UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Jeremy Hunt – 2015 Statement on Junior Doctors

    jeremyhunt

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jeremy Hunt, the Secretary of State for Health, in the House of Commons on 30 November 2015.

    With permission Mr Speaker I would like to update the House on the junior doctors strike.

    Earlier this month, the union representing doctors, the BMA, balloted for industrial action over contract reform. Because the first strike is tomorrow I wish to update the House on contingency plans being made.

    Following last week’s spending review, no one can be in any doubt about this government’s commitment to the NHS, but additional resources have to be matched with even safer services for patients. That is why, on the back of mounting academic evidence that mortality rates are higher at weekends than in the week, we made a manifesto commitment to deliver truly 7-day hospital services for urgent and emergency care.

    However, it is important to note that 7-day services are not just about junior doctor contract reform. The Academy of Medical Royal Colleges noted that “the weekend effect is very likely attributable to deficiencies in care processes linked to the absence of skilled and empowered senior staff in a system which is not configured to provide full diagnostic and support services 7 days a week.” So our plans will support the many junior doctors who already work weekends with better consultant cover at weekends, 7-day diagnostics and other support services, and the ability to discharge at weekends into other parts of the NHS and the social care system.

    But reforming both the consultants’ and junior doctor contracts is a key part of the mix because the current contracts have the unintended consequence of making it too hard for hospitals to roster urgent and emergency care evenly across 7 days. Our plans are deliberately intended to be good for doctors – they will see more generous rates for weekend work than those offered to police officers, fire officers and pilots. They protect pay for all junior doctors working within their legal, contracted hours, compensating for a reduction in anti-social hours with a basic pay rise averaging 11%. They reduce the maximum hours a doctor can work in any one week from 91 to 72 and stop altogether the practice of asking doctors to work 5 nights in a row. Most of all they will improve the experience of doctors working over the weekend by making it easier for them to deliver the care they would like to be able to deliver to their patients.

    Our preference has always been a negotiated solution but, as the house knows, the BMA have refused to enter negotiations since June. However, last week I agreed for officials to meet them under the auspices of the ACAS conciliation service. I am pleased to report to the house that, after working through the weekend, discussions led to a potential agreement early this afternoon between the BMA leadership and the government. This agreement would allow a time-limited period during which negotiations can take place, and during which the BMA agrees to suspend strike action and the government agrees not to proceed unilaterally with implementing a new contract. This agreement is now sitting with the BMA junior doctors’ executive committee, who will decide later today if they are able to support it.

    However, it is important for the house to know that right now strikes are still planned to start at 8am, so I will now turn to the contingency planning we have undertaken. The government’s first responsibility is to keep its citizens safe. This particularly applies to those needing care in our hospitals so we are making every effort to minimise any harm or risks caused by the strike.

    I have chaired three contingency planning meetings to date and will continue to chair further such meetings for the duration of any strikes. NHS England are currently collating feedback from all trusts but currently we estimate the planned action will mean up to 20,000 patients may have vital operations cancelled, including approximately 1,500 cataracts operations, 900 skin lesion removals, 630 hip and knee operations, 400 spine operations, 250 gall bladder removals and nearly 300 tonsil and grommets operations.

    NHS England has also written to all trusts asking for detailed information on the impact of the strikes planned for 8 and 16 December which will involve not just the withdrawal of elective care, but the withdrawal of urgent and emergency care as well. We are giving particular emphasis to the staffing at major trauma centres and are drawing up a list of trusts where we concerns about patient safety. All trusts will have to cancel considerable quantities of elective care in order to free up consultant capacity and beds. So far, the BMA has not been willing to provide assurances they will ask their members to provide urgent and emergency cover in areas where patients may be at risk and will continue to press for such assurance.

    It is regrettable that this strike was called even before the BMA had seen the government’s offer, and the whole house will be hoping today that the strike is called off so that talks can resume. But whether or not there is a strike, providing safe services for patients will remain the priority of this government as we work towards our long term ambition to make NHS care the safest and highest quality in the world. I commend this statement to the house.

  • David Cameron – 2015 Statement to Parliament on Military Action in Syria

    davidcameron

    Below is the text of the statement made by David Cameron, the Prime Minister, in the House of Commons on 2 December 2015.

    Introduction

    Mr Speaker, I beg to move the motion on the order paper in my name and that of my Rt Hon Friends.

    The question before the House today is how we keep the British people safe from the threat posed by ISIL.

    And Mr Speaker, let me be clear from the outset, this is not about whether we want to fight terrorism, it’s about how best we do that.

    I respect that governments of all political colours in this country have had to fight terrorism and have had to take the people with them as they do so.

    And I respect people who come to a different view from the government and from the one I’ll set out in the House today, and those who vote accordingly.

    And I hope that provides some reassurance to Members right across the House.

    Mr Speaker, in moving this motion, I am not pretending that the answers are simple.

    The situation in Syria is incredibly complex.

    I am not overstating the contribution that our incredible servicemen and women can make.

    Neither am I ignoring the risks of military action nor am I pretending that military action is any more than one part of the answer.

    I am absolutely clear that we must pursue a comprehensive strategy that also includes political, diplomatic and humanitarian action.

    And I know that the long-term solution in Syria – as in Iraq – must ultimately be a government that represents all of its people and one that can work with us to defeat the evil organisation of ISIL for good.

    But Mr Speaker, notwithstanding all of this, there is a simple question at the heart of the debate today.

    We face a fundamental threat to our security.

    ISIL have brutally murdered British hostages.

    They’ve inspired the worst terrorist attack against British people since 7/7 on the beaches of Tunisia and they’ve plotted atrocity after atrocity on the streets here at home.

    Since November last year our security services have foiled no fewer than 7 different plots against our people.

    So this threat is very real.

    And the question is this: do we work with our allies to degrade and destroy this threat?

    And do we go after these terrorists in their heartlands from where they are plotting to kill British people or do we sit back and wait for them to attack us?

    In answering this question we should remember that 15 months ago facing a threat from ISIL in Iraq this House voted 524 to 43 to authorise airstrikes in Iraq.

    Since then our brilliant RAF pilots have helped local forces to halt ISIL’s advance and recover 30% of the territory ISIL had captured.

    On Monday I spoke to the President of Iraq in Paris and he expressed his gratitude for the vital work our forces are doing.

    And yet when our planes reach the border with Syria, a border that ISIL themselves do not recognise, we can no longer act to defend either his country – or our indeed country.

    Even when we know that ISIL’s headquarters are in Raqqah in Syria and it is from here that many of the plots against our country are formed.

    Mr Speaker, we possess the capabilities to reduce this threat to our security.

    And my argument today is that we should not wait any longer before doing so.

    We should answer the call from our allies.

    The action we propose to take is legal, it is necessary and it is the right thing to do to keep our country safe.

    And my strong view is that this House should make clear that we will take up our responsibilities rather than pass them off and put our own national security in the hands of others.

    Key questions to answer

    Now Mr Speaker, since my statement last week, the House has had an opportunity to ask questions of our security experts.

    I have arranged a briefing for all Members as well as more detailed briefings for Privy Councillors.

    I have spoken further to our allies – including President Obama, Chancellor Merkel, President Hollande and the King of Jordan.

    The King of Jordan has written in The Daily Telegraph today expressing his wish for Britain to stand with Jordan in eliminating this global threat.

    I have also listened carefully to the questions asked by Members on all sides of this House and I hope that Honourable Members can see the influence this House has had on the motion that stands before us.

    The stress on post-conflict stabilisation and reconstruction, the importance of standing by our allies, the importance of only targeting ISIL, not deploying ground troops in combat operations, to avoid civilian casualties, the importance of ceasefires and a political settlement, a commitment to regular updates to this House.

    I’ve drawn these points from across the House and put them in the motion because I want as many people as possible to feel able to support this action.

    In my remarks, I want to address the most important points raised and I will of course take as many interventions as I can.

    Mr Speaker, the key questions that have been raised are these.

    First, could acting in this way actually increase the risk to our security by making an attack on Britain more likely?

    Second, does Britain really have the capability to make a significant difference?

    Third, the question asked by a number of Members – including the Hon Member for Gordon – is why don’t we just increase our level of air strikes in Iraq to free up capacity amongst other members of the coalition, so they can carry out more air strikes in Syria.

    Fourth, will there really be the ground forces needed to make this operation a success?

    Fifth, what is the strategy for defeating ISIL and securing a lasting political settlement in Syria?

    And sixth, is there a proper reconstruction, post conflict stabilisation plan for Syria?

    I want to try in the time I’ve got available to answer all of these in turn.

    Isil or Daesh

    But before we get on to all these things, Mr Speaker, I want to say a word about the terminology we use to describe this evil death cult.

    Having carefully considered the strong representations made to me by the Hon Member for Gillingham and Rainham and having listened to many Members of Parliament from across the House, I feel it is time to join our key ally France, the Arab League, and other members of the international community in using as frequently as possible the terminology Daesh rather than ISIL.

    Because frankly this evil death cult is neither a true representation of Islam nor is it a state.

    Let me turn to the important questions.

    Could acting increase the risk to our security?

    First, could acting increase the risk to our security?

    This is one of the most important questions we have to answer.

    Mr Speaker, Privy Councillors and Members from across the House have had a full briefing from the Chair of the independent Joint Intelligence Committee.

    Obviously I can’t share all the classified material but I can say this.

    Paris wasn’t just different because it was so close to us, or because it was so horrific in scale; as different because it showed the extent of terror planning from Daesh in Syria and the approach of sending people back from Syria to Europe.

    This was if you like, the head of the snake in Raqqa in action.

    So it’s not surprising in my view that the judgement of the Chair of the Joint Intelligence Committee and the judgement of the Director General of the Security Service is that the risk of a similar attack in the UK is real and that that the UK is already in the top tier of countries on ISIL’s target list.

    So let me be frank, Mr Speaker.

    If there is an attack on the UK in the coming weeks or months, there will be those who try to say it has happened because of our airstrikes.

    I do not believe that would be the case.

    Daesh have been trying to attack us for the last year – as we know from the 7 different plots that our security services have foiled.

    The terrorist threat level to the UK was raised to severe last August in the light of the threat from Daesh, meaning an attack is highly likely.

    Eight hundred people – including families and children – have been radicalised to such an extent that they have travelled to this so-called caliphate.

    The House should be under no illusion: these terrorists are plotting to kill us, and to radicalise our children, right now.

    They attack us because of who we are, not because of what we do.

    But when it comes to the risks of taking military action the risks of inaction are far greater thank the risks of what I propose.

    Would British airstrikes in Syria really make a difference?

    Next, there are those who ask whether Britain conducting strikes in Syria will really make a difference.

    This is a question that came up.

    I believe we can make a difference.

    I told the House last week about our dynamic targeting about our Brimstone missiles, about the RAPTOR pod on our tornadoes, and the intelligence gathering work of our REAPER drones.

    But there is another way of putting this which I think is equally powerful.

    There is, of course, in the coalition a lot of strike capability but when it comes to precision strike capability – whether covering Iraq or Syria – last week, the whole international coalition had some 26 aircraft available.

    Eight of those were British tornadoes.

    So typically, the UK actually represents between a quarter and a third of the international coalition’s precision bombing capability.

    And we also have about a quarter of the unmanned strike capability flying in the region.

    So we do have a significant proportion of high precision strike capability.

    That’s why this decision is so important.

    So the argument I was making is one reason why members of the international coalition – including President Obama and President Hollande who made these points to me personally – they believe that British planes would make a real difference in Syria, just as they are already doing in Iraq.

    Why not just increase our level of airstrikes in Iraq?

    In many way, what I’ve just said I believe helps to answer the next question that some Members have asked about why we do not simply increase our level of air strikes in Iraq to free up other coalition capacity for strikes in Syria.

    We have these capabilities that other Members of the coalition want to benefit from.

    And it makes absolutely no sense to stop using these capabilities at a border between Iraq and Syria that Daesh simply do not recognise or respect.

    In fact, there was a recent incident in which Syrian opposition forces needed urgent support in their fight against Daesh.

    British tornadoes were 8 minutes away just over the border in Iraq, no-one else was close.

    But Britain couldn’t help, so the Syrian opposition forces had to wait 40 minutes in a perilous situation while other coalition forces were scrambled.

    Now that sort of delay, it endangers the lives of those fighting Daesh on the ground and frankly does nothing for our reputation with our vital allies.

    There is a much more fundamental answer as to why we should carry out air strikes in Syria ourselves.

    And it’s this.

    It is Raqqa in Syria that is the headquarters of this threat to our security.

    It is in Syria where they pump and sell the oil that does so much to help finance their evil acts.

    And as I’ve said, it is in Syria where many of the plots against our country are formed.

    Will there really be the ground forces to make the operation a success?

    Let me turn to the question of whether there will be the ground forces to make this operation a success.

    Those who say there aren’t as many ground troops as we would like and that they are not all in the right place, they are correct.

    We are not dealing with an ideal situation but let me make a series of, I think, important points.

    First, we should be clear what air strikes alone can achieve.

    We don’t need ground troops to target the supply of oil which Daesh uses to fund terrorism.

    We don’t need ground troops to hit Daesh’s headquarters, their infrastructure, their supply routes, their training facilities, their weapons supplies.

    It’s clear that airstrikes can have an effect, as I’ve just said, with the issue of Khan and Hussain.

    So irrespective of ground forces, our RAF can do serious damage to Daesh’s ability right now to bring terror to our streets and we should give them our support.

    As I said last week, the full answer to the question of ground forces can’t be achieved until there is a new Syrian government that represents all the Syrian people, not just Sunni, Shia and Alawite, but Christian, Druze and others.

    And it is this new government who will be the natural partners for our forces in defeating Daesh for good.

    But there are some ground forces that we can work with in the meantime.

    Last week I told the House that we believe there are around 70,000 Syrian opposition fighters who do not belong to extremist groups and with whom we can co-ordinate attacks on Daesh.

    The House will appreciate there are some limits on what I can say about these groups.

    Not least because I can’t risk the safety of these courageous people – who are being targeted daily by the regime, or by Daesh, or by both.

    But I know this is an area of great interest and concern for the House, so let me try and say a little more.

    The 70,000 is an estimate from our independent Joint Intelligence Committee based on a detailed analysis, updated on a daily basis, and drawing on a wide range of open source and intelligence.

    Of these 70,000, the majority are from the Free Syrian Army.

    Alongside the 70,000, there are some 20,000 Kurdish fighters with whom we can also work.

    Now I’m not arguing – this is a crucial point – I am not arguing that all of these 70,000 are somehow ideal partners. Some though, left the Syrian army because of Assad’s brutality and they clearly can play a role in the future of Syria.

    And that is actually a view that is taken by the Russians as well, who are prepared to talk to these people.

    And those figures do not include a further 25,000 actual extremist fighters in groups which reject political participation and any co-ordination with non-Muslims.

    So although they fight Daesh, they cannot and will not be our partners.

    But, Mr Speaker, there are ground forces who will take the fight to Daesh and in many cases we can work with them and we can assist them.

    Third, if we don’t act now, we should be clear that there will be even fewer ground forces over time as Daesh will get even stronger.

    My view, we simply cannot afford to wait.

    Is there a proper strategy?

    Let me turn to our overall strategy.

    Again I set this out in the House last week.

    But let me say a little more about each of the non-military elements – counter-terrorism, counter-extremism, the political and diplomatic process and the vital humanitarian work that my Rt Hon Friend just referred to.

    Our counter-terrorism strategy gives Britain a comprehensive plan to prevent and foil plots at home and also to address the poisonous extremist ideology that is the root cause of the threat that we face.

    As part of this I can announce today that we will establish a comprehensive review to root out any remaining funding of extremism within the UK.

    This will examine specifically the nature, scale and origin of the funding of Islamist extremist activity in the UK including any overseas sources.

    And it will report to myself and My Rt Hon Friend the Home Secretary next spring.

    Mr Speaker, I know there are some who suggest that military action could in some way undermine our counter-extremism strategy by radicalising British Muslims.

    So let me take this head on.

    British Muslims are appalled by Daesh.

    These women-raping, Muslim-murdering, mediaeval monsters – are hijacking the peaceful religion of Islam for their warped ends.

    As the King of Jordan says in his article today: these people are not Muslims they are outlaws from Islam.

    And we must stand with our Muslim friends here and around the world as they reclaim their religion from these terrorists.

    So far from an attack on Islam, we are engaged in a defence of Islam.

    And far from a risk of radicalising British Muslims by acting failing to act would actually be to betray British Muslims and the wider religion of Islam in its very hour of need.

    The second part of our strategy is our support for the diplomatic and political process.

    Let me say a word about how this process can lead to the ceasefires between the regime and opposition that are so essential for the next stages of this political transition.

    It begins with identifying the right people to put around the table.

    Next week we expect the Syrian regime to nominate a team of people to negotiate under the auspices of the United Nations.

    Over the last 18 months political and armed opposition positions have converged.

    We know the main groups and their ideas.

    And in the coming days Saudi Arabia will host a meeting for opposition representatives in Riyadh. And the United Nations will take forwards discussions on steps towards a ceasefire, including at the next meeting of the International Syria Support Group which we expect to take place before Christmas.

    The aim is clear as I’ve said, a transitional government in 6 months, a new constitution and free elections within 18 months so I would argue that the key elements of a deal are emerging.

    Ceasefires, opposition groups coming together, the regime looking at negotiations, the key players – America and Russia, Saudi Arabia and Iran and key regional players like Turkey all in the room together.

    And my argument is this, hitting Daesh doesn’t hurt this process, it helps this process which is the eventual goal.

    I set out for the House last week our support for refugees in the region and the extra £1 billion that we would be prepared to commit to Syria’s reconstruction and the broad international alliance that we would work with in that rebuilding phase.

    But Mr Speaker, let us be clear.

    People will not return to Syria, if part of it is under the control of an organisation that enslaves Yazidis, throws gay people off buildings, beheads aid workers and forces children to marry before they are even 10 years old.

    So we cannot separate the humanitarian work and the reconstruction work from dealing with Daesh itself.

    Is there a proper plan for post-conflict reconstruction?

    Let me turn in more detail to the plan for post conflict reconstruction to support a new Syrian government when it emerges.

    I have said we would be prepared to commit at least £1 billion to Syria’s reconstruction.

    The initial priorities would be protection, security, stabilisation and confidence-building measures including meeting basic humanitarian needs, such as education, health and shelter, and of course helping refugees to return.

    Now over time the focus would shift to longer-term rebuilding of Syria’s shattered infrastructure, harnessing the expertise of the international financial institutions and the private sector.

    As I said last week, we are not in the business of trying to dismantle the Syrian state, or its institutions.

    We would aim to allocate reconstruction funds against a plan agreed between a new inclusive Syrian government and the international community, once the conflict has ended.

    That is the absolute key.

    Conclusion

    Mr Speaker, let me conclude. This is not 2003.

    We must not use past mistakes as an excuse for indifference or inaction.

    And let’s be clear Mr Speaker, inaction does not amount to a strategy for our security or for the Syrian people.

    But inaction is a choice. I believe it’s the wrong choice.

    We face a clear threat.

    We have listened to our allies.

    We have taken legal advice.

    We have a unanimous United Nations Resolution.

    We have discussed our proposed action extensively at meetings of the National Security Council and Cabinet.

    I have responded personally to the detailed report of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee.

    We have a proper motion before the House.

    And we are having a 10 and a half hour debate today.

    Now in that spirit I look forward to the rest of the debate. I look forward to listening to the contributions of Members on all sides of the House.

    But I hope that at the end of it all, the House will come together in large numbers for Britain to play its part in defeating these evil extremists and taking the action that is needed now to keep our country safe.

    In doing so, I pay tribute to the extraordinary bravery and service of our inspirational armed forces who will once again put themselves in harm’s way to protect our values and our way of life.

    And I commend this motion to the House.

  • Elizabeth Truss – 2016 Speech at the National Farmers’ Union Conference

    Liz Truss
    Liz Truss

    Below is the text of the speech made by Elizabeth Truss, the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in Birmingham on 23 February 2016.

    Farmers here in Britain have faced a tough year.

    We’ve seen:

    – World demand hit by slowing Chinese growth and the continuing Russian import ban.

    – The highest wheat yields on British farms for 25 years and milk production at a 20-year high – but sharply falling prices.

    – Pork prices at their lowest for eight years; lamb, poultry and sugar all down a long way.

    – The strong pound pulling in imports and magnifying those global trends.

    – Farmers’ incomes have been squeezed; they are expected to be down by half in dairy.

    And in the north of England, farmers are still coping with the consequences of the serious flooding.

    In the face of these challenges, we could just take cover and hope things get better soon.

    But I know that is not the attitude of British farming. Despite the fact prices are low, every week I meet people full of new ideas for taking forward this great industry – and ideas for managing the volatile world we face.

    I share their confidence in a positive future for British farming – and with very good reasons.

    – New talent, innovation and science are energising farming.

    – New opportunities are emerging as international markets open up and consumers change their tastes.

    – We are reducing the burden of regulation.

    – We are investing more in building our resilience against the threats of flood and disease.

    Action in all these areas and confidence in the future are at the heart of the 25-year plan for food and farming we will be publishing shortly. It will detail how we will attract even more skilled people to the industry, build the British brand and increase exports. And it will give farmers the tools to improve productivity and competitiveness so the future is sustainable, profitable and world-leading.

    I would like to thank the NFU and everyone in the industry who is supporting and contributing to this long-term vision for success.

    Science and innovation

    We know Britain already has some of the world’s most innovative farmers and scientists. Their breakthroughs are what will make this industry a world leader – and we want to turbocharge their ideas.

    That is why over the next five years, we are doubling Defra’s capital investment in science to £130million.

    And we are investing another £80million across government to develop research centres for livestock, crop health, data and precision engineering. The Agrimetrics data centre, which we launched in October, is working on projects like predicting and monitoring cereal crops and pest risks.

    The Food Innovation Network, announced by the Prime Minister last summer, will bridge the divide that too often exists between businesses and researchers so the latest innovations lead directly to improvements on farms and production lines.

    Talent

    There is a new generation excited about farming. It is the fastest-growing subject at university, with a 4.6% increase in student numbers last year. There are now more than 19,000 people studying agriculture and related subjects.

    Farming can be proud of what it is doing to attract these ambitious people – what a massive vote of confidence in the future.

    I met students at Cirencester earlier this month. They told me about the opportunities they see in farming – like new technology, increasing sustainability and adding value through the food chain.

    Growth at the Royal Agricultural University is being driven in large part by a 44% increase in female students. Nationally, we are seeing more and more women come into the industry. By opening itself to the widest pool of people, this great industry is harnessing all the available talent.

    Developing the skills the industry needs is central to our 25-year plan. One of our manifesto commitments is to treble the number of apprenticeships by 2020. The Food and Drink Federation have already committed to this target. I hope the farming industry will follow suit.

    Currently, there are 1,000 apprentices in farming and 2,100 in horticulture. The government’s new levy which comes into force in April 2017 will bring the biggest funding for apprenticeships ever seen and I strongly encourage people in the audience today to make sure their businesses benefit.

    New opportunities

    We will need the experience and the expertise of today’s and tomorrow’s farmers to take advantage of the new opportunities.

    The market-access deals I signed in China in 2015 will bring our farmers around £40million a year of potential sales for barley and pig’s trotters.

    And after a painful 20 years following the disaster of BSE, we are putting British beef back where it belongs, at the top of menus around the world.

    Last October, Canada announced it was lifting its ban. And we are making good progress with the US and Japan, which together would bring an estimated £40million a year in beef exports.

    In January, we launched the Great British Food Unit, bringing together expertise from Defra and UKTI in a single location to give advice and practical help to exporters.

    Our Great British Food campaign is championing the industry in Britain and across the world. Farmers are at the forefront of this campaign – people like Robert Craig, dairy farmer of the year in 2014 and Patrick Harte of Cornerways Tomatoes.

    The AHDB is now able to celebrate the British provenance of our food in its campaigns and will be running promotions for home-produced meat over the coming months, supporting the 2016 Year of Great British Food.

    Government is now buying more British food as a result of the Bonfield reforms. The Ministry of Justice’s new £500million contract for prison meals will use the balanced scorecard, creating a level playing field for British producers.

    And from this April all 30 million cartons of UHT milk served annually to prisoners will be British rather than from overseas for the first time in years, thanks to the supplier, Bidvest, using the balanced scorecard.

    Across the public sector – places like schools, hospitals, military canteens and government departments – we will be able to buy around an extra £400million of British food every year that we used to source overseas.

    Changing tastes

    The opportunities ahead are about changing tastes as well as new markets.

    The Family Food survey, which we released last week, shows how what we eat has moved on since the 1970s.

    As a great fan of British butter, I’m very happy at the revival in its fortunes which the survey shows – we now eat far more butter than all the low-fat spreads and margarine put together. Fruit juice, fresh fruit and veg as well as breakfast cereal have all surged – as has yoghurt, up more than five-fold since the 1970s.

    Businesses like Yeo Valley in Somerset are responding to these changing tastes. It now produces 2 million yoghurts a week, adding value for its own farms and for 90 others in the south west.

    Thanks largely to the efforts of the NFU, closely supported by George Eustice, more supermarkets are buying British – like Tesco, who will be sourcing all the milk for their own-label yoghurt from British herds. And Marks and Spencer’s will be sourcing all of its cheddar from Britain.

    Our go ahead businesses also include vegetable growers like Hammond Produce, who set up a Garden of Innovation in Nottinghamshire jointly with Bakkavor to provide a showcase for their novel produce to go into ready meals.

    Investment and managing volatility

    The British flair for innovation helped the food industry attract more foreign investment in 2014 than the rest of manufacturing put together.

    We have also seen strong investment in farming. Thanks to high-quality management, this is starting to show through in rising productivity.

    And although we cannot control market volatility, we can give farmers improved tools to manage it.

    Last year, the NFU had two major budget asks – certainty around the annual investment allowance and improved tax averaging.

    Because this government backs British farming, we have delivered those reforms. From April this year, farmers can average profits over five years instead of two. Also from this year, we are introducing a permanent annual investment allowance of £200,000.

    There are other actions that could help smooth out volatility. We are drawing up practical options for creating new derivatives markets. That means cooperating closely with the AHDB’s volatility forum, with farming, processors and the finance sector.

    Reducing the burden of regulation

    We are fundamentally re-engineering the way we work with farmers to reduce the burden of regulation.

    As we re-shape Defra and its organisations, the Environment Agency and Natural England will be working to the same boundaries so it will be much clearer for farmers who they need to talk to.

    By the end of this parliament, we will have saved businesses £470million of unnecessary costs.

    We have already got rid of lots of unnecessary blockages in the planning system and we will go further with the Rural Planning Review we launched earlier this month. It is looking at how we can streamline the development process in areas like farm shops, polytunnels and farm reservoirs.

    Our new Single Farm Inspection Taskforce will start work in June. By better use of data and technology like satellite imagery and by coordinating visits, we will reduce the number of inspections by at least 20,000 a year in this parliament. Added to the 34,000 cut since 2010, that will mean we have reduced the number of visits by over 50,000 a year.

    The single farm helpline, which we set up in September, is saving farmers hassle. Over 60% of queries are now dealt with by the first person the caller talks to– they do not get shoved from team to team.

    Europe

    As I have said previously, the current CAP is the most complicated ever. I want to see simplification in ecological focus areas, cross-compliance and inspections and far better use of technology.

    And I want the three-crop rule abolished. I have heard from farmers in Hampshire and Northamptonshire how it is adding 10% to their costs – all for a scheme that does virtually nothing for the environment.

    I want to see more decisions made at national and local level in areas like pesticides and environmental stewardship.

    I believe that by voting to remain we can work within a reformed EU to reduce bureaucracy and secure further reform while still enjoying the significant benefits of the single market which gives us access to 500 million consumers. We are able to export our high quality products freely without the trade barriers we deal with elsewhere and with a say in the rules.

    Food and farming is our largest manufacturing industry employing 3.8 million people. Sixty percent of our food and farming exports are to the European Union, bringing in £11billion.

    At a time of severe price volatility and global market uncertainty – I believe it would be wrong to take a leap into the dark. The years of complication and risk caused by negotiating withdrawal would be a distraction from our efforts to build a world-leading food and farming industry that brings jobs and growth to Britain.

    The new settlement the Prime Minister has secured gives us the best of both worlds and I am proud to be part of the Government that it is delivering on its commitment to have an in out referendum.

    I believe we would be stronger, safer and better off in a reformed Europe but ultimately it will be for the British people to decide.

    Rural Payments

    The complexity of the CAP has unfortunately caused real problems in the basic payment scheme. The Commission were still making changes in February 2015, which was far too late.

    When farmers are already facing price pressures, I fully understand the concerns of those who have not yet received payments.

    It is vital we do the calculations properly or we could face huge fines from the EU. Disallowance is already running at £70million a year, money we should be investing to improve the growth prospects of British food and farming.

    I have been regularly monitoring progress with Mark Grimshaw and making sure he gets all the support he needs.

    Under his leadership, the RPA has been working seven days a week with between 800 and 1,000 staff processing applications. They have entered and checked more than 80,000 claim forms.

    As a result of their efforts, by last weekend we had paid over £1billion to nearly 71,000 farmers, four fifths of those eligible.

    We are on course to make almost all payments by the end of March.

    For farmers who have not been paid, we will continue to work with the banks so they are able to access finance.

    We also have a hardship fund, which has advanced BPS payments to 268 farmers, worth an average of £16,400.

    I know there have been issues in areas like allocating land across commons and in cross-border claims, which will be speeded up when new systems for exchanging data with Scotland and Wales go live in April.

    Now that we have entered all the data on our system, the 2016 application round will be much simpler, particularly for people who do not need to make any changes. Farmers will be able to apply online this year, and that will include land and entitlement transfers. And of course, for those who need it, we’re retaining a paper option.

    The window opens in early March and farmers will have until May 16th to finalise claims.

    We have been making separate payments to those facing exceptional difficulties, including £26.2million in one-off support for the dairy sector.

    The Farming Recovery Fund to help flood-hit businesses get up and running again is processing more than 80% of applications in less than 10 working days. So far, it has approved nearly £1million of claims at an average of £9,100 per farmer.

    Resilience

    While we are getting payments out as quickly as possible and helping those facing immediate challenges, we will not lose sight of the need to continue building confidence in the future.

    The 12% increase we secured in Defra’s capital budget means we can invest more in flood defences and resilience against animal and plant disease.

    We are strengthening protection for a further 420,000 acres of farmland by 2021. On top of the 580,000 acres we protected in the last parliament, this will mean 1 million acres better defended in a decade.

    We are upgrading laboratories and other facilities at Weybridge to fight animal disease – something too many people in this hall have had to confront, whether it is avian flu or, 15 years ago this week, foot and mouth.

    Bovine TB is the biggest threat we face and I am 100% committed to defeating it. Our comprehensive 25-year strategy is making real progress – in fact, we’re on course to declare half of England TB-free by 2019.

    That success is in large part due to the efforts of farmers who have gone out night after night, often in the face of blatant intimidation, to make the badger cull a success. Thanks to them, all three culls – in Dorset, Gloucestershire and Somerset – met their targets in 2015. It is these farmers who are giving hope to a whole industry.

    But this is no time to ease off. I want to see culling expanded across a wider number of areas this year. The Chief Veterinary Officer’s advice is that this is the only way to secure the full benefits of our comprehensive strategy.

    And we will fund an expanded TB advisory service that farmers have been calling for so it is available throughout the high-risk and edge areas.

    Whatever our opponents may say, we know we are doing the right thing. We are pursuing a strategy that has worked in Australia and is working in Ireland and New Zealand.

    We will not rest until we have eradicated this devastating disease.

    Conclusion

    Bovine TB is one of the many challenges this industry faces. And I recognise these are not easy times. That is why this next year is such a vital period. We will need to work closely together to make sure farming has the confident and profitable future it deserves.

    British food and farming is a fantastic brand, recognised and admired around the world. The opportunities it offers talented people have never been greater.

    It is central to this country’s future – to our economy, to our environment, to a thriving countryside – to making sure Britain remains a fantastic place to live.

    Thank you.

  • Michael Fallon – 2016 Speech in the Falkland Islands

    michaelfallon

    Below is the text of the speech made by Michael Fallon, the Secretary of State for Defence, on board HMS Clyde at Stanley in the Falkland Islands on 16 February 2016.

    I’m delighted to be here.

    One of the most important parts of my job is visiting our troops and civilian personnel around the world, and meeting the local people where they are based.

    I have been trying to come here for some time and I’m pleased to have made it. It is over a decade since a Defence Secretary has visited the Islands so it is long overdue.

    It is a pleasure to have had the opportunity to spend time with you and to hear about life and the issues on the Islands, and to remember those who lost their lives in the conflict.

    This morning I laid a wreath at Liberation Monument and tomorrow I will be visiting Blue Beach Cemetery, and the Argentinian cemetery. It is very moving to be here to reflect on those events.

    I want to start with a simple message, we will always defend your right to determine your future. That matter was settled over 30 years ago, and reaffirmed in the 2013 referendum.

    Last year I reaffirmed that commitment with a £180 million investment over the next decade to modernise the military infrastructure. And I am pleased to announce that I expect to announce a contract for the work to upgrade Mare Harbour next month, and to award a contract for the new Power Station in May with work starting this year.

    And this visit is an opportunity to hear about the success story of these Islands.

    Over the last 3 decades your efforts have developed a thriving, self sufficient, self governing democracy that has enjoyed remarkable growth and economic development.

    And I’ve already experienced the strong community and identity that exists here.

    Today I have been hearing about the opportunities for future economic development. There are plenty of prospects, whether from development of onshore activities, diversification of agriculture, science and technology research, development of exports markets, or increasing the already successful tourism sector.

    The British government wants to help you realise those economic opportunities.

    Our position on sovereignty will not change but as the Prime Minister has said, we want a more positive and productive relationship with the new Argentinian government.

    We are determined that doing that should translate into new economic opportunities and prosperity.

    This means an end to the measures that are damaging your economy, so that you are free to trade, to travel and to welcome all into the wonderful Islands.

    What it will not involve is any question of the position of the Falkland Islands changing.

    If we can achieve it, then a more stable South Atlantic is in all our interests.

    With the support of the UK, I am confident that the Falklands Islands can look forward to an even brighter future.

  • Michael Wilshaw – 2016 Speech at IPPR

    michaelwilshaw

    Below is the text of the speech made by Sir Michael Wilshaw, the Chief Inspector of OFSTED, at the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) on 23 February 2016.

    I’m making this speech in London, but I would have preferred to make it in Manchester. Unfortunately, logistical difficulties made that impossible. But the irony of pronouncing on education in the North from the smug South isn’t lost on me.

    My last Annual Report in December painted a stark picture of a nation divided at the age of 11. Too many children in the North and Midlands, I reported, are being taught in schools that are not good enough. Nearly 1 in 3 secondaries there requires improvement or is inadequate compared to 1 in 4 elsewhere. Of the 16 local authorities nationally with the poorest performing secondary schools, 13 were above a line from the Bristol Channel to the Wash.

    It is fair to say that not all parts of the North and Midlands perform poorly. Many are good and a few are exceptional. It’s also the case that there are areas in the South that are educational laggards. But overall there is a significant discrepancy in performance between North and South. According to the Sunday Times schools guide only a third of the best state schools are in the North and Midlands.

    Manchester and Liverpool illustrate the scale of the problem. Three in 10 secondary schools in Manchester and four in 10 in Liverpool require improvement or are inadequate compared to 1 in 10 in inner London. The situation in some of their satellite towns is even worse. A third of the schools in Rochdale are not good enough, as is a similar proportion in Salford. In Oldham, 6 in 10 secondaries require improvement or are inadequate and in Knowsley not a single secondary school is good or better.

    Fewer than half of all children in these 6 local authorities achieved 5 good GCSEs last year, compared to a national average of 57%.

    Pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds fared particularly badly. In inner London, almost half of pupils eligible for free school meals were awarded five good GCSEs last year. In Greater Manchester, just under a third were successful. In Liverpool it was around a quarter and in Knowsley, only 1 in 5 pupils eligible for free school meals achieved 5 good GCSEs.

    Manchester and Liverpool are at the core of our ambitions for a northern powerhouse. They are the engines that could transform the prospects of the entire region. But as far as secondary education is concerned, they are not firing on all cylinders. In fact they seem to be going into reverse. The proportion of Manchester’s pupils gaining good GCSEs declined from 51.4% 2 years ago to 47.5% now. In Liverpool, the percentage fell from 49.9 to 48.6% over the same period.

    Is poverty the culprit?

    Since I spelt out Ofsted’s concerns late last year, several commentators have argued that disadvantage explains the difference. The North is relatively poor and the South rich.

    But if poverty is the culprit, why are primary schools in the North and Midlands doing so well? There is little difference in inspection outcomes for primaries in these areas and those in the rest of the country. How can deprivation explain disappointment at secondary school yet fail to impede progress at primary? Poverty doesn’t wait to kick in at 11.

    I do not underestimate how difficult it is to educate children who are poor and who lack all the advantages a middle-class background confers. I have spent most of my professional career trying to enthuse children whom others had written off. It isn’t easy for schools to compensate for social disadvantage. But never make the mistake that because it’s difficult, schools cannot make a difference. They can.

    Does ethnicity explain London’s success?

    Others claim that it isn’t poverty but ethnicity that accounts for the discrepancy. London has outperformed the rest, so the argument goes, because children of immigrants tend to be more ambitious. London benefits disproportionately because 37% of its citizens were born overseas. Whereas the rest of the country has higher proportions of the lowest performing ethnic group, white Britons on free school meals.

    Yet parts of inner-city Liverpool and Manchester are no strangers to immigration. Some 25% of residents in Manchester were foreign-born. While Leicester, which has a minority white British population, is one of the worst performing local authority areas. Only half of its pupils achieved 5 good GCSEs.

    Conversely Newcastle, where 85% of secondary schools are good or better and where on average 57.3% students achieved 5 good GCSEs, has far fewer immigrants – only 6% of its citizens were born overseas. Clearly, school progress or decline cannot be explained solely by ethnic background.

    Is it then a question of funding? Inner-London boroughs historically benefited from much higher-per-pupil funding than elsewhere because they were among the most deprived. But Manchester and Liverpool also do relatively well, especially when the effects of increased London pay are stripped out. Around two-thirds of any extra money London receives is spent on higher wages for staff.

    Higher spend doesn’t automatically lead to better performance. Nottingham, which has one of the highest-per-pupil funding settlements in the country outside London, has one of the worst records at secondary – only 42.4% of its youngsters got 5 good GCSEs, including English and maths, last year.

    What needs to be done?

    Yes, London has advantages that other cities lack, but what of Liverpool or Manchester? Are you really telling me that they lack swagger and dynamism? That they cannot succeed in the way London has succeeded? These are the cities that built Britain. They pioneered a modern, civic education when students at certain other universities spent most of their time studying the New Testament in Greek.

    Today, Manchester and Liverpool boast 8 universities between them, 2 of which are among the top 200 in the world. They are beacons of higher educational excellence. But if these cities can provide a world-class education for youngsters at 18, why on earth are they failing to do so for too many at 11?

    At some point, we have to accept that our children’s education can be better – or worse – because of the choices we make. At some point, politicians in Manchester and Liverpool will have to accept that the Northern Powerhouse will splutter and die if their youngsters lack the skills to sustain it.

    Back in the early nineties, the prospects for schools in Hackney, where I taught, seemed as bleak as many areas in the North and Midlands seem today. Only 14% of youngsters in the borough gained a good GCSE in 1990.

    Leadership turned things around. But school leaders didn’t do it by themselves. They had recognizable local champions, politicians like Jules Pipe in Hackney and Robin Wales in Newham who took responsibility for the performance of their local schools – all schools, not just those under their direct control.

    They expected results and refused to accept excuses from any of them. Their priority was, and remains, the better education of children. They did not allow varying school structures to deflect them from that objective. All children in every school were their children and all schools would be held to account for their performance.

    This is what needs to happen now in Manchester and Liverpool. I appreciate that it isn’t easy and I accept that improvement can’t happen overnight. I understand that it’s a lot easier to teach children who don’t come to school hungry, who live in homes filled with books, who have parents who are employed let alone university educated.

    Nor am I calling for a return to micro-management of schools by town halls or for new local educational powers. But I am talking about political will and vision. I am calling on local politicians, be they mayors, council leaders or cabinet members, to stand up and be counted, to shoulder responsibility for their local schools, to challenge and support them regardless of whether they are academies or not. I’m calling on them to be visible, high-profile figures that people can recognize as education champions. I am calling on them to make education in general – and their underperforming secondary schools in particular – a central target of their strategy for growth. I am asking them to better understand that unless there are high standards in the major cities of our country then good practice will not radiate out to the satellite towns and communities outside those cities.

    Unless they do, I fear Manchester and Liverpool will never become the economic powerhouses we want them to be. We cannot fight for social mobility with political immobility. Politicians need to act. It requires grit, imagination, faith and bloody mindedness – qualities that, fortunately, I really don’t think are less common in the North than they are down South.

    Thank you.

  • Michael Gove – 2015 Statement on Harris Review

    michaelgove

    Below is the text of the statement made by Michael Gove, the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, in the House of Commons on 17 December 2015.

    I will today publish the government’s response to the Harris Review into self-inflicted deaths in custody of 18-24 year olds.

    The government is grateful to Lord Harris of Haringey and the Harris Review panel for their report on this important review.

    We must never simply accept self-harm and self-inflicted deaths as an inevitable feature of prison life. Reducing the rates of violence, self-harm and deaths in custody is a priority for the National Offender Management Service. I have already made clear that our prison system needs urgent reform. I have also asked Charlie Taylor to review the current system of youth justice. We will be setting out more detail on our plans for reform in due course.

    The government’s response to the Harris review sets out the wide range of action we are taking to reduce self-harm and self-inflicted deaths in custody, including giving greater support to those with mental health vulnerabilities who come into contact with the criminal justice system and improving the management of “Safer Cells” in prisons. We are also increasing the number of prison staff. Over the last year we recruited 2,340 prison officers, a net increase of 540.

    The Harris Review, and our response, will help to address the serious problems of self-harm and self-inflicted deaths as we develop our wider reforms to make prisons places of decency, hope and rehabilitation.

    The response will be laid today and copies will be available in the Vote and Printed Paper Offices. The response will also be published online at www.gov.uk.

  • David Cameron – 2015 Statement on Muslim Brotherhood Review

    davidcameron

    Below is the text of the statement made by David Cameron, the Prime Minister, in the House of Commons on 17 December 2015.

    I have today laid before both Houses the main findings of the internal review I commissioned in the last Parliament to improve the government’s understanding of the Muslim Brotherhood; establish whether the Muslim Brotherhood’s ideology or activities, or those of individual members or affiliates, put at risk, damaged, or risked damaging the UK’s national interests; and where appropriate inform policy.

    The review involved substantial research and wide consultation including Muslim Brotherhood representatives in the UK and overseas, and an open invitation to other interested parties to submit written contributions.

    It is a complex subject: the Muslim Brotherhood comprises both a transnational network, with links in the UK, and national organisations in and outside the Islamic world. The movement is deliberately opaque, and habitually secretive.

    Since the authors completed their initial research in 2014, and during the course of the government’s examination of the findings, further allegations of violence carried out by supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood have surfaced, which the government will continue to investigate, taking action as appropriate.

    As the Muslim Brotherhood continues to evolve, so must our understanding of it. The findings have revealed much that we did not know but work will continue to ensure we keep up to date with developments.

    The government considers the following the most important findings.

    The Muslim Brotherhood’s foundational texts call for the progressive moral purification of individuals and Muslim societies and their eventual political unification in a Caliphate under Sharia law. To this day the Muslim Brotherhood characterises Western societies and liberal Muslims as decadent and immoral. It can be seen primarily as a political project.

    Parts of the Muslim Brotherhood have a highly ambiguous relationship with violent extremism. Both as an ideology and as a network it has been a rite of passage for some individuals and groups who have gone on to engage in violence and terrorism. It has stated its opposition to al-Qaida (AQ) but it has never credibly denounced the use made by terrorist organisations of the work of Sayyid Qutb, one of the Brotherhood’s most prominent ideologues. Individuals closely associated with the Muslim Brotherhood in the UK have supported suicide bombing and other attacks in Israel by Hamas, an organisation whose military wing has been proscribed in the UK since 2001 as a terrorist organisation, and which describes itself as the Palestinian chapter of the Muslim Brotherhood.

    Moreover, despite the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood’s public condemnation of violence in 2012/13 and afterwards, some of their supporters have been involved in violent exchanges with the security forces and other groups. Media reports and credible academic studies indicate that in the past 12 months a minority of Muslim Brotherhood supporters in Egypt have engaged alongside other Islamists in violent acts. Some senior leaders have publicly reiterated the Muslim Brotherhood’s commitment to non-violence, but others have failed to renounce the calls for retribution in some recent Muslim Brotherhood statements.

    Muslim Brotherhood-associated and influenced groups in the UK have at times had a significant influence on national organisations which have claimed to represent Muslim communities (and on that basis have had a dialogue with government), charities and some mosques. But they have also sometimes characterised the UK as fundamentally hostile to Muslim faith and identity; and expressed support for terrorist attacks conducted by Hamas.

    Aspects of the Muslim Brotherhood’s ideology and activities therefore run counter to British values of democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, equality and the mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs. The Muslim Brotherhood is not the only movement that promotes values which appear intolerant of equality and freedom of faith and belief. Nor is it the only movement or group dedicated in theory to revolutionising societies and changing existing ways of life. But I have made clear this government’s determination to reject intolerance, and to counter not just violent Islamist extremism, but also to tackle those who create the conditions for it to flourish.

    The main findings of the review support the conclusion that membership of, association with, or influence by the Muslim Brotherhood should be considered as a possible indicator of extremism.

    We will therefore keep under review the views that are promoted and activities that are undertaken by Muslim Brotherhood associates in the UK, in Arabic as well as English. We will consider whether any action under the Counter-Extremism Strategy or as part of our wider work may be appropriate, including action in line with the new engagement policy the government will develop to ensure central and local government does not inadvertently provide legitimacy or a platform for extremists. We will challenge extremists’ poisonous narratives and promote positive alternatives that show vulnerable people that there are better ways to get on in life.

    We will continue to:

    – refuse visas to members and associates of the Muslim Brotherhood who are on record as having made extremist comments, where this would be conducive to the public good and in line with our existing policy guidelines and approach to extremism in all forms

    – seek to ensure charities that have links to the Muslim Brotherhood are not misused to support or finance the Muslim Brotherhood instead of their lawful charitable purpose

    – strengthen liaison arrangements with international partners to ensure that allegations of illicit funding or other misuse of charities are robustly investigated and appropriate action taken

    – enforce the EU asset freeze on Hamas

    – keep under review whether the views and activities of the Muslim Brotherhood meet the legal test for proscription

    We will also intensify scrutiny of the views and activities that Muslim Brotherhood members, associates and affiliates (whether based in the UK or elsewhere) promote overseas. As our Counter-Extremism Strategy makes clear, insights from our overseas posts will help the government better understand drivers, networks and ideologies. We will continue to consult, and share information and analysis with, governments in the Middle East and North Africa as appropriate. We will then take further decisions and actions as needed.

  • David Cameron – 2016 Speech on EU Reform

    davidcameron

    Below is the text of the statement made by David Cameron, the Prime Minister, in the House of Commons on 22 February 2016.

    With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the agreement reached in Brussels last week.

    But first let me say a word about the migration crisis which was also discussed at the Council.

    We agreed that we needed to press ahead with strengthening the EU’s external borders to ensure that non-refugees are returned promptly and back the new mission to disrupt the criminal gangs working between Greece and Turkey, who are putting so many people’s lives at risk.

    And I made clear that Britain will continue to contribute in all these areas and will step up contributions.

    Turning to Britain’s place in Europe, Mr Speaker, I have spent the last 9 months setting out the 4 areas where we need reform and meeting with all 27 other EU heads of state and government to reach an agreement that delivers concrete reforms in all 4 areas.

    Let me take each in turn.

    Financial protection

    First, British jobs and British business depend on being able to trade with Europe on a level playing field.

    So we wanted new protections for our economy to safeguard the pound, to promote our industries – including our financial services industries, to protect British taxpayers from the costs of problems in the eurozone and to ensure we have a full say over the rules of the single market, while remaining outside the eurozone.

    And we got all of those things.

    We have not just permanently protected the pound and our right to keep it, but ensured that we can’t be discriminated against.

    Responsibility for supervising the financial stability of the UK will always remain in the hands of the Bank of England.

    We have ensured that British taxpayers will never be made to bail out countries in the eurozone.

    We have made sure that the eurozone cannot act as a bloc to undermine the integrity of the free trade single market.

    And we have guaranteed that British business will never face any discrimination for being outside the eurozone.

    So, for example, our financial services firms – our number 1 services export employing over a million people can never be forced to relocate inside the eurozone if they want to undertake complex trades in euros, just because they are based in the UK.

    And these protections are not just set out in a legally-binding agreement.

    All 28 member states were also clear that the treaties would be changed to incorporate the protections for the UK as an economy that is inside the EU but outside the eurozone.

    We also agreed a new mechanism to enable non-eurozone countries to raise issues of concern – and we won the battle to ensure this could be triggered by one country alone.

    Of course, Mr Speaker, none of these protections would be available if we were to leave the EU.

    European competitiveness

    Second, we wanted commitments to make Europe more competitive, creating jobs and making British families more financially secure.

    Again we got them.

    Europe will complete the single market in key areas that will really help Britain.

    In services – making it easier for thousands of UK service-based companies like IT firms to trade in Europe.

    In capital – so UK start-ups can access more sources of finance for their businesses.

    And in energy – allowing new suppliers into our energy market – meaning lower energy bills for families across the country.

    We have secured commitments to complete trade and investment agreements with the fastest growing and most dynamic economies around the world including the USA, Japan and China as well as our Commonwealth allies India, New Zealand and Australia.

    These deals could add billions of pounds and thousands of jobs to our economy every year.

    And, of course they build on the deals we already have with 53 countries around the world through which Britain has benefitted from the negotiating muscle that comes from being part of the world’s largest trading bloc.

    Mr Speaker, of course country after country have said to me that of course they could sign trade deals with Britain.

    But they have also said that their priority would be trade deals with the EU.

    By their nature these EU deals would be bigger and better.

    And a deal with Britain wouldn’t even be possible until we had settled our position outside the EU.

    So Mr Speaker, for those members who care about signing new trade deals outside the EU, we would be looking at years and years of delay.

    Last but by no means least on competitiveness, one of the biggest frustrations for British business is the red tape and bureaucracy so we agreed there will now be targets to cut the total burden of EU regulation on business.

    This builds on the progress we have already made – with the Commission already cutting the number of new initiatives by 80% and it means that the cost of EU red tape will be going down, not up.

    Of course, if we were to leave the EU but ultimately achieve a deal with full access to the single market – like Norway – we would still be subject to all of the EU’s regulation when selling into Europe.

    As the former Europe spokesman for the Norwegian Conservative Party Nikolai Astrup said:

    If you want to run Europe, you must be in Europe. If you want to be run by Europe, feel free to join Norway in the European Economic Area.

    Migration

    Third, we wanted to reduce the very high level of migration from within the EU by preventing the abuse of free movement and preventing our welfare system acting as a magnet for people to come to our country.

    After the hard work of the Home Secretary we have secured new powers against criminals from other countries including powers to stop them from coming here in the first place, and powers to deport them if they are already here.

    We agreed longer re-entry bans for fraudsters and people who collude in sham marriages.

    And an end to the frankly ridiculous situation where EU nationals can avoid British immigration rules when bringing their families from outside the EU.

    Mr Speaker, this agreement broke new ground – with the European Council agreeing to reverse decisions from the European Court of Justice.

    We have also secured a breakthrough agreement for Britain to reduce the unnatural draw that our benefits system exerts across Europe.

    We have already made sure that EU migrants cannot claim the new unemployment benefit, Universal Credit, while looking for work.

    And those coming from the EU who haven’t found work within 6 months can now be required to leave.

    At this Council we agreed that EU migrants working in Britain can be prevented from sending child benefit home at UK rates.

    This will apply first to new claimants – and then to existing claimants from the start of 2020.

    And we also established a new emergency brake so that EU migrants will have to wait 4 years until they have full access to our benefits.

    Mr Speaker, people said it was impossible to achieve real change in this area.

    And that a 4-year restriction on benefits was completely out of the question.

    And yet that is what we have done.

    And once activated, the emergency brake will be in place for 7 years.

    So if it begins next year, it will still be operating in 2024 and there will be people who won’t be getting full benefits until 2028.

    Mr Speaker, all along we have said that people shouldn’t be able to come here and get access to our benefits system straightaway.

    No more something for nothing.

    And that is what we have achieved.

    Mr Speaker, I’m sure the discussion about welfare and immigration will be intense.

    But let me make this point.

    No country outside the EU has agreed full access to the single market without accepting paying into the EU and accepting free movement.

    In addition, these new safeguards lapse if we leave the EU.

    Powers for UK Parliament

    The fourth area where we wanted to make significant changes was to protect our country from further European political integration and to increase powers for our national Parliament.

    Ever since we joined, Europe has been on the path to something called ‘ever closer union’.

    It means a political union. We’ve never liked it. We never wanted it.

    And now Britain will be permanently and legally excluded from it.

    The text says that the treaties will be changed to make clear that – and I quote:

    …the Treaty references to ever closer union do not apply to the United Kingdom.

    So Mr Speaker, as a result of this negotiation, Britain can never be part of a European superstate.

    The council also agreed that ever closer union, which has been referred to in previous judgements from the European Court of Justice does not offer a legal basis for extending the scope of any provision of the treaties or of EU secondary legislation.

    Mr Speaker, people used to talk about a multi-speed Europe.

    Now we have a clear agreement that not only are different countries able to travel at different speeds, they are ultimately heading to different destinations too. And I would argue that is fundamental change.

    We have also strengthened the role of this House and all national parliaments.

    We have already passed a Referendum Act to make sure that no powers can be handed to Brussels without the explicit consent of the British people in a referendum.

    Now, if Brussels comes up with legislation we don’t want, we can get together with other parliaments and block it with a red card.

    And we have a new mechanism to finally enforce the principle that – as far as possible – powers should sit here in Westminster, not in Brussels.

    So every year the EU now has to go through the powers they exercise and work out which are no longer needed and should be returned to nation states.

    In recent years we have also seen attempts to bypass our opt-out on justice and home affairs by bringing forward legislation under a different label.

    For example, attempts to interfere with the way the UK authorities handle fraud were tried under the guise of legislation on the EU budget.

    The agreements at last week’s Council ensure this can never happen again.

    Mr Speaker, the reforms we have secured will be legally binding in international law, and will be deposited as a treaty at the UN.

    And they cannot be unpicked without the agreement of Britain and every other EU country.

    And as I have said, all 28 member states were also clear that the treaties would be changed to incorporate the protections for the UK as an economy outside the eurozone – and our permanent exclusion from ever closer union.

    Mr Speaker, our special status means that Britain can have the best of both worlds.

    We will be in the parts of Europe that work for us, influencing the decisions that affect us, in the driving seat of the world’s biggest single market and with the ability to take action to keep our people safe.

    But we will be out of the parts of Europe that do not work for us.

    Out of the euro. Out of the eurozone bailouts.

    Out of the passport-free, no borders Schengen area and permanently and legally protected from ever being part of an ever closer union.

    Of course, there is still more to do.

    I am the first to say that there are still many ways in which this organisation needs to improve – and the task of reforming Europe does not end with last week’s agreement.

    Referendum

    But with the special status this settlement gives us, I do believe the time has come to fulfil another vital commitment this government made – and that is to hold a referendum.

    So, Mr Speaker, I am today commencing the process set out under our Referendum Act to propose that the British people decide our future in Europe through in-out referendum on Thursday 23 June.

    The Foreign Secretary has laid in both Houses a report setting out the new settlement that the government has negotiated.

    This fulfils the duty to publish information set out in section 6 of the European Union Referendum Act 2015.

    And as the Cabinet agreed on Saturday, the government’s position will be to recommend that Britain remains in this reformed European Union.

    Mr Speaker, this is a vital decision for the future of our country. And we should also be clear that it is a final decision.

    An idea has been put forward that if the country votes to leave we could have a second renegotiation and perhaps another referendum.

    Mr Speaker I won’t dwell on the irony that some people who want to vote to leave – apparently want to use a leave vote to remain.

    But such an approach also ignores more profound points about democracy, diplomacy and legality.

    This is a straight democratic decision – staying in or leaving – and no government can ignore that.

    Having a second renegotiation followed by a second referendum is not on the ballot paper.

    And for a Prime Minister to ignore the express will of the British people to leave the EU would not just be wrong, it would be undemocratic.

    On the diplomacy, the idea that other European countries would be ready to start a second negotiation is for the birds. Many are under pressure for what they have already agreed.

    Then there is the legality. I want to spell out this point very carefully. If the British people vote to leave there is only one way to bring that about – and that is to trigger Article 50 of the Treaties and begin the process of exit.

    And the British people would rightly expect that to start straight away.

    Let me be absolutely clear how this works. It triggers a 2-year time period to negotiate the arrangements for exit.

    At the end of this period, if no agreement is in place then exit is automatic unless every 1 of the 27 other EU member states agrees to a delay.

    And we should be clear that this process is not an invitation to re-join, it is a process for leaving.

    Sadly, Mr Speaker, I have known a number of couples who have begun divorce proceedings.

    But I do not know any who have begun divorce proceedings in order to renew their marriage vows.

    We should also be clear about what would happen if that deal to leave wasn’t done within 2 years.

    Our current access to the single market would cease immediately after 2 years were up.

    And our current trade agreements with 53 countries around the world would lapse.

    This cannot be described as anything other than risk, uncertainty and a leap in the dark that could hurt working people in our country for years to come.

    And this is not some theoretical question, this is a real decision about people’s lives.

    When it comes to people’s jobs, it is simply not enough to say that it will be all right on the night and we will work it out.

    And I believe that in the weeks to come we need to properly face up to the economic consequences of the choice to leave.

    Mr Speaker, I believe Britain will be stronger, safer and better off by remaining in a reformed European Union.

    Stronger – because we can play a leading role in one of the world’s largest organisations from within, helping to make the big decisions on trade and security that determine our future.

    Safer – because we can work with our European partners to fight cross-border crime and terrorism.

    And better off – because British businesses will have full access to the free trade single market, bringing jobs, investment and lower prices.

    Mr Speaker, there will be much debate about sovereignty – and rightly so.

    To me what matters most is the power to get things done for our people, for our country, and for our future.

    Leaving the EU may briefly make us feel more sovereign – but would it actually give us more power, more influence and a greater ability to get things done?

    If we leave the EU, will we have the power to stop our businesses being discriminated against? No.

    Will we have the power to insist that European countries share with us their border information so we know what terrorists and criminals are doing in Europe? No.

    Will we have more influence over the decisions that affect the prosperity and security of British families? No.

    We are a great country – and whatever choice we make we will still be great.

    But I believe the choice is between being an even greater Britain inside a reformed EU or a great leap into the unknown.

    The challenges facing the west today are genuinely threatening.

    Putin’s aggression in the east. Islamist extremism in the south.

    In my view this is no time to divide the west.

    When faced with challenges to our way of life, our values and our freedoms, this is a time for strength in numbers.

    And Mr Speaker, let me end by saying this.

    I am not standing for re-election.

    I have no other agenda than what is best for our country.

    I am standing here today telling you what I think.

    My responsibility as Prime Minister is to speak plainly about what I believe is right for our country.

    And that is what I will do every day for the next 4 months.

    And I commend this statement to the House.

  • Harriett Baldwin – 2016 Speech at Fintech Week

    Harriett Baldwin
    Harriett Baldwin

    Below is the text of the speech made by Harriett Baldwin, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, at an event held by the Association of British Insurers on 22 February 2016.

    It is great to be here to kick off Fintech Week.

    Fintech Week has two key aims.

    The first is to celebrate our status as a leading global Fintech hub.

    The second is to look at what we need to do if we want to become, and remain, the leading global Fintech hub.

    Part of that is, of course, what more government, or regulators, can do to support UK Fintech.

    But it’s also about what this event highlights – what we can do to foster greater collaboration between Fintechs and traditional financial services firms.

    It feels particularly apt for this event to be held in this historic part of London, right next to Shoreditch and Hoxton, the hubs of innovation and technology in London.

    It’s an area which has become a byword for innovative technology.

    The buzz in this historic corner of London shows how important it is to us as a country to be open to new things and new ideas.

    And that effect isn’t just local or regional – it’s national. Across the UK the Fintech market generated over £6.5 billion in revenue last year. Our Fintechs attract significant investment, with around £550 million in capital invested in 2015. It is clear that we have a strong pool of talent and the right government and regulatory regimes to help Fintechs thrive.

    I’ve been particularly encouraged by seeing start-ups from across the world choosing the UK as their home and developing their businesses here.

    As an example, Startupbootcamp’s new accelerator programme based in London, called InsurTech, offers funding and mentoring to companies from across the world.

    And aside from the positive economic effects, Fintech also helps normal people in their daily lives. It gives them extra choices; it makes their everyday tasks simpler; it improves their quality of life. In the 21st century, Fintech is quite simply essential in making financial services work for the customer.

    So Fintech is something we want to see grow ever stronger in the UK – because the technologies you have or are developing have huge economic benefits for the UK and beyond.

    And as a government, we are determined to ensure that we’ve got the right environment to nurture businesses and really boost technological innovation, supporting the sector in any way that we can.

    We’ve made a strong start in making the UK an attractive environment in which to be a Fintech business.

    In 2014, the Financial Conduct Authority launched Project Innovate and subsequently established the Innovation Hub – a support unit for innovative businesses to help them understand the regulatory framework and apply for authorisation.

    The FCA has continued this good work with a number of other initiatives. One of the most exciting is the FCA’s regulatory sandbox which will be open to applications for testing from firms this coming spring.

    Though “regulatory sandbox” is certainly a contender for the “jargon of the year award”, what a regulatory sandbox does is provide a safe space for innovative firms to test out new ideas at an early stage, with real consumers, but with oversight from the regulator.

    As an additional benefit, a sandbox also ensures the regulator is close to innovations in financial services and understands both the risks and benefits they may pose.

    I know that the ABI has been supportive of this and has been working closely with the FCA to ensure that companies developing insurance products can benefit – I hope that this will continue going forward.

    It’s not just the FCA who have been busy working in this space. As a government, we’ve also been working on how Fintechs can make better use of bank data on behalf of customers, by creating an Open Application Programming Interface (API) standard in UK banking.

    This would, for example, enable Fintechs to design phone apps which help customers manage their money better.

    Earlier this month, the Open Banking Working Group published a framework for how the open API standard can be designed and delivered. My thanks go to the Group’s chairs and all those involved in this important work.

    In addition, we recently appointed Eileen Burbidge as the UK’s Special Envoy for Fintech. In this role she represents UK interests in Fintech, at home and around the world, and leads the Treasury’s engagement with industry.

    But the work doesn’t stop here. We know we have to build on our successes if we are to maintain our position as the leading global FinTech hub and compete with the likes of Silicon Valley. There is fierce international competition for this growing industry, so it’s vital that we don’t stand still.

    As I mentioned at the start, greater collaboration with traditional financial services firms, such as those in the insurance sector, can play a crucial role here.

    How the insurance sector can contribute and what they have done so far

    The UK insurance industry has long been a pioneer in insurance innovation, with a long and proud history stretching back to the 17th century.

    UK insurers have always been among the first to take on exotic new risks created by evolving technology – such as the first cars and aeroplanes – and to sell insurance in new ways – such as over the phone or on online.

    And this readiness to innovate has helped keep the insurance industry a leader in Europe, and one of the great assets of the UK’s financial services industry. That is certainly something we are determined to see continue.

    In this rapidly changing society and technological landscape, the challenge for industry is how best to adapt to these fast-paced changes. Customers want and expect more from service providers – everything has to be quicker and better!

    We’ve already seen companies like ‘Cuvva’ step up to this challenge where, once signed up, you can purchase short term insurance for a car within minutes, even seconds if you’re quick enough, just by using an app and a smartphone camera.

    I believe that UK financial services are nothing if not adaptable – so I know that the industry will thrive in this changing environment, spot new opportunities – and continue growing, and serving your customers.

    Much innovation in financial services comes from start-ups and from other non-conventional players. This is why collaboration between start-ups and the larger institutions is key. Both can learn from each other; both, ultimately, stand to benefit from working closely together.

    There have already been some exciting developments in the insurance tech industry, such as within the telematics and ‘big data’ sphere.

    For instance, we are seeing the advent of ‘social insurance’, whereby some brokers are accessing a greater client base through social media to disrupt the sector.

    The government’s open data initiative, along with general progress in ‘big data’, is helping transform how underwriters price risk. As an example, some have made use of the publicly available DVLA data when designing new products in relation to motor insurance.

    And the government’s continued support is also clear from our commitment to organisations such as the Alan Turing Institute, which will ensure that we continue to remain at the forefront of digital and technological advances.

    Other opportunities include ‘block-chain’, which has been heralded as revolutionary by some, particularly for the insurance sector, owing to its potential to reduce insurance fraud.

    It is great to see the insurance industry take advantage of opportunities such as these, and others. And I’ve been particularly pleased to see some insurers creating dedicated spaces, to test new ideas and collaborate with tech start-ups.

    The Aviva Digital Garage is an excellent example – and I know there are many more companies that are also investing in similar initiatives, such as AXA who announced that they would be funding a new €100 million InsurTech incubator, dedicated to designing and launching novel disruptive products and services for insurance clients.

    I hope that, in the future, we will see many more combinations like these, between well-known institutions, with their knowledge and expertise, and start-ups, with exciting new ideas to bring to the table. These sort of partnerships can only be win-win.

    Events like this are excellent ways of forging such relationships:

    You come together, you discuss your challenges, you think of ways to overcome them, you throw around ideas. You collaborate. You grow.

    When that happens, everyone stands to benefit. And we, as a government, will be on your side.

    So I hope today discussion – in this amazing venue – proves fruitful and constructive, and I hope you will all continue to engage with one another, and help make – and keep – the UK the leading Fintech hub in the world.

  • Sajid Javid – 2016 Speech on Inspirational Businesses

    CBI Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Sajid Javid, the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, at the London Stock Exchange on 22 February 2016.

    Thank you, Xavier, for that warm introduction.

    And thank you for letting me have the honour of the opening the world’s greatest stock exchange a few moments ago.

    I’m sure we all agree that if the FTSE closes up today, it will be because of the uniquely skilled way the market was opened this morning!

    And if it goes down…

    Well let’s just say I was never here!

    Seriously, it’s great to be back in the City.

    My 20-odd years with Chase Manhattan and Deutsche Bank took me all over the world.

    But whenever I found myself in their Square Mile offices, it really felt like I’d come home.

    And it’s a particular pleasure to be here today of all days.

    Because this morning I get to see for myself some of the wonderful, inspiring British businesses in the LSE’s latest 1,000 companies list.

    Too often politicians get dazzled by the big brands.

    The household names.

    The multinationals employing tens of thousands of people.

    But even the biggest company started life as nothing more than one or two people with an idea.

    And the small- and medium-sized companies of today, the ones listed in this report, are the big names of tomorrow.

    That’s not just rhetoric.

    The thousand companies in this list are experiencing average annual growth of 50%.

    That’s an incredible figure, one that really shows how SMEs are powering the economic recovery.

    The diversity of the companies listed here is inspiring too.

    For one thing, they represent the whole of the UK.

    This isn’t London navel-gazing.

    There’s more than 100 in the North West of England, almost 200 across the Midlands.

    We’ve got companies in Aberdeen, in Bristol…

    And I wouldn’t be doing my job as a constituency MP if I didn’t highlight that there are 2 in Bromsgrove: Crown Domestic Appliances and Oakland International.

    So well done to everyone who has made it onto this year’s list.

    But particularly those 2!

    The spread of companies isn’t just geographical.

    They also cover a huge range of sectors, from IT to advertising to financial services.

    And about a quarter of them are involved in some kind of manufacturing or engineering.

    A lot of people think that industry is a thing of the past, that it’s all about the service sector now.

    But these fast-growing, dynamic innovative companies show that Britain still has a real future in skilled manufacturing.

    And that’s great to see.

    For all that diversity, there are a few common threads linking these firms together.

    One of those is their commitment to innovation and investment.

    That’s what makes the difference in achieving such high growth returns year-on-year.

    And that’s something the government, and my department in particular, are really serious about supporting.

    Last summer, you may have seen, we launched a plan called ‘Fixing the foundations’.

    It’s our cross-government plan for increasing productivity right across the economy.

    Our vision for increasing long-term investment in people, capital and ideas, and making markets more dynamic.

    That includes everything from increasing the quality and quantity of apprenticeships, to reforming the planning system, to changing the way the government supports growing companies who want to export.

    But that’s not all.

    With the right support, the inspired ideas of today can become the businesses of tomorrow.

    So, at the Spending Review, the Chancellor announced an investment of almost £7 billion as part of the national science capital commitment.

    He also protected today’s annual £4.7 billion resource funding in real terms.

    Together, this underlines our commitment to keeping the UK a world leader in science and research.

    We have also created Catapult centres that help business and researchers turn great ideas into commercial reality.

    They cover 11 new and emerging technologies in areas where there are world-leading research capabilities in the UK.

    Building on this, we’ll shortly be publishing a National Innovation Plan to ensure the UK remains an international beacon for bright ideas.

    The plan will bring together ideas, levers and investment from across government, so we can create the right conditions for businesses to innovate and grow.

    Of course, as Anthony Browne from the BBA says in today’s report, ambitious companies need finance in order to grow.

    Banks provide a lot of that.

    But bank lending isn’t the only way to go for innovative SMEs.

    So I’d like to pay tribute to the UK’s Angel, Venture Capital and Public Market investor community for the role they are playing in helping innovative companies to start up and scale up.

    Xavier and his team here at the LSE are also doing a lot to help strengthen the equity ladder, with the AIM, the High Growth Segment, and the ELITE Programme.

    You’re giving innovative businesses access to both finance and expertise, and that should be applauded.

    And I’m pleased to say the government is doing its bit too.

    The British Business Bank is working alongside private lenders and investors to support a large number of innovative companies.

    It’s part of our ambition – my ambition – to make the UK the best place in the world to start and grow a business.

    That’s why all the specific support for innovative SMEs I’ve talked about today is underpinned by a passionate understanding of and support for businesses of all shapes and sizes.

    We’ve slashed £10 billion of red tape for business, and are committed to cutting another £10 billion by 2020.

    We’re extending the doubling of small business rate relief until 2017.

    We’re cutting corporation tax to the lowest level of any major economy.

    We’ve lifted hundreds of thousands of businesses out of Employer National Insurance Contributions.

    We’ve set the highest ever permanent level for the annual investment allowance.

    We’ve got R&D tax credits, the Patent Box and Entrepreneur’s Relief.

    We’ve got tax schemes like the Enterprise Investment Scheme to encourage individuals to invest in small growth companies.

    And the Enterprise Bill, currently before Parliament, will create a new Small Business Commissioner to give SMEs a stronger voice.

    I was at Davos last month, where all the talk was of a future in which successful companies would be lean, agile, innovative and fast-growing.

    Well, when I look in this report and look around this room that’s exactly what I see.

    That means you are the future not just of British business, but of the global economy.

    It’s a big weight to bear, but I’m sure you can take it.

    The work you’re doing really is inspiring.

    And I’m very pleased to say that you’ve got a Business Secretary and a government that’s going to support you every step of the way.

    Thank you.