UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Phillip Lee – 2016 Speech on the Loyal Address

    Below is the text of the speech made by Phillip Lee, the Conservative MP for Bracknell, in the House of Commons on 18 May 2016.

    It is a privilege to second the Loyal Address, and I am honoured to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman) this afternoon. This is not the first time I have done so. Among her many achievements, one of her proudest must be that she is captain of the parliamentary ski team, of which I am a junior member. In that role she has responsibility for leading a team of large egos and hidden talent, some with little sense of balance or direction, navigating up peaks and down slippery slopes. I cannot imagine where she gained the experience, but such skills make her an extremely valuable member of this Chamber and of her party.

    I was surprised to have been given the privilege of seconding the Loyal Address this afternoon. I am not, for example, the son of a bus driver, although my father did once drive a milk float in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker). Just as an aside, why is it always the case that we have to wait so long for these sons of bus drivers, and then two come along at once?

    It might be my education. I am, like the Leader of the Opposition, an ex-grammar school boy and like him, I gather, I rather screwed up my A-levels, so perhaps there is hope for me yet. Or it might be my extensive experience of PR before entering politics. As the House knows, I am a practising doctor. Unfortunately, in a medical context, PR does not stand for public relations, but is shorthand for the type of examination that involves putting on rubber gloves, applying gel and asking a man to cough. May I give my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister a little advice? If, in the future, he finds himself speaking at a medical profession dinner, under no circumstances should he tell the audience that in his life before politics he was into PR, and that he found the work very stimulating.

    Many of my predecessors in this role have had a reputation for humour, so I think that it was courageous of the PM to ask a doctor to second the Loyal Address. As the House can already tell, medical humour is a famously acquired taste, and it would be all too easy to share some of the stories of which every doctor has an infinite supply—many may not be appropriate for this place and its refined audience. However, I can perhaps report on the lady who complained of, as she put it, a history of “erotic” bowels. I resisted the temptation to ask whether her erotic symptoms were erratic in nature. Or the elderly man who said that his secret for looking so healthy was to do Kama Sutra exercises every morning, only to be corrected by his wife: “Gareth, I think you mean Tai Chi!” If colleagues do not think that I deliver this speech very well today, just be grateful that we are not holding this debate at a weekend, when I understand from some that doctors do not perform as well.

    I had hoped that my medical background would be an advantage in politics, but I have been disappointed. My first disappointment came when I stood for election as the Conservative party’s candidate in Blaenau Gwent. I am not sure that the current hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) is with us today, but I am sure he would agree that sporting a blue rosette outside the Tredegar Kwik Save takes a certain type of character: mostly delusional, and perhaps even masochistic. In fact, the president of my constituency association, Mr Rob Stanton, was elected to Wokingham Borough Council with more votes than I received at that election. However, I was able to comfort myself with the fact that my modest 816 votes nevertheless represented the biggest swing to the Conservative party of any candidate in Wales that night. In retrospect, I should have taken more note of the lady in Abertillery market who, when I asked her why she supported Labour, replied, “Don’t you get complicated with me!”

    Delivering this speech is, of course, really an honour for the constituency of Bracknell, which I am privileged to represent. It is a particular honour in this year of Her Majesty’s 90th birthday. The constituency has long-standing royal links. It is proud to host the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst, which celebrated its bicentenary in 2012 and has trained successive generations of British, Commonwealth and international officers serving in Her Majesty’s Army and elsewhere around the world. My constituents also enjoy access to the extensive woodland of Swinley forest, which is wonderfully maintained by the Crown Estate. With its vibrant economy and town centre regeneration, the Bracknell constituency has a very bright future.

    This is the 63rd Gracious Speech that Her Majesty has given since her accession to the throne. On this occasion, it is apt to look back to Her Majesty’s first Gracious Speech and at the changes that there have been since. The preservation of peace was the first emphasis in 1952. Our country was still recovering from war. The grandfather of my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames) was Prime Minister. The nationalisation of iron and steel was the subject of heated debate. Slums had to be cleared and people housed. This led to the creation of new towns, of which Bracknell was one. Communicable diseases such as tuberculosis challenged our young health service. Abroad, closer unions were foreseen to cement the ties on which peace depended: with the United States of America, with the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, with the Commonwealth and with a recovering Europe.

    The vision of the post-war political generation was a big vision: of a country that would never again suffer the insecurity and hardship experienced by those who had to pick up arms and fight for our existence; of every person being able to get a chance in life—of health, education and employment; and of a society that is fair, just and free, in which freedoms are earned because we value our country, our environment, our world, and in which rights are balanced by responsibilities, for each other and for ourselves; and, most importantly, to prepare for the future. Variations of this vision have guided successive Governments ever since, with varying degrees of success.

    The generation Her Majesty addressed in 1952 had fought for that vision, displaying a deep consciousness throughout our nation that individual lives are fleeting: that we must take care of the world we inherit—conserve it—so that we pass something better to our children; that we achieve more by coming together with our neighbours, with our friends and with our former enemies by respecting our riches, and each other; and that humanity is the vital bond without which our society, globally and nationally, our communities and our families will disintegrate.

    On a personal level, I am humbled by the experiences of that wartime generation. My grandfather was under fire at the age of 20, in the tail end of a Halifax bomber. I also recall caring for an 89-year-old Polish patient who was short of breath and experiencing angina. He had taken the time to put on a tie and a suit adorned with military ribbons, and he apologised for taking up my time. I asked him about his military experience. He told me that his village in eastern Poland had been overrun by the Soviets in 1939. He was deported to a Siberian work camp and, in his own words, wore the same socks for two years. He was handed over the British in 1942 in Baghdad, and fought with Montgomery’s 8th Army across north Africa and up the spine of Italy via Monte Cassino. When reflecting on his heroic story, I humbly ask whether my generation would display the same values, the same stoicism, the same modesty, the same courage, and the same respect for others, and I recall his loyalty to his adopted country.

    The closest I have come to fighting has been as a doctor battling ageing, obesity and the challenges of cultural dislocation. In the course of Her Majesty’s reign, life expectancy has increased by a decade. The percentage of people aged over 85 has grown by a factor of five. The world’s population has virtually trebled, and our own has gone up by a third. The proportion of our population of foreign birth has more than trebled, albeit from a low base. It is clear that we must not only treat the symptoms of the challenges that come with such marked change, but strive to cure their causes. That is why this Government’s commitment to helping to improve the life chances of those who have the misfortune to be born or raised in circumstances over which they have no control is admirable and right.

    The generation Her Majesty addresses today must rediscover the values of the past to face an ever-accelerating pace of change. It is a world that is more connected and more conscious of its differences, but also more conscious of what we have in common than ever before. This time, we have the opportunity to rediscover those values peacefully, and the important legislation outlined in this Gracious Speech will help us to do so. The challenge of overcoming extremism without compromising our humanity is one that deserves the support of the whole House. My right hon. and good Friend the Home Secretary knows that dealing with our society’s failure to integrate some communities will be integral.

    The space industry received the attention it deserves as one of Britain’s most successful industries with a power to inspire that is unmatched. I am sure that all members of the previous Parliament recall that I mentioned the UK space industry in my maiden speech in 2010. As British astronaut Tim Peake was a graduate of Sandhurst, I am shamelessly going to claim him as having been educated in my constituency. As such, I am concerned for his welfare. Tim is due back from the international space station just before the EU referendum vote, but if he is slightly delayed, and the country votes to leave in June, he need not worry about getting home, since the European Space Agency sits outside the European Union. Seriously, though, the Government’s support of the space industry will help to secure Britain as a globally recognised centre for high technology, whether we are inside or outside the European Union.

    Finally, some hon. Members will know that I have kept my own counsel on June’s big European event, but the time is fast approaching when I feel I should make my position clear, if only to deal with the alarming possibility that as time moves on, I and other hon. Members who have taken a similar approach will have to deal with the advances of two charming men, one with blond hair and one with spectacles, approaching us in the Members’ Lobby to ask when we are coming out. I can see no good reason why we should exit—at least not before the semi-finals, and preferably not after the pain of extra time and a penalty shoot-out.

    Keeping up with change is a tough enough job for any Government. Conservative Governments do not just want to keep up; they want to do better. That is why I am not only privileged to represent the good people of the Bracknell constituency, but proud to second this motion on the Gracious Speech.

  • Caroline Spelman – 2016 Speech on the Loyal Address

    carolinespelman

    Below is the text of the speech made by Caroline Spelman, the Conservative MP for Meriden, in the House of Commons on 18 May 2016.

    I beg to move,

    That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as follows:

    Most Gracious Sovereign,

    We, Your Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.

    It is an honour to be asked to propose the Loyal Address, especially in Her Majesty’s 90th year. When I was asked to see the Chief Whip, my first thought was: what have I done? The relief in discovering that it was for a good reason was followed almost immediately by the angst of how to do it well. I looked carefully at how my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Sir Simon Burns) tackled it last year. Unfortunately, he cannot be with us today as he has to attend a funeral. We all now know of his unswerving admiration for Hillary Clinton. We have shared with him the anxieties of the primaries, so I put all colleagues on alert that if they are standing next to him when the news of the presidential election comes through, be prepared to provide moral support whichever way it goes, but especially should Hillary be trumped.

    First, may I say to my constituents in Meriden how grateful I am to them for electing me to Parliament? I am always proud to represent them. A lot has changed since my first day here 19 years ago. I was often the only woman in meetings. I was one of very few women around the Cabinet table with school-age children. This could prove awkward, such as at the shadow Cabinet meeting interrupted by the news that one of my sons had fallen off a drainpipe at school.

    In 1997, only 18% of MPs were women. This has now risen to a total of almost 30%—not yet parity, but we are heading in the right direction. It has also been a great privilege to help mentor newcomers, and in return I have been especially grateful to Baroness Shephard for her mentoring down the years.

    The Chamber now looks more like the electorate at large. [Interruption.] On all sides! Better decisions are made when those who make them are more diverse. For example, when assessing the priorities for public transport, men rate reliability and cost as the most important factors, but women put something else first—their personal safety. Put the two perspectives together and a better outcome is achieved.

    I hope that by now the nearly new Members are beginning to make friends in all parties and discover that they can have allies across the Floor. In fact, the work of Parliament is often enhanced by the friendships that transcend party lines. When I was party chairman, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) asked me to organise a debate with him on the subject of dying well, as we each had a parent with a poor experience of that in hospital. The Whips did not bat an eyelid at that. The only objection was to the title: dying was considered far too controversial, and we had to call it end-of-life care.

    I also worked with the right hon. Gentleman on the Modern Slavery Bill, as we both served on the Joint Committee of both Houses. If ever there was an outstanding example of a cross-party approach to tackling a terrible injustice, this is it. The Home Secretary deserves the credit for securing a piece of landmark legislation, which is a world first in this area. The legal expertise of Baroness Butler-Sloss forced us all to think very hard how to get this absolutely right, and I felt that it was my red letter day when the noble Lady uttered these magic words to me: “I think the right hon. Lady has a point.”

    I have been in a cross-party prayer fellowship all the time I have been here. It consists of two Conservative MPs, two Labour MPs, one Liberal MP and one Democratic Unionist MP. We could not have done that better by using proportional representation if we had tried. We and our families met up in each other’s constituencies, and my children were initially perplexed by the fraternisation until I explained that it was like when your friend supports Aston Villa and you support Coventry: you think he is misguided, but you are still friends.

    We will shortly face a big decision about our membership of the EU. Whichever way the vote goes, we will need to ensure good relations with our neighbours. I commend to the House the recent concert by the Parliament Choir in Paris to show our solidarity with the people of France after the terrorist attacks last year. There are often opportunities for soft diplomacy, and we should take them. My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) and I may not see eye to eye on Europe, but his rich baritone and my alto voice have produced delightful harmony.

    I welcome the clear references in the Gracious Speech to the life chances agenda, and I am pleased that this is to be a key theme in the year ahead. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) pioneered this approach, and the new Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has the life experience and the ability to drive it forward. My constituency has a council estate of nearly 40,000 people, and I have seen how the life chances of my constituents have improved through the regeneration of housing and schools by Solihull Council. When I took a Minister on a visit there recently, two tenants emerged from one of our 37 refurbished tower blocks to express their delight that their energy bills had halved as a result of the new energy-saving features. The Minister turned to me and asked, “How much did you pay them to say that, Caroline?”

    Buildings can be regenerated but it is the life chances of the human beings within them that really make the difference, so I am delighted that so many of our young people are getting apprenticeships as engineers, including many young women, in the great tradition of those women who built the Spitfires in the last world war. All of this is made possible by the renaissance of manufacturing and the economic recovery that we have seen.

    Parts of my constituency are rural, and despite being at the very centre of England, we have mobile and broadband not spots, so I am glad to hear that a renewed effort is being made to address the digital divide. With my Church Estates Commissioner’s hat on, may I remind the Government of the offer of church spires and towers to help to crack this problem? They may bring us closer to God, but a proper signal can feel like heaven on earth to those who have had none.

    Prison reform is well overdue. We know that reoffending can be dramatically cut with the right kind of help. The Justice Secretary and the Education Secretary know how important it is to improve the life chances of school children, as far too many prison inmates are unable to read and write. I am glad that the Justice Secretary is now using his reforming zeal to give prisoners a better chance to turn their lives around. I have witnessed at first hand how this can be achieved. I helped to set up a charity called Welcome to tackle drug and alcohol abuse and to get people free of addiction and into work. We started with just one employee in a community hall; now we employ more than 20 and we do the triage for the NHS in our borough of 200,000 people. Some of the best advocates are our volunteers who have achieved this themselves and are role models for others.

    No party has a monopoly on compassion, and Members on both sides of the House have sought to help the vulnerable. On entering politics, it was my personal resolution to speak for those who were unable to speak for themselves. Few people in our country are more vulnerable than a child leaving care. The state has not often proved to be a great parent, and knowing how hard it is to be a parent, we should not be surprised. But I take my hat off in particular to the parents who adopt. We need more parents to come forward to foster and adopt, so I welcome the Government’s intention to speed up adoption—indeed, this was the objective of my private Member’s Bill on the subject—but children can still be left too long in care and the damage can be irreparable. so let us improve the follow-up care and keep it going until a young adult is fully fledged. Eighteen may be the notional age of adulthood, but, in my experience, it takes a good few more years of parental support before young adults’ wings can take life’s turbulence.

    New measures are clearly needed to prevent sections of society feeling alienated, but I appeal to the Government not to take a hammer to crack a nut. Good role models and moderate voices are what are needed, and I have high expectations of the new Mayor of London, who is not only an excellent cricketer, as the Lords and Commons cricket team will testify, but uniquely well placed to help. Good luck, Sadiq—no pressure!

    Let me return to my opening theme of making friends across the House. Over the years, there have been a good few Members whom I have sought to encourage after they had suffered setbacks in their parliamentary careers. My key piece of advice has been, “Don’t give up! Get stuck back in and fight for the causes you know and care about, and this House will ultimately respect you for it.” May I therefore say a heartfelt thank you for the way the House has helped me rediscover the fulfilment of being an elected Member of this mother of all Parliaments. As long as you have the chance to make a difference, there is no such thing as having had your day. We are elected to change things for the better and to take up the issues that confront us, so seize the day! I commend the motion to the House.

  • Matt Hancock – 2016 Speech on Data Science Ethical Framework

    Matt Hancock
    Matt Hancock

    Below is the text of the speech made by Matt Hancock, the Cabinet Office Minister, in London on 19 May 2016.

    When Alan Turing proposed the Turing Machine and his theory of machine intelligence, he would not have imagined that his early ideas of computing and algorithms would be enhanced and evolved using the quintillions of bytes of data we generate today.

    This explosion of data has a profound and positive – socially, in work, in public services and in life.

    Turing’s work on enigma during the war, working with Bill Tutte who remained less recognised, is a piece of history we are all familiar with. But some of Turing’s most influential research came later, in artificial intelligence.

    When Turing devised the Turing Test, to determine whether a computer was human or not, the idea of machines thinking and working for themselves was in something which may have seemed like science fiction.

    But we have come to expect Siri to tell us about delays on the Jubilee line, for Google to translate a webpage automatically, or to use an automated till at the checkout.

    Now there are those that worry that technological change will make us worse off, that automation raises the prospect of mass unemployment. Machines will take over all our jobs, and there will be nothing left for humans to do.

    We’ve heard this before – from the Luddites to Keynes to Harold Wilson, history is littered with those predicting the end of work. And history has proved them wrong every time.

    Digital transformation

    Technological progress does not remove the need for human endeavour. There is no fixed amount of work to be done.

    Technology improves productivity and reduces costs, allowing people to spend more on other things, in turn creating new jobs.

    The trick is not to hold back the machines, but to harness their power.

    We should celebrate the fact that technology can replace, and in some cases improve, administrative tasks, freeing us humans up to focus on what we’re best at, using our creative skills to iterate and improve services.

    But transformation is disruptive, and it’s understandable people worry.

    As a government we must support them, making sure we provide all the support people need.

    And this support is well worth it. Because the increasing use of data, digital services and automation provides citizens with a huge opportunity if we manage it properly.

    For government it gives the chance to improve the services we provide by making them more efficient, accurate and suited to citizens’ needs. Data helps us better serve citizens.

    Across government we are working hard to ensure data and data-science techniques are put to good use; improving data quality and security through canonical registers, integrating data into digital services; and using cutting edge data science techniques to improve government policy and services.

    For example, using the thousands of feedback comments we receive on our digital services to predict prominent problems or peaks in demand.

    Data science advancement

    Using social media posts about sickness in the local area to predict where norovirus might next strike ahead of medical lab reports. Or harnessing blockchain technology to follow the use of money given on behalf of taxpayers in grants.

    Our Digital Economy Bill, set out by Her Majesty yesterday, will help us unlock more advances.

    But the technology is only part of the overall solution. Digital transformation has no meaning or real world effect unless it is the driver for business transformation, of changes in culture.

    To get that right, advances in data science must be made in a strong framework that is protective of privacy and reassuring to the public.

    The Bill will allow more modern use of data, to improve services or tackle fraud. And it will do this within a strong framework of data protection and protection of personal information.

    It is vital we seize the opportunities that data science presents. The biggest risk would be to do nothing and to miss out on the enormous potential to improve the lives of our citizens.

    Data privacy

    Privacy or cyber security are nothing without reliable verification of identity. So I’m delighted to announce that GOV.UK Verify has passed its service assessment and will go live next week.

    Verify allows secure and straightforward identity checking without the need for an identity database – and underpins the digital transformation of government and I want to thank the Verify team for their innovative, determined and dedicated work.

    Now with these safeguards we want to unlock the progressive power of data science to improve lives.

    And we want people in government to feel confident using new techniques. This means setting out clear guidance that brings together the relevant laws and best practice, gives data scientists and their teams robust principles to work with. It is all about encouraging new and innovative ways to better solve problems and deliver.

    So today we are launching our new Data Science Ethical Framework, setting out in one place our framework for using data. It will help people using data to ask the right questions and take appropriate steps.

    Today’s publication is a first version developed across government,civil society, industry and academic partners.

    We aren’t saying that it is a finished article. Today we ask for your help to iterate the framework to keep abreast of the changing landscape and developments and ensure it is a document that continues to work.

    Technology is constantly changing, new techniques constantly invented. These offer huge opportunities to improve lives, to create jobs, to connect better the citizens and the state. We must be at the forefront of this change, secure yet ambitious, else we will count the cost.

    The opportunities are greater than Alan Turing could have imagined, all those years ago. Let us seize them, to improve the lives of the citizens we serve.

    Thank you.

  • Claire Perry – 2016 Speech on Sustainable Railways

    claireperry

    Below is the text of the speech made by Claire Perry, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Transport, in London on 18 May 2016.

    Introduction

    Good morning.

    This morning I want to address a subject that perhaps isn’t currently receiving the attention it deserves.

    And that is the subject of sustainability.

    In recent years, we’ve talked a lot about investment, capacity and connectivity.

    And rightly so – there’s a huge amount happening in rail under each of those themes.

    But I believe our job to revitalise Britain’s railways isn’t finished until have a railway that is not just high-capacity and well-connected, but a railway that is also sustainable.

    So I want to set out what I take sustainability to mean in the context of rail, and why it is important.

    What is sustainability?

    First, then – what is a sustainable railway?

    To my mind, the answer is clear.

    It’s a railway that is fit for the future.

    One that helps solve the environmental challenges we face, rather than contributing to them

    It’s a railway that is properly connected to the communities it serve

    And it’s a railway that has invested in the workforce it needs for the decades ahead.

    A railway meeting environmental challenges

    So, first, let me talk about how our railway can best meet the environmental challenges we face.

    When I speak to my rail counterparts, from everywhere from Canada to Egypt to Taiwan, they talk about environmental sustainability as the driving reason for their investment in rail.

    They see railways as a way of tackling congestion and improving our air quality.

    But in this country, talking in those terms is less common.

    That’s a real missed opportunity, because there’s so much for us to be proud about.

    We are one of the greenest transport modes, and we are getting greener.

    Right now we are on target to reduce per-passenger kilometre carbon emissions by 37% between 2014 and 2019.

    We need to talk about these successes more.

    But our words must be matched with continuing activity.

    Trains

    Let’s carry on making our new trains ever-lighter and more efficient.

    The new class 700 trains for Thameslink, for example, will be 20% lighter than the existing fleet and will use a third less energy.

    And I don’t agree with those who say that because some stretches of our rail network are not currently being electrified, we will never have a rail network without diesel trains.

    I can see a future in which all-electric trains can run on non-electrified track by switching to battery power.

    Last year my department sponsored the trial of a battery powered Class 379 train in Essex.

    We demonstrated that battery technology is able to power a train reliably.

    Yes, we need the range to improve.

    But longer-lasting batteries are the holy grail of industry the world over, so the technology will mature sooner than we expect.

    And I am working with colleagues in DECC to see how government investment in battery storage solutions for renewable energy can be applied to improving battery train ranges.

    Sustainable stations

    Our stations, too, can make their contribution to sustainability.

    Take Blackfriars.

    It’s a stunning symbol of a modern railway.

    But too-few people know that it is also a sustainable structure.

    Blackfriars’s roof’s 23 tennis-courts-worth of solar panels provide up to 50% of the station’s energy; enough to heat 80,000 cups of tea a day.

    Very few buildings have expanses of roof like our stations do, and they are often perfect for installing solar panels.

    Imagine if all our stations used their roofs in this way.

    Freight

    I believe there’s a real opportunity for rail freight to contribute to sustainability, too.

    One of the greatest challenges of our age is the emission of particulate matter from vehicles.

    This is not just a problem for future generations or far-away places.

    Particulates are here now, on our streets, already shortening lives.

    And one of the key contributors is road freight and the need to bring goods from out-of-town distribution centres into city centres.

    Yet our rail lines already reach into stations located in the heart of the city.

    Imagine if we could run electric freight trains into stations outside peak hours.

    Or run passenger trains that can be partly converted to carry freight.

    Goods could be offloaded onto electric vehicles, for distribution across the city.

    Lets set ourselves the challenge of investing in new freight technology and joined up logistics.

    Launch of RSSB Sustainability Principles

    These are just a few ideas for creating a railway that meets our environmental challenges, rather than contributing to them.

    If we are to achieve our sustainability goals, we need to design them into policies, procurement and operations right from the start.

    So today I am delighted to launch the Rail Safety and Standards Board’s Sustainable Development Principles 2016.

    The previous edition set the standard for the industry.

    We recently started including the principles in franchise competitions, where they have prompted bidders to increase energy efficiency of stations and trains and to reduce waste.

    But we want to take these refreshed principles further.

    From now on, they will form an important part of all future rail franchises.

    And in doing so they should have an effect throughout the whole industry.

    Railway connected to communities

    Now, the major change to the principles, is that they include an aspiration for rail to have a positive social impact, focussing on engaging with local communities in making plans, and in deciding how local assets are to be used.

    And that brings me to my second point.

    A sustainable railway is one that is connected to the community it serves.

    After all, a railway is not a closed system.

    It’s rooted in neighbourhoods, and part of the fabric of local life.

    Everyone has a stake in the success of our railways.

    And the railway has a stake in so many local communities.

    It’s a reciprocal relationship that I want the industry to take seriously.

    Station assets used by the community

    In many places, it’s already happening.

    A once-disused waiting room at Great Malvern Station is now a shop selling craft made by people with learning disabilities.

    And I have been really pleased by the way that, under the terms of the Northern franchise, we have agreed that disused railway assets should become community centres.

    There are underused railway buildings like this in towns, cities and villages all over the country, and it would be great for more of them to put to use for local benefit.

    Community railways

    I’m also a big fan of community railways.

    Across the county, thousands of volunteers are together giving 250,000 hours a year in support of their local railway lines.

    In March we launched a competition for ideas to make it easier for tourists to use heritage and community railways.

    These railways reach into parts of the country that tourists often miss.

    So last week we held a Dragons’-Den-style pitching event.

    We got some great ideas and will be announcing the winners soon.

    By putting our railways in the service of local life in these ways, we are gaining support for the railway even from the people who don’t currently use it.

    And a widely-supported railway is a sustainable railway.

    Sustainability of rail workforce

    But my final theme today is about the rail workforce.

    I make no apologies for returning to a theme that I know will be familiar to many.

    A sustainable railway needs a sustainable workforce.

    But, today, parts of the rail industry are set to lose half their staff to retirement within 15 years.

    That’s unsustainable, but so too is the idea that we can run a railway with a workforce that looks nothing like the public it serves.

    In particular, we need more women working in rail.

    Women make up 51% of the population.

    47% of the national workforce.

    But only 16% of the rail workforce, and a shockingly low 5% of train drivers.

    Crossrail has shown what women can do if they are brought into the industry.

    Of those who have undertaken work experience on Crossrail, over a fifth are women.

    Of those taking part in Crossrail’s graduate programme, many of whom will go on to be the future leaders of the industry, women make up almost a quarter.

    And in total, of the 10,000 people working on Crossrail, nearly one third are women.

    The result is clear.

    Crossrail is on time.

    On budget.

    We are the proven world-leaders in urban and soft-ground tunnelling.

    And there it seems there’s barely a dignitary or minister in Europe who hasn’t donned an orange jacket to marvel at Crossrail’s incredible underground structures.

    That’s what a sustainable workforce can achieve.

    And it’s a model for the rest of the industry to follow.

    Conclusion

    And so I hope that will spark some debate.

    We need to build a railway that is sustainable.

    A railway that works for the people it serves.

    And a railway that looks like the people it serves.

    Thank you.

  • Alun Cairns – 2016 Speech on Wales in a Reformed EU

    aluncairns

    Below is the text of the speech made by Alun Cairns, the Secretary of State for Wales, at Liberty Stadium in Swansea on 19 May 2016.

    Ladies and gentlemen, thank you so much for inviting me today to deliver my first major speech as Secretary of State for Wales.

    And I am especially pleased to be able to do so here in Swansea – my home city, so close to the village of Clydach where I grew up.

    And it is particularly special to speak at the home to the Swans and the Ospreys.

    We are also of course in Landore, close to the heart of Swansea’s industrial heritage where the first copper works opened in 1717 and where, by the 1870s, one of the World’s largest steelworks was operating.

    From its beginnings as a Viking settlement right through to its pivotal role in the industrial revolution, Swansea has been an ambitious and confident city, forging links with the wider world.

    And this is what I want to talk about this morning– my vision of a Welsh nation which is ambitious, confident and outward looking, which capitalises on opportunities for economic revival.

    As Secretary of State, I am passionate about seeing good things happen in Swansea.

    Where the UK Government is driving exciting regional initiatives such as the Swansea City Deal and its innovative ideas for internets of energy, well-being and technology….

    To the electrification of the mainline from Swansea to London as part of the largest investment in our railways since the Victorian era; or

    Through to International business success stories such as Swansea-based Lumishore… recent winners of the Queen’s Award for Enterprise- developers of LED lighting for boats who export 40% of their product to Europe.

    Swansea today is an outwardly ambitious city forging ever closer links to Europe and the world.

    For this to continue I believe we need to be a strong part of the UK, engaging with Europe and the wider world.

    And I want to explain why, with practical examples, that is so important. And why accessing the single European market and staying in the EU is so fundamental to that ambitious, outward looking nation.

    Wales’s Own Challenges

    Of course in Wales we face our own immediate challenges.

    Most urgently, we face a crisis in our steel industry. You will be aware that much is being done and offered by the UK Government to attract a buyer and to support an industry that is part of our heart beat.

    I should underline at the outset that I am limited in what I can say about steel because we are following a process…. A sales process in which I must – and am legally obliged to – respect the confidentiality of each party.

    But let me say, at each and every stage – and even before matters came public, the UK government has been actively working with Tata to see through a sales process. At various stages we have had to stay quiet to respect confidences, in spite of the calls for public statements in the 24 hour news cycle.

    The reality is we are working in a context where there is a global over supply of steel.

    I strongly believe that our steel industry is better off as part of a single market – as a bloc we can act against steel dumping far more effectively than we could on our own – and where we can get the best deal for our steel industry in what is their biggest market. Although there are no guarantees, be in no doubt, our membership of the EU makes our chances of gaining that buyer and of defending our industry so much stronger.

    Let me explain why:

    First, access to the EU market is fundamental to any steel manufacturer – with 69% of all steel exports from Wales going to Europe last year.

    Secondly, the joint action taken across Europe to defend our industry from steel dumping has led to steel imports from outside the EU fall massively.

    We have pressed the European Commission for firmer, faster action against unfair dumping and we’re pleased that the EU has listened and acted on this. There are now 37 trade defence measures in place across Europe, with nine investigations ongoing.

    As a result, Rebar and Wire Rod imports have fallen by 99% respectively, with similar number in other areas.

    Third, membership of the EU is fundamental to simply attracting investors because of the benefits the single market of 28 countries brings.

    And Fourth – imagine the action other member states could take if we were outside the EU.

    We could be subject to the same tariffs that are now having a positive impact against cheap dumping; and Tata’s competitors in Europe would naturally frame the EU market response to suit their operations, rather than one that includes us.

    And anyone who knows something about steel – Tata, the unions, investors or (dare I say) the government – all recognise the opportunities of the single market – negotiating around the table, rather than being spectators awaiting the impact of their decisions on our industry and our jobs.

    So the prospects of saving the jobs at Port Talbot and across other Tata operations in Shotton, Llanwern and Trostre and across the UK are much stronger because of our membership of the EU.

    Welsh Exports and the Single Market As well as supporting our Steel Industry, the EU is a major driver for the wider Welsh economy.

    The single market gives British businesses access to over 500M customers – eight times the size of the UK market.

    Businesses in Wales already recognise the value of these opportunities – the number of exporting businesses here is growing six times faster than the UK as a whole.

    The value of Welsh exports for the last year available was £12.2Bn, equivalent to £4,300 per person, with the EU receiving 43% of all our exports and 11% of total Welsh output.

    If there was ever any doubt, the EU is Wales’ largest trading partner and is the lifeblood of 100,000 jobs here in Wales.

    The EU as an Investment Driver Our membership of the EU is also key to the UK in attracting investment – just look at the success stories of companies like Airbus in Broughton or Toyota on Deeside.

    Airbus is home to one of the UK’s largest manufacturing plants.
    The Broughton site employs over 6,000 people and in recent years it’s provided around £100 million a year in pay to Welsh workers.

    It has spent around £120 million annually through its Welsh supply chain.

    And over the last decade, the Airbus site has seen major investments totalling more than £2 billion in facilities and infrastructure improvements.

    It’s a key part of the British economy making highly technical wings for all Airbus commercial aircraft, as part of a much larger global operation.

    This high value, highly skilled work depends on Britain remaining competitive for business.

    Paul Kahn, President of Airbus said: “If after an exit from the European Union, economic conditions in Britain were less favourable for business than in other parts of Europe, or beyond, would Airbus reconsider future investment in the United Kingdom? Yes, absolutely.”

    And like aerospace, automotive is an expanding sector of our economy. It is interesting to note that Sunderland now exports more cars than the whole of Italy, and Wales is a crucial part of this supply chain.

    18,000 people make car parts in Wales in more than 150 companies of all sizes. The CEO of the Wales Automotive Forum says that we make enough component parts to almost make a complete vehicle.

    It is an industry that injects £3.3bn into the Welsh economy.

    I was delighted that Aston Martin reinforced our position with an investment in my constituency – a project that was secured through both the UK and Welsh Governments working together.

    Toyota, is the world’s top-selling carmaker – for four years running – Their plant on Deeside employs 540 people, creating 950 engines a day that are exported internationally.

    Earlier this year, they announced a further £7 million investment in their North Wales plant – a further example of a Wales winning investment.

    Investments like these at Toyota are fundamental to our economy. They highlight again and again the importance of the single market to their presence and their operations; saying specifically, “British membership of the EU is the best for our operations and… long term competitiveness.”

    Airbus and Toyota are just two examples of what Wales needs to do more of – being ambitious, confident and outward looking in high end manufacturing sectors.

    These companies operate in global industries whose success depends competitiveness. They feed on an integrated business model, with the ability to move products, people and ideas around Europe without any restriction.

    The supply chains are relevant to us all.

    There are a host of companies that thrive on such investments that in turn create wealth and prosperity.

    They could be small engineering businesses or electrical operators, such as the ones I visited recently who supply TATA, though to those larger operators who supply Airbus and Toyota.

    Take Toyoda Gosei, – not far from here, where the PM visited just two weeks ago. A Japanese owned supplier of car components, has invested over £65 million in their Gorseinon site.

    The company’s workforce has grown from just 13 in 2010 to more than 600 on the back of the success in the automotive sector and supply chain. Today they supply Nissan, BMW, Jaguar Land Rover and Toyota.

    A clear demonstration of how large operators elsewhere in the UK have a major local impact. And the same could be said for Airbus

    But Europe also offers other features that support other types of investments too. Take the European Investment Bank. It’s the world’s largest lending institution, owned by the 28 European Union member states. They raise the bulk of their lending resources on the international capital markets through bond issues – their excellent rating allows them to borrow at lower cost.

    In 2015 they provided £5.6 billion to help deliver UK projects, contributing to £16 billion of investment – a record year.

    In Wales projects in social housing, transport, energy, water and education have benefited for more than forty years.

    Most recently the EIB was a major investor in Ford at Bridgend and Norgine at Hengoed.

    But they were also key to one of the most exciting investments on our doorstep- Swansea University’s new Bay campus.

    The stunning new £450m campus, which houses the College of Engineering and School of Management. In 2014 the Vice-Chancellor said: “This massive campus development is the largest university-led knowledge economy project in the UK and one of the best in Europe. It would not have been possible without funding support by the EIB (who) demolished the argument that the project was too big for Wales”.

    It is one of the largest knowledge economy projects in Europe, providing internationally acclaimed academic-to-industry collaborative research opportunities. The development wouldn’t have been possible without such financial support.

    The economic impact from the construction of the Bay campus alone is estimated at over £3 billion.

    The EU Supporting Higher Education And Europe’s role in Higher education is much wider.

    Cutting-edge investments have been made in Universities right across Wales. These institutions offer some of the best routes for individuals out of poverty and to growing the productivity of our nation.

    Europe plays a key part in bringing together the Higher education networks, international academics, the research excellence and even the students who choose to study here.

    Thousands of Welsh students have benefited from the Erasmus Exchange. A programme that was established in 1987 by Ceri Hywel Jones, a native of Port Talbot.

    These investments go right to the heart of our local communities across Wales.

    Bangor – The Institute of European Finance provides specialist consultancy and project reports. It houses Europe’s longest established and most comprehensive research library to banking and financial sector material.

    Cardiff Met has received 27 million Euros for schemes involving student and staff mobility to enhance teaching and learning, over 10 million Euros from the European Structural Funds to help with enterprise and commercialisation projects for local businesses, and over 2 million Euros for dedicated research projects.

    Trinity Saint David in Carmarthen, Lampeter and Swansea will receive £2.4 million of EU funds to develop the skills of employees through the Institute for Work-Based Learning.

    These projects are central to that goal of an ambitious, confident, outward looking Wales.

    Welsh Farming

    I’ve already highlighted steel, manufacturing and HE so let me touch briefly on a totally different sector.

    Seafood and agriculture. Industries that are both important to Swansea and to Wales. The EU receives over 90% of agriculture exports from Wales.

    That’s 98% of dairy exports, 97% of lamb, and 92% of beef.

    Leaving the EU could see tariffs of up to 70% imposed on our produce and would put the foundation of many local economies at risk.

    Furthermore, Welsh beef, Welsh lamb, Pembrokeshire Early Potatoes and Anglesey Sea Salt have protected status under EU laws. No company or region can seek to reproduce those products elsewhere or pass them off as substitutes.

    Welsh farmers could lose hundreds of millions of pounds on lamb and beef exports if we weren’t able to access the single market.

    I think it is fair to say that we could look to other markets. What about the US?

    And we have a special relationship -but that does not necessarily break down trade barriers. Yet in spite of our relationship, we exported zero welsh beef or welsh lamb to the US last year.

    Be it steel, automotive, HE or agriculture – leaving the EU would be a leap in the dark that Wales can’t afford to take -against the security of unfettered access to the single market and the role that it plays in attracting investment, along with our dependency on exports.

    Conclusion

    So, that is the positive case I would make for Wales staying in the EU.

    I am not here to advocate the status quo either.

    I am sure that there is recognition that Europe has to change to tackle the challenges ahead.

    And that is what the Prime Minister achieved with his deal in February.

    A recognition from European leaders that it must adapt to the needs of different nations and by delivering that special status for the UK.

    ….That allows us to steer clear of the aspects of the EU that just don’t work for Britain – things like the Euro, open borders or the prospect of ever-closer union.

    Along with an emergency break option on access to our benefits.

    But ultimately, we have a strong voice at the heart of Europe so we can influence how it meets the challenges of migration, terrorism and maintaining the free market rather than simply reacting to their actions and their decisions.

    If we’re not around the table, we could be on the menu.

    This is the case for Wales being stronger, safer and better off in a reformed EU.

    The benefits of membership affect all of our lives – from supporting investment in infrastructure and education to manufacturing, agriculture and social programmes.

    From the breadth of Europe to the heart of our local economies.

    Just as Swansea has been making its mark on Europe and the world for several hundred years, my vision for Wales is of an ambitious and innovative country that looks to the opportunities that Europe and the wider world create.

    This is a positive case for remaining part of the EU and its access to the single market.

    Let us confidently and proudly ensure our voice and influence is heard.

  • John Gummer – 1970 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made by John Gummer in the House of Commons on 30 November 1970.

    I should like to thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me to make my maiden speech. I wish to ask the House for its customary indulgence, even though on this occasion it will be particularly difficult to speak in an uncontroversial way.

    I represent a constituency that is particularly affected by the matters raised by the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris). West Lewisham is largely a residential area with a higher than average population of older people and, therefore, the concerns of the cost of living hit them perhaps more directly than they hit other kinds of communities.

    This Motion begs a major question, a question to which the hon. Gentleman did not fully address himself, namely how a Government should protect the consumer. This is a basic question, the kind of question to which my predecessor as Member for Lewisham, West, Mr. James Dickens, would have addressed himself with a sturdy independence irrespective of the views of this side of the House or, indeed, of his own Front Bench. I hope that sturdy independence which he represented in West Lewisham will not disappear with the change of regime.

    There is implicit in the Motion not only the question, but the answer that the hon. Gentleman would like us to give. Unfortunately, it seems to me that that answer is precisely that which was attempted for over six years by the Labour Government and which was attended by a conspicuous lack of success. Therefore, in addressing ourselves to this Motion it would seem more reasonable not to make apologies for past history, but to try to find a new way of solving the problems which, quite rightly, were highlighted by the hon. Gentleman.

    The hon. Gentleman’s reference to the National Board for Prices and Incomes reinforces what I have said about his remarks. If we become mesmerised by the easy answer which is very popular with the country on the lines of, “Let us have some kind of automatic panacea; let us have a prices and incomes policy”, we know that, after six years, such a policy very soon becomes only an incomes policy; there is no real effect except to raise prices, and the incomes policy very soon can be proved to increase rather than decrease the way in which incomes rise with the consequent effect on the price spiral.

    I notice that there has been a great deal of quoting from the Grocer, a magazine not often quoted by the Labour Party before 18th June. I believe the hon. Gentleman now quotes it to suggest that if only we were to use the same methods as had been used then we will have a great deal of success, though this has not been the case over the past six years. I agree that if the present Government were to use the same methods as were used by the previous Government in the last six years, the present Government containing the sort of people it does, would achieve greater success. But what we need is a different method from that set out in the Motion.

    Is it reasonable to suggest that we can protect the consumer unless we are prepared to do something about the reasons why prices rise unnecessarily? One of those reasons is the way in which our industrial situation has caused overmanning in industry so as to make us uncompetitive. I must declare an interest since I am connected with the printing industry, and it is surely unreasonable to have a situation in which every printing press in Britain has more men working on it than is the case on the Continent. Until we solve that sort of problem we will be able to do nothing for the old-age pensioners of West Lewisham, or of anywhere else.

    On the matter of social welfare the attitude behind the Motion is that all is well and that we should merely stay in the same place. That is what worries me. The situation is not solved merely by saying, “How appalling it is to change the social welfare system.” That is the burden of what is proposed in the Motion. When I go round my constituency I see hundreds of people in private tenancies who need help, and I do not believe that they will regard a change in the system of housing subsidies as being to their disadvantage.

    When we find references made to Professor Townsend and the Child Poverty Action Group, we must remember that, even in every one of six years of Labour Government, child poverty got worse and worse year by year. Nor do I believe it necessary to talk of school milk in the terms used by the hon. Gentleman in moving this Motion when one remembers that school milk was introduced at a time when the major health problem for children in Britain was rickets. Indeed, the major problem today is that of obesity. We have only to look at the evidence to see that that is the case. It has recently been said that nearly one-third of the children of London are overfed. We might well look at that situation in the light of what is said in this Motion.

    To go back to housing policy, it would be wrong to face a situation in which we are not prepared to say that, in order to solve the problems which face the nation, in order to do something about the rising cost of living, we should not ask those who are able to do so to stand on their own feet, simply because there are some—and there are certainly some people in this category—who cannot do so.

    On the matter of consumer choice, it is curious that we should not allow people to make choices in housing and education, which are important, and then complain when people make trivial choices. This takes away the right of a person to make a meaningful choice.

    This Motion not only contains a major question, which it begs, but it gives the wrong answer. Our only choice in solving the problems which face us today is to change the whole nature of our competitiveness. I do not see how the system will work without changing the taxation system to make it possible for companies to improve their liquidity, or to alter the system in such a way as to encourage people by changes in their personal tax situation. Without changing those sorts of things, I do not see how we will avoid the hand-to-mouth system which exists at the moment merely by putting a new subsidy in place of the old. Subsidy is merely a redistribution of present wealth. We want to see an increase in our wealth. This Government have put that matter first and I believe that is the successful answer to our situation.

    The hon. Gentleman spent a good deal of his time sniping at the possibility of Britain entering the Common Market. This was all of a piece with the same argument. He was saying, “Let us stay in the same place. Let us make no major changes. Let us go on like we have always done. Let us not solve the basic problems first.” I feel that unless we enter the Common Market on suitable terms, we will be unable to bring about a change in the continuing costs and wages spiral and that this will go on until we find ourselves unable to operate in the world in which we live. The whole proposition in the Motion seems to demand a return to a world of what one might call Socialist myth, a world which may have existed but does not today—a world which can exist only if Governments are not prepared to make fundamental changes in our society.

    I believe that the Conservative Party was elected to make these fundamental changes in our society. That means changes, and not just tinkering about with and replacing old ideas that have failed over six years of Labour Government. This can be done only by restoring national competitiveness, by changing the taxation system and by being prepared to provide aid for those who need it—and there are many who do—and, above all, by seeking a new place for Britain in the world by finding an accommodation with Europe so that we can play our full role.

  • Eric Bullus – 1952 Speech on the Apple Juice Industry

    Below is the text of the speech made by Eric Bullus, the then Conservative MP for Wembley North, in the House of Commons on 19 February 1952.

    Because we are not always able to forecast how long our Parliamentary business will take, I have been sitting here almost solidly since 2.30 p.m. fearful to leave the Chamber because of the chance that I might be called in my absence and thus miss my Adjournment debate. Consequently, I have learned much today about merchant shipping, about judicial salaries, about Income Tax and Customs and Excise law, about miners’ welfare and Z reservists. I add to this diversity the subject of this Adjournment debate, which I hope may have the support of the whole House.

    It is a truism that the present grave economic crisis means that in this country we have to plan our national resources to see that we get maximum value from them. Especial care must be taken to see that we extract every bit of use from material and products which hitherto have been waste. Local authorities have been doing this since the time of the war and have salvaged much waste paper and waste metal.

    But there are other products at present wasting which can and should be used at little or no extra cost to the nation. I am concerned at this late stage of our proceedings to deal with one such proposal—the right use of the apples at present going to waste. Apples contain much natural sugar and have as by-products pectin and, from the residue, a certain amount of animal feeding stuffs. Without dilating unduly on the properties of the apple, it is significant that the calorific value of the apple is higher than that of beer and almost as high as that of milk.

    Despite the big crop of English apples, in the 11 months ended 30th November last, imports of apples amounted to 184,000 tons—about 8.6 lb. per head of the population. Permitted imports between 1st December, 1951, and 30th June next will total 70,000 tons—approximately 3.1 lb. per head of the population. But it has been estimated that if last year’s average crop is maintained in the coming year, and the public consumption remains at average, there will be a surplus on home production alone. There will be absolutely no need for the importation of any apples.

    The National Farmers’ Union have given figures showing the estimated surplus of apples last year from certain parts of the country. These do not cover the whole of the country, but the figures available suggest that in the counties of Kent, Devon, Dorset, Essex, Hampshire, Somerset and Gloucestershire the total wastage last year was in the neighbourhood of 30,000 tons of apples.

    Mr. Gerald Nabarro (Kidderminster) What about Worcestershire?

    Wing Commander Bullus I am inclined to believe that the wastage was higher than that, because I believe these figures deal with apples at the packing stations and I do not think they include the apples which were allowed to rot on the trees for the want of picking. Local estimates for the Wisbech area suggest that over 14,000 tons were wasted in the season, and for the year 1951—although it was not a glut year—I think it might reasonably be estimated—and it is almost certainly an under-estimate—that the total wastage of apples in this country was over 50,000 tons. I think that is an under-estimate; in a good year the figure would be considerably larger.

    Generally, apples cannot be kept long in storage, and so the home industry has been considered a seasonal one, and that is one of the excuses given for the importation of apples. But it has been possible since 1936—and this is not generally known—to turn the apples into pure fruit juice, retaining all the natural sugar. I say this is not generally known. It it were, there would not be the need for so great an importation of apples, we should not have such flagrant waste and we should get the maximum value from our own crops—and the British apple is the finest in the world.

    The pure unfermented apple juice industry—in which I have no vested interest—commenced in this country in 1936 as a direct outcome of the very considerable wastage of apples, as a result both of glut crops and of the development of the grading of apples for market. The consumption of the product grew very slowly, but at the beginning of the last war consumption had reached about 200,000 gallons a year, and the Minister of Food froze the production at that figure for the duration of the war.

    At the end of the war two other firms began production, but the total sales have now fallen below 100,000 gallons, and there is a real possibility of the industry ceasing to function. Indeed, at a meeting of the Apple Juice Producers’ Association in November last all member firms agreed regretfully that this season might be the last one for the Association. And yet the industry could take a large part, if not all, of the present surplus of English apples without further capital cost. The capacity of the industry is well over four times its present production.

    Let us look at what the utilisation of the waste apples by this industry might mean. Assuming that the waste last year was in the region of 50,000 tons, then it is estimated that this would have produced over 7 million gallons of pure, unfermented apple juice, which would have had a content of 3,500 tons of sugar from natural sources. If this quantity of 50,000 tons of apples had been processed into juice and the pomace dried at least 3,000 tons of product with a high pectin value would have been obtained. This would have been a most valuable addition to our supplies of dried apple pomace for the pectin industry. And we import pectin, be it remembered. Dried apple pomace contains approximately 8 per cent. to 10 per cent. by weight of pectin. Therefore, it is fair to assume that the utilisation of this 50,000 tons of waste apples would provide about 250 tons of dried pectin, an extremely valuable commodity at the present time, when pectin from dollar sources is difficult to come by. The Government figures show that we spent £52,700 on the import of pectin in 1950. So it will be seen what a valuable contribution in pectin can be made if our waste apples are used.

    Again, the dried pomace, after extraction of pectin, can be redried, and then it still has some considerable value as a feedingstuff, although, admittedly, it is very low in protein content. Approximately 1,500 tons of this material would be available from the use of 50,000 tons of apples. Though I do not seek to compare the total nutritive value of apple juice with that of other products it is a good source of calories. Apple juice contains 300 calories per pint compared with 184 in a pint of beer and 375 in a pint of milk.

    The sugars present in apple juice are nearly all composed of glucose and laevulose which are said to be very easily assimilated by the system. It has been shown by independent analysis to contain approximately 9 per cent. of invert sugar and.5 per cent. of cane sugar. This point should be of real interest to the Ministry of Health in connection with the hospitals service. It would appear that very large quantities of apple juice would be required if it were given only to those people who are in need of taking a considerable volume of liquid containing some nutritive materials such as sugars. The juice also contains minerals of which the chief is potassium, and on the Continent this product is very widely used, I understand, in hospital practice for diseases of the heart, kidney, and liver. On the Continent, it is said, mineral constituents are of prime importance.

    Should the pure, unfermented fruit juice industry become defunct it would be extremely difficult in an emergency, in case of possible war, to resuscitate the various organisations. The Ministry of Food announced last November that very severe cuts in import licences for fruit juices were to be made this year. These cuts are of such an order as to embarrass the soft-drinks trade, and it would seem to be an entirely wrong time to allow the home fruit juice industry—an industry requiring no sugar—to lapse.

    The Ministry of Agriculture is engaged in the final stage of considering a marketing scheme for apples, which may be placed before the fruit growing industry in the near future. The ultimate success of such a scheme with the grading of fruit as one of its main provisions must depend very largely on providing a suitable outlet for the cull apples at a price which enables the processer to show a profit. Removal of the apple juice industry from active participation in fruit utilisation would be a serious blow to the organisers of the scheme. The present shortage of sugar and the impending cuts in imported fruit juices throws into relief the fact that the processing of surplus apples would produce a volume of juice that would contain thousands of tons of natural sugar.

    Now may I make a few suggestions about how the Ministry could help this industry? During the past 15 years the Apple Juice Producers Association has on various occasions approached the Ministries of Food, Health and Agriculture with its problems, and though received with sympathy there has not been any form of practical support. In Germany, France and Switzerland the Governments have given continuous assistance; and the United States Government is heavily subsidising its apple exports. The British Apple Juice Producers Association does not ask for any form of subsidy or financial help. Obviously the Government could not sponsor any individual industry, but the Minister of Health could be of the greatest possible help by encouraging the further production of a valuable food from fruit that would otherwise be wasted.

    I suggest that the Minister of Food could collaborate with the Minister of Health to ensure the maximum possible use of apple juice, primarily as a special issue in the hospitals and nursing homes in the Minister’s control. I am given to understand that the juice is acceptable and liked in hospitals, though the present price may mitigate against its wide use at the moment; but a greater production from the industry means, of course, a cheaper product. It is thought that the beverage, with its completely unfermented character, and with its high content of natural fruit sugars, could be usefully served in Service canteens such as the N.A.A.F.I., and especially to flying men in the Air Force who are not permitted for some hours before flying to drink beverages of an alcoholic nature.

    Not all schoolchildren like the milk given in schools, and I suggest that this fruit juice might prove an admirable alternative, if not a nutritive substitute, in our schools. Certain importations would not be necessary, or could be materially reduced. There would be no need for the importation of apples if we used all the apples in this country; and we should save on some of the imports of pectin and supply animal feeding stuffs. I do not know whether the Minister of Food still has his “Food Facts” publicity, but I think that such publicity might be given to the value of fruit juices produced from our own English apples.

    These are only a few suggestions to help a British industry, to use a waste product to advantage, and to assist us in our efforts to balance the nation’s budget. The suggestions I have made are by no means exhaustive. I suggest that what I have attempted to say tonight is of interest to other Ministries than the Ministry of Food, for the Ministries of Agriculture, Health, Education and the Service Ministries are concerned; and, not least, in view of the possibility of using waste products and saving dollar imports, and possibly building up a useful export trade, the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have a healthy interest in my proposals.

    Already the pure fruit industry does a certain export trade, but there are immense possibilities, especially to Empire countries, such as India and Pakistan, and to South America for dollars. I should presume to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what I have said.

    Finally, though representatives of the industry recently saw Ministry of Food officials, nothing tangible has yet resulted. I hope the Minister will, as a result of what I have said tonight, give sympathetic consideration to it to see if something can be done to extract full value from the apple crops of this country. The general advantages are enormous, and I think they are obvious.

  • Queen Elizabeth II – 2016 Queen’s Speech

    queenelizabethii

    Below is the text of the speech made by HM Queen Elizabeth II in the House of Lords on 18 May 2016.

    My Lords and Members of the House of Commons.

    My government will use the opportunity of a strengthening economy to deliver security for working people, to increase life chances for the most disadvantaged and to strengthen national defences.

    My ministers will continue to bring the public finances under control so that Britain lives within its means, and to move to a higher wage and lower welfare economy where work is rewarded.

    To support the economic recovery, and to create jobs and more apprenticeships, legislation will be introduced to ensure Britain has the infrastructure that businesses need to grow.

    Measures will be brought forward to create the right for every household to access high speed broadband.

    Legislation will be introduced to improve Britain’s competitiveness and make the United Kingdom a world leader in the digital economy.

    My ministers will ensure the United Kingdom is at the forefront of technology for new forms of transport, including autonomous and electric vehicles.

    To spread economic prosperity, my government will continue to support the development of a Northern Powerhouse.

    In England, further powers will be devolved to directly elected mayors, including powers governing local bus services.

    Legislation will also allow local authorities to retain business rates, giving them more freedom to invest in local communities.

    My government will support aspiration and promote home ownership through its commitment to build a million new homes.

    Following last week’s Anti-Corruption Summit in London, legislation will be introduced to tackle corruption, money laundering and tax evasion.

    My government will continue work to deliver NHS services over 7 days of the week in England. Legislation will be introduced to ensure that overseas visitors pay for the health treatment they receive at public expense.

    New legislation will be introduced to tackle some of the deepest social problems in society, and improve life chances.

    A Bill will be introduced to ensure that children can be adopted by new families without delay, improve the standard of social work and opportunities for young people in care in England.

    To tackle poverty and the causes of deprivation, including family instability, addiction and debt, my government will introduce new indicators for measuring life chances. Legislation will be introduced to establish a soft drinks industry levy to help tackle childhood obesity.

    Measures will be introduced to help the lowest-income families save, through a new Help to Save scheme, and to create a Lifetime ISA to help young people save for the long-term.

    My government will continue to reform public services so they help the hardest-to-reach.

    A Bill will be brought forward to lay foundations for educational excellence in all schools, giving every child the best start in life. There will also be a fairer balance between schools, through the National Funding Formula.

    To ensure that more people have the opportunity to further their education, legislation will be introduced to support the establishment of new universities and to promote choice and competition across the higher education sector.

    My government will legislate to reform prisons and courts to give individuals a second chance.

    Prison Governors will be given unprecedented freedom and they will be able to ensure prisoners receive better education. Old and inefficient prisons will be closed and new institutions built where prisoners can be put more effectively to work.

    Action will also be taken to ensure better mental health provision for individuals in the criminal justice system.

    My government will continue to work to bring communities together and strengthen society.

    Legislation will be introduced to prevent radicalisation, tackle extremism in all its forms, and promote community integration.

    National Citizen Service will be placed on a permanent statutory footing.

    My government will continue to safeguard national security.

    My ministers will invest in Britain’s armed forces, honouring the military covenant and meeting the NATO commitment to spend 2% of national income on defence.

    They will also act to secure the long-term future of Britain’s nuclear deterrent.

    My government will continue to play a leading role in world affairs, using its global presence to tackle climate change and address major international security, economic and humanitarian challenges.

    My government will continue to work to resolve the conflict in Ukraine. It will play a leading role in the campaign against Daesh and to support international efforts to bring peace to Syria through a lasting political settlement.

    Britain’s commitment on international development spending will also be honoured, helping to deliver global stability, support the Sustainable Development Goals and prevent new threats to national security.

    Prince Philip and I look forward to welcoming His Excellency the President of Colombia on a State Visit in November.

    My government will continue with legislation to modernise the law governing the use and oversight of investigatory powers by law enforcement, security and intelligence agencies.

    Legislation will strengthen the capability and accountability of the police service in England and Wales.

    My government will hold a referendum on membership of the European Union. Proposals will be brought forward for a British Bill of Rights.

    My ministers will uphold the sovereignty of Parliament and the primacy of the House of Commons.

    My government will continue to work in cooperation with the devolved administrations to implement the extensive new powers in the Scotland Act and establish a strong and lasting devolution settlement in Wales. My government will work in Northern Ireland to secure further progress in implementing the Stormont House and Fresh Start Agreements.

    Members of the House of Commons:

    Estimates for the public services will be laid before you.

    My Lords and Members of the House of Commons:

    Other measures will be laid before you.

    I pray that the blessing of Almighty God may rest upon your counsels.

  • David Rendel – 1993 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    davidrendel

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Rendel in the House of Commons on 19 May 1993.

    Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me this early opportunity to do what the Prime Minister would no doubt describe as “breaking my duck”.

    As is traditional, I should like to begin by recalling the sad circumstances of my election to the House. In February of this year, my predecessor, Judith Chaplin, tragically and very suddenly died after what had appeared to be a routine and successful minor operation. Her death was a great loss not only to the House, and particularly to her many close friends here, but also to all of us in west Berkshire. I do not think that anyone doubted that she was a woman of immense ability. Indeed, she was believed on all sides to be destined for high office. For her parliamentary career to be cut short after only 10 months was indeed a tragedy.

    Sadly, just one week after he had given the oration at Judith’s memorial service, her predecessor, Sir Michael McNair-Wilson, also died. He too will be long remembered with great affection by many in this House, as well as by all of us who knew him in west Berkshire. He had many friends and, so far as I know, not a single enemy, even among those who, like myself, were his political opponents. But, above all, we shall remember him for his immense courage after his health failed him. He not only remained a Member of the House while on kidney dialysis, but fought and won in a further general election. It is a great sadness that he enjoyed less than a year of retirement before he too died.

    Both my predecessors were admired greatly as first-class, hard-working constituency MPs. As I said in my acceptance speech, they will be a very hard double act to follow. The constituency that they have passed on to me covers almost half of the area of Berkshire. Although it is dominated by the two largest towns—Newbury and Thatcham—nearly half the population live in the town of Hungerford, in the larger villages such as Lambourn, Compton, Mortimer and Burghfield Common, or in the smaller villages and outlying settlements spread across the rural area. With the M4 cutting across the constituency from west to east, we lie in the now somewhat tarnished silicon valley, with high-tech industries providing a large share of local employment. We are also, of course, famous for our racing stables, particularly in Lambourn and West Ilsley.

    Many hon. Members will, for one reason or another, have had cause to visit our beautiful constituency during the past few weeks. Indeed, there was a time when we saw so much of the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Malone) that I began to wonder whether he was looking for a home in the area. It is, of course, no surprise to me that people should wish to visit west Berkshire, a very large proportion of which is designated as an area of outstanding natural beauty, but I suppose that it is only fair to say that, of the two principal tourists who visited us from Somerset recently, one—the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), who often sits in the seat that I have temporarily occupied today—got a rather better reception than the other.

    It is because so large a proportion of our population live in the rural area that I particularly wished to speak in this debate. Over the past few weeks, hon. Members on both sides of the House have found their mail bags full —as I have done—of letters pleading for the retention of rural sub-post offices. Indeed, if the Secretary of State has done anything for post offices recently, it is perhaps that many extra stamps have been sold to pensioners who have written to their Members of Parliament on this subject.

    But it is not just a matter of letters. As I went round my constituency during the recent by-election, I was struck by how often this issue was raised on the doorstep. As we all know, rural sub-post offices are often housed in the village shop, and thousands upon thousands of our village shops are dependent on their post office income for survival.

    Let me illustrate briefly how important these village shops are for life in rural areas by telling the House about what one village postmistress said to me only a week or two ago. She told me about the lady who comes into her shop almost every day, takes just one or two items off the shelves, and then waits to pay. After a while, the attendant at the till motions to the lady, to indicate that it is her turn to pay, but, in reply, the lady stands back and motions others to go ahead of her.

    At first the postmistress could not understand why the lady should act in this way, but eventually it dawned on her that the lady comes into the shop not merely to buy her daily rations but also because the shop is her sole meeting point for contact with her fellow human beings. She lives on her own—a lonely existence, without relatives around her—and her contact with humanity consists of her daily visit to her village shop-cum-post office, where she always waits at the end, of the queue, listening to the village gossip.

    For all too many people, the village shop is now the only escape from their well of loneliness. If we lose such shops, we shall lose a vital ingredient of the quality of life in rural areas.

    Let there be no doubt that the sub-post office system is vital to the survival of village shops. I have long since lost count of the number of letters that I have received, mainly from elderly people, but also from those in receipt of various other benefits as well. They have all stated that their local post office is now the only remaining place in the village where they can obtain cash. The banks have mostly long since closed their village branches.

    If the post offices close as well, the only option will be a trip into town. It may sound easy, but it is not when people have to rely on public transport because they are too old or too disabled to have a car of their own. Public transport has more or less disappeared from most rural villages. Even when a bus is available, many people have written of how a trip into town to draw their pension will cost them more in bus fares than the total increase in their pensions this year.

    Of course I understand that the Secretary of State intends to leave it to the individual to choose between payment through a bank and payment through a post office, but that is not the choice that people want—a real choice for them means choosing between paying through a bank in the town or paying through the post office in their local village. That choice is under threat today.

    I understand that the Secretary of State wishes to reduce the taxpayers’ subsidy to rural post offices, but surely hon. Members should take a wider view. Yes, we can save the taxpayer money by reducing the subsidy to rural post offices, but what about the far greater cost to the taxpayer of the extra traffic on the roads as more and more people have to drive their cars into towns? What about the cost of car parks, petrol and environmental pollution?

    The overall cost to the community caused by the loss of the sub-post office system will be far greater than any possible savings. Let all hon. Members join to save village sub-post offices, not by merely giving a vague pledge—such as the Secretary of State gave about some national network—but by giving a specific pledge that the number of sub-post offices will not be further reduced. A small, but important, aspect of our country is in danger. It is our duty to save it before it is gone for ever. I therefore urge hon. Members to vote for the motion, not for the Government’s amendment.

  • David Cameron – 2016 Speech at World Economic Forum

    davidcameron

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Cameron, the Prime Minister, at the Mansion House in London on 17 May 2016.

    We’re obviously now 37 days and 37 nights away from this crucial EU referendum and I wanted to give you the opportunity to ask me questions about the issues that are coming up, about the arguments that are being made.

    I would argue that those of us who want to stay in a reformed European Union are giving a very clear and positive argument and positive vision about why that is right. Put simply, it’s right for our economy because we are part of a Single Market of 500 million people that is crucial for our businesses, crucial for our economic future. And, so that is our vision and we’ve heard a lot of voices backing that. Voices from small businesses, from entrepreneurs, from big businesses, from inward investors into the United Kingdom, from farmers not just in England but in Scotland and Wales and in Northern Ireland too.

    And I think what we’ve heard from the other side from those who want to leave is really quite a lot of vagueness, particularly on this issue of the economy. And what I wanted to do in my remarks this morning, before taking any of your questions or points is just to run through what I think are the biggest myths on the economy being put forward by those who want us to leave the EU.

    Now, myth number 1 is, they make this point, that only a small number of businesses actually trade with the EU and so it’s not really fair on everybody else. I think that is a myth because basically there are 3 million jobs in our country that are dependent in some way on trade with the Single Market. Now I don’t argue all those jobs would go but if we restrict our trade with the Single Market clearly they’re going to be affected. But I think there’s a deeper truth about this particular myth which is this – there are many, many businesses in our country that are part of the supply chain for those that do trade with the single market. Take for instance, our car industry. Hugely successful over the last decade, 150,000 people working in our car industry but actually 300,000 people who are in the supply chain and working with our car industry. So I think this a complete myth, the idea that only a little bit of business would be affected if we left the EU. It would have a big impact on our economy that is now being backed up by the OECD, by the IMF, by the Bank of England, by almost every senior economist that looks at it. So I think that is myth number 1.

    Myth number 2 is somehow that if we weren’t in the EU, we could sort of tear up the rule book and have a bonfire of regulations. I think this is a myth in a number of ways. First of all, any business that wants to go on trading with the EU even if we’re outside it has to meet every single rule and regulation of the Single Market and without having any say of what those rules are. Now that’s not a recovery of sovereignty that is actually losing sovereignty, so I think that is a very, very weak argument. And it’s even weaker when you ask people who want to leave the EU, ‘well which are the actual regulations you’d like us to get out of?’ Because the truth is in almost every international survey Britain comes out as actually a relatively lightly regulated and well regulated economy. And we’re not hearing from those who want to leave a whole list of regulations that they want to get out of. Even in the area of social regulations, Britain has actually chosen on things like holiday pay, maternity pay actually to do more than the minimum set out by the European Union. So, I think that is a total myth.

    Now, myth number 3 is a really important one, is that the EU needs us much more than we need them, so were we to leave, they would give us an absolutely tremendous trade deal or access deal. I wish this was the case but it absolutely isn’t the case and the figures are very clear.

    44% of what we export goes to the European Union. 8% of what the European Union exports goes to us. So, you don’t have to be a genius in negotiation to know that the process of negotiating, wanting to leave the EU and then get a good access deal back again, we would need them to agree much more than they would need us to agree.

    And it’s worth thinking as well about this, about another point, we may have a deficit in the sale of goods when it comes to the EU but we have a very large surplus when it comes to services and one of the things that I think we should fear is that of course if we left the EU, they might offer us a deal on goods but it might take a very long time before they offered a deal on services. And you could almost imagine the thrill and excitement of service businesses in Italy and France and Germany and elsewhere saying ‘okay, let’s cut a deal with Britain on trade and goods, but hold back the trade in services so we can fill all of those insurance and banking and other service industries at which Britain is so good’. So, I think that is a particularly pervasive and a particularly dangerous myth.

    Myth number 4, having made the argument that somehow they need us more than we need them, myth number 4 is that there is some great, automatic status you could find, like Norway, like Switzerland, like Canada, that gives you access to the Single Market on the basis that we have it now. And here the leave campaign have dotted around quite a bit. They started with Norway, because Norway does have an access deal to the Single Market, but of course Norway pays into the EU, as much per capita as we do, and it still has the free movement of people from other EU nations into Norway. But of course the Norwegians have absolutely no say over the rules of the Single Market. That is actually a poor status. To swap our status today, where we have a total say over those rules and regulations and full voting powers and voting rights, to swap that for not having a say would be an absolute step backwards.

    Switzerland’s deal doesn’t cover services. That would be hopeless for our economy. So then the people wanted to leave jumped onto the idea of the Canada free trade deal. Now, I’m a massive fan of the Canada free trade deal, I’ve been pushing it very hard, it’s very good for Canada. It would be very bad for Britain. First of all, 7 years of negotiation and it still isn’t in place. So imagine for Britain, being stuck for 7 years trying to negotiate a trade deal with a market where 44% of our trade goes and is only 20 miles off our coast. But even if you imagine it was done more quickly, the Canada trade deal doesn’t include all services, it does still include a number of tariffs, it has quotas on things like beef, which is a vital export for our farmers, so again it is not a good deal for Britain. So, I think that is a myth that there is something ready for us to pluck of the shelf. The Leave campaign have started talking about this sort of mythical free trade zone that includes places like Macedonia and Albania, and I think the idea of painting Britain as a greater Albania is really, that shows that you are losing the argument. And even the Albanian prime minister came out and said he thought that was a bad idea.

    Myth number 5, after they’ve been through these models, realise they’ve had to reject all of those, myth number 5 is, well we don’t really need trade deals, we’re just going to get our seat back at the World Trade Organisation. Well this is a myth, because first of all, we never gave up our seat at the World Trade Organisation. But more to the point, I think actually this is possibly the most dangerous myth of all. One of the Leave campaigners put it the other day which is why don’t we have a status when it comes to trading with the EU, just like the United States does. And if we actually stop and think for a minute about what Britain having a World Trade Organisation status with the EU would be like, it really is quite a chilling prospect.

    The United States actually sells less to the rest of the European Union than we do. Quite important fact that, given they are, you know, the biggest, most powerful economy in the world. But more to the point, they face 7,000 different tariff lines on goods and services that they sell. Many services they can’t sell at all. American Airlines can fly into a European country but they can’t fly between European countries. Think what that would do for EasyJet or for Ryanair.

    Many US cars can’t be sold into Europe because they don’t meet the standards. Cars that are sold have to pay a 10% tariff. You pay 12% on your clothes, you pay 17% on your shoes, you would have a quota for beef that you share with a number of other countries, so if they sell more you suddenly have to pay massive tariffs. So this idea that there’s a World Trade Organisation status for Britain trading with the European Union, that is freely available and good for us, is a complete myth. It would be hugely damaging for our economy. But nonetheless, that is where the Leave campaign currently are.

    Myth number 6. If we were outside the EU, we would be faster and better at signing our own trade deals with the rest of the world. Where I think this is such a myth is first of all the EU, I want it to sign more trade deals, but actually it has signed many more than the US, almost twice as many trade deals as the US and actually the EU trade deals cover a huge percentage of our trade. So yes, one of my arguments for staying in is I want to speed up the process of signing of TTIP, of signing of an EU-Canada, an EU-Japan deal, an EU-China deal and many others. But already the EU does better than many other trade blocs at signing these deals.

    But I think the real myth here is actually the Leave campaigners are not listening to what the rest of the world is saying. We heard it from President Obama, we heard it from the Prime Minister of Japan, we heard it from the Prime Minister of Australia, we heard it from the Prime Minister of New Zealand, and they are all saying they would rather sign a deal with the European Union because it would be a bigger, better and more comprehensive deal than signing a deal with Britain.

    But of course, Britain would have another problem outside the EU, which is that we’d have to work out what our trading relationship with the EU was first, before we could credibly get round and sign trade deals with the rest of the world. So I think that is a complete myth.

    Myth number 7 is this idea that industries like financial services and manufacturing, would somehow magically thrive if we weren’t in the EU. I think this is very easy to dismiss. Take the heart of our manufacturing industry, the automobile industry where we are doing so well, with Honda, with Nissan, with Toyota, with Jaguar Land Rover, with Vauxhall with Ford, we now make millions of engines in Britain that end up in BMW cars, we actually make more cars in the north east of England than is made in many years in the whole of Italy. This is a growing and successful industry, there isn’t a car manufacturer in Britain that believes we should leave the EU, and when it comes to the financial services industry a good point to make here in the City of London, crucially if you leave the EU and you leave the Single Market, you give up the vital passport that means that any bank, or financial services company based here in the UK can trade automatically through the Single Market. Giving that up, would in no doubt, destroy a huge amount of jobs, not just here in London but also in the financial services centres we have in our country, in Birmingham, in Manchester, in Bournemouth, in Edinburgh and in Glasgow, and the Head of the Stock Exchange recently said to me, he thought 100,000 jobs alone could go in the City of London alone because of that measure, so I think that is a complete myth.

    Myth number 8, that economists are somehow split over this issue, there’s a balance of opinion on either side of the argument. I think one of the things that has come out so clearly, already in this campaign, is the overwhelming weight of evidence from economic forecasters that we would be less well off, outside a reformed European Union. You have heard it from the Bank of England, from the OECD, from the IMF, from the Treasury, from the Office of Budget Responsibility and many others besides, and I think when very respected organisations are saying, as clearly as they are that output would be lower, growth would be less, unemployment would be higher, prices would be higher, we would see a hit to living standards, that there is a very clear consensus that leaving the EU would have not just a short-term effect on confidence and investment and growth but would actually have a longer-term effect as well.

    And that leads me to the ninth and final myth put around by the Leave campaign and Leave campaigners, that somehow that there might be a short-term shock, they sometimes suggest but they say there will be a longer-term benefit. That is not what the economic forecasters are saying and there is a very clear reason that it’s not what the economic forecasters are saying because one of the things that generates our productivity and generates our growth, that makes us a successful economy, is our access to the Single Market, and the openness of our economy, and that is why the Treasury analysis is so clear that the long-term effect on our economy would be to make our households at least £4,300 less well off, a 6% shock to our economy, so I think we have got here a very clear set of arguments that completely demolish the economic case for leaving the European Union, and we have a very strong argument for saying that the status quo isn’t just a sort of static, let’s stay in and keep what we’ve got, it is an argument that says, this Single Market is growing, it is expanding, it is going to cover energy, it is going to cover services, it is going to cover digital, and it is a key advantage to our economy to grow, and for jobs and investment to stay in.

    Final thing I would say before taking any questions, is that I hope you, as leaders in business, enterprise and entrepreneurship will feel free to speak out, and I don’t mind if businesses speak out for leaving, or speak out for staying, but I want people to speak out, I want the British public to have the fullest possible debate. They deserve to hear from businesses large and small, about what you think. I don’t want anyone to wake up on June the 24th and feel they weren’t given the facts and the figures. If there’s that little voice in your head saying, well, I shouldn’t take sides, it is a political issue, yes, it is a political issue, the British public are sovereign and they will decide but let’s make sure everyone has the facts because I’m in no doubt having been Prime Minister of this country for 6 years, that on the economic argument alone, there’s no doubt we are better off in, and we would be worse off out, and I am going to make that argument very clearly for the next 36 days.

    Thank you very much indeed.