UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Sir John Major – 2017 Martin Gilbert Lecture

    Below is the text of the speech made by Sir John Major, the former Prime Minister, on 14 November 2017.

    When Esther Gilbert invited me to deliver this inaugural Lecture in Martin’s name, I was honoured to be asked, and delighted to accept.

    Many – perhaps most – of you present will have known Martin, enjoyed his friendship, and admired his talent. There was much to enjoy, and a great deal to admire.

    I first met Martin over 30 years ago, and liked him immediately. He was highly intelligent, inquisitive – and interested in everything. He was also self-effacing and modest. Rarely has so much talent been so well concealed.

    And his was a mighty talent. Together with Boswell’s “Life of Johnson”, Martin wrote one of our greatest biographies. His volumes on the life of Winston Churchill may never be bettered. If Churchill was our greatest Briton – and it is easy to argue that he was – then Martin will be remembered as his peerless chronicler.

    Churchill once said that history would treat him kindly because he, himself, would write it! But it will also do so because of Martin’s monumental work.

    Anyone who knew Martin learned very soon that he was a workaholic: his 88 books testify to that. To him, recording history was an obligation seared deeply into his soul. He accompanied me once on a tour of Israel, and sat in on all my meetings – including those with Prime Minister Rabin and Yasser Arafat.

    He recorded – with commentary and colour – every word and action of significance, together with shrewd judgements upon them. If it had been practical to do so, I would have taken Martin everywhere.

    But Martin had other work to do. He wrote extensively, and with affection and insight, of Israel – as well as a comprehensive history of the 20th Century – certainly the most crowded and bloodthirsty Century that history has yet known.

    But, despite his special interests, Martin was an observer of the whole world: he focused on the key events; and – in his writing – not only brought the past to life, but often foresaw what its effects would be.

    The chronicler and historian was also a seer – and his intuitive and enquiring mind over how history unfolded provides my theme for this evening.

    Those famous lines by Rudyard Kipling come to mind:

    “I keep six honest serving men (They taught me all I knew);

    Their names are What and Why and When

    And How and Where and Who.”

    Those were the questions to which Martin always sought answers.

    Martin saw the world as it was. At this moment, we need to see it as it is.

    Some of what is happening today is uplifting: but much is not.

    Forty years ago, four in every ten people in our world lived in dire poverty: today, notwithstanding a near doubling of world population, that has fallen to less than one in every ten.

    Today, and every day, that number falls by a further quarter of a million.

    In the last 25 years, child mortality has halved – and better medicine and diet has saved the lives of 100 million children.

    I could go on. In the midst of the noisy mayhem, it is easy to overlook quiet, meaningful progress.

    We can be proud, too, of the advances in science, in technology, in medicine and in longevity. So much that was once a mystery is now known. So much that once seemed impossible is now a daily occurrence.

    But, while science and humanity have advanced, politics and statesmanship have not. In some ways, we seem have gone backwards.

    The United Nations reports that – only last year – 67 democracies saw a decline in political and civil liberties, and only 36 countries registered gains. Hate crimes have increased. Terror continues unabated.

    In many countries – in and beyond Europe – nationalism and populism has bred intolerance – and has grown. Often, this is the seedbed of autocracy and the signpost to outright dictatorship. History has surely taught us not to ignore this: I know that Martin would never have done so.

    As one looks around the world, there are wars – or civil wars – in Syria, in Iraq, in Libya, in Somalia, in Yemen, in Darfur and, of course, in Afghanistan.

    There are new, and dangerous tensions, in Korea and the South China Sea.

    The Middle East remains part war zone, part uneasy peace, part tinder-box waiting to be lit.

    Syria is a failed state. Sunni–Shia rivalry – epitomised in Saudi–Iranian tensions – de-stabilises the region. The former unity of the Gulf States has gone. Neither Turkey nor Egypt is in a state of grace.

    And, in the twenty years since the assassination of Prime Minister Rabin, an agreed solution to the Arab–Israeli conflict seems further away than ever.

    People sometimes speak of the Middle East as though it were a single problem requiring a single solution. It isn’t: it is many intractable problems – often poisoned by the past, and with emotions too deep and too wide to be readily stilled.

    There are also armed conflicts – too many to list – that in recent years have been seen on every Continent.

    And there are new threats, unlike any we have known before. Many States – and, most probably, terror groups as well – are developing offensive cyber capabilities that could be targeted anywhere. It is conceivable we might not even know we were under attack – or from where that attack had come.

    But we know how it could be deployed. It could hit anything from missile defences to nuclear power plants; to water supplies; to innovative research; to business interests; or to Government secrets. Every interest, including national interest, is potentially vulnerable – in this and every other country.

    We are living through an uneasy time, with an extraordinary diversity of risks. Commonsense would suggest that the most powerful nations of the world would be getting together around a table to address these common problems.

    But they are not – because political squabbles are standing in the way of statesmanship. So, in these turbulent times, we are adrift with no anchor of purpose.

    Solutions require diplomacy and statesmanship, yet – at the moment – both seem in short supply.

    This is worryingly true of the relationship between America and Russia and the EU.

    At the moment, America and Russia look at each other with a level of mistrust not seen since the dog days of the Soviet Union.

    This is not simply the result of grand-standing by Presidents Trump and Putin – although that is a factor. But the root of antagonism lies in intractable political attitudes that are not easily resolved.

    Russia claims American policy is hostile to her interests.

    America believes Russian policy towards her neighbours is aggressive.

    Russia believes America is waging economic war on her, and encouraging regime change. She accuses the West of interfering in her traditional sphere of influence. She is suspicious – and resentful – of NATO expansion into former member nations of the Warsaw Pact.

    America’s concerns are a mirror image. She argues that former Soviet Union countries, now satellites to Russia, have an absolute right to self-determination and sovereignty, and shouldn’t be menaced by Russian ambitions.

    She accuses Russia of invading Ukraine; supporting a despot in Syria; and interfering in the recent American Presidential election.

    There are further disagreements about Iran, Libya and Afghanistan – as well as upon issues of trade and climate change. A failure of diplomacy enables these grievances to curdle – and they are doing so.

    On both sides the charges are deeply felt, and supported by popular opinion in their respective countries: even with goodwill, it would be challenging to resolve them – but at present there is no goodwill.

    And this is relevant because we live in an age in which popular prejudices affect policy more than at any time in modern history.

    Mr Putin – who was elected to make Russia strong again – delights in tweaking Uncle Sam’s nose, because to do so is wildly popular with the Russian people.

    To add to the mix, the EU has its own very similar store of grievances with Russia. It is also out of step with America over policy to contain Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

    Nor does Europe agree with other policies of an erratic American President they neither understand nor much admire. They worry about his commitment to NATO, to free trade, and to America’s European allies.

    In the midst of all this, British electors have voted to leave the EU – albeit without the opportunity to explore an opinion on how we should leave – or what future relations we should maintain. That was denied them with a ballot offering a simple “Yes” or “No” answer to an issue of immense complexity and detail.

    I don’t wish to enter the labyrinth of trade and commerce options with Europe this evening. These are important to our economic and social wellbeing, but the implications of leaving go far wider. Our departure has political consequences that may be as profound as any economic effects.

    Martin, I think, would have focused on these.

    One – for obvious reasons crucial to me – is the question of a customs border between Northern Ireland and the Republic.

    In the Referendum, Tony Blair and I travelled together to Northern Ireland to warn of the risks to such a border – only to have our concerns dismissed. It seemed it was – and remains – the problem no-one wished to confront, and everyone wished to vanish away. But how can it?

    The Peace Process has transformed life – not only in Northern Ireland – but in the South. Relations between Belfast and Dublin have improved beyond measure – and those between London and Dublin are now better than at any time in our history.

    For the last two decades, the lack of any physical border has made a vital contribution to community harmony, as well as trade between North and South. Now, albeit in a different guise, a border is likely to return.

    There is general goodwill to resolve this issue, but no-one has yet found an acceptable way of doing so.

    The obvious options fall foul of partisan politics.

    We could stay in the Single Market and Customs Union. The British Government opposes that.

    We could conduct customs controls within the Republic. The Unionist Parties oppose that.

    We could grant Northern Ireland a unique status in which they, and they alone of the United Kingdom, remain in the Single Market. That is constitutionally hard to accept for the British Government and anathema to the Unionists.

    Such an outcome also has dangers. It would be likely to increase calls for a Border Poll, in which a divided public in Northern Ireland – who voted to remain in the EU – are asked if they still wish to do so by leaving the UK and becoming part of the Republic. This could well lead to violence.

    All these ramifications were not only foreseeable – they were foreseen. Now, those who brushed them aside as of no consequence – or denied them altogether – must find a solution.

    *******

    For a long time, British foreign policy has been based upon the twin pillars of our relations with America and the European Union. To have been straddled between these two economic and political giants has served our interests well.

    But, once we abandon the European Union, we become far more dependent upon only one of those pillars and – for four and possibly eight years – upon a President far less predictable, and less attuned to our free market and socially liberal instincts than his predecessors.

    Despite the romantic view of committed Atlanticists in the UK, the “special relationship” they cherish is not a union of equals. I wish it were – but it isn’t: America dwarfs the UK in economic and military power. Within the EU we can assert ourselves and lead. But raw power matters. With America, we follow.

    And – once the UK leaves the EU – our relationship with the United States will change. America needs a close ally inside the EU: once outside, that can no longer be us.

    At the same time, the EU is focused on a long list of internal problems: Catalonia; Greek debt; immigration; nationalist populism; the future shape of the Union; the intransigency of the Visegrad countries; and, of course – Brexit.

    It is a full agenda, and leaves too little time and energy for external problems.

    It is a dispiriting reality for those of us in the Western democracies that – as autocratic China confidently sets out extraordinary long-term ambitions – the democratic nations of the West appear to be navel-gazing at disputes they do not know how to resolve.

    A decade or so ago, it was easy to argue that the democratic system of the West was irresistibly destined to spread ever more widely. It may yet do so, but there is much less confidence now that it will be admired and copied in countries where, until now, democracy and liberal values have been unknown.

    Almost wherever one looks, democracy – with its gentle instincts of persuasion and consensus – appears to be in trouble, and often in retreat, while populist nationalism and autocracy is growing.

    The characteristics of populist nationalism are becoming easy to recognise. Leaders are said to be charismatic – although in my own view that is a much abused description. Populists deliver personal rule, not democratic rule through the institutions of government.

    They disparage institutions. They promise what cannot be achieved. They dislike bureaucracy, and experts, and independent courts. The media is either their flag-waver or their enemy.

    Their creed is to imply that they alone understand their nation’s problems, and that they alone can solve them. They are not democrats, and when they claim to represent the view of “the people”, they are only ever representing the people who agree with them.

    To recognise this is the first protection against it. We must never be complacent about democracy. It is not a given. For all its shortcomings, it must be cherished and protected.

    When an established democratic system begins to fray – perhaps even fracture – it is time for democratic politicians of all parties to come to its rescue.

    In America, discontent elected President Trump. In France, the old political establishment was shattered on the left and right and President Macron emerged. Less democratic outcomes have been evident in Austria, in the Czech Republic, in Poland and in Hungary.

    In Germany, the far right AFD returned 93 members to the Bundestag. And, in the UK – an anti-establishment, anti-immigration, anti-European Party emerged, flourished for a while, and opened the way for the British to vote to leave the EU.

    None of this means our democratic system is in danger of collapse, but we do need to restore public affection for it.

    For when the public begins to turn away, believing that “all politicians are the same”; that “no-one understands” their everyday problems; that it doesn’t matter who you vote for because “nothing ever changes”, the warning signs are flashing.

    To retrieve its reputation, democratic politics must re-ignite growth and optimism and hope.

    In our own country, it must tackle the obstacles that prevent people from achieving perfectly natural ambitions: to be decently housed, preferably in a home of their own. To have a secure job. To see their children educated well in the state sector. To be able to look forward to reasonable security in retirement.

    In our country, these are modest ambitions, but for many of our young people they are pipe-dreams.

    University students leave full-time education with debts they must repay; they cannot afford homes, even while interest rates are rock bottom; and the collapse of company pension schemes means they must contribute more to their own retirement than any previous generation.

    Collectively, these burdens are a daunting way to start working life.

    The popularity of any leader, or any system of Government, is inextricably linked to raising the living standards of the nation.

    For many decades in the UK living standards rose about 20%, but in the last ten years that figure has fallen to under 2% – with many people literally worse off than they were at the time of the financial crash of 2007.

    This is not just in the UK. It is true, also, of the US and many countries across Europe: it is hardly surprising if there is disillusion: the only surprise is that rebellions against the status quo have been so peaceful.

    I have always believed that, as far as practicable, people should stand on their own two feet. I am committed to the free market and benevolent capitalism.

    But that does not mean “anything goes” capitalism. Nor does it mean the State can ignore its obligations to smooth its citizens’ way to a better quality of life. The State cannot – must not – stand aside where the wellbeing of their people is at stake.

    By this I don’t simply mean the State must offer hand-outs, or subsidies or social benefits: although, for some that will always be necessary.

    What I do mean is that any Government should worry less about Party ideology; less about placating self-interested lobby groups; less about believing their way is the only way – and worry far more about delivering pragmatic policies that enable people to improve their own lifestyle.

    I consider myself very fortunate to have been born – and to have lived – in this country. I would not – could not – live contentedly anywhere else. I am as proud of my country as any Briton.

    But, as we work to secure our nation’s future, we must be realistic about how we are now seen by our friends around the world – and where we stand in the world.

    We are still a sizeable power but – in a world of 7 billion – we 65 million Britons shouldn’t over-inflate our influence.

    We are less than 1% of the world’s population.

    China and India are each around 20%.

    That already matters – but will matter even more as they continue to grow economically.

    On some measures, we are still the fifth (or, possibly, sixth) largest economy in the world: and we can be proud of that. But on other measures we are ninth – or lower – with much larger nations snapping at our heels.

    The world sees that and so must we. And, however you look at it, weakening our ties with Europe and the US can only diminish our influence. To maximise our role, we must use our skills to work with others around the world, and not isolate ourselves within it.

    On occasions such as this, it is natural to focus on the challenges we face. But a more rounded picture also embraces the many achievements we should celebrate.

    Such as the innate humanity – or goodness, if you wish – of so many individual people. One of the glories of our country is the number of those who are involved in voluntary work, in charities, in philanthropy – both great and small, both national and within local communities.

    I look around this room and see friends whose background and activities I know well. I know what they have done in offering their time and their energy and their treasure to others, often unsung but not unnoticed – and I know its effect.

    We can multiply that in every part of our country and – despite the difficulties and concerns I have spoken of – there is a warmth in that, a national empathy, a basic soundness of purpose that makes me positive about our future.

    *******

    When I last saw Martin he was very ill, in hospital unable to speak or move. Esther was with him, and caring for him, with a devotion that I cannot praise too highly. She cared for him, hoped for him, prayed for him, and cried for him. In all that – even in his final illness – Martin was a lucky man.

    During that last visit I talked to Martin – of current events, of the world, of what we had done together. Although he was unable to respond, I am sure that he heard my words, and took in all that was said.

    Even then, in the closing days of his life, his love of yesterday was still married to his curiosity about tomorrow.

    And when we lost him there was one small consolation: ahead of us all, as always, Martin finally learned about the greatest mystery of all.

    We miss him – but we’ll never forget him.

    His books speak to us still – and will continue to do so for generations to come.

    Martin not only left us his history, but also the legacy of this wonderful Learning Centre.

    In the hands of Esther, Harry Solomon, Victor Blank and other distinguished Trustees, this promises to be an intellectual landmark in the lives of many people.

    Martin always believed that – by having a knowledge of the past – the future could be shaped for the better.

    He would have been proud of this Centre.

    And he would have been right to be proud.

    Just as we are right to be proud of – and thankful for – the life and the legacy of our friend, Martin Gilbert.

  • Alan Whitehead – 2018 Speech on Air Quality and Shipping Emissions

    Below is the text of the speech made by Alan Whitehead, the Labour MP for Southampton Test, in the House of Commons on 29 March 2018.

    It is a sad occasion that I cannot entirely join in the good wishes of the Deputy Leader of the House for the Easter Adjournment, because I am still here, along with you, Mr Speaker, and indeed a number of hon. Friends and hon. Members who have come to hear this debate and possibly to intervene briefly. I am very appreciative of their taking the time to stay behind, and indeed, of the Minister for coming along this afternoon to hear the last Adjournment debate before we finally start our Easter recess.

    The city that I represent is home to one of the UK’s largest ports. Southampton’s thriving port hosts large numbers of container vessels, roll-on/roll-off ships transporting vehicles, and many general cargo ships, along with being the main UK base for cruise ships. In just the next five days in Southampton, more than 60 large vessels are due to arrive at the port, including five cruise ships, nine large vehicle/ro-ro vessels and 10 large container ships. They are all very welcome to the port. Southampton port is not just a great asset to Southampton, but is a national trading and passenger asset in its own right.

    The ships are varied in size, content and function, but they all have one thing in common: when they are in port, often for several days at a time, they keep themselves going—their heating, lighting, power and so on—by running their engines and on-board generators as if they were at sea. During that period, a cruise liner, particularly, will consume an enormous amount of fuel—estimated to be some 2,500 litres of diesel per hour—in running its generators and keeping facilities in good order for perhaps 3,000 or 4,000 passengers. If we take account of the crew members and all the other people who are on the vessel, a cruise liner in port in the middle of Southampton running its engines in this way might be likened to a small town, perhaps the size of Romsey, turning up in the middle of a city and running exclusively on diesel generators, with all the consequences that that has for nitrous oxide and particulate emissions across the area.

    At the same time, Southampton is one of 18 cities in the UK facing possible infraction proceedings because of air quality issues in the city. Measures are under way in Southampton on the basis of commendable action by the city council to get a grip on air quality, including a future clean air zone for the city centre. The port of Southampton is working hard on its shoreside emissions. The port overall can be extrapolated as contributing overall perhaps some 25% of total emissions—of nitrous oxide, sulphur and particulates—but to date, it has not been able to do anything about the central fact of ships berthed in the port.

    However, something can be done and indeed is being done in a number of ports across the world—that is, to plug vessels arriving in port into the port’s mains electricity system, so that a ship can switch off its engines and rely on shore power to do the job. Ports in a number of parts of the world, including the United States, the far east and some parts of Europe, have installed shore-to-ship ​electrical supplies—essentially a very large plug deriving electrical supply from local power that goes into an equally large socket on the ship at berth to take over the running of the ship’s power in port.

    Shore-to-ship power is a very simple and relatively low-cost alternative to ships powering themselves when in ports close to densely populated areas. It also, potentially, makes money for ships at berth, since it is far cheaper for them to run on local power than to burn bunker fuel while in port. It certainly saves on emissions: a recent study in the United States showed that cruise vessels using shore power in one location saved 99% of their nitrous oxide emissions and between 60% and 70% of particulate emissions. Increasing numbers of vessels visiting ports in the UK now have the equipment on board that allows them to plug in. The problem is, though, that there are no shore facilities installed in Southampton, or indeed in any medium or large commercial port anywhere in the UK.

    Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab) My hon. Friend is making a very strong case for the argument he outlines. Does he believe that the absence of the shore-to-ship power supply is caused by a lack of regulation? Will he come on to what the shipping companies are expected to be able to do in terms of plugging in? Is it the responsibility of the port? Have the Government legislated on what ought to be the best practice in ports?

    Dr Whitehead My hon. Friend has raised some important points, and I shall touch on some of them in a moment. There are currently no regulations that would mandate the introduction of shore-to-ship power, although it is possible that European Union directives could be used for the purpose.

    To the credit of Southampton port, it is looking into whether it can install facilities in one cruise liner berth, but, as far as I know, it is alone in that. No other major port in the United Kingdom is following suit. The arguments that are presented for doing nothing about it are multiple and familiar. It is argued that not enough ships have the facilities to “plug in”, so it would be a waste of money, or that it is too expensive to take the plunge unilaterally, or that there are other ways in which emissions from ships might be reduced.

    Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab) My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. As he will know, my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) and I have concerns about the Enderby Wharf cruise liner terminal that is planned for East Greenwich. In that instance, the developer is saying that the cruise liner company with which it is working does not have the necessary technology. Is there not a role for the Government here? Could they not regulate to encourage cruise liner companies to upgrade and retrofit their fleets so that they can utilise this option when ports and terminals take it up?

    Dr Whitehead There is certainly a case for doing that. In California, regulations require a certain proportion of ships visiting ports to use shore-to-ship facilities. However, in California the facilities are already there.

    The arguments for doing nothing have some limited grounds, but unless the facilities are there, ships will have no incentive to equip themselves to use them, and, ​as I have said, there is currently no mandate for their use. Equipping a berth for large vessels would cost about £3 million, and fully equipping all Britain’s major and medium-sized ports would probably come to about £100 million.

    Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op) Before I came to this place, I was a deputy executive member on Leeds City Council, and I attended many workshops with Southampton city councillors where I heard those same arguments. It was said that Southampton and other city councils were too hard pressed to introduce such measures. Does my hon. Friend agree that they are doing all that they can, but need Government support?

    Dr Whitehead I do agree, and in a moment I shall refer to the support that the Government might be able to provide. If we are to roll out shore-to-ship power across the country, we shall need a combination of stick and carrot.

    The £100 million that I have just mentioned would, however, largely be recovered—eventually—in fees in subsequent years, because ships coming into port would be charged for the electricity that they used, although it would be cheaper for them than using their own bunker fuel. It is true that some companies are making an effort to modify the fuel that is used by generators when ships are in port so that they run on, say, liquid petroleum gas rather than diesel or bunker fuel, but nothing comes close to the benefit of shore-to-ship supply.

    So how can we make a break in the apparent stand-off that currently exists in the UK? Ports may be aware that shore-to-ship power is beginning to happen seriously around the world, and ships are increasingly turning up ready to go, but everyone is looking over their shoulder to see whether anyone else is moving first. It might, commendably, be Southampton—although even then the initiative is for only one berth, which is a start but leaves a long way to go—but Southampton should not be in such a position.

    My central call this afternoon is for Government to take the lead in the creation of a level playing field for all ports in the UK for shore-to-ship installations by giving notice of an intention to mandate their use in ports by a specified date and, if I can venture a suggestion, to place aside a modest fund to assist ports in installing the necessary equipment over the specified implementation period.

    That is not exactly a novel idea, because an EU directive already exists—directive 2014/94/EU, to be precise, known as the alternative fuels infrastructure directive or AFID. It says this on shore-to-ship power, in article 4(5):

    “Member States shall ensure that the need for shore-side electricity supply for inland waterway…and seagoing ships in maritime and inland ports is assessed in their national policy frameworks. Such shore-side electricity supply shall be installed as a priority in ports of the TEN-T Core Network, and in other ports, by 31 December 2025”.

    Article 4(6) states:

    “Member States shall ensure that shore-side electricity supply installations for maritime transport, deployed or renewed as from 18 November 2017, comply with the technical specifications set out in point 1.7 of Annex II.”

    The Government have consulted and responded to the consultation on the directive, except that in the consultation they have scrupulously put the implementation of article 4(6) into train by insisting that statutory operators​
    “must ensure that new or renewed shore side supply installations must comply with certain technical standards”.

    Frankly, I imagine that that will be fairly easy to comply with given that none exist. Of course, there is not a mention in the consultation or response of the rather more difficult point made in article 4(5).

    In other words, as far as I can see, the Department does not intend to do anything about that. So my other call this afternoon—or rather perhaps a question—is about why the Department has apparently ignored one of the central points of the alternative fuels directive. Does it intend to put that right and get on with a programme of installing shore-to-ship charging before we are no longer mandated to do so at the end of the transition period of leaving the EU? Or does it just intend that such a mandate might just slip away and get lost after our exit from the EU is complete? If the latter is the case, that will be a sad outcome both for Southampton and all the populations of the ports around the country who welcome and support the port activity in their towns and cities but want those ports to be contributors to the health and clean air of their cities rather than detractors.

    I hope that the Minister has a positive response for me this afternoon so that I can wish her, as well as everybody else, a happy Easter.

    Jim Fitzpatrick I sensed that my hon. Friend was heading to a conclusion. At the beginning of his speech, he said how important the port of Southampton is for the wellbeing of the city, so will he confirm that this is not an attack on shipping, which is a fundamental industry for the UK economy? Members want to support shipping and are asking the Government for leadership in ensuring that shipping is more environmentally friendly and clean in the future. That will mean that when new cruise terminals are proposed for places such as the centre of London, people will welcome that because of the economic benefit it will bring and because they know that it will operate on an environmentally clean basis.

    Dr Whitehead My hon. Friend makes an important point, which I want to emphasise a little more. The presence of the port and all the activity that goes on with it are wholly welcomed in Southampton. I am sure that that is exactly the same in other cities that are close to and host major ports in the UK. Those cities do not want to see the end of those ports; indeed, they want to see development and thriving arrangements. All the boroughs around those cities have a joint interest in ensuring that the ports thrive as best they can. Over the years, Southampton has been substantially supportive of the growth and development of the port, but we want ports to work on the same basis as everyone else, cleaning up the air around us and ensuring that we can live in an environment that is conducive to the thriving of those ports for the future.

    Hoping that the Minister has a positive response for me this afternoon, I will end with the thought that that response will literally enable my constituents to breathe more easily.

  • David Gauke – 2018 Statement on John Worboys

    Below is the text of the statement made by David Gauke, the Secretary of State for Justice, in the House of Commons on 28 March 2018.

    With permission, Mr Speaker, I’d like to make a statement on the High Court judgment handed down this morning in the case relating to the Parole Board decision to release John Radford, formerly known as John Worboys.

    This is an important and unprecedented case. The President of the Queen’s Bench Division, Sir Brian Leveson, the most senior judge who heard this case said – it is wholly exceptional. It is the first time that a Parole Board decision to release a prisoner has been challenged and the first time that the rules on the non-disclosure of Parole Board decisions have been called into question.

    The judgment quashes the Parole Board’s decision to release Worboys and finds that Rule 25 of the Parole Board Rules is unlawful.

    This means that Worboys’ case will now be resubmitted to the Parole Board. A new panel will be constituted and updated evidence on his risk from prison and probation professionals will be provided. The panel will then assess anew whether Worboys is suitable for release.

    Those victims, covered by the Victim Contact Scheme, will be fully informed and involved in this process.

    My department also has to reformulate the Parole Board’s rules to allow more transparency around decision making and reasoning.

    Mr Speaker, it is clear that there was widespread concern about the decision by the Parole Board to release Worboys. As I have previously told the House, I share these concerns and, consequently I welcome the judgment.

    I want to congratulate the victims who brought the judicial review and to reiterate my heartfelt sympathy for all victims who have suffered as a result of Worboys’ hideous crimes.

    Mr Speaker, I want to set out, in greater detail than I have previously been able, the reasons why I did not bring a judicial review.

    As I told the House on 19 January, I looked carefully at whether I could challenge this decision. It would have been unprecedented for the Secretary of State to bring a judicial review against the Parole Board – a body which is independent but for which my department is responsible.

    I took expert legal advice from Leading Counsel on whether I should bring a challenge. The bar for judicial review is set high. I considered whether the decision was legally irrational – in other words, a decision which no reasonable Parole Board could have made.

    The advice I received was that such an argument was highly unlikely to succeed. And, indeed, this argument did not succeed. However, the victims succeeded in a different argument.

    They challenged that, while Ministry of Justice officials opposed release, they should have done more to put forward all the relevant material on other offending.

    They also highlighted very significant failures on the part of the Parole Board to make all the necessary inquiries and so fully take into account wider evidence about Worboys’ offending.

    I also received advice on the failure of process argument and was advised that this was not one that I as Secretary of State would have been able to successfully advance.

    The victims were better placed to make this argument and this was the argument on which they have won their case.

    It is right that the actions of Ministry officials, as well as the Parole Board, in this important and unusual case have been laid open to judicial scrutiny.

    I have always said I fully support the right of victims to bring this action. I have been very concerned at every point not to do anything to hinder the victims’ right to challenge and to bring their arguments and their personal evidence before the court.

    Indeed, the judgment suggests that, had I brought a case, the standing of the victims may have been compromised.

    The Court’s findings around how this decision was reached give rise to serious concerns.

    The Court has found that “the credibility and reliability” of Worboys’ account in relation to his previous offending behaviour “was not probed to any extent, if at all” by the Parole Board. And that although the Parole Board was entitled to make enquiries of the police in relation to his offending it did not do so.

    These are serious failings which need serious action to address. In these circumstances, I have accepted Professor Nick Hardwick’s resignation as Chair of the organisation.

    I am also taking the following actions:

    Instructing my officials to issue new guidance that all relevant evidence of past offending should be included in the dossiers submitted to the Parole Board, including possibly police evidence, so that it can be robustly tested in each Parole Board hearing.

    Putting in place robust procedures to check that every dossier sent by HMPPS to the Parole Board contains every necessary piece of evidence – including sentencing remarks or other relevant material from previous trials or other civil legal action.

    Boosting the role of the Secretary of State’s representative at Parole Board hearings – with a greater presumption that they should be present for those more complex cases where HM Prison and Probation Service is arguing strongly against release, as was the case here.

    Working with the Parole Board to review the composition of panels so that the Parole Board includes greater judicial expertise for complex, high profile cases – particularly where multiple victims are involved or where there is a significant dispute between expert witnesses as to the suitability for release.
    And develop more specialist training for Parole Board panel members.
    The judgment also found that blanket ban on the transparency of Parole Board proceedings is unlawful. I accept the finding of the Court and will not be challenging this.

    It was my view from the beginning that very good reasons would be needed to persuade me we should continue with a law that doesn’t allow any transparency. I am now considering how the Rule should be reformulated. When I addressed the House on this matter in January, I said I had commissioned a review into how victims were involved in Parole Board decisions, in the transparency of the Parole Board and on whether there should be a way of challenging Parole Board decisions. That work has been continuing for these past two and a half months.

    Given the very serious issues identified in this case, I can announce today that I intend to conduct further work to examine the Parole Board rules in their entirety.

    As a result of the work that has been completed to date, I have already decided to abolish rule 25 in its current form and will do so as soon as possible after the Easter recess. This will enable us to provide for the Parole Board to make available summaries of the decisions they make to victims.

    In addition, I will bring forward proposals for Parole Board decisions to be challenged through an internal review mechanism where a separate judge-led panel will look again at cases which meet a designated criterion.

    I intend to consult on the detail of these proposals by the end of April alongside other proposals to improve the way that victims are kept informed about the parole process. I am grateful to Baroness Newlove for her help with this part of the review and to Dame Glenys Stacey for her helpful suggestions and review of the way that victim liaison operated in this case.

    I will come back to the House with further proposals as these are developed. But in conclusion Mr Speaker, let no-one doubt the seriousness with which I take the issues raised by this morning’s judgment – nor the bravery of the victims who brought this case to Court.

    I commend this statement to the House.

  • Matt Hancock – 2018 Statement on Sky/Fox Merger

    Matt Hancock

    Below is the text of the statement made by Matt Hancock, the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, in the House of Commons on 3 April 2018.

    Mr Speaker, I am here in my new capacity as the quasi-judicial decision-maker in relation to the proposed merger between 21st Century Fox and Sky Plc to update the House regarding the CMAs interim report that they issued today.

    The decision-making role is one that my Rt Hon Friend, the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands discharged having met her commitment – given many times on the floor of this House – to the greatest possible transparency and openness the process allows.

    And while I come to this fresh I intend to follow that process of being as open as possible while respecting the quasi-judicial nature of the decision.

    Background and referral

    As this House well knows, after the proposed acquisition was formally notified to the competition authorities last year, my Rt Hon Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands issued an Intervention Notice on media public interest grounds – namely of media plurality and genuine commitment to broadcasting standards. This triggered a Phase 1 investigation of the merger, requiring Ofcom to report on the specified public interest grounds and the CMA on jurisdiction.

    Having received advice from Ofcom and from the CMA, in September she referred the proposed Sky / Fox merger to the CMA for a Phase 2 investigation on both grounds.

    CMA’s final report

    The original statutory deadline for the final report was 6 March but the CMA has, today, confirmed that this will be extended by a further eight weeks and that the revised deadline is 1 May.

    Once I have received that final report I must come to a decision on whether – taking into account the specified public interest considerations of media plurality and genuine commitment to broadcasting standards – the merger operates or may be expected to operate against the public interest.

    Following receipt of the final report, I will have 30 working days in which to publish my decision on the merger – so if I receive the CMA’s report on 1 May that would be 13 June.

    CMA’s provisional report

    To be clear the publication today is the CMA’s provisional findings. I have placed a copy in the House Library.

    With regards to the need for a genuine commitment to broadcasting standards – the CMA provisionally finds that the merger is not expected to operate against the public interest.

    On media plurality grounds the CMA provisional finding is that the merger may be against the public interest. It cites concerns that the transaction could reduce the independence of Sky News and would reduce the diversity of viewpoints available to, and consumed by, the public. It also raised concerns that the Murdoch Family Trust would have increased influence over public opinion and the political agenda.

    The CMA has identified three remedy approaches and seeks views from interested parties on them. These remedy approaches are:

    Firstly, to prohibit the transaction.

    Secondly, undertake structural remedies – either to recommend the spin-off of Sky News into a new company, or to recommend the divestiture of Sky News.

    Thirdly, behavioural remedies which could for example include enhanced requirements around the editorial independence of Sky News.

    The CMA also recognises that the proposed acquisition of Fox by Disney could address concerns set out in the provisional findings; however the uncertainty about whether, when, or how, that transaction will complete means the CMA has also set out potential approaches which include introducing remedies which would fall away subject to the Disney / Fox transaction completing.

    The CMA has invited written representations on the provisional report’s findings, and the potential remedy approaches, with 21st Century Fox and Sky – as well as other interested parties – before producing a final report.

    As such, and given the quasi-judicial nature of this process, I hope the House will understand that I cannot comment substantively on the provisional report before us and I must wait for the final report before I comment.

    Debate

    I am, however, aware of the keen interest of the House on this important matter. I know that Right Honourable and Honourable Members will be closely scrutinising the CMA’s provisional findings and will have views on them.

    The CMA’s investigation will continue over the coming weeks – it has set out the process for making representations on the remedy options outlined, and on the provisional findings, with deadlines of 6 February and 13 February, respectively. I feel sure that today’s debate will provide helpful context for that work.

    Next steps

    What I am able to confirm today is that – I will undertake to keep the House fully informed, and follow the right and proper process considering all the evidence carefully when the time comes to make my decision on receipt of the CMA’s final report.

    I commend this statement to the House.

  • Theresa May – 2018 Easter Message

    Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May, the Prime Minister, on 1 April 2018.

    Easter is the most important time in the Christian calendar.

    A time when we remember Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, and give thanks for the promise of redemption afforded by his resurrection.

    Over the last year, Britain has faced some dark moments, from the terrorist attacks at Westminster Bridge and London Bridge, at Manchester Arena and Finsbury Park, and the fire at Grenfell Tower.

    I know from speaking to the victims and survivors of these terrible events how vital the love and support they have received from their friends, family and neighbours has been to them as they begin to rebuild their lives. In the bravery of those facing adversity, the dedication of our emergency services, and the generosity of local communities, we see the triumph of the human spirit.

    The Easter story contains an inspiring promise of new life and the triumph of hope.

    For Christians around the world facing persecution, the message of the Cross and the resurrection help them to stand firm in their faith.

    Here in Britain, Easter arrives with the coming of spring – a time of rebirth and renewal.

    It is a chance for families to come together, to share a meal, to be outdoors and to enjoy the first stirring of nature after winter.

    However you are spending this Easter, I hope that you have a happy and peaceful time.

  • Michael Fallon – 2013 Speech to Npower Business Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Michael Fallon, the then Minister of State for Energy, on 6 June 2013.

    Introduction

    Innovation has always been the key to successful energy policy.

    It has never been as simple as rolling out one proven means of power-generation. On the contrary, we have always endeavoured to find new sources in new places, whether we look at the first generation of nuclear power stations in the 50s, or the opening up of the North Sea in the 60s.

    In the past, innovation has given us access to more – and therefore more secure – energy, and at lower cost.

    Today, it must also mean cleaner energy, so that we can move towards a low carbon economy and a sustainable, secure, affordable energy future.

    I am going to set out what Government is doing to set the framework for an innovative, diverse energy mix and I will talk about some particular technologies at the forefront of energy policy.

    Electricity Market Reform – Outline

    Electricity Market Reform is the framework which will deliver the cleaner energy and reliable supplies that we need, at the lowest possible cost.

    Set out in the Energy Bill, which reached the House of Lords this week, EMR will attract £110 billion investment in this decade alone – the amount needed to replace our ageing energy infrastructure with a diverse and low-carbon mix.

    This is essential to keeping our homes heated, our industries powered and our lights on.

    Renewables, fossil-fuel plant equipped with Carbon Capture and Storage, gas and nuclear will all play their part.

    Diversity will provide security for our electricity supplies and the low carbon mix will help us meet our emissions and renewables targets.

    It’s not only that this will power our economy – the investment will also directly create jobs and growth across the UK.

    Electricity Market Reform – detail

    EMR works with the market and encourages competition, thereby minimising costs to consumers as we attract the investment we need.

    Costs to consumers will fall only when the new plant start generating, with costs spread over the operational lifetime of the schemes.

    At the core of our reforms is a new mechanism, the Feed-in Tariff with Contracts for Difference.

    These long term contracts will provide long-term electricity price stability, and therefore revenue certainty, to developers and investors in technologies such as carbon capture and storage, renewables and nuclear.

    Competition will bring down overall costs and, eventually, provide a level playing field where low-carbon generation can compete without support with other technologies in the electricity market.

    We will also introduce a Capacity Market, to ensure that sufficient reliable capacity is available to meet electricity demand as it increases over the next decade.

    These new mechanisms will be underpinned by a robust and transparent institutional framework which will provide certainty for industry and investors.

    Energy Bill

    The Bill is making good progress through parliament. This is a reflection not only of Coalition consensus around our reforms, but also representative of cross-party agreement on our objectives for the sector.

    Discussion in the Commons has been wide-ranging – covering issues ranging from the setting of a decarbonisation target for 2030 to transparency. This debate is healthy and welcome – it is hugely encouraging that these discussions are around the fine-tune EMR rather than a disagreement with the underlying principles.

    We are on track to achieve Royal Assent of the Energy Bill by the end of this year, setting in law the framework for Electricity Market Reform, and allowing the first Contracts for Difference to be signed in 2014.

    Decarbonisation Target

    The new Government clauses added to the Energy Bill enable the Secretary of State to set a legally binding 2030 decarbonisation target for the electricity sector in 2016.

    These provisions enable the Government to set the world’s first legally binding target range for power sector decarbonisation and they do this in the right way by taking into account the needs of investors for clarity about the long term, the costs to consumers, and the transition of the whole economy to meet our 2050 target.

    A decision to exercise this power will be taken once the Committee on Climate Change has provided advice on the level of the 5th Carbon Budget and when the government has set this budget, which is due to take place in 2016.

    This timing ensures that any target would be set at the same time as the fifth carbon budget, which covers the corresponding period and within the overall framework of the Climate Change Act.

    This means that a target would not be set in isolation but in the context of considering the pathway of the whole economy towards our 2050 target, and making sure we do that in a way that minimises costs both to the economy as a whole and to bill payers.

    North Sea

    Last century, electricity generation was dominated by fossil fuels. Oil and gas will remain central to the UK’s energy mix as we make the transition to a low carbon economy.

    We continue to work closely with industry and we have a fiscal regime that encourages further investment, bringing forward new UK fields while the existing infrastructure is in still place.

    Working together, my two Departments have launched an Oil & Gas Industrial Strategy to maximise recovery, maintain competitiveness, and promote growth of the UK supply chain.

    Shale Gas

    Shale gas is a prime example of a new option available because of technological innovation. A combination of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling have opened the possibility of exploiting fuel which were deemed too difficult or too costly to extract just a few years ago.

    It is true that shale has led to significant price falls in the US. However, we are still at an early stage in the UK and need to explore and prove the potential, safely and while protecting the environment.

    Despite some far-fetched claims in the media about the implications of shale gas for the UK, there is no doubt that it has the potential to add to indigenous energy supplies.

    We are building momentum – by setting up the Office for Unconventional Gas and Oil; taking forward work on a new onshore licensing round; and planning to incentivise shale gas development, as announced in the Budget.

    Carbon Capture and Storage

    Carbon Capture and Storage will have a critical role to play in reducing emissions in the UK and allowing gas and coal to continue to participate in our future low carbon energy mix.

    We want to see CCS deployed at scale in the 2020s, competing on cost with other low carbon technologies.

    To make this happen, Government has created a comprehensive programme, including a CCS competition with £1bn capital funding available.

    Our two Preferred and two Reserve bidders were announced in the Budget. We aim to sign FEED contracts in the summer; with decisions to be taken in early 2015 to construct up to two full projects.

    These projects offer us the opportunity to ensure that both gas and coal generation have a hugely reduced impact on our carbon emissions.

    Renewables

    We are strongly committed to a long-term future for the UK renewables – a commitment underpinned by a publicly-stated annual budget of £7.6bn for low-carbon electricity by 2020.

    However, our ambition extends beyond 2020. Our goal is to put renewables firmly in the energy mix over the period of the 4th carbon budget.

    To take marine energy, we have prioritised funding for the next big step for the industry: the move to the first arrays. Firstly through DECC’s £20m Marine Energy Array Demonstrator – MEAD for short; and secondly through prioritising marine energy projects in accessing EU NER 300 funding.

    As a result, a Scottish Power Renewables’ and a Marine Current Turbines’ projects were recently awarded around 40m € in total of NER 300 funding. This represents a tremendous opportunity for these two UK projects to demonstrate the sector’s future potential.

    New Nuclear

    The UK has everything to gain from becoming the number one destination to invest in new nuclear.

    We are in negotiations with NNB Genco about the potential terms of an Investment Contract (an early form of CfD) that might enable a decision on their Hinkley Point C project – for which planning consent has been granted.

    The last quarter of 2012 also saw the successful sale of Horizon Nuclear Power to Hitachi, regulatory approval of the EPR reactor design, and the beginning of site characterisation work at Moorside.

    Direct Innovation

    The government also invests directly into a variety of smaller projects across a broad portfolio of innovative technologies – in excess of £800m in this spending review.

    This will ultimately drive down the costs of new low-carbon technologies, making clean energy cheaper for householders and businesses.

    Business Consumers

    I know higher energy bills are hitting businesses hard.

    Competition is key to keeping prices as low as possible. Although there is more competition in the business supply market than in the domestic market, we need to see greater engagement from small business consumers.

    Ofgem’s non domestic retail market review proposals will provide greater protection and clearer information to small business customers to help them engage in the market.

    Ofgem plan to introduce new enforceable standards of conduct will mean suppliers will have to act promptly to put things right when they have made a mistake.

    And they will widen existing licence conditions to enable up to 160,000 extra smaller businesses to benefit from clearer contract information on their bills.

    Energy Intensive Industries are also critical to the UK economy and the Government is committed to ensuring that they remain competitive. We announced the £250 million package of compensation for these industries whose international competitiveness are most at risk from indirect costs of the Carbon Price Floor and the EU Emissions Trading Scheme.

    Conclusion / Energy Efficiency

    So, Government is legislating to put in place a framework which will see our energy supply diversified to meet our energy goals: secure, low-carbon, affordable.

    And work is underway across the board to facilitate the development or deployment of promising power generation technologies.

    One final area of innovation which may be of particular interest to businesses is energy efficiency.

    The Coalition Government has a mission to seize this opportunity. The Energy Efficiency Strategy sets out actions to exploit untapped, cost-effective potential.

    We estimate that we could be saving the equivalent to 22 power stations in 2020.

    And we have also brought forward amendments to the Energy Bill so that a financial incentive to encourage permanent reductions in electricity demand can be delivered through the Capacity Market.

    The Electricity Demand Reduction incentive would be available to a range of sectors and technologies and could target reductions at peak demand and so incentivise reduction at times when it is more valuable.

    As you will appreciate, doing more with less makes economic sense for businesses and for the country.

  • Michael Fallon – 2013 Speech to the Renewable UK Offshore Wind Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Michael Fallon, the then Minister of State for Energy, on 12 June 2013.

    Introduction

    Good morning.

    I’m very pleased to be here today speaking at this important event.

    This is my first speech to RenewableUK since I was asked by the Prime Minister to take on my energy role within DECC, whilst still retaining my responsibilities as Business Minister with the Department for Business Innovation & Skills.

    This is a wide portfolio but it makes perfect sense. I believe that my role offers the opportunity to ensure that two of Government’s top priorities are taken forward in a co-ordinated manner. DECC has the vital task of ensuring that we have clean and affordable energy and tackle climate change, whilst BIS are responsible for helping to deliver our growth agenda. In offshore wind there are large synergies between these areas which I’ll mention later.

    I haven’t come into my energy role totally cold as I have a personal history with the subject. Between 1987 and 1988 I was Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Secretary of State for Energy. A lot has changed since then particularly in relation to renewables, the realisation of focus on climate change, and changes in our energy self sufficiency as production of our oil and gas has declined.

    Offshore Wind – a UK Success Story

    Back in 1988 there was not an offshore wind industry anywhere. Now I’m speaking to you when the UK has more installed offshore wind than everyone else in the world put together.

    UK leads the world.

    The UK leads the world in offshore wind. This is a major success story and one we should all be proud of. One that you have helped contribute to.

    Not only do we have more installed offshore wind we also have the largest wind farms and a real knowledge base about how to build offshore windfarms.

    This year we have passed the 3GW mark for fully installed capacity. London Array, the largest offshore wind farm in the world, has become fully operational, Lincs and Teesside are nearing completion, Gwynt y Mor and West of Duddon Sands are installing at sea.

    These are signs of an industry which is driving forward and making a real difference to UK energy.

    So can I now stop there and say everything is obviously working well, exhort you to keep up the good work and leave it at that? Well no, I can’t.

    There are a number of areas where Government and Industry have to work together, constructively, to ensure the sector maximises its potential. I will now spend some time talking about these.

    The Economic Opportunity

    As a Government our priority is ensuring long term economic growth. The economy needs to get going again. And to do this infrastructure is critical.

    The scale of investment needed in energy infrastructure dwarfs that of any other area – including transport, telecoms or water. That’s because of a lack of investment to replace energy generation and energy networks that are now getting to the end of their normal lifetime.

    Between now and 2020, 20 per cent of our energy generation will go offline, some of the coal plants and some of the old nuclear plants are coming off line, so we have got to replace that just to stand still.

    And of course we need to invest in low carbon electricity generation in its many forms.

    Between now and 2020, outside oil and gas; we believe there is £110 billion of investment we need to attract.

    And we know if we are going to do that, to meet that challenge to upgrade the UK’s infrastructure, we have got to make sure that investors want to come to the UK. – This is one of the main reasons for our Electricity Market Reforms, and I am pleased to say the Bill received its 3rd reading in the House of Commons.

    EMR will provide certainty to investors with long-term electricity price stability in low carbon generation. This will be achieved through Contracts for Difference (CfDs) within a framework that will allow us to treble the current levels of support for low carbon technologies to £7.6bn per year by 2020.

    So our driving force is to make sure what we are doing creates a long term, stable, predictable framework backed by political consensus and a new legal framework.

    I am committed to helping investment to come forward in advance of the Contract for Difference regime. That is why the Government launched the Final Investment Decision Enabling for Renewables project in March. Further details on the second phase of the process will be published shortly.

    This will bring certainty to this transition period and will give investors the confidence to invest. And if they have the confidence to invest, the supply chain will have the confidence, in turn, to make investments and expand.

    Increasing UK benefit

    It’s not just about investment in generating capacity, we are determined to turn that investment into UK jobs.

    In offshore wind, whilst there have been notable successes across the UK, I think we all agree that we need to deliver greater growth and opportunities for the UK-based supply chain.. UK content levels are low and we must do more. Consumers support offshore wind through their bills and expect there should be economic benefit in terms of UK jobs and value.

    I share that expectation.

    I can assure you this is of vital importance to the Government. The opportunity for growth and jobs is the reason why offshore wind is one of the sectors in which Government is developing a long term partnership with industry, through the Industrial Strategy programme launched last September.

    The forthcoming Offshore Wind Industrial Strategy, which will be published later this summer alongside the EMR draft delivery plan which will set out draft strike prices, will set out how we will work together to deliver this growth, increasing investment in the UK supply chain and building a competitive advantage.

    I passionately believe that UK industry can compete on price and on quality. Through the Industrial Strategy, we will deliver a coherent programme to enable UK industry to take advantage of the opportunities on offer.

    Many of you here today have been involved in developing the proposals for action in the industrial strategy and I thank you for this.

    We are not waiting until the strategy is published to deliver these actions. Tomorrow’s programme includes a Share Fair where a number of developers will present details of their upcoming projects and procurement process – giving greater visibility to supply chains is one of the priorities identified by the industrial strategy partnership. I strongly endorse this initiative and encourage supply chain companies to go to the Share Fair and find out more about the business opportunities available.

    This concept is drawn from the oil and gas sector so this is an example of how we are sharing thinking between sectors through the industrial strategy programme.

    Alongside enabling companies to diversify into the offshore wind market, it is vital to attract inward investment into the UK. Our country is the most attractive in the world for investment in offshore wind. And by attracting investment from the top tier of the supply chain it will open up opportunities for the deeper supply chain.

    Today I can announce that we will be forming an Offshore Wind Investment Organisation to significantly increase the levels of inward investment to the UK. This Investment Organisation will be an industry-led partnership with Government, headed by a senior industry figure and complementing the work of DECC and BIS. It will be measured on tangible results and will focus on the offshore wind supply chain.

    So we are making real progress now to deliver the ideas being developed in the context of the industrial strategy partnership. And we won’t stop after the strategy has been published. The real value will lie in the long term partnership between Government and industry.

    The critical importance of cost reduction

    Efforts to build the UK-based supply chain and increase competition also have the potential to play an important role in helping to reduce costs.

    Offshore wind is currently more expensive than many other forms of electricity generation. This is a statement of fact. Whilst all of us here are well aware of the benefits of offshore wind we simply cannot ignore economic aspects.

    Offshore wind is still a relatively new technology and new forms of energy generation tend to be more expensive and require support to until they become established. The Renewables Obligation, which has served the sector well, and the new Contracts for Difference recognise this.

    But we should never lose sight of the fact that pressure on consumer bills is a real issue. Of course we all know that it has been rising gas prices that have been the main driver of increases to bills and that the costs of wind in an average household bill are relatively small. But it’s imperative that costs of offshore wind fall substantially.

    If I can sum this up frankly, the further costs can fall the greater the potential for more offshore wind to be built.

    So, can cost reduction be achieved?

    The easy answer is that it must. I am very encouraged the Cost Reduction Task Force concluded that costs can be reduced to £100MW/h by 2020 and that the Offshore Wind Programme Board is now actively addressing the recommendations made by the Task Force. I am very pleased to note that RenewableUK are publishing, at this conference, an updated version of the project timelines for future offshore wind farms, a key recommendation from the Task Force This will provide clarity and confidence to the supply chain and help to aid and inform investment decisions.

    Innovation in offshore wind also has the potential to deliver significant cost-reductions.

    I am therefore pleased to announce three innovation projects we are supporting as part of our Offshore Wind Components Technologies Scheme:

    Power Cable Services Limited, based in Kent, have been awarded a £540,000 grant towards their high voltage subsea cable jointing technology project
    Aquasium Technology Ltd with partners Burntisland Fabrications Ltd and TWI have been awarded a grant of £769,600 towards their cost-effective fabrication project

    Wind Technologies Ltd (Cambridge) have been awarded a £728,355 grant to design, manufacture and test an innovative 5MW medium speed drive train concept

    Ultimately our long-term vision is for low-carbon generation to compete fairly on cost, without financial support and delivering the best deal for the consumer. We must be clear on this point – we want the least cost approach to meet our climate change targets and offshore wind have to compete with other technologies.

    Post 2020 role of the sector

    Government also has an important role to listen, and I am well aware of the consistent messages you have given regarding the need to ensure there is a long-term market for offshore wind. This of course is very much linked to cost reduction and our industrial strategy.

    We fully acknowledge that investors take long term decisions and that it doesn’t all stop at 2020. After 2020 we will still need low carbon generation and offshore wind will be an important part of a diverse and secure low carbon energy mix.

    And last week Ed Davey announced that the UK has agreed to support an EU wide binding emission reduction target of 50% by 2030 in the context of a global climate deal and even a unilateral 40% target without a global deal. There is no doubt that we will need significant levels of renewable and other low carbon energy to meet such an ambitious target.

    2030 Renewables target

    I fully understand that many of you would prefer a binding 2030 renewables target. The government takes a different view. We want to maintain flexibility for the UK and other Member States in determining their energy mix.

    This demonstrates that cost reduction, together with growth and jobs in the UK-based supply chain, really is the key to the future of the sector. Deliver significant cost reduction and the potential size of the sector increases dramatically.

    Conclusion

    Offshore wind is already a part of our diverse energy mix and is growing fast. Our future is low carbon and this Government is committed to delivering the right framework to ensure we attract the huge investment needed, and we will soon be setting out our industrial strategy to ensure that we reap the economic benefits.

    I hope, by next year’s conference we can celebrate more supply chain successes and good progress towards cost reduction.

    These challenges – reducing costs and increasing UK benefit – are not easy. I’m confident we can overcome them together.

    Thank you.

  • Jeremy Corbyn – 2018 Passover Message

    Below is the text of the Passover message issued by Jeremy Corbyn, the Leader of the Opposition, on 30 March 2018.

    Passover is a time to celebrate a journey from oppression to freedom.

    We remember all our Jewish brothers and sisters, who have battled against discrimination and faced the most horrific acts of violence and mass murder.

    This year marks 75 years since a group of Jewish partisans in Warsaw, on the first night of Passover, discovered that the Nazis intended to destroy their ghetto.

    They decided to stay and fight, holding out against the Nazi war machine for a month.

    We think also about rising levels of anti-Semitism around the world.

    In Poland, the government has passed laws making it illegal to acknowledge Polish complicity in the Holocaust. They have frozen the law that returns property looted by Nazis to Holocaust survivors.

    In France, the neo-fascist National Front is on the rise and just days ago 85-year-old Holocaust survivor Mirielle Knoll was brutally stabbed to death in an anti-Semitic attack. In the US too, we see the far-right extremists gathering support for their hateful ideology.

    It is easy to denounce anti-Semitism when you see it in other countries, in other political movements. It is sometimes harder to see it when it is closer to home.

    We in the labour movement will never be complacent about anti-Semitism.

    We all need to do better.

    I am committed to ensuring the Labour Party is a welcoming and secure place for Jewish people.

    And I hope this Passover will mark a move to stronger and closer relations between us and everyone in the Jewish community.

    In the fight against anti-Semitism, I am your ally and I always will be.

  • Theresa May – 2018 Passover Message

    Below is the Passover message issued by Theresa May, the Prime Minister, on 30 March 2018.

    Today marks the beginning of Passover, as Jewish families around the world come together at the seder table to tell the story of their ancestors’ deliverance from slavery.

    Here in the UK, we can all take the opportunity to celebrate the incredible and enduring contribution made by our Jewish community, in every corner of the country and in every walk of life.

    Of course, the Exodus from Egypt did not mark the end of anti-Semitic persecution. For millennia, the descendants of those Moses led to freedom have continued to face hatred, discrimination and violence. It’s a situation that continues to this day, including, I’m sad to say, here in Britain.

    It’s something I have consistently taken action to tackle, both through investing in security to protect our Jewish communities and through education, with the creation of a National Holocaust Memorial to remind us all where hatred can lead if left unchecked.

    The story of Passover teaches us that, while wrong may triumph for a time, the arc of history always bends to the righteous. So, at this special time of year, let us all pledge to stand up and make our voices heard in the face of anti-Semitism.

    After all, as Elie Wiesel said, “Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.”

    I wish you all a very happy and peaceful Pesach – chag kasher v’sameach.

  • Boris Johnson – 2018 Passover Message

    Below is the text of the Passover Message issued by Boris Johnson, the Foreign Secretary, on 30 March 2018.

    Passover is a time of coming together, when Jewish communities commemorate the liberation of the people of Israel from slavery in ancient Egypt. It is a time to celebrate freedom as a basic human right.

    Pesach Sameach to all Jewish families both in the UK and around the world. I wish them a happy and peaceful holiday.