UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Theresa May – 2018 Speech on Environment

    Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May, the Prime Minister, at the London Wetland Centre in Barnes on 11 January 2018.

    It is wonderful to be here at the Wetland Centre – a true oasis in the heart of London.

    In our election manifesto last year we made an important pledge: to make ours the first generation to leave the natural environment in a better state than we found it.

    As we leave the European Union, which for decades has controlled some of the most important levers of environmental policy, now is the right time to put the question of how we protect and enhance our natural environment centre-stage.

    And it is a central priority for this government.

    Our mission is to build a Britain where the next generation can enjoy a better life than the one that went before it.

    That means tackling the deficit and dealing with our debts, so they are not a burden for our children and grandchildren.

    It means building the houses that people need, so that the dream of home ownership can be a reality.

    Ensuring every child has a good school place and can get the best start in life.

    And it also means protecting and enhancing our natural environment for the next generation, so they have a healthy and beautiful country in which to build their lives.

    Making good on the promise that each new generation should be able to build a better future is a fundamental Conservative principle.

    And whilst every political tradition has a stake in our natural environment, speaking as the Leader of the Conservative Party, I know I draw upon a proud heritage.

    Because Conservatism and Conservation are natural allies.

    The fundamental understanding which lies at the heart of our philosophical tradition is that we in the present are trustees charged with protecting and improving what we have inherited from those who went before us.

    And it is our responsibility to pass on that inheritance to the next generation.

    That applies to the great national institutions which we have built up as a society over generations, like our courts, our Parliament, the BBC and the NHS.

    And it applies equally to our natural heritage.

    Value of our natural environment

    Britain has always been a world leader in understanding and protecting the natural world.

    From Gilbert White’s vivid descriptions of the ecology of his Hampshire village in the first work of natural history writing, in the eighteenth century, to Sir David Attenborough’s landmark TV series in the twenty-first century, which have opened the eyes of millions of people to the wonder of our planet and to the threats it faces – the appeal of our natural world is universal and has caught the imagination of successive generations.

    In the United Kingdom, we are blessed with an abundance and variety of landscapes and habitats.

    These natural assets are of immense value.

    Our countryside and coastal waters are the means by which we sustain our existence in these islands.

    They are where we grow and harvest a large proportion of the food we eat. Where the water we drink comes from.

    Our green and blue places have inspired some of our greatest poetry, art and music and have become global cultural icons.

    Shakespeare’s Forest of Arden has been recreated on stages across the globe.

    Beatrix Potter’s stories and William’s Wordsworth’s poetic descriptions of ‘the calm that Nature breathes among the hills’ has made the Lake District world-renowned.

    The Suffolk landscapes of John Constable, and the beautiful depictions of the River Thames in my own constituency by Sir Stanley Spencer, are iconic.

    People from every continent are drawn to our shores to enjoy these beautiful landscapes, supporting hundreds of thousands of jobs in tourism.

    Industries which directly draw on our environment – from agriculture and forestry to aquaculture and fishing – support hundreds of thousands of jobs and contribute billions to our economy.

    The natural environment is around us wherever we are, and getting closer to it is good for our physical and mental health and our emotional and spiritual wellbeing.

    Millions of us visit the countryside, the seaside, a local park or places like this, every week to recharge our batteries, spend time with friends and family, and to exercise.

    So the environment is something personal to each of us, but it is also something which collectively we hold in trust for the next generation.

    And we have a responsibility to protect and enhance it.

    Conservation and growth

    It is sometimes suggested that a belief in a free market economy which pursues the objective of economic growth is not compatible with taking the action necessary to protect and enhance our natural environment.

    That we need to give up on the very idea of economic growth itself as the price we have to pay for sustainability.

    Others argue that taking any action to protect and improve our environment harms business and holds back growth.

    Both are wrong. They present a false choice which I entirely reject.

    A free market economy, operating under the right rules, regulations, and incentives, delivering sustainable economic growth, is the single greatest agent of collective human progress we have ever known.

    Time and again, it has lifted whole societies out of abject poverty and subsistence living, increased life expectancy, widened literacy and improved educational standards.

    More than this, it is in free economies and free societies that the technological and scientific breakthroughs which improve and save lives are made.

    The innovation and invention of a free enterprise economy will help to deliver new technology to drive a revolution in clean growth.

    Around the world, economies at all stages of development are embracing new low-carbon technologies and a more efficient use of resources to move onto a path of clean and sustainable growth.

    And our Industrial Strategy puts harnessing the economic potential of the clean growth revolution at its heart, as one of its four Grand Challenges.

    From how we generate power, and transport people and goods, to our industrial processes and how we grow our food – new clean technologies have the potential to deliver more good jobs and higher living standards.

    The UK is already home to around half a million jobs in low carbon businesses and their supply chain.

    We are a world-leader in the manufacture of electric vehicles.

    We are the biggest offshore wind energy producer in the world.

    And we must continue to press for sustainable economic growth, and the immense benefits it brings.

    Of course, for a market to function properly it has to be regulated.

    And environmental protection is a vital part of any good regulatory regime.

    So where government needs to intervene to ensure that high standards are met, we will not hesitate to do so.

    That is the approach which underpins our corporate governance reforms and our plans to make the energy market work better for consumers.

    Government stepping-up to its proper role as an engaged and active participant defines our Industrial Strategy.

    And it is the approach we are taking in this Environment Plan too.

    Together, they combine to form a coherent approach to boosting economic productivity, prosperity and growth, while at the same time restoring and enhancing our natural environment.

    Our record

    Conservative Governments have always taken our responsibility to the natural environment seriously.

    In the nineteenth century it was Benjamin Disraeli’s Conservative government which passed the River Pollution Prevention Act, providing the first legal environmental protections for our waterways.

    A Conservative government in the 1950s passed the Clean Air Act, making the Great Smog of London a thing of the past.

    Margaret Thatcher was the first world leader to recognise the threat of global warming and helped to protect our ozone layers through her work on the Montreal Protocol.

    And David Cameron restored environmentalism to a central place in the Conservative agenda.

    The measures set out in this plan build on this proud heritage, and the action which we have taken in office since 2010.

    We have seen some notable successes.

    Thanks to concerted action over many years, our rivers and beaches are now cleaner than they have been at any time since the Industrial Revolution.

    Otters are back in rivers in every English county.

    We are releasing beavers to the Forest of Dean, to help reduce the risk of flooding and enhance biodiversity.

    Action at the EU level – of which the UK has consistently been a champion – has helped drive these improvements.

    Because we recognise their value, we will incorporate all existing EU environmental regulations into domestic law when we leave.

    And let me be very clear. Brexit will not mean a lowering of environmental standards.

    We will set out our plans for a new, world leading independent statutory body to hold government to account and give the environment a voice. And our work will be underpinned by a strong set of environmental principles.

    We will consult widely on these proposals, not least with many of the people in this room.

    But be in no doubt: our record shows that we have already gone further than EU regulation requires of us to protect our environment.

    Thanks to action we have taken, 7,886 square miles of coastal waters around the UK are now Marine Conservation Zones, protecting a range of nationally important, rare or threatened habitats and species.

    Our ban on the use of microbeads in cosmetic and personal care products is another positive step towards protecting our marine environment.

    And we want to further restrict neonicotinoids to protect our bees.

    We will use the opportunity Brexit provides to strengthen and enhance our environmental protections – not to weaken them.

    We will develop a new environmental land management scheme which supports farmers who deliver environmental benefits for the public.

    And once we’ve taken back control of our waters, we will implement a more sustainable fishing policy that also supports our vital coastal communities.

    Animal welfare

    That is action for the future – but we are also acting in the here and now.

    When animals are mistreated, our common humanity is tarnished.

    So we are pursuing policies to make Britain a world-leader in tackling the abuse of animals.

    Here at home we are introducing mandatory CCTV into slaughter houses, to ensure standards of treatment are upheld.

    We are increasing the maximum sentence for the worst acts of animal cruelty in England and Wales ten-fold.

    We recognise that animals are sentient beings and we will enshrine that understanding in primary legislation.

    We have consulted on plans to introduce a total ban on UK sales of ivory that contribute either directly or indirectly to the continued poaching of elephants.

    In 2014, we convened the London Conference on the Illegal Wildlife Trade, the first of its kind, to help eradicate an abhorrent crime and to better protect the world’s most iconic species from the threat of extinction.

    In October we will host this conference again and will press for further international action.

    Whether they are pets, livestock or wild fauna, animals deserve the proper protection of the law and under a Conservative government that is exactly what they will receive.

    Enhancing our natural environment

    I am proud of the progress we have made but recognise that the challenges we face remain acute.

    In England, changes in patterns of land use have seen habitats lost and species threatened.

    Since 1970 there has been a significant decline in the numbers of woodland and farmland birds.

    Pollinating insects have declined by 13% since 1980.

    And while the water in our rivers and beaches are cleaner than ever, around the world eight million tonnes of plastic makes its way into the oceans each year.

    The problem was vividly highlighted in the BBC’s recent Blue Planet II series, which was public service broadcasting at its finest.

    And I also pay tribute to the Daily Mail for its tireless campaigning on this issue.

    The 25 year environment plan for England, which we are publishing today, sets out the action government will take to tackle all of these challenges, and I pay tribute to Michael Gove and his team for their work on it and the energy and enthusiasm they have brought to this.

    Its goals are simple: clean air, clean and plentiful water, plants and animals which are thriving, and a cleaner, greener country for us all.

    These are all valuable in themselves, but together they add up to something truly profound: a better world for each of us to live in, and better future for the next generation.

    We have worked closely with the devolved administrations as we have developed this plan, and we want to work closely with them on these issues in the years ahead.

    This is a plan for the long-term: as our environment changes, our plan will be updated to ensure we are continuing to deliver on our commitment to deliver a healthy natural environment.

    Northern Forest

    Nothing is more emblematic of that natural environment than our trees.

    A tree is a home to countless organisms, from insects to small mammals.

    They are natural air purifiers. They act as flood defences.

    We have committed to plant millions more trees, in urban and rural locations.

    We also support increased protections for England’s existing trees and forests, both from inappropriate developments and from invasive pests and diseases.

    To make more land available for the homes our country needs, while at the same time creating new habitats for wildlife, we will embed the principle of ‘net environmental gain’ for development, including housing and infrastructure.

    And as we pursue our Northern Powerhouse, connecting the great cities of the North of England to promote their economic growth, we will also create a new Northern Forest.

    It will be a new community woodland for Cheshire, Lancashire and Yorkshire, provide a new and enduring amenity for the growing population of the north of England, and act as a carbon sink for the UK.

    Decades from now, children as yet unborn will be exploring this forest, playing under the shade of its trees and learning about our natural world from its flora and fauna.

    Access and participation

    But today, more than one in ten young people do not spend time in the countryside or in large urban green spaces, meaning they are denied the benefits which spending time outdoors in the natural environment brings.

    These young people are disproportionately from more deprived backgrounds and their effective exclusion from our countryside represents a social injustice which I am determined to tackle.

    The National Park Authorities already engage directly with over 60,000 young people a year in schools visits, and they will now double this figure to ensure that even more young people can learn about our most precious environments.

    I have seen for myself this morning the excitement and enthusiasm of children learning about these wetlands and the birds that inhabit them.

    And to help more children lead happy and healthy lives, we will launch a new Nature Friendly Schools programme.

    Targeting schools in disadvantaged areas first, it will create improved school grounds which allow young people to learn about the natural world.

    It doesn’t have to be big, difficult or expensive.

    It could be planting a garden, growing a vegetable patch, or setting up a bird feeder.

    Whatever form it takes, it will be putting nature into the lives of young people, because everyone deserves to experience it first-hand.

    And this work with schools will be supported by £10 million of investment.

    Plastics

    We look back in horror at some of the damage done to our environment in the past and wonder how anyone could have thought that, for example, dumping toxic chemicals untreated into rivers was ever the right thing to do.

    In years to come, I think people will be shocked at how today we allow so much plastic to be produced needlessly.

    In the UK alone, the amount of single-use plastic wasted every year would fill 1,000 Royal Albert Halls.

    This plastic is ingested by dozens of species of marine animals and over 100 species of sea birds, causing immense suffering to individual creatures and degrading vital habitats.

    1 million birds, and over 100,000 other sea mammals and turtles die every year from eating and getting tangled in plastic waste.

    This truly is one of the great environmental scourges of our time.

    Today I can confirm that the UK will demonstrate global leadership.

    We must reduce the demand for plastic, reduce the number of plastics in circulation and improve our recycling rates.

    So we will take action at every stage of the production and consumption of plastic.

    As it is produced, we will encourage manufacturers to take responsibility for the impacts of their products and rationalise the number of different types of plastics they use.

    As it is consumed, we will drive down the amount of plastic in circulation through reducing demand.

    Government will lead the way by removing all consumer single use plastic in central government offices.

    And I want to see other large organisations commit to doing the same.

    Supermarkets also need to do much more to cut down on unnecessary plastic packaging, so we will work with them to explore introducing plastic-free aisles, where all the food is sold loose.

    And we will make it easier for people to recycle their plastics, so less of it ends up in landfills or our waterways.

    But I want us to go a step further.

    We have seen a powerful example over the last couple of years of the difference which a relatively simple policy can make for our environment.

    In 2015 we started asking shoppers to pay a 5p charge for using a plastic bag.

    As a direct consequence, we have used 9 billion fewer of them since the charge was introduced.

    This means the marine-life around the shores of the UK is safer, our local communities are cleaner and fewer plastic bags are ending up in landfill sites.

    This success should inspire us.

    It shows the difference we can make, and it demonstrates that the public is willing to play its part to protect our environment.

    So to help achieve our goal of eliminating all avoidable plastic waste, we will extend the 5p plastic bag charge to all retailers, to further reduce usage.

    And next month, we will launch a call for evidence on taxes or charges on single use plastics.

    We will also use the United Kingdom’s international influence to drive positive change around the world.

    When we host the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in April we will put the sustainable development of our oceans firmly on the agenda.

    We will work with our partners to create a Commonwealth Blue Charter and push for strong action to reduce plastic waste in the ocean.

    And we will direct our development spending to help developing nations reduce plastic waste; increase our own marine protected areas at home; and establish new Blue Belt protections in our Overseas Territories.

    I want the Britain of the future to be a truly Global Britain, which is a force for good in the world.

    Steadfast in upholding our values – not least our fierce commitment to protecting the natural environment.

    Climate change

    You can see that commitment in our work on climate change.

    Since 2012, the carbon-intensity of UK electricity has fallen by more than twice that of any other major economy.

    In 2016 the UK succeeded in decarbonising at a faster rate than any other G20 country.

    And last April, the UK had its first full day without any coal-fired electricity since the 1880s.

    We are supporting the world’s poorest as they face up to the effects of rising sea waters and the extreme weather events associated with climate change.

    Last month I attended the One Planet Summit in Paris, where I announced new support for countries in the Caribbean, Asia and Africa to help them build resilience against natural disasters and climate extremes.

    We will continue to lead the world in delivering on our commitments to the planet, from fulfilling the environmental aspects of the UN Sustainable Development Goals to complying with the Paris Climate Agreement.

    Our Clean Growth Strategy set out our commitment to phase out unabated coal fired electricity by 2025, and through the Power Past Coal alliance, which the UK established with Canada, we are encouraging other countries to do the same.

    26 nations have already joined the alliance – and I will carry on pressing others to join too.

    We can be proud of our success in facing up to the reality of climate change.

    But as the plan we are publishing today demonstrates, we are not complacent about the action needed to sustain that success in the future.

    Air quality

    And we are not complacent about the action we need to take here in the UK to improve the quality of the air in our towns and cities.

    Since 2010, air quality has improved, and will continue to improve, as a result of action we are taking, but I know that there is more to do.

    That is why we have committed £3.5 billion to support measures to improve air quality.

    We are investing in electric vehicle infrastructure and new charging technologies, supporting the roll-out of low carbon buses, and expanding cycling and walking infrastructure.

    In July we published our plan to tackle traffic pollution and we will end the sale of new conventional petrol and diesel cars by 2040.

    In the last Budget we announced a £220 million Clean Air Fund, paid for by tax changes to company car tax and vehicle excise duty on new diesel cars.

    This year, we will set out how government will support the transition to almost all cars and vans being zero emission vehicles by 2050.

    And the UK will host an international zero-emission vehicle summit, driving innovation towards cleaner transport.

    I am determined that we will do what it takes to ensure our air is clean and safe for the future.

    Conclusion

    The New Year is a time to look ahead.

    The UK is making good progress in our discussions on EU withdrawal – and I am determined that we will keep up that progress in 2018.

    We are pursuing a modern Industrial Strategy which will help promote sustainable growth in our economy and deliver greater prosperity across the country.

    We are improving standards in schools, investing in our National Health Service and helping more people to own their own homes.

    And in our comprehensive 25 year environment plan, we are setting out how we will protect and renew our natural inheritance for the next generation.

    How we will make our air and water cleaner, and our natural habitats more diverse and healthy.

    How we will create a better world for ourselves and our children.

    It is a national plan of action, with international ambitions.

    But what it really speaks to is something much more personal for each of us as human beings.

    That is: the impulse to care for and nurture our own surroundings.

    To protect what is vulnerable and precious.

    To safeguard and improve on our inheritance, so we can pass on something of value and significance to those who come after us.

    It is what Roger Scruton has described as: ‘the goal towards which serious environmentalism and serious conservatism both point – namely, home, the place where we are and that we share, the place that defines us, that we hold in trust for our descendants, and that we don’t want to spoil.’

    Our goal is a healthy and beautiful natural environment which we can all enjoy, and which we can be proud to pass on to the next generation.

    This plan is how we will achieve it.

  • Jo Johnson – 2018 Speech on Toby Young

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jo Johnson, the Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation, on 8 January 2018.

    The Office for Students came into being on 1 January and will be operational from April. It will put quality of teaching, student choice and value for money at the heart of what it does. It will be helped in that regard by a remarkably broad and strong board bringing together a wide range of talents and backgrounds, including vice-chancellors, graduate employers and legal and regulatory experts, as well as a student representative mandated by statute. The board also brings a diversity of views: its excellent chair, Sir Michael Barber, was a senior adviser to a former Labour Prime Minister; and several of its members have declared themselves to be past or present members of the Labour party. This is clearly not a body of Conservative stooges, but one that draws on talent wherever it can be found.

    The Opposition have called this debate to discuss one of the board’s 15 members, Toby Young. They would have us believe that he is not qualified or suitable to be on the board. Yes, Mr Young is not a university insider, but a board made up only of university insiders would be hard pressed to provide the scrutiny and challenge to the sector that students and taxpayers deserve. Indeed, the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 requires the Secretary of State to have regard to the desirability of the board’s members having, between them, far wider experience, including experience of promoting choice for consumers and encouraging competition. Mr Young has real experience of both as the founder of the West London Free School, and now as director of the New Schools Network, helping parents around the country to set up schools of their own. That experience will be important to a new regulator that will be charged with creating a level playing field for high-quality new providers to offer degrees alongside established universities.

    At the West London Free School, which Mr Young set up, 38.5% of children receive the pupil premium, and they have done better than the national average for those on the pupil premium this year and last. A parent-governor at the school described him this week as being

    “committed to public education, academic excellence, and greater opportunities for kids from lower incomes”.

    He has won praise for supporting diversity by making the school a safe and supportive place for LGBT+ students. He is also an eloquent advocate of free speech, a value that is intrinsic to successful universities and which the OFS has undertaken to uphold. He has served with credit on the board of the US-UK Fulbright Commission, where he has been a strong supporter of the commission’s work with the Sutton Trust to help disadvantaged young people to attend US universities. Indeed, the chair of the Fulbright Commission, Sir Nigel Sheinwald, described Mr Young as an effective, committed and energetic commissioner, saying that he had seen no evidence that any of Mr Young’s remarks had influenced him in despatching his duties as a commissioner.​

    The hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) has called today’s debate to discuss tweets and remarks, some of which go back to the 1980s. These were foolish and wrong, and do not reflect the values of the Government, but I am not aware that anything Toby Young has said in the past has been found to have breached our strong discrimination laws, which are among the toughest in the world. In future, of course, he will be bound to comply with the Equality Act 2010 when performing all his functions for the Office for Students. Regardless of the legal position, it is of course right that Mr Young has apologised unreservedly to the OFS board. It is also right that he has said that he regrets the comments and given an undertaking that the kind of remarks he made in the past will not be repeated. So be in no doubt that if he or any board member were to make these kinds of inappropriate comments in the future, they would be dismissed.

    As the Prime Minister said yesterday, since these comments and tweets, Mr Young has been doing “exceedingly good work” in our education system, and it is for that reason that he is well placed to make a valuable contribution to the work of the board of the Office for Students, where he will continue to do much more to support the disadvantaged than so many of his armchair critics.

  • Michael Gove – 2018 Statement on Waste and China

    Below is the text of the speech made by Michael Gove, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, in the House of Commons on 8 January 2018.

    On 1 January 2018 China imposed a ban on the import of certain types of waste including mixed paper and post-consumer plastics (plastics thrown away by consumers). In addition, some other types of waste, including all other paper and plastics exports, will have to meet a reduced acceptable contamination level of 0.5% from March 2018.

    China’s decision has a global impact, including in the UK. 3.7 million tonnes of plastic waste are created in the UK in a single year. Of that total, the UK exports 0.8 million tonnes to countries around the world, of which 0.4 million tonnes is sent to China (including Hong Kong). In comparison, other countries including Germany (0.6 million tonnes), Japan and the US (both 1.5 million tonnes) export more plastic to China for reprocessing than the UK. The UK also exports 3.7 million tonnes of paper waste to China (including Hong Kong), out of 9.1 million tonnes of paper waste in total. In comparison, the US exports 12.8 million tonnes of paper waste to China.

    Since China announced its intentions on 18 July 2017, Ministers have worked with industry, the Environment Agency, WRAP, the devolved Administrations and representatives from local government to understand the potential impact of the ban and the action that needs to be taken. We have engaged internationally to understand the scale and scope of China’s waste restrictions. The UK Government raised the issue with the EU in September. Alongside four other members, the EU subsequently questioned the proposals at the WTO in October.

    Domestically, the Government and the Environment Agency took steps last year to ensure that operators were clear on their duties to handle waste in the light of China’s proposals. The Environment Agency issued fresh guidance to exporters, stating that any waste which does not meet China’s new criteria will be stopped, in the same way as banned waste going to any other country. There is evidence that some operators have already been finding alternative export markets in response to the Chinese restrictions. Data for the third quarter of last year showed increases in exports of plastics to Turkey, Taiwan, Vietnam and Malaysia and increases in exports of paper to Turkey, Taiwan and Vietnam.

    Operators must continue to manage waste on their sites in accordance with the permit conditions issued by the Environment Agency. Where export markets or domestic reprocessing are not available, the process chosen to manage waste must be the one that minimises the environmental impact of treatment as fully as possible and follows the waste hierarchy. This requires operators to ensure that where waste cannot be prevented or reused it is recycled where practicable, before considering energy recovery through incineration or the last resort of disposal to landfill.​

    I recognise that China’s decision will cause some issues in the short term for recycling in the UK. We will continue to work closely with industry, the Environment Agency, local authorities and all interested parties to manage those issues. The Government remain committed to maximising the value we get from our resources, and is already assessing how we handle our waste in the UK in the longer term.

    Tackling waste has been a top priority for the Government. In July, I announced in my speech at the World Wildlife Fund our intention to publish a new Resources and Waste Strategy later this year. The Clean Growth Strategy, published on 12 October 2017, set out our ambition for zero avoidable waste by 2050 and announced we are exploring changes to the producer responsibility scheme. In December I chaired an industry roundtable on plastics and outlined my four point plan for tackling plastic waste: cutting the total amount of plastic in circulation; reducing the number of different plastics in use; improving the rate of recycling; supporting comprehensive and frequent rubbish and recycling collections, and making it easier for individuals to know what goes into the recycling bin and what goes into general rubbish.

    This builds on action the Government have already taken to reduce waste. Our 5p charge on plastic bags has taken 9 billion bags out of circulation, reducing usage by 83%. On Tuesday 9 January, our world-leading ban on the manufacture of personal care products containing plastic microbeads comes into force. In October 2017 we announced a call for evidence on managing single use drinks containers and our working group will report to Ministers early this year. We are working with HMT on a call for evidence in 2018 seeking views on how the tax system or charges could reduce the amount of single use plastics waste. And under the Waste Infrastructure Delivery Programme the Government will have committed £3 billion by 2042, supporting investment in a range of facilities to keep waste out of landfill and increase recycling levels.

    China’s decision underlines the need for progress in all these areas. In particular, we must reduce the amount of waste we produce overall and in particular the amount we export to be dealt with elsewhere. We will set out further steps in the coming weeks and months to achieve these goals, including in our forthcoming 25 Year Environment Plan.

  • Gavin Newlands – 2018 Speech on Insurance and Genetic Conditions

    Below is the text of the speech made by Gavin Newlands, the SNP for Paisley and Renfrewshire North, in the House of Commons on 8 January 2018.

    May I wish you a happy new year, Mr Speaker? I hope you had a restful festive period. I know that, like me, you will have spent the time wondering why Paisley did not win the city of culture in 2021, and why Coventry still has not won it. I am grateful that you are in the Chair this evening.

    I am delighted finally to fulfil a promise that I made to John Eden, the chief executive of the Scottish Huntington’s Association, to bring to the Floor of the House a debate on the difficulties that both individuals currently suffering from genetic conditions and those with a high likelihood of developing such a condition in the future have in securing insurance. Those with complex neurological conditions, such as Huntington’s in particular, have real trouble in trying to access affordable and fair insurance that allows them to secure a range of services that the rest of us, quite frankly, take for granted.

    From the outset, I readily admit that this is not an easy issue: there is no easy fix. It is not a black-and-white issue, but the barriers facing those affected remain deeply unfair. In highlighting this problem, I intend to look at some of the problems that exist with genetic testing, as well as at how many insurance companies are able to bypass the voluntary concordat and moratorium on genetics and insurance by demanding that any applicant provides their full family history before they decide whether to insure someone.

    This issue was brought to my attention by the Scottish Huntington’s Association, which is based in my constituency. The SHA is the only charity in Scotland that is exclusively dedicated to supporting families affected by Huntington’s disease. As well as providing a range of specialist support services for those who suffer from this condition, including a world-leading team of specialist youth advisers and a financial wellbeing service, the SHA campaigns to help improve the life chances of those who suffer from this complex neurological condition.

    Across the UK, Huntington’s affects between five to 10 people per 100,000, but Scotland has one of the highest rates of prevalence, with about 20 in every 100,000 in Scotland having HD, and 5% to 10% of cases develop before the age of 20. Huntington’s is one of life’s most devastating illnesses. People with it can suffer from repetitive involuntary movements resulting in mobility, balance and co-ordination problems, as well as difficulties with speech and swallowing. Huntington’s can also develop a type of early-onset dementia that affects an individual’s ability to process information, make decisions, solve problems, plan and organise. Those affected by HD can also experience a decline in their mental health and may eventually lose the ability to walk, talk, eat, drink, make decisions or care for themselves, requiring support for most or all of their activities on a 24-hour basis.

    Despite the challenges that those with Huntington’s have to live through each and every day, they still need to live their lives, and that requires access to insurance. That particular issue is not new to this House, as it has been debated and discussed in the past, although it has ​not been raised as often as it should have been. The use of genetic testing in insurance can be traced back to debates held in this House in 2000. Unfortunately, as I will discuss later, it appears that not enough has been done by the UK Government or the insurance bodies to help rectify the matter properly.

    Individuals need to secure insurance on many different aspects of their lives. We need insurance to be able to drive a car. Most of us will require home insurance if we want to secure a mortgage, and families who want to go on holiday will need to secure travel insurance before setting off. Many of us will take out life insurance to protect us and our family and cover any tragic or unplanned event.

    Securing insurance is the responsible thing to do, but many individuals and families are prevented from doing so, as they are either unfairly refused outright or priced out of the market. Trying to find the right insurance is never fun, but it has never been easier. With the advent of comparison websites, five minutes is all it takes for most of us to access the most suitable and cheapest insurance. However, there are thousands of people out there who dread the thought of even trying to access insurance, because for them it is not the simple and straightforward task that it is for most of us. It is an extremely time-consuming experience, often fruitless and always very expensive.

    A survey completed late last year by Genetic Alliance UK found that 65% of respondents had problems accessing insurance. I am certain that that figure would have been higher had the survey asked questions only of Huntington’s sufferers.

    Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

    I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. I asked him for permission to intervene. I am a member of the Northern Ireland Rare Disease Partnership, an organisation that focuses on many rare diseases including Huntington’s. As the number of those with rare diseases and genetic conditions continues to increase and insurance cover becomes a greater problem for a greater number of people, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is time for the Government to review the insurance situation and ensure that the problem he has outlined, which I know about in my constituency, is addressed urgently?

    Gavin Newlands

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I wholeheartedly agree with him. I will come on to discuss the particular review relating to Huntington’s, but I totally agree with him.

    The reasons cited by survey respondents for not being able to access insurance included affordability, lack of understanding of the condition and the length of time the process takes to complete. Insurance policies by their very nature are designed to assess the level of risk before they choose to insure someone. We all know and accept that. If someone has previously crashed their car or had a bad credit rating, the chances are that they will either be denied insurance or face paying higher premiums for accessing insurance. It has always been thus. However, we should not equate having a bad credit rating to having a certain health condition, but that is exactly what is happening at the moment. Individuals with certain health conditions are experiencing great challenges to be able to access affordable insurance.​
    Genetic testing will be one of the ways in which insurance companies try to determine whether someone is destined to develop Huntington’s.

    Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)

    Does my hon. Friend feel that we will require legislation? Here, people with Huntington’s chorea are picked out because of a family history, but as we move into the era of genomics, if we allow insurance companies to force Huntington’s people to take genetics tests, we could all be forced to take genomic tests to see our risk of heart attack, cancer and so on. We need to deal with this now.

    Gavin Newlands

    I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. This is only the tip of the iceberg. We will have to come back to the issue under discussion and address the much wider issue in years to come.

    Insurance companies believe that information derived from genetic testing is of relevance to assessing risks, and they argue that it provides

    “a reliable indication of increased susceptibility to medical conditions which require expensive care.”

    However, individuals who face the brunt of these tests and are either denied insurance or face ridiculously high premiums believe that they are being discriminated against.

    An individual with a positive predictive genetic test for Huntington’s will find it extremely difficult to receive insurance, and I have received numerous emails from people throughout the UK sharing their experience of trying to secure insurance. Indeed, one contributor to the Huntington’s Disease Association Facebook page stated that they had tested negative but were still quoted over the odds because they had been tested.

    Those obstacles also affect the family members of those with Huntington’s. Another sad aspect of the disease is that it is hereditary, so it impacts on entire families over generations. People with HD often have children before developing symptoms of the disease. If someone carries the defective HD gene, each child they have has a 50% chance of having Huntington’s.

    An individual with a diagnosis of Huntington’s is not ordinarily able to obtain life, critical illness or income protection insurance, so families are unable to protect themselves from the future financial impact of this horrible disease. Not being able to access insurance compounds the huge negative economic impact of the disease. Those with HD almost always have to give up their employment, as do many of their family members, who have to act as carers for their loved ones. They also incur greater expenses arising from the health condition and many have to live on benefits—something that is proving impossible due to Tory austerity. If people are lucky enough to find insurance, they are very unlikely to be able to afford it, given the impact I have just described.

    One of the emails I spoke of earlier came from a family who have struggled to access basic holiday insurance. The Kitching family have two young children, one of whom has a rare genetic condition. Before their son was born, the family had no problem acquiring insurance and were able to cherry-pick the insurer they used. These days, it is a very different story. Last summer, they had to navigate numerous hurdles and obstacles, including spending nearly eight hours on the phone, to finally secure a basic travel insurance policy. Despite their best efforts, the Kitchings’ insurance bill increased by 900%, ​which is surely beyond what any of us would deem acceptable. Unsurprisingly, for a number of reasons, the Kitchings did not have a wide selection of providers to choose from. Not only were they met with a brick wall and a refusal to even discuss the possibility of insuring them, but they found that many companies lacked the necessary basic knowledge to assess the risks posed by certain health conditions.

    Those were the obstacles the Kitchings had to navigate to go on a simple family holiday to France. I am sure that hon. Members can only begin to imagine what that family and the many others like them would have to go through if they wanted to acquire life insurance.

    The experience of the Kitchings is not unique. According to Genetic Alliance UK, a national charity working to improve the lives of patients and families affected by all types of genetic conditions, 59% of people who responded to its 2017 survey said that they decided to change or cancel their holiday plans altogether because they would not be able to access basic holiday insurance. The Kitchings believe that the current system lacks any transparency and that greater clarity is required for them and families like them. They want the system to be much more closely regulated to ensure that individuals and families are not discriminated against by insurance companies because they lack the necessary medical knowledge to understand genetic conditions such as Huntington’s.

    Insurance companies recognise to some degree that individuals and families experience financial distress when trying to access the correct level of insurance. The UK Government and the Association of British Insurers therefore believe that the relationship between medical data and insurance underwriting should be proportionate and based on sound evidence. However, their definition of proportionate is, to say the least, at odds with what the families affected would consider to be fair and affordable.

    There are several reasons why many individuals are reluctant to take a genetic test, such as the financial black hole that can be caused by restricted access to affordable insurance or not wanting to live their lives under the cloud of diagnosis. According to Genetic Alliance UK, less than one in five people at risk of Huntington’s disease choose to have the predictive genetic test. To try to combat that, the concordat with insurance companies who are members of the ABI states that insurers will not seek the results of genetic testing for insurance with a value less than £500,000. In practice, that would mean that individuals and families had a far greater chance of accessing affordable insurance to go on holiday, buy a car or purchase a house.

    In reality, the moratorium provides little protection people for people with Huntington’s or similar neurological conditions because instead of the insurance companies mandating that someone complete a genetic test, they will get around it by demanding that any individual hoping to secure insurance provides other forms of information, including a full family history. As I mentioned, each child of a Huntington’s disease sufferer has a 50% chance of inheriting the condition. Therefore, the information that is gathered by bypassing the genetic testing can lead to an individual’s access to affordable insurance being restricted. As such, the current moratorium does not provide enough protection for individuals and makes securing insurance a near-impossible task to accomplish.​

    The SHA believes that the business model that many insurance companies use to calculate risk is limited and does not collect all the genetic information available to calculate more precisely an individual’s health conditions. In other words, if we must use genetics, let us use them properly. This point is reinforced by an email that I received from Trish Dainton, whose husband sadly passed away from Huntington’s. She highlighted the unfairness of a system that can increase an individual’s premiums to ridiculously high levels on the assumption that they might have the HD gene but might not start developing the symptoms for 40-plus years.

    It is no surprise, then, that so many people are avoiding being tested for HD, given that it could force them to pay a lifetime of sky-high insurance premiums. In addition, according to the 2017 survey by Genetic Alliance UK, 50% of respondents have avoided applying for insurance altogether, stating that concerns over premiums would prohibit them from accessing insurance. It should concern us all—certainly the Government—that too many people do not feel they can access any form of insurance. After hearing the stories from those who have lived with Huntington’s disease and how it affects their everyday lives, I think that it is clear that the insurance companies and the Government have to do a lot more to understand conditions such as HD.

    In preparing for tonight’s debate, I have been sent numerous emails from individuals affected who say that most people do not truly understand the disease. The insurance companies state that the development of genomics is crucial to helping to guide the industry, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), but the system should be guided by medical knowledge and not by what a pre-programmed computer screen tells the operator to do.

    As I have said, it has never been easier for most of us to quickly secure the insurance we need, and the insurance free market caters for the vast majority. For those with HD, however, shopping around means not a 30-second comparison website search but hours and hours of phone calls and being asked probing questions by someone who does not actually understand the condition. The Genetic Alliance UK report confirmed that the length of the process is one of the common complaints made by people and that there is a real desire for more action to be taken to reduce the time it takes to try and acquire insurance. That seems to be one way the insurance companies, whether at the Government’s behest or voluntarily, could work with stakeholders to design a process that prevents them from having to repeat the same information over and again.

    If we do not develop a system that better understands neurological conditions, we risk creating a genetic underclass of people excluded from accessing affordable insurance due to misleading and inaccurate information gathered by insurance companies. The UK Government have a key role in changing this system to help make life that bit easier for those who have HD. The insurance companies self-regulate who they will and will not provide coverage to. That is not fair, and it is not good enough.

    The current arrangements for insuring people who have or might have HD have not been reviewed since 2012, despite the fact that they should have been reviewed in 2014 and again in 2016. Indeed, the UK is out of step ​internationally in the way it treats those with genetic conditions. In 2000, the UK became the first nation to approve the commercial use of gene technology to allow insurers to refuse insurance cover or to push up premiums for those born with genes that could lead to fatal conditions later in life. Furthermore, unlike many other developed countries, such as Canada, the USA, Sweden, Luxembourg, Belgium, Denmark and the Netherlands, the UK does not have specific legislation that prevents genetic discrimination. Let us be clear: despite the fact that equalities legislation supposedly provides this protection, those affected believe that they are being discriminated against by the insurance companies.

    The Government have a duty to respond to the thousands of people across the UK who have been waiting for action to be taken against the insurance companies. There is plenty that can be done on this issue, but I would start with the HD insurance review that is now nearly four years overdue. The Government could get tougher on the insurance companies, offer to help with a Government-backed insurance scheme for those with Huntington’s or put a realistic cap on premiums. I am not asking the Minister to commit to any specific actions this evening beyond urging him to confirm a new review and requesting a meeting with me, the Scottish Huntington’s Association and others so that he can hear at first hand of the very real and systemic problems.

    In conclusion, I cannot—I am sure that none of us can—begin to understand how tough life is for those suffering from Huntington’s and the huge impact it has on the families caring for them. These families are not asking to change the world; all they want is to be able to access affordable insurance to allow them to go on holiday, buy a house, purchase that new car and protect them from the worst of the financial impact resulting from the condition. In short, they want to live their lives as best they can. We, as a society, should be doing all that we can to make life easier for those with genetic conditions, not putting further barriers in their way. I hope that the Minister can join me, and thousands of families up and down the country, in helping to create a fairer, more accessible and more affordable system for the individuals and their families who are currently in this invidious position.

  • Sajid Javid – 2018 Speech to the LGA Local Government Finance Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Sajid Javid, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, to the LGA Local Government Finance Conference on 9 January 2018.

    Thank you, Gary, and good afternoon everybody. As I’m sure you can imagine, it’s been a busy start back since the New Year!

    It’s great to see the Local Government Association back home at Smith Square. As I said when I helped with the reopening, I got a little paranoid when you moved to the other side of London right after I arrived just around the corner!

    But it’s also good to have you back here in the heart of Westminster because that is where local government deserves to be. You’re not the junior partner, a democratic afterthought. You’re a vital part of British life, as important as any ministry, playing a huge and growing role in the daily lives of millions of people.

    Speaking of ministries, as you know, my department has a new name – the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. A name that reflects the fact that this government is absolutely committed to building the homes our country so desperately needs.

    I’m delighted to have been reappointed to lead on this. I’ve been clear that fixing our broken housing market is my number one priority. Great places for people to live and put down roots.

    I recognise that local government has a vital role in helping us deliver on this.

    The people of this country rely on you, put their faith in you. And you, in turn have to be able to put your faith in central government. You have to know that we’re here for you, that we’re standing up for you, that we’re doing all we can to get you the resources that you need.

    That’s why, in the 5 years to 2020, we’re giving English councils access to more than £200 billion in funding. And that’s why, through our reforms to business rates, we’re giving you greater freedom to raise and retain revenue in your areas.

    After all, you know your communities better than anyone else. You understand the challenges, the pressures, the opportunities and more. And if you’re going to really make the most of that knowledge, you need the freedom and flexibility to be truly local government, not merely local administration.

    That’s the thinking behind this year’s finance settlement. Now, I know that last month’s draft wasn’t greeted with wild enthusiasm in the sector. Mind you, I don’t think ANY local government finance settlement has ever been greeted with wild enthusiasm!

    This year’s was particularly special. I had one of those days when the press office phone up and say “Well, Secretary of State, the good news is you’ve made the front pages…”

    Unfortunately I wasn’t here before lunch to hear my Labour counterpart’s verdict, so I’m going to assume he warmly welcomed the whole package… Is that right? I know he’s a big fan of mine!

    But look, it’s important to remember that this is part of a broader and continuing process to establish what local government needs to continue to deliver excellent public services. There are plenty of discussions still to be had, I know the incoming Local Government Minister will be doing little else over the next month or so. Building on the excellent work that Marcus Jones has already done over the last 3 years. I want to take this opportunity to thank him for all of his work, and to reassure you, that he will still be working with local government in his new role.

    So I’m going to run through some of the highlights of the settlement, talk a little about what we’re doing and why. And then I’m looking forward to hearing what you have to say, hearing your thoughts.

    Local government finance settlement

    I’ll start with the future of the whole system of local government finance. Over the years, the current formula of budget allocations has served councils and residents well.

    But we live in a changing world. Shifts in demographics, lifestyles and technology lead to changes in the different pressures facing different councils, and new risks emerge all the time What’s right today may not be right tomorrow, and the system of financing local government needs to reflect that, and help manage risks as well as providing opportunities.

    We need an updated and more responsive way of distributing funding. One that gives councils the confidence to face the challenges and opportunities of the future. That’s why I was pleased to launch a formal consultation on a review of relative needs and resources. It’s not just a paper exercise, it’s going to be used to create a whole new system, one that more fairly reflects modern needs. And I hope to have that system in place in 2020 to 2021.

    We’re building a country fit for the future, and this review will ensure we have a local government finance system that’s also suited to the challenges and opportunities of the years ahead.

    Alongside the new methodology, in 2020 to 2021 we will also be implementing the latest phase of our business rates retention programme, a scheme that gives local councils the incentives they need to grow their local economies.

    As you know, our aim is for local authorities to retain 75% of business rates from 2020 to 2021. That will be through incorporating existing grants into business rates retention including Revenue Support Grant and the Public Health Grant. And you’ll be able to keep 75% of the growth in your business rates from the new baselines in 2020 to 2021, when the system is reset. And we will continue to work with you to identify other opportunities to increase business rates retention further when it is right to do so.

    Business rates retention encourages growth in your local economies. So it’s no surprise that our 100% retention pilots have proved so popular with councils. We were originally planning on running an extra 5 pilots in 2018 to 2019, but when we asked councils to apply to take part we were almost overwhelmed by the reaction. More than 200 authorities put themselves forward.

    Picking just 5 areas was never going to be easy, which is why we’re now going to do 10 pilots instead, covering 89 authorities. The 10 that we’ve selected, taken alongside the existing pilots, give a broad geographic spread. North and south, urban and rural, small and large. This is no accident, we want to see exactly how the system works in all circumstances, and the pilots will make sure that happens.

    The expansion of the pilots – and our plan to do more piloting in 2019 to 2020 – is a great example of this government listening to local councils and responding to what we hear.

    And that has also been the driving force behind a number of other elements in the settlement.

    For example, rural councils have expressed concern about the fairness of the current system, with the Rural Services Delivery Grant due to be reduced next year. In response to that, we’re increasing Rural Services Delivery Grant by £15 million in 2018/19 so that the total figure remains at £65 million for the remainder of the 4-year settlement.

    We’ve also responded to concerns about proposed changes to the New Homes Bonus. To date we have made almost £7 billion in NHB payments to reward the building of 1.4 million homes. Over £946 million in NHB payments will be allocated in 2018 to 2019, rewarding local authorities for their work in fixing our broken housing market.

    It has been a huge success, but I’m a hard man to please, I always want to know if we can do even better. That’s why, last year, I asked the sector for its views on proposals to link NHB payments to the number of successful planning appeals, further rewarding councils who don’t let the bureaucracy slow down housing growth.

    But the appetite for change wasn’t there. The sector wanted continuity and certainty and that’s what it’s getting, no changes to the NHB this year and a baseline maintained at 0.4%.

    Then there’s “negative RSG”. I know this has been a concern for several of you over the past few months, it’s something that crops up again and again in my regular meetings with councillors from right across the country.

    Although we won’t see the effects until 2019 to 2020 I want all of you to know that it is on the radar and it is being looked at. My department is developing fair and affordable options for dealing with the issue. We’ll be formally consulting on these in the spring, so that we have plenty of time to reflect on what you tell us ahead of next year’s settlement.

    Of course, I couldn’t talk about local government finance and not mention social care. It’s one of the biggest single issue facing councils today, one of the biggest challenges facing the whole country in fact. That’s why, over the past 12 months, we’ve put billions of pounds of extra funding into the sector.

    At Spring Budget, an additional £2 billion was announced for adult social care over the next 3 years. And with the freedom to raise more money more quickly through the use of the social care precept that I announced this time last year, we have given councils have access to £9.25 billion more dedicated funding for adult social care over 3 years.

    Since 2014 the government has also invested more than £200 million in innovation and improvement in Children’s Social Care, and before Christmas I announced an additional £19 million to support councils develop their capacity to care for unaccompanied asylum seeking children. The detailed allocations, together with the successful proposals for supporting unaccompanied asylum seeking children that will receive Controlling Migration Fund money, will be announced shortly.

    I know you’d like me to stand here today and say I’m turning on the spending taps, writing the big cheques, throwing taxpayers’ money at the problem. But this is a long-term challenge. The challenge of social care is not going to go away. We need long-term systemic change. And I very much hope that this summer’s green paper on future challenges within adult social care will set us on the path to securing that.

    Finally, of course, there is Council Tax. And this is an issue that requires a serious balancing act. While we all want to ease growing pressure on local government services, none of us want to see hardworking taxpayers saddled with ever-higher bills. That’s particularly important at a time when inflation is growing faster than wages, when people are already feeling the effects on their pockets.

    This settlement aims to keep taxes low whilst also raising the revenue you need. In addition, we are continuing to ensure that council taxpayers can veto excessive increases via a local referendum if they choose to do so. The referendum threshold has been set in line with inflation, and so we are setting the core council tax referendum principles at 3%.

    Conclusion

    Our homes talk to us about who we are. So what does the refurbished, refitted Local Government House tell us about local government?

    Well, its location, in the heart of our democracy speaks volumes about its importance. The building itself, a historic site, talks about local government’s deep roots in our society. And the building’s modern new interior speaks of a sector that is fit for and looking to the future.

    There are challenges in that future, yes. But there are opportunities too. Opportunities that we will only be able to make the most of by working together. By listening to each other. And I’m confident that, by working together, we can deliver reforms to the financial system that work for national government, for local government and – most important of all – for the millions of people we all seek to serve.

    Thank you.

  • Matt Hancock – 2018 Speech on the Creative Industries

    Matt Hancock

    Below is the text of the speech made by Matt Hancock, the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, at the third anniversary of the Creative Industries Federation on 9 January 2018.

    It’s fantastic to be here tonight; thank you to the Creative Industries Federation for inviting me this evening.

    I’ve been privileged enough to start my new year with a new job and I’m delighted that this is my first speech as Secretary of State at DCMS.

    And what a fantastic place to do it, here at the Natural History Museum — featuring one of the world’s finest collections of artefacts, from the T-Rex to the woolly mammoth.

    And I see only one mammoth. And that’s the mammoth that is our creative industries.

    The creative industries are one growing faster than ever, contributing almost 100 billion pounds to the UK economy every year.

    John, I want to give credit to you and the CIF for helping to give the creative industries a powerful voice over the past three years.

    This includes the work you have done with DCMS on the Sector Deal, which is due to be published in the next few weeks.

    Your input and insight is really important to us and I’m thrilled that we can continue working together now that I am Secretary of State.

    Greg Clark and I were both really keen to come here tonight to underline the Government’s commitment to this fantastic industry and the exceptional work that you all do.

    Looking back

    Tonight, of course, is about celebration. And we have lots to celebrate.

    Of course there were difficulties and moments of uncertainty last year. Not least for me….But 2017 really was a year of remarkable creative success.

    The thought I really want to leave you with today is that the UK’s creative industries are getting their mojo back.

    And I’m not just talking about London. Across the length and breadth of Britain, the power of culture and creativity is bringing people together like never before.

    Just look at Hull’s landmark year as UK City of Culture. It not only led to a boost of around 60 million pounds to the local economy, but also saw nine out of ten residents taking part in a City of Culture event. I know that city and it changed it for good.

    And Hull won’t be just a one hit wonder. The cultural legacy that has been left for the region will inspire future generations and foster waves of new talent.

    We were also able to give much-needed reassurance to the creative industries when we reached an agreement on the first phase of Brexit.

    I know that the issue of citizens’ rights is very important for everyone in this room tonight. EU citizens enrich every part of our economy, our society and our cultural life.

    We have now reached a deal that protects the rights of EU nationals in the UK and UK citizens in the EU, which I hope will provide valuable certainty.

    This agreement has shown that as a country we can strike a good deal with the EU. This means we can forge a strong future with our cousins across the Channel but also remain open to the wider world.

    I believe Britain’s future is bright, and that we can be an open, gregarious, optimistic nation, engaged with the world. Culture transcends boundaries and we have a strong track record of working with other countries to produce artistic brilliance.

    But I know that sometimes things get in the way. For example, we want to support the industry in its fight against rogue ticket touts.

    I was lucky enough to see the phenomenal Hamilton last week and I was impressed at the measures they are taking to put real fans first.

    And I’m also immensely proud of the work we did together with the music industry to persuade the Met Police to abolish Form 696.

    Looking ahead

    As I said earlier, 2017 was a year of success. The creative industries have their mojo back – I have great optimism that they will motor on in 2018.

    The creative industries give a massive boost to our economy. Everyone deserves to be able to access them — regardless of your ethnicity, gender, background or taste.

    I am committed to doing this, whether it’s through lifting restrictions on performing that could hold back the next Skepta, or making sure that fans are being treated fairly and get to see the artists they love.

    You may have noticed the blue whale skeleton above us in this magnificent room. She’s called ‘Hope’ and she was installed as a symbol of humanity’s power to shape a sustainable and positive future.

    Numbers of blue whales had been declining for centuries, until there were just 400 left in 1966. Since then, enlightened people worked hard to protect blue whales and helped to restore the population to 20,000. It’s the perfect backdrop for tonight’s celebration.

    It shows that through concerted action and creative solutions we can create a better future.

    The same applies to culture. The passion, creativity and talent here in this room will help ensure a positive future for our creative industries and for our country.

    Let’s take our inspiration from Hope and not the dinosaurs and embrace the opportunities that lie ahead in 2018.

    Thank you and have a fantastic evening.

  • Mhairi Black – 2018 New Year’s Message

    Below is the text of the speech made by Mhairi Black, the SNP MP for Paisley and Renfrewshire South, on 1 January 2018.

    Happy New Year! As you read this – maybe like me – you are thinking about some New Year’s resolutions. In politics, politicians make resolutions all the time.

    Pledges and promises – the difference is these are made to the electorate, so it’s more important they’re actually kept. I’m looking at you, Ruth Davidson.

    In June 2017 the Scottish Tory Leader said she would make sure her 13 MPs would “make Scotland’s case forcefully” at Westminster.

    She also said she wanted “to ensure that we can look again at issues like Brexit, which we know we are now going to have to get cross-party support for – and move to a consensus within the country.”

    Well, where do I start? What a load of nonsense.

    Ms. Davidson, here’s a list of resolutions for your MPs- it’d be a good place for them to start.

    1) Stand up for the Single Market. Unlike the SNP, not a single Scottish Tory voted to protect the UK’s membership of the single market and customs union – putting hundreds of thousands of jobs, and people’s incomes and livelihoods under threat.

    2) Actually look again at Brexit. Not a single Scottish Tory MP voted to ensure a meaningful parliamentary vote on the Brexit deal. So much for ‘looking again’ at Brexit- you should have joined the SNP in the lobby.

    3) Don’t give away Devolution. Unlike SNP MPs, not a single Scottish Tory MP voted to safeguard Scotland’s devolution settlement in the recent EU bill. Instead, you voted to give UK government ministers unfettered powers to amend or repeal the Scotland Act and retain devolved powers. Ignoring devolution is hardly acting in Scotland’s best interests.

    4) Halt the roll-out of Universal Credit. While thousands of people in Scotland are facing poverty and crisis as a result of Universal Credit cuts, delays and errors, not a single Scottish Tory MP voted for the successful motion to halt the roll-out. One Scottish Tory, Douglas Ross MP, missed the vote entirely to earn almost £2000 in his second job as a referee. Unbelievable.

    5) Make pensions fair. Unlike SNP MPs, twelve of the thirteen Scottish Tory MPs failed to vote to improve Pensions for women who have been affected by UK government moves to speed up increases in the state pension age and who will lose out financially.

    6) Don’t forget that DUP deal. When Theresa May gave Northern Ireland £1billion in exchange for DUP support, the Scottish Tories broke their promise to speak out and secure a deal for Scotland. Where’s our billions, eh?

    7) Protect Scotland’s Budget. Unlike SNP MPs, Scottish Tories backed the cuts to Scotland’s budget in the last UK budget.

    8) End Austerity: Scottish Tory MPs have backed the continued austerity cuts in the UK Budget in November, including the benefits freeze, the rape clause, and the public sector pay cap – pushing more families in Scotland and across the UK into poverty, debt and destitution.

  • Michael Gove – 2018 Speech on the Future of Farming

    Below is the text of the speech made by Michael Gove, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, at the 2018 Oxford Farming Conference on 4 January 2018.

    The age of acceleration

    For anyone wondering what the focus of this year’s Oxford Farming Conference might be, it was The Archers provided an answer just before Christmas.

    Brian Aldridge asked his step-son, Adam, whether he might be attending the conference. Adam replied wearily. ‘I think I’ll give it a miss this year. It’s probably going to be all about Brexit. I get enough of that at home.’

    I know how he feels.

    I suspect everyone in this room knows how he feels.

    And, of course, I’ll say something in a moment about the specific opportunities and challenges for agriculture on leaving the European Union.

    But if we’re going to make the most of those opportunities and overcome those challenges it’s critical that we recognise that there is much, much, more that is changing in our world than our relationship with the EU.

    As we saw in the presentation at the beginning of this session, the world’s population is growing at an unprecedented rate, with a worldwide migration from rural areas to cities and a growth in the global middle class which is driving demand for more, and better quality, food.

    Technological change is at an inflection point. Developments in big data, artificial intelligence and machine learning mean that processes which would have required the intellect and effort of thousands of humans over many hours in the past can be accomplished automatically by digital means in seconds.

    These technological breakthroughs raise political and moral questions as we consider how we deal with the transformation of a huge range of existing jobs. And alongside these changes in the world of information technology there are bio-tech changes coming which also challenge us to think about the future, and how best to shape it. Gene editing technology could help us to remove vulnerabilities to illness, develop higher yielding crops or more valuable livestock, indeed potentially even allow mankind to conquer the diseases to which we are vulnerable.

    Food in abundance, improved health, greater longevity: these are all goals to which our species has aspired since the first farmers waited for the first harvest. But in attempting to shape evolution more profoundly than any plant or animal breeder ever has done before are we biting off much more than we can chew? And these are not the only changes coming. Our global environment is affected as never before by the population growth I’ve referred to, and the consequent growth in demand for nutritious food, safe drinking water, comfortable housing, reliable energy and new consumer goods.

    The growth in trade which will meet those needs will depend on more packaging, more journeys by air, land and sea, more logistics hubs and more work by designers, marketers and, yes, regulators.

    The pressures placed on our global environment by this growth I’ve sketched briefly out will be formidable – whether it’s greenhouse gas emissions in our atmosphere contributing to global warming, desertification and soil erosion reducing the space for cultivation, deforestation leading to the disappearance of valuable carbon sinks and precious habitats, air pollution from traditional industry and intensive agriculture adding to health costs, waste poisoning our oceans or iconic landscapes under threat from the need for further development.

    Without action we face the progressive loss of the natural capital on which all growth – natural, human and economic – ultimately depends.

    So the imperative to husband, indeed wherever possible, enhance our natural capital – safeguarding our oceans, cleaning our rivers, keeping our soils fertile, protecting biodiversity – has to be at the heart of any plan for our country and our world.

    Because we cannot expect to live prosperous and civilised lives in the future unless we recognise that we have to care for that which gives us all life – our planet.

    And that knowledge is itself a catalyst for further change. The need to protect our planet better is already accelerating innovation- with entrepreneurs exploring how to develop autonomous electric vehicles, how to change the energy mix we all rely on, how to reduce our reliance on plastics, how to derive more protein from plants rather than animals, how to grow produce, whether hydroponically or by other means, which leaves a lighter imprint on the earth, how to use distributed ledger technology to protect habitats and so much more.

    So the reality of our times is not just change as the only constant but accelerating change as the new normal. Which is why the title of this conference – Embracing Change – is so appropriate.

    Because the changes which are shaping all our futures are so historically significant, technologically revolutionary and economically transformative that we have no choice but to embrace them and try to shape them in a progressive and judicious way.

    A state without the means of change is without the means of conservation
    Now I know there is, of course, a natural human desire to stick with what we know, trust to experience and hope things can go on much as before. To prefer the tried to the untried. You hear it when some in industry, and indeed some in the farming industry, say that what we need most at the moment is certainty.

    I understand that sentiment all too well. As I think does almost everyone in politics.

    But the truth is that if we try to avoid change, hold the future at bay and throw up barriers to progress then we don’t stop change coming, we simply leave ourselves less equipped to deal with change as it arrives.

    The history of nationalised industries, state subsidies for particular sectors, guilds to restrict access to trades, high tariff walls and all the other tools of so-called economic “protection” is a melancholy one. The road is paved with good intentions – preserving strategic assets, insulating communities from change, protecting our home market, guaranteeing a supply of essentials.

    But the path inevitably involves higher costs for consumers, lower productivity from producers, less pressure to husband scarce resources, less concern about sustainability, more rent-seeking and capital accumulation, less investment in innovation, less dynamism and ultimately, less security as others forge ahead economically, scientifically and socially.

    If we want to preserve that which we cherish – a thriving agriculture sector, a healthy rural economy, beautiful landscapes, rich habitats for wildlife, a just society and a fair economy – then we need to be able to shape change rather than seeking to resist it.

    And the best way to deal with change is to develop adaptability. As we know from the natural world, the best way to thrive in a new environment is to evolve. What we should, therefore be looking for in agriculture policy, indeed in all economic policy, is not an illusory fixity or a false sense of certainty, which by definition future events we cannot foresee will always upend.

    What we should instead be seeking to cultivate are the resources, policies and people that will allow us to adapt, evolve and embrace change as an ally.

    Taking back control

    Which takes me to Brexit.

    Of course Brexit will mean change.

    But, critically, what it means most of all is that we can once more decide how we shape change and how we meet the challenges ahead.

    It means we don’t need any longer to follow the path dictated by the Common Agricultural Policy. We can have our own – national – food policy, our own agriculture policy, our own environment policies, our own economic policies, shaped by our own collective interests.

    The CAP was designed, like so many aspects of the EU, for another world, the post-war period when memories of food shortages were hauntingly powerful and the desire to support a particular model of land use was wrapped up with ideas of a stable countryside that seemed reassuringly attractive after the trauma of industrial-scale conflict.

    Of course, the CAP has evolved, and indeed improved, over time. But it is still a fundamentally flawed design.

    Paying land owners for the amount of agricultural land they have is unjust, inefficient and drives perverse outcomes.

    It gives the most from the public purse to those who have the most private wealth.

    It bids up the price of land, distorting the market, creating a barrier to entry for innovative new farmers and entrenching lower productivity.

    Indeed, perversely, it rewards farmers for sticking to methods of production that are resource-inefficient and also incentivises an approach to environmental stewardship which is all about mathematically precise field margins and not truly ecologically healthy landscapes.

    As recent scholarship has shown, the so-called greening payments in Pillar One have scarcely brought any environmental benefits at all.

    We can, and must, do better.

    Reform begins at home

    And by we, I mean Defra most of all.

    Now I don’t want anyone to get hold of the wrong end of the stick.

    The Department I am privileged to lead has some of the finest public servants in the country working for it.

    Whether it’s the policy professionals, economic analysts, vets, IT engineers, botanists and horticulturalists or hydrologists and geologists, it is a pleasure to work with such dedicated, idealistic and passionate people. But while the people are brilliant, some of the processes are not.

    The ways in which we provide financial support to farmers have been far too bureaucratic – not helped by the ludicrous rules and red tape of the CAP that Defra must try to enforce.

    The Rural Payments Agency has historically taken far too long to get money from Government to farmers.

    And the Countryside Stewardship schemes we have run have been dizzyingly complex to apply for – I have made my views on this clear.

    All this when it’s our stated aim to allocate more funding for agri-environment schemes.

    We have taken action in the last few months to drive change in these areas, and will seize opportunities to develop a different regulatory culture once we have left the European Union.

    I am encouraged so far that the RPA paid over 91% of farmers their basic payment for this year by the end of December 2017. Encouraged but not satisfied. Which is why I am looking for a new chair of the RPA to work with the Chief Executive and his team to drive further improvement.

    On Countryside Stewardship, I want schemes simplified to the extent that any farmer – any farmer – can complete an application in a working day. Starting at the computer after breakfast the whole process has to be able to be finished by six o’clock when it will be time for a well-deserved pint.

    I’m pleased that Andrew Sells and his team have responded to the challenge with a set of simplified offers which have, already, received a warm response. But, again, we need to go further and develop a much more responsive and efficient model.

    And that’s not all we need to change.

    Related to the whole question of how we allocate support, we also in Defra need to change our approach to inspection.

    We inspect too often, too ineffectively and in far too many cases for the wrong things. At any moment, a farmer could be visited by the Rural Payments Agency, Natural England, The Animal Plant and Health Agency, the Environment Agency or their local authority. Each body may ask for slightly different information, or even the same information in a slightly different way. Each visit adds to the burden on farmers, yet there is much overlap without proper coordination. The CAP’s inflexibilities, including the ever present fear of disallowance, means we inspect rigidly for precise field margin dimensions and the exact locations of trees in a near-pointless exercise in bureaucratic box-ticking while, at the same time, we inspect haphazardly and inefficiently for genuine lapses such as poor slurry management or inadequate animal welfare.

    That is why I hope to look at how we can reduce the number of inspections overall, make them more genuinely risk-based and have them focus on those, limited, areas where standards are not where they should be.

    And there is much more we need to change across the board to make the Department more effective.

    Processes far beyond support payments and inspections are ripe for modernisation.

    Take our guidance on the provision of export health certificates still requires the use of carbon paper. While IT systems have been improved we are still some way away from exploiting advances in data analytics which we can use to shape and refine policy and delivery.

    And even at the most basic level we are not the champion we need to be for British food and farming. Despite hugely energetic efforts by my predecessors, we can still do more to improve the procurement of British food across the public sector.

    But I am determined to drive that change. Energetically. And across Government.

    As well as making Defra a more efficient, focused and, above all, innovative department I also want to drive change in 4 specific areas.

    I want to ensure we develop a coherent policy on food – integrating the needs of agriculture businesses, other enterprises, consumers, public health and the environment.

    Second, I want to give farmers and land managers time and the tools to adapt to the future, so we avoid a precipitate cliff edge but also prepare properly for the changes which are coming.

    Third, I want to develop a new method of providing financial support for farmers which moves away from subsidies for inefficiency to public money for public goods.

    And finally, I want to ensure that we build natural capital thinking into our approach towards all land use and management so we develop a truly sustainable future for the countryside.

    A lot on our plate

    On food, first of all, I want to underline that I recognise the heart of almost all farming businesses is food production. And a core element of Defra’s mission is supporting farmers in the provision of competitively-priced, healthy, sustainable and nutritious food, and pursuing greater market access.

    But I believe it’s critical as we think of food production and the role of farming in the future that we develop policy which looks at the food-chain as a whole, from farm to fork, and we also recognise the economic, health and environmental forces shaping the future of food.

    That’s why I’m glad that my colleague Greg Clark, the Business Secretary, announced the creation of a Food and Drink Sector Council in his recent Industrial Strategy White Paper, whose first task will be to develop the emerging proposals for a food and drink manufacturing Sector Deal. The White Paper also committed to a new challenge fund to transform food production. This will help support farmers and food manufacturers to improve the sustainability and nutritional benefit of food.

    Food and Drink is the UK’s biggest manufacturing sector and one of its fastest growing with an increase of 8% in exports to the EU and 10% in exports outside the EU in the first three quarters of last year alone.

    That success has been built on a reputation for quality and provenance, on the knowledge that we have among the highest environmental and animal welfare standards of any nation on earth. So people know when they’re buying British they’re buying food which is guaranteed to be high quality and more sustainable.

    That’s why it would be foolish for us to lower animal welfare or environmental standards in trade deals, and in so doing undercut our own reputation for quality. We will succeed in the global market place because we are competing at the top of the value chain not trying to win a race to the bottom.

    And Government can help in that process by under-writing that reputation for quality.

    Which is why I want us, outside the EU, to develop new approaches to food labelling. Not just badging food properly as British, but also creating a new gold-standard metric for food and farming quality.

    There are already a number of ways in which farmers can secure recognition for high animal welfare or environmental standards from the Red Tractor scheme to the Leaf mark. But while they’re all impressive and outstanding there’s still no single, scaled, measure of how a farmer or food producer performs against a sensible basket of indicators, taking into account such things as soil health, control of pollution, contribution to water quality as well as animal welfare. We’ve been in discussion with a number of farmers and food producers about how we might advance such a scheme and I think that, outside the EU, we could establish a measure of farm and food quality which would be world-leading.

    Because while price will always be a factor in the choices consumers make, they are also increasingly making choices based on other factors too. If we look at some of the fastest growing food brands, providing the most value added for both consumers and producers, then it’s being able to provide certainty over origins, traceability of ingredients, integrity in production and a distinctiveness in taste which matter more and more. Whether its Belvoir soft drinks or Botanist Gin, organic milk or West Country Farmhouse Cheddar, grass-fed beef from Devon or Welsh lamb, Cumberland sausages or Melton Mowbray pork pies, Tyrell’s crisps or Forman’s London cured smoked salmon, the future profits in food production lie in distinctive quality produce.

    And Government can help, by acting as a champion for British produce in foreign markets, operating a better procurement policy at home, keeping existing market access open and securing new free trade deals for producers.

    I understand that people in this room, and beyond, particularly want to know what will happen to access to our biggest export market – the EU 27. By definition, we cannot yet know the final outcome of a trade negotiation which is about to get underway, and Defra is preparing for every eventuality. But we are confident of building a new economic partnership with the EU that guarantees tariff-free access for agri-food goods across each other’s borders. We know that we have a deficit in agricultural and horticultural produce with the EU 27. Irish beef farmers, French butter and cheese producers, Dutch market gardeners and Spanish salad growers all have an interest just as, if not more acute, than Welsh sheep farmers or Ulster dairy farmers in securing continued tariff-free access between the UK and the EU.

    But we should be, and we are, more ambitious than that. Securing greater access to, and penetration of, other markets will be important to British agriculture’s further success. Increasing exports to, for example, China is not just a good in itself in trade terms it also helps the business model of many farmers to work even better. There are, as we all know, parts of the pig for example which don’t find favour with the British consumer but which are delicacies in China. Satisfying that demand means other parts of the carcase can be used to meet demand at home, or indeed elsewhere in Europe, which is currently met by Dutch and by Danish farmers. Pursuing new trade opportunities outside Europe can make us more competitive with Europe.

    Which is why it is so encouraging that my colleague Liam Fox has made boosting our trade in food and drink a central priority for 2018.

    Government can also intervene closer to home where there is market failure. When, for example some powerful players in the food chain use the scale of their market presence to demand low prices from primary producers who are much smaller and dis-aggregated. That is why my colleague George Eustice is looking now at overall fairness in the supply chain.

    We can ensure that our interventions as Government are designed to generate growth are applied fairly. So, for example, we can look at how the apprenticeship levy works to see how money identified for improving skills training can be spent more effectively across supply chains – helping smaller businesses as well as larger concerns.

    We can, and should, invest in both technology and infrastructure. We can direct public money to the public goods of scientific innovation, technology transfer and, crucially, decent universal super-fast broadband.

    And we must, of course, think about how to make sure the labour market works effectively as well, so businesses can continue to secure a proper return on their investment. That means not just a flexible migration policy overall, but as we leave the EU, ensuring access to seasonal agricultural labour.

    But while Government has a clear role to play in all of these areas in supporting food production it’s also important that we all appreciate that ultimately, quality food is generated not by Government, but by innovative and entrepreneurial producers responding to consumer preferences and market signals.

    And the best way to ensure consumers have the full choice of quality food they want is not to try to satisfy every need with home produce, but to pursue comparative advantage.

    So Government must recognise that its interventions need to be targeted, proportionate and limited.

    Subsidies linked to the size of land holding, or headage payments, reward incumbents, restrict new thinking and ultimately hold back innovation and efficiency.

    Industries which come to rely on importing cheap labour run the risk of failing to invest in the innovation required to become genuinely more productive. Labour-intensive production inevitably lags behind capital-intensive production.

    And having a subsidy system which incentivises farmers to place every acre they can into food production means that public money isn’t always being spent on renewing natural capital assets like forestry and wetlands.

    As well as thinking about how our interventions to support food production currently affect the environment, we also have to consider the impact on the nation’s health.

    Ours is the first generation where more people succumb to non-communicable conditions than to infectious diseases. The risk to public health from contagious conditions is diminishing, the rising dangers are obesity, diabetes, coronary failure, cancer and deteriorating mental health. And diet plays a part in all these conditions.

    Helping people to make better choices in what they eat is fraught territory politically. And looking at my own waistline I should bear in mind that it is incumbent on he who talks about dietary sins to lose the first stone.

    But Government does have a public health role. As Education Secretary I introduced a School Food Plan not just to ensure school meals were healthier but also to educate children about where food came from and how to make healthy choices about buying, preparing and enjoying food.

    And in this role now, I have a responsibility to ask if public money supporting food production is also contributing to improved public health.

    And indeed I also have a responsibility to ask if all the incentives and Government interventions everywhere in the food chain work towards economic justice and social inclusion.

    So that does mean on the one hand that means asking how we can support those farmers, for example upland sheep farmers, whose profit margins are more likely to be small but whose contribution to rural life and the maintenance of iconic landscapes is immense. And on the other it also involves taking action to end the currently indefensible situation we have at the moment where food producers are incentivised to send perfectly edible and nutritious surplus stock they have not sold to waste plants rather than charities who can distribute it to individuals in need.

    It is only, I believe, by looking at food policy in the round, developing an understanding of the economic, social, environmental, health and other issues at every stage in the food chain that we will develop the right coherent strategy for the future.

    And there are huge opportunities for those in agriculture to play the leading role in shaping this strategy. Rather than devoting intellectual energy and political capital to campaigning for policy interventions designed to insulate farming from change, agriculture’s leaders can respond to growing public interest in debates about food, animal welfare, the environment, health and economic justice by demonstrating, as so many in this room are doing, how their innovative and dynamic approaches are enhancing the environment, safeguarding animal welfare, producing food of the highest quality, improving public health and contributing to a fairer society.

    Managing change

    Now given the scale, and nature, of the change which is coming I recognise that farmers need to be given the time, and the tools, to become more adaptable.

    We’ll be saying more about our plans in a Command Paper to be published later this spring. And of course the proposals we outline will have to be subject to consultation. But I want to say a little about the direction of travel I think we should take.

    I believe we should help land owners and managers to make the transition from our current system of subsidy to a new approach of public money for public goods over time.

    We will formally leave the EU in March of 2019 but the Government anticipates that we will agree an implementation or transition period for the whole country with the EU lasting for around another two years.

    We have guaranteed that the amount we allocate to farming support – in cash terms – will be protected throughout and beyond this period right up until the end of this Parliament in 2022.

    We will continue support for Countryside Stewardship agreements entered into before we leave the EU and we will ensure that no one in an existing scheme is unfairly disadvantaged when we transition to new arrangements. We will pay the 2019 BPS scheme on the same basis as we do now.

    I then envisage guaranteeing that BPS payments continue for a transition period in England, which should last a number of years beyond the implementation period, depending on consultation.

    During these years, we propose to first reduce the largest BPS payments in England. We could do this through a straight cap at a maximum level or through a sliding scale of reductions, to the largest payments first.

    After the implementation period, this transitional payment could be paid to the recipient without the need to comply with all the onerous existing cross-compliance rules and procedures.

    Inspections would, of course, continue but in the streamlined and risk-based fashion I described earlier. Provided our own animal welfare, environmental and other laws were observed this payment would be guaranteed.

    This should provide every existing farmer who receives a BPS payment with a guaranteed income over this extended transition period.

    That guaranteed income should provide time for farmers to change their business model if necessary, help to make the investment necessary for any adjustments and prepare for the future.

    We will also look at ways to support farmers who may choose to leave the industry.

    And, after that transition, we will replace BPS with a system of public money for public goods.

    Paying for what we value

    The principal public good we will invest in is of course environmental enhancement.

    In thinking about how better to support farmers in the work of environmental protection and enhancement it’s critical – as everyone in this room but not everyone outside appreciates – to recognise that there is no inherent tension between productive farming and care for the natural world.

    Quite the opposite.

    I have seen for myself how many of our best farmers – our most productive and progressive farmers – place thoughtful environmental practice and careful husbanding of resources at the heart of their businesses.

    Take the vital question of soil health. Min or no till approaches, which require less expenditure on inputs and of course keep more carbon in the soil, are both economically more efficient and environmentally progressive.

    But under the CAP, farmers have been encouraged to focus on yield overall, rather than productivity specifically.

    This has led to decades of damage in the form of significant and destructive soil erosion – estimated in one study by Cranfield University to cost the economy around £1.2 billion every year.

    We now have opportunity to reverse this unhappy trend. Sustainably managed land is far more productive than land that is stressed and stripped of its nutrients.

    But moving to more sustainable and, ultimately, productive farming methods can involve transitional costs and pressures. So we plan to provide new support for those who choose to farm in the most sustainable fashion.

    And as well as supporting progressive and productive farming methods we also want to support what economists call the provision of ecosystem services.

    Building on previous countryside stewardship and agri-environment schemes, we will design a scheme accessible to almost any land owner or manager who wishes to enhance the natural environment by planting woodland, providing new habitats for wildlife, increasing biodiversity, contributing to improved water quality and returning cultivated land to wildflower meadows or other more natural states.

    We will also make additional money available for those who wish to collaborate to secure environmental improvements collectively at landscape scale.

    Enhancing our natural environment is a vital mission for this Government. We are committed to ensuring we leave the environment in a better condition than we found it. And leaving the European Union allows us to deliver the policies required to achieve that – to deliver a Green Brexit.

    But vital as investment in our environment is, it is not the only public good I think we should invest in – I believe we should also invest in technology and skills alongside infrastructure, public access and rural resilience.

    There is a tremendous opportunity for productivity improvement in our farms. We already have some of the best performing farms in the world and there is no reason why our farmers cannot lead the way globally in achieving better levels of productivity through adoption of best practice and new technologies.

    On technology, we should build on the innovations pioneered by our superb higher education institutions like Harper Adams University by investing more in automation and machine learning, moving from the hands-free hectare to the hands-free farm, with drilling, harvesting, picking and packaging all automated, precision mapping of every inch under cultivation with targeted laser treatment of pests and weeds and highly-focussed application of any other treatment required. We should invest more in the sensor technology that can tell where, when and how livestock should be fed, housed and bred to maximise both yield and individual animal health and welfare.

    And we should ensure the next generation of farmers are equipped to make the most of technological breakthroughs by better integrating the research work being undertaken by the most innovative institutions with the ongoing training those working on the land should receive. I hope to say more about how we can reform land-based education again later in the spring.

    Critical to making this new investment in tech and skills work is of course proper infrastructure – super-fast broadband and reliable 5G coverage. If I can get reliable and unbroken mobile phone and internet coverage in a tunnel under the Atlantic as I travel between one Faeroe Island and the next I should be able to get it in Oxfordshire. So I am delighted that my colleague Matt Hancock has made it a priority to ensure rural areas get the digital infrastructure they need and I will do whatever I can to help.

    Public access I know can be contentious and I won’t get into the weeds of the debate on rights of way now. But the more the public, and especially school children, get to visit, understand and appreciate our countryside the more I believe they will appreciate, support and champion our farmers. Open Farm Sunday and other great initiatives like it help reconnect urban dwellers with the earth. And they also help secure consent for investment in the countryside as well as support for British produce. So public access is a public good.

    Finally there is rural resilience. There are any number of smaller farm and rural businesses which help keep communities coherent and ensure the culture in agriculture is kept healthy. Whether it’s upland farmers in Wales or Cumbria, crofters in Scotland or small livestock farmers in Northern Ireland, we need to ensure support is there for those who keep rural life vital. The work of the Prince’s Countryside Fund has been invaluable here and the kind of enterprises that it supports are, I believe, worthy of public support.

    I recognise the list of public goods I have identified is not exhaustive. But then our budget is not unlimited. I look forward to consulting on these priorities but we must start from the presumption that we should only support clear public goods the market will not, left to itself, provide.

    Which takes me to the importance of natural capital.

    In thinking of our countryside, and of rural life overall, is that its overall worth to us goes far beyond its economic value alone.

    Like everyone here, I am moved by the beauty of our natural landscapes, feel a sense of awe and wonder at the richness and abundance of creation, value wild life as a good in its own right, admire those who work with nature and on our land, respect the skill and passion of farmers, growers, shepherds, stockmen, vets and agronomists who provide us with safe, high quality food and drink, and I want to see them prosper.

    I know these feelings are shared across the country. But capturing these values in public policy can sometimes be difficult. Which is why the natural capital approach can be so valuable. It allows us to bed into policy-making a direct appreciation of the importance of field and forest, river and wetland, healthy soil and air free from pollution.

    It is just one tool among many in the formation of policy but a very powerful one in ensuring that we think of our responsibility to future generations to hand on a country, and a planet, in a better state than we found it.

    And that has to be the aim for all our policies on food, farming, the landscape and our broader environment. We have to embrace change which secures a more sustainable future for those who will inherit what we have built.

  • Liam Fox – 2018 Speech on Chinese and British Innovation

    Below is the text of the speech made by Liam Fox, the Secretary of State for International Trade, on 4 January 2018.

    Thank you all for being here tonight.

    This evening is an opportunity for Britain and China to come together. A chance to identify our shared ambitions, our mutual strengths and the opportunities we have to work together to shape the future of global trade.

    But, first and foremost, we are here tonight to celebrate the upcoming GREAT Festival of Innovation.

    The festival, which will take place in March just a few miles away in Hong Kong, will bring together some of the UK and Asia’s most pioneering companies.

    It will be a gathering like no other – an opportunity to share innovations that will drive the future of free trade and for businesses to build lifelong partnerships.

    It is this spirit of friendship and commonality that I wish to speak to you about tonight.

    It is fitting that this evening we are gathered in Shenzhen, a city with innovation in its DNA.

    Shenzhen, as the technological capital of China, is the engine room that will power China in the age of the fourth industrial revolution.

    In a matter of decades, Shenzhen has transformed from a small fishing village into a dynamic and youthful city with a population of more than 11 million.

    Much of this success has been down to this city’s dynamism, and its dedication to technical advancement.

    With research and development investment accounting for 4% of GDP – double the national average – and patent applications standing at the highest in China for 10 consecutive years, it cannot be denied that we stand in a city that is unapologetically focused on the future.

    Across this city, some of the world’s most talented minds are coming together to design tomorrow’s technology.

    Shenzhen is a world-leading producer of drones, electric cars and DNA sequencing machines.

    It is clear that this city has much to offer the world.

    But I am here this evening to talk about what the United Kingdom can offer Shenzhen.

    Yesterday, I had several hours of constructive and positive talks with Commerce Minister Zhong Shan where we discussed the opportunities that result from the complementary nature of our economies.

    Technology is clearly one but there are others. Another lies in food and drink.

    China will need to ensure that there is a sufficient supply of quality foodstuffs available for its growing population and especially its burgeoning middle class.

    Britain will want to ensure better and more predictable incomes for our farmers as we leave the EU so that we can attract investment and improve productivity.

    We must work together in the months ahead to ensure that we address any concerns that Chinese authorities have so that the Chinese people can enjoy the benefits that quality UK beef, lamb and poultry can bring. Our already growing exports of food and drink can improve further with the lifting of market access barriers.

    There is a great opportunity to be ambitious about our future trading relationship to the benefit of both sides. We will continue to explore all our options together.

    When the UK voted in 2016 to leave the European Union, there were many around the world that portrayed the result as a symptom of insularity.

    They predicted that Britain would be turning in on itself, abdicating its international responsibilities and severing global ties.

    I am here to tell you that nothing could be further from the truth.

    Instead, last year’s referendum vote to leave the European Union has offered us an unprecedented opportunity.

    For the first time in more than 4 decades, we have the opportunity to forge new trading partnerships around the world, with old friends and new allies alike.

    We are building a Global Britain – a country that champions commercial freedoms, prizes international talent, and helps the world’s most dynamic and innovative enterprises to reach their potential.

    We want to see companies, like those that join us today, succeed. We want to see Shenzhen succeed.

    As shown by figures from the Shenzhen Statistics Bureau, UK-Shenzhen trade is already worth more than US$6 billion a year and the UK is the largest EU source of Foreign Direct Investment to the city – with investments totalling around US$1.4 billion.

    Likewise, the innovative firms that have made Shenzhen their home are growing their businesses in the UK, with Huawei alone employing more than 1,500 staff across the UK.

    The UK and Shenzhen share common strengths. Fintech, information and communications technology, advanced healthcare, artificial intelligence, advanced manufacturing and clean energy are all industries in which we are both seeking to blaze a trail.

    These areas of commonality mean opportunities for our businesses. Opportunities for UK and Chinese firms of all sizes to trade with one another, to share expertise and to secure investment.

    Indeed this evening we’re very lucky to be joined by some of the excellent British food and drink manufacturers who are meeting the growing demand from Chinese consumers. If you haven’t done so already I would urge you to sample the delicious products being showcased today, including smoked salmon from H. Forman & Son, cider from Brothers, cheese from Somerdale, and ale from Badger.

    In 2016 China became the ninth largest importer of British food and drink and early figures for 2017 show a move to eighth place.

    Tonight, and all through the Great Festival of Innovation, we come together to fortify our bonds and fundamentally to support one another to achieve our ambitions.

    Britain’s decision to leave the European Union is our acknowledgement that our destiny lies not only in our valued friendship with Europe, but also the wider world.

    Earlier I quoted some rather impressive statistics relating to UK-Shenzhen trade and investment. These figures, while heartening, fail to show the real impact and value of trade.

    Trade and investment creates jobs, supports the livelihoods of real people, means the food and clothes that we buy in the shops are more affordable and that businesses can grow and thrive.

    In short, it means for us a more prosperous Britain and a more secure world.

    That is why, far from retreating from the world, we are extending the hand of friendship beyond the borders of Europe.

    Being a globally minded country is in our very nature. We are in the right time zone to trade with Asia in the morning and America in the afternoon. We champion business-friendly regulation, are home to the world’s leading financial sector, are the number one destination for inward investment in Europe and boast some of the world’s best universities that bring students from across the world together.

    In the first full year since the referendum we saw the highest number of foreign direct investment projects into the United Kingdom in our history, a 13.5% rise in our exports and record employment. A vote of confidence from global investors.

    Last year our government launched a modern industrial strategy for the United Kingdom. It is a long-term plan to boost the productivity and earning power of people throughout the UK.

    It focuses on the 5 foundations of productivity: ideas, people, infrastructure, business environment and places.

    The strategy sets out how we are building a Britain fit for the future and how we will respond to the technological revolution taking place across the world.

    Technology will disrupt nearly every sector in every country, creating new opportunities and challenges.

    We, like our partners in Shenzhen, are focused on seizing these opportunities. From the data-driven economy to the future of mobility, we want to back visionary businesses to make their mark.

    As you will see there are many parallels between the United Kingdom’s modern Industrial Strategy and the new area strategy for Guangdong.

    We both share the ambition of supporting our industries to be world leaders in research, manufacturing, life sciences and high technology.

    We also have a shared understanding of the vital role that transport and infrastructure play in driving productivity.

    While of course there any many ways in which our worlds differ, it is impossible not to be struck by the commonality.

    That is why I truly believe the UK and the Greater Bay Area can and should work together to achieve these great aims and to be partners as we nurture innovation-driven economies.

    The scale of opportunity for UK business to export to, partner with, and invest in this region is unrivalled.

    My department, which is responsible for trade and investment, wants to offer more support to those UK companies who see China as their trading partner of the future, and to do more to engage with Chinese investors, encouraging them to take advantage of opportunities in the UK.

    That is exactly why in March we will be hosting the GREAT Festival of Innovation in Hong Kong. I hope many of you will be there joining hundreds of other international business leaders and investors.

    The festival will showcase the very best of British and Asian innovations in how we will learn, live, work and play in the future across multiple sectors.

    It will be a meeting of brilliant minds. It will provide an opportunity for British and Asian visionaries to forge new trade links and strengthen existing relationships.

    The event will be the third in a series of successful GREAT festivals in 5 years, following the success of the GREAT Festivals of Creativity in Istanbul in 2014 and Shanghai in 2015, with the latter generating over £800 million in business.

    I look forward to welcoming you all to the festival, to join the most exciting, dynamic and successful companies that the Asian tech sector has to offer.

    I hope this evening I have imparted some of the optimism that my colleagues and I feel at this juncture in our history. It is a new, exciting chapter for the United Kingdom, but also for our valued friendship with Shenzhen and China. The opportunities and the prizes of the future are there to be shared together.

    Thank you.

  • Theresa May – 2017 Statement on Infected Blood Inquiry

    Below is the text of the statement made by Theresa May, the Prime Minister, in the House of Commons on 21 December 2017.

    As the Government announced last month, a full statutory inquiry into the infected blood scandal will be established under the Inquiries Act 2005, and sponsored by the Cabinet Office. The inquiry will have full powers, including the power to compel the production of documents, and to summon witnesses to give evidence on oath.

    We are today setting out the next steps.

    The Cabinet Office has now completed its analysis of the responses to the consultation on the format of the statutory inquiry into infected blood announced in July. In addition a series of roundtable meetings were held earlier this month with individuals and groups representing those affected.

    The Government committed to making an announcement regarding the chair of the inquiry before Christmas, taking into account the views we have received. We are therefore announcing today our intention to appoint a judge to chair the inquiry. We will make a further statement on who that judge will be in the new year and we will be discussing with them the composition of the inquiry panel.

    We would like to thank each and every person who took the time to respond to the consultation, and to share their views and experiences. We understand how difficult these issues must have been to describe and we are grateful for the frankness and honesty with which people have shared their experiences. The responses to the consultation have been carefully considered by Cabinet Office officials. We can assure the House and everyone who contributed that the findings will be passed to the proposed chair to help inform the discussions regarding the draft terms of reference, on which we expect there will be further consultation.

    In accordance with the Inquiries Act 2005, colleagues in the devolved Administrations will be consulted as the terms of reference are finalised.

    A further statement will be made in the new year.