital

    Below is the text of the speech made by Nick Raynsford, the then Labour MP for Fulham, in the House of Commons on 18 July 1986.

    I am grateful for this opportunity to discuss the future of the West London hospital, which is extensively used by many residents of my constituency, although it is located just outside the boundary in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), who has fully supported my concern and would have wished to be here today but for other commitments. It is appropriate that this debate should take place today as a consultation paper is expected to be published today by the district health authority proposing the closure of the West London hospital in November 1987.

    It is important that the House should be aware of the context of that consultation paper. It is being produced by a district health authority which has been told to make cuts of some £33 million in a budget of £120 million by 1993–94—a reduction in expenditure of no less than 27 per cent. That is no reflection of lack of need in the area, which has huge unmet needs—an aging population, long and lengthening waiting lists for many operations and many people suffering poverty and deprivation. Against that background, the National Health Service should be expanding and developing to meet needs more effectively, rather than being told to make swingeing cuts in the budget which illustrate all too clearly the dishonesty of the Government’s claim that the Health Service is safe in their hands. The people of Fulham and Hammersmith are well aware how hollow and untrue that claim is. In the face of such cuts in hospital services, the Health Service in West London is far from safe in the Government’s hands.

    The West London hospital currently incorporates four main units. The obstetrics unit has a national reputation for a very high standard of care. Among women it has a reputation for providing a service that is sensitive to their needs and aspirations, and it has been in the forefront in promoting natural childbirth. There is also a special baby care unit with a particularly high standard of neonatal care —a factor contributing to the good reputation of the area in terms of perinatal mortality, for which the figures are among the lowest in Britain and, indeed, in western Europe. The plan in the consultation paper involves closure of the hospital and loss of the obstetrics unit without replacement, and thus the destruction of one of the country’s best maternity units.

    Secondly, the geriatric unit provides long-term care for about 50 elderly patients. This unit has done important work in developing understanding and a close relationship between staff and patients. Many of the patients suffer from senile dementia, requiring intensive care and needing to develop trust and confidence in the people looking after them.

    The third unit is the psycho-geriatric assessment unit providing 16 beds and also associated day care. The fourth is the genito-urinary unit, which is doing extremely important work in one of the most difficult areas of medicine and, indeed, is currently one of the first places of referral for a substantial number of people suffering from AIDS in Britain. The importance of that work should not be underestimated.

    Apart from the four units provided by the hospital, there is also an associated nurses home, Abercorn House, which is providing accommodation for 90 nurses in an area where there is a desperate need because high house prices and exceptionally high rents make it difficult for nursing staff to afford to live. That in turn creates acute problems for hospitals, one of which, the Charing Cross hospital, has encountered considerable difficulty in maintaining its wards because of the absence of nursing staff who simply cannot afford to live in the area.

    The proposal in the consultation paper suggests the relocatin of some of those units. The psycho-geriatric and genito-urinary units would be relocated, essentially at Charing Cross hospital, and I would not quarrel in principle with that. It is appropriate that those units should be on a district general hospital site, and the standard of provision could well be improved there.

    The geriatric department will be replaced under the proposals with two small-scale nursing homes. Again that is not necessarily wrong in principle, but there are serious potential problems. In the first place, there must be an anxiety about the timetable — whether the new units, which have not yet been begun, could possibly be completed and ready for occupation by November 1987, the date set for the closure of the West London hospital.

    Secondly, what will happen in terms of the disruption of the care of the elderly people, whose trust in their nurses has been painstakingly built up over a period? We should remember that we are talking only of replacing beds that will be lost. Yet we know that there is an urgent additional need for extra beds, particularly for respite care to help many carers who look after elderly relatives and who desperately need the opportunity to place their relatives in a caring environment so that they can get away for a week or two weeks’ holiday from time to time. Those are the units that will, to an extent, be replaced under the proposal. I want now to deal with those that will not.

    The nurses home will be lost, and that will be a loss of desperately needed accommodation in the area. The obstetrics unit will be lost without replacement under the proposal. That is clearly motivated by a wish to make savings. There can be no other possible explanation of why that has been put forward. The consultation paper suggests that that will provide savings of approximately £2,250,000 out of the total projected revenue savings coming from the closure of the hospital of £2,750,000. So the lion’s share of the total savings is attributable to the closure of the obstetrics unit without replacement.

    What possible justification can there be for doing this? It may be argued that the West London hospital building is old, in need of maintenance and repair. It is an old building. It has a long and distinguished history going back 126 years, during which time the hospital has been located on this site. However, I hasten to add that there have been many additions and improvements to the building during that time. It is not simply a building that dates back to the 1860s.

    Everyone who has been there or who has accompanied patients there knows what is really important is not its bricks and mortar but the standard of care. The West London hospital’s reputation is without equal in that respect. It has an immensely high standard of care and concern for patients. It is also one of those smaller hospitals which can achieve a more friendly and intimate environment than is possible in larger hospitals. The physical fabric of the hospital might justify the relocation of the unit elsewhere, but it certainly does not justify the closure of that unit without replacement.

    What other justification could be advanced for the closure of the unit? Undoubtedly the claim will be advanced—I suspect the Minister has been briefed to this effect—that there is an over-provision of maternity beds in the district”. Such a claim can be substantiated only by a juggling of the statistics to suit the argument. There are only two maternity units in hospitals managed by the district health authority—Westminster hospital and the West London hospital. Between them they provide for about 3,000 births a year—about 2,000 at the West London hospital and about 1,000 at Westminster hospital. The birth rate for the Riverside area is about 3,500 and the forecast, based upon a midpoint projection, is about 3,700 a year.

    Local needs can be met adequately only because of the two other maternity units, which do not come under the district health authority, but come under the special health authority. I refer to Queen Charlotte’s and Hammersmith hospitals. Beds there are not primarily available to local residents. The North West Thames Regional Health Authority’s maternity patients flow data show clearly that only a small proportion — about 17 per cent. —of maternity patients at Queen Charlotte’s come from Hammersmith and Fulham. Most come from other areas.

    There is no catchment area for obstetrics and no priority is given to local patients. Many of my constituents are refused access to Queen Charlotte’s hospital. The letter that is sent out states simply: Your doctor has written to us requesting a booking for your confinement at Queen Charlotte’s Maternity Hospital. We very much regret that during the time of your expected confinement we are fully booked and suggest that you return to your doctor immediately so that alternative arrangements for your confinement can be made. Letters like that are being sent out in large numbers. According to recent evidence from Professor Elder, 150 applicants a month are turned away by the special health authority. So much for the argument about over-provision.

    Furthermore, the argument ignores consumer choice. West London and Queen Charlotte’s hospitals are both excellent in their way, but they represent entirely different poles of maternity care provision. The West London hospital has a national reputation for progressive maternity care, for natural child bith and for taking account of the woman’s needs and wishes. My three children were born there, so I know of the extraordinary sensitive care that my wife received during her confinements.

    The consultation document admits as much. It says: The West London unit is justly famous. It has been in the forefront of the development of more liberal and sensitive approaches to maternity services and has become known as a leading centre for natural child birth. It is also regarded as a major centre for teaching and research. That is a tragic comment on the state of the Health Service under this Government. An outstanding maternity unit is threatened with closure without replacement.

    The third argument which might be advanced for the closure is that patients can go instead to Westminster hospital. That involves the loss of the West London unit and its tradition of excellence. It will involve a substantial aditional journey for people in my constituency that is particularly important if their children are in the neo-natal intensive care unit and they have to be on hand to be close to their babies.

    The fundamental argument is that even if one of those units has to close because of over-provision, West London certainly should not be chosen. West London is the only unit which satisfies the health authority’s criteria for the minimum standards of provision which make the unit viable. The health authority’s planners have made it clear that the minimum standard for viability is 2,000 births per year. The West London hospital achieves that, but Westminster does not. Even with the proposed extra provision, Westminster will still have a capacity for only 1,700 deliveries — far below the minimum level for viability. What an extraordinary proposal.

    There will be a serious potential impact on Charing Cross hospital and its medical school. The closure of the unit at West London will leave a major teaching hospital without an associatud obstetrics unit. That will create an extraordinary situation and, as the consultation paper admits, it will have a knock-on effect on the gynaecological service. The document states: Some impact on the existing provision of gynaecology services could result. Any reduction in the level of gynaecology services would have to be the subject of separate formal consultation. The paper admits that there will be serious potential consequences and that there will have to be further consultation, yet it is still proposed to go ahead with the closure of the West London hospital. That is nonsensical. Furthermore, this could undermine the viability of obstetric teaching at Charing Cross.

    Professor Curzon has said that the closure of the West London unit would have drastic consequences. I shall quote from a paper that he wrote earlier this year, which states: If the West London obstetric unit were to be closed before a definitive solution to the long-term provision of obstetric services had been agreed and implemented, the School’s department would have to move to some other temporary site. This would compound the damaging effects of further uncertainties about the future with the considerable turbulence resulting from the move. The only possible sites to which the department could move would be either Westminster Hospital or Queen Charlotte’s Hospital. It has already been shown that Westminster Hospital fails to meet the essential criteria of sufficient resources for teaching, and provision of obstetrics and gynaecology on the same site. A subsequent note from the Professor states that Queen Charlotte’s hospital will not take the students in question.

    There are all these damaging consequences. The cuts will have an effect on patient care, medical education and related health services. Above all, they will fly in the face of public opinion. When the closure was last proposed, there was generated a massive public reaction. There are many who are associated with the hospital, including patients and nurses in the Public Gallery today to show their concern.

    I hope that the Minister will reconsider this ill-thought out proposal, which will have damaging consequences. If the Government wish to be taken seriously in their claim that the Health Service is safe in their hands, they must provide more funds to maintain the viability of this hospital.

  • Dominic Raab – 2018 Speech at Design Quality Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Dominic Raab, the Minister of State for Housing, on 25 April 2018.

    Introduction

    Well good morning, can I welcome you all to this conference, the first on design quality we’ve hosted as a Ministry.

    I’d like to thank my team of officials for all their hard-work and creativity in making today happen.

    Of course, we couldn’t have done it without our sponsors, so a huge thanks, and I want to name them as we are very grateful, to:

    Nigel Longstaff from Barratt

    Tony Pidgley from Berkeley Homes

    Adrian Penfold from British Land

    Melanie Leech from BPF

    Helen Gordon from Grainger

    Rosie Toogood from Legal and General Modular Homes

    Dan Labbad from Lend Lease

    and, Mary Parsons from Places for People.

    And thanks to all of you for coming today.

    Just over a month ago, the Prime Minister stood here in this room and launched our ambitious planning reform package to help us deliver the homes our country so sorely needs.

    It’s a commitment that we’re already delivering on, with over 217,000 new homes delivered in the last year, And over a million homes delivered since 2010.

    We’ve helped thousands of people onto the housing ladder, through Help to Buy and the recent cut in stamp duty for first time buyers.

    And are making renting fairer, safer and more secure for tenants.

    But it’s also become clear to me in the short time that I have been in this job, that it’s not good enough just to build more homes.

    We need to build better homes.

    Homes that embody the high standards of quality and design, that are at the heart of strong communities…

    And that is what today’s conference is really all about for us, Championing the great work that many of you doing … to create attractive, thriving, places to live … And ensuring that, whether you are a home-owner or a renter, quality design is available to everyone, That it becomes the norm, rather than some exception.

    UK as global leaders

    Whenever I discuss the role of design in home-building, I can’t help feeling that the objective, the aim of building homes on the scale we need in this this country, And at the same time making them wonderful, vibrant places to live, Should be seen as mutually reinforcing goals … not competing priorities.

    Steve Jobs once said:

    Design is a funny word. Some people think design means how it looks. But of course, if you dig deeper, it’s really about how it works.

    And if that’s true of your phone it must be even more important when it comes to your home.

    How our homes feel, how they look it is not some ‘nice tack-on’ if you like, an additional extra, It is inextricably interwoven with how they function in practice and how we feel about them, And how our individual homes fit in with our neighbourhoods and wider community.

    So design really matters, it’s a practical thing it’s not just abstract. It lies at the heart and soul of the housing challenge.

    And I was excited to open this conference, Because I know from all the innovative talent we have got in this room, That we’ve got a really strong foundation to build on.

    That flows from the history we have got in this country and we have a long history as world leaders in architecture and urban design … But also having and forging new innovative ways of looking at housing design for the future.

    The calibre of entrants to the Housing Design Awards, which celebrates its 70th anniversary this year, is a testament to that … And there are the many excellent examples of housing being delivered across the country, By Housing Associations, by councils, by developers, And through the growing Build to Rent market.

    I recently visited Heyford Park in Oxfordshire. It’s a good illustration of the strides we are making. It really feels like a community, From the moment you stroll past the new local school, Around the well-designed streets … in a beautiful setting, Underpinned by well-planned transport links, so it really feels like it is set-up to thrive for the future.

    We should take great pride in our design heritage and feel inspired by it … as we gear up to deliver those 300,000 homes that we will need by the middle of the next decade to meet the demand in this country. 300,000 each year.

    It’s going to be a real challenge, A lot of opportunities for all of you to hone and fine-tune your design skills along the way, So we build the homes we need, The homes people fall in love with, And the homes that communities welcome, There’s no question it’s a great challenge.

    But I think, and I sense from people in the room that I have already talked to, that there is many of us that actually out of this challenge we can really find a great opportunity.

    And, if we are going to seize that opportunity and meet the challenge, it is clear to me that quality matters.

    And just as innovation in smart phones has emancipated hundreds of millions through better technology, better information, better communication links.

    So too, high quality design in housing shouldn’t just be the preserve of those with deep pockets, But within the grasp of everyone in this country who dreams of moving into their own place, whether it is to rent or to buy.

    First time buyers and social housing

    Take first time buyers. They are investing a huge amount of money, They are toiling harder than ever to get a foot on the housing ladder. I think it’s right they expect a beautiful home, a beautifully designed home, in return, Whether it’s a studio right they way through to a larger family house.

    Lower incomes should not mean low grade quality.

    That’s something that has really been brought into a sharper focus for me, Dealing with the situation in the aftermath of the horrific events at Grenfell and the work we’re doing, which is a part of that, on the forthcoming Social Housing Green Paper.

    We’ve just completed a national programme of meetings with social housing tenants, we’ve been taking wider views online and we have been able to listen and share views with all of those people who live and breath the life as social housing tenants.

    Many spoke to me believe it or not, you might not intuitively expect it, but many spoke to me about the pride they take in their homes, But they also talked right across the country, from Basingstoke to North Kensington, they also spoke to me about some of the stigma associated with social housing.

    I am convinced that design has a role to play, in inspiring the way social tenants feel about their homes, And piercing some of frankly pretty offensive stereotypes people perceive about those communities.

    For everyone in this country, the way our homes look and how they make us feel is central to our quality of life, Essential for the vibrant and resilient communities we want to build.

    Now I know it sounds a bit soft and fluffy but there’s hard evidence to back up this concept.

    How design quality affects supply

    Design quality has an important role to play in boosting supply. It is not just about quality, but it is interlinked with the number homes we build, Looking at good practice from some of our large-scale developments demonstrates that taking a long-term view, Making sure that you have got great design, Along with the right targeted infrastructure investment, Delivers more of the places where people really want to live, And can also help in the process reduce some of the local opposition we have historically seen in this country.

    Let’s face it, the more attractive the new homes are, The more likely we are to carry communities with us, And the less pressure there will be on local authorities to oppose residential development.

    That’s got to be the win-win we’re striving for in this room.

    I have got no doubt that a focus on quality can drive up the quantity of new homes delivered.

    We can see that from the fine examples of developments being built using modern methods of construction, Whether it’s Kidbrooke Village in Greenwich or Smiths Dock in North Shields.

    And nor should high quality design necessarily cost more.

    That’s one of the key points that we need to demonstrate through research as government, and you need to demonstrate in your practice in terms of rolling out and deploying modern methods of construction.

    Impact on social factors

    Good design can help us deliver more homes more swiftly, that’s important too. And it can also improve people’s health and wellbeing.

    According to Public Health England, high-density living along with good community facilities is associated with increasing positive social interaction. Again that is another illustration if you like of the way smart design can deliver a win-win.

    Of course, proximity to outside spaces matters too – particularly in the context of density. And our parks and green spaces, there is no doubt, the evidence is clear, helping increase health, fitness and mental wellbeing as well.

    So raising the bar on design can help tackle wider issues and indeed it can help tackle wider social issues too. The regeneration of Coventry’s Spirit Quarter saw crime in the area going down, and at the same time the percentage of students leaving school with five or more GCSE grades A* to C go up.

    Government action

    So those are just some of the reasons why this conference is so valuable, For promoting better community engagement, innovation and learning from best practice elsewhere.

    Much of the work will be done by the techies – the architects, the developers, the engineers and the local planners.

    But it’s clear to me the government has a role to play as well. We are putting high quality design at the very heart of what we are doing and it is central really to the mission we’ve got to get Britain building.

    It starts with our planning reforms, which include the revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). I’m sure you have all had a chance to have a look at and study in great detail.

    The revised NPPF strengthens the focus on high-quality design.

    The framework places a renewed emphasis on achieving well-designed places by setting out that new development should add to the overall quality and quality of life of an area, And that permission should be refused if there is poor design – that is a really important step.

    Community engagement

    We want to see development guided by what people want locally, Not some dull homogenous, design that has been pulled out of a bureaucratic top drawer in an office miles away from the community where the people affected are actually going to live it.

    The NPPF promotes early engagement with the community and promotes the use of tools and techniques, using IT an other things, to asses design quality.

    Through the revised NPPF, there will be fewer opportunities for local authorities to lower the expectations or to fail to deliver on the expectations and indeed on their plans.

    We can see already how this approach will add value, for example in the Garden Settlements programme.

    Take Tresham. People from the local area attended workshops to help develop the strategic masterplan, so that was a really important example of where the community were involved from the outset,

    Or Didcot Garden Town, there was an interactive website to encourage more people to get involved in shaping the community as it developed.

    And I think in the same spirit, if you look at the programme on Neighbourhood Plans they will go a long way to increasing the amount of influence the local community has on well-designed development, We have got 560 plans that have been signed off, over 2,400 groups starting have been starting the neighbourhood planning process since 2012. So that is something that is really gathering momentum.

    And I am excited by the sector-led initiatives as well, initiatives like Beauty in my Back Yard, Which is a great way of harnessing IT to help communities participate effectively in local planning, So that good design gets off the drawing board and gets onto the building site.

    Innovation and international practice

    As with Beauty in my Backyard, innovation is crucial to creative design, And I feel that the SMEs in this sector, the new entrants the challengers in the market are often strong drivers of greater creativity and innovation in this area.

    So, I am quite keen to learn, as well as the market leaders in the field, … and, I should add, not just those the UK, I think we have got a lot to learn from some of the innovative practice abroad.

    Many Northern European countries, including Denmark, Sweden and Norway have interesting national policy framework to encourage high quality design in home-building.

    I can see in my own community some of the Scandinavian designs are really popular.

    Beyond Europe, in Australia they uphold good design through clear guidance on expected quality of neighbourhoods and homes.

    Last year the Better Placed policy was launched in New South Wales in Australia. It aligns, it is quite similar with our view that design is not just what a place look like, but also how it works and feels to the people already living in it.

    So in central park in Sydney, they matched higher density with social areas for people to share a meal, to meet or just to mingle.

    And, here at home, we’re promoting innovation by encouraging market diversification, particularly through the Home Building Fund.

    So far 11 schemes, all employing modern methods of construction, have been awarded nearly £1 billion of funding to deliver innovation.

    One of these is Crowthorne in Berkshire, where the delivery of over 1,000 homes has been accelerated using modular methods of construction.

    I hope that all the SMEs invited here today, along with the larger developers, will be pioneers, really blazing the trail in this area, in delivering the most attractively designed homes for our communities.

    Good practice

    And of course I have to mention our new, more assertive housing agency, Homes England because Nick Walkley and his team will be at the heart of our efforts. He has got an excellent team at Homes England and they have got a huge opportunity I think to deliver on our aspirations on better design of new garden settlements, Backed up by £22 million pounds worth of capacity funding for local authorities leading these projects to boost their capabilities …. And that includes getting the design right.

    These garden towns and villages amount to 24 new locally-led communities, with the potential to deliver over 220,000 new homes. It’s a really big slug of supply that goes with the quality we want to see.

    Supporting local authorities

    Local councils too, they are an essential vehicle for delivering better design too and that is what our NPPF revisions are all about.

    Many local authorities told us they really buy into this, they share our ambition for setting high standards of design, but they did say they needed a bit of support in order to realise those aspirations.

    We listened to that feedback.

    And we launched the Planning Delivery Fund last year and awarded 26 local authorities over £5 million to boost their resources and deliver increased design quality in their areas.

    The bids focused on resource to develop masterplans and to accelerate housing delivery … another illustration of the win-win we want to achieve between quality and quantity of the homes.

    Conclusion

    So, with your help, high quality design is well and truly on the map, It is central to our vision of how we can build the homes Britain needs, Whilst carrying local communities with us, And reviving that dream of home ownership we want to see for the next generation.

    This conference today is an important milestone along that journey, it’s not the point of arrival, but the point of departure.

    And it is really an opportunity to showcase your talents, To look at brilliant examples of inspirational design, both in this country and also across the world, And to link up the innovation and creativity of the private sector, With the linchpin roles councils and, of course, government have to play as well.

    Above all, I wanted to take the time out to open the conference really just to demonstrate to all of you that you have a government that is really serious … About delivering not just the number of homes that we need in this country, But also the kinds of homes that families dream of.

    Thank you all very much.

  • Sam Gyimah – 2018 Speech on the Unified Patent Court Agreement

    Below is the text of the speech made by Sam Gyimah, the Minister of State for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation, on 26 April 2018.

    I am delighted to be here on World Intellectual Property Day; my first as IP Minister.

    And I’m delighted to see such a wide cross-section of our IP community here today, including two former IP Ministers and the Chair of the All Party Parliamentary IP Group Pete Wishart, each of whom supports and advocates for IP.

    I want to thank John for the introduction, and for bringing us together today, and I would also like to congratulate him and his organisation on their 25th anniversary this year. Today is as much a celebration of their work as it is of IP.

    And we can all agree – there is much to celebrate.

    The UK is consistently ranked among the best IP regimes in the world. We have topped the Taylor Wessing Global IP Index three times, and we have maintained our second-placed ranking in the recent US Chambers of Commerce International IP Index too.

    Thanks to the Intellectual Property Office and our IP legal community, we offer a world-class rights granting regime.

    As well as encouraging new IP, we are global leaders when it comes to protecting it too.

    The success of the Police IP Crime Unit and the strength of collaboration between local and national enforcement agencies means we are ever more effective at protecting rights holders and consumers.

    Providing those protections gives businesses a sense of certainty. But we were asked to provide further certainty and clarity in our preparations to leave the European Union – something which we’ve done by securing a transition period.

    Now we are well placed to make sure we turn the changes – which will be the central part of our exit – into opportunities.

    One of those opportunities is to make sure we continue to strengthen and develop the international IP framework.

    And today I am pleased to confirm that the UK has ratified the Unified Patent Court agreement and look forward to bringing the court into being.

    But there is continuity too. We will maintain our high level of protection of intellectual property, and we will keep making the case for British innovations.

    As we develop our trading relationships with other countries we will focus on getting the right outcome for UK inventors, creators and consumers, while promoting our outstanding talent to all corners of the world.

    We must be transparent and inclusive as we develop our future trade policy, and we will be working closely with a wide range of stakeholders to develop our priorities around trade and IP.

    I am delighted to have already met some of our important stakeholders, and we have a shared ambition to ensure that IP rights underpin future trade relationships.

    IP is serious business. So, naturally, supporting, protecting and developing it is a fundamental part of the Industrial Strategy.

    It can help us to build on our strengths, extend them into the future, and capitalise on the opportunities before us.

    And it’s a key part of our aim to raise the level of research and development investment to 2.4 per cent of GDP by 2027.

    The recently launched Creative Industries sector deal is a perfect example of this ambition in action.

    The commitment by government and industry to invest nearly £60 million in immersive technologies wouldn’t have happened without a strong IP regime to support innovation, giving us the confidence needed to make that investment.

    But IP isn’t limited to the creative industries. I’m delighted to be standing here on the day we have launched a new deal with our booming artificial intelligence sector. And IP is central here, too.

    Earlier this week I visited IntelligentX, a microbrewery in the heart of London. There, I learned how AI can take feedback, refine flavours, and craft beers to match your exact tastes.

    Now if you ask me, that’s pretty exciting. But artificial intelligence has all kinds of real world benefits which are rather more serious too.

    From streamlining complex services to increasing our productivity, AI is being applied across a whole range of sectors including manufacturing, automotive and financial services sectors.

    Today’s Sector Deal will see government and industry investing almost £1 billion together, strengthening our reputation as a world-leader in innovative technologies.

    This will help us to assert ourselves as one the most attractive places in the world to start and grow an AI business.

    For those businesses – and many others – IP is often their most valuable asset. That is why improving access to finance is so important; it’s essential that a business can built on an idea. But it also needs the means to grow.

    Our plans for providing intensive business readiness support will be complemented by the work of the British Business Bank and the IPO. They are currently exploring the potential for an IP asset-based lending product that would help better secure investment in their ideas.

    We are a nation which backs ambition, and embraces innovation. So we have every reason to back IP.

    Today is a celebration for IPAN; for us and our contribution to a world leading IP system.

    In government, we have a vision of an innovative and resilient economy. And I know it is one that you share.

    I know we all have our eyes the future, and I’m excited to see the role that British IP can play in shaping the world.

    Thank you.