UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • James Duddridge – 2016 Speech at UK-Sierra Leone Trade and Investment Forum

    jamesduddridge

    Below is the text of the speech made by James Duddridge, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, at Sheraton Park Lane, Piccadilly in London on 25 February 2016.

    Thank you Atam for your kind introduction. I am delighted to be here.

    I would like to thank Developing Markets Associates, and all the sponsors, for organising this important event.

    I have just had a meeting with Dr Kamara, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Relations. Our governments have worked closely for many years, but particularly so over the last two years to defeat the terrible scourge of Ebola. I was delighted when your country was declared free of the disease in November.

    It is right that we acknowledge the tragic impact of that devastating outbreak on Sierra Leone and its people.

    It is also right that we start to put this terrible episode behind us.

    I remember visiting Sierra Leone in 2013 and it was one of the fastest growing economies in Africa. That was only three years ago. I hope Sierra Leone will return to hyper-growth rates and a thriving business environment.

    This morning I am going to set out why the UK Government sees potential in Sierra Leone, what we believe is needed to realise that potential, and what opportunities we believe this holds for you as investors.

    I lived and worked in Africa for many years. My experience was one of energetic entrepreneurs, burgeoning businesses, a rising middle class, potential and drive in equal measure. Doing business is in Sierra Leoneans’ DNA.

    The UK Government is committed to supporting Sierra Leone’s recovery. We have pledged over £240 million over the next two years to support the President’s plans for recovery.

    This assistance is a part of a wider picture, because we are committed to promoting trade, investment and prosperity right across Africa. I am delighted that Guy Warrington will be going out as our new High Commissioner to Sierra Leone.

    We have created a new Prosperity Fund – worth £1.3 billion – to promote conditions for sustainable and inclusive growth. A significant proportion is earmarked for Africa.

    This Government is also delivering on our commitment to spend 0.7% of Gross National Income on international development, of which Sierra Leone is a beneficiary. I have been working closely with Justine Greening at the Department for International Development, who has visited Sierra Leone a number of times, and my DFID counterpart Nick Hurd.

    However, aid alone will not ensure Sierra Leone’s long term recovery. It needs investment too, and that means an improved business environment.

    The government of Sierra Leone has drafted its plan for post-Ebola recovery. It has identified priorities for recovery over the next two years: health, education, social protection, infrastructure, energy, water, and the development of the private sector. These will all be critical in getting Sierra Leone back onto the path of sustainable development.

    It is encouraging to see that the President and his Ministers recently proposed to include a new Governance pillar in the recovery plan. We support this step towards addressing some of the big challenges around procurement, payroll, and corruption.

    We are working in partnership with the government of Sierra Leone to encourage them to create the business environment that will reassure and attract investors.

    Some UK companies, such as Standard Chartered Bank are already there. They, alongside Herbert Smith Freehills and Prudential, helped Sierra Leone during the Ebola outbreak by producing the Investor Guide for Sierra Leone – a great example of the private sector coming together to help the country on its path to long-term recovery.

    My parliamentary colleague James Cleverly, MP for Braintree and a fellow Essex MP, whose mother was Sierra Leonean, was recently in Sierra Leone. I hope to do more to work with the Sierra Leonean diaspora across the country.

    It’s worth taking a moment here to recognise the country’s enviable natural advantages:

    Its rich mineral deposits.

    Its huge potential in renewable energy, in particular solar and hydro-electric – I should say here that Sierra Leone was one of the first countries on the continent to sign up to the Department for International Development’s Africa Energy Campaign which promotes access to solar powered electricity – which is now much cheaper, more accessible and reliable.

    Its strategic shipping location on the Atlantic seaboard of West Africa, with one of the largest natural harbours in the world.
    Its millions of hectares of forests and fertile agricultural land, and abundant fish stocks.

    Sierra Leone is also well placed to benefit from the huge economic growth we expect to see across the continent. Consumer demand from its emerging middle class is growing and that trend is set to continue as Africa’s population is forecast to double by 2050 [UN Population Data].

    So in conclusion I urge you to listen closely to what you hear today. Sierra Leone has put Ebola behind it. The UK Government is supporting trade and investment, reconstruction and prosperity. Doing more business provides taxation for the government. We should be proud of what we’re doing to help Sierra Leone back to double digit growth rates.

    Sierra Leone has huge potential. Its government has a plan for recovery and has identified its priority sectors. From mining and renewable energy to project management and environmental services.

    Finally, this country’s strong historic ties with Sierra Leone, our long-term friendship, together with the familiarity with English, present UK companies with a unique advantage. I urge you to seize it with both hands.

    Thank you.

  • Andrew Jones – 2016 Speech on Transport and Mental Health

    andrewjones

    Below is the text of the speech made by Andrew Jones, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Transport, at Cavendish Square in London on 25 February 2016.

    Introduction

    Thank you.

    The relationship between mental health and transport goes deeper than many people realise.

    Last week, Professor Ed Bullmore, Head of Psychiatry at Cambridge University, published an article with the title, ‘Why brains and airports have a lot in common’.

    He said the best way to understand how the different parts of our brain are wired together is by thinking of how airports are connected by flights.

    The different parts of most people’s brains are wired together similarly to how airlines link big airports such as Heathrow or Schiphol.

    While in other people’s brains, though they have no fewer connections, those connections are routed as if they are flights between many smaller airports.

    The difference helps explain some mental health conditions such as schizophrenia.

    Professor Bullmore’s use of transport as a metaphor is a brilliant way of talking about the brain.

    Transport is important for mental health

    Yet we are here today (25 February 2016) because we know that mental health and transport are linked by more than metaphors.

    There’s a real-world connection, too.

    The stats say that 1 in 4 of us will experience a mental health issue this year.

    It might be phobias, anxiety, OCD, depression, panic disorders, dementia or one or more of many other conditions.

    You’ve already heard moving accounts of the experience of living with conditions such as these.

    And about how, so often for people with mental health conditions, good transport can help a full, timely recovery or just make life that bit better.

    Transport offers freedom to visit family, go to the shops, travel to volunteer or to museums, and transport offers the hope that can be found in the chance to study or to work – all the things that make for a normal life.

    So it’s a real pleasure to join you for what is probably the first, and almost certainly the biggest, gathering of transport and mental health advocates ever held in Britain.

    Transport needs to catch up

    And it’s about time we met.

    Because when it comes to serving those with poor mental health, transport has some catching up to do.

    To see how much, look at the progress the transport industry has made in meeting the needs of those with physical ill health.

    Take the bus industry – one of my areas of responsibility.

    Today nearly 90% of buses are equipped to serve physically disabled people, with wheelchair space, priority seats, handrails, and devices to help people get on and off.

    But on mental health, there’s sadly been nothing like that kind of progress.

    Even someone with the best mental health will sometimes find public transport stressful and bewildering.

    Just ask anyone who’s been at Clapham Junction train station during rush hour.

    Or anyone who’s boarded a bus in an unfamiliar town, not quite knowing where to get off or even whether you are travelling on the right bus going in the right direction.

    Or anyone who’s had to dash from one airport terminal to another in time to catch a flight.

    And then there’s the familiar feeling of rising panic whenever the ticket inspector enters the railway carriage, even when you are sure you have a valid ticket.

    No wonder someone who experiences anxiety, panic attacks, memory loss or a host of other possible conditions can feel unable to use public transport.

    I had a lot of sympathy with one person with a mental health condition who said:

    You might afford the bus, but the bus company’s website doesn’t give fares. To find out the fares you have to speak to the bus driver or phone the company. Just thinking about either brings on a panic attack. The dread of getting on the bus with insufficient fare is overwhelming.

    So what are we going to do about problems like these?

    What we must do

    First, we need to recognise that transport’s problem with mental ill health is a symptom of a wider problem.

    Across much of our society and our economy, mental health has not received the same level of attention as physical health.

    It might be because mental health is less visible.

    It might be because people don’t understand mental ill health and how common it really is.

    Or it might be because of the stigma that still lingers around mental health, a stigma that for physical health we long ago dispelled.

    The good news is that things are changing.

    During the coalition government we passed the Health and Social Care Act 2012, to make sure the NHS treats mental and physical health conditions equally.

    And thanks to the work of organisations like those here today, such as the Mental Health Action Group, Mind, and Anxiety UK, that change is gathering pace.

    The BBC, which is covering our Summit today, has just finished its mental health season.

    And last week both the Duchess of Cambridge and First Lady Michelle Obama wrote high-profile articles on the importance of proper treatment for mental ill health.

    So bit by bit, we are breaking down the stigma and misunderstanding around mental health.

    What transport has done already

    But now we need that change to come to the transport sector, too.

    And there are some early signs of encouraging progress.

    First Bus have introduced a Better Journeys Card which is designed to give people a discrete way of alerting the bus driver to any special assistance they may need. The card contains messages such as please help me find a seat, please count out my change with me and, please be patient, I have a hidden disability.

    These cards remind us that, so often, it’s skilled and helpful transport staff who make the biggest difference to passengers.

    So I am pleased that, on the railways, Virgin Trains has been working with the Alzheimer’s Society to deliver specialist training to station staff, which has meant that a number of its stations are increasingly dementia-friendly.

    And many airports have been making progress too.

    Most airports now offer familiarisation visits to those who would benefit from them before they fly.

    Gatwick has said that, so far, 80% of its front-line staff have undergone Dementia Champions and Dementia Friends training, and the airport has introduced its own bespoke NVQ Level 2 Certificate in the Principles of Dementia Care for customer-facing staff.

    Meanwhile, Manchester Airport has recognised how stressful the security search process can be for children with autism. So it has special wrist-bands for children to wear to alert staff that they need a search procedure suited to them.

    These are great examples of the difference that transport operators can make when they think about those with mental health needs.

    Buses Bill

    And the person who said they were worried about boarding the bus without knowing the fare might be pleased to hear that we are going to make a new law.

    As part of our Buses Bill, all bus operators will be required to make data about routes, fares and times open and accessible.

    It will allow app makers to develop products that passengers can use to plan their journeys, and give people the confidence to take the bus.

    Transport industry pledge

    But we need the industry to keep taking action of its own accord, too.

    For one thing, there’s a good commercial case for it.

    If 1 in 4 of us will experience a problem in any given year, and if 1 in 20 of us experience a long-term mental health condition during our lives, then those with mental health conditions constitute the UK’s largest single sector of disabled people, and a transport industry which excludes these people is missing out on millions of potential customers.

    Yet the many transport firms represented here today show there’s a lot of good intent out there.

    The government doesn’t want to impose a one-size-fits-all solution on the transport industry.

    It’s about getting to know your customers and taking action in the most effective way for your sector.

    That’s what I’d like you to think about this afternoon.

    And if you have a good idea, we’ve provided pledge cards that you can fill in to record what you are going to do.

    Conclusion

    So in conclusion, change is coming in transport.

    People want a better service, more attuned to their needs.

    Those with mental health conditions have as much right to travel as anyone else.

    And making the improvements these passengers want needn’t be expensive.

    It’s often just a question of listening, being flexible, and giving staff the right kind of training.

    If we get it right, our transport networks will be better for some of the most vulnerable people in our communities.

    So make your pledges.

    This summit isn’t a one-day-wonder.

    It’s an issue that will keep rising up the agenda.

    And that is what will make life better for us all.

    Thank you.

  • John Hayes – 2016 Speech on Digital Security

    John Hayes

    Below is the text of the speech made by John Hayes, the Minister of State for Security, at the Policy Exchange in London on 25 February 2016.

    The title of my speech this morning is taken from Hegel’s Philosophy of Right.

    It is perhaps his best known, and most contentious, observation: “What is reasonable is real; and what is real is reasonable.”

    The remark is contentious principally because some believe that Hegel was making a normative claim for what is actual: that what is real must be right.

    But of course that is not the case.

    Rather, Hegel, was arguing that ultimately philosophy must be a rational enterprise, concerned with understanding the world as it actually is.

    What was true of Hegel’s philosophy then is equally true of public policy today, particularly in relation to the fundamental issue of security.

    It is all too tempting to view the threat we face as abstract, as theoretical. To believe that we have always faced threats.

    That the threats we now face are essentially the same as those in the past.

    This is all too tempting because – as T.S. Eliot wrote in his four quartets – humankind cannot bear very much reality.

    I want to speak this morning about security and keeping people safe.

    The threat we face now is changing, ferocious and flexible.

    That threat is evolving rapidly.

    Responding to it is a testing challenge.

    That requires us, now more than ever, to review, revise and rejuvenate what we do and how we do it.

    And most of all what we need to do now and to do next.

    The Investigatory Powers Bill, which we published in draft in November, is crucial to these efforts.

    Fundamentally, our approach brings together work at home to build cohesive communities and root out extremism with cooperation and dialogue with nations worldwide.

    Threat

    Success requires realism.

    The terrorist threat we face here in the UK is unprecedented and growing.

    And that’s not only my view.

    Andrew Parker, the Director-General of MI5, has said: “The threat we are facing today is on a scale and at a tempo that I have never seen before in my career.”

    In the 12 months to September last year, our police and security services arrested 315 people for terrorism-related offences.

    That’s an increase of a third on the previous year and from just 121 five years ago.

    And we have stopped at least seven different attempts to attack the UK in the last 18 months alone.

    There have been 16 attacks in Europe over the past two years, most of them inspired or directed by Daesh.

    And the attacks in Paris in November 2015, in which 130 people died, showed what can happen when terrorists are successful.

    The terrorist threat now is not confined to Europe, or even just to the West.

    It is more sophisticated and more widely distributed.

    It could be a marauding terrorist firearms attack, as we saw in Paris.

    It might be an attack on transport, as we saw on the Russian MetroJet flight from Sharm El Sheikh or the attempted attack on the train travelling from Brussels to Paris.

    It could be a co-ordinated attack on a tourist site, as we saw at Sousse in Tunisia, or more recently at Bamako in Mali.

    Or it might be a knife attack, as we saw in Marseilles recently.

    The diversity of the threat, as well as its volume, is a serious challenge to us here, and to our allies around the world.

    The essential change in terrorism is the increasing adaptability of terrorists, and of Daesh in particular.

    It uses new technology, new methods.

    It is adaptable. And it revels in its own depravity.

    It has murdered hundreds of thousands of men, women and children – the vast majority of them practicing Muslims, the very people it claims to speak for.

    It operates in a way we have never seen before.

    We have never seen this number, demographic or range of ages of people travelling to take part in conflict.

    Daesh is responsible, directly or indirectly, for many of the attacks and attempted attacks that I have already mentioned.

    And far from being isolated in Syria and Iraq, its influence is spreading to groups worldwide – in Libya, in West Africa, in Afghanistan and beyond.

    But the other thing is that Daesh is not the only threat we face.

    Al Qaeda and its affiliates continue to pose a very real and very present danger.

    Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula took credit for the attack on the Charlie Hebdo magazine in January last year, in which 12 people died.

    It holds territory in ungoverned spaces in the Middle East.

    The Al-Nusrah Front, its affiliate in Syria, has combined success on the battlefield with an effective online media campaign and a presence on the ground in Syria.

    And AQ-M, its Africa-based affiliate, recently claimed responsibility for the attack on a Radisson hotel in Mali in November, in which 21 guests were killed.

    JTAC, the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre – experts who have access to the latest intelligence – assess that the threat to the UK is SEVERE, that means that an attack in the UK is highly likely.

    And they don’t take that judgment lightly.

    People should be alert, but not alarmed; watchful but absolutely sure of our resolve.

    So the threat is growing.

    More complex.

    And more diverse.

    It is for this reason that we should heed Hegel’s warning – to understand the world as it really is.

    I know there is no complete solution to the problem I describe.

    This is not a project.

    You can’t ascribe a specific timescale to it.

    These are unpalatable truths.

    But if we are to succeed, we need to confront that reality.

    Response

    Which is what this Government has done.

    Facing reality means disrupting terrorist attacks and those who help to support them.

    And we have.

    We have proscribed terrorists groups – 15, including 11 linked to Syria and Iraq.

    We have revoked British citizenship from individuals.

    Since May 2010, we have excluded over 100 hate preachers.

    In 2014, we withdrew or refused a British Passport 24 times under the Royal Prerogative.

    And, last year, we extended Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures, TPIMs, to include relocation powers to allow the police and Security Services to manage the risk from individuals we cannot prosecute or deport.

    Facing reality means being prepared to respond to attacks in the national interest.

    As part of the recent Strategic Defence and Security Review, the SDSR, we have done just that.

    We will continue to invest in capabilities to protect ourselves against terrorist attack.

    We will invest £1.9bn over the next five years in protecting the UK from cyber attack.

    More than double our spending on aviation security around the world.

    An additional 1,900 personnel for the security and intelligence agencies.

    Facing reality means reviewing, in the light of the attacks in Paris last year, our response to a marauding firearms attack by terrorists.

    Those attacks highlighted the challenges any country would face in managing multiple, concurrent incidents.

    But since then, working with other nations, we have pressed for stronger protective security, crisis response and border management, to stop the movement of people and weapons, to increase information sharing, to improve controls on firearms and to enhance aviation security.

    Investigatory Powers Bill

    Facing reality also means ensuring that the police and security services have the legislation they need to keep us safe.

    Powers that are necessary and proportionate.

    Having passed the Counter Terrorism and Security Act last year, we published in November a draft Investigatory Powers Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny.

    Communications and modern technology are at the heart of the threat we face, and so the heart of our response.

    Facing reality means knowing that these days terrorists, paedophiles, serious fraudsters scheme in cyber space.

    The web enables individuals the world over to communicate quickly, easily, often using encryption.

    It works across borders and across jurisdictions, just as the extremists who use it do.

    Difficult to detect and even more difficult to disrupt.

    Of course its global nature makes regulation problematic.

    Crucially, terrorists in Syria and Iraq can use the web to reach out using online communications to direct, enable and inspire individuals the world over to contemplate attempting, at least, murder and violence.

    Communications data matters – that is the who, where, when and how of a communication but not its content.

    It is a vital tool to investigate crime and protect the public.

    It has been used by every major Security Service counter-terrorism investigation over the last year.

    It is used in 95 per cent of serious and organised crime investigations handled by the CPS.

    It might be used to find a missing person, to establish a link between a suspect and a victim.

    It is used to investigate crime, to keep children safe, to check alibis and to tie a suspect to a crime scene.

    When offences such as fraud are committed online, it is sometimes the only possible way of identifying the offenders.

    It has been used in the investigation of many of the most serious and widely reported crimes against children, including the murder of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman, as well as the Oxford and Rochdale child grooming cases.

    Law enforcement capabilities are degrading due to rapid technological change and because more and more communications are taking place online.

    So, while this is important for our counter-terrorism efforts, that is by no means the only reason it is important and it is by no means the only reason why we are bringing forward legislation.

    Bernard Hogan-Howe, Metropolitan Police commissioner, has said that communications data is regularly used to tackle criminals whose activities affect the wider community, such as repeat burglars, robbers, drugs dealers. Put simply, the police need access to this information to keep up with the criminals who bring so much harm to victims and our society.

    But it is important that we appreciate why this legislation is itself important – and in particular how far we have come in ensuring that we have a legal regime that serves the interests of both privacy and security.

    We have provided more information than ever before about some of the most sensitive powers available to the security and intelligence agencies – including the use of bulk personal datasets and the acquisition of bulk communications data to thwart terrorist attacks.

    The draft Bill puts these capabilities on a clear statutory footing and makes them subject to robust, world-leading safeguards.

    The Parliamentary Joint Committee which looked into these matters in such very great detail – and I can see members of that committee in the audience here today – along with two other parliamentary committees who scrutinised the Bill, have made valuable recommendations about how the Bill could be improved and our proposals clarified. We are committed to ensuring the Bill receives maximum scrutiny.

    We remain committed to having new legislation on the statute books by the end of the year – a result of existing legislation falling away on 31 December.

    We will return to Parliament with a revised Bill.

    The draft Bill goes further than the current oversight regime.

    A double lock on ministerial authorisation of intercept warrant means that both judges and ministers will consider the evidence supporting warrants.

    For trust is the golden thread running through the viability of the new legislation.

    Which is why necessity and proportionality are the lodestars of the draft Bill.

    Prevent

    We cannot confront the reality of the threat we face without confronting the poisonous ideologies and extremist messages that underpin it.

    As we have seen time and time again in cases of young people radicalised here in the UK, it is also more insidious than ever.

    It is easy to assume the threat is elsewhere – is there – but in fact the threat is here and the threat is now.

    Daesh’s propaganda combines extreme violence and extremist messages with modern technology, using social media to reach out to young and vulnerable over the whole world.

    From their bedrooms they can access images of murder and brutality, messages of death and destruction.

    The Police Counter-Terrorism Internet Referral Unit is currently removing 100 pieces of Daesh or Syria-related content every day.

    And we have seen the impact that such material can have time and time again.

    To appreciate the impact of Daesh’s propaganda, take the case of a 14-year-old boy who, from his bedroom, plotted an attack on a parade in Melbourne.

    That plot, developed over the internet, sought to behead police officers.

    The child was recruited online by a known Daesh recruiter.

    He himself had reached out in turn online to a 16-year-old girl, who was subsequently found to possess extremist literature, bomb-making instructions and violent imagery.

    Had we not detected that young man’s plot, many would have been killed.

    Cases such as this demonstrate Daesh’s insidious, sinister, seductive appeal; its ability to inspire, as well as to direct, attacks; and the extraordinary difficulty in detecting what they plan.

    Because these two children were not battle-hardened foreign fighters; they were not individuals who had travelled to Syria; they were not career criminals.

    They were young people, in their homes, using the internet – like my children, like so many of our children.

    It is stories like this which make me so determined to counter Daesh and safeguard those at risk of being corrupted by it.

    We cannot afford to ignore what lies behind radicalisation and terrorism.

    We must identify, anticipate and counter the doctrine of our enemies and how it is proselytized.

    Through our Prevent strategy, we have built a unique model of partnership between Government, civil society and industry.

    It supports people who are vulnerable to being drawn into terrorism. And it works with sectors and institutions where there are risks of radicalisation.

    Last year, we supported 130 community projects, reaching over 25,000 participants.

    Over half of these were delivered in schools, aimed at increasing young people’s resilience to terrorist and extremist ideologies.

    Since April 2015 we have engaged in Prevent with over 285 mosques, 200 community organisations, 100 faith organisations, 800 schools and colleges and 40 universities. The Prevent duty, of course, has cemented all of this.

    Nurturing the common good in the national interest.

    Much has also been made of Channel, our voluntary programme to support those at risk of radicalisation. Contrary to what some have alleged, this is, as I said, a voluntary programme.

    And hundreds of people have been provided with support.

    I can tell you today that the vast majority of those who choose to participate in Channel leave with no further concerns about their vulnerability of being drawn into terrorism.

    Channel works.

    Take the teenager reported to the police for considering travelling to Syria. She had a difficult family life – domestic violence; a broken home; isolated, few or no friends.

    She had been subject to a serious assault. And perhaps unsurprisingly, she turned to the internet for religious guidance.

    That so-called guidance led to her supporting Daesh and advocating hatred for non-believers.

    Through Channel, however, she was able to rebuild her relationship with her mother, to address her religious concerns and build her self-esteem and self-confidence.

    Let me be clear.

    Prevent is about radicalisation. Prevent is about safeguarding.

    The most significant of these threats is currently from Islamist terrorist organisations such as Daesh.

    They are trying specifically to incite and recruit people of Muslim background, partly by distorting religion for their own ends.

    Clearly, we need to respond to that.

    We must protect those most at risk of radicalisation. But let me be equally clear – Prevent covers all forms of such activity, whatever its source.

    This is about safeguarding; about protecting the common good.

    Global response

    I said earlier that the threats we faced are global.

    A global threat necessitates a global response.

    It is for that reason that we are playing a leading role in the global coalition of more than 60 countries committed to defeating Daesh.

    The Coalition includes Iraq, partners in the Arab world, European nations and the United States.

    We are working to defeat Daesh on all fronts – not just military, but cutting off its finances, sharing counter-terrorism expertise and working to defeat its poisonous narrative.

    At the heart of our work is the need for a political solution in Syria that brings peace to the country and enables millions of refugees to return home.

    We are working with the UN and international community to bring this about.

    Daesh has a worldwide influence that reaches across states and reaches across borders.

    So our response also needs to be global, not just in the UK, not just in Europe, not just in Syria and Iraq. In particular, Daesh has a footprint in Libya.

    It is important that we continue to support efforts to establish a unified national government there.

    It is only when one is established can begin the difficult work of establishing in turn effective, legitimate governance, restoring stability and tackling the threat posed by Daesh.

    Defeating Daesh’s values

    I spoke at the start about understanding the world as it really is.

    And that, as I have said, means understanding the threat we face.

    It means recognising the changing reality that makes the Investigatory Powers Bill so essential.

    It means ensuring that we deal with the poisonous ideas that underpins Daesh’s appeal.

    That is what drives all we do.

    Not only does that mean keeping the UK safe, dealing with the severe threat.

    It also means ensuring we are winning hearts and minds.

    It means defeating Daesh’s purported values.

    Daesh claims to offer clarity and certainty.

    That we have little or nothing to offer.

    If we are to counter that claim, to succeed, we must be realistic about the challenge we face, and in response have a positive vision of the pluralistic society we value.

    Out of adversity comes an opportunity – for us, for the UK, to provide real leadership and to develop a common response to terrorism that crosses social, cultural and national boundaries.

    Tackling the problem at source means working with communities, through our Prevent strategy, and speaking out against those who would divide us.

    It means working with industry, including with major communications service providers, to ensure we all have the tools we need and that they are fulfilling their responsibilities.

    It means working at home and abroad – in Europe and beyond – to help them respond robustly to the threat.

    As I have said there are those who are set on destroying our values, on radicalising our young people, on killing indiscriminately across the globe.

    Out of adversity comes opportunity – for us, for the UK, to provide real leadership, to grasp that our certainty must outpace our adversaries, our commitment must out match those who want to harm us.

    Sure that our confidence that we will triumph outshines those whose dark dreams and deadly intent we face. Our clear purpose is to keep our people safe from harm.

    In this struggle for the national interest – our determined cause:

    We will be certain.

    We are committed.

    And I am confident.

    Thank you so much.

  • Nicky Morgan – 2016 Speech to the Association of Colleges

    nickymorgan

    Below is the text of the speech made by Nicky Morgan, the Secretary of State for Education, at Church House in Dean’s Yard, London on 24 February 2016.

    Thank you, Carole [Stott, Association of Colleges], for that kind introduction.

    It’s a pleasure to be speaking here to college principals, senior leaders and governors at this Association of Colleges event today.

    I’d also like to take this opportunity to extend my personal thanks to Martin Doel as he prepares to leave his role at the Association of Colleges.

    Martin, you have done a fantastic job of leading the sector through a period of substantial change, and I am grateful for the determined way in which you have represented your members’ interests while engaging constructively with the government.

    Although you will be missed, I look forward with interest to seeing your research as the Professor for Further Education and Skills at UCL’s Institute of Education.

    Our nation’s discussion on education is very often focused on schools.

    This discussion can sometimes sidestep the important role that further education and sixth-form colleges play in the education of our young people.

    The importance of your role is very clear.

    But before I discuss the importance of your role I would like to set out my position on something everyone is talking about right now and that’s Britain’s membership of the European Union.

    Like the Prime Minister I have made my position very clear: that Britain is stronger, safer and better off in a reformed European Union. I don’t believe that Britain would fail outside the EU but I don’t want Britain to be cut off from its partners in Europe either.

    I don’t want children growing up in Britain today to have their ambitions limited. They should have the freedom to study elsewhere in the EU, and be enriched by the thousands of students who choose to come here to study too.

    Our world is changing around us very quickly and we cannot allow ourselves to be cut off from our neighbours and partners in Europe if we want to realise Britain’s true potential.

    Realising potential is what further education and sixth-form colleges are all about. And that’s something I know as a constituency MP. Loughborough College plays a significant role in my local area. It has been inspiring to be a member of the steering group of their Bridge to Work programme which won an Association of Colleges Beacon award in 2013.

    Nearly half of all our young people choose to attend an FE college or sixth-form college after finishing their GCSEs, and alongside the rest of the school system, there have been some tremendous successes since 2010. Earlier this month, I was pleased to see the Association of Colleges host an event in Parliament to celebrate student success.

    And it was no surprise that there were many inspiring stories.

    Stories that showed the power of colleges in transforming the lives of young people.

    Students such as Hannah Cooper, from Amersham College, whose experience at college improved her confidence so much that she eventually led an award-winning young enterprise team.

    Or students such as young entrepreneur Callum Coles, from Cirencester College, who has developed an approach aimed at reducing drink-driving. In this case, the sector has provided the foundation for him to transform the lives of others.

    These are just 2 examples of the many successes that take place across the whole of the country. They serve to demonstrate the central role the sector must play in preparing our young people for adult life.

    Spending Review settlement

    That role in preparing our young people for adult life underpinned the strong Spending Review settlement secured for the sector. A settlement that saw:

    – the base rate protected for 16- to 19-year-olds

    – the core adult skills budget protected throughout this Parliament

    – sixth-form colleges given the option to become academies

    As a government we recognise that this settlement was important given the key role of colleges in driving economic prosperity, improving skills and raising productivity.

    Technical and professional routes

    However, we believe that the purpose of education is much wider than just making our young people economically productive.

    What does that mean for the sector?

    It means that a core academic grounding in maths and English remains crucial to the education of our young people irrespective of their post-16 choices.

    The huge increase in the numbers of young people who didn’t secure English and maths A* to C at GCSE at 16 who are continuing study is a triumph for the sector, and thousands more young people are now securing those good passes which will unlock movement to a range of skilled occupations.

    This increase is down to the hard work and dedication of teachers who work in this sector who work tirelessly to ensure these students don’t have their options narrowed later in life due to a lack of core skills. I want to say thank you to the whole sector for all their work in delivering this.

    And we want to encourage colleges to continue to enrich the experience of their students to give them the cultural capital to succeed.

    But, we always need to be honest with our young people.

    Focusing on developing the skills, knowledge and character traits that make them employable are important. It serves as a basis for securing a lifetime of sustained employment – which will support their own ambitions and their future family.

    That is why technical and professional education is so important.

    Over the last few years we have made great steps forward following the trailblazing Wolf Review. However, whilst standards are improving, the system remains confusing and unnecessarily complex.

    There are over 13,000 qualifications available to 16- to 18-year-olds.

    So I ask you:

    How can a student know what the best route is for their chosen career?

    How can a student know which qualifications will be most relevant?

    How can a student know what will be valued by potential employers?

    Simply put: it is very difficult.

    That is why we will be simplifying the over-complex skills system by creating up to 20 new technical and professional routes to skilled employment. Helping students to make the transition from compulsory schooling to employment with the right skills for their chosen industry.

    And we will do this in direct partnership with employers and want colleges to be involved. Ensuring the new system provides the skills valued by employers and the 21st-century economy.

    The routes will lead young people from compulsory schooling into employment and the highest level of technical competence. Routes will include apprenticeships, and for many an apprenticeship will be the best option, providing an opportunity to train directly in the workplace.

    I am grateful that Lord Sainsbury has agreed to lead an expert panel to make recommendations to government in this area. We are fortunate to have Bev Robinson from Blackpool and The Fylde College on the panel, and I know the panel and officials have been speaking with AoC members directly about their views.

    Engagement with employers and character

    This is the right approach for students, colleges and employers.

    But it won’t work without engagement by colleges with local employers and local enterprise partnerships. And many colleges do work with employers – for example Furness College in Cumbria and BAE Systems or Bridgewater College in Somerset with Mulberry. Household name employers want to work with colleges to access our best students and equip them for work in their industry.

    Students want to know that their college is working with potential employers in their region and that their curriculum is aligned with local enterprise priorities.

    Employer engagement will help students secure employment and they will be able to take their skills and use them in their local area to support productivity and growth.

    We know we lag behind our international peers – that’s why we launched the productivity plan in July, right after we returned to government.

    In a recent report on skills and employment in the UK economy, it was highlighted that this government has an excellent record on job creation, but there is room for further productivity improvements by developing the skills of our young people.

    One of the most interesting aspects of this report for me personally was that 2 types of skills need to be improved.

    The first are the technical and professional skills that will be addressed through our strategy on new technical and professional routes and requirements for English and maths.

    But the second are the softer skills – those that are often associated with the development of good character. The ability for students to get up and get on in the working world.

    I want our colleges to be places that develop the character of their students to prepare them for life in modern Britain. Character traits like:

    – self-improvement

    – determination

    – self-discipline

    And these are just 3 of the character traits associated with success.

    That is why we are committed to over 1 billion pounds of funding over this Parliament for the National Citizen Service to serve over 300,000 15- to 17-year-old students by 2020 after finishing their GCSE exams.

    Giving young people the chance to be informed and active citizens – understanding their responsibilities as well as their rights.

    We must work in partnership to deliver on the development of knowledge and skills but also on character education.

    And let me be clear: this is not a ‘nice to have’, it is a must have for students to succeed and realise their full potential irrespective of their background.

    I therefore have 2 challenges I want to put to you all as college chairs and principals:

    – work even more with employers to deliver the right skills for your students and local community

    – and develop the character of your students even more so they can succeed in the working world and be fully prepared for adult life
    Apprenticeships

    And, we can’t talk about technical and professional education routes without the discussing the critical importance of work placements and apprenticeships.

    Learning in the workplace is crucial for our young people – it provides them with hands-on experience and helps them develop the character traits needed for success in adult life.

    That is why this government is committed to a 3-million-apprenticeship-starts target by 2020. I want to see our 16- to 18-year-olds choosing apprenticeships and to help meet that ambitious target because apprenticeships are an option on par with higher qualifications.

    And I want to stress this now – we must make sure students are aware of all the options open to them. For some, it will be the academic route that leads to university. But for others, the technical and professional education provided through an apprenticeship or via classroom based provision with a work placement.

    The apprenticeships of today cover industries from across the whole economy. From engineering and construction through to digital marketing and fashion.

    There is no room for the outdated snobbery that apprenticeship and technical routes are somehow lesser.

    They are not.

    Colleges have always recognised that we need to cater for these students and with this commitment combined with our skills reform package we will continue to make great strides forward.

    And our skills reform package will be anchored in quality as supported by the Institute for Apprenticeships who will ensure the standards match the requirements of employers in every sector.

    However, when I look at the data right now – I see that only 37% of apprenticeship funding is going toward colleges, compared to 60% to independent training providers.

    Of course, competition is healthy for this sector. But, it is time for it to step up to the plate and forge lasting links with employers to be the ‘go to’ provider of apprentices in their local community.

    The apprenticeship levy shows this government’s commitment – and it opens opportunities for you to work with each other and engage with employers to offer the right apprenticeships for your local areas.

    I want to see this sector secure a larger share of that apprenticeship revenue stream and remain confident you can do it.

    Area reviews

    Part of that confidence is built on the constructive engagement we have had across the sector on area reviews. You all understand that we must have a further education and sixth-form college sector that is of high quality and are financially resilient and sustainable.

    And getting there will mean some difficult decisions.

    For some it will involve mergers to take account of scale economies or the ability to rationalise your estate. For others, it will be ensuring the curriculum is mapped with student and employer demands.

    We want to support you as you go through this process but we rightly recognise that this must be locally-led.

    High-quality leadership teams in financially resilient institutions will be able to deliver on our shared commitment to improve the skills and life chances of our young people. And I am pleased to see that the first wave of reviews are starting to produce those kinds of outcomes that will help meet these aims.

    Conclusion

    Further education and sixth-form colleges are central institutions to the education of young people: preparing them for adult life and developing the skills for a more prosperous nation.

    This government’s commitment to the sector through the Spending Review settlement, reform to technical and professional routes and target of 3 million apprentices; alongside your staff’s dedication and shared commitment to transforming the lives of young people is a partnership that will truly prepare our young people for adult life.

    Thank you.

  • David Cameron – 2016 Speech in Slough on the EU

    davidcameron

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Cameron, the Prime Minister, at O2’s Headquarters in Slough on 23 February 2016.

    Thank you, thank you very much. It’s great to be here in Slough, where so many – what? Hold on a second. This is actually the town where so many businesses have their European headquarters, where so many jobs have been created, and I think it’s a very good place to start the conversation we need to have over the next 4 months about whether Britain stays in the European Union or leaves.

    As Karen said, it’s also good to be starting in a telecoms company. This is a very successful business, but in an extraordinarily successful industry. 200,000 people employed in the UK: you account for almost 2% of our economy, so a great place to start.

    Now, in 4 months’ time, we’re all going to have to make a very, very big decision: does Britain stay in a reformed European Union or do we vote to leave? Now, you make decisions at election times, and I would argue this is a much bigger decision, because at election times, you can vote in a team of people, and if you’re fed up with them after 5 years, you can vote them out. Obviously, I don’t like that bit, but you can do that.

    This is a decision, though, that lasts for life. We make this decision, and it’s probably going to be the only time in our generation when we make this decision. And I was determined to make sure the British people had the very best possible decision. So what I’ve done for the last 9 months is to try and sort out some of the things that people are frustrated with, with the European Union. Because it’s not a perfect organisation; no organisation is perfect.

    And I thought that the 4 things that most frustrated people about the European Union was that it’s been too bureaucratic and not competitive enough, so we got a proper set of actions to make sure we take burdens off business and create jobs and sign trade deals around the world. I’ve sensed – and I think many people have sensed – that it’s been too much of a political union, too much about the politics, and not about creating jobs and prosperity. So we’ve got Britain carved out of an ever closer union, so we don’t have to take part in those things anymore.

    I’ve sensed – I think a lot of people have sensed – that it’s been too much of a single-currency club. The euro is tremendously important for those countries in it, but those countries out of it like Britain, we want to make sure we’re treated fairly inside the European Union, so we have fixed that to make sure we can never be discriminated against.

    And the fourth thing I wanted to fix was to make sure that, of course we have free movement in Europe: you can live and work and travel and retire in different European countries. But we need to take some of the pressure off in terms of migration, and specifically, we need to have greater control over our own welfare system. So I’ve managed to secure the agreement that people who come to Britain and work, they’re going to have to come and work for 4 years before they get full access to our welfare systems. Now, I’m not saying I’ve solved all the problems that Britain’s got with Europe, or all Europe’s problems, but I think this is a good basis to now ask people, ‘Do you want to stay in this reformed Europe or do you want to leave?’

    And I think when we come to this, the really big question, I think there are 3 very positive reasons for wanting to stay inside this reformed European Union. The first is, that I believe we’ll be better off, that we’ll create more jobs, we’ll create more livelihoods, we’ll see more investment, we’ll see more success for Britain. Why? Well, because we’re part, inside the European Union, of the biggest free-trade single market anywhere in the world: 500 million people, bigger than the US, bigger than China’s internal market. This is the wealthiest, strongest market in the world, and we have privileged access, without tariffs, the ability to trade and invest right across the EU.

    And I think about it from O2’s point of view. Because we’ve got a set of rules about telecommunications and mobile phones and the rest of it, that’s been good for business because we’ve been able to break down barriers in other countries and set up businesses in other countries. That’s good for jobs, because we’re creating more jobs, including right here in Slough. But it’s also good for consumers, because this competition inside the single market has actually driven down prices and it’s cheaper now; much cheaper to use a mobile phone today than it was a decade ago. And also, with the end of roaming, it’s going to be – which we’re getting in 2017, it will be cheaper still when you travel.

    So point one, I think we’ll be better off. Far better off inside the European Union. Three million jobs are dependent on our trade with Europe. Now, of course, not all the jobs would go if we left the European Union; we’d still do trade with Europe. But can we really put our hands on our hearts and say all those jobs would be safe, that we wouldn’t be disadvantaged if we were on the outside? I don’t believe we can, so we’re better off.

    The second reason is, I believe that we’ll be safer inside the European Union. We obviously face, in our world today, some very big threats in terms of crime and terrorism, and obviously the primary thing we do there is we have a strong police force, we have security and intelligence services, we work with our longstanding partners like America to try and keep our people and keep our country safe. But I can tell you, as your Prime Minister, I’ve seen so many times how the border information we exchange with other European countries, how the criminal records information we exchange with other countries, this helps to keep us safe.

    Let me just give you one example. We all remember those terrible days in 2005 when London was bombed by terrorists. The second time that was attempted, on 21st July, 1 of those bombers got out of the country, but because we were part of the European Arrest Warrant, we were able to get him arrested, get him back to the UK, and he’s now sitting doing a 40-year jail sentence. Before we had the European Arrest Warrant, before we had those arrangements, it could take years, sometimes as much as a decade, to get people extradited from other European countries back here, so we will be safer inside the reformed European Union.

    I also believe we’ll be stronger. I believe profoundly that Britain is not the sort of country that simply looks inward on itself. We know that we should have a role in the world, because we will be stronger and safer and better off if we can actually get things done around our world. And as part of the European Union, just as being part of NATO or part of the United Nations, we can get things done. How did we get those oil sanctions against Iran, so they gave up their nuclear weapons? We did that inside the EU. How have we made sure we’ve had a strong response to Vladimir Putin and what he’s trying to do in the Ukraine? We’ve had sanctions set out inside the EU. How have we stopped our ships being attacked as they go round the coast of Africa and Somalia? We’ve done that through NATO, but also through the EU. So I believe we are stronger in the world if we are part of a reformed European Union. So stronger, safer, better off.

    But I think we have to recognise in this decision you’re all going to take in 4 months’ time, that it is a choice. I’ve set out the positive choice of why I think we’re better off, stronger and safer, but we also need to ask ourselves, what would it look like outside the EU? And here I think we need some answers from the people making the other case, because right now, they’re not telling us what it’s going to be like outside the EU. I’ve looked at what the models are. You can have a situation like Norway. They sign up to all the rules of the EU, so they have to pay into the EU, they have to take migration from the EU, but they have no say on what the rules are. That seems to me a very, very poor deal.

    You could go to the other end of the spectrum, and say, as I think Mr Farage did yesterday, ‘Let’s just have the World Trade Organisation rules and be a member of the World Trade Organisation outside the EU, and see what that means.’ Well, what that would mean is, you’d start having to pay tariffs every time you export a car to Europe. Britain, for instance, is now the third largest manufacturer of cars in the EU: it employs 140,000 people. So I think we’ve got to look very carefully at these alternatives, because each one of them shares a key disadvantage, which is that basically, if you leave the EU, you no longer have any say over the rules, over the laws, over the way this market works, and we are, in the end, a trading nation where our businesses need access to that market and need a say over those rules.

    When all is said and done, it’s not going to be me that makes the choice; it’s going to be all of you. This is a referendum where every single vote counts the same. But I just make 2 final pleas to you. First of all, I think what we can have now is the best of both worlds. Inside the bits of the EU that work for us, inside the single market, inside the political cooperation to get things done, inside those things that keep us safe against terrorists and criminals, but not in the single currency, not in the Schengen no-borders system, not in an ever-closer political union. We have the best of both worlds.

    Final thing from me is that I feel very strongly about this. I feel that having spent 9 months trying to get us a better deal, securing that deal, and now with 4 months to go before this referendum, I feel with all I’ve seen in the last 6 years as your Prime Minister, the right decision is to stay in a reformed EU. I have no other agenda. I’m not standing as your Prime Minister at the next election. I’m simply going to speak for the next 4 months about the advantages I see of staying in and the dangers of coming out. But in the end it will be your choice, the British people’s choice. If you choose to stay in, we know what we get. If you choose to leave, I will put in place the arrangements as your Prime Minister that you asked me to do. But my strong advice, with all that I’ve seen and all that I know, is the right thing for Britain is to stay in a reformed Europe and to cast that vote on 23 June.

    Thank you very much and look forward to your questions.

    Now, we’ve got some time for questions if you put your hand up and there’ll be roving microphones and if you wait for those. You may not need them, but just in case.

    Question

    Hi there. Thank you very much. So just a quick question. Looking at BBC News the other day I noticed that the pound had gone down about 2% against the dollar. I just wondered what your thoughts were on the impact on the British economy based on the speculation of a Brexit or a British exit from the EU? Also, the kind of long-term impact of that and also the short-term impact of that, and I guess what you’re going to look to, to rectify that.

    Prime Minister

    Well look, I think it’s a very good point. I don’t think it’s necessarily right to speculate too much about what happens on the markets one day against another, but the government will want to set out very clearly what we think the economic impacts could be. Obviously we know if we stay in a reformed European Union we know what to expect. We know how the market works, we know how to sell our goods, we know how to create jobs, we know how the systems work. If we leave, there is this period of great uncertainty. And that’s why I think there could be a bad economic effect and what we’ll do is make sure that the Treasury and the Bank of England and other authoritative organisations set out the facts, set out the figures so people can make a judgement.

    But I think the reason why there’d be a bad effect is quite simple: if you leave, the process is you spend 2 years discussing the arrangements for leaving, and at the end of those 2 years, unless there’s unanimous agreement by the other 27 members, you’re automatically out of the European Union. And as you spend those 2 years negotiating what your position will be like outside the EU, you can’t really do the trade deals with other countries that we have today. So I think there’ll be big uncertainty for businesses. And that’s why I think, if you believe in voting to leave you’ve got to really believe it. You’ve got to feel very, very strongly this is the right answer because I think there’ll be a lot of uncertainty and businesses will be saying, ‘Well what are the rules for exporting, what is our access to the single market, how certain can we be?’ And that’s why I’m so pleased that O2 today has come out very strongly in support of staying in a reformed European Union. We’ve got 35 of the biggest businesses in Britain who’ve all said that they think Britain is better off. Nissan, the car company – and we make more cars now in the north east of England than the whole of Italy because of the great success of Nissan. And they’ve said this today, ‘For us, a position of stability is more positive than a collection of unknowns.’ And I think that is worth listening to.

    Obviously we’ve got to listen to other voices as well, but when we listen to businesses we’re not just listening to what some big business chief might say, we’re actually listening to the effect on jobs, to the effect on families’ finances, to the effect on the prosperity for our country and for all our people.

    Okay, let’s have a question from up here.

    Question

    What do you see the potential advantage is for us leaving? I know you talk about advantages of us staying, but if we were to leave, what would you see as the advantages?

    Prime Minister

    I think those who want to leave should speak about those, but chiefly what they point to, I think, is this idea that obviously if you leave the EU you are able to make more decisions for yourself because you’re not taking part in the decisions in the EU that cover a lot of areas of regulation or legislation, such as the laws that for instance govern mobile phones in Europe. I think, look, that is true but you’ve got to ask yourself, does that make you more powerful? Does it make you genuinely more sovereign? Because the fact is if you leave the EU the EU doesn’t cease to exist.

    So let’s take your industry. If we were to leave, you’d still have the European Union making rules about mobile phone coverage, technology and all the rest of it. We’d be on the outside and if we wanted to sell into the EU we’d still have to obey the rules that were being written. The difference is that we wouldn’t be writing them.

    Now some people say, ‘Yes, but you never get to write the rules, you’re not that powerful in Europe.’ Well Britain is the second largest economy, the second largest net contributor and we do make a real impact on those rules. In fact, I would argue, if you take your industry, if we weren’t there I think Europe would become probably more protectionist, less open, it’d be less easy for companies like O2 to break into other European markets. So I think what you’d be left with, if we were to leave, is a sense that you might feel a bit more sovereign about making your own decisions, but you wouldn’t actually be able to make the decisions that make a difference to people’s lives.

    So I think you get more power and influence in, than you get from the illusion of sovereignty out. But I think that’s going to be one of the key questions in this campaign.

    Let’s have one from the press.

    Question

    Thank you very much, Prime Minister. Listen, my question is this: a former Tory leader today, William Hague who knows all about splits on Europe, warned about the dangers ahead in the coming months, and that’s partly because a man who wants to be Tory leader, Boris Johnson, will be campaigning on the other side to you. When you said yesterday you have no other agenda, and you’ve repeated that here today, we all know you were talking about Boris Johnson, will you at least admit that?

    Prime Minister

    No, look I’m saying this because I feel this so strongly. Right? I’m not standing again as Prime Minister and I just want people to know that I am speaking about this issue after thinking about it very, very deeply. After thinking about all the things I’ve learnt as Prime Minister over the last 6 years.

    I think 6, 10, 15 years ago, I don’t think that I believed that Europe was as important to our security as I believe it is today because I’ve seen with my own eyes just how important this security and intelligence and sharing of information is.

    I’m not sure that 6 maybe 10 years ago I thought that Europe was quite so important for Britain getting things done in the world. I thought obviously NATO matters, our partnership with America matters, but I see and I’ve seen this for 6 years that if we want to fix stuff, whether it is trying to stop people smugglers in the Mediterranean, whether it’s trying to stop pirates off the coast of Africa, whether it’s confronting Iran about the nuclear programme, whether it’s trying to get better results in Syria, we gain by sitting round that table with the French, with the Germans, with the Italians and getting things done.

    Look, we can do great things on our own. We’ve got amazing armed forces, brilliant intelligence services, we’re the fifth biggest economy in the world, we’re a great power. But we get more by being in these organisations and I want to speak very clearly about that because I feel this, with my experience over the last 6 years, very, very deeply.

    Now let me say about Boris, I have huge respect for Boris as a politician. He’s a great friend of mine. He is a fantastic Mayor of London. I think he’s got a lot to give to the Conservative party. I think he’s got a lot to give to this country. But on this issue I think he’s got it wrong and I think he’s reached the wrong conclusion. So we’re going to have, I hope, a very reasonable, civilised argument, both between us and between other parties, and you’re going to find people with some fairly strange bedfellows. This is one where, you know, Jeremy Corbyn and I agree. I mean, we don’t agree about many things but we agree about this one.

    So we just have to have a debate, and yes of course it’s going to be a strong and a passionate debate, and I think he’s got this one wrong. And I would say to anybody who is thinking about this and is struggling to decide, because I think lots of people, I think we all feel quite conflicted. In all of us there’s a questioning about what’s the right answer for Britain. I would say: anyone who’s finding it hard to make up your mind, and you feel it’s a very balanced decision, I would say come down on the side of security and safety and certainty. Because in this reformed European Union we know what we get. We know what we get in terms of jobs and prosperity and security. Outside, what do we get? And I don’t think the people who want us to leave are spelling it out.

    Yesterday in Parliament it was quite interesting. Not only do the people who want to leave, not only are they not sure about what they want to do when they’ve left, i.e., do you want to have a Norway-style solution or do you want a world trade solution or do you want a trade deal? They haven’t worked that one out but they’re also not sure about how they even want to leave or indeed in some cases whether they really do want to leave. Some people are suggesting, maybe if we vote no, we can have a second renegotiation, we can have a second referendum, and I think that is a complete illusion. This is a straight decision: you stay in or you get out, and I think it’s misleading people if we pretend there’s some other answer here.

    So I think Boris has got this wrong. I have huge respect for him; I think he’s got a very strong future in British politics. But on this one, I think he’s made the wrong decision.

    Now, let’s have gentleman over here.

    Question

    Welcome to O2, Prime Minister. You mentioned the European Union, and you mentioned that the UK is the world’s fifth biggest economy, it’s the second biggest economy in the EU and the second biggest contributor. There are those who say that the EU cannot credibly continue without us in it, and that if we were to vote for Brexit, it would lead to the EU’s breakup, which the UK could end up being a haven for investors and so on. How would you respond to that argument? We hear a lot about the impact on the UK, but what do you think the impact could be on the EU and the implications for the UK if we vote for Brexit?

    Prime Minister

    It’s a very good question. I think the impact on the EU, I’d say 2 points about that. One is, I think it would weaken the west at a time of great concern and conflict. We’ve got Putin to the east, we’ve got Daesh in Syria and Iraq, and problems of terrorism. This – it’s a time, I think, for strength in numbers. It’s not a time for dividing the west. So in that respect, it would make the EU weaker and make the west weaker.

    But the other thing I’d say is, I don’t believe – some people believe if Britain left the EU, the whole thing would sort of collapse. I don’t think that is the case. I think actually, what would happen is the EU would probably become more protectionist. I think it would probably become more politically integrated. I think it would probably want to take even more decisions over people’s lives, and those decisions would affect us. I think this is one of the key points; one of my cabinet ministers said at the cabinet meeting, you know, ‘We’d all like to be in Utopia, but I guess when we get to Utopia, we might find the EU’s there already.’ You know, this thing doesn’t cease to exist because we leave it, and I think it would go in the wrong direction.

    And if you take your industry specifically, you know, Britain has been a great force in Europe and continues to be a great force in Europe for opening up markets, for saying that other countries should liberalise their telecoms sectors and allow in new companies, just as we’ve done here. And I think that if we’re not there making that point, less of that will happen, and that is bad news for British telecoms companies. So I think it would be a worse Europe if we’re not there, but at the same time, I think we’d be showing disunity at a time when we need strength in numbers for the security of our people.

    Let’s have a few more questions.

    Question

    Hi, Mr Cameron. We’ve obviously had the blond bombshell of Mr Johnson coming out and supporting the ‘leave’ campaign. Also, I noticed today that almost 2 thirds of FTSE 100 CEOs didn’t sign a letter to suggest we should stay in the EU. Are you concerned there’s increasing momentum going towards the ‘leaving EU’ campaign?

    Prime Minister

    I think it’s going to be a very hard-fought contest. I think that, you know, they’re very strong arguments on both sides; there’ll be very strong figures on both sides. But I think when it comes to business and industry, the overwhelming view I am getting is that British business, particularly those that trade a lot with Europe, really want us to stay in the EU. And for 35 FTSE 100 companies to come out and say this so clearly as they have today, I think that is a very positive, very clear decision by them and a very clear message, that they’re saying, ‘We’ll be better off if we stay in.’ And, you know, for companies these days to make a statement like that, they find that sometimes quite difficult; they have to go through corporate governance proceedings, board meetings, to make those decisions. And many businesses don’t want to get involved in any political issue.

    But I would say to them: this is not like a general election. It’s not about backing one team or another team. This is a decision that we’re going to have to live with in Britain for decades to come, and so if you have a strong view, you should make it clear. But I think it’s a – I can’t remember before 35 FTSE 100 companies coming out in this way quite so clearly. So I’m convinced the strongest arguments are on the ‘remain’ side, and I’m going to use everything I’ve got in the next 4 months to put those arguments, because I believe this is so important.

    Question

    Thank you very much indeed. Prime Minister, the business letter which was raised by the previous questioner, isn’t the era of business leaders telling the British people how to vote over? Shouldn’t this be a debate about the strength of people’s arguments, not their share prices?

    And secondly, if I may, can you just be more – answer that question a little bit more fully: why do you think so few other business leaders, those other 2 thirds, didn’t sign your letter? Because I know that you were hopeful that more would.

    Prime Minister

    Well, first of all, I would say it is a huge number of FTSE 100 companies, the 100 biggest companies in the country, coming out and being so clear that Britain is better off remaining in a reformed Europe. That’s a very clear statement. As I say, one of the reasons companies often find it hard to go forward is that they sometimes have to have board meetings and sometimes don’t want to make any form of political statement. But I can tell you this: if the ‘leave’ campaign could produce 35 business leaders of this statute – of this sort of stature, they’d be over the moon. And I don’t think they have the prospect of doing that with FTSE 100 leaders in any way like what has happened today.

    Now, I would argue, this is not business leaders telling people how to vote. This is simply people running some of the largest businesses in our country that employ over 1 million people between them, saying this has real consequences for our country, and if we care about jobs, if we care about investment, if we care about a strong British economy, then the right decision is to remain in the EU, and I would encourage, not just businesses, I’d encourage trade unions to speak out, I’d encourage voluntary bodies, non governmental organisations, universities, anyone who thinks this is important. If you think it affects your business, affects jobs, affects the way that you think Britain can do well or badly in the world, speak out. This is a really, really important decision. We’re going to take it in 4 months, and it’s going to last for decades, so I don’t think anyone should hold back. I’m certainly not going to hold back, and I think that anyone who thinks this is important: speak out.

    Question

    I was wondering if you could take us back to the moment when you found out that Boris Johnson was going to campaign for the other side, as you. How did you find out, and were you irritated or were you just disappointed?

    Prime Minister

    No, I – you know, I’ve been talking to Boris for many weeks about this issue. We’ve had lots of long conversations about it, lots of text messages and emails and face-to-face conversations about it. And look, I – of course I’m disappointed, because I want everyone possible to back my side of the argument, and I believe in it very passionately, and so obviously I’m disappointed. But I understand there are lots of people who, you know, have very strong views about this.

    But I would say to anyone who’s taking time to decide, who’s thinking about it and weighing it up and trying to work out what’s best, if you’re not certain, surely the best thing to do is to back the side that has the security and the safety and the certainty of what we know. Because it is undoubtedly true that voting to leave is a risk. Even if you think there’s going to be some great future at the end of the process – and I don’t buy that – there’s undoubtedly a period of risk and uncertainty. You’ve got two years when you have to negotiate what your leaving looks like. During that period, you can’t go around signing trade deals with other countries, and when you leave, what is your relationship going to be with the single market on which so many jobs depend? What will be the decision of businesses thinking about where to invest in Europe, about whether they should come to Britain?

    Here we are in a telecoms firm, but let’s take another example, let’s take financial services, an important industry. Right now, all those businesses know what they’ve got. They know that if you are located in Britain, because we’re a member of the EU, you can sell your services in every other EU country. Now, if we leave the EU, we may not have that, and so those companies, if they’re only based in Britain, would have to move some jobs into other EU countries. Overseas companies thinking of coming here would think, ‘Well, why come to Britain? Because I don’t get that right to passport all my services throughout the rest of the EU. I’d better go somewhere else.’ So it seems to me there’s a real danger of job losses, in that industry and in many others besides.

    Plus, I think you’ve got to think something else. If you’re not in the single market, what is the danger of the countries of the single market discriminating against you? Right now, we have recourse to stop that. Europe the other day did actually try, very annoyingly, to say that if you wanted to do complex deals in euros, you had to be in a eurozone country. That was really bad news for Britain but we fought it, through the courts, and we won, and in my renegotiation we’ve set out a principal that means that can never happen again. But leave the single market, leave the European Union, yes we’d still have a great financial services industry, London’s an amazing financial centre, but they could start discriminating against us from day one. And what recourse would we have?

    So these are the questions and that’s why I say there is uncertainty, there is risk, there is a leap in the dark if you leave the single market and leave the EU, so if you’re not certain, don’t leap. Stay with what we’ve got, knowing it’s going to get better because of the deal I negotiated with the EU which does address some of the biggest concerns we’ve had in our country.

    Let’s have a few more. Lady up here. Thank you.

    Question

    Hiya, so – so my question is in terms of common man like – I am not part of Britain, I come from overseas, so I see my neighbour who’s a Polish guy who’s getting more benefits than I’m supposed to get it, so what is it like?

    Prime Minister

    I think this issue about benefits and welfare and migration, I think is a really important issue and I’ll be very level with you: part of being in the European Union is accepting the free movement of people. That we are able, in Britain, if we want, to go and work and live, travel, retire in other European countries, and other European countries can come and do that here in Britain. So there is that free movement, but what there’s not is the free movement to go and claim benefits. If someone comes to Britain, if they – under all the rules I’ve changed, if they come to Britain, they can’t claim unemployment benefit for the time they come. If they haven’t got a job after 6 months, they have to go home because they can’t sustain themselves. And what we’ve now agreed is that if you come and work, you don’t get full access to our tax credits, our in-work benefits for 4 years. And also if you claim child benefit, you can only claim child benefit at a rate discounted for the country you come from. So I think these are good changes, big changes which will have an effect on this issue about welfare claiming and migration that I think has concerned people in our country.

    But I’m not saying we’ve solved all the problems, there still is pressure from freedom of movement and that’s why we’ve made some other changes as well, to make sure that if people have – are criminals, we don’t have to let them in, if there are people trying to do sham marriages, that we can deal with that. A whole lot of changes to free movement, and I think that’s really important because people want to know there’s a basic sense of fairness. And I would say the thing people most want to know is that there’s no something for nothing. You can’t come here and start claiming benefits straight away, you’ve got to pay into the system before you get out of the system. And that’s one of the things that my renegotiation has secured.

    Okay, let’s have a few more, let’s have the gentleman right here.

    Question

    I just wanted to kind of ask a question about ourselves as O2 and try and bring it to life in that sense. You might be aware that we’re being acquired by Hutchison at the moment, and BT EE’s transaction went through the CMA, it was all fine, and then because we’re foreign-owned, it’s going through a European Commission body and they – probably it was different political or whatever agenda to us. I’m just wondering if you think that’s a proof point of success?

    Prime Minister

    Okay, first thing is, the way this works is that mergers, over a certain size, are looked at by the European Union. It’s not because you’re owned by a foreign owned country, it’s because of the scale of the merger that’s being contemplated. Now I must make no comment on it, it’s not up to me, it’s up to independent competition bodies, both here in the UK and in the EU. So they will have to decide, and I was talking to your Chief Executive about this; they’ll have to decide whether it is good for competition and all the rest of it, or not.

    What I would say though, just come back to how this impacts your industry: this has been, and is, an unbelievable success story. You think about – go back 10, 20 years, how many people were employed in mobile telephony, now we’re talking about 200,000 people, the spawning of huge numbers of different industries around what you do, with all the games and the applications and all the rest of it.

    And I would argue that, for your industry, of course we’d still have a great mobile phone market in Britain if we were outside the EU, of course we’d still have great mobile phone companies, but would we have the opportunities to use these rules in Europe to break up the monopolies in other countries and make sure that O2 can be a success in those countries too? We wouldn’t, and I think they’d go in the opposite direction. And when I look around Europe and telecoms markets, so many of them are still dominated by the old legacy nationalised company. And actually we’ve shown in Britain that a more competitive market means lower prices, better services, much more innovation. And we want to drive that right across the EU. We’ve got a chance to lead the EU in this industry. Indeed, some of the best companies have been born and bred right here in Britain and I want them to be able to, you know, paint on the larger canvas and create the jobs, more of which we want to see here.

    Last question I’m afraid. Lady here.

    Question

    You’ve talked a lot about big business but I’m interested to know, as a strong supporter of small business, do you really think that being in the EU is better for them?

    Prime Minister

    Very good question. Okay we’ve done a lot of arguments about a big company like O2, and what it means. What about small companies? I’d make a couple of points. First of all, about 1 in 5 small companies export, and most of them will be exporting to Europe as well as other countries. And there the same arguments apply. If you are going to sell into Europe, you’ve got to meet the rules of the single market. So if you’re outside the EU, you still have to meet those rules, but you have no say on what they are. And I think Britain can be a force for good, in Europe, in terms of making sure the rules are fair, and making sure we cut bureaucracy. And one of the things I secured in my agreement, the special status for Britain, is that we are going to have targets to cut bureaucracy in each of the main business areas, which I think will help small business.

    I’d also make this point: many small businesses that don’t export are part of a supply chain with companies that do export, and so I think that the idea that there are two sorts of businesses, one entirely domestic and one international and exporting, I think is rather out of date.

    Now those who want to leave will argue of course if you’re outside the EU then you’ve got to meet the single market rules when you sell into Europe but you could deregulate your rules here in the UK. But there I would say: is that really worth that much? When you look at all the international surveys, they say that Britain is one of the best places in the world to start a business, to run a business, to comply with regulation and the rest of it. So I don’t think the benefit you get out of being outside the EU, on that basis, is worth anything like the giving up of the influence and the rules in the single market on which we do rely. The figures are very straight forward: 50% of what we export goes to other EU countries; 7% of what they export comes to us, so when some people say, ‘Well we’ve got a trade deficit with Europe, so they need us more than we need them,’ I think they’re making a mistake.

    We obviously are a global country, we trade all over the world, we’ve doubled our exports to China, and we need small businesses to play a part in that too. And we shouldn’t be choosing between either doing better in the Far East, the Middle East, China, America, the Commonwealth, we shouldn’t be choosing between that and doing well in Europe. We should try and do both. Let’s be in the single market, trading effectively with other European countries and increasing jobs and growth. And at the same time getting out there and taking on the world in the way that we have with China and India and other countries.

    Look I really enjoyed coming today, thank you for being so patient with me and thank you very much indeed. Thanks a lot.

  • Andrew Jones – 2016 Speech on the Buses Bill

    andrewjones

    Below is the text of the speech made by Andrew Jones, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Transport, on 23 February 2016.

    Introduction

    Thank you for the chance to speak this evening (23 February 2016).

    It’s a really opportune time to be speaking in Parliament about road passenger transport, and in particular, about buses. Because we will shortly introduce the government’s Buses Bill: the first bus-specific legislation in living memory. So tonight is a good opportunity to say the latest on what the bill will contain.

    Background to the bill – 3 principles

    But first, I would like to set out some of the thinking behind the bill. It’s a bill that has been informed by three principles.

    Our first principle is simply this: that people using buses is a good thing. Bus services offer huge public benefits. They help people get to the shops and to work, boosting our economy. They enable people to visit friends and family, building social links. And buses can reduce air pollution, helping our environment.

    So our second principle is that, given we want to see people using buses, local areas should have the best possible tools for supporting and increasing that bus usage. Over recent decades, the trend in numbers of people taking the bus is patchy. There’s regional variation. Some places have seen declines. In others there’s been a rise. Either way, it’s clear that the tools local areas have at their disposal to increase bus usage, such as the quality contracts — introduced in 2001 but still never successfully used — are insufficiently effective. So we believe there’s a case for local areas to have some new options, even if those options won’t be taken up in every area.

    And that leads to the third principle informing the bill: the principle of devolution. Devolution is an underlying theme of this government. And not just in transport. You can see it in free schools, academies, the scrapping of centrally-set targets for local authorities, and directly elected mayors. It’s because people want more of a say in the decisions that affect them. And there’s an appetite for political power to become more local. So we’ve agreed devolution deals with Manchester, Liverpool, Sheffield, and several other areas. And these places have told us that, for devolution to reach its full potential, they need greater choice over how local transport works. To have the choice, for example, to link bus routes to local economic development, such as new housing, and new business parks.

    Open data

    So those are the principles that inform the content of the Buses Bill. And those principles are why the bill will include a requirement that operators make data about routes, fares and times open and accessible.

    It is in everyone’s interests for people to know as much as possible about the bus services in their area. So through open data, app makers will be able to develop products that passengers can use to plan their journeys and give people the confidence to leave the car at home and take the bus instead.

    New partnerships

    The bill will also introduce new arrangements for local authorities and bus operators to enter into partnership with one another; to agree their own standards for all services in their area; perhaps focusing on frequency and reliability along a particular route or transport corridor; or setting emissions standards to improve local air quality; or introducing common branding, marketing and ticketing rules over a wider geographical area.

    This new partnership approach won’t be right for every area. And sometimes, there will be a case for more radical change. For example, some of the things that some local areas want can be difficult to deliver in a fully de-regulated bus market — such as a single fare structure across different operators and transport modes.

    Franchising

    So the bill will honour our devolution deal commitments to give local authorities the choice to use new powers to franchise bus services in their areas. I want to keep the good parts of the quality contract scheme process, which at least forces people to think things through properly. But I want to lose the parts which don’t work, such as the excessive cost and the bureaucracy. The decision to take up these new powers will be for local areas to take. Ministers might have a role in granting the powers in the first place — as they presently do through the devolution deal process. But once a local area has these powers, the decision to use them will be theirs and theirs alone.

    As you would expect, local areas will need clear arrangements for ensuring the powers are used accountably, the capability to meet their promises to passengers, and a system that does not disadvantage bus services that cross local or national boundaries. Yet we certainly do not foresee a one-size-fits-all approach in every area. Some local authorities may want to introduce newly-integrated, uniformly branded networks of services, much like you see in London. Others will just want to build and improve on what’s already there. Whatever approach is chosen — and that will be a local decision — we want to ensure that bus operators and the wider supply chain have as much notice of change as possible, and that the effects on small operators are considered properly.

    What the bill will not do

    So that is what the bill will do. Yet before concluding, I would also like to set out what the bill will not do.

    First, and for the benefit of the coach operators in the room, it will not affect long-distance coach services. Nor will it affect coach hire services. It will only to apply to local bus services. And even then, its effect will differ from area to area. Because the bill will be an enabling bill. It gives local authorities new choices about how they can improve bus services. But it does not impose those choices. In many cases it may be better to leave things just as they are. For those cases, our message will be – if it isn’t broken, don’t fix it. The status quo is acceptable too.

    And finally, neither will the bill give local authorities new powers to take bus operators’ assets, such as vehicles or land. Oversight of anti-competitive behaviour will be left to the Competition and Markets Authority — exactly where oversight lies at the moment.

    Conclusion

    So I hope that summary of the bill, of the thinking behind it and its contents, has been helpful.

    We will introduce the bill soon — as soon as we’ve finished the legal drafting and we have been allocated Parliamentary time. But one thing’s certain. Every member of this House knows how important bus services are to their constituents. So we can expect some really thorough debate on the bill before it obtains Royal Assent If we get it right, passengers will benefit. And so, I believe, will the bus industry.

    Thank you.

  • Sajid Javid – 2016 Speech on British Manufacturing

    Below is the text of the speech made by Sajid Javid, the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills , at the QEII Conference Centre in London on 24 February 2016.

    It’s great to be here this morning.

    And it’s great to see so many of the sector’s leading lights coming together to answer the big questions of our time.

    What does the future hold for British manufacturing?

    Can we compete in the face of cheap imports from emerging economies?

    And are there any factories in the UK that haven’t been visited by George Osborne?

    Apparently there’s a whole website devoted to photos of the Chancellor wearing hard hats and high-vis jackets…

    We’re British.

    And, as you have just heard from the Prime Minister, that means we make things.

    We always have.

    We always will.

    We invented modern industry, and we’ve played a role in countless technological leaps forward since.

    We can be proud of our manufacturing heritage.

    And we should be equally positive about Britain’s manufacturing future.

    Sadly that doesn’t seem to be a fashionable thing for politicians and commentators to say right now.

    Sometimes I turn on the radio or open the newspaper and all I get is negativity, people talking you down.

    “Manufacturing is in terminal decline,” they say.

    “We don’t build anything anymore.”

    “We’re just a service economy.”

    Nonsense.

    When I look at manufacturing, when I look at the people in this hall, I don’t see malaise.

    I don’t see failure.

    I see people who are creating jobs, creating growth.

    I see the people who are building what Britain needs and what the world wants.

    Yes, the first decade of this century was one of industrial decline in Britain.

    But over the past 6 years, manufacturing output is up.

    Jobs are up.

    Exports are up.

    Britain’s manufacturing base spans almost 90,000 employers and provides work for millions of people.

    Just this morning, we’ve heard that Aston Martin is creating 750 skilled manufacturing jobs in Wales.

    Foreign direct investment is up more than 60% since 2010.

    You represent the most innovative and intensive R&D sector in the UK, accounting for £13 billion of investment each year.

    And over the past decade manufacturing productivity has increased 3 times faster than the economy as a whole, something reflected in today’s EEF report.

    2015 was the most successful year ever for our £23 billion aircraft industry, with delivery numbers up 44% since 2010.

    A new car rolls off a British production line every 20 seconds, with 80% destined for export.

    The world flies in British-built planes and drives British-built cars.

    And as I never get bored of pointing out, the Australians are throwing British-made boomerangs.

    I know that not all British manufacturers are part of this boom.

    Unprecedented conditions in the international steel market have had a devastating effect on too many British communities.

    And the recent announcement by Bombardier was absolutely crushing for hundreds of skilled, hardworking people in Belfast.

    As we have repeatedly shown, when such challenges arise this government will do everything within its power to support the companies and people affected.

    And that includes not talking down the rest of the sector.

    Not losing sight of the fact that British manufacturing can boast success after success.

    It’s a sector we should all be proud of.

    And in the EEF it has a very worthy champion.

    The challenge is to maintain that success in a period of rapid technological change.

    Whether you call it ‘Industry 4.0’ or the ‘fourth industrial revolution’, it’s impossible to deny that the way in which we live and work is undergoing a seismic shift.

    While that can bring incredible benefits for the consumer, we have to acknowledge that change is also going to disrupt the workplace.

    As long ago as 2013, Oxford academics warned that half of all jobs could be computerised within the next 2 decades.

    Last year, McKinsey said that 45% of current jobs could be adequately performed by technology that already exists.

    The University of Massachusetts has even created a computer programme that can write and deliver speeches for politicians!

    If you see a machine being lined up to take your job, it’s little consolation to know that the resulting rise in productivity will help the overall economy.

    But again and again through the history of manufacturing, we have seen how new inventions, new ideas and new technologies actually create new opportunities for workers.

    We just can’t always see what they are until they arrive.

    After all, the job descriptions of the future have yet to be written.

    The role of government is not to stand on the beach and attempt to turn back the tide of change.

    It’s to do all we can to help you ride the wave it creates.

    Minimising the negatives while making the most of the limitless opportunities on offer.

    But I’m not going to stand here and tell you how you should respond to this change.

    There are a lot of important and influential individuals speaking here today.

    A lot of very clever people.

    But no politician or journalist or think-tank wonk knows manufacturing like you do.

    Only you can decide the right way forward for your business.

    Only you can make the most of the opportunities brought by new technology and new insights.

    And only you can navigate the risks.

    That doesn’t mean you’re entirely on your own.

    For one thing you have the EEF supporting you.

    And you also have a Business Secretary who is on your side.

    Manufacturing matters to Britain.

    It matters to this government.

    And it matters to me personally.

    Manufacturing is in my blood.

    Fifty-five years ago, in 1961, my father Abdul landed in this country for the first time.

    He headed north to Lancashire, then the home of countless cotton mills.

    And every morning he got up, and he queued outside one of those mills.

    And eventually the foreman invited him in and offered him his first job.

    Fast forward a decade, and the soundtrack of my childhood was the clattering of my mother’s Singer sewing machine.

    She was making the clothes to be sold on my dad’s market stall.

    So I grew up in a home where manufacturing was the bedrock of success.

    A home where we had what we had because my parents made things.

    And I will never forget the lessons I learned there.

    That’s why I know how vital your work is.

    That’s why I’m absolutely passionate about what you do.

    And that’s why I’m proud to say that I respect the EEF, I listen to what you have to say and I act on it.

    Earlier this month an EEF survey found that half of companies say their internet connectivity, while fine for now, will not be suitable for their future needs.

    Off the back of that survey, the EEF called for a government review of business broadband.

    Today, I can announce that that’s exactly what will happen.

    Working alongside the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, we will look at the broadband speeds that businesses need now and in the future.

    We will look at the barriers that exist for businesses to get the affordable, high speed broadband they need.

    And we will look at the whole issue of leased lines and the role they play in the market.

    In doing so, we will take in to account Ofcom’s review of digital communications, which will be published tomorrow, and its review of leased lines, to be published next month.

    We recognise that leased lines need to be competitively priced.

    We want to see charge controls on leased lines where appropriate, and, of course, we want to see more competition in the provision of broadband services and products.

    Of course, that’s not all we’re doing for manufacturing.

    We’re also investing in your future success.

    We’ve had to make a lot of tough decisions over the past 6 years, to get the economy back on track.

    But I’m not afraid to invest where it can really make a difference.

    I know that the inspired ideas of today are the profitable businesses of tomorrow.

    So at last year’s Spending Review I was proud to secure an investment of almost £7 billion as part of the national science capital commitment. The highest ever. And I also won protection for the annual £4.7 billion government funding for science, research and development.

    We also fund a third of the High Value Manufacturing Catapult, which has seen £300 million invested in just 5 years.

    The Catapult helps manufacturers turn innovative research into real-world success.

    And when you achieve that success, when your new product starts making money, I don’t believe you should be penalised for it.

    Your profits should go to you – not the government.

    So we have the lowest corporation tax of any G7 nation.

    We’re reviewing business rates.

    And we’re using the tax system to encourage and support the kind of cutting-edge thinking that makes British manufacturing a world leader.

    Since last month the annual investment allowance has been set at its highest-ever permanent level, £200,000.

    The Research and Development Tax Credits scheme underpins work worth more than £14 billion at more than 18,000 companies.

    It’s backed up with the Patent Box, offering a significantly reduced corporation tax rate for companies that invest in new ideas.

    One thing I’m never going to let the state do is strangle innovative manufacturers with red tape.

    Never mind the fourth industrial revolution…

    Sometimes feels like there are corners of Whitehall where they’re still getting to grips with first one!

    And if government regulators attempt to keep up with the pace of change in manufacturing and industry, only one thing will happen.

    A blizzard of directives, outdated before they’re even published, will stop innovative manufacturers in their tracks.

    You can’t write a rule book for ideas that haven’t been thought up yet.

    But that doesn’t have to mean a free-for-all that puts workers and consumers at risk.

    Look at our approach to driverless cars.

    They clearly have a major role to play in the future of global transport, and I want Britain to be right at the forefront of their development.

    So rather than imposing a complex web of regulations for developers and manufacturers, we’ve created a simple code of conduct that ensures basic safety standards are met.

    There’s no doubt that manufacturing is moving forwards, and that the government is doing all it can to support that.

    But for too long the way we look at and measure what you do has been stuck in the past.

    Looking at the raw output figures and concluding that manufacturing represents 10% of our economy is far too simplistic.

    In a complex, intertwined global economy we have to recognise the whole of the manufacturing value chain.

    That is, all those activities that take place upstream and downstream of production.

    So I welcome the independent metrics report undertaken by Professor Sir Mike Gregory and his expert team, and published today on GOV.UK.

    Mike and his team looked at opportunities for improving our understanding and measurement of modern manufacturing activity and they’ve developed a number of interesting proposals.

    These include a representation of the manufacturing value chain that suggests it provides employment to more than 5 million people; pilot exercises testing the potential of data analytics to supplement national data and provide new insights on modern manufacturing activity; and, for the first time, a detailed looked at digital-era business models and their interaction with the value chain.

    When we underestimate the contribution manufacturers make to the economy, we are doing you all a disservice.

    Sir Mike’s review isn’t an attempt to move the goalposts or fiddle the figures.

    It’s about giving you the credit you so richly deserve.

    The mill my father worked in has, like many others, long since closed its doors.

    But that doesn’t mean Britain no longer manufactures textiles.

    Today, we have companies like Unmade.

    Run by a trio of Royal College of Art graduates, Unmade uses the latest technology to let shoppers customise and manufacture their own unique knitwear.

    Everything is bespoke, with zero waste and a minimum commercial order of one.

    Yes, it’s still a small, niche business.

    But as I always say, even the biggest company started out as one or two people with an idea and the get-up-and-go to make it happen.

    And Unmade is an important example.

    Because the future of British manufacturing is not a race to the bottom against emerging economies with standards as low as their prices.

    The future lies in quality and innovation.

    In doing things other countries simply haven’t figured out how to do yet.

    You can’t undercut ideas.

    The industry in which you work is changing.

    But we cannot allow British manufacturing to be left behind.

    And I will not allow British manufacturing to be left behind.

    You led the world before.

    In many areas you lead the world today.

    And, as Business Secretary, it is my personal mission to see that you continue to lead the world for many years to come.

    Thank you.

  • Nicky Morgan – 2016 Speech on a World Class Education System

    nickymorgan

    Below is the text of the speech made by Nicky Morgan, the Secretary of State for Education, at the Guildhall in London on 23 February 2016.

    My Lord Mayor Locum Tenens (The Lord Mayor Locum Tenens, Alderman Sir David Wootton), ladies and gentlemen.

    It’s such a pleasure for me to be back in the City [of London], where I worked from 1994 to 2010, and with Sir David who is a partner at one of my previous firms, Allen and Overy.

    We live in an ever-changing world. Globalisation means that we are competing with economies old and new.

    Emerging economies continue to grow and developed economies continue to be adaptive and productive. Despite the fact that Britain was the fastest growing economy in the G7 in 2014 to 2015, it is still sadly true that the productivity gap between the UK and the other G7 countries is currently 17%.

    We have to make sure that we are harnessing all our talent because, in 21st-century London, our children compete for jobs with the best and brightest from across the world.

    The smartest European graduates work for British banks. Talented coders come from American universities to Aldgate, to work for Über. And if we are going to prepare the next generation to succeed in that global race we need to give them a great education.

    But before I go on to talk about the education system we are trying to build, I also want to talk about another major issue that will, I believe, define the opportunities available to the young people of today when they reach adulthood.

    And that is Britain’s membership of the European Union.

    One of the key reasons I will be campaigning for a remain vote, is that I believe the next generation will be stronger, safer and better off in a reformed Europe.

    I want our next generation to be able to take advantage of the opportunities access to the single trade free market brings: jobs, investment, lower prices and financial security.

    The alternative is to take a leap in the dark – risking our economic security with years of damaging uncertainty when our young people are looking to take their first steps in life, but also, a Britain cut off from the world, where the next generation’s prospects are limited and their opportunities end at our shores.

    Of course, we could survive outside of the EU, but given the benefits it brings for businesses and employers and the security and safety it offers, why would we risk the years of uncertainty that would follow a vote to leave?

    Now, ultimately, the decision won’t be taken by me or any other politician, because the Prime Minister has delivered on his commitment to hold an in/out referendum, where the British people will decide whether to remain or to leave.

    But there is no doubt that the result will clearly have significant consequences for the City of London and I would urge you to make sure your voice is heard on 23 June.

    But even more important than our role in Europe – and I know with the 24-hour rolling media coverage it’s hard to imagine there could be anything else going on in our country – is how we prepare the next generation to compete with their peers from across the world.

    And I’m afraid to say that our record as a country was, until very recently, simply not good enough.

    When we entered government 6 years ago the gap between our highest and lowest performing pupils was substantial compared to other countries; our secondary school leavers performed poorly in internationally benchmarked tests; and performance in England was more strongly associated with pupil background than in many other countries.

    What is more, according to the 2013 OECD survey of adult skills, England was the only country in the developed world where the literacy and numeracy levels of 16- to 24-year-olds were no better than amongst 55- to 65-year-olds.

    In all other nations, the basic education of the general population had improved between the generations – but not ours.

    To put it bluntly: we just weren’t keeping up. And we knew why.

    In 2010, we inherited an education system which was more concerned with league tables than times tables; which offered low-quality vocational qualifications that didn’t lead to a job simply because they boosted performance on poorly designed measures; where an ‘all must have prizes’ culture prevented the pursuit of excellence; and where the centralised structure and bureaucratic control of schooling stifled the sort of leadership and classroom innovation necessary to drive improvement.

    That’s why when we came to office in 2010 we embarked on one of the boldest and most radical reforms of the education system in our history.

    Because we owed it to our young people to tackle the soft bigotry of low expectations, and to give them the education they deserve – an education that would help them to realise every ounce of their potential.

    For years, the proportion of pupils taking core academic subjects to GCSE had been in decline. To combat this, we introduced the English Baccalaureate measure in 2010, which shows the proportion of pupils in a school being entered for a combination of GCSEs in English, mathematics, science, history or geography, and a foreign language.

    The proportion of pupils entering this EBacc combination of subjects nationwide has risen from 23% in 2012 to 39% in 2015 and we are now setting an ambition to get that number to 90% – not because other subjects aren’t important, far from it – but because we think that every child who is able should benefit from studying that rigorous academic core that will help them succeed in further study or the world of work.

    For me this is a matter of social justice.

    I don’t want to hear about young people for whom certain careers were taken off the table because they were never offered the subject options they should have been.

    Just imagine the talent we could be missing out on if we limit the capacity of our young people to succeed in what they are good at.

    At the same time we stripped 3,000 low-value qualifications from the performance tables and replaced them with new courses which have been designed in conjunction with employers – the people who know what young people really need when they leave education.

    And London has led the way on rigour from the very start, with its schools adapting their curriculums faster than nearly all other regions.

    By 2014 London was the top region in England for take up, with almost 50% of students taking all the EBacc subjects – what a fantastic achievement that is!

    Of course we know that exam success and qualifications alone are not enough.

    Business leaders – big and small – told us time and time again that they wanted young people to enter the world of work with the character traits that were an essential component to success.

    So we have encouraged schools to develop pupils who are confident, motivated and resilient, and who will get on better in both education and employment.

    Many schools already work to develop character among their pupils.

    Schools like School 21 in Newham which is developing the attributes of grit, spark and eloquence in its pupils through an intense focus on speaking skills and coaching.

    And the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson School in Islington which has partnered with the Hogan Lovells law firm and Crossrail to develop a programme of character-building challenges from years 7 to 9.

    To support other schools to follow their example we have invested £5 million in character education and supported projects to help build resilience and grit, from competitive sport to work experience and links with local business.

    We have developed the Character Awards to celebrate those schools which excel in moulding confident and self-assured young people.

    But perhaps the most important ingredient of our school reforms hasn’t come from government at all, it’s come from the heads and teachers on the frontline – the people who know best how to run their schools.

    That’s why at the heart of our reforms has been a determination to liberate schools to innovate and deliver what really works.

    The hugely successful academies programme has freed schools from the bureaucratic one-size-fits-all approach of the past.

    And schools have embraced the freedom and trust that we have given them with extraordinary results.

    Were I to ask you where you would find the best non-selective state secondary school in the country today, according to the 5 A* to C GCSE measure, you may assume the answer would lie in a middle class suburb, or a pleasant rural town.

    But you would be wrong.

    According to this measure, the best school in England is situated in one of the most disadvantaged London wards for child poverty where 41% of the school’s pupils are eligible for free school meals – almost 3 times the national average.

    Yet at this school, King Solomon Academy, 95% of pupils gained 5 good GCSEs in 2015, and 77% of pupils passed the EBacc, an achievement which would have been branded impossible at the time of their opening in 2009.

    The school was founded by a 28-year-old head named Max Haimendorf, and from its inception he has used academy freedoms to break from the standard practices of English state schooling.

    The behaviour and ethos of King Solomon Academy is modelled on the ‘no excuses’ approach of American charter schools, and this is coupled with a deep concern for the well-being of the pupils.

    As our free school and academy reforms mature, I am certain that we will see, and in fact we are already seeing, more brave and free-thinking school leaders, like Max, whose pupils achieve previously inconceivable feats under their charge.

    In turn, these schools act as beacons to others – providing a model of improvement that they can follow.

    I am delighted that we now have 5,500 academies in this country – with 65% of secondary schools and 18% of primary schools having the freedom that academy status brings – able to shape education in their own vision in line with what their parents want and their pupils need.

    That’s why we have committed to ending the role of the local authority in our schools.

    And because we wanted to empower parents even further to demand more for their children – and to give brilliant teachers and local communities to open their own schools, we have introduced the free schools programme – not only to address the shortfall of places we inherited, but also to drive up standards and unlock innovation.

    And we know they work.

    Despite half of all the 304 open free schools being located in the most deprived communities in our country, 25% of those inspected are rated outstanding by Ofsted, compared to 19% of all inspected state schools.

    That’s why the Prime Minister and I have committed to creating 500 more free schools by 2020.

    And I am excited to see that the City of London Corporation will be contributing to this number with Galleywall Primary set to open in Southwark in September, closely followed by the City of London Primary in Islington in 2017.

    Two more schools to add to add to their current 4 – all of which are rated ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’ by Ofsted.

    To date, there are now 1.4 million more children in good or outstanding schools compared with 2010, but we aren’t complacent about what is left to do.

    With our mandate in government we want to spread educational excellence everywhere.

    We believe passionately that if our education system is to succeed as a whole, then the features that currently define the best of our schools must become the norm in the rest of our schools.

    London has made truly astounding leaps and bounds in the quality of its education in recent years – but our belief in social justice must drive us to make sure every child gets access to an excellent education, no matter where they are or where they come from.

    We have to harness every ounce of talent that our children have if we want to compete on the global stage, whether they come from Hackney or Hartlepool, Battersea or Bradford.

    Other countries won’t be leaving their talent to flounder, simply because of where a child happens to be born, and neither should we.

    We have done more than any government before us to bring the best from the outside world into our education system.

    Inspiring charities, great British institutions and successful businesses are all rolling up their sleeves to get involved in this national mission.

    You can play an important role in shaping, leading and focusing our schools and colleges, and in helping young people to enter the world of work with the knowledge, skills and character traits that allow them to prosper.

    I know that many of you here today are already involved and I can’t thank you enough – but we need more of you and your friends and colleagues to come forward.

    We already have great headteachers in the system, but what we need is the skill that comes from running a successful organisation: clear mission and purpose, strong governance, innovation, sharp accountability and excellent finance and risk management.

    This is what Sir Clive Bourne brought to Hackney when he decided to sponsor one of the first city academies back in 2004.

    Clive, an Eastender who left school at 15 and built up a successful overnight parcels business, desperately wanted to bring educational opportunity to the area in which he grew up.

    As a magistrate in Newham, he often saw the dire consequences of there being so little.

    This combination of moral purpose and business acumen led to the creation of a school which would combat the low expectations, poor behaviour and dumbing down that had so long been synonymous with inner-city schools.

    Named after Clive’s father Moss, Mossbourne is now one of the best schools in the country, sending a steady stream of pupils every year from east London to Oxbridge and other Russell Group Universities.

    Sadly, Clive Bourne died before he was able to see the full flowering of his efforts, but what a wonderful legacy to have left London.

    Speak to others involved in the academies programme, and they will all tell you of the immense fulfilment that comes from taking the skills and knowledge gained in other walks of life, and applying them to improving our schools system.

    There are two clear ways that I am asking you to come forward and play a role in the renewal of England’s education system:

    – As a fully-fledged sponsor directly involved in the running of schools following the example set by organisations like Dixons, BAE and Rolls Royce or Lord Harris of Peckham and Ian Livingstone of Games Workshop.

    – Or, as a non-exec director on the board of a multi-academy trust through our Academy Ambassadors programme.

    As an non-exec you will push existing trusts to succeed and give them vital advice and support. We’ve already placed 150 business leaders on boards in this way but the team are ready to place hundreds more.

    Ladies and gentlemen we now have a system with academic rigour at its core; with the freedom for teachers and school leaders to innovate; with new qualifications that are pegged to the highest-performing nations in the world; and with higher levels of numeracy and literacy than ever before.

    With exceptional heads and principals, excellent teaching practice and business leaders and British institutions doing their bit – we cannot fail.

    When our education system is able to unlock the true potential of every child, Britain will realise its true potential as a nation.

    So let’s – all of us – commit to making that a reality.

    Thank you.

  • James Duddridge – 2016 Speech at UK-Guinea Trade and Investment Forum

    jamesduddridge

    Below is the text of the speech made by James Duddridge, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, on 24 February 2016.

    Thank you very much for that kind introduction. I would also like to thank Developing Markets Associates and all the sponsors for making this event happen and being at the cutting edge of Guinea-UK trade.

    I am delighted to be here, and honoured to be sharing the stage with His Excellency the Prime Minister of Guinea, Mr Mamady Youla, and with Madame President of the Mano-River Union.

    Mr Youla knows the private sector and indeed the mining sector well. I am sure he will be a strong advocate for the huge potential that Guinea offers, and will show how that potential might be turned into real business. I am particularly pleased that this Forum is taking place today, as it had been previously postponed due to Ebola, which caused terrible human suffering. The declaration of the end of Ebola in Guinea on 29 December 2015 was an important step forward, although continued surveillance will remain essential. I commend the Guinean people and government for their work to beat the disease, including the crucial decision to trial the vaccine.

    Guinea has such incredible potential. It deserves to be far more than just an Ebola story. The opportunities that were beginning to take off in 2012/13 are still there.

    So this conference is timely. It is an opportunity for Guinea to remind us of those opportunities. Let me offer you a taste of what you might find in Guinea.

    It is almost exactly the same size as the UK, but with a population 6 times smaller. It is a young and aspirant population with 60% under the age of 25. It is a country of great beauty and remarkable biodiversity.

    Many of you here will be well aware of Guinea’s incredible natural resource wealth. It has the world’s largest reserves of bauxite; the world’s highest quality – and among the most extensive – deposits of iron-ore; diamonds, gold, and many other minerals. The government of Guinea is talking of increasing production of bauxite to 50 million tonnes by 2020 through a number of existing and new projects.

    We are pleased that the UK company Alufer have just signed a new mining convention with the government of Guinea, and will be contributing to this conference. Alufer hope to begin production in 2017, and to produce 5 million tonnes of bauxite per annum in the first phase.

    Hydro-electricity is another area of huge potential. It’s not for nothing that Guinea is known as “the water-tower of Africa”. Four major rivers, including the Niger, rise in the Guinean mountains. Over 6,000 kilometers of rivers flow through the country. Properly harnessed, it could make Guinea a major electricity exporter throughout West Africa. The 240 megawatt Kaletta Dam is a first illustration of that potential. It opened last year, and is already bringing more regular, more reliable power to more of Guinea’s capital and elsewhere.

    Guinea is also a hugely fertile country. It was once the biggest exporter of bananas and pineapples in Africa. Today, it exports coffee, cocoa and palm oil. In fact, with only a 10th of potentially irrigable land currently developed, there is tremendous scope for more growth in agriculture.

    So the potential is obvious. We know the government of Guinea is keen to move from potential to progress. This will be a challenge given the political, economic and most recently Ebola-related obstacles, which are now being overcome.

    However, 2016 is a fresh start for Guinea. President Alpha Conde’s appointment of Prime Minister Youla, with his experience of the mining sector as Head of the Guinean Alumina Corporation, shows commitment to a new era. Other new ministers in the government with key portfolios such as Mines, Budget, and Finance come with similarly strong technical expertise and international experience.

    Mr Youla’s new government is working to make the changes needed to attract investors. It has some tough political and economic decisions ahead. But having spoken to the Prime Minister this morning, I am confident these issues are being gripped. Further reform, and work to increase transparency of the business environment, will be essential to strengthen the economy, to pull Guinea up the Ease of Doing Business Index, and to reassure investors. Evidence of continued surveillance against Ebola and other diseases will also be important.

    The United Kingdom is very much present in Guinea, not just Alufer but of course also through Rio Tinto’s interest in the Simandou iron-ore mega project. This will involve significant infrastructure investment. New roads and railways to carry the ore to the coast. A new port to ship it to market. The Simandou partners will be seeking around $20 billion investment in this. Other UK companies such as Stellar Diamonds, Avocet Gold and Tullow Oil are all exploring in Guinea.

    The United Kingdom is also supporting Guinea through multilateral and bilateral funding. Our support focuses particularly on governance, civil society, countering sexual violence, and of course Ebola, alongside supporting the business environment. Other activities include our support for Kew Gardens in their partnership with the University of Gamal Abdul Nasser in Conakry to set up a Masters in Environmental Development, and to preserve Guinea’s extraordinary biodiversity.

    I’m glad to say that, in addition to this scientific collaboration, we also have a forthcoming cultural one, as a Globe Theatre production of Shakespeare’s Hamlet will shortly be taking to the stage in Conakry. Particularly apt perhaps, if you are pondering whether your investment is “to be or not to be”.

    I know that our Ambassador in Conakry, Catherine Inglehearn, and her team, together with UKTI and with support from UK Export Finance are already working hard to advise potential UK investors. She would be happy to speak to you today if you would like to find out more about the opportunities available in Guinea. I hope UKTI will be taking a trade delegation to Guinea and I hope the Prime Minister will invite me to lead the delegation – if my diary permits.

    In conclusion, I urge you to pay close attention to what you hear today. Guinea has huge potential. Its government is making efforts to tackle obstacles to investment and to deliver measures which will support the economy, though still more will be needed. There are real and immediate opportunities. The UK package is about quality and long-term value for money. Some UK companies are already investing and working in Guinea. There is considerable interest from other countries too.

    I will finish there, because, to quote Hamlet again, “brevity is the soul of wit”. It is my great pleasure to introduce the Prime Minister of Guinea, Mr Mamady Youla.

  • Patrick McLoughlin – 2016 George Bradshaw Address

    Patrick McLoughlin

    Below is the text of the speech made by Patrick McLoughlin, the Secretary of State for Transport, at Great George Street in London on 24 February 2016.

    Good evening.

    It is a great honour to be asked to give this lecture.

    I would like to start by recognising the hard work of everyone who makes the railways work. From cleaning staff. To drivers. Civil engineers. Managers.

    People working long, unsocial hours. Often out in awful weather conditions.

    Thank you.

    When the invitation came I thought about what I should say.

    It was easy to think of the things I don’t need to tell an expert audience like this.

    Railways matter.

    The railways are – by and large – growing.

    The passenger expects more.

    More services, more reliability, more choice.

    And that the government backs all this with a record investment programme.

    And will continue to back it.

    I am now in my fourth year as Transport Secretary.

    Some think this is a record. However Alistair Darling did longer and went on to be appointed Chancellor of the Exchequer.

    So I will not be sending a copy of this speech to George Osborne.

    It is however 27 years since I first came to the department as a junior minister.

    Today I want to reflect on the difference between then and now.

    And between now and where we will be in a decade’s time.

    Back in 1989, the railways were seen as yesterday’s industry.

    Remember what it was like.

    A difficult safety record.

    Managers struggling against the odds with minimal, unsustained, investment.

    Government’s attention – elsewhere.

    What a difference today.

    It is an absolute pleasure to be able to work with a confident, expanding rail industry and supply chain.

    Something that would have been unimaginable to many of my predecessors.

    So there is a positive future for the railways.

    And today I want to talk a bit about how we might best shape the future.

    About how future ministers might look back and see where we are – not just as a high point for the railways.

    But part of a route to something better still.

    This starts with a challenge.

    All of us here face it.

    The challenge of growth.

    It is a great challenge and opportunity to have.

    So how do we deal with it?

    The answer, I think, is that we need to see the opportunities.

    Be honest about the things that aren’t working.

    And change things, where that’s required.

    And that’s the difficult bit.

    Finding this confidence to change can be hard.

    Mark Carne touched on this in his speech last year.

    The railways, in particular, like to look back not forward.

    You can see this in the title of this lecture: the George Bradshaw address.

    Named after a map-maker who began his life drawing canals but saw an opportunity in the confusing new technology of the railways.

    Who realised the companies themselves were failing to give out passenger information properly and produced an independent solution… today we would call it an open-data app… a timetable so detailed that it spurred the sales of reading glasses in Victorian England.

    Now we like to talk of Bradshaw’s time as the golden age of the railways.

    A period described vividly in Simon Bradley’s recent book on the social impact of the rail system.

    And it was an amazing time.

    Today, though, we’re not competing with the Victorians. We are competing in a global market to attract investment to this country.

    With countries such as China building amazing networks of fast lines.

    And our past has only 1 lesson to teach us about that.

    About the speed of change.

    As Simon Bradley’s book shows, the Victorian railways kept reinventing themselves.

    With new technology: proper brakes, safer signals, more powerful engines, and even paper tickets.

    A journey in 1838 was utterly different to one in 1862 or 1912.

    And the answer to our challenge, the challenge of growth, must be change too.

    Of kinds we can’t even imagine today.

    Because as our railways grow, we’re not trying to restore them to a lost glory.

    But build something even better, doing a very different job.

    Back in the 1970s passenger numbers hit rock-bottom and the network had shrunk to its smallest extent.

    I’ve had a look at Hansard for that period.

    Ministers faced a barrage of complaints.

    Rail fares from some commuter stations into London trebled between 1974 and 1979 – way ahead of inflation.

    Everyone thought trains were cold, dirty, slow, delayed and late.

    Stations were grim places too.

    You mostly didn’t travel by train if you had a choice of something else.

    So no, we’re not going back to that. Not back to the past. Forward to the future.

    Just as countries across Europe are moving towards models we pioneered in Britain.

    Including private operators and open-access.

    It’s great that companies such as Go Ahead and National Express are winning contracts in Germany.

    But though much about the way we run the railways in Britain works, there are things that we need to change.

    Speak to passengers and they are clear about it.

    I want to focus on 3 areas in particular.

    All 3 are linked.

    And all 3 will take change from the government, as well as the industry.

    The first is to be much more flexible and respond to the people who want to use the system.

    Opening up new markets. Communicating better. Testing new ideas.

    Not just doing things the same way because the rules require it.

    And being more representative. Employing more women and more young people. Being part of the communities they serve.

    The second is to work with technology better.

    In obvious things like ticketing where it is absurd we still require people to print out bits of paper when almost no other part of the transport industry does so.

    But also in making the system more reliable and cost effective.

    Getting the most from HS2.

    And perhaps most of all in understanding that even if railways don’t adapt to new technologies, others will anyway.

    That a system which feels modern today could quickly seem as dated as the steam engine if it doesn’t adapt.

    Finally the third area in which I think change is needed is the way in which we join all this up.

    Today, there is confusion as to who is responsible for what.

    That holds things back.

    And it adds cost and inefficiency.

    The answer isn’t to lump everything together, let alone put the state in sole charge.

    But common sense reform, so that a system which works today can work even better.

    Untangling the knots so that… we can bring in new ways of finding more funding and use it better to cope with growth.

    So having set out what I see as the challenges let me touch on each of these areas in turn.

    First, flexibility.

    The truth is that we have only begun to touch on the possibilities for growth in the railways.

    Where the system has been adaptable enough to provide something new, we’ve seen an extraordinary hunger to use it.

    That’s true of things like the direct electric service from Manchester to Scotland, run by TPE, which has gone from virtually nothing to being some of the busiest trains in Britain.

    Or Chiltern’s innovation, with fast trains to Birmingham and now Oxford from Marylebone station in London which British Rail thought so redundant it wanted to close it down.

    Or intermodal freight, from ports such as Felixstowe to new hubs such as DRIFT (Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal).

    Or, to take an example from my own constituency.

    The railway from Derby to Matlock has seen traffic more than double since it got a proper hourly service.

    But getting change like this is often painfully slow, and there are lots of opportunities which aren’t taken.

    For instance online shopping has created a massive new market for the express delivery of packages from distribution hubs.

    So why do the railways, with a reliable express network and stations through which millions of people pass, play little part?

    We’ve seen a welcome increase in frequency on many routes.

    So why are journey times are often no better than they were 20 years ago?

    And why do we insist on doing engineering works often in winter, at night, over a very long period?

    Rather than putting in place quicker, ambitious plans for major reconstruction with proper alternatives and information for passengers?

    Like the successful project at Nottingham station in 2013.

    Now, it is not for a government minister to spell out in detail what might be done differently. The industry has to look after its customers.

    The point is that the industry needs more confidence and more freedom to respond.

    And also the confidence to admit that building for the future isn’t an excuse for below-standard service today.

    However, I have to acknowledge that when work is being done, it is not possible without inconvenience.

    But the industry can work together better to respond.

    I know there have been a lot of reviews in recent years.

    Leading up to Nicola Shaw’s review, coming out soon.

    But these reviews are making a difference.

    For instance Richard Brown’s review of franchising.

    And I am delighted with the way franchising has improved since then.

    We have seen successful, creative bids for routes such as the East Coast and both franchises in the north.

    Making a real difference to places like Huddersfield, which will soon be able to enjoy a direct service to London, for the first time since the 1960s.

    And brilliant proposals for services to places which in the 1960s and 70s were in danger of losing their rail links altogether.

    Places like Buxton, Saltaire or Chester-le-Street.

    It’s this sort of creative intelligence that is both going to support growth and bring growth about.

    Working, at the local level with community rail partnerships which are a way for users to get involved in running the services they want.

    Working, too, with powerful city regions that can take the responsibility of shaping their transport systems far more effectively than Whitehall ever could.

    That’s the way, for instance, that we have seen a reversal of some of the Beeching cuts.

    Finding ways to bring trains back to towns that should never have lost them and whose growth requires them.

    Like the Chase Line project did for Rugeley, Cannock and Hednesford.

    Or for places such as Tavistock and Wisbeach, which have well-advanced plans.

    And to do all this, I think we need to think about a second kind of change – in technology.

    We’re on the brink of big things.

    Autonomous vehicle technology is going to affect the way goods are distributed, cars are driven, cities are run.

    Mobile data has produced very rapid change in the choices and information available to travellers.

    With things like the rapid growth of ride sharing in countries such as France.

    There are lots of opportunities for our railways in this.

    But if they aren’t taken others will gain instead.

    Because the demand is there.

    This year, our national transport system carried more people than ever before in its history.

    And next year it will carry even more people still.

    Every advance in communication technology has increased demand for travel.

    But if the railways are to make the most of this they will have to use technology better too.

    That’s obvious in ticketing.

    Passengers carry computers in their pockets that are far more powerful than the ones in ticket machines.

    Constantly online, aware of their location, able to communicate.

    So we can use that technology to create a better system, not for the sake of it, but because it make journeys easier.

    I know that there is a huge amount of good work being done in the industry to overcome this.

    But as this happens it’s important that we don’t end up with isolated, competing systems.

    We need to use technology to make travel simpler.

    Citymapper, a transport app founded in London, does a great job of getting you from one place to another using all kinds of transport, with live information on costs and performance.

    But though there’s some brilliant work being done there’s nothing yet like it for the national rail network.

    I’m sure there will be soon… And the opportunities are great.

    Things like door-to-door ride sharing from commuter stations, so that people don’t have to leave their cars in busy, expensive car parks.

    But of course to make the most of this technology we also need to invest in infrastructure.

    There’s been some good progress on Wi-Fi on trains.

    But as anyone who has tried to use it knows, the demand is much greater than the system supports.

    So we need to press on with plans to sort that out.

    Just as we need to press on with using better technology to sort out the physical constraints on the system.

    More efficient, in-cab signalling has transformed the Northern and Victoria tube lines.

    It’s going to do the same on Thameslink – where it is already being tested.

    And on Crossrail, or as I will be proud to call it from now on, the Elizabeth Line.

    And of course on HS2.

    That is a nation-changing investment which will link up our cities, free up capacity and which is on track with legislation progressing well.

    But technology isn’t just about big projects.

    Heavy rail isn’t always the answer. We need more innovation, affordable alternatives too.

    And that takes me to the third challenge I’ve mentioned, of joining things up better.

    This isn’t a crisis. Our railways work well. Better, sometimes, than we say.

    They are safe and growing.

    But also under strain because of demand and because of the age of the system.

    The structure has been built up over a long time, sometimes almost by chance.

    But as the recent overspends and delays on Network Rail’s electrification programme show, the structure isn’t perfect.

    I think everyone here would agree with that.

    And we are now at the point where HS2 is about to become a reality, and part of the day-to-day planning and then operation of the network.

    It’s a massive, transformational opportunity but to make the most of it we are going to need new ways of working.

    Because HS2 isn’t going to be an alternative to the current rail network but part of it.

    To make the most of all this we need a structure that’s clearer.

    Fewer competing sources of authority.

    Quicker decision making.

    More responsibility with fare payers’ and taxpayers’ money.

    A structure which can build a partnership of the public and private sectors working together, and draw in greater investment from both.

    Because a growing industry, with a long term future, strong revenues and solid, physical infrastructure should be able to attract that investment.

    Nicola is carrying out her review.

    She will say more in a few weeks.

    But her thinking is straightforward and right.

    She’s talked to passengers, the unions and operators.

    She wants to put the people who run your train back in charge of your train.

    So they can make the decisions that are right for their route.

    A clear, accountable system where you know who’s in charge and who needs to put things right when they go wrong.

    And a system where money can be spent where it’s really needed.

    Not poured in by a distant central structure or misguided regulatory rules.

    This isn’t, by the way, a revolution.

    It’s common sense.

    And a lot of it is starting to happen already under Mark and Sir Peter Hendy.

    Network Rail has already begun to give more power to its routes, working more closely with operators.

    It is clear that while some things need to change, it is in no one’s interest to rip everything apart.

    We must improve what is working already.

    I’m confident that we can do that.

    A system where the routes answer to customers and the centre doesn’t call all the shots.

    Not fragmentation.

    But keeping a common system in order to support local strengths not to hinder them.

    Take what’s happening in the north.

    Already the Northern and Transpennine franchises bring with them over £1.2 billion of private sector investment in those railways.

    And decisions are being made not just at the DfT but by Transport for the North, responding to passengers, too.

    I want to see that not just in the north but the south west, East Anglia, the Midlands too.

    The network is a key public service.

    But to make the best of it we need to draw on wider sources of funding.

    So whatever Nicola returns with when she reports, the future will need to create more opportunity for private investment alongside public funding.

    This is essential in helping us maintain a balanced rail economy while we continue to invest in our future and at the same time safely manage the public debt.

    And put together these things – responsiveness, technology, investment and reform – will make the next few decades the most exciting, ever, for our railways.

    I began this speech by reflecting on the railways when I first came to the Department, in the 1980s.

    By the time the George Bradshaw lecture is given in 2026, by another Transport Secretary, perhaps, who will be able to reflect… not just on the success of the Elizabeth Line, the transformation of services in the north, electric trains to the west and the Midlands, and the impending opening of the first part of HS2… but also a massive shift in the experience of using the transport system, through technology… and an industry which is more prosperous, more self-confident and more efficient.

    The challenge for all of us in this room it to ensure that we have a railway which will serve the nation in the generations to come.