Below is the text of the statement made by Philip Hammond, the Foreign Secretary, on 25 March 2016.
“Easter is a season of hope for all Christians. At this time of celebration my thoughts are with all those facing persecution, discrimination and denied the right to worship freely, particularly Christians in the Middle East. This Government has pledged to stand up for the right to live and to worship free from discrimination, and we will continue to work actively to make this a reality”.
Below is the text of the speech made by Mike Nesbitt, the Leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, in Fivemiletown on 7 April 2015.
The first time I attended an Ulster Unionist event was in this very hotel, The Valley, Fivemiletown.
I had just been appointed as one of the four Victims Commissioners, and the first political call we took was from an MLA by the name of Tom Elliott. He wanted me to come to speak to his Association.
Being one of four co-equals in the Commission, it wasn’t a simple question of offering a “yes” or a “no”. Whatever the answer was would set a precedent that could have seen us locked away from political view – or out every night attending the smallest branch meeting and Cumainn in the country!
The reason I ended up attending was simple – Tom would not give up. He would not take “no” for an answer. He saw no good reason why his members should not have the opportunity to listen to a Commissioner for Victims and Survivors; to question a Commissioner for Victims and Survivors; and to send the Commissioner on his way back to Belfast in no doubt about what people in Fermanagh and South Tyrone thought about certain aspects of Dealing with the Past, such as the definition of a victim.
That determination is just one of the many qualities that leaves me in no doubt that Tom Elliott will make a fantastic Member of Parliament for Fermanagh and South Tyrone.
One other story about Tom. In 2010, I found myself helping Tom in his Leadership bid after Lord Empey resigned. We were talking about his speech for the night of the vote at the Waterfront Hall. During a coffee break, Tom started reminiscing about a night a few years previously when he found himself 110 miles from home, parked up in four inches of snow, and delivering a speech to a hall packed to the rafters with …. six people.
That showed me another quality of Tom’s – dedication.
And his reaction when I said it should be in the speech demonstrated a third, because he didn’t see it as noteworthy at all, just part of the daily slog of being an elected representative.
So, Determination, Dedication, lack of Ego … three of the values that I admire in Tom, a man with service in his DNA, be it as a political activist and elected representative, or during the years when he donned an army uniform and put himself in harm’s way to protect his family, this community and the country at large.
Tom Elliott is a man with the character, the values and the life experience that position him as worthy of the electorate’s support next month.
And be in no doubt, there are more than enough unionist votes out there to once again make Fermanagh and South Tyrone a unionist seat at Westminster.
This was and will again be a seat represented by a unionist MP.
It’s tempting to dwell for a while on the history of this seat, who held it and how it was lost, but it’s well enough known and there’s nothing we can do about it now but put it right! On the 7th of May!
After last May’s Local Government results, my thoughts turned immediately to this General Election and one of my first priorities was to explore whether we could reach an understanding within Unionism that put country over party and set a target of unseating some abstentionist MPs.
My focus immediately fell upon Fermanagh and South Tyrone. What a message that would send out if unionism retook the most westerly constituency in the United Kingdom.
At Conference last October, I made the call – we would support the sitting MP in North Belfast in the face of a real challenge from Sinn Féin, if we were given a clear run here in Fermanagh and South Tyrone.
The chance to retake a seat
The chance to reverse a trend.
The opportunity to put unionism back on the front foot, confident, positive, progressive, with a hardworking, determined, dedicated MP, rather than more of the same, with people having to endure a Member of Parliament who did not even turn up to vote against Welfare Reform at Westminster, even though her Party continues to threaten to bring down the devolved institutions over the issue.
Abstention is the ticket the incumbent is running on. If abstentionism was ever a valid political policy, it is well past its sell by date.
I have sat with Sinn Fein in discussions with the Prime Minister at Stormont House, arguing over issues that Parliament has already decided upon. The people of Fermanagh South Tyrone deserve an MP who makes their case in the right place at the right time – not long after the votes are counted.
I am delighted Tom Elliott has support right across the unionist community in this Election and acknowledge and welcome senior members of other parties who are here this evening.
I hope every unionist comes out to Vote Elliott in a month’s time.
I also appeal to nationalists to lend him their vote as well, because this is not about a sectarian head count. This is about who can best represent all the people of Fermanagh and South Tyrone at Westminster.
This is about recognising that the Union is best for all our people – it makes sense politically, economically, socially and culturally. It makes common sense and nationalists know that as well as unionists.
So, I say to you: Vote Tom Elliott on the 7th of May.
I ask of the people of Fermanagh and South Tyrone: Please Vote Tom Elliott on the 7th of May.
I encourage the electorate to hope for better.
So, on this, the 7th of April, let us focus our energies on the 7th of May.
It is the chance to transform the political landscape here in Fermanagh and South Tyrone.
Below is the text of the statement made by Theresa May, the Home Secretary, in the House of Commons on 23 March 2016.
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the terrorist attacks in Brussels, our response and the threat we face from terrorism in the United Kingdom.
The cold-blooded attacks in Brussels yesterday morning have shocked and sickened people around the world. Fourteen people were murdered and 106 wounded when two bombs exploded at Brussels airport. A further attack at Maelbeek metro station an hour later killed 20 people and wounded more than 100 others. As the Prime Minister has just said, four British nationals are among the injured and we are concerned about one missing British national. Their families have been informed and they are receiving regular consular assistance. We are working urgently to confirm if any other British nationals have been caught up in these attacks.
The investigation into the attacks is still ongoing. These figures may change and it will take some time for a fuller picture to emerge. But we know that Daesh has claimed responsibility.
Mr Speaker, these were ordinary people simply going about their daily lives, families going on holiday, tourists visiting the city, workers making their way to their offices. They have been attacked in the most brutal and cowardly way. I am sure the whole House will want to join me in sending our thoughts and prayers to the victims, their families and those who have been affected by these events.
In Belgium, the authorities have increased the country’s terrorist threat level to four, the highest level available, meaning that the threat is serious and imminent.
Yesterday, I spoke to my Belgian counterpart Jan Jambon, to offer my condolences and to make clear that the UK stands ready to provide any support that is needed.
Belgium is a friend and an ally, and we work closely together on security matters. Following the attacks in Paris last November, we deployed police and intelligence service resources to Belgium to support the ensuing investigation, which last week resulted in the arrest of Salah Abdesalam.
This is the fourteenth attack in Europe since the start of 2015. In January last year gunmen killed 17 people at the office of Charlie Hebdo and a Jewish supermarket in Paris; in February, two people were shot dead at a synagogue and café in Copenhagen; in August an attack was prevented on a Thalys train en route to Paris; and in November 130 people were killed and many more were injured in a series of concerted attacks in Paris.
There have been further attacks in other parts of the world, including in Bangladesh, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Kuwait, Egypt, and in Tunisia where 30 British holidaymakers were murdered. More recently, a suicide bomber killed at least five people and injured more than 30 in an attack in the heart of Istanbul.
And there continues to be a threat from Northern Ireland-related terrorism. The murder of prison officer Adrian Ismay who died on 15 March is a stark reminder of the many forms of terrorism we face.
In the UK, the threat from international terrorism – which is determined by the independent Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre – remains at SEVERE, meaning that an attack is highly likely. In the last 18 months, the police and the security services have disrupted seven terrorist plots to attack the UK. All were either linked to, or inspired by, Daesh and its propaganda. We know too that Daesh has a dedicated external operations structure in Syria which is planning mass-casualty attacks around the world.
UK threat picture and immediate response
Mr Speaker, following yesterday’s attacks in Belgium, the government took precautionary steps to maintain the security of people in this country. This morning the Prime Minister chaired a second meeting of COBR, where we reviewed those measures and the support we are offering to our partners in Europe.
Border Force has intensified checks at our border controls in Belgium and France, increased the number of officers present at ports and introduced enhanced searching of inbound tourist vehicles. Further measures include security checks on some flights and specialist search dogs at certain ports.
The police also took the decision to increase their presence at specific locations – including transport hubs – to protect the public, and to provide reassurance. In London, the Metropolitan Police have deployed additional officers on the transport network.
I can – however – tell the House that neither deployment is in response to specific intelligence.
Government response to the threat
As I have informed the House on previous occasions, since 2010 the government has undertaken significant work to bolster our response to the threat we face from terrorism.
Last year, the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act provided new powers to deal specifically with the problem of foreign fighters, and prevent radicalisation. We extended our ability to refuse airlines the authority to carry people to the UK who pose a risk. And we introduced a new power to temporarily seize the passports of those suspected of travelling to engage in terrorism. This power has now been used on more than 20 occasions, and in some cases has led to longer-term disruptive action such as the use of the Royal Prerogative to permanently cancel a British passport.
A week ago the House debated the second reading of the Investigatory Powers Bill, which will ensure that the police and the security and intelligence agencies have the powers they need to keep people safe in a digital age.
Through our Prevent and intervention programmes we are working to safeguard people at risk and challenge the twisted narratives that support terrorism. This includes working with community groups to provide support to deliver counter narrative campaigns. Our Channel programme works with vulnerable people and provides them with support to lead them away from radicalisation. And as we announced as part of Strategic Defence and Security Review in November last year, this year we will be updating our counter-terrorism strategy, CONTEST.
In addition, we have protected the counter-terrorism policing budget. Over the next five years we will invest an extra £2.5 billion in a bigger more capable global security and intelligence network. This will include employing over 1,900 additional staff at MI5, MI6 and GCHQ and strengthening our network of counter-terrorism experts in the Middle East, North Africa, South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa.
Government response to the threat in Europe
Together, these measures amount to a significant strengthening of our domestic response. But as the threat continues to adapt and morph, we must build on our joint work with our international partners.
As this House is aware, the UK enjoys the longest lasting security relationship in the world through the Five Eyes – with our allies the United States, Australia, Canada and New Zealand.
That relationship allows us to share information, best practice and vital intelligence to disrupt terrorist activity, prevent the movement of foreign fighters and stop messages of hate from spreading.
Following the attacks in Paris last November, our security and intelligence agencies have strengthened co-operation with their counterparts across Europe, including through the Counter-Terrorism Group, which brings together the heads of all domestic intelligence agencies of EU member states, Norway and Switzerland. Through this forum, the UK has been working to improve cooperation and coordination in response to the terrorist threat and to exchange operational intelligence.
And we are also working bilaterally to increase aviation security in third countries.
Because as I told the Five Country Ministerial in February, defeating terrorism requires a global response, and we will not succeed by acting in isolation.
The United Kingdom has intelligence and security services that are the envy of the world, and some of the most enduring international security relationships.
Together with our allies around the world, we must act with greater urgency and joint resolve than we have before.
We must continue, as we already do, to share intelligence with our partners, be proactive in offering our expertise to help others, and encourage them to do likewise.
We must organise our own efforts more effectively to support vulnerable states and improve their ability to respond to the threat from terrorism.
And we must do more to counter the poisonous and repugnant narrative peddled by Daesh and expose it for what it is – a perversion of Islam built on fear and lies.
Conclusion
Mr Speaker, this is the third statement to the House that I have given following a terrorist attack in just over a year. Each horrendous attack brings pain and suffering to the victims and their loved ones. Each time the terrorists attack they mean to divide us.
But each time they fail.
Today, all around the world people of all faiths and nationalities are standing in solidarity with Belgium, just as they stood together after the other appalling attacks. In the UK, people of all backgrounds and communities – Muslim, Sikh, Jewish, Hindu, Christian, and people of no faith – are united in our resolve to defeat terrorism.
The terrorists sought to strike at the heart of Europe. They seek to attack our values and they want to destroy our way of life. But they will not succeed.
These attacks occurred away from the shores of the UK, but we should not forget that our own threat level remains at severe, which means that an attack is highly likely. We will remain vigilant. The police and security services will continue in their dedication to keeping people safe. And the public should remain alert.
Together, we will defeat the terrorists. This is the challenge of our generation. And it is a challenge we will win.
I commend this statement to the House.
Below is the text of the speech made by Francis Maude, the then Minister for the Cabinet Office, at the Chivas Strathisla distillery in Banffshire on 5 March 2015.
It is a real pleasure to be here with you today to discuss one of the highlights of my job – raising awareness of the great social enterprise work that goes on in the UK.
To be at a whisky refinery at the start of spring only enhances that feeling, so many thanks to Chivas for hosting this event! I would also like to commend Chivas on their global statement which champions social enterprise as a force for good in business.
One of the appeals of social enterprise is that, as a concept, it is so very simple – and yet the possibilities are endless.
Take two of the finalists of Chivas’s ‘Venture’ who are here today – one is a courier company that helps disabled, disenfranchised and long-term ill people to return to employment and the other a brewing company that gives some of its profits to Prostate Cancer UK.
Two completely different operations united by a common desire to make a difference. It’s something we’re beginning to see more and more of across the country – 1 in 5 UK businesses now have a social mission at their heart, and we are fast becoming the centre for social enterprise globally.
This means that our social enterprises contribute £55 billion annually to the UK economy and their growth has been a key part of this government’s long-term economic plan.
This is a phenomenal achievement and as a government we are working hard to drive more and more of this kind of venture, with policies designed to nurture social investment and get it onto the global agenda.
Our goal is simple – we want the UK to be the global hub for social enterprise, social investment and social finance.
Social enterprise support
We are committed to creating the right environment for these innovative and life-changing organisations to grow so they can support communities in the UK and across the globe.
To do this, social enterprises need access to finance and investment, which is why we introduced the world’s first social investment tax relief to drive more investors to put their money into organisations that do more than make profit.
And we set up the world’s first social investment bank, Big Society Capital, which has already seen over £180 million of investments to the frontline, supporting over 100 ventures across the UK.
These ventures once again highlight the diversity of what social enterprise can achieve – from £150,000 going to a skate park in Dundee which provides young people with peer-to-peer education and stewardship, to £10 million to support housing for people with a learning disability so that they have more choice about their living arrangements.
We’ve also provided non-financial support in the form of initiatives like the Buy Social Directory, which lists over 10,000 social enterprises so that business and government can easily find the services they need.
The social economy is a great UK success story. We’ve seen how well it works here and we want to export our success to other countries, share the lessons we have learnt and drive investment from abroad into social ventures at home.
When the G8 met in Northern Ireland in 2013, we put social investment right at the heart of our agenda. And last week in New York we launched a global drive as part of the GREAT Britain campaign to highlight why the UK is the number 1 destination for social investment.
To date, the GREAT campaign has delivered a return to the economy of over £1 billion and is now active in 144 countries. It is this scale of ambition that we want to bring to the UK’s social economy.
Society
As you can see, we’re doing our best to create the right environment for social enterprise both at home and abroad. But in reality, government is only laying the groundwork for socially-minded business, investors and consumers to make the difference.
The UK is a nation of entrepreneurs and capitalists but we also have a fantastic heritage of philanthropy and social reform. Too often we think of these traditions as being separate, when it should be perfectly possible for people to invest in a way that makes good business sense while also supporting good causes.
It’s about combining financial hard-headedness with altruism and social concern – allied together these can be an incredibly powerful and effective force.
Look at issues like homelessness, reoffending or long-term unemployment – these complex problems aren’t new, but the solutions have eluded successive governments for decades.
Government doesn’t have all the answers, and social ventures are often better able to tailor services around the needs of communities and individuals; they can be more responsive and agile and can help find the kind of lasting and comprehensive solutions that are necessary.
The examples of social enterprises I have met so far have been truly inspiring and initiatives like Chivas’s ‘Venture’ show how traditional business models can mix with good causes to make a real difference in society.
And if you won’t take my word for it, perhaps Jamie Oliver can convince you otherwise.
Below is the text of the speech made by Edward Timpson, the Minister of State for Children and Families, on 6 March 2015.
Hello everyone.
I’m very sorry to Delyth [Evans, Post-Adoption Support Project Manager at Adoption Matters] and everyone from Caritas and Adoption Matters that I can’t be with you today. But I hope the Max Headroom digital version of me makes up for it.
It’s been a real pleasure to see how far the Centre for Adoption Support has come in just 1 year.
Determining how long an adopted child will need extra support for is like asking “how long’s a piece of string?”
But, sadly, as someone with adopted siblings myself, and as all adopters will know – it’s impossible to know how long it will take to work through trauma and neglect that can be deeply embedded in a child long after the day they enter care. For new parents, this can be a confusing and overwhelming time.
Parents need somebody with a deep understanding, who can train them to develop strategies, and to work therapeutically with their child. That’s why experience is so important, and – with a combined 140 years between them – families coming into contact with Caritas and Adoption Matters North West are in safe hands.
Yours is a fantastic partnership for this corner of the country, demonstrating that partnership working, combined with the will of local authorities, is the way forward for adoption support.
The answer to how long a child needs support for is “as long as it takes”, and with the Adoption Support Fund, you’ve started to spread that ethos.
Now, your strong focus on education has been a really progressive part of the work you’re doing.
In January, I was delighted to be able to write to 11 schools who were successfully nominated by parents for the Adoption Friendly Award.
These schools have gone the extra mile to ensure the needs of adopted children are being met within the school environment.
Nominated schools have celebrated adopted pupils’ uniqueness, and helped them feel like valued members of their school.
Doing well at school is key to a child’s future life chances – which is why we’ve given adopted children priority admission to the school of their choice – and with £1,900 of pupil premium available for each adopted child, these schools can help them to achieve just as much as their peers.
Let’s hope we see more schools following your humbling example. Because the challenge ahead remains substantial.
Today, as I speak to you, there are more than 3,470 children waiting to be adopted.
And, although it’s a truism to say so, the only thing that’s going to change that is by recruiting more adopters.
To do that, we need the best system of adoption support in place to show potential parents that they’ll have a safety net.
Because an adoption order is often just start of the journey, not the end – and problems don’t just disappear as the ink on the legal papers dry.
Research by Adoption UK shows that a quarter of parents report major challenges in their placement – and in research by DfE and University of Bristol the majority of parents were very critical of the support they had received.
We know more than ever about early brain development and the effect of neglect and abuse – so the system needs to respond to that evidence.
That’s why, from 1 May, following a successful pilot in 10 areas, the Adoption Support Fund (worth £19.3m) will be rolled out across the country enabling adopters who could benefit from therapeutic services to get the help they need when they need it.
Already 160 families in the 10 pilot areas have accessed over £1m in funding from the Adoption Support Fund, which is making a real difference to their families.
And so I would encourage adopters in the audience who think they could benefit from therapeutic services to contact their local authority now and ask for an assessment of their needs and, where appropriate, apply to the fund.
I know that in the North West, families have access to a roster of services, including iMatter and the Nurtured Heart Approach. And the Centre for Adoption Support has become a real beacon for how to work in partnership across the North West region successfully, and it’s great to hear you are now working closely with the Maudsley Hospital.
We’ve helped fund your work to date and we want to continue to support the excellent work you are doing. I’m pleased you have been successful in reaching the negation stage to secure grant funding for the coming financial year. I hope the negotiations are fruitful and you continue to build on the excellent progress you’ve made.
A lack of support leaves adopted children in touching distance of a ‘happy ending’ – but never quite able to grasp it.
And when it comes to supporting some of our most vulnerable and troubled young people in society, there’s no magic wand.
There is, however, an adoption passport.
With the right specialist therapeutic support – and, let’s be clear, many placements will not succeed without it – that child will finally be able to embrace the new life ahead of them.
A life not beset by limitation – but empowered by boundless opportunity.
Their parents deserve nothing less than our unwavering support. As the saying goes, “you can’t choose your family”.
But, given the choice, I’m certain that children in the North West would choose the humility and kindness of their devoted adoptive parents a thousand times over.
To the social workers and staff of the centre, thank you for building them up and being there for them. And to the parents, thank you for being those people.
Without you, without people like my own parents, many children across our region would be struggling to see beyond their own horizons. But with you, they have, can and will reach higher and further than they ever dreamed possible.
Thank you.
Below is the text of the speech made by Amber Rudd, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, on 24 March 2016.
Introduction
I’m here today because on the 23rd of June, you will make a decision that will set the direction of the country for generations to come.
A definitive, lasting choice that will impact upon the lives of our children and grandchildren.
Are we stronger, safer, better off inside the European Union?
I wholeheartedly believe that the answer to this question is a resounding yes.
As the Energy Secretary, my first responsibility is to make sure that our families and businesses have the certainty of secure energy supplies that they can rely on…now and in the years ahead.
Today I want to make the case for why being a member of the European Union helps to deliver that certainty.
It’s actually pretty simple.
It’s about safeguarding our national and economic security…
It’s about lower costs for our households and businesses…
It’s about creating jobs and investment which mean the security of a regular pay packet for working people…
It’s about getting our voice heard and influencing action taken in response to the biggest global challenges we face.
In short, I’m not willing to take the risk with our economic security.
So why do I believe that energy is an important issue in this debate?
Energy at the heart of the Union
65 years ago, on 18 April 1951, a treaty was signed in Paris that created the European Coal and Steel Community.
This was the first concrete step towards the EU we know today.
This was born out of the ravages of two world wars.
European co-operation began with an agreement on energy resources.
To ensure we didn’t fight for them, but traded freely and fairly.
And energy co-operation remains at the heart of the Union today.
Whether it’s about making us collectively more energy secure, making energy cheaper, or dealing with the global issue of climate change.
But more fundamentally, safe and secure energy supplies support everything we do in our day to day lives and everything we do as a country.
When we turn on the light, switch the heating on, or plug in our phone to charge. We never think about that energy not being there.
But it wasn’t always this way. I’m old enough to remember the power cuts of the 1970s. When Britain was the sick man of Europe.
When I was growing up, we had candles and boxes of matches dotted around the house just in case.
But because of the hard work of the British people, this is no longer the case.
In fact, the UK is now ranked the fifth most energy secure nation in the world.
But I also believe that our membership of the European Union has played its part in delivering this security.
Let me tell you why.
Security
Here in Kent, I am reminded that whilst we are an island, we have very real and physical connections to Europe.
We’re at the site of one of those connections today. The BritNed interconnector helps to provide the electricity we need.
And over the next five years we intend to double our ability to import electricity with similar new connections to France, Belgium and Norway. And there are potential new projects with Denmark, Iceland and Ireland further down the track.
These new connections alone could save British households nearly £12bn over the next two decades by driving down the price of electricity.
They act as an extension lead to the vast European energy market, bringing cheap electricity from the continent.
They are the perfect example of how being in Europe helps to deliver energy security at home.
Britain’s geography means we are exposed.
We are an island. It is potentially much harder for us to import and export electricity and gas.
Of course, our North Sea reserves have helped to ensure UK energy security for decades.
And, as the Chancellor’s budget last week demonstrated, we continue to support the industry in maximising the recovery of oil and gas.
But reserves in the North Sea are declining.
In 2015 we imported almost half of the gas we need to heat our homes and power our businesses. And two thirds of this imported gas comes through pipelines from the continent.
By 2030, even if we develop the potential of UK shale gas, we are expected to import about three quarters of our gas.
In other words, we will have to continue to work with our closest neighbours to deliver energy security in the future.
Relying on energy from abroad is not without risk.
We have seen how countries such as Putin’s Russia use their gas as a tool of foreign policy. Threatening to cut off supplies or drastically increase prices.
We mustn’t let our energy security be hijacked as a political pawn to bring Europe to its knees.
By working together in the European Union we can stop this becoming a reality.
As a bloc of 500m people, we have the power to force Putin’s hand.
We can coordinate our response to a crisis. We can use the power of the internal market to source gas from elsewhere. We can drive down the price of imports, as has happened recently in Eastern Europe.
To put it plainly – when it comes to Russian gas, united we stand, divided we fall.
However you look at it, an internal energy market helps to guarantee our energy security. Which is the bedrock of our economic security.
I’m not willing to play fast and loose with either.
Prices
Let me turn to getting the best for our households and businesses.
The European internal energy market is about making sure it is cheaper and easier for us to buy and sell energy.
Without barriers – a level playing field.
This is Britain’s agenda – trade and liberalisation to drive down prices – which has now been embraced by the rest of Europe.
It was Britain that pushed to break up the monopolies on building cross-border cables, like the one we are at today, exposing them to proper competition that drives down costs and ensures real value for money.
It has been estimated that a fully integrated internal energy market could save up to £50bn per year by 2030.
Existing EU energy efficient product standards for items such as TVs, fridges and washing machines, will save UK households an average of £60 on their energy bills this year, rising to £120 a year by 2020.
And that’s ignoring the benefits of new and tighter product standards in the future.
That would mean lower bills not just for families and businesses across Europe, but right here in Britain.
You might ask what’s the alternative? A question that those campaigning to leave seem unable or unwilling to answer.
I’m clear that our energy security is non-negotiable so let me try again.
Outside the EU, could we still benefit from these lower prices?
Could we still set the rules that govern the internal market to ensure that they are in our interest?
Could we still trade energy between ourselves and Europe without facing higher costs or barriers?
Well, we don’t even know on what terms we could negotiate these important questions.
How long it would take?
How would the markets respond to the economic shock of Brexit?
And those who want us to leave simply cannot tell you what a future outside the internal energy market would look like.
And most importantly, they can’t or won’t tell you what the cost might be.
But we can get an idea of what these costs might be.
National Grid, which is responsible for running Britain’s electricity system, is neutral in this debate.
It has assessed the risks and costs, because it will have to deal with whatever decision we make as a country.
Today, it has published an independent report looking at what the consequences of leaving the EU could be.
Either to become like Norway – inside the internal market but with no say over its shape.
Or like Switzerland – who are outside the internal market and have been negotiating without success for almost a decade to try and get access on decent terms.
The study contains some eye-catching numbers.
The UK’s membership of the European Union helps keep our energy bills down. If we left the internal market, we’d get a massive electric shock because UK energy costs could rocket by at least half a billion pounds a year – the equivalent of peoples’ bills going up by around one and a half million pounds each and every day.
People want and deserve lower energy bills, and we’re doing everything we can to make that happen, but leaving the EU could put all of that at risk and would hit the poorest in society the hardest.
These are the hard facts from an independent body charged with operating our energy system.
Even if we managed to negotiate to remain part of the internal market – on the lines of Norway – we would have to pay for access and have no say over the rules.
This would be giving away power, not getting it back.
I don’t know about you, but the prospect of being an EU rule taker, but not an EU rule maker, has no attraction whatsoever.
Investment
The report from National Grid also highlighted the impact of Brexit on investment and businesses in the energy sector.
Their analysis showed the risk of several hundred million pounds of higher investment costs for UK energy infrastructure as a result of the uncertainty Brexit would bring.
And this doesn’t include the impact on the UK’s energy sector due to the uncertainty about sterling in the event of a Brexit. This would likely increase the cost of importing electricity, gas, oil and energy equipment – all needlessly adding costs to UK energy.
This isn’t just an energy issue. Almost half of all foreign investment in Britain comes from the EU.
100,000 British businesses export to the EU. 3.3 million jobs are linked to trade with other EU countries.
Yes, we are the 5th largest economy in the world – something we should be proud of – but our economy is stronger because we are in Europe.
So is our ability to secure the investment we need in UK infrastructure to make sure it’s fit for the 21st Century. Being in the EU helps attract that investment.
Just look at the record levels of investment in UK energy infrastructure.
In 2014, direct investment in UK utility projects from elsewhere in the EU amounted to some £45bn.
We win a third of all the EU’s renewable energy investment.
And this investment creates jobs.
There are around 12,000 companies in Britain working in the low carbon economy.
£121bn of turnover. £44.9bn of value added to the UK economy.
Take for example DONG energy from Denmark.
They have invested £4bn so far helping to develop offshore wind in the UK. And they intend to spend a further £6bn in the years ahead.
Investments that will create over 2000 jobs.
Take Siemens.
They employ almost 14,000 people in the UK and are currently investing over £300m in a new factory in Hull, creating up to 1,000 direct jobs.
They certainly want us to stay in.
Siemens’ Chief Executive has been pretty clear.
“To me,” he told ITV, “this is not about surviving, it’s about thriving, it’s about growing and we’re very sure we can better grow our business in the UK as part of the European Union.”
Being in the EU helps us attract billions and billions of pounds of investment in our energy system and supply chain. Taken together, this investment helps support 660,000 jobs in the UK’s energy sector. Does anybody really think all of that investment would continue if we left the EU, and with no extra cost? Why would we want to cause worry and hardship to hundreds of thousands of families in the UK who rely on our energy industry for their livelihoods? A stable regime gives investors confidence. For them unfettered access to the EU single market of 500m people can make the difference between being merely a going concern and a booming business.
Leaving the EU would put all this investment at risk.
The leave campaign cannot tell British businesses how long they would have to wait to re-negotiate the existing EU trade deals with over 50 other markets, not to mention missing out on those EU trade negotiations, like with the US and Japan, that are well under way.
In the race for investment, why would we shoot ourselves in the foot by creating this uncertainty?
Working people will ultimately pay the price for this with fewer jobs and higher prices.
That is not a price I am willing to pay.
Global Standing
The final point I want to make is a personal one.
Just like our membership of the UN Security Council, and NATO, remaining in the EU is about our standing in the world and the impact we can have on global issues as an individual nation.
With Putin on the prowl and Daesh sharpening their swords, our unity and our shared values – of free speech, democracy and equality – are more important than ever.
Beyond these immediate dangers, there are longer term challenges that require us to work together to resolve.
Take the recent climate change conference in Paris where 200 countries came together to sign the first global climate deal ever agreed.
I was there. I saw first-hand how the EU played a pivotal role in driving this deal through.
The deal was ultimately negotiated between the world’s biggest economic powers: the US, China and the EU.
And it was UK representatives who were leading negotiations on behalf of the EU.
If we left the EU, with the UK responsible for just 1% of global emissions, I doubt we would have even been in the room.
How do I know? Because I was there in the room, and many others weren’t.
The global deal in Paris is in the UK’s interests, and frankly we wouldn’t have got it without being part of the EU.
I firmly believe that from our position in the EU we can influence the great geopolitical challenges of the day – to make the world a safer place for Britain.
And let’s be clear, the deal in Paris is not just about our national security, it’s also about our economic security.
Those who want us to leave have a tendency to argue that tackling climate change hampers our economic competitiveness.
I disagree.
It is our own domestic law – the Climate Change Act – that sets out obligations to the next generation.
Our own system – the UK’s Carbon Budgets – sets the pace.
We are also not the only ones taking action.
The Paris Agreement was about levelling the playing field between us and the rest of the world. Making sure that every country makes its fair share of effort to combat climate change.
And within the EU, we are at the table, shaping climate policies so they work for British businesses.
And so they are focused on cutting carbon in a cost effective way. Not driven by backward looking renewables targets.
And by having a seat at the table we are reforming the EU itself.
Since we re-entered Government in 2010, we have led the way on convincing other countries that binding renewables targets aren’t effective.
This kind of reform was at the heart of the Prime Minister’s renegotiation.
Getting a new deal for Britain. But remaining a member of the EU so we can continue to have a seat at the table to set the rules, and effect change at a global level.
In other words, the best of both worlds.
Conclusion
Today I have laid out my case for why I believe we should remain in the European Union.
I firmly believe that we will be stronger, safer and better off as a member of the EU than we would be out on our own.
Our businesses will be better off because they have full access to the free trade single market, bringing jobs, investment and financial security.
Our families will benefit from lower households bills.
Our children will grow up in a safer, more secure world, as we play a leading role in one of the world’s largest organisations from within. Helping make the decisions that affect them.
Those who would have us leave can’t even provide a plan for what happens next.
They are offering risk at a time of uncertainty. A leap into the dark.
For me, having to risk paying a Brexit premium to keep the lights on doesn’t feel like “stepping into the light’.
It’s clear to me that the alternatives won’t work for Britain.
Paying all the costs, but making none of the decisions that set the rules of the game.
Paying more to guarantee our economic security, whilst losing out on business opportunities, exports and jobs.
So I ask, why cut ourselves off?
Of course, the EU isn’t perfect. We have to continue to reform it to make sure that we are getting the best deal for the UK.
But I don’t believe we should make the best the enemy of the good.
I don’t want this country to just be on the fringes.
I want us to be at the centre of things, making things happen, leading in Europe and getting the best for our people.
My judgement is clear.
In the EU, our future is stronger and more secure, and our families and businesses are better off.
My answer is this.
We choose in. We remain. We stay.
Below is the text of the speech made by Matt Hancock, the Minister for the Cabinet Office, at St Thomas More Catholic School in London, on 24 March 2016.
The man this school is named after, Thomas More, was a man of principle. He wrote of a utopian society governed entirely by reason, where women and men enjoyed equal access to education.
When he was making this argument, in the 15th and 16th century, this was a revolutionary egalitarian idea.
He’s also, as chance would have it, the patron saint of civil servants.
But fast forward 500 years from Thomas More’s day, and we still have work to do to stamp out disadvantage in society and to open up access to the world of public service.
The Civil Service is the engine of government, under the democratic direction of politicians like me, but responsible for driving forward improvements to this country.
It’s an amazing place to build a career, filled with interesting people and important, exciting work.
If you join the Civil Service you could be a diplomat with the Foreign & Commonwealth Office. You could work on groundbreaking infrastructure and aid projects, on defence to keep our country safe or on health to protect our wellbeing.
You could help make our schools and universities work better to educate young people, or improve our justice system, better to rehabilitate offenders.
You can be keeping hearts beating one day and working at the beating heart of politics the next. You could be the next James Bond, the next Kofi Annan, or if you’re a Harry Potter fan the next Arthur Weasley.
There’s a world of opportunity in public service. And we need to do more to make sure everyone has access to that chance.
To do that, we need to hold up a mirror to ourselves and see what we must do to improve.
Holding up a mirror
I want everyone to be able to reach their potential. And I want the Civil Service to make the most of all of Britain’s talents; to reflect modern Britain.
The Civil Service has already made huge progress on equality in terms of race, gender and sexuality. It is now more diverse than it has ever been and compares favourably to many public and private employers.
The proportions of people from ethnic minorities or declaring a disability are at historic highs; and women make up 54% of the Civil Service.
But the representation of all these groups at senior levels is still far too low.
That’s why one of the first things I did when I took this job was commission a report into diversity in our graduate Fast Stream, because you can’t fix your problem if you aren’t willing to hold a mirror up to yourself.
What we found was that the most glaring inequality exists beyond legally protected characteristics, when you look at social background.
One in 3 people employed in Britain today are working class. That compares to less than 1 in 10 applicants to the Fast Stream, and less than 1 in 20 successful applicants.
On this measure the Civil Service has a less diverse intake than Oxford University.
Let’s get out there and change this.
Reaching out to the Public
We’re facing up to the problem. So how do we fix it?
Your gender, or the colour of your skin, or the postcode you were born in or any other circumstance of your birth, these things should not dictate your chances in this world.
The public sector mustn’t shut people out. It should reach out.
This isn’t just the right thing to do. It also makes good business sense to bring in as many different ways of thinking as possible.
All the evidence shows that organisations work better when they have people from different backgrounds, different perspectives.
Publicly traded companies with male-only executives perform worse than those with both male and female executives, and higher ethnic diversity is linked to increased earnings.
This is especially important in a business where you face the range of challenges we do in the UK government.
The public sector’s work is far too crucial for those involved to sit in an ivory tower. Everyone in government has a duty to do their best to serve the public. So we are setting up a schools outreach plan for civil servants, and I want to encourage every civil servant to reach out, to devote an hour each year to visiting schools and inspiring future generations to work across government.
How we’re going to lead
And I want our public services to set an example, blazing a trail for other employers to follow. Today we’re publishing our 2016 Talent Action Plan, which sets out the progress we’ve made in the past year and the steps we’re taking to tackle inequality and extend social mobility going forward.
We’re going to reform the Fast Stream selection process, reach out to university campuses where we haven’t in the past, and boost our internship programmes and our mentoring schemes.
But just because you choose not to go to university that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t have an opportunity to serve your country.
So we’re going to take on 30,000 new apprentices in the next 4 years, with at least 750 Fast Track apprenticeships each year.
In 2050 I want the top civil servant, the Cabinet Secretary, to be someone who came into the service as an apprentice. You may be sitting in this room.
I want to reform our system to be more sensitive to social and economic background.
We have a government that exists to serve the British people, and it should not and cannot shut any of the British people out.
But you can’t manage what you can’t measure. We can only truly tackle the glaring inequalities that exist in our workplaces if we face up to them, and if we know what to look for. And at the moment there’s no agreed way of looking at this problem.
Which is why today I can announce that we’re joining with dozens of major businesses to develop a social mobility index – a ground-breaking new standard measure of social and economic background.
We’re going to use this index to boost social mobility among the biggest employers in every sector of the economy.
The British don’t like to discuss things like their parents’ background, particularly at work.
But it’s incredibly important that we have a proper measure so that we can make sure everyone has the same opportunity to succeed, whatever the circumstances of their birth.
The Civil Service needs to be a leader, driving change by being the most inclusive employer in the world. We should reward effort over upbringing. Potential over polish. Ability, over what accent you happen to have.
Conclusion
My colleagues and I in government have a duty to serve the British public to the best of our ability. You have a different duty.
You have a duty to yourself to make sure that you stand up and do everything that you’re capable of.
I firmly believe that people exceed your wildest expectations when you give them a chance.
Whoever you are, if you are willing to work for it there’s a place for you to serve your country and to achieve your potential in the public sector.
500 years ago Thomas More was fighting to open the doors of society to the disadvantaged. Today that battle is still going on, and it’s a fight we must win both for the sake of principle and of practicality.
To do this we have to throw open the doors of government to new talent. Don’t let yourself be held back, and we are on your side.
Below is the text of the speech made by Andrew Jones, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Transport, in Hastings on 18 March 2016.
Introduction
Thank you for your welcome.
It’s great to be down on the beautiful south coast in a town with such a fantastic history.
And with the cutting-edge driverless cars on display at this summit.
We can also see something of the Hastings of the future, too.
In fact, with the presentations from the rail and bus companies, as well as Highways England and Network Rail here today.
You will have heard about the transport improvements already in progress for Hastings.
As yesterday’s budget showed, investing in the rail and road network in the UK is a priority for the government.
And there’s certainly more work to do for Hastings.
As the Roads Minister, I have seen how new expressways, new link roads or even things as simple as better junctions can unlock investment, spread prosperity and ultimately improve people’s lives.
Because a modern transport network doesn’t just lead to faster journeys from A to B.
It creates new jobs and housing.
It cuts congestion and improves the local environment.
And most of all, it creates opportunity.
2015 improvements
One of the privileges of being a Transport Minister is getting out of the office.
And seeing the work underway to improve infrastructure and make sure Britain has a network fit for the 21st century.
Witnessing the local pride and the sense of anticipation from people who will reap the benefits is the most enjoyable part of my job.
– the business that will now be able to invest
– the mum who finds her narrow street is quieter and safer for her children
– or the job-seeker who finds a new employment opportunity within easy travelling time
The Combe Valley Way only opened in December.
But it is great to see for myself the positive impact it has made to the seafront and indeed the whole town.
Ending years of frustration for local people.
And providing far quicker journeys across the region.
Bexhill and Hastings waited a long time for the road.
And now it’s here, it’s already helping communities previously blighted by congestion.
The Combe Valley Way should encourage economic regeneration across the area.
That’s why we put over £50 million into it.
And that’s why this government is determined to invest in the transport infrastructure in this country.
But the new road is just the start of what we are doing in this region and throughout the country as a whole.
Across the UK we are investing £15 billion over the next 5 years.
Which will pay for 100 projects to introduce similar improvements for areas across England.
This will include capacity improvements along the A27 to build the dual carriageway Arundel bypass.
And create a far better road around Worthing, Lancing and East of Lewes.
All this work will benefit Hastings by creating faster, more reliable journeys along this key south coast corridor.
Next steps
So I’m pleased to come here at a time when real progress is being been made on improving your road links.
But you will want to hear about what can happen next for this area.
This morning I travelled up and down the A21 to see the Kippings Cross section for myself.
Around 35,000 vehicles use the road every day, so the importance of the A21 to East Sussex and Hastings is clear.
It’s a crucial link between the M25 and the south coast.
Of course, £70 million of improvements to the road are already underway, with the dualling of the Tonbridge to Pembury section due to open next year.
And as the Chancellor confirmed this week, the process for preparing for the next period of strategic road investment starting in 2020 has now been announced.
It means that the investment in our road network will continue.
And that we can enter the research stage for delivering the next wave.
Of course, that research takes time.
But it is vital for ensuring that when we invest in roads, taxpayers’ money is being used for maximum value and to achieve the best possible designs.
So between now and March 2017, Highways England will be reviewing the UK’s entire strategic road network.
To see what road improvements we can make to best overall effect.
The public, local authorities, businesses and politicians will all get the opportunity to have their say – including in Hastings.
Then, by the end of 2017, Highways England will present its findings to the government.
We will consult on that plan those too – providing another chance for people to have their say.
And we will make the final announcements on in 2019.
Of course, comprehensive improvements to the southern section of the A21 would be a very large undertaking.
Because of the scale of that proposal, the A21 may well be a candidate for a future strategic study by the government.
Such studies are used to examine the very biggest challenges facing the road network.
They have been used to look at, for example, links across the Northern Pennines.
And improvements to the busiest parts of the M25.
But most importantly for me, my visit today has ensured that when I work with Highways England, and when we take those final investment decisions in 2019, I will be in possession of the full facts on the ground.
Conclusion
And so in conclusion, as the announcements the government has made this week have made clear, transport investment is a cornerstone of this government’s plan for economic growth.
That isn’t to provide impressive-looking figures on a spreadsheet.
It is about allowing towns like Hastings to achieve their potential.
And that’s a prospect everyone here can support.
Thank you.
Below is the text of the speech made by Matthew Ridley in the House of Commons on 8 February 1876.
Sir: It was with the most lively feeling of satisfaction that we received some time ago the announcement that it was the intention of Her Majesty to open Her Parliament this year in person; and I rejoice that it is my privilege this day to congratulate this House and the country upon the happy circumstance that no untoward event, no anxiety for friend or family, no ill health of her own, has stood in the way of the fulfilment of a purpose so agreeable alike to Her Majesty and to the nation.
Nor is it, Sir, of less fortunate omen that Her Majesty is able to announce to Parliament the brilliant progress which her son, His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, is now making through that vast Empire, which will shortly, as we are led to day to hope, bring under such happy auspices a new title to Her Crown. There have been, Sir, anxieties—I ought, perhaps, to say, grave anxieties—attending the journey; there have been heavy responsibilities thrown upon those who have had the charge of a progress which has scarcely a parallel in history—certainly not in the annals of the British Crown. But we are assured, Sir, to-day, that those anxieties and fears have so far proved groundless; we know that the ordering of that journey has been marked by the most signal foresight and success. The people of this country, Sir, are following with the keenest attention the incidents of His Royal Highness’s triumphal visit, which are so dramatically brought before them day by day: they are realizing with a vivid distinctness, which cannot but have the happiest results, something of the vast and varied interests which attach to the history, the religion, the civilization of those older races who are with them the subjects of Her Majesty, and who are receiving Her son with so loyal and enthusiastic a welcome. They appreciate to the fullest extent the energy and self-devotion for the public good of which His Royal Highness is giving so conspicuous an illustration. They can understand—for have they not experience of it themselves?—how his uniform kindliness and courtesy is winning the hearts alike of Princes and people, and is likely to leave behind it an enduring influence for good upon the relations between us and those vast millions whom it is our lot to govern. It is, Sir, I make bold to say, the hope and the expectation of this House that when His Royal Highness shall have happily returned among us, he will be found not only to have enlarged his personal experience and knowledge of those deeply interesting subjects of the Throne to which he will at some period—we hope along distant period—succeed, but to have achieved a great and valuable work in aiding to consolidate and harmonize that magnificent inheritance.
It happens, Sir, in accordance with the line of thought evoked by this important circumstance in our history, that Her Majesty’s Speech this year is emphatically that of the Sovereign of a great people, who with their large possessions have responsibilities equally great of which they cannot divest themselves. It is satisfactory to hear that our relations with all Foreign Powers are cordial, and to know that we are everywhere at peace. But the House this day is brought face to face with a vast group of questions relating to the East, of which that commonly known as the Eastern Question is but one in the series, and the extreme importance of which to our Imperial interests it is perhaps impossible to over-estimate.
Sir, in the far East, it is a matter for congratulation that a serious struggle has been again avoided with that huge Empire of China, the maintenance of friendly relations with which is of such importance, as well directly to the commercial interests of this country as indirectly to the finance and revenue of India. Happily, the reasonable and firm demands of our Minister at Pekin were, though only at the last moment, acceded to, and Her Majesty is able to assure us that an investigation, in which She herself is represented, is being officially conducted into the outrage committed upon the English expedition sent from Burmah to the Western Provinces of China, and that She awaits with confidence a successful result of the inquiry.
The Malayan Peninsula has been the scone of an outbreak which has cost us more than one valuable life; but the war—if war it can be called—has been brought to a conclusion with signal skill and courage. I fear, however, it cannot be said that our difficulties have altogether been disposed of. They are difficulties of a kind which invariably threaten great Powers who, from out-lying settlements, and with small available resources, have to control, without governing, the barbarous tribes of some region just beyond their frontier. From the nature of the case it is impossible always to provide beforehand for every contingency which may arise from such undefinable relations, and it too often happens that we have to deplore the loss of some fearless servant of the Crown, who is performing his mission alone and with his life in his hand, in the name of a nation great indeed and powerful, but powerful only in his case to avenge the outrage of which he has been the victim.
Sir, it is to a problem somewhat similar in character that the recent difference of opinion between the Cape Government and the Colonial Office may, perhaps, be traced. It seemed very desirable that all the English and Dutch communities of the South Coast of Africa should agree in some common policy towards the Natives of the interior, and should provide for some common defence in case a Native war should unhappily arise. Lord Carnarvon accordingly suggested a Conference of delegates from the various Colonies, and proposed also that they should consider the expediency of forming a Federation. The proposal, however, was not received with universal approval at the Cape, and it was in consequence suspended. Whether it be ultimately adopted or not, it is strongly to be hoped that the Papers which have been promised by the Government will show that the good feeling between the Colonies and the Mother Country has in no degree been impaired; and that if there has been any misunderstanding as to the intention of the proposal, that misunderstanding has been removed.
Some few years ago, Sir, a private Company, originated and promoted by one courageous and determined man, whose name will ever be associated with it, commenced a bold project, which was to open through Egypt a new highway between the Eastern world and the nations of the West. They were not supported by English capital—they were even opposed by English Ministers. But their project proved a success, and England discovered that a thoroughfare had been created which it was absolutely indispensable to her political, no less than her commercial, connection with the East should be open to the passage of her ships. From the first the international character of the Canal has been acknowledged both by the Ruler of Egypt and the Porte; but the controversy on the tonnage dues showed the difficulties which might arise between us, as the principal customers of the Canal, and the shareholders, no less than the inconveniences and even quarrels which might follow from the zeal of a foreign Government in promoting the objects of the Company. Under these circumstances it can be no matter for surprise that the country received with almost unanimous approval the announcement that Her Majesty’s Government intended to propose to Parliament to sanction the purchase of those shares in the Company which were held by the Khedive. It was understood that an opportunity had offered itself for us to give timely aid to one of the original owners—who held these shares in “trust,” as it had been declared, “for European nations”—and to become at the same time one of those who were interested in the Canal by property as well as by policy. It was thought that this opportunity had been rapidly and promptly seized, and that the legitimate influence of England in a highway of such vital importance to her had been secured, or at least strengthened, in a manner least likely to wound the susceptibilities of its founders, or to give rise to foreign jealousies or suspicions; and it was taken both in this country and abroad to indicate the presence of activity, foresight, and resolution at the head of our affairs. The House and the country now look with eager interest to the utterances of Her Majesty’s Government upon the subject. Their action will, doubtless, be subjected to the severest criticism; but I do not hesitate to express my conviction that the verdict will be one of approval, and that it will be held that Ministers have, by this bold but peaceful stroke of policy, strengthened the position and vindicated the dignity of the Empire.
Antagonism, Sir, of race and religion, which is so important a factor in all Eastern questions, is again giving great cause for anxiety in some of the Provinces of Turkey in Europe. An insurrection, which has, happily, not extended beyond the limits of Bosnia and Herzegovina, has been excited by the long unredressed grievances, principally agrarian, under which the Christian population in those Provinces have suffered. The Government of the Sultan has failed to offer reforms which would satisfy the insurgents, and has been unable to put an end to the insurrection by force of arms. Accordingly, the three Northern Powers, who have all along been endeavouring to bring about a peaceful settlement of the difficulty, have invited the Western Powers to concur in a Note which should, in a friendly manner but with explicit firmness, invite the Porte to the establishment of certain specific reforms—these reforms being, in the opinion of the Powers, the minimum which could be expected to satisfy the insurgents, to effect a permanent and not a delusive cure, and to remove the dangers to which the Powers most nearly concerned are exposed. I do not doubt, Sir, that it will be thought that Her Majesty’s Government has pursued a wise and prudent policy in giving a general support to Count Andrassy’s Note. The initiative has been most naturally and properly taken by Austria and the two neighbouring Powers; but a consideration of our whole Eastern interests in their broadest sense shows that it was almost impossible for us to stand aloof, had we even wished it; while the approval and concurrence of England, whose history is so full of friendliness towards the authority and Empire of the Sultan, would seem to be a further guarantee that the requests so proffered are reasonable and moderate, and to give additional reason for the hope that this friendly intervention will be successful. Our expectations as to the effect of that Note seem, fortunately, to have been so far realized, and we may hope that we may now look with confidence to the action of the Powers most directly interested to assist in re-assuring the peace of Europe.
Sir, the responsibilities which attach to the position which we hold among Nations have been this year pressed forcibly home to the most indifferent spectator of events by the prominence which circumstances have lately given to our relations to Slavery and the Slave Trade. For many years we have set ourselves a noble task, and have been expending money and lives in suppressing, so far as we could, the infamous traffic in human life which is still the disgrace of many parts of the world. Wherever we have had the control over it we have abolished—sometimes at heavy cost, but a coat we have never grudged—the institution of Slavery, so that it is our proud boast that the slave who sets his foot on British soil, or upon a British ship on the high seas, is at once a free man. There are still, however, some independent Powers which tolerate or maintain the institution of Slavery, and with many of these we are of necessity brought into contact—with some of them we have treaty engagements. It is perfectly obvious, therefore, that the doctrine elsewhere so easy of application is surrounded with delicate complications when our ships, being in the territorial waters of such countries, become bound by the obligations not only of international law, but of international comity. To have carried our practice as far as some persons would seem to wish we had done would have, I will venture to say, involved us in more than one war, and that not with unimportant only or least powerful nations. We have, in fact, Sir, to consider, not so much what we should wish to do were our Empire absolutely universal, but what our power—great indeed, but still limited—will permit us to do; and for this reason I believe that the Government have been well advised in taking the course which they propose in order to ascertain with accuracy the extent of our existing powers and obligations. It is well that the extremely imperfect information which prevails upon this subject should be supplemented, and that the whole country should be completely and thoroughly aware how we stand in this matter; for so only can the action of the Executive in cases often very difficult and complicated be fairly and adequately judged by public opinion—so best will their hands be strengthened in carrying out to the fullest practicable extent the glorious traditional policy of this country. The House will not be surprised to learn that Her Majesty’s Government contemplate legislation this Session on the subject of Merchant Shipping, and it may, no doubt, be anticipated that it is intended to put this measure, or these measures, in the forefront of the legislation of the Session. No Government, indeed, could afford to ignore the state of public feeling throughout the country upon this subject. But in this state of public feeling lies also their opportunity, and it appears to be a peculiarly favourable one; for if, on the one hand, there has been set going—in a manner familiar to us all, and one calculated to do infinite honour to the feelings, at all events, and impulses of its principal originator—if there has been set going under these circumstances a motive power the value of which can hardly be overstated, it is also, happily, the case that the passions and prejudices which have on some sides, naturally perhaps, been aroused, have had time to calm so that this House approaches the discussion enriched by much experience and backed by public sentiment which is, perhaps, all the more strong because it is less demonstrative. It cannot, I think, be sustained that our mercantile navy, has deteriorated, whether in regard to its officers, its safety of carriage, or the estimation in which it is held by foreign countries. There is, however, unhappily reason to believe both that the condition of the sailors is unsatisfactory and that some part of the annual loss at sea is preventible. It is this latter point—the condition, that is of the ship—which is, perhaps, most before the mind of the public; but I may be permitted to express a hope that the other point may not be forgotten, and that measures may be taken, so far as by legislation it is possible, to increase the supply and improve the circumstances of the men—especially in our sailing vessels—upon the efficiency of whom the security of a voyage so much depends. In dealing with the other branch of the subject, it will not, I trust, be considered presumptuous in me if I venture to enforce the necessity of bearing in mind one great principle which should, as it seems to me, guide this and indeed all legislation. It has been hitherto, so far as I have observed, the uniform policy of Her Majesty’s Government—and I doubt not we may confidently reckon upon its continuance—to require those who have the most personal interest and experience in the particular subject-matter to be responsible for effecting any result which the Legislation declares desirable, and then to maintain a Government control over that responsibility. In this case it is the shipowner, and the shipowner only, who can look effectually to the safety of the ship, and it should, therefore, be our policy to seek to make his responsibility a reality. We may, perhaps, do something—though it will, I fear, be a difficult and hazardous attempt—in the way of preventing insurance being a temptation to negligence or crime; but, our object being to see that the dishonest shipowner does that which the honest shipowner already does, we must rely in the end upon the enforcement of his liability. From this point of view we should be very careful not to impose regulations or precautions of too minute or too rigid a character. We should put all facilities for securing safety in the way of the owner, and remove as far as we can all hindrances: we should simplify and consolidate the law which he has to obey, and, being then in a better position to provide for a greater degree of publicity and liability, we might confidently hope to eradicate much of that which now casts some discredit upon a noble profession.
Sir, speaking on behalf of a constituency in the main agricultural, I rejoice that among the few home topics in Her Majesty’s Speech there has been found place for the subject of Primary Education, and for the promise of some further relief to Local Burdens. Let me say this only—for I fear to weary the House—on this latter point. I take it as a happy augury that Her Majesty’s Ministers have seen their way to this mention of it. I trust it may be the prelude to a determined effort—of which I believe they are well capable—not only to redress inequalities in taxation, but to bring simplicity and order into the chaos of local management. The Agricultural Children’s Act, passed as it was with the best possible intentions, has not been absolutely a dead letter, but still may be said to have been almost inoperative. As far as those whom I have the honour to represent are concerned—if the House will allow me to make this one allusion personal to them—I will venture to assert that such an Act was not required for the children of the Northumbrian peasant. That it was demanded in some other parts—perhaps most parts—of England was and is, unhappily, the case; and I trust, therefore, that whatever measure may be passed, whether to improve this Act or to supplement the main Act of 1870, that it will be an operative one, while it is at the same time of such elasticity as not to inflict unnecessary machinery or expense upon districts where it is not required, Sir, there is one other topic in Her Majesty’s Speech to which it would ill-become me not to allude. Anything which concerns the welfare of the place, be it school or be it University, where so many of his not least enjoyable days were passed, and to which he owes so large a debt of gratitude for anything that may be useful in his maturer life, must always command the sympathies and interests of every man; and that sympathy and those interests cannot but be intensified when they are bound up with the well-being of either of our great English Universities, which have exercised so deep an influence upon our national history. Every Oxford or Cambridge man, and more especially, perhaps, any one whose direct connection with his old college has been only recently severed, must have been watching with close interest the efforts which have been going on within those old walls with which he is so familiar to increase their utility to the nation, no less than the growing interest which has been taken in them by the outside public, by whom their system, their discipline, and their constitution have been hitherto, perhaps, but little understood. Such a man will hail with satisfaction any legislation which will conduce to the more profitable employment of the endowments, the extent of which has now been accurately ascertained. But he will trust, too, that Parliament will touch these old institutions with a tender hand; that it will enact enabling and not restrictive measures; that it will not do anything towards destroying the independence or usefulness of the collegiate system, while it aims at making these Universities the centres of study and the homes of the highest scientific and literary research.
Sir, the Session which has this day been inaugurated is not one which appears likely to be characterized by history as one which has witnessed numerous large domestic reforms. That it will see much useful work in this direction is the hope and trust of all of us; but in the meanwhile it opens upon us with the prospect of being signalized by wider deliberations, which win call forth the greatest qualities of debate, and display to a fuller extent than for years past the power and dignity of the Imperial Parliament. For myself, I have felt most deeply sensible of the grave responsibility under which I have attempted to fulfil the duty which I have undertaken, and of the kind and forbearing indulgence which the House has extended to me in performing it. I thank them most heartily for this favour received at their hands, and will conclude by moving that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, in answer to and in the terms of Her Majesty’s gracious Speech from the Throne. The hon. Member accordingly moved— That an humble Address he presented to Her Majesty, to thank Her Majesty for the Most Gracious Speech which Her Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament: Humbly to thank Her Majesty for informing us that Her relations with all Foreign Powers continue to be of a cordial character: To thank Her Majesty for informing us that Her Majesty has considered it Her duty not to stand aloof from the efforts now being made by allied and friendly Governments to bring about a pacification of the disturbed districts of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and that Her Majesty has accordingly, while respecting the independence of the Porte, joined in urging on the Sultan the expediency of adopting such measures of administrative reform as may remove all reasonable cause of discontent on the part of his Christian subjects: Humbly to thank Her Majesty for informing us that Her Majesty has agreed to purchase, subject to the sanction of Parliament, the shares which belonged to the Khedive of Egypt in the Suez Canal: Humbly to thank Her Majesty for informing us that the representations which have been addressed to the Chinese Government, as to the attack made in the course of last year on the Expedition sent from Burmah to the Western Provinces of China, have been received in a friendly spirit, and that the circumstances of that lamentable outrage are now the subject of an inquiry: To assure Her Majesty that we rejoice to learn that His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales has enjoyed uninterrupted health during his journey through India, and that we join in regarding the hearty affection with which he has been received by Her Majesty’s Indian subjects as an assurance that they are happy under Her Majesty’s rule, and loyal to Her Throne: Humbly to thank Her Majesty for reminding us that at the time the direct Government of Her Majesty’s Indian Empire was transferred to the Crown, no formal addition was made to the style and titles of the Sovereign, and for informing us that Her Majesty deems the present a fitting opportunity for supplying the omission. Humbly to thank Her Majesty for informing us that directions have been given for the issue of a Royal Commission to inquire into all Treaty engagements and other International obligations hearing upon the subject of the Slave Trade, and the action of British national ships in the territorial waters of foreign States, with a view to ascertain whether any steps ought to be taken to secure for Her Majesty’s ships and their commanders abroad greater power for the maintenance of the right of personal liberty: Humbly to thank Her Majesty for informing us that a Bill will be introduced for the punishment of Slave Traders who are subjects of Native Indian Princes: To assure Her Majesty that we rejoice to learn that the general prosperity of Her Colonial Empire has continued to advance: To join with Her Majesty in trusting that the operations of Her Majesty’s troops in Malay have restored order and re-established the just influence and authority of this Country: Humbly to thank Her Majesty for directing the Estimates of the year to be prepared and presented without delay: Humbly to assure Her Majesty that our careful consideration shall be given to the measures which may be submitted to us, and that we earnestly join in Her Majesty’s prayer that our deliberations may, under the Divine blessing, result in the happiness and contentment of Her Majesty’s people.
Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May, the Home Secretary, on 23 March 2016.
Before I turn to why we are all here today I just wanted to say a few words about the terrible attacks that took place in Brussels yesterday and I am sure that the thoughts of everyone in this room are with the families of the victims and the injured and all those who were caught up in yesterday’s events.
The Prime Minister has spoken to Prime Minister Michel. I have spoken to the Belgian Interior Minister Jan Jambon and our message was simple: we stand together against the terrorists and they will not win.
We already work closely with the Belgian authorities on security matters. We share intelligence routinely and after the November attacks in Paris we deployed police and intelligence service resources to Belgium in support of the investigation into the attackers, which last week resulted in the arrest of Salah Abdul Salam.
And we will continue to work together with our partners, not just in Belgium and other European countries, across the Five Eyes alliance and with our allies across the world to share intelligence, to cooperate on security, and to defeat those who wish to use terror to try to intimidate us.
That spirit of co-operation, working together to keep citizens safe, is what brings us all together at this conference today.
This is the second International Crime and Policing Conference we have hosted, bringing together scholars, experts and law enforcement leaders from around the world to better understand how known crimes are changing, where new crimes are emerging, and how we can best respond together. Because even though crime has fallen here and in many other countries over the last 20 years, the threat is changing and crime is still too high.
I want to begin by talking about a very modern type of crime problem. Like more traditional forms of criminality, those behind this crime wreak havoc in other people’s lives. They subvert security measures; they unscrupulously gain the trust of their victims; and they create untold misery to thousands of families, businesses and people every single year.
But unlike burglary, vehicle crime or street theft, the criminals who commit these crimes do not have to meet their victims or physically enter their homes. They break in using a keyboard, often while sitting in their back room or their bedroom hundreds and thousands of miles away, sometimes in another criminal jurisdiction entirely. And instead of creating a single victim, they can create thousands, some of whom do not realise what is missing for weeks or months.
I am talking about the type of industrial scale fraud we now see committed over the internet. In just one case last year, 1 single teenager hacked 50,000 individual computers and corrupted 1,400 servers with malware. The valuables stolen included emails, personal data and credit card details which were used to make purchases online. A money-laundering scheme was established to fund a trip to Mexico – and a family in the US was targeted, harassed and threatened.
Some of you may know of someone who has experienced something similar. You may yourselves have had your own computer hacked, money taken out of your bank account, or your data hijacked and held to ransom – or perhaps you know of someone who has received a bogus call from their bank, the police, a claims management company, an online seller or a loan company – only to find out it was a scam to fleece them of their money and their savings.
This then is the reality of a great deal of crime today: faceless, contactless and conducted from a distance. It is changing the nature of victimhood, changing the nature of crime, and changing the nature of police investigations – and if we are to keep pace, if we are to stop these crimes, our response to crime prevention must change too.
Today, in many countries crime has fallen dramatically compared to 20 or 30 years ago.
Since I became Home Secretary in 2010, overall crime in England and Wales is down by more than a quarter, according to the Crime Survey for England and Wales – compiled by the Office for National Statistics. Burglary is down by 21%. Car theft is down by 26%. Violent crime is down by 25%.
If we go back even further, the reduction is all the more astonishing. Since the mid-1990s, when crime in this country peaked, the number of crimes in England and Wales has fallen from 19 million a year to 6.6 million last year – a drop of 66%.
In 1995, if you owned a car you had a 1 in 5 chance each year of having it broken into or stolen. Now, that chance has dropped to 1 in 25. That same year, the risk of your home being broken into and burgled was close to 1 in 10. Now it’s 1 in 40. And the risk of being a victim of violence was 1 in 20. Last year, it was 1 in 50. This is excellent news, not only for those people who might otherwise have suffered car crime, been robbed, or been on the receiving end of a violent attack, but it is good news for communities and society as a whole.
But this reduction has not happened by accident. There was a time when people thought there was nothing you could do to end crime. When my predecessor Michael Howard arrived at the Home Office in 1993, he was shown a graph with crime on an upwards trajectory rising year on year. ‘Home Secretary’ officials said to him:
The first thing you must understand is that there is nothing you can do about this. Your job is to manage public expectations in the face of this inevitable and inexorable increase.
Thankfully, Michael Howard did not listen to those hollow warnings, and instead took tough measures to bring crime down.
This reduction has happened as a result of concerted, wide-ranging action by governments, law enforcement, industry and the public. What has brought about the dramatic drop in vehicle theft and burglary is not just down to the tremendous work of the police – although improvements in forensics and tactics may have played an important part. But it is thanks to a combination of other factors too: developments by manufacturers, such as immobilisers in cars and more secure door and window locks; improvements in the local environment, such as CCTV in car parks and better layout of housing estates; treatment for potential offenders such as heroin and crack users; better information and incentives, such as the Home Office’s Car Theft Index and insurance companies giving people an incentive to improve their home security; and greater awareness by the public, such as more people locking their car doors and the establishment of local neighbourhood watch schemes.
This combined approach has worked. Crime is now at historically low levels. And thanks to the experience of the last 20 years, we now know more about how to stop crime from happening, and prevent people from becoming victims, than we have ever done before. And we must apply that logic to the present.
Because while crime is down, it is changing and we cannot afford to become complacent. As I have just said, today technology is allowing criminals to operate on a much bigger scale, with greater speed and anonymity, and a far-wider reach than ever before.
At the same time, we are uncovering the scale of many previously hidden or neglected crimes. We are seeing more people coming forward to report appalling crimes such as child sexual abuse, domestic abuse and modern slavery. That more people have the confidence to do so is to be welcomed, because too often in the past people feared repercussions or not being believed. And we should also welcome the fact that recent high profile cases involving TV presenters and premiership footballers are exploding the myth that some perpetrators are too famous, rich or powerful to face justice.
These shifts are already radically changing the law enforcement response. Now, virtually every physical crime requires some form of digital investigation. Digital evidence is increasingly being used to support prosecution. And the police, prosecutors and judges will testify to the sheer scale of abuse cases currently being taken through the courts, resulting in more charges, convictions, and prison sentences for offenders than ever before.
But as crime changes, so too must our approach to crime prevention. We need to stem the flow of emerging crimes, not just change our response after the fact. We need to understand what has worked effectively in the past, and how we can have the most impact in the future. We need to view crime prevention as an issue for all of us, and not just focus purely on a law enforcement response. And we need to do all this vigorously, energetically, intelligently and with the confidence that if we pull together we can drive all kinds of crime down.
Because if we apply the lessons of the past, at the same time as using the best new techniques and technology, I believe we can solve the problems of the present. That’s why today we are setting out a new approach to crime prevention, based on what has worked in the past and with a clear and evidence-based understanding of what we need to do now.
Two years ago, I established a unit in the Home Office called the Crime and Policing Knowledge Hub. Its purpose is to generate first rate knowledge of crime trends and the drivers of crime, in order to inform our response.
As I told this conference last year, in this country, we believe that there are 6 main drivers of crime: alcohol, drugs, opportunity, the effectiveness of the criminal justice system, character and profit. They are not the only influences over criminal behaviour and they do not explain all crime, but by thinking about crime in this way, and understanding the interplay of different factors behind a particular crime problem, we can devise an effective response.
First, there is strong evidence linking alcohol and violent crime and disorder. The facts are well-known but no less shocking for it. Over the last decade, in around half of all violent incidents, the victim believed the offender or offenders to be under the influence of alcohol at the time of the offence.
So we need to ensure that the night time economy is safe, and that town centres are places of enjoyment. Building on our previous reforms to the Licensing Act 2003 we will make sure licensing authorities have the right powers and information to prevent alcohol crime and disorder. We will improve the late night levy and give police and crime commissioners the right to request that local authorities consult on introducing that levy. We will ensure that licensing authorities have much better intelligence when they are making decisions about the management of the night time economy. We will publish information about alcohol-related crime and disorder on Police.uk. And we will encourage local areas to share details about individuals and premises that have had their licences revoked in other areas.
The second driver is drugs – one of the biggest factors behind the rise and fall in acquisitive crime in this country between the early 1980s and now. Previous Home Office research has shown how the growth of heroin and crack users between 1982 and 1995 accounted for around half of the rise in burglaries, robberies and theft of vehicles over that period. Today, heroin and crack use is still a threat, but we face new challenges from so-called legal highs.
That is why we introduced the Psychoactive Substances Act, to ban the sale of psychoactive substances and to end the absurd situation where new drugs were being created more quickly than law enforcement, and the law, were able to take them off the market.
Later today, Karen Bradley, the Minister for Preventing Abuse, Exploitation and Crime, will talk more about our work to tackle drug misuse. And we are refreshing our drugs strategy which will set out new action to prevent drug use, restrict its supply, and go further to help those dependent on drugs to recover and live a life free from harmful substances.
The third driver is character. An important finding from criminology is that the vast majority of crimes are committed by a small minority of people. The evidence tells us that there is nothing inevitable about criminality – no one is doomed to be a criminal by their upbringing. But there are some circumstances, like low levels of self-control, which are associated with a higher likelihood of offending. And we know that those characteristics can be influenced by what children experience growing up. So if we are to reduce the likelihood of future criminal behaviour, we need to build positive characteristics and resilience, particularly in young people at risk of harm or offending. That’s why we are expanding our Troubled Families Programme, which helps families where there are difficult, entrenched and multiple problems, and extending funding to the National Citizen Service so that 60% of all 16 and 17 year olds are given the chance of taking part.
We must also address damaging social and environmental factors such as abuse, so we will introduce a professional development programme for teachers on core concepts of consent and healthy relationships. In addition, we have just launched a new teenage relationship abuse campaign, ‘Disrespect NoBody’, which encourages 12-18 year olds to re-think their views of violence, abuse, controlling behaviour and what consent means within relationships.
Next, we know that criminals thrive on opportunity – it seems obvious but the easier it is to commit a crime, the more crimes they will commit. If we can remove that opportunity and make crimes harder to commit, the evidence suggests that many criminals just won’t commit them.
Today, the equivalent of open windows and insecure car locks are weak online passwords, insecure mobile phone technology and forgetting to keep security features up to date. In fact, GCHQ estimates that 80% of cyber crime could be prevented by better passwords, security software and remembering to download all software updates, which generally fix bugs that hackers can otherwise use to gain access.
Most of us have little idea how easy it can be for cyber criminals to get hold of our personal details online, or how much of our personal information is shared by the various apps we have downloaded onto our phones and tablets. So the Home Office has developed a new risk assessment tool to help people understand, on the basis of their online and offline behaviours, how vulnerable they are to fraud, cyber and financial crime, and what steps they can take to prevent themselves from becoming a victim.
We are publishing today an updated picture about how mobile phones are stolen and who is most at risk. This includes the latest findings from the Behavioural Insights Team’s mobile phone theft ratio about specific models targeted by thieves. We are also publishing updated information that signposts the public to the various anti-theft security features on offer from a number of mobile phone manufacturers. And we are publishing a buyer’s guide for mobile devices setting out the cyber security features to look out for when purchasing or using smartphones and tablets.
And we will also reduce opportunities by restricting access to items which contribute to certain crime types. So today I am pleased to announce a voluntary agreement with major retailers on a set of principles to prevent the underage sale of knives in their stores and through their websites. The agreement means that the retailers will have committed to requiring proof of age at point of purchase, collection or delivery, that knives will be displayed safely and packaged securely, and that staff will receive regular training. I am delighted to say Tesco, Lidl UK, Amazon UK, Wilko, Argos, Asda, Poundland, Sainsbury’s, Morrisons, John Lewis and Waitrose have all made this commitment, and ebay UK supports it as well. We will work closely with the British Retail Consortium to get other retailers to commit to these principles.
And where voluntary action can only go so far, we will use legislation – to ban the sale, manufacture and importation of so-called ‘zombie-killer knives’, which glamorise violence and are clearly targeted at young people. These are dangerous weapons and have absolutely no place on our streets. Under the secondary legislation, which will be introduced through powers in the Criminal Justice Act 1988, offenders would face up to 4 years in prison.
The fifth driver is the effectiveness of the criminal justice system. There is good evidence that would-be criminals can be deterred from crime or re-offending if they perceive the system, including policing, as being effective. That is why policing known crime hotspots and taking a local problem-solving approach to address what is causing local concentrations of crime can be so effective, especially when aided by new techniques like data analytics and predictive policing.
Our criminal justice system must therefore act as a powerful deterrent. As crime changes, the police, prosecutors, courts, prisons and probation must have the capacity to stay ahead. That is why we are providing funding, through the Police Transformation Fund, to develop digital investigation and intelligence capability in policing, and ensure that officers have the skills required to tackle new forms of crime such as online fraud. And we will use new technology to transform punishment too, by using satellite tracking of offenders.
The final driver of crime is profit. Most acquisitive crime is financially motivated and many serious and organised crimes, from organised immigration crime to online fraud, are built on sophisticated business models generating vast illicit gains. These criminals trade in illegal substances, services, and in people. They generate income from others’ misery and exploitation. And they launder their proceeds through legitimate financial systems, facilitated – unwittingly or otherwise – by lawyers, accountants and financial advisers. Organised criminals don’t commit crime because they need to feed a habit. They commit crime, for the most part, because they can turn a profit doing so.
Since 2010, we have confiscated almost £1 billion in proceeds of crime, and the Serious Crime Act 2015 closed many of the loopholes used by criminals to get around confiscation and asset freezing. We are working with the professional sector to deter solicitors and accountants from becoming involved in money laundering. But we need to go further to break the criminals’ business models and make it harder for organised criminals in particular to benefit from their crimes.
We will implement a new Anti-Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Action Plan. Because if criminals know they can’t convert their ill-gotten gains into legitimate income, it should deter them from committing the crime in the first place.
A few weeks ago, I launched the Joint Fraud Taskforce with over 40 major banks and financial organisations to strengthen the collective response of the government, the financial sector and law enforcement. And for the worst offenders, we are introducing a new top 10 most wanted fraudsters to focus effort and resources – and ensure that those coordinating the most activity find it more difficult to operate.
And, as you will hear later on today, we are working with businesses to prevent modern slavery in their global supply chains, to help put a stop to the appalling abuse of people that most of us thought had been abolished over a century ago.
I have outlined the approach in our new modern crime prevention strategy and the action we are taking to address the different drivers of crime. But of course most crimes will have more than one driver, and it is when we take a range of actions covering those many drivers that we can most successfully address a particular crime type.
Take metal theft. In 2010, metal theft starting rising exponentially in line with the high global price in copper and lead. Churches, road signs and even civic statues were targeted, and in 2011 Network Rail reported a 50% rise in the number of metal thefts from their lines that resulted in more than 6,000 hours of delays to people’s train journeys.
Yet once we understood the drivers behind this metal theft, it was clear what needed to be done. So we took action to address profit, opportunity and the criminal justice system by banning cash payments for scrap metal to make sales traceable, creating a joint intelligence hub to better monitor metal infrastructure, and introducing larger fines, tougher sanctions and a new licensing scheme for scrap dealers.
The result was a fall in metal theft by 30%. And railway delays due to metal theft fell by 80% in the 3 years after 2010/11.
So today we need to apply the same approach to all types of crime. And most importantly, we all need to play our part in making life harder for criminals.
Because as I said earlier, the one thing we can learn from the last 20 years is that neither government nor the police can prevent crime on their own. Everyone with an interest in making our lives and communities safer needs to take responsibility.
The police need to develop the right capabilities and ensure they are effectively deployed. Academics can help to fill the gaps in our evidence base on changing crime. Manufacturers and retailers should work with us to identify new ways to design out crime from products and services. Voluntary sector organisations – like Neighbourhood Watch and Crimestoppers – can support the police and provide advice to the public. And the public must play their part in protecting themselves, their possessions and their data from modern crime.
At the opening of my speech, I spoke about online fraud and the new types of crime we are seeing. Crime is changing. But that doesn’t mean we should think they can’t be stopped.
Time and again, we have proven that if we take the right steps, if we work together, and if we invest in the right capabilities, there is nothing inevitable about crime and nothing inexorable about its rise.
We must prevent crime, not just respond to it. And if we do so, we can make our country safer, reduce crime in our communities, and reduce the harm done to vulnerable people.
Crime is not inevitable. Together, let’s deliver the same reductions in the next twenty years, and we have seen in the last.