UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Esther McVey – 2018 Speech on the Personalisation of Benefits

    Below is the text of the speech made by Esther McVey, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, on 19 July 2018.

    Thank you very much indeed Andrew.

    And it really is great to be here today to talk about my vision for the welfare revolution and the changing world of work.

    And it’s terrific to be on a Reform platform.

    Because Reform is a fierce advocate for public services in this new age of technology.

    Interestingly, I’m the only minister I believe who has spent their whole ministerial career in one department – Work and Pensions – moving from Parliamentary Private Secretary into a Junior Minister role to a Minister of State to now Secretary of State – even with a spell of unemployment in the middle!

    And don’t think that irony wasn’t lost on me – when, standing on stage at 5am in a May morning in 2015, surrounded by cameras, lights, people, and hearing the election result that I’d lost.

    One moment Minister of State for Employment the next moment unemployed!

    But my journey of what life is about without a job started way before that. Growing up in Liverpool in the 1980s – seeing its impact on people and its impact on local communities. Waking up with nowhere to go, time spent wondering what you’re going to do. Some memories actually never leave you.

    And it is those images, those deep-seated memories that spur me on. That made me want to come back into politics and also made me want to come back to this department.

    And how can we make a system relevant for today’s world of work – and use technology to assist us to do that? How do we make a system that works for millions of people relevant to the individual?

    The Department for Work and Pensions is absolutely massive. Its spend is comparable to a country the size of Portugal, or Greece, spending £180 billion of taxpayer money each year – with a day to day operation on which 22 million people depend.

    Each week DWP makes 12 million separate payments to a combined value of approximately £3 billion.

    Every day we see 80,000 people face to face in a jobcentre.

    Each week we take about 1 million phone calls.

    We directly deliver most of this through over 75,000 colleagues who operate from over 600 jobcentres and another 100 back offices.

    But, despite this scale, it needs to work for people. And people come in many shapes and sizes, with many issues and concerns and – do you know what – with almost unlimited potential.

    And it is that potential that our department needs to focus on.

    I know some work coaches are here today that work in our jobcentres, and I want to say thank you personally for the work that you are doing. The changes that you have lived through and the transformation that you are making to people’s lives.

    And I want to tell you that I am committed to bringing you the tools that you will need to empower people to get a job.

    So why are we changing the system? Well there’s quite a few reasons!

    The old system stifled opportunities – removing incentives to work more than 16 hours in many cases, and creating an effective tax rate of almost 90% of income for some people.

    Known to many of us as the ‘16hr rule’.

    Then came the creation of tax credits by the previous government, done so hastily that it undermined its own purpose.

    And overpayments, as a result of it being delivered with the flick of a switch in April 2003, meant that if claimants miscalculated what they should be entitled to, they would be hit with a massive bill at the end of the year.

    That year, government overpaid tax credits by £2.2 billion, requiring it to claw back money from some of the poorest people in the country.

    And the IT system of benefits – well, we depend upon an old one, one that’s out of date – designed and created in the 1980s – quite literally of another age.

    Think how technology and IT has changed since then. Our legacy system is pre-Google, pre-mass communication and connectivity.

    So the old system – the one being phased out – is an outdated, complicated, disincentivising web of overlapping benefits!

    The truth is that people’s life chances were severely held back by the old system of benefits.

    And let’s be frank: there is nothing reasonable about expecting people to claim several different benefits from separate local and national organisations.

    There is nothing fair about ‘rewarding’ a claimant’s successful search for work and cutting off benefits as soon as they gained a reasonable amount of hours.

    There was nothing personal about a complex, indiscriminate ‘one-size fits all’ system – which, I think it is fair to say, embedded low expectations on both sides of the claim desk.

    So change has to come – and change that also reflects the rapidly changing world of work in which we live.

    Lots of work is changing – it is now online, tasks are being automated, and new industries are being created.

    By one estimate, 65% of children starting in school today will do a job that doesn’t currently exist.

    We are already seeing seismic shifts, as we enter what is known as the fourth industrial revolution.

    The gig economy matches people and tasks more dynamically than ever before – creating new opportunity.

    Flexible working is no longer an exception, and we are seeing an increasingly inclusive workforce, where work fits around personal circumstances and caring responsibilities.

    Gone is the job for life.

    And our welfare system should reflect that. It should be nimble and adaptive – reflecting changing working patterns in this fast-paced moving world.

    Our vision is one of a personalised benefit system, a digitised system.

    We’ve simplified the system, so it is easier to navigate, by creating an easy point of contact – both online and through the system, but also by introducing dedicated one-to-one work coaches.

    We’re rolling 6 benefits into one, that means that people now have a better oversight of their income and can spend accordingly.

    The taper rate means that it will always pay to work. ‘Cliff edges’ inherent in the old system – where benefits first dropped-off at 16 hours, and then at 30 hours of work per week – have now gone.

    Flexible payments help people take on small amounts of hours, even at short notice, thereby supporting people to work in the gig economy. Through integration with HMRC’s Real Time Information, this means that their benefit payment is adjusted automatically.

    This digital system personalises Universal Credit. And we are constantly updating it.

    This is not just IT: it is using next-generation technology, design thinking and data to support work coaches.

    So when someone calls the full service telephone line, we use technology to automatically route them to their case manager or team – using tech to bring to you a familiar voice.

    This technology is currently in 90% of teams in service centres and is now being rolled out further.

    When you apply online, the experience is tailored to individual circumstances to allow us to develop the most efficient and effective service. And machine-learning will deliver and be applied to analyse data. The insight is then used by work coaches, who use their expertise to help claimants.

    In short, we are developing a system that doesn’t just meet users’ needs, but the specifics of individual’s needs – combining technology and work coaches’ expertise.

    This personal support is critical – but is on online and it is in person – as dedicated work coaches help claimants overcome a lack of confidence, a lack of role models or a range of circumstances in someone’s lives.

    Mindful always of the claimant’s situation – and track their support and signpost them to places for help.

    We are developing a personalised system that gives a 360 degree view of an individual’s needs to provide bespoke tailor-made support.

    Even to providing budgeting and IT support, using £200 million of funding to do so.

    And this really is about helping people.

    And don’t just take my word for it. Consider these examples.

    An ex-offender told us that his work coach had been “fantastic”, giving him confidence and time to adjust to life outside prison.

    A claimant from Yorkshire, who had mental health difficulties, told us that her work coach “helped me turn my life around. Tailored support – I have now found my dream job.”

    Another claimant, with a similar condition, acknowledged the time the new system allowed her to discuss her situation and the way she could move forward: “I have had many appointments with [my work coach] and she has been my lifeline with regards to work and her amazing empathy.”

    This is all about personalisation. The personalisation of benefits and digitisation of the benefits system, providing tailored support for the individual. The ability to adapt is key, reflecting the increased pace of life and technological advancements. We’re building an agile system for an agile future.

    But we are not complacent that all is working like clockwork.

    And where we need to put our hands up, admit things might not be going right, we will do so. We will be a culture of mea culpa, hands up and then we need to change. For just as we are adopting agile technology in this fast-paced world, ministers have to be agile too.

    That is why, since January, we have implemented a £1.5 billion package of change that was announced in the Autumn Budget 2017.

    So we have made advance payments from day one of the application process, for up to 100% of a person’s total claim, to be paid over 12 months, instead of 6.

    That is why we put in place a 2-week Housing Benefit run-on, to give people moving from the legacy system a blanket of support to help them. And that is why we have also removed waiting days.

    And since I became Secretary of State in January, I have reviewed legal cases reversing past positions and not appealing court decisions allowing the department to:

    – reinstate housing benefit for 18 to 21 year olds
    – exempt kinship carers from changes to Child Tax Credit element of Universal Credit
    – and further, announce measures to protect severely disabled people when they naturally migrate to Universal Credit

    We know that these changes have and will continue to help people. It is crucial that we get Universal Credit rolled out right – right for the 8 million who will go on to use it – and right for the taxpayer.

    This is a total test and learn approach – critical to delivering Universal Credit that works for claimants.

    We need to reach out too – learn from organisations such as yourselves – and yes, that includes the National Audit Office – about how to design and implement Universal Credit to support claimants, help them into employment, and improve their life chances.

    And we realise that there is more to learn, and we want to work with you to understand where we can improve on this important reform.

    And there are changes which are still needed, which I am working on. That is debt repayments, support for the self-employed, payment cycles for those in work and an extension of outreach work and an extension of flexible support for claimants.

    But be in no doubt – because of the steps that we have introduced to deliver Universal Credit – such as the Claimant Commitment and enhanced training – we are helping to shape a new direction for so many people here in the UK. We are seeing people as individuals, not numbers, and not as a group known as unemployed – but as simply and clearly as individuals.

    Since 2010, there has been a jobs revolution here at home.

    Just this week we announced a record 32.4 million people in work, an increase of over 3.3 million since 2010.

    That’s 1,000 people on average each and every day that have moved into work since we came into government.

    That’s 1,000 more people each and every day in charge of their destiny providing support for their family members.

    And this jobs revolution has been felt right across the board, with record female employment, record BAME employment and as of mid-2017 there are nearly 600,000 more disabled people in work than 4 years earlier. This personalised system is clearly helping people into work – people who previously didn’t have the opportunities that their talents deserved.

    And this jobs revolution has been felt right across the country too.

    Employment in the North East has risen by 60,000 since 2010, to 1.2 million.

    Employment in the North West has risen by 256,000 since 2010, to 3.44 million.

    Employment in the East Midlands has risen by 186,000 since 2010, to 2.28 million.

    We’ve seen youth unemployment fall by almost 45% since 2010.

    And this does make us the envy of Europe, with youth unemployment at 11.5%, compared with Spain’s 33.8% and Italy at 31.9%.

    So much for the wonders of remaining in the European Union.

    It means we are building an economy that is fit for the future.

    And that future promises to be bright with the right relationship between government and business. Because we are not heavy handed interventionists.

    We will focus on how to connect people to work, rather than shoving them into jobs that don’t suit.

    Disability Confident – which I set up back in 2013 when Minister for Disabled People – is continuing to spread the message of the untapped pool of talent that disabled people can bring to our workforce – ensuring employers can benefit from that talent.

    Find a Job – launched in May this year – provides a 24/7 online job search platform. There have already been 24 million searches on that website, with over 177,000 live job adverts today.

    We will continue to support people through the Flexible Support Fund to enable people to spend money on things that make it easier for them to get into work – whether training programmes, travel to an interview, clothing or equipment to start employment.

    We want to develop our Universal Support offer to ensure it supports people through the welfare system – to develop their digital skills so important in our digital economy. And we will be looking at how we can improve Universal Support further.

    We will explore how we can further join the links between jobcentres and schools to continue to prepare children for a life fulfilling with work – ensuring they go into the careers that they want.

    We will continue to use sector-based work academies to help young people develop their skills and links in to business up and down the country.

    And we are using apprenticeships and skills programmes to enable people to retrain where they see an opportunity.

    And we will ensure that older workers get fuller working lives by helping them back into work, extending working lives through tailored support for upskilling, managing health conditions and working with business to share the benefits that older workers can bring to them.

    Our links to people on Universal Credit in work provide us with opportunities to provide support for people to fulfil their potential too.

    Personal advancement is key to social mobility and ensuring people reach their potential.

    And it is by empowering people, giving them choice and flexibility to carve their own path, that everyone is able to reach this potential.

    We are working hard to make Universal Credit work for all. And we want to work with you all to achieve that.

    We are both a pragmatic and a visionary government, listening to business, listening to charities, listening to people on the frontline and putting in place the right support to help people taking back control of their lives. And most importantly, always listening to the claimant.

    Thank you.

  • Jeremy Corbyn – 2018 Speech on Build it in Britain

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jeremy Corbyn, the Leader of the Opposition, in Birmingham on 24 July 2018.

    Thank you all for coming here today. This is the launch of our ‘Build it in Britain’ campaign, Labour’s campaign to ensure a stronger future for industry with better jobs and opportunities here in Birmingham and in every part of Britain.

    While the finance sector has continued to grow, a decade after the bankers’ crash and the super-rich have grown still richer. For too long, many of our communities have lost out in the global economy free-for-all. The few have succeeded, but at the expense of the many.

    I want to thank John McDonnell, the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, for all the work that he has done over the last three years to change the economic debate in this country, away from the dogma of austerity and cuts without end, and winning the argument to focus instead on the need for investment if we are to succeed in the future.

    I would also like to thank Rebecca Long-Bailey, our Shadow Business Secretary, for developing Labour’s plans for a real industrial strategy that will transform the shape of our economy and ensure prosperity is shared by every region and nation of the UK.

    Because while the Conservatives are continuing as they always have done – kowtowing and skewing policy to the narrowest interests in the City of London while ignoring the needs of the vast majority in their bungled Brexit negotiations – Labour is setting out a genuinely new economic direction for our country.

    With Theresa May lurching from one government U-turn and ministerial resignation to the next her long-heralded Brexit White Paper was in shreds within a week, as the hard-right of the Conservative Party push us ever closer towards a disastrous ‘No Deal’ Brexit that will send us crashing out of the EU and risks deepening our economic problems.

    No amount of desperate attempts to cosy up to President Trump would compensate for the damage done by getting this wrong. Now is the time to put people’s jobs and living standards first.

    So that is why Labour is launching this campaign today, because we want to see well-paid jobs in the industries of the future, fuelling the tax revenues that fund our public services and the NHS, rebuilding communities and increasing living standards for all.

    For too many of our people today the spread of insecure work, low pay and zero hours or temporary contracts is causing stress, debt and despondency.

    It could not be clearer that change is needed, we must aim for something better.

    Our new economic approach is necessary because for the last forty years a kind of magical thinking has dominated the way Britain is run.

    We’ve been told that it’s good, even advanced, for our country to manufacture less and less and to rely instead on cheap labour abroad to produce imports while we focus on the City of London and the financial sector.

    While many economics professionals, politicians and City types insisted this was all a strength the banking crash confirmed it was in fact a profound weakness.

    A lack of support for manufacturing is sucking the dynamism out of our economy, pay from the pockets of our workers and any hope of secure well-paid jobs from a generation of our young people.

    That is why Labour is committed to turning things around.

    It must be our job in government to reprogramme our economy so that it stops working for the few and begins working for the many.

    That is why we will build things here again that for too long have been built abroad because we have failed to invest.

    Doing this will allow us to have greater control over the economy, giving us the chance to boost people’s pay and to limit the power of the unearned wealth of the super-rich in our society.

    Because Labour is committed to supporting our manufacturing industries and the skills of workers in this country we want to make sure the government uses more of its own money to buy here in Britain.

    The state spends over £200 billion per year in the private sector.

    That spending power alone gives us levers to stimulate industry, to encourage business to act in people’s interests by encouraging genuine enterprise, fairness, cutting edge investment, high-quality service and doing right by communities.

    But to ensure prosperity here we must be supporting our industries, making sure that where possible the government is backing our industries and not merely overseeing their decline.

    Take the example of the three new Fleet Solid Support Ships for the Royal Fleet Auxillary.

    Why is the Government sending a £1 billion contract and all the skilled jobs, tax revenues and work in the supply chain to build those three ships overseas when we have the shipyards to build them here?

    There are workers in Liverpool, Belfast, Rosyth and Plymouth who are keen to do that work but when I visited some of those shipyards I learned something else too – there are not enough workers being trained here in the UK to meet the potential demand.

    On Brexit, Theresa May is very fond of saying “we will take back control of our laws, our money and our borders”. At the moment her first priority should be taking back control of her Cabinet.

    But if she’s so serious about taking back control why has her Government offshored the production of our new British passports to France? Workers in Gateshead were making them and that work has been taken away from that community.

    Unsurprisingly the French aren’t queuing up to have their French passports made in Britain.

    We have plenty of capacity to build train carriages in the UK and yet repeatedly over recent years these contracts have been farmed out abroad, costing our economy crucial investment, jobs for workers and tax revenues.

    Carrying on like this is simply not sustainable.

    If we want to reprogramme our economy so that it works for everybody, we must use powers we have to back good jobs and industry here.

    Between 2014 and 2017 Network Rail awarded contracts worth tens of millions of pounds to companies outside of the UK while the NHS awarded contracts worth over a billion.

    In the same period the Ministry of Defence awarded contracts elsewhere worth over £1.5 billion pounds even though we are under no obligation under either European or international law to open up defence contracts to overseas bidders.

    Labour is determined to see public contracts provide public benefit using our money to nurture and grow our industries and to expand our tax base.

    The next Labour government will bring contracts back in-house, ending the racket of outsourcing that has turned our public services into a cash cow for the few.

    And we will use the huge weight of the government’s purchasing power to support our workers and industries.

    This will be done using a three-pronged approach:

    Changing how we buy things with new procurement rules so that government supports jobs and industry.

    Investing in infrastructure to support companies here in Britain to keep goods flowing efficiently and costs low.

    And increasing investment in education, skills and lifelong learning through the National Education Service that we will create – and I want to pay tribute to the work done by Angela Rayner in this regard.

    We must also be doing much more to support our small and medium sized enterprises.

    That is why Labour will look at how to further support SMEs to participate in the tendering process instead of them being dominated by faceless multinationals.

    Too often, we have been told by Conservatives who are ideologically opposed to supporting our industries that EU rules prevent us from supporting our own economy.

    But if you go to Germany you’ll struggle to find a train that wasn’t built there, even though they’re currently governed by the same rules as us.

    When the steel crisis hit in 2016 Italy, Germany and France all intervened legally under existing state aid rules but our government sat back and did nothing.

    We have made clear we would seek exemptions or clarifications from EU state aid and procurement rules where necessary as part of the Brexit negotiations to take further steps to support cutting edge industries and local businesses.

    But whatever the outcome of the Brexit negotiations, we will use the powers we have to the full. Where there is a will there is a way and if we need to support our manufacturing sector we will find a way to do it.

    What’s more we will include public interest into these big public contracts, as was done with the contract to build the High Speed 2 railway.

    When there are billions of pounds of public money and thousands of skilled jobs at stake we cannot just focus on saving a quick buck when awarding these contracts. It is a totally false economy.

    Instead by considering public interest such as job creation and the supply chains, we can grow our economy in a way that works for everybody.

    Just today a cross-party committee of MPs has said that the stated reasons for contracting out services to save taxpayers money and to encourage innovation in delivery are too often simply not being met.

    In the words of the Public Accounts Committee “there has emerged a small group of large companies which are expert at winning contracts but do not always deliver a good service”.

    Nobody knows for sure when the next election will be or where we will be with Brexit when it comes, but one thing is certain the next Labour government is committed to creating high quality jobs in every region and nation of the UK, to develop new industries and support good domestic businesses – large and small.

    We should also look at extending the rights of local authorities in parts of the country worst hit by forty years of industrial decline to be exempt from some World Trade Organisation rules, as some US states are, and therefore be able to require provision for local suppliers and jobs in public contracts.

    This would help the regeneration of areas long forgotten by those in Whitehall or Westminster who claim to know what’s best.

    The next Labour government will not just sit back and manage the ongoing decline of swathes of our economy. We can and must make a difference.

    That’s why we will use the state to actively intervene in the economy, to create as much wealth as possible and, crucially, to ensure that wealth is shared fairly between everybody in our society.

    Experts call this an industrial strategy.

    It means we will have a joined up plan to keep our industries, old and new, humming with activity.

    It stands in stark contrast to what this Government has done. Take just one example of this, the solar industry.

    Once innovators, we are now falling back as the industry takes off across Europe. And why?

    British solar firms were hit by cuts to subsidies in 2015 and 2016 and changes to business rates for buildings with rooftop panels.

    Why did the government do this? To save a few pounds in the short term, yet it has cost us jobs and innovation.

    As a result between now and 2022 France is forecast to add five times as much solar capacity as the UK, Germany ten times.

    Our strategy will help us upgrade industry to secure good jobs, win public contracts and compete on the international stage.

    It will help us build a clean, green 21st century economy, right here in the UK, building solar, wind farms and tidal lagoons to help us tackle climate change.

    It will focus on creating clusters to boost domestic supply chains to develop the virtuous cycle, where the success of one industry or company helps others.

    We’ll give support to the sectors that we need to deliver the public contracts, to radically upgrade our creaking infrastructure, a core part of our industrial strategy.

    But our investment plans aren’t just for infrastructure and industry, they are for our people too, equipping them with the skills we need to thrive. It is why we are committed to a National Education Service which will provide both academic and vocational education on an equal footing to anybody that wants it, from cradle to grave.

    We cannot continue to see education as a commodity to be bought and sold, it must be there to give people the skills they need to flourish throughout their lives.

    This is all part of Labour’s plan to reprogramme our economy, so that it works for every town, city and village in the country.

    It must be said however that wanting to build it in Britain is not turning away from the world, nor some return to protectionism or Trump-style trade wars.

    It is about changing course so that people feel real control over their local economy and have good jobs that produce a consistent rise in pay and living standards, in every part of the UK.

    That’s why we are so determined to help companies in the UK that export their goods.

    And unlike the Conservatives, we know that after Brexit the single biggest assistance we can give our exporters is securing full, tariff free access to our biggest export market, the European Union.

    It’s so important that we seek to negotiate a new, comprehensive UK-EU customs union, with a British say in all future trade deal and arrangements.

    By now, the message should be clear – but the Conservative Government refuses to listen.

    BMW, Airbus, and companies after company has warned of the real and damaging effects of Conservative customs chaos.

    Theresa May and her warring cabinet should think again, even at this late stage and reconsider the option of negotiating a brand new customs union.

    This decision needn’t be a matter of ideology, or divisions in the Tory Party.

    It’s a matter of practical common sense.

    It’s not often that the Labour Party and the Institute of Directors, the CBI and the TUC agree, we need to negotiate a new customs union.

    What will help our manufacturing industries? The companies themselves are giving us a clear answer. The government should listen to it.

    But the Prime Minister seems more willing to listen to Jacob Rees-Mogg and Boris Johnson.

    Never before has a Prime Minister discarded the interests of the country so recklessly in favour of the interests of their own party or their own self-preservation.

    If our businesses are supported to sell abroad they’ll also be stronger to sell here and build here at home.

    A botched Tory Brexit will sell our manufacturers short with the fantasy of a free trading buccaneering future which in reality would be a nightmare of our public services sold to multinational companies and our country in hock to Donald Trump whilst we all eat chlorinated chicken.

    It is why we are offering a real alternative to this dangerous Tory Brexit.

    A Labour Brexit could provide real opportunities as well as protections for our exporters.

    It’s not just that our new customs union would provide the same benefits that we currently enjoy in the EU’s customs union but our exporters should be able to take proper advantage of the one benefit to them that Brexit has already brought – a more competitive pound.

    After the EU referendum result the pound became more competitive and that should have helped our exporters.

    But they are being sold out by a lack of a Conservative Government industrial plan which has left our economy far too reliant on imports.

    The rise of finance is linked to the demise of industry.

    Between 1970 and 2007 finance sector output grew from 5 per cent to 15 per cent of total economic output.

    Manufacturing meanwhile decreased from 32 per cent to 12 per cent.

    The next Labour government will rebalance our economy so that there is prosperity in every region and nation.

    We will do this by setting up a national investment bank and a network of regional development banks to provide capital to the productive, real economy that secures good skilled jobs.

    We will focus relentlessly on ending the housing crisis caused by the Conservatives and their uncompromising commitment to the free market.

    We will build homes for the many not investment opportunities for the few and with them will come a new generation of zero carbon homes, creating new training opportunities and skilled jobs.

    And we will chase dodgy money out of the financial system so corrupt oligarchs find it harder to rip-off their own people and skew our economic priorities at the same time.

    Getting the dirty money out of the City of London won’t just help the people of the countries it has been stolen from.

    It won’t just help those struggling to afford a place to live with over inflated asset prices helping fuel a housing crisis. There’s nothing productive about more and more of people’s incomes going to landlords as rent or to banks as mortgage payments.

    It will also help rebalance our economy, stabilising our currency and our house prices.

    And we will shift taxation to disincentivise financial speculation, for example with our financial transaction tax.

    All of this will help us, help you, build it in Britain again.

    In line with our values so that we all share in the wealth we all create.

    We want an economy with high wages, high levels of trade union representation for workers and high levels of educational opportunities for everybody.

    That’s why we’re offering a new deal for businesses that want to get on.

    The very richest companies must pay a bit more tax and pay their workers better and in return we will train our people to have the skills our economy needs, upgrade our creaking infrastructure and provide the planning and support to help industry compete on the world stage.

    And those companies that we do business with as the government will have to be at the forefront of best practice to create social as well as economic value.

    Firms our government does business with will have to: properly pay their taxes, respect workers rights, provide equal opportunities, protect the environment, train their workers, pay their suppliers on time and end boardroom excess by moving to a 20-1 limit on the gap between the lowest and highest paid.

    That is the deal that we want to make with businesses, it’s one that will benefit our whole economy.

    We can get rid of the magical thinking of the free market that has led to a minority becoming extremely rich at the expense of everybody else.

    And we will replace it with a new economy, transformed so that it’s run for and by the many, not the few.

    And we will forge a new relationship between workers, manufacturers, communities and the government to end the unregulated bankers’ rip off which has dehumanised our values and our economy while allowing a few to profit at the expense of the many.

    Labour will reprogramme our economy so that it works for the people of Britain and not against them.

    And we will build this economy, this future fair for all, right here in Britain.

  • Liam Fox – 2018 Speech on Free Trade

    Below is the text of the speech made by Liam Fox, the Secretary of State for International Trade, on 25 July 2018.

    Good afternoon. It is a pleasure to be back in Washington.

    I would like to thank our hosts, the Heritage Foundation, for inviting me to address such a distinguished gathering, on a topic that is not only close to my heart professionally, but more politically relevant than at any time in the past thirty years.

    In my first speech as Secretary of State for International Trade I set out the case for an open and liberal trading environment.

    That speech was in Manchester in the North of England – home of the Industrial Revolution, and a city with iconic associations to free trade.

    That was nearly was two years ago when trade barely registered on the radar for most of our media. How different things are today when trade is front and centre of the international political debate . The disputes between the US and China, around NAFTA, steel and aluminium tariffs, and the UK’s future trade agreement with the European Union are the most talked about issues of the day.

    It is therefore a good time for us to examine both our attitudes to trade from first principles and to measure them against our domestic priorities and international obligations.

    It was just over 240 years ago, on 9 March 1776 that Adam Smith published the Wealth of Nations.

    It set out the principles for the emerging world of global commerce at the end of the eighteenth century with a vision of what trade could produce in terms of prosperity and opportunity.

    He countered the dominant mercantilist viewpoint – revolutionary in its time – and the case he set out is just as relevant today.

    Indeed, he reminds us still, that the essential element of a successful trading system is mutual benefit.

    David Ricardo took these principles of free trade forward when, in 1817, he published the theory of comparative advantage.

    Building on Smith a generation before, Ricardo described the economic reality of the gains from trade and demonstrated how free and open trade is profitable to all.

    It is one of the most powerful concepts in economics, described by the economist Paul Samuelson as the only proposition in all the social sciences that is both true and non-trivial. It remains, to this day, the most fundamental justification of the power of free trade.

    Now of course, since those days, since 1817, the world has changed beyond all recognition, yet the experiences of globalisation, and of technological advances unimaginable in Ricardo’s time, have only served to validate his theory.

    The principles of free and open trade have underpinned the multilateral institutions, rules and alliances that helped rebuild post-war Europe and the world beyond.

    They helped usher the fall of communism and the tearing down of the Iron Curtain; they facilitated 70 years of global prosperity, and they have raised the living standards of hundreds of millions of our fellow human beings across the world.

    Indeed free trade has allowed us to take 1 billion of our fellow human beings out of abject poverty in just one generation – one of the great achievements in history.

    Just as predicted in the early theorising by Smith, Ricardo and others, time and time again we find a strong positive correlation between economic openness and growth.

    During the 1990’s, per capita income grew three times faster in the developing countries that lowered trade barriers than in those that did not.

    That effect is not confined to the developing countries, either. The OECD Growth Project found that a 10 percentage-point increase in trade exposure was associated with a 4 per cent rise in income per capita. Free trade works.

    Globally, as free trade has blossomed, poverty levels have fallen to their lowest in history: bringing industry, jobs and wealth where once there was only deprivation.

    Trade liberalisation gives consumers greater choice, and the competition it unleashes brings higher quality and standards at lower prices for everything from food and drink to toys and cars. Free trade provides developing countries with the opportunity to embrace the international trading system, to integrate into global value chains, and ultimately to grow their economies.

    But the effects of free and open trade go further than simple economics. This is particularly true in the era of globalisation and will become even more so in the future. I have already mentioned the fact that free trade has already allowed us to take 1 billion of our fellow human beings out of abject poverty.

    But trade is not an end in itself. It is a means to spread prosperity. That prosperity underpins social cohesion. That social cohesion in turn underpins political stability, and that political stability is the building block of our collective security. It is a continuum that cannot be interrupted without consequence. If prosperity is denied to those who aspire to it – and free trade is a key enabler of this – we should not be surprised if the result is further mass migration across the globe or indeed political radicalisation.

    Those of us, the world’s richest countries, who have done well from a global free trade system cannot simply say ‘we’ve done okay’ and pull the drawbridge up behind us without having to pay a price.

    There are many arguments in the worlds of politics and economics that will never be settled – just as well for the politicians and journalists here today – and are as much a matter of interpretation as they are objective data.

    But the effect of protectionism is as close to settled science as anything in economics will ever be: it means reduced productivity gains and lost economic growth. Long run historical trends suggest that a 20 per cent reduction in trade holds back productivity by around 5 per cent.

    And worse, in a world of globalisation where interdependency is increasing and where disruptions in one part of the world can quickly ricochet around the rest, our ability to act unilaterally with impunity is diminishing by the day. The 2008 financial crisis was just the latest example of how economic earthquake in one part of the globe can soon be the financial tsunami for the rest.

    We, today, are at an important juncture in the history of free and open trade, and of the established international order.

    In many ways, the picture is actually a positive one. After several years of relative stagnation, the growth in global trade is once again outpacing the rise in global GDP with trade predicted to grow by 4.5 per cent this year with GDP growing by 3.8 per cent.

    The global economy continues to rebound from the dark days of the financial crash and ensuing recession experienced by many large economies.

    Yet it is also a reflection of how globalisation and new technology continue to facilitate trade, and the irrepressible growth of the digital and knowledge economies – sectors which hardly existed even two decades ago.

    And this is perhaps the root of our current paradox which is this: we have seen the benefits of free trade at home and abroad. We are seeing a rise in living standards and a reduction in global poverty. We are witnessing our innovative industries achieve global dominance.

    Who, 20 years ago, could ever have imagined the global impact of Google, of Facebook or of Amazon? Who would have believed how cheaply we could access the newest electronic gadgets from mobile phones with more computer capacity than the Apollo programme, or the latest high definition TVs at seemingly evermore affordable prices?

    Yet, even with all this evidence of the success of our own economic beliefs, the public, especially in the world’s richest countries, are seemingly questioning the benefits of a free trading system with politicians seemingly caught in a crisis of self confidence in what was once an article of faith for many.

    Perhaps at least part of the explanation lies in the rate of change and reorientation of our economies and the fear of actual and potential displacement felt by many workforces.

    In Britain we have seen industries like coal mining all but disappear, but new service industries and modern manufacturing take their place, including the growth of renewable energy. In areas such as steel production we have seen new technologies enable us to produce the same output with far fewer employees.

    It is, and will be, new technology that will be the major disruptive force in our economies. We will best serve both our economies and our workforce not by turning our back on free trade, but by ensuring that we can provide mitigation for those who bear the brunt of change by providing the necessary economic support, especially in re-skilling, retraining and education.

    Change is coming and we must embrace it – for our global competitors certainly will – but we must also be willing to reach out that helping hand to the men and women in our countries who will most feel the winds of change and use our skills, our experience and our knowledge to maximise the benefits for the generations to come.

    We can bring prosperity and revival to some of our challenged industrial communities as they transition to new patterns of work as they have always done. From the agricultural age to the industrial revolution, to the rise of the knowledge economy, change is forever with us. Rather than seeking to avoid the realities of the globalised economy, we should ensure that its rising tide lifts all boats.

    To do so, we require a set of global rules that are transparent, robust and enforceable and institutions that are credible and accountable. Despite its flaws, trade specialisation and innovation, largely as a result of globalisation, has spawned a productivity revolution through increased competition, economies of scale and global value chains.

    When this is combined with the effect of liberal values of meritocracy, democracy and the rule of law, it can create a tidal wave of innovation and creativity.

    It is no coincidence that the United Kingdom and the United States are among the world’s most innovative economies, while those with more authoritarian regimes are only now beginning to catch up as centralised planning at least in some cases gives way to individual creativity.

    In the twentieth century, one of the products of the influence of the US and the UK in particular was the creation of the WTO.

    From the founding in the aftermath of the Secord World War of the General Agreements on Tariffs and Trade, the WTO emerged as the home of the rules-based international trading system, and the repository of those free trading values that have underpinned global growth and facilitated more formal trading agreements.

    It is worth remembering that these rules, and the WTO itself, are not an external imposition on our economies, but were largely shaped and codified by the work of successive US and British governments.

    In 1948, our nations were founding members of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

    In 1986 it was the US, under President Reagan, that launched the Uruguay Round of multilateral negotiations that led to the establishment of the World Trade Organisation.

    The United States has been at the heart of the WTO since the very beginning.

    Of course, the system that we established in 1995 is also in need of some refurbishment.

    After all, the global economy is now driven by advances in technology that were embryonic in 1995.

    Who could have foreseen, for example, the rise of the digital economy? Or how knowledge and data have become so valuable? Or the blurring between goods and services? Just imagine the concept of selling a digital code on the internet to build something on a 3D printer. It would have sounded like science fiction when the WTO began.

    The structures of the international system may not have caught up with the modern world. But that is cause for reform and renewal, not rejection. The UK and US are ideally placed to work together to modernise, and make the international rules-based trading system work better, so the benefits of free trade can truly be felt by all.

    Above all, the WTO remains the way to ensure that a level playing field is created and maintained between the major actors in international trade but its rules must be enforceable and the actions of its members fully transparent if confidence is to be maintained.

    All of this is occurring in a period of rapid change in the patterns of global trade.

    The thriving economies of South and East Asia and, increasingly, Africa, are, and will become, ever more important as their newfound prosperity drives demand for the goods and services from more advanced economies, like the UK and the US.

    The sheer scale of the change that is underway is often difficult to grasp from here in the West, in countries which have long enjoyed economic and political dominance.

    Twice this year I have been in the Chinese city of Shenzhen. When Britain handed Hong Kong back to China in 1997 Shenzhen had a population of 5.2 million. Today it has a population of nearly 12.5 million.

    By 2030 China is expected to have more than 220 cities with a population of more than a million. The whole of Europe has 35.

    And on top of the vast Asia-Pacific growth it is predicted that there will be 1.1 billion middle class Africans by 2060. We are living through a period of profound and stunning change. Such a shift, not just in global demographics, but in the rise of the collective wealth of developing countries, will determine where the golden economic opportunities of the future will be – and where we must be too, if we are to provide jobs and prosperity for our peoples in the future.

    If we are to navigate the changes that the next decade will bring, we have to fully accommodate these changes and recognise the emerging pattern of our own trade too. We cannot wish away change any more than we can ignore its effects. As I used to say to my patients when I still practised as a doctor ‘there’s no point in complaining about the air when there’s nothing else to breathe.’

    Within a rapidly changing world, the trading relationship between the UK and the United States remains a consistent source of stability and prosperity. And it is our two nations that have the opportunity to negotiate a trailblazing, modern free trade agreement.

    Because we both fundamentally believe in trading and commercial freedom, our interests are not in opposition to other countries – trade between us is not a zero-sum game.

    The UK is the largest source of Foreign Direct Investment into the USA, with around $560bn of holdings here – more than France and Germany combined and 30 per cent more than Japan.

    Our investment is also twenty times the investment from China, and thirty times that of Mexico.

    British companies employ over a million workers across every state in the Union, from Ohio and Pennsylvania to Florida to California.

    I don’t know if we have any Texans here today, but more than 107,000 people in the Lone Star State are employed by UK firms and I wonder how many of them understand that.

    Likewise, American firms employee huge numbers of British people. We have more than a trillion dollars invested in one another’s economies – probably the most interdependent investment relationship on our planet today.

    Yet we are also on the threshold of a renewed trading relationship that will further enrich both our nations.

    For the first time in more than four decades, the United Kingdom will have an independent trade policy required to forge closer ties to our closest economic partner, through an ambitious free trade agreement.

    It is an unprecedented opportunity for an ambitious and future-proof framework for our bilateral trade. We must not let it pass us by.

    Likewise we must not fail to take the opportunity for global leadership in the areas where we already excel, particularly in trade in services and especially financial services. The UK and the US host the two leading global financial centres and are at the forefront of innovation. Our deep and broad relationship on financial services is a cornerstone of the modern global economy. We should make it even easier in the future for businesses to operate across the Atlantic through frictionless trade.

    Fundamentally, our close economic ties are underpinned by the strong personal links that tie our two peoples. We share a common language, mostly, but also the ties of history, and even more importantly of values. We must also be linked by our shared ambition to shape the global economy in ways that match our shared interests.

    It is not just in our economic interests but in our strategic interests for the long term.

    For the past century our two nations have stood shoulder to shoulder against mankind’s gravest security threats. We have saved Europe in the 20th century from the twin scourges of Communism and Fascism.

    We must have the optimism and self confidence now to shape it for the future: free markets, through free trade, for the benefit of free people.

    I will leave you today with the words of President Reagan:

    “The freer the flow of world trade, the stronger the tides of human progress and peace among nations”

    There is no greater prize than that.

    Thank you.

  • David Lidington – 2018 Statement on the Infected Blood Inquiry

    Below is the text of the statement made by David Lidington, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, in the House of Commons on 2 July 2018.

    On 8 February 2018, I announced the appointment of Sir Brian Langstaff to chair the infected blood inquiry. From the outset, Sir Brian has been clear that he is determined to put people at the heart of the inquiry and to ensure an inclusive and transparent process.

    Sir Brian and his team conducted a public consultation on the proposed terms of reference for the inquiry, which ran from 2 March to 26 April. They invited contributions via an online questionnaire, email, written correspondence and telephone. The inquiry team also held 15 meetings with groups and individuals across the UK, and Sir Brian is keen for the inquiry to continue to do that as it moves forward.

    The inquiry received almost 700 responses to its consultation and Sir Brian, having reflected on those consultation responses, wrote to me on 7 June to advise me of the outcome and of his recommendations for the terms of reference. The terms of reference are comprehensive and reflect the key points made during the consultation.

    The geographical scope of the inquiry is UK-wide. The inquiry will look at issues relating to the whole of the UK, as well as regionally. Sir Brian expects the inquiry team to hold regular meetings across the UK. I have therefore consulted, as I am required to do under the Inquiries Act 2005, with the devolved Administrations of Scotland and Wales and, in the absence of a Northern Ireland Executive, with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who, in turn, consulted the permanent secretary of the Northern Ireland Department of Health. The Governments of Scotland and Wales, and my right hon. Friend, were content with Sir Brian’s recommendations, and I am happy to accept his recommendations without amendment. I have written to Sir Brian to confirm this.

    The terms of reference have been published and deposited in the Libraries of both Houses today. The inquiry can now formally begin its work; it will start today—2 July 2018. Sir Brian proposes to use groups of experts to assist the inquiry. Those groups would cover all the material fields relevant to the inquiry. Their evidence would be public, transparent and subject to scrutiny. People affected, and other participants to the inquiry, will be able to propose experts and put forward questions to the expert groups.

    During the inquiry’s public consultation, views were expressed both for and against the appointment of additional panel members. Some, noting the complex and difficult issues to be examined by the inquiry, wanted a panel of many experts to assist the chair. It is Sir Brian’s view that his proposal for expert groups will achieve the objectives of those who have been in favour of panel members by providing legitimacy and transparency, a diverse range of expertise and, importantly, speed. Sir Brian’s view is that experts will be able to progress work in parallel in a way that co-determining panel members could not and that, very importantly, everything the expert groups will do will be public. Sir Brian plans now to discuss this proposed approach with those who will most centrally participate in the inquiry, particularly survivors and the groups representing them, and to ask ​them whether, in the light of the proposed approach, there remains any significant wish for him to be joined by a decision-making panel. Sir Brian has asked me to defer a decision on panel members until core participants have been appointed and have had the opportunity to consider the proposed approach.

    I am aware that when my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) met people affected before Christmas last year, many supported the idea of the chair sitting alongside other panel members. I have not lost sight of that, but I think it is only right that I allow Sir Brian time to consult core participants. I therefore do not propose to appoint other panel members at this time, but I will consider the issue once core participants have had an opportunity to look at Sir Brian’s proposed approach. Of course, section 7 of the 2005 Act allows me to make further appointments to the inquiry panel during the course of the inquiry, with the consent of the chair. Speed is of the essence, and I have asked Sir Brian to report back to me as quickly as possible; I will then make my decision on panel members.

    Many thousands of people from across the United Kingdom have been affected by this terrible tragedy. Sadly, a number of those affected have died since the inquiry was announced. One of the clearest messages from the inquiry’s consultation was the need for speed. In his letter to me, Sir Brian noted that one respondent to the consultation had said:

    “I really hope this Inquiry does not drag on as I would like to live long enough to see the result”.

    It is extremely important that the infected blood inquiry can complete its work as quickly as a thorough examination of the facts allows, and this is something that Sir Brian and his team are very aware of.

    This inquiry is a priority for the Government, and I have assured Sir Brian that the Cabinet Office will provide all the resources and support that the inquiry needs to meet the demanding timescales that are essential in order to meet the expectations of people affected by this tragedy, who have already waited so long for answers. The inquiry will have much to do over the coming months, and I am sure it will waste no time in getting started. The first stages of the inquiry will be critical for obtaining evidence, including witness statements from people who have been infected and affected. The inquiry will use this evidence to help to uncover what happened and why. It will hold its preliminary hearings in September at Church House, London, where core participants will be able to set out their priorities for the inquiry. My exchange of correspondence with Sir Brian and the full terms of reference have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses, and I commend this statement to the House.

  • Lilian Greenwood – 2018 Speech on Rough Sleeping in Nottingham

    Below is the text of the speech made by Lilian Greenwood, the Labour MP for Nottingham South, in the House of Commons on 2 July 2018.

    May I begin by sending my best wishes to the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mrs Wheeler), and her husband? I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams), is supporting her at present, and I am sure that he will share the information from this debate with her when she returns.

    According to homelessness charity St Mungo’s, the average age of death for a man who dies while homeless is 47; for a woman it is just 43. Rough sleeping is the most dangerous form of homelessness. It can be lonely, frightening and violent. For some, it is quite literally a death sentence. Holly Dagnall, Nottingham Community Housing Association’s director of homes and wellbeing, describes homelessness as a human emergency and who could disagree?

    Until 2015, the snapshot figure of people sleeping rough in Nottingham was almost never in double figures, but the latest official estimate, in November last year, was of 43 rough sleepers. Six months on, that figure has not fallen. Nottingham is not an exception; the city ranks 56th of all local authorities for the rate of rough sleeping. Official figures recording a 169% rise in rough sleeping in England since 2010 will surprise no one. We have all seen the evidence of the growing crisis with our own eyes on the streets of Westminster and in many of our constituencies every night.

    Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP) The hon. Lady is absolutely right that we have homelessness across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Does she agree that perhaps it is time for a dual strategy that addresses not only homelessness, but the issue of helping people to get employment? We have to give them vision, we have to give them hope and we have to give them a future. The Government need to look at both things together.

    Lilian Greenwood The hon. Gentleman is quite right that this is about providing people with not just a home, but the means by which they can sustain themselves in a home.

    The reasons for the increased numbers are far from a mystery. Crisis cites the impact of welfare reform, rising rents and the housing crisis. People become homeless and sleep rough for many reasons, but the single biggest cause of statutory homelessness is now the end of an assured shorthold tenancy. The cost of private rented accommodation has risen three times faster than earnings in England since 2010, and real earnings are still lagging behind 2008 levels a decade on.​

    Although I firmly believe that the Government bear a great deal of responsibility for the rise in homelessness and fear that their target of halving rough sleeping over the course of the Parliament and eliminating it altogether by 2027 lacks the urgency that the situation demands, I do very much welcome the Homelessness Reduction Act 2018 and the Government’s decision to develop the national rough sleeping strategy. My reason for seeking tonight’s debate is to address the content of that strategy.

    Concern about rising levels of rough sleeping in Nottingham was one of the drivers behind a new investigation commissioned jointly by Framework Housing Association and Opportunity Nottingham, the Big Lottery-funded programme supporting people with multiple needs. “No Way Out: A Study of Persistent Rough Sleeping in Nottingham” was produced by Dr Graham Bowpitt from Nottingham Trent University and Karan Kaur from Opportunity Nottingham, with help from Nottingham’s street outreach team.

    The study sought to discover how far the recent increase in rough sleeping might have arisen

    “not just from more people coming on to the streets, but also from people remaining there longer or repeatedly”.

    It sought to identify

    “the characteristics that distinguish persistent rough sleepers from the wider street homeless population, and any common features in their circumstances that might help to explain persistence.”

    In the remainder of my speech, I will focus on the study’s key findings before commenting on wider issues in Nottingham and at a national level.

    For the purposes of the report, and therefore this debate, the definition of persistent rough sleeper is

    “someone who was recorded sleeping rough on at least 10% of nights between 1st April 2016 and 31st March 2017, i.e. 36 nights (the ‘sustained’), or who has been seen sleeping rough in at least three out of the six years between 2012 and 2017 (the ‘recurrent’).”

    The report says:

    “There were 72 persistent rough sleepers who met the above definition…7 who were both sustained and recurrent, 33 who were sustained and 32 who were recurrent. Of these…10 were women…and 62 men…58 were recorded as of White British ethnicity…most of the others being White (Other)…13 were recorded as having a disability (18%).”

    According to the report, Opportunity Nottingham’s beneficiaries are recruited to the programme because they are assessed as having

    “at least three of the four prescribed complex needs: homelessness, substance misuse, mental ill-health and offending.”

    Of the 72 persistent rough sleepers, 67—that is 93%—had problems with substance misuse. Some 49 were offenders or at risk of offending, and more than half had mental health problems.

    Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op) I commend my hon. Friend for securing the debate, and Opportunity Nottingham and NTU for producing the report. My hon. Friend mentioned that over half of those persistent rough sleepers had a mental health issue. Is it not hardly startling that there is a correlation with the reduction in the number of overnight mental health beds—not just nationwide, but specifically in Nottinghamshire? We have lost 176 mental health overnight beds since 2010, and that is one of the core drivers putting people back on to the streets.​

    Lilian Greenwood My hon. Friend is quite right to highlight the way in which cuts to our health service and other services are having an impact on the prevalence of rough sleeping.

    Of the 38 Opportunity Nottingham beneficiaries, 32% had spent at least two weeks in prison since engaging with Opportunity Nottingham, 42% had experienced at least one eviction from accommodation, 42% had been excluded from a service because of unacceptable behaviour, and 24% reported begging as a source of income. In each case, those proportions are much higher than among the whole beneficiary cohort.

    The study also identified common themes in the narratives provided by the street outreach team and Opportunity Nottingham personal development co-ordinators in relation to those persistently sleeping rough, stating:

    “rough sleepers…and those who work with them are encountering a diminishing range of options when seeking to leave the streets, arising from cuts in public funding and adverse changes in the housing market. Hostels have closed, Housing Benefit availability is more restricted, affordable tenancies are more limited in terms of quantity and quality, and the supply of tenancy support has all but dried up.”

    Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op) I congratulate my hon. Friend on the powerful case that she is making on behalf of our city. I served on the council in our city at a time when we virtually eradicated rough sleeping, and now we are back to where we are today. Does my hon. Friend agree that this situation has been caused by a toxic combination of under-employment, poor housing supply, cuts to drug and alcohol services, inadequate mental health services and other eminently tackleable issues?

    Lilian Greenwood My hon. Friend is absolutely right. These issues were preventable and they are preventable. The last Labour Government did a great deal to tackle rough sleeping and it is very disappointing that we find ourselves where we are today.

    Financial issues obviously loom large in the lives of many rough sleepers. This was found to be particularly true of migrants with no recourse to public funds, but many local rough sleepers also encountered restricted access to welfare benefits. The system can simply be too hard to negotiate, resulting in a preference for begging. Of course, that is an unreliable source of income, and it puts accommodation at risk, which is particularly relevant to the recurrent group.

    The high proportion of persistent rough sleepers who have been in prison find that a lack of support on discharge frequently precipitates a return to a previous chaotic lifestyle. The operation of homelessness legislation itself can act as a barrier in some cases. For instance, rough sleepers fleeing from another locality, perhaps because of domestic violence, can be interpreted as having no local connection to Nottingham, while others vacating accommodation because of intimidation may be viewed as having become intentionally homeless.

    The level of complex need generates particular problems, with many specialist facilities having been lost, as we have heard. As a result, many rough sleepers carry the baggage of past evictions and negative risk assessments, leaving them barred from many facilities and making them harder to accommodate. They often miss out on mental health or other assessments that might otherwise have opened up access to specialised support.​

    Ambivalent relationships with hostel accommodation are frequently mentioned, with stories of evictions for rent arrears or inappropriate behaviour, perhaps because of a lack of support. There are also stories of intimidation or financial exploitation by other residents, resulting in many refusing offers out of fear or trying to avoid being lured into a lifestyle they wish to escape. Personal relationships may have a toxic effect on the lives of persistent rough sleepers. Women, in particular, can be trapped in exploitative and abusive relationships that impede solutions to their housing problems.

    When those factors are combined, it can often create disillusionment with what is perceived as a hostile system, making the option to live on the streets attractive. Experiences of repeated failure, the sense of there being no alternative, and the effect of growing numbers of rough sleepers in generating a mutually supporting community create an inertia in engaging rough sleepers to pursue better options.

    While this was a limited study of rough sleeping in one locality, I hope that it will prompt the Minister to consider initiatives that are worthy of further research and experimentation. The report recognises how an ambivalent relationship with hostels can leave rough sleepers stranded, calling on the city council and other social housing providers to adopt schemes such as Housing First that bypass hostels and accommodate rough sleepers straight from the streets with appropriate support. Housing First is being piloted in Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool—places with a devolution deal. What resources exist to develop Housing First as part of the solution in areas with high levels of persistent rough sleeping where there is not a directly elected mayor?

    The complexities of human relationships should be acknowledged when drawing up personalised housing plans. For example, requirements such as a local connection and intentionality rules should not be applied too harshly to people who have a genuine need to escape a damaging relationship. Couples in a valued relationship should be able to be accommodated together.

    As has been said, mental health problems have been shown to feature prominently among Nottingham’s homeless population. The Care Act 2014 was introduced to make social care assessments more readily available, but there is evidence to suggest that homeless people struggle to access this provision. Some councils have taken the view that rough sleepers with poor mental health or alcohol and substance-related problems have no entitlement to a needs assessment under the Care Act because, it is said, their need for care or support is caused by “other circumstantial factors” such as homelessness or rough sleeping rather than an underlying health condition. Can the Minister confirm that that interpretation of the Act, which has the effect of excluding rough sleepers from an entitlement that exists for the rest of the population, is incorrect? Will the Government issue guidance to clarify that people sleeping rough are entitled to a needs assessment under the Care Act on the same basis as everyone else? Does the Minister agree that when an individual who appears to have support or care needs presents to a local authority for assistance under the Homelessness Reduction Act, a referral should be made to the appropriate authority for a care needs ​assessment, with the outcome of that assessment taken into account when developing any personalised housing plan?

    The correlation between persistent rough sleeping and recent spells in prison reflects a failure in offender rehabilitation. That was supposed to have been remedied by the Offender Rehabilitation Act 2014, but there is evidence that despite the passing of this Act, short-term prisoners are still being discharged to no fixed abode. What measures will the Government take to ensure its more effective implementation?

    I first started applying for my Adjournment debate on this subject many weeks ago but, as so often happens in this place, the timing of today’s debate has proved incredibly fortuitous, because earlier today St Mungo’s launched a new report here in Parliament entitled “On my own two feet”. That peer research, which I am sure the Minister is aware of, examines why some people return to rough sleeping after time off the streets. It identifies a range of factors that can push people away from housing or services, and also pull factors that can draw people back on to the streets. When push and pull factors work together, they can lead someone to choose to return to rough sleeping or to see no alternative when a crisis comes along. The research also considered how holes in someone’s personal safety net can put them at greater risk. I hope the Government will look carefully at the recommendations in the St Mungo’s report before publishing their rough sleeping strategy next month.

    I do not have time to talk at length about the excellent work being undertaken in Nottingham to tackle homelessness over decades. Since 2010, the Framework street outreach team has been identifying rough sleepers and linking them into assessment, support and accommodation. In 2016, Nottingham was successful in bidding for the Government’s £40 million homelessness prevention programme, and it used that to extend the reach of the outreach team across the rest of the county for two years.

    Nottingham City Council and Framework have continued to resource and implement a “No second night out” policy after Government funding ended. Since 2016 the city council has committed more than £240,000 in additional funding to enhance its winter measures and ensure sufficient provision to meet the council’s pledge that no one needs to sleep rough in Nottingham. Their co-ordinated approach has formed part of the sound basis for their bid for the new £30 million rough sleeping fund announced by the Department in March 2018 for enhanced year-round support. I hope that the Minister can clarify whether the £30 million announced can only fund emergency measures, or if it can be used to support long-term resettlement for persistent rough sleepers. Is the fund a one-off measure to produce a short-term temporary outcome, or will there be further allocations for future years?

    In the 2016 Budget, the Chancellor announced £100 million of capital funding to assist with the cost of developing Housing First and move-on units for people who have been sleeping rough. Some £50 million of that was allocated to the London Mayor, who now has the programme up and running. The other £50 million was for the rest of the country, where rough sleeping has risen more quickly than in the capital. When will it be ​possible for providers outside London to bid for some of the remaining £50 million, and what is the process for them to do so?

    Alongside the city council and housing associations, including Framework and NCHA, there are many voluntary organisations and faith groups that make a huge contribution to supporting fellow citizens in Nottingham via food banks, day centres, night shelters and many other support services. We would not be without them. For some rough sleepers, particularly those with few options, they are a lifeline. What advice does the Minister have for local authorities dealing with long-term rough sleepers who have no recourse to public funds? What accommodation and support options are available to them, and how can they be funded?

    Homelessness is a human emergency, but ending it is not an impossible task. The Government say they have a target to reduce rough sleeping by half by 2022, and to eliminate it entirely by 2027. If they are not to fail, Ministers must ensure that their strategy addresses the needs of all rough sleepers, including those who are hardest to identify, reach, support and sustain.

  • James Brokenshire – 2018 Statement on Housing Policy

    Below is the text of the statement made by James Brokenshire, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, in the House of Commons on 2 July 2018.

    Since we published our Housing White Paper last year, we have been making significant progress in fixing the broken housing market, reforming our planning system and increasing housing ​supply to start to improve affordability, as well as taking steps to ensure that communities have the safe and high-quality homes they need to thrive.

    Our new national planning policy framework—coming into force this summer following our consultation—will transform the planning system, and at of autumn Budget we set out £15 billion the new financial support for housing, taking our total investment to £44 billion over the next five years. Since 2010 we have delivered over a million new homes, and in 2016-17 we saw 217,350 new homes delivered—the highest number in all but one of the last 30 years.

    Our new national housing agency, Homes England, is taking a more assertive approach to getting homes built. This has already started—for example in Burgess Hill, a site that is desperately needed for affordable housing but which sat undeveloped. Homes England has now stepped in, bought the land and is delivering the infrastructure. Today I am announcing a plan to build over 3,000 homes on the site.

    But we need to go further, and in particular we recognise the housing market needs an injection of innovation and competition. Getting new players into the market and embracing modern methods of construction will allow us to build faster and drive up choice and quality for consumers.

    To help do this, today I am announcing that the local authority accelerated construction programme is moving into its delivery phase. Through this fund, we are releasing £450 million to speed up delivery of homes on surplus local authority land and encouraging the use of modern methods of construction and SME builders. Homes England has started the process of funding negotiations with a number of local authorities to ensure their sites can deliver greater pace and innovation in house building.

    But this is not just about the number of homes, it is also about ensuring we deliver the right homes in the right places, and building communities that people are happy to call home.

    Today I am announcing that we have launched a new Homes England programme to deliver the community housing fund. Community groups and local authorities in all parts of England outside London are now able to apply for capital and revenue funding to bring community-led housing schemes forward. Homes England has published a prospectus on its website at: www.gov.uk/topic/housing/funding-programmes.

    Through this fund, housing will be delivered where the mainstream market is unable to deliver. The housing it helps provide will be tailored to meet specific local needs and will remain locally affordable in perpetuity. It will help sustain local communities and local economies and help raise the bar in design and construction standards. Now that it is launched, it will unlock a pipeline of thousands of new homes and help this innovative sector grow to make a substantial additional contribution to housing supply. A similar programme is being developed for London—delivered by the GLA—and an announcement on that will be made shortly.

    We also want to protect the rights of tenants in the private rented sector and give them more security. That is why I am publishing today an eight-week consultation on overcoming the barriers to landlords offering longer tenancies to tenants in the private rented sector.​
    Longer tenancies will help tenants, particularly those with children, who are currently on short-term contracts and who are unable to plan for the future. Longer tenancies can benefit landlords too by helping to avoid the costs of finding new tenants. The aim is to collect views on what could be done to provide tenants with greater security while providing flexibility for landlords to regain their properties if their circumstances change. In the consultation, we propose a new model tenancy agreement of three years with a six-month break clause and options on how to implement the model which include legislation, financial incentives for landlords, and voluntary measures to encourage its use. Copies of the consultation will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and are available online.

    Finally, for too long, the leasehold market has been left to evolve without much attention to who actually benefits. We are determined to reform the leasehold market to make it work for consumers. We have announced a programme of leasehold reform including a ban on new leasehold houses, restricting ground rents to a peppercorn and making enfranchisement easier, quicker and cheaper. We will bring forward legislation at the earliest opportunity, but we want the industry to change in advance of legislation and have written to developers setting out our expectations.

    Today I can also confirm that Government funding schemes for housing supply will no longer support the unjustified use of leasehold for new houses, wherever possible, and that we will hardwire this as a condition into any new schemes. In future, ground rents on new long leases in flats will be limited to a peppercorn.

  • Nadhim Zahawi – 2018 Statement on Childcare

    Below is the text of the statement made by Nadhim Zahawi, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education, in the House of Commons on 2 July 2018.

    I wish to update the House on two important changes the Government are making to childcare.

    I have today laid a new statutory instrument, the Childcare (Disqualification) Regulations and Childcare (Early Years Provision Free of Charge) (Extended Entitlement) (Amendment) Regulations 2018. This SI, which will come into force on 31 August 2018, makes important changes to improve the fairness of the childcare disqualification arrangements and extend 30 hours free childcare to children in foster care.

    The childcare disqualification arrangements are an important part of the strong set of safeguards we have in place to ensure the safety and welfare of our children and young people. These arrangements apply exclusively to individuals working in childcare in schools and the private and voluntary sectors, up to and including reception classes, and in wraparound care for children up to the age of eight. These arrangements build on the safeguards provided by the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) regime, which all schools and early years childcare providers must operate.

    Under the arrangements, any individual who has committed an offence, or who is in breach of other criteria set out in legislation, is prohibited from working in these settings. The arrangements also include provision that disqualifies an individual from working in childcare because of an offence committed by someone who lives or works in their household, known as disqualification by association. This means that a member of staff is unable to work in childcare even though they themselves have not committed a relevant offence.

    Disqualified individuals can obtain a waiver from Ofsted against their disqualification. Employers must suspend or redeploy the individual until a waiver is granted, as individuals who are disqualified cannot work in childcare without an Ofsted waiver. This provision has unfortunately been widely misunderstood and a number of individuals have been redeployed or suspended unnecessarily. Consequently, the disqualification by association provision is having a detrimental impact on employers and employees, as well as family life. It is also having a negative impact on the rehabilitation of offenders.

    In response to widespread concerns about the disqualification by association provision, the Department for Education undertook a public consultation on options ​for its reform. We were most grateful for the near 450 responses received. The responses to the consultation largely reiterated the earlier concerns. The consultation strongly favoured reform, and the majority of respondents advocated the removal of disqualification by association in non-domestic settings.

    Making new regulations enables us to address these concerns, by removing the disqualification by association where childcare is provided in non-domestic settings, where other safeguarding measures are well observed and followed. The disqualification by association provision will however continue to apply where childcare is provided in domestic settings, where it provides an important safeguard.

    We are supporting the changes we are making with new statutory guidance. This will reinforce existing messages about the importance of employers undertaking safer recruitment checks and provide them with advice on how they can manage their workforce in the absence of the disqualification by association component of the arrangements. The Department for Education will also continue to provide a helpline and mailbox to employers and employees to help them with the arrangements.

    The Government are also extending 30 hours free childcare for three and four-year-olds to children in foster care. This is a key Government early years policy, and foster families should have access to the same support and opportunities that all families have.

    This Government’s ambitions for children during and after being looked after are the same as for any other child: that they have access to good health and wellbeing, fulfil their educational potential, build and maintain lasting relationships and participate positively in society. The role of the foster parent is central to achieving those high ambitions for the children in their care. Fostering provides stability, a home and an alternative family. Children in foster care want to feel part of a family and have a normal family life. We need to support foster parents and local authorities in a way that achieves that. That includes foster parents being able to work outside their caring responsibilities, where it is right for the child.

    The SI I have laid today enables us to realise those ambitions, by allowing children in foster care to receive 30 hours free childcare where the following criteria are met:

    That accessing the extended hours is consistent with the child’s care plan, placing the child at the centre of the process and decision making, and

    that, in single parent families, the foster parent holds additional employment outside of their role as a foster parent; or

    that in two parent families, both parents hold additional employment outside of their role as a foster parent.

    The SI makes it clear that the eligibility of children in foster care will be determined by the responsible local authority.

    We are supporting the changes with new statutory guidance and operational guidance. These will provide local authorities with detailed guidance on how they can discharge their duty to secure 30 hours free childcare for children in foster care, and ensure that the additional eligibility criteria are met.

    Copies of the SI, our statutory and operational guidance documents, and the Government’s response to the consultation on changes to the childcare disqualification arrangements will be placed in the House Library.

  • John Glen – 2018 Statement on Justice and Home Affairs Opt-in Decision

    Below is the text of the statement made by John Glen, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, in the House of Commons on 2 July 2018.

    The proposed EU directive on credit purchasers, credit servicers and the recovery of collateral contains, among other things, provisions on a new EU mechanism for out-of-court collateral enforcement. The directive is part of a broader package of EU measures designed to reduce the levels of non-performing loans (NPLs) in the EU, as NPLs decrease profitability of banks, often leaving them in a weak position from which to provide finance to the wider economy in support of growth and jobs.

    The Government have decided that it is in the UK’s interest not to opt in to the Justice and Home Affairs obligations within this directive as the provisions introduce an unnecessary level of administration to the UK’s existing collateral enforcement mechanisms, which are sufficiently robust and fit for purpose.

    The directive states that where member states establish collateral enforcement mechanisms “by means of appropriation”, the rights of creditors “shall be governed by the applicable laws in each member state”. The Government’s view is that this provision addresses situations in which conflicts of laws points arise, in which case it is an applicable law provision and therefore includes JHA content.

    The directive similarly governs applicable law if a borrower and lender from two different EU member states cannot agree on the appointment of a valuer—with the appointment of the valuer falling on the court within one of those member states.

    The Government remain supportive of the European Commission’s broader efforts to reduce levels of NPLs in the EU, supporting solutions that are proportionate and targeted.

  • Theresa May – 2018 Speech at Chequers with Donald Trump

    Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May, the Prime Minister, at Chequers on 13 July 2018.

    I am pleased to welcome the President of the United States to Chequers today on his first official visit to the United Kingdom.

    No two countries do more together than ours to keep their peoples safe and prosperous.

    And we want to deepen that co-operation even further to meet the shared challenges we face, now and in the years ahead.

    This morning President Trump and I visited Sandhurst, where we saw a demonstration of joint-working between British and American Special Forces – just one example of what is today the broadest, deepest and most advanced security co-operation of any two countries in the world.

    Whether it is our pilots deterring the use of chemical weapons in Syria or defeating Daesh, our soldiers at the forefront of NATO’s presence in Eastern Europe, our navies in the Pacific enforcing sanctions on North Korea, or our unparalleled intelligence-sharing partnership thwarting attacks – our security co-operation is saving lives here in Britain, in America and right across the world.

    That partnership is set to grow, with our armies integrating to a level unmatched anywhere, and the UK set to spend £24 billion on US equipment and support over the next decade.

    Today we have also discussed how we can deepen our work together to respond to malign state activity, terrorism and serious crime.

    In particular, on Russia, I thanked President Trump for his support in responding to the appalling use of a nerve agent in Salisbury, after which he expelled 60 Russian intelligence officers.

    And I welcomed his meeting with President Putin in Helsinki on Monday.

    We agreed that it is important to engage Russia from a position of strength and unity – and that we should continue to deter and counter all efforts to undermine our democracies.

    Turning to our economic co-operation, with mutual investment between us already over $1 trillion, we want to go further.

    We agreed today, that as the UK leaves the European Union, we will pursue an ambitious US-UK Free Trade Agreement.

    The Chequers agreement reached last week provides the platform for Donald and me to agree an ambitious deal that works for both countries right across our economies.

    A deal that builds on the UK’s independent trade policy; reducing tariffs, delivering a gold-standard in financial services co-operation, and – as two of the world’s most advanced economies – seizing the opportunity of new technology.

    All of this will further enhance our economic co-operation, creating new jobs and prosperity for our peoples for generations to come.

    The UK-US relationship is also defined by the role we play on the world stage.

    Doing this means making tough calls and sometimes being prepared to say things that others might rather not hear.

    From the outset President Trump has been clear about how he sees the challenges we face.

    And on many, we agree.

    For example, the need to deal with the long-standing nuclear threat of DPRK, where the agreement in Singapore has set in train the prospect of denuclearisation, to which the UK is proud to be contributing expertise.

    Or the need to address the destabilising influence of Iran in the Middle East, where today we have discussed what more we can do to push back on Iran in Yemen and reduce humanitarian suffering.

    Or the need for NATO allies to increase their defence spending and capability, on which we saw significant increases at yesterday’s summit. This includes Afghanistan, where this week I announced a further uplift of 440 UK troops – an ongoing commitment to a mission that began as NATO’s only use of Article 5, acting in support of the US.

    Finally, let me say this about the wider transatlantic relationship.

    It is all of our responsibility to ensure that transatlantic unity endures. For it has been fundamental to the protection and projection of our interests and values for generations.

    With US leadership at its foundation, its beating heart remains our democratic values and our commitment to justice.

    Those values are something that we in the UK will always cherish – as I know the US will too.

    It is the strength of these values, and the common interests they create, that we see across the breadth of our societies in North America and Europe.

    And that is why I am confident that this transatlantic alliance will continue to be the bedrock of our shared security and prosperity for years to come.

  • John Glen – 2018 Speech at Green Finance Summit

    Below is the text of the speech made by John Glen, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, at the Green Finance Summit on 17 July 2018.

    I’m delighted to address you all this morning for the second annual Green Finance Summit.

    Ladies and gentleman – no one doubts the strength of the public will to fight climate change.

    In such a time of friction and division, it comforts me to know this cause unifies our country across party political lines…

    …as it continues to stand as one of the greatest challenges of our age.

    How we manage our relationship with our oldest partner – the natural world – will be the test of our times.

    As we know, up until recently, government and philanthropy have driven the debate and funded the growth of green finance.

    But there is only so far that this approach can take us….

    We have witnessed over the past 25 years a deeper – and genuine – engagement by the private sector in green finance…

    …through the development of sophisticated financial instruments…

    …and innovations to mobilise green capital.

    All of this has helped propel the UK to the forefront of the global green finance market…

    …with almost $25 billion of green bonds listed in London in seven currencies…

    During my tenure as Economic Secretary to the Treasury, I am determined to push this agenda…

    …for responsible capitalism…

    …and for leveraging market forces to tackle the challenges we face as a collective.

    Today I want to speak to you about three things.

    Firstly – to take stock of how we arrived at the status quo.

    Secondly – my vision for the future of green finance – one that is sustainable, mainstream, and culturally embedded.

    Finally – how the work of the recently announced Green Finance Institute will be crucial in achieving this vision.

    While I understand that there may be an increased number of political cynics in the room – which is not necessarily surprising given current events…

    …I want to reassure you that this government’s commitment to stimulating a robust environment for green finance…

    …is not mere political pageantry or a passing fad.

    I am proud that the UK was at the forefront of setting a legislative mandate for combatting this challenge through the 2008 Climate Act.

    But for too long, tackling climate change has been left to government, with the private sector largely left by the wayside…

    …and as a believer in the sanctity of the free market…

    …I am glad to see it taking a long-awaited place at the table…

    …rising to meet the burgeoning appetite of markets and investors…

    …to embrace green finance and responsible investing.

    But green finance has yet to reach its full potential…

    …as I believe it is largely untapped.

    The conversation has been dominated by a few specific areas, such as green bonds.

    And whilst there will always be a place for them, more lies further afield…

    …in the breadth, and depth of global capital markets.

    New instruments are gaining traction.

    Take green loans, now accessible to a greater range of entities, and the emerging green mortgage market.

    And the capacity for green securitisation is enormous.

    It unlocks institutional investor capital to smaller projects that otherwise would be excluded from accessing capital.

    Green funds are emerging from the fray with retail funds in particular becoming more engaged.

    And of course this is being led, as ever, by a growing investor and consumer appetite.

    A recent survey by Eon found 54% of UK consumers would definitely consider taking out a green loan to fund home energy efficiency improvements, with nearly a fifth citing energy efficiency as the most important factor when choosing a property.

    A 2017 survey by Morgan Stanley’s Institute for Sustainable Investing found that 86% of millennials are interested in sustainable investing.

    Such demand will no doubt see an increasing number of asset managers and lenders broadening their offer on green products.

    The figures will speak for themselves: at the end of 2017, only 17% of Europe’s sustainable investment funds were categorised with an environmental focus.

    By the end of this year, we expect this number to have risen substantially, along with increased allocations of investments dedicated to fighting climate change.

    As the needle shifts from fringe to mainstream, from curiosity to permanent action…

    …I think we will continue to see a growth in product offering.

    We may have solved the financing needs of the Paris agreement, but we are not here to discuss this today.

    We are here to discuss how much further we need to go.

    My vision for the next twelve months and beyond is an explosion of the momentum …

    … to the point where ‘green finance’ becomes simply – ‘finance’.

    We are seeing this happen.

    For example, most of the top European insurers are committed to divesting from coal – pulling out a staggering USD 20 billion of investment.

    Long-term climate change risks have been pushing pension funds to take action on their investment choices.

    And the global green bond market continues to exceed expectations – the market is up 78% on 2016 to reach $155 billion of issuances.

    Just yesterday I celebrated the largest green bond listing on the London Stock Exchange, of $1.58 billion, by the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, the world’s largest bank.

    While green and sustainable equity capital raised at the London Stock Exchange rose at a rate of 197% year-on-year.

    And the Green Finance Taskforce, members of whom I welcome today, published a landmark report in March to help set the trajectory for UK green finance policy.

    I want to quote a line from the report which I think cuts to the nub of the issue:

    “the sheer scale of capital required dictates that this cannot be driven through either public or private sectors working alone…we need an international alignment of interests, incentives and policies”.

    The momentous challenge facing us all requires a fundamental change of thinking…

    …keep our ambitions limited to short-termism…

    …or seek to hit targets or arbitrary timelines.

    It is incumbent that whilst aiming for tangible results…

    …we support an organic shift in the rationale of the market.

    It is not enough that markets simply react to investor appetites.

    A sustainable and long-term shift in mindset needs to happen…

    …and the market needs to realise green finance is critical for long-term strategies.

    This cultural pivot must happen at an institutional level – and it is already in train.

    Because there is no doubting that the social impetus to transition to a low-carbon economy is there.

    The whole market must now be brought along in parallel.

    This calls for collaborative action…

    …between governments, between public and private, and between sectors of our economy.

    We have already seen so many successful advancements in this regard…

    …from Barclay’s new green mortgage, offering consumers finance that aligns with their values…

    … to international central banks forming a network to “green” the global financial system.

    Executed well, green finance will not only help achieve our climate targets…

    …but support long term economic resilience…

    …and ensure the continued vitality and relevance of financial services.

    Which is why the Chancellor’s announcement last month of the new Green Finance Institute is so important.

    As he set out at Mansion House, we are working with the City of London to fund a permanent centre to champion green and sustainable finance.

    The Institute will capitalise on the UK’s inherent strength: a magnet for capital and expertise.

    My goal for this new venture is fourfold:

    One – to provide strengthened purpose and branding to UK green finance.

    The Institute will stand as a quality mark, a sign of the UK’s green finance expertise under one unified brand.

    Two – to demonstrate our international leadership.

    We already lead the world in this market, from attracting over $24 billion in international green bonds, to ensuring we remain partner of choice on green finance for some of the world’s biggest economies.

    Three – driving innovation

    As I set out earlier, it is not enough to live on the successes of the past…

    … in order to ensure this market continues to grow, we must keep innovating.

    Building on such strengths as FinTech and local currency finance.

    And finally – setting the future agenda

    The Institute will be a focal point for government-industry collaboration, working together to open up to new markets and drive forward future policy.

    That’s why this morning I’m delighted to announce the City of London are establishing an Advisory Board to set out the shape and strategy of the Institute…

    …which will be chaired by, Sir Roger Gifford…

    …who brings his extensive experience in green finance to the role.

    Members of the Board will be drawn from our domestic firms, as well as international financial leaders..

    Because it’s not enough for the UK to lead…

    … we need to make sure we’re taking everyone along with us…

    …as we explore the opportunities this country voted to explore as Global Britain.

    To conclude this morning., I want to share a quote with you:

    “The…benefit of knowledge obliges you to act ethically. Complacency is not illegal, though it may be equally disastrous”.

    Here was Churchill – speaking of the threats faced by Britain and the world in 1940 by a different kind of enemy.

    From his immortal oratory, I couldn’t help but draw an analogy with the threat we now face.

    We all know too much about what faces us – and responsibility is the natural corollary.

    I am reassured by the ambition…

    …of government – as a steward of the environment…

    …and of a body politic – committed to the climate.

    But it is by reaching for the invisible hand of the market…

    …that green finance can endure…

    …and sustain itself for the benefit of the collective good.

    Thank you very much indeed.