UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Stephen Hammond – 2013 Speech at the Institution of Civil Engineers

    stephenhammond

    Below is the text of the speech made by Stephen Hammond, the then Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Transport, at the Institution of Civil Engineers on 18 June 2013.

    Transport is crucial to everything we do; getting food to the shops, products to market, people to jobs. When transport slows everything slows and when it stops everything stops so good transport is essential to drive sustainable economic growth, prosperity for all and to make Britain a great place to live.

    Transport is central to the coalition strategy to growth, helping UK businesses to be more productive, rebalancing our economy and enabling the UK to compete in the global race. That’s why we have invested in transport infrastructure in all parts of our country from targeted improvements to our networks, transformation investments for future generations.

    We also recognize that we face challenges many of which as civil engineers the ICE members will be grappling with today and in the future; how to meet rising demand for mobility, how to reduce costs whilst improving services, how to mitigate the impact of transport, how to embrace technological change and how to expand networks whilst also making them more efficient?

    Government cannot overcome challenges alone. We need to continue our discussion with industry, academics and wider society to secure that the transport infrastructure that the UK needs and deserves. The ICE ‘State of the nation’ report is an informed and useful contribution to this on going debate.

  • William Hague – 2013 Press Conference with French Foreign Minister

    williamhague

    Below is the text of the press conference with William Hague, the then Foreign Secretary, and Laurent Fabius, the then French Foreign Minister, on 21 August 2013.

    Thank you very much indeed, Laurent. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.

    It’s a huge pleasure to be here with Laurent Fabius tonight and I’m grateful for his invitation to have these discussions here and I pay tribute to him and to the close work that we do together across a whole range of international issues.

    I think the Foreign and Defence policy cooperation between France and the United Kingdom is as close as it has ever been at any point in our history and that’s something we strongly believe in in the British government. It’s true in our cooperation not only on the subjects that Laurent has mentioned tonight, but also on preventing nuclear proliferation. We work closely together on issues such as Iran’s nuclear programme. On issues in Africa where I pay tribute to the work of the French government on Mali, helping to bring stability to Mali and the surrounding area where we have supported France’s initiatives just as they supported our initiatives on Somalia at the other end of Africa.

    So, we work closely together but foremost in our minds today as you have heard is the situation in various parts of the Middle-East: we have heard about a terrible act in Syria which may have involved the deaths of many hundreds, possibly as you have heard, more than a thousand people. Of course, the facts of this are still coming in. The reports of this are still coming in.

    But the United Kingdom and France called immediately for an urgent meeting of the Security Council that is about to take place; and we hope that the UN team in Damascus will be given immediate access to this area, unrestricted access to try to establish the truth. There is no reason for them not to be given access to an area not many miles from where they are doing their work now on the North East side of Damascus. This is where these events have taken place. So I hope the other members of the Security Council will join us in pressing strongly for that and I hope this will wake up some who have supported the Assad regime to realize its murderous and barbaric nature: a government that cares so little for the lives of the people of its own country.

    We’ve also been working hard today as you have heard in Brussels on the situation in Egypt, where we have agreed a good position with all of our EU colleagues. That is a position that supports democratic institutions in Egypt rather than individuals or parties and that is why we’ve condemned disproportionate violence from security forces, but also condemned attacks on churches and hospitals by those opposed to the authorities and it is why we support political dialogue in Egypt and we left the door open for European countries and the European Union to support that dialogue in the future.

    And of course, we want to keep faith with the great majority of people in Egypt who simply want a stable, prosperous, and free future. And so, we will continue to assist those people and not do anything that harms the people of Egypt as they try to bring about a better future for their country.

    So, this is what we have been discussing today and some of the things we will discuss tonight, and I’m grateful as always for the strong cooperation of Laurent Fabius and his team here.

    Thank you.

  • Nick Clegg – 2013 Speech on Modern Families

    nickclegg

    Below is the text of the speech made by Nick Clegg, the then Deputy Prime Minister, on 2 September 2013.

    Every weekday morning, across the UK, there’s an army of mums, dads, grandparents and carers cajoling young children to “Hurry up and get ready for their day!”

    Many of these families are feeling the squeeze. They’re doing what they can to juggle their busy lives. And, now more than ever, one of the biggest things that could help them out is better access to more affordable high-quality childcare. That’s why I’ve made childcare one of my main priorities in government. And whenever money has become available I’ve pushed hard for it to be invested in this area.

    Last month, the government launched its consultation on our newest offer that will help more of Britain’s working families. This means that from 2015, if your family doesn’t receive support through tax credits or Universal Credit, but both parents are working, or you’re a lone working parent, the government will provide 20% of your childcare costs up to a cost of £6,000, per child, per year. That’s the equivalent of up to £1,200 per child, per year.

    And from 2016, if you’re a lone parent or couple in work, who pays income tax and relies on Universal Credit to make childcare affordable, or even possible, we’re investing an extra £200 million to increase the contribution we give to your childcare costs from 70% to 85%. This could help out around 200,000 families.

    Of course, there has been controversy about which families are eligible for these offers. But that doesn’t detract from the fact that this is a substantial package of support that will help ease the pressure for millions of families across the country.

    And today I want to talk about what we’re doing, step by step, in the coalition government to help every British family balance the demands of their lives with children.

    One of the first decisions our government took was to increase the hours of funded early education available for every family with a 3 and 4 year old from 12.5 to 15 hours a week.

    And today I’m pleased to mark our next step on this path to affordable, accessible childcare; launching the government’s latest free childcare offer for 2 year olds.

    From today, if you’re a parent on a low income with a 2 year old in the family your child will qualify for 15 hours a week of free early years’ education.

    Any childcare and early learning provider – that’s nursery, preschool or childminder – rated outstanding or good by Ofsted can provide places. These funded places are focused on helping the families that need them most. That’s around 130,000 2 year olds – 1 in every 5.

    We are investing over £500 million this year. And have distributed £100 million to local authorities to create new places to ensure those children eligible right now can benefit from these funded places from today.

    The households, which qualify are those that meet the same eligibility requirements as for free school meals. If that’s you, or you think it might be, your local authority is there to help you. They will confirm if you’re eligible and can help you take up a place for your child.

    And we’ve also made this support available to 2 year olds, who are looked after by their local authorities. So that they too can benefit from the great start this valuable early learning support provides.

    And from this time next year, we want to extend that helping hand even further.

    Our investment will increase to £760 million to help another 130,000 children, whose families are on the next rung of the income ladder.

    In total, that will mean extra places for around 40% of families with 2 year olds. And today, I am pleased to confirm that this will be working families, who earn under £16,190 a year and rely on working tax credits. The 40% most feeling the squeeze.

    This support will also be there to help children, who have been adopted, are in care, or have a disability or special educational needs.

    And I want to thank all of those local authorities and early year’s education providers working hard across England, to ensure that the children who qualify right now can access their place from day one.

    I’m delighted at the response we’ve had so far from nurseries and child-minders in preparing these extra places and promoting this offer to parents.

    These people are amongst those you rely on the most when your children are young. And the coalition government has been working with providers to reduce paperwork, improve quality and increase routes into this sector. So that when you drop your child off at nursery, preschool, or their child-minder you know they’ll get the best early learning, care and support possible throughout their day.

    I know that some of you will be thinking…why not give this free support to every 2 year old? Why not help every family? And it is certainly my long-term ambition to extend free support to all 2 year olds. But the fact is that at a time of limited resources you’ve got to start somewhere. And for me, it’s better for us to start with those children, who can benefit most from high-quality early year’s education, but who too often miss out.

    All the evidence shows that if you take 2 young children – hanging up their coats next to each other on the first day of school – the poorer child will already be behind their better-off classmate. And if we don’t step in to help these children, that gap just keeps getting bigger. We’re talking about a child’s journey through life already being mapped out for them before they’ve even set foot in a classroom.

    Well-off children are more likely to become well-off adults. Poorer children are more likely to stay poor. And not only do these children suffer. The whole class suffers, as teachers have to focus more of their efforts on children frustrated and left behind through no fault of their own.

    As a Liberal, I believe that every British family, whatever its structure, background and circumstances, should be able to get on in life. And that the role of government should be to support, not control, our families. To make their choices possible, not to dictate their choices.

    It’s not for us to tell you whether you should stay at home or not. You have to decide what’s best for your family. And the modern British family comes in all shapes and sizes. But it is government’s responsibility to help those families feeling the squeeze; those who find it hard to meet their childcare costs.

    That’s why in government, we’re doing everything we can to reform, simplify and modernise those parts of the system that are making it harder for your families to realise their ambitions.

    From day one in government, we’ve worked with the belief that if modern families no longer fit the system, then it’s the outdated system that needs to change. That’s why from next year, we’re extending the right to request flexible working to every employee. So that the vital back up team of grandparents, family members and friends who would love to do more to help you out now can. And from 2015, if you’re a new parent you’ll also have greater freedom and flexibility to use and share leave during the maternity leave period in a way that works for you.

    Now, of course, this doesn’t mean that we can put off the tough decisions we need to take to get the massive deficit we inherited under control. But what you can be sure of is that the choices we make will be rooted in evidence and focusing investment where it can help your families most.

    The crucial question every parent asks when weighing up whether to work, or take on extra hours is: how much of my earnings will I keep after costs like tax, childcare, travel and so on? That’s why we’re designing the system to ensure that families get to keep more of what they earn and that work pays.

    It’s why we’ve committed to raise the personal allowance on income tax. So that basic rate taxpayers will get to keep all of the first £10,000 they earn. We’ve already taken over 2 million people out of paying income tax altogether. And by the time these changes are complete, they will be worth around £700 a year for 20 million basic rate taxpayers.

    We believe this is a better way to help your family. To put this money back in your pocket for you to spend on what you know can help your family best, rather than have the government decide that for you.

    And alongside our additional childcare investment in Universal Credit, I’ve also fought hard to ensure that the system no longer penalises those parents who want to go back to work, but can only work less than 16 hours. Securing £200 million of investment that will benefit an extra 100,000 low-income families.

    Previously, these parents knew that if they worked less than 16 hours a week, they would lose their existing benefits from day one, but not qualify for any additional support through the tax-credit system. This left them in the ridiculous position of knowing that their families would be worse off despite them working the hours they could. Now they know that the work they do will always pay.

    Within government, it will always be one of my biggest priorities to ensure that when both you and your children set out to achieve your ambitions, the choices available to you are greater, the sums add up a little easier and that, at every step of this road, our government is working hard to build a stronger economy and fairer society in Britain. A Britain fit for modern families.

  • David Cameron – 2016 Speech on EU Reform

    davidcameron

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Cameron, the Prime Minister, at Siemens in Wiltshire on 2 February 2016.

    It is great to be with Siemens, a business that believes so much in Britain and has invested so much in Britain and we want you to go on doing that.

    And as you say, today, I want to talk to you about this vital issue of Britain and Europe because we have had some difficult years in our economy in the years gone past, it hasn’t been easy, but we have been working to a plan, to get Britain to keep moving forward.

    We have got our economy growing, we have got the deficit coming down, we have got 2.3 million more people in work than when I became your Prime Minister, but it is a tough, difficult and dangerous world out there, and that is why it is so important we get this argument about Britain and Europe right and I am determined that we do.

    And as we do, I am very clear about the aim I have got in all this. My aim is for a country that is more prosperous, that is more secure, that gives people the chance to live that secure and decent and good life. That is what it is all about and my aim is to give Britain the chance to be in a reformed European Union.

    That is the aim.

    Why?

    Well, because Britain is a trading nation. We have got this market of 500 million people in Europe, the single market, a quarter of the world’s economy, and Britain has always needed those markets to be open and to play a part in those markets.

    So, if we can secure that future and deal with the problems we have had with Europe, that I think would be the best of both worlds. But we have had real problems, with the European Union and our membership of the European Union and so I think the right thing is to deal with those problems and give people the choice about whether to stay in a reformed European Union or leave and as Jurgen said, “go it alone”.

    That is the choice. But we have got to deal with the problems, deal with the issues.

    Now, what do you think?

    What do we think are the real problems we have got with Europe?

    Well, I would say there are 4, 4 that stand out the most clearly.

    The first is a question of sovereignty.

    Britain is a strong, proud and independent country with a great history, with strong institutions, and people believe – I believe – profoundly in our country and its institutions and its independence.

    So, for us Europe should always be about cooperation for prosperity and cooperation to make sure we are sure.

    Cooperation to make sure we can have a growing economy in the jobs and the prosperity that we want.

    It should never be about losing ourselves in some kind of European superstate.

    That might be for others but that is not for us.

    And I think that has not been clear enough up until now, that is problem number 1.

    Problem number 2 is we are a country, as I have said, that lives on its trade, its enterprise, its business, its industry, and so it is absolutely essential that Europe is open for business and as we work in Europe we are not adding bureaucracy and problems and lack of competitiveness to our businesses, we are taking them away and making sure that our businesses can succeed the world over.

    And let’s be frank, up until now yes, Europe has had some success economically, but there has been too much bureaucracy, too much regulation and too many rules.

    So, that is problem number 2 we have to deal with.

    Problem number 3 is that I think it is right for Britain to keep the pound as our currency, not just now, but frankly forever.

    The fifth largest economy in the world, and that’s what we are, should have our currency, to have our own flexibility to set our own economic policy.

    Now one of the biggest things to change in Europe in the last 30 years, has been the arrival of the euro.

    What we need to know in Britain is not just that we can keep our currency and we can keep it forever, but we can keep our currency while being in a European Union that will be fair to that currency.

    I think, that there has been a danger in recent years that this has looked a bit too much like a euro-only club.

    And so we need to fix that problem, not just keep our currency, but make sure we are treated fairly inside the European Union. That’s problem number 3.

    Problem number 4 is something that I think we all feel quite strongly about, which is that in recent years the pressures of migration from overseas and movement of workers from inside the European Union has put a lot of pressure on our public services, on schools, and on hospitals and on communities and look we are country that is in favour of people that come here who work hard, who make a contribution.

    Britain has succeeded through immigration not in spite of immigration and we do believe, I think, in the free movement within the European Union, that the British people get the chance to go to work and study and sometimes even retire in other European countries and we want those things but the pressure has been too great and we want that pressure to be dealt with.

    So that’s what I would say, the 4 things that need to be sorted out in Europe.

    We want to have a Europe where we are not subsumed into a superstate but that we can be proud and independent, we want a Europe that is competitive, we want a Europe that respects our currency and treats us fairly.

    Now I am sure that other people have other things that they would like to sort out, and maybe we can have a seminar on that in a minute, but I think that those 4 things go to the heart of what we need to fix.

    So that is why I said, “let us have a renegotiation, if I am elected”, as I said before the election we will start a renegotiation in Europe to reset these rules and get reform in Europe and then we will hold a referendum and give the British people a real choice if you want to stay in this reformed organization or would you want to go.

    And when I said let’s have a referendum I know there was a lot of scepticism, people sort of said “well these things are always promised, but politicians never actually deliver them”.

    Well, we have.

    We have legislated for a referendum, it’s the law of the land. It has to happen by the end of 2017 and my view, if we can get the deal we need, it should happen a good deal earlier.

    People also said, “you’ll never actually get a renegotiation, these other countries, they won’t really sit down and negotiate with you about these changes you want to make”.

    Well, that is exactly what has happened. We have had a series of discussions and negotiations and today the European Council has issued a whole set of documents about the things that should change in Europe, and pressing these British issues that we put on the table.

    Now of course, some people said to me, “don’t start a renegotiation being reasonable and being diplomatic, just kick over the table, storm out of the room and wait until they call you back in”.

    Well, I didn’t take that. I took the view that Britain, as the second biggest contributor to the European Union, a major player in the European Union, we should go about this in a proper, planned, measureable, measured and sensible way and that is what I have done these last 7 months, going to the individual European countries, meeting with the Prime Ministers, meeting with the Presidents, explaining the issues that Britain has, putting them on the table and saying we want to, with your consent, your agreement and consensus, we want to fix these issues.

    And I think that has been the right way to do it. So how have we got on?

    Today this document is coming out, it has come out now and you can get it online, you can see how we got on.

    So let’s go through those 4 problems that I identified.

    Problem number 1, Britain being a proud, independent country and not wanting to be in a superstate.

    Well for the first time ever, we have got now a specific carve out that says, while the other European countries might want to have an ever-closer union, that is not the path we are pursuing.

    We are carved out of ever-closer union in terms of the future. It even says very clearly we do not have to aim for the same destination.

    We are there for trade, we are there for cooperation, we are there to work together on the things that can make us more secure, we are there to work on things when there are problems like crime, or environment like pollution that crosses borders.

    We are not part of an ever-closer union.

    And we didn’t just get that we got something else.

    I said I wanted the national parliaments, our Parliament to be able to work with other national parliaments, to block measures they didn’t like.

    And if Brussels comes up with some crazy scheme, we can get hold of other parliaments and work together with ours and put a red light up and it doesn’t go any further.

    People told me I would not get that, and it is there in black and white in the document. I also said we wanted something else.

    For years Brussels has talked about this idea that the power should be flowing from Brussels back to the member states, rather than the other way around.

    They have a fancy word for it, its called ‘subsidiarity’, nobody knows what it means and I promise not to use it again but it is a very simple idea, Europe should look at what its powers are and if it is not using them is should give them back to nation states, that again is in the document.

    That is going to happen and there is going to be an annual discussion about powers that they are not using that should come back to Britain.

    So, that is the first issue, the sovereignty issue we were fussed about. I think, pretty good measures in this document.

    Now let me be clear.

    This is not finished yet, we have still got to negotiate and we still have to fill in all the details and have everyone else agree but I think that those proposals in that first area are pretty strong.

    The second area, making sure Europe is competitive, making sure we are helping our businesses not holding them back.

    How have we done there?

    Well I said what I wanted was for Europe to hardwire into its DNA, into its very make-up, the idea of being more competitive, to sign trade deals with the fastest growing countries in the world, not being a ‘fortress Europe’ but getting out there and helping business. How have we done on that one?

    Well there is a separate declaration about competitiveness with all the ideas that Britain has been pushing contained within it.

    Saying, ‘we have got to complete these single markets in Europe, these digital services, in services like legal services and others, in energy’, that is all there and there is something else as well, which is for the first time we are going to have targets to cut, not to decrease but to cut Brussels bureaucracy, in the key areas and they will be returned to year after year, after year.

    So, I think in terms of making Europe more competitive, that second key demand we had in Britain, we have made good progress.

    The third area, this issue of the euro and Britain wanting to keep the pound.

    Let me be absolutely clear, we want the euro to succeed.

    The eurozone countries are our biggest market, we want them to sort out economic problems, we want their economies to grow, we want to be able to trade and sell to them at the same time as keeping our own currency.

    Now the issue here is just making sure that there is fairness, making sure that Europe recognises that you can have more than one currency in the European Union and for the first time in these documents that is properly recognised.

    But more important than that there is a set of principles, that the European Union will have to stick to, and its says that when it comes to having another currency, like the pound sterling, there’s no discrimination, no disadvantage, no chance of us being asked to pay for eurozone projects, and if people think if this is somehow a fiction I have conjured up, last summer the eurozone countries got together and tried to use British money, to help bail out Greece.

    Now, we managed to stop it through some very hard diplomacy.

    But if this document is being published today becomes the law of the European Union that can never happen again, so these principles, no discrimination no disadvantage, no costs for non-euro countries to pay towards the euro are very important and added to that there is a mechanism, so if we are not happy with what is happening we can pull a brake, the issues get discussed properly, and Britain’s concerns as a country outside the eurozone will be properly taken on board.

    So that is the third vital area where we need change.

    What about the fourth one? This issue of migration and the pressure that has been put on Britain’s public services, health, education, housing.

    I think a real concern, it was at the election.

    You felt it on every doorstep, on every street.

    People want us to fix this issue.

    They don’t want no immigration, they want balanced immigration, and that’s what I want.

    Now of course, we have to take more action from outside the European Union, and we will, but inside the European Union, we do need to take action.

    Now what I said we needed to do, was to address the fact that our welfare system is something of a draw for people coming to work in the United Kingdom.

    That up to now we have given instant access to our in-work welfare system, to people that want to come here and work and make a contribution.

    So what have we got in this document?

    What we have got is basically something I asked for which is that people shouldn’t be able to come here and get instant access to our in-work welfare system.

    We should end ‘something for nothing’.

    What is proposed is an emergency brake, that means we don’t have to pay full rates of welfare for 4 years in the United Kingdom.

    Now I was told that I would never get a 4-year proposal, and yet that is what is in the document.

    That we don’t have to pay welfare in full for 4 years.

    And that the European Commission has said that as far as they are concerned, Britain qualifies for this emergency brake, right now.

    So, I think that is a very big change, something we were told we would not be able to achieve, it wasn’t possible but there It is in the document and that is not the only thing.

    I also said, I don’t think it’s right if people come and work here, but they leave their families at home that we should pay British rates of child benefits, to their families that might be staying in a much lower cost country.

    And so in this document is the proposal that if someone comes from another country in Europe, that they get the child benefit paid at the local rate, not at our very generous British rate.

    Now in the election, what I said was that I think there are 4 things in this welfare area that needed to be sorted out.

    Very simple, very straightforward and I think everyone will understand.

    I said firstly, if you come to Britain looking for work, you don’t get paid unemployment benefit.

    You come because you are going to get a job.

    If you haven’t got a job after 6 months you have to return to the country you came from.

    If you come and you work, you get the child benefit but paid at local rates and fourth you don’t get instant access to our welfare system, it takes 4 years before you do.

    Now, if you look at those 4 things; the first we have already done, you don’t get that unemployment benefit instantly; the second, if you don’t have a job after 6 months you have to go home.

    The third, yes there will be child benefit but only at your local rate, not at our national rate and fourth there is a 4-year waiting period before you get full in-work British benefits, so I think that is a very strong and powerful package.

    Now as I said none of this is agreed yet, none of the detail is fixed and there is more work to be done.

    This European Council doesn’t meet and discuss and debate all this for a couple of weeks but I think we have secured some very important changes, which go directly to the issues we raised as a member of the European Union.

    One last thing on this immigration and welfare basket as I have called it and that is for too long we have allowed sham marriages to take place, we have allowed people who come to our country that turn out to be criminals to stay in our country.

    We have allowed people to get married or use the system to get around our immigration controls and in this document is a very clear set of measures to put a stop to all of those processes.

    So I think if you take those 4 areas: is Britain a proud, independent country not part of superstate? Yes.

    Are we going to be in a more competitive Europe that helps us create jobs? Yes.

    Are we dealing with this potential unfairness between eurozone countries and non-eurozone countries? Yes.

    And are we taking the pressure off our immigration system through these welfare changes? Yes, I think we are.

    As I said, this is not a done deal and there is more work to be done over these next couple of weeks but I think strong, determined and patient negotiation has achieved a good outcome for Britain and sometimes people say to me, ‘if you weren’t in the European Union would you opt to join the European Union?’

    And I today that I can give a very clear answer.

    If I can get these terms for British membership, I sure would opt in to be a member of the European Union because these are good terms and they are different to what other countries have.

    A couple of last things from me before we have any questions.

    First thing and this is something our host said today. As we get into this referendum campaign, and I hope which will start soon.

    You will never hear me argue that Britain could not survive outside the European Union, of course we could, we are the fifth largest country in the world, in terms of our economy.

    We have got networks all over the world, we have great business, universities, of course we could succeed. The question is not whether we could succeed it is how we could best succeed, how will we maximise our prosperity, our jobs. How will we maximise the investment into our country.

    That is the question we have to address.

    The second and final thing from me. I am not going to argue, even after these changes, as important as they are, that somehow the European Union is a perfect and unblemished organisation.

    That is not the case.

    There is still the need for reform.

    There is still the need for Britain to be driving that reform.

    There will still be many imperfections and many frustrations that we will have with this organisation.

    But I think that if we can secure what is in this document, finish off the details and improve it still further that we will be able to show that on balance, Britain is better off, more secure, more prosperous, better chance of success for all our families and all our people inside this reformed European Union.

    Here is why.

    I think Britain will be better able to argue that Britain will have the best of both worlds.

    Because of course, after this agreement, after these changes, Britain will be a full member of the single market, better able to argue for all the things we need for our businesses to succeed.

    Britain will still be a full member of the European Council sat around the table making sure we take the tough action against Iran in order to stop them getting a nuclear weapon, or against Putin to make sure they don’t try and redraw the boundaries through force.

    We will still be a full member of the things that matter to us, but we will never be in the single currency, that is not for us.

    We will never be in the Schengen no borders agreement, that is not for us.

    We are going to keep our borders. We are never going to sign up to things like a European army.

    We are never going to sign up to an ever-closer union, we are going to make sure we maintain our independence as a country and I think we will be able to argue the best of both worlds.

    So we have only got now potentially a few months before we hold this referendum, if we get this agreement.

    If it goes through and we name the date for the referendum.

    And I think this best of both worlds, out of the single currency, out of the Schengen borders agreement, out of the ever-closer union but in the things that work for Britain, that give us jobs, that give us security, that give us the ability to make sure we have stronger and safer world, I think that is something worth fighting for, and I am delighted to come here today to tell you about that and to answer your questions, thank you.

  • Robert Maxwell – 1964 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made by Robert Maxwell in the House of Commons on 3 November 1964.

    It is with a great sense of humility that I rise to speak here for the first time. I am the representative for Buckingham, one of the nicest constituencies in the Home Counties. Our people are known for their warm-heartedness, hospitality and responsibility.
    It would be fitting for me to pay tribute to my predecessor, Sir Frank Markham, who championed well the cause of Buckingham over the past thirteen years. He is a courageous man. During the recent battles on the Resale Prices Bill, he did not hesitate to vote against his Government in the cause of social justice.

    My constituency, like the rest of southern England, by and large, is prosperous. It contains five towns, Bletchley, Wolverton Urban District, Newport Pagnall, Linslade and Buckingham, as well as over 100 of the loveliest villages of England, which, as a result of the recent railway closures, suffer from a severe lack of adequate bus services, a situation which is causing great hardship to many private individuals as well as to farmers and to businesses.

    Many of our villages lack ordinary amenities such as sewerage and lighting systems. Most of our roads are not capable of handling modern traffic. There are hardly any amenities for our young people, and a great deal remains to be done to make the lives of our retired citizens more in keeping with life today in a highly civilised and prosperous industrial society.

    In my constituency, the two major industries, in addition to the railways and railway workshops, are brick and cement manufacture. These industries are daily discharging into the atmosphere millions of cubic feet of harmful gases and dust, polluting the air in a way dangerous to health and often making life quite intolerable for many thousands of my constituents.

    Working conditions in the brick industry leave a tremendous amount to be desired. In many respects, brick manufacturers, as the House knows, have failed the nation time after time by not providing sufficient capacity to produce the bricks we require and, more particularly, by their failing to explore and introduce quickly new scientific techniques of manufacture. Working conditions in the brick industry are shocking, with the consequence that manufacturers cannot attract sufficient labour from home and have to import large numbers of people from abroad to man their works. This brings serious social and housing problems on all the people and communities living around brick and cement works.

    I earnestly hope that the new Government, jointly with the brick industry, will take urgent steps to increase brick output and improve working conditions, as well as to tackle on a multidisciplinary scientific basis the grave problem of air pollution. It is not enough for the inspectorate of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government to say that the industry is doing all that it can to abate the nuisance. The time has more than arrived for it to be tackled in a really serious way through the new scientific disciplines which are available, if there is the will in the industry and in the Government to do so.

    I hope that the Minister of Transport will confirm soon that he will refuse to sanction the closure of the Oxford Bletchley-Cambridge line. People in my constituency have already suffered grievously from Beeching closures, and, because of the considerable expansion of population in this part of Buckinghamshire, it would be social as well as economic madness to close this important line. An example of the last Government’s mistaken economics, which, I hope, the present Minister of Transport will re-examine, was the recent closing of Castlethorpe railway station in my constituency. The Government are paying a subsidy of about £3,000 per annum to a private bus company to provide an unsatisfactory bus service to the village, whereas Castlethorpe station could be kept open at a cost of only £1,300 per annum. My constituents and I do not understand why this valuable modern station, on which many tens of thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money were recently spent, was closed down, particularly as it is on the main line along which trains continue to run.

    I look forward to the Government lifting the restrictions on the railway carriage workshops which in the past have prohibited them from accepting contracts from private industry or from abroad. I hope and expect also that the Minister of Transport will use his good offices with the Railways Board to have its workshops division substantially improved working conditions in railway workshops.

    I very much welcome the Government’s proposals to help our industries to gain the full benefit of advances in scientific research and technology. At this point, I wish to refer to the strictures which the Leader of the Opposition seemed to think it right to cast on the creation of the Ministry of Technology and on the Government’s examination of the Concord project. The House may wonder what authority I have to deal with these matters. I was chairman of one of the working parties appointed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) in his previous capacity as Opposition Front Bench spokesman on science and education, and I had the responsibility and privilege of chairing the committee on science, Government and industry. Also, I am a publisher of scientific magazines and books, and I earn my living by being in the closest touch with scientists from all over the world. I can say without any doubt that many leading American scientists have advised the American Government not to enter into a project such as Concord because of grave scientific doubts about its real feasibility and its cost, and I very much support the Government in their determination to review this costly project for which there does not appear to be any real social or economic demand.

    I hope to be able to prove to the House that the new Ministry of Technology is certainly one of the answers that the Government needed in order to get British industry to apply the results of research faster and better than it has done in the past. It is now well understood that the growth of our economy, the welfare of our citizens, our national security and the aid that we can afford to give to under-developed countries all depend to a growing extent upon the effective use that our industries make of new technology.

    In recent years the rate of increase in our gross national product per worker and per capita has slowed down and has been substantially less than the increase of almost all highly industrialised nations. It is apparently not fully realised that scientific discovery followed by technological research and development produces nothing, other than knowledge, for society. They must be followed by their applications through the combined use of capital, and equipment and human resources—labour and management—to produce an economic good.

    It is commonly accepted that management in British industry, both private and nationalised, by and large has failed badly to make use of science and technology as an aid to increased productivity and profitability. For example, of the first fifty ethical drugs prescribed by doctors under the National Health Service, in order of sales value used in this country, only three were discovered and developed in this country—ordinary penicillin and the new Beecham penicillins, Broxil and Penbritin.

    It is generally agreed that one of the major obstacles preventing the wider application and use of science and technology in British industry is that there does not seem to be, at present, an effective organisation or method to convey to individual companies, their management and foremen, the new technology in a form which points the way to its practical applications.

    The other major problem is the great gulf, and lack of communication that exists between the pure scientists and the applied scientists, the universities, the technical colleges, the trade research associations, industry and government, and, finally, the gap that exists between management and scientists in individual firms.

    The whole issue may, therefore, be summed up as being a problem in communication of information and the need to change attitudes of mind. I submit that the creation of the Ministry of Technology is a massive and positive step in bringing about the necessary alteration and to obtain the needed change of attitude.

    The Government should provide something which has been lacking in our country for a long time—a sharp and independent means for recognising when the mission of a Government research and development establishment has lost its validity, and the practical means for re-directing the establishment into more productive channels either within or outside the Government Department that originally sponsored it. When the independent nuclear deterrent is abolished, the problem of what to do with the Aldermaston Weapons Research Establishment is a good example of the kind of problem that I have in mind.

    The present system of awarding development contracts tempts private companies to talk their way into a development programme with promises of results which wise technical judgment would deem unattainable. Blue Streak and various other failed home-produced missiles and weapons come to mind. The present arrangement does not provide for adequate penalties for failure to achieve promised results, nor does it give sufficient incentives for a high level of technical performance. It also offers incentives to contractors to make systems complex and expensive or to prolong the development work. All this is most wasteful of our vital scientific and engineering manpower as well as of the taxpayer’s money.

    Finally, the present defence research contract arrangement with its built-in competitive incentives and inadequate penalties for poor technical performance leads to the proliferation of many research and development groups in private industry of sub-critical size or quality. This is another important example of where the new Government’s changes in the organisation of science and engineering may prove to be most helpful and valuable both in saving taxpayers’ money and in making better use of our scarce national resources in science and engineering.

    The Government and our scientific and engineering community should make it one of their major joint tasks to employ our new-found ability to combine the great diversity of scientific and engineering skills and disciplines to make a massive assault on very large-scale national problems. The effectiveness of employing this new Government tool has been demonstrated during the last war and in the massive U.S.A. and Russian space programmes. The social innovation of use in peacetime of this new Government tool is of even greater consequence in the long run than the scientific and technical innovations on which most of our attention is presently focussed. This is the spill-over from defence of the greatest national and social consequence, and we as a country have so far failed to use this instrument in peacetime. There can be no doubt that the development of this new capability has endowed us as a nation with great new powers. I am sure that the new Government will use this social invention for peaceful purposes and not just confine it to the defence sector.

    The Government should show the way how to use research and development in the modern inter-disciplinary way through industry to improve and raise the quality and excellence of the environment in which we work and live. Familiar examples of the material waste and erosion of the aesthetic environment which are very complex and which can only be solved on a multidisciplinary basis are traffic congestion and air and water pollution.

    The strength of British science depends on the initiative, imagination and intelligence of individual working scientists and engineers. The best possible programme formulated at the top can be made entirely ineffective by the people who are carrying it out. The purposes of organisation for science and engineering in the Government must be to ensure quicker identification and support of new ideas and maintain support for basic research and development to guarantee that the most important national technological jobs are tackled by the most able people. I am convinced that the Government’s arrangements for the organisation of science and technology will do that.

    In conclusion, I wish to thank you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and hon. Members for tolerance shown to me this day.

  • Alan Duncan – 1992 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made in the House of Commons by Alan Duncan on 2 June 1992.

    I am obliged to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to utter my first words in the House.
    I am pleased to speak in the same debate as my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), whom I have watched for many years with great respect. Even though he has momentarily left the Chamber, I am also glad to follow my constituency neighbour, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who I am pleased to see so happily installed in his new job. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) on his maiden speech, and I look forward to sparring with him across the Chamber on many future occasions.

    Rutland and Melton is an oasis of traditional England between the M1 and the A1. It is surrounded by towns such as Leicester, Nottingham, Grantham—perhaps not so much a town as a shrine—Stamford and Corby. The agricultural interest remains important and, although it may not please some hon. Members, hunting remains not only popular, but a living force for the interests of conservation.

    The constituency also has light industry. Indeed, if one owns a pet, the chances are that one will have fed it with a brand name from Europe’s largest canning factory in Melton Mowbray. The constituency also includes Syston and Thurmaston on the edge of Leicester, and the spectacular vale of Belvoir.

    Perhaps the constituency is best known for containing the valiant county of Rutland. I took a look at the history books, one of which says: although Rutland had a distinct status in the Anglo-Saxon period, its rise to the status of shire and the dignity of a sheriff was the product of a confused process in the twelfth century”. That same book states that the 1974 local reforms removed elements of disorder on the map, such as the foolish county of Rutland. I say of that author, the more fool him.

    Those local government reforms created a hateful mix of the urban and the rural. They trampled over traditional boundaries and ignored community identities. Feeling in Rutland still runs very high indeed and most people want the return of unitary status for the county. And why not? If the cost is not punitive, they should be entitled to the status for which they are asking. I am pleased to say that, thanks to legislation passed by my party, including the Local Government Act 1992, and with the Royal Commission just starting its work, Rutland is given a chance. I implore hon. Members to take Rutland’s case seriously and not to dismiss it as a quixotic campaign or to disqualify Rutland simply on the grounds of its size.

    I take up the cudgels for Rutland and Melton behind a line of distinguished parlimentarians. For a long time, Rutland was represented by Sir Kenneth Lewis. He still lives in the constituency, and I sometimes think that he has as many friends as there are people in the county. He is a popular figure, always ready with some fatherly advice and a good yarn to tell.

    But for 18 years Melton, and then Rutland and Melton, were served by Michael Latham. From a personal point of view, I could not have been more fortunate in the person I shadowed for two years as prospective candidate. All in the area talk of the diligent and conscientious manner in which Michael Latham handled constituency problems. He entered the House with a particular expertise in housing, and Ministers came to value his advice. He developed a reputation for being independent-minded. He was not one to seek office at all costs.

    His religious views, and his opinions on the state of Israel particularly, are well known, and it is appropriate that he should have moved on from here to run the Council of Christians and Jews. Contrary to reports, I do not believe that he intends to take holy orders. I hope that that will mean that Michael will not be entirely lost to politics in the years ahead. I am sure that hon. Members join me in wishing him and his wife Caroline every good fortune.

    My purpose in speaking today is to welcome the measures in the Finance Bill. The measure marks the continuation of the economic progress that we have made since 1979. Indeed, the determination to tackle economic collapse spurred me above all to enter political activity in the first place.

    Particularly welcome are the inheritance tax proposals. They are based on the belief that the successful accumulation of wealth should be allowed to be passed on. Why—as it appears many Opposition Members would have it—should every generation be required to go back to square one, based on some misplaced understanding of what equality of ‘opportunity involves? The Bill will benefit family farms and family businesses, and I welcome the measures so well defended by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend).

    Any Bill designed to alter the rules of taxation inevitably provokes a litany of special pleading, and it is the unenviable task of the Chancellor and his team to distinguish naked self-interest from a good case. In his original Budget statement, the Chancellor referred to surplus advanced corporation tax—to some, perhaps, a rather abtruse matter. Some companies are taxed in the United Kingdom on estimates of their earnings overseas. Indeed, they are overtaxed, but they are stuck with the position.

    The effect is to reduce the research and development that such companies would carry out in this country, and it works against their wishing to set up their headquarters in the United Kingdom. That was not intended to flow from the imputation tax system that developed in the 1970s, and I hope that the Chancellor will reconsider in the years ahead the effects of the measure.

    The Bill contains many welcome measures affecting the operation of VAT, especially the removal of fiscal frontier controls. But there remain some simple, practical difficulties in the administration of VAT that should be addressed particularly as no cost would be involved.

    I could cite the example of a haulage contractor based in Melton Mowbray who pays VAT on his fuel purchases in other EC member countries. As a business, he is entitled to reclaim it, but he does not get it back, as least not for months and sometimes even years. We decent Brits repay overseas claimants quickly, but that efficiency is not reciprocated. So again, our comparative sense of fair play works more to the benefit of our competitors than to that of our exporting businesses. I urge the Revenue to take a good look at the fair working of the refunding of VAT elsewhere in the Community.

    I hope that the Finance Bill is but a prelude to our addressing certain long-term objectives for the economy. Some of the nastier consequences of the recession flow from the extent to which the fortunes of businesses and individuals are critically affected by changes in interest rates. We have a structural problem, in part a cultural one. Far too much of our investment funding in based on debt rather than on equity. It should become one of the major challenges of this Parliament to address the question of how to shift investment from debt to equity, because part of the problem arises from the simple fact that debt servicing is tax-deductible, while the cost of equity servicing is not.

    Hand in hand with that is the objective of overseeing recovery without massive house price inflation. As many of my hon. Friends know, wary though I am of taking further steps towards monetary union, I believe that the ERM might yet prove a blessing, in that its effect will be to iron out the peaks and troughs which in the past have been damagingly extreme.

    I am all for people owning their homes, but we do better to persuade them not to look on their houses as a tax-free source of easy riches on which they can regularly draw. I would rather we promoted a savings culture in which individuals increasingly had a genuine stake in the economy, and the key to that is pensions.

    At present, our pensions rules are unfathomable. A personal pension attaching unequivocally to the person who has invested in it will lead to private capital accumulation in areas other than housing. Why cannot employees in the public sector pay their contributions into private schemes? We should take a long-term view, for the time has come when people should be allowed to do that.

    By tackling such structural deficiencies in the economy, we could provoke a major change in the economic fortunes of individuals. I share the Chancellor’s vision of a capital-owning democracy. I hope that we can see an economy in which individuals increasingly build their own stake in it. I hope that we can promote a savings culture out of which dependency on the state will be reduced and self-reliance increased. If, to set the tone, a strict settlement of our public expenditure commitments is demanded, the Chancellor and his team will have vigorous support in their efforts from this quarter.

  • Nick Clegg – 2013 Q&A on Syria

    nickclegg

    Below is the text of the speech made by Nick Clegg, the then Deputy Prime Minister, on 27 August 2013.

    Question

    Why are we now considering military action?

    Deputy Prime Minister

    I think many people who’ve been watching this horrific bloodshed unfold in Syria over the last couple of years will ask themselves why it is that the international community, why is France, America, Britain, considering a serious response to what has happened in Syria. The answer is that the murder of innocent men, women and children through the use of chemical weapons is a repugnant crime and a flagrant abuse of international law. And if we stand idly by we set a very dangerous precedent indeed, where brutal dictators and brutal rulers will feel they can get away with using chemical weapons on a larger and larger scale in the future. These are weapons that were used on a large scale in the First World War and banned back in the 1920s. So what we’re considering is a serious response to that.

    What we are not considering is regime change, trying to topple the Assad regime, trying to settle the civil war in Syria one way or another. That needs to be settled through a political process. We are not considering an open-ended military intervention with boots on the ground like we saw in Iraq. What is being considered are measures which are legal, which are proportionate and which are specific to discouraging and sending out a clear signal that use of chemical weapons in this day and age is simply intolerable.

    Question

    How confident are you that it will be legal?

    Deputy Prime Minister

    Well, any steps we will take will have to be legal. This government, this Coalition Government, of course is not going to act outside the remit of international law. But let’s remember that the use of chemical weapons is a flagrant abuse of international law. These weapons were first banned by international conventions back in the 1920s after their widespread use in the First World War, a hundred years ago, and what we want to ensure, as an international community, is that we don’t go back to a world in which people think they can use these heinous weapons with impunity.

    This is about taking proportionate, legal and carefully circumscribed steps to ensure that everybody understands, the world round, that we will not stand idly by when chemical weapons are used in complete breach of international law.

  • Oliver Heald – 2013 Speech on Fighting Economic Crime

    oliverheald

    Below is the text made by Oliver Heald, the then Solicitor General, in Cambridge on 2 September 2013.

    I would like to thank Professor Barry Rider for inviting me to speak to you this morning on the first day of the 31st Cambridge International Symposium on Economic Crime. I would also like to thank the organising institutions and sponsors for their vital support for this event.

    The Cambridge Symposium on Economic Crime is an internationally recognised event. Each year the symposium attracts the foremost experts from a range of different backgrounds, including government, law enforcement, business and academia. Some have travelled a very long way to be here today, despite significant other demands on their time. The importance of this symposium is demonstrated by the fact that it attracts such an eminent group of attendees. Those who are here have a valuable opportunity to meet with peers from around the world, to exchange knowledge and experiences, to improve our respective understanding of the threat posed by economic crime to the global economy and to develop our responses to it.

    The subject of this year’s symposium is ‘Economic Crime in the Modern World, and the Role of the Private Sector – Partners and Problems’. As the first speaker this morning I will try to develop this theme, and outline some of the issues that others will address in more detail later this week.

    First, I will describe what I see to be the magnitude of the challenge faced by those of us who are responsible for tackling economic crime in today’s globalised economy.

    The challenge posed to society by economic crime

    In the United Kingdom, the profile of economic crime is now higher than ever before. Since the global financial crisis began in late 2007 it seems that financial institutions, markets and businesses have endured years of perpetual crises. Rarely has a week passed without the emergence of some new allegation of financial misfeasance, fraud or corruption.

    In particular, the problems in the banking industry have received huge publicity. The most high profile current issue in the United Kingdom is the LIBOR scandal; the allegations that bankers have colluded to manipulate the London inter-bank lending interest rate.

    In the summer of 2012 the UK’s Serious Fraud Office commenced a major investigation into the LIBOR allegations of criminality. I am very encouraged that the Serious Fraud Office is making good progress and has charged some individuals with criminal offences. It is vital that law enforcement agencies are seen to have both the will and capability to investigate offences relating to complex financial transactions.

    Similar scandals concerning the manipulation of bench mark rates have been exposed in other jurisdictions. In today’s complex global economy, where these bench mark rates are used in so many derivative financial products, it is difficult to comprehend the extent of losses that may have been caused. Certainly, the consequences are spread across the world.

    Technological change and the development of complex financial products have transformed the way that business is conducted, presenting new opportunities for fraud and money laundering activity. This poses significant challenges for law enforcement organisations and for legislators.

    Law enforcement agencies and regulators seek to address criminal wrongdoing by applying existing laws to criminal behaviour that was not in contemplation when those laws were passed. Legislators attempt to develop rules that will prevent these problems happening, but without knowing how business will be transacted in the future.

    However the recent economic crime scandals are not limited to the technological advances or the complexities of the financial sector. Allegations of corruption have recently been made against some of the UK’s most important and respected companies and there have been cases of financial misconduct by politicians.

    A great deal has been written about these economic crimes and the general public is now much more informed, and concerned. The cumulative effect of these scandals has been to weaken public confidence in the probity of political institutions, financial institutions and businesses that collectively form the fabric of society.

    These are the organisations that the public trusts to make the laws that govern how society is to behave, to act in our interests when looking after our pensions and to be responsible employers. Public confidence in these institutions has been undermined by dishonesty and greed. It is vital to the stability of democratic society that public faith in these institutions is restored.

    Steps that the UK has made to address the threat of economic crime.

    During the past decade there have been dramatic changes in the UK’s response to the evolving threat of economic crime. An important new agency is being established to co-ordinate the fight against serious and organised crime. The UK has introduced new laws to combat bribery and corruption. UK prosecutors will soon have new tools available to deal with corporate offending.

    On 7 October 2013 the new National Crime Agency will be launched. The National Crime Agency (or NCA) will be an operational crime fighting agency with a statutory responsibility for detecting and preventing serious and organised crime.

    The NCA will comprise of four commands each of which will have responsibility for overseeing and co-ordinating the UK’s response to a specific area of criminal activity. The NCA’s Economic Crime Command is to be responsible for tackling fraud and cyber crime. The Economic Crime Command will work in partnership with existing agencies, including police forces and the Serious Fraud Office, to identify strategic priorities and co-ordinate operations in the fight against economic crime. A key feature of the NCA, and a significant point of difference with other law enforcement agencies, is the function of prevention and deterrence. The NCA is to be the national intelligence hub for economic crime; it will be responsible for building and maintaining a comprehensive intelligence picture of the threats, harm and risks to the UK from organised criminals. Using existing national fraud intelligence analysis, it will achieve a greater understanding of the links between organised and economic crime. In the past decade the UK has enacted a several pieces of new legislation specifically to combat economic crime – most recently, the Bribery Act 2010 and the Crime and Courts Act 2013.

    The Bribery Act came into force in July 2011 and included a new offence for corporates: ‘failure of a commercial organisation to prevent bribery’. The Bribery Act also provides a statutory defence if the organisation can prove that it had put in place adequate procedures to prevent persons associated with it from engaging in bribery. This new offence, and the available defence, has placed an onus on companies to review their operations and implement appropriate compliance processes. It obliges businesses to take responsibility for ensuring they operate in a lawful and ethical fashion.

    This year the UK Parliament passed the Crime and Courts Act 2013 which provides UK prosecutors with a new tool for dealing with corporate offences; deferred prosecution agreements (or DPAs).

    DPAs will give UK prosecutors a new flexibility to deal with corporate offending when a civil remedy is insufficient, but where prosecution and the associated consequences (for example, reputational damage, loss of share value and redundancies) might be disproportionate. As an alternative to launching a full criminal prosecution, a UK prosecutor will soon be able to offer a company the opportunity to resolve its position by negotiating the terms of an agreement. The Act suggests a non-exhaustive range of provisions which a DPA may include for example, financial penalties, compensation to victims, implementation of a compliance programme and donations to charity. The terms of the DPA will need to be “fair, reasonable and proportionate” and will be subject to approval by the Court. If the DPA is fully adhered to over the specified time period, the company will avoid the expense, uncertainty and reputational damage associated with a full criminal prosecution.

    Those are just some of the important changes that the UK has made to combat the evolving threat of economic crime. Of course governments and lawmakers are obliged to attempt to design a legal framework to make rules to fix problems. However I would now like to say a few words about the important role the private sector has in this arena. In the past some companies have chosen not to address ethical and legal problems. When companies were caught out, they adopted an approach of “deny and defend”. However, companies have a clear interest in protecting the integrity of markets and attitudes and behaviours with regard to ethics and compliance are now changing. This was demonstrated recently by the strenuous efforts that many companies took to review their practices in light of the Bribery Act and to put in place measures to prevent bribery and corruption.

    For some time there have been examples of lawmakers imposing obligations on businesses to co-operate in the fight against economic crime. Approximately a decade ago in the UK, the Proceeds of Crime Act imposed an obligation upon the regulated sector to report to the appropriate authorities suspicions of laundering of criminal proceeds. This has imposed a sometimes onerous but always important responsibility on businesses, with the underlying message that they need to take positive steps to notify authorities when they become aware of potential wrong doing.

    Businesses can assist in the fight against economic crime by acting responsibly. If and when a company discovers wrong doing, it should take steps to notify the authorities and can expect to receive some reasonable quid pro quo for doing so. An example of this is the widespread use of leniency programmes for those companies which provide information or assist investigations connected with cartel offences. Similarly, DPAs will provide a new mechanism which should encourage companies that discover internal wrong doing to self-report in the confidence that they will receive a fair and reasonable benefit for doing so.

    Businesses can develop their internal processes to prevent economic crime; ensuring staff are trained to be fully aware of their legal and ethical obligations. Compliance and risk management must be treated as important issues. Compliance officers should be communicating regularly and substantively with senior executives.

    Furthermore there is a commercial imperative for private sector companies to assist to develop solutions to prevent fraud. Technological advances have opened up new opportunities for illegal activity. Fraud is being perpetrated on an increasing scale using the internet against the public and private sectors by data and identity theft. Virtual currencies provide a new vehicle for money launderers. There are opportunities for private sector companies to develop products and services to make online processes more robust and secure, and to assist the public sector to improve its defences and reduce the cost of fraud.

    Conclusion

    Economic crime is more visible than ever before and the speed of technological advance, and new ways of doing business, makes the task of fighting economic crime ever more difficult. The traditional response to new types of crime is for governments to address them by making new law. However new laws usually involve creation of additional red-tape burdens for business. If businesses continue to treat compliance as an important issue, and take the initiative to find and prevent problems, this will produce a more effective response to the challenge of economic crime, and will reduce the need for governments to fashion laws which impose expensive obligations on the private sector. Thank you for your attention and for inviting me here today. I hope this week’s symposium will be a thought-provoking and enjoyable experience for all of you.

  • George Osborne – 2013 Speech at Offshore Europe Conference

    gosborne

    Below is the text of the speech made by George Osborne, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in Aberdeen on 3 September 2013.

    Good morning.

    I’m delighted to be here in Aberdeen at such an illustrious gathering of the oil and gas industry – an industry that is of vital importance to Britain’s economy.

    But let us first remember Duncan Munro, Sarah Darnley, Gary McCrossan and George Allison.

    Four brave professionals who ten days ago, tragically lost their lives in a helicopter crash off Shetland.

    Our thoughts are with their families, friends and colleagues at this difficult time – and the book of condolences here today shows the depth of feeling for those four brave professionals.

    And we should also remember that 25 years ago, 167 people lost their lives in the Piper Alpha disaster.

    A tragedy that leaves an indelible mark here in Aberdeen on the industry, and the whole community.

    Let us pay our respects.

    To the brave professionals who lost their lives last month, and on that terrible night 25 years ago.

    To their families and friends in whose memories they live on.

    To those who survived and the rescue teams who helped them do so.

    The whole of the UK owes a massive debt to the thousands of men and women who work in what is an inherently dangerous environment – delivering enormous benefits to every family in the country.

    I know that as an industry you sometimes feel taken for granted.

    Well, I want you to know this: you are not taken for granted.

    You are very much appreciated.

    And my personal message to you is this.

    First, I recognize the vital role the oil and gas industry plays in the UK economy – and will continue to play for many many years to come.

    Second, I also recognize that the oil and gas remaining in the UK Continental Shelf will be increasingly difficult and more expensive to extract – but that this Government commits to play our part in delivering the investment that’s needed.

    And third, I believe that the best way to support this industry and maximize the returns from this great national asset is:

    – by working together across the UK;

    – through mobilizing all the UK’s resources; and
    by pooling our risks to provide stability across the whole UK.

    On Sunday, I was on the Andrew Marr TV show.

    In his book, the History of Modern Britain, he says that the oil and gas industry’s story is one of the most remarkable and under-discussed in the entire history of our country.

    It’s a tale of pioneering geologists, seismologists, roustabouts and rough-necks.

    He said that: “The discovery and exploitation of huge oil and gas fields far out under cold, stormy and turbulent waters … is a modern epic of technical skill, bold finance, endurance and individual courage”.

    And he is right to compare the feats of North Sea civil engineering with the building of the railways by the Victorians.

    I’ll never forget my first visit to a North Sea platform, the Elgin Franklin platform, six years ago.

    The long helicopter flight across the bleak, open sea – and then, the pinprick in the distance of the platform looming ever larger – until you land on the enormous construction.

    I remember that first, powerful emotion you get when you step out onto a North Sea platform: what an extraordinary achievement of the human spirit and ingenuity.

    Later today I will travel out to Talisman Sinopec’s Montrose platform and I know I will feel the same pride in what our country can achieve when we work together.

    For from the day 38 years ago, when the first oil was piped ashore in Cruden Bay, the oil and gas industry has brought huge benefits to the whole of the UK.

    And it continues to do so today.

    Oil and gas still meets around 70 per cent of the UK’s primary energy needs – with more than half of UK demand for oil and gas met by UK production.

    The heat and light for our homes;

    power for our businesses;

    and fuel for the transport for our people and goods.

    Directly and indirectly, the industry employs nearly half a million people – almost half of them here in Scotland.

    It’s the largest industrial investor in the UK – and it’s investing more than ever before.

    And while the expertise for the initial development of the North Sea was largely imported, a world class home-grown industry has sprung up on the back of it.

    Over 1,000 companies in and around Aberdeen alone.

    Businesses which are now leading an export charge from Azerbaijan and Russia, to Brazil and the Middle East – with international sales of nearly £8 billion from Scotland alone.

    As all of you know, subsea technology is a sector where the UK is a global leader – and it’s one of our fastest growing industries.

    And I’ve spoken to the subsea’s industry conference here before in Aberdeen to celebrate its success.

    Today we capture more than a third of a global market – a market that’s set to double over the next five years.

    Growth at home and abroad.

    Growth that I want to help you deliver.

    Of course, I understand that your industry has changed hugely since the early days of North Sea extraction.

    Then, the North Sea was dominated by a handful of ‘majors’ – the BPs and Shells, the Occidentals and Exxons.

    Now, there are over 50 oil companies operating in the North Sea – with smaller independents and national state-owned oil companies rubbing shoulders with the original ‘majors’.

    New names to conjure with: Apache, KNOC, Petrofac, Talisman, Sinopec, JX Nippon.

    While the pattern of ownership today has changed from 30 years ago, the nature of the development opportunities is different too.

    Companies are operating in a mature basin.

    And that brings me to my second point.

    The fact is that the oil and gas remaining in the UK Continental Shelf will be increasingly difficult and more expensive to extract.

    You know well that the ‘big’ strikes are fewer and farther between.

    The opportunities are often smaller, technically challenging or both – with the oil either in deeper waters or just harder to reach and extract.

    In the central North Sea, companies are drilling at water depths of 100 metres.

    In the planned Rosebank field West of Shetland, Chevron will be operating at 1,100 metres in waters more than ten times deeper.

    New entrants are bringing fresh thinking and impetus, making viable even the most marginal fields.

    Normally when politicians visit platforms, they visit the newest field.

    But the Montrose field I’ll be visiting is one of the oldest in the North Sea.

    I’ve deliberately chosen to go there because I want to see how Talisman Sinopec and Marubeni Oil and Gas’s £1.6 billion investment is extending the life of five fields by 14 years – which means that these fields will be producing the equivalent of an additional 100 million barrels of oil until 2030.

    This project alone will be creating and securing 2,000 jobs throughout the UK supply chain. But there are also challenges.

    We need to develop a North Sea regime that keeps pace with the changing structure of the basin.

    The Montrose project is a case in point.

    Its economic viability depends on a complex mix of factors: targeted tax breaks, and bundling a number of older fields with two undeveloped ones.

    So, as we think about the future of the North Sea, what can we be certain about?

    We can be certain that:

    – our reserves aren’t infinite;

    – the costs of extraction are rising;

    – and North Sea tax revenues are in long-term decline.

    But we can also be certain that the ingenuity of the industry will secure its long-term future and that we’ll still be recovering oil from the North Sea and West of Shetland in the 2050s.

    We can’t know the precise level of recoverable reserves.

    The future is about volume and value.

    So nothing can – or should – be taken for granted – and we know that.

    The British government’s objective is simple: we want to work with you to maximise the North Sea’s recoverable reserves.

    So we’ve put in the place the first ever national Oil and Gas strategy.

    The PILOT programme is identifying ways to remove barriers to development.

    And, working through the Fiscal Forum, we’re putting in place tax reliefs to support the industry as extraction becomes more difficult.

    In my Budgets, I’ve doubled the value and extended the scope of the small field allowance.

    I’ve put in place a £3 billion allowance to support investment in and exploration of large and deep fields like those West of Shetland.

    And I’ve introduced a £500 million allowance for large shallow-water gas fields and a brownfield allowance to encourage incremental investment in older fields.

    Perhaps most important of all, I’ve provided the industry with long-term stability, by providing certainty on tax reliefs – worth upwards of £20 billion over a 30-year period – on future decommissioning costs.

    Funded by the whole of the UK, that’s equivalent to £3000 pounds for every man woman and child in Scotland – being used to support investment in the North Sea.

    The UK government will enter into contracts with industry setting out what relief companies can expect to receive in future when decommissioning assets.

    And if the actual amount turns out to be less, the government will make up the short-fall.

    This means assets will be easier to transfer and the climate for investment improved.

    I can tell this Conference today I’m unveiling the final decommissioning deed.

    A concrete example of the tax certainty this government is providing.

    Never before has any government entered into legally binding contracts with individual companies to guarantee the tax relief they can expect decades into the future.

    No other place in the world provides such a guarantee.

    And your industry – not the Treasury – estimates that this decommissioning certainty will drive at least £17 billion of increased investment, extending the life of the North Sea basin with an additional 1.7 billion barrels extracted.

    It’s the culmination of 18 months of hard work and close collaboration between you and government.

    Thank you for that.

    Now let’s get the deeds signed and get the investment.

    And we’re already seeing results from this new tax regime.

    Oil & Gas UK are forecasting record levels of investment of £13.5 billion for 2013, helping to stem the decline in production of recent years.

    And look at the projects already announced.

    Statoil are investing £4.3 billion in the Mariner heavy oil project, creating 700 jobs.

    EnQuest, the UK’s largest independent oil producer are investing £170 million in the Thistle field, safeguarding 500 jobs and creating nearly 1,000 more in the supply chain.

    CNR International are investing £300 million to extend the life of Ninian field and produce 5 million additional barrels.

    And following the introduction of the large shallow water gas field allowance, GDF Suez, Centrica and BayernGas UK are investing £1.4bn in the Cygnus gas field, creating 1,200 jobs.

    We want to build on this success.

    Sir Ian Wood is currently reviewing how we can improve future economic recovery of oil and gas from the UK Continental Shelf.

    He is looking at what further powers the government should have to ensure the North Sea remains a prime location for new investment and that government ensures companies are operating their licences effectively.

    Government and industry have a shared interest in maximizing the economic production of the UK’s oil and gas reserves.

    I want to see far greater collaboration from industry on production and exploration.

    Because the fact is, production efficiency is down.

    When ownership of North Sea assets is more widely spread than ever before, collaboration is often the only way to improve the economic viability through economies of scale.

    Like:

    Access to critical infrastructure.

    Keeping in play older infrastructure hubs, so that recoverable reserves aren’t lost forever.

    Sharing the benefits of new technologies and extraction methods.

    Above all, deploying the best talent to the North Sea so the basin can flourish.

    Government and industry pulling together to maximise both of our returns from the North Sea – volume and value.

    Let me turn to the bigger picture on energy.

    Your message, which we’ve heard and listened to, is the need for predictability so you can plan for the long-term.

    That’s what our decommissioning tax certainty is all about.

    But this is just one part of our support to the energy market.

    We are seeking, from companies like yours and others, tens of billions of pounds of investment to secure Britain’s energy in the decades to come.

    And we want a mix – oil and gas are vital, but so too are renewables and nuclear.

    My ambition is that when you look across the western world, you see the UK as the best and most stable place to invest – and we’re creating the tax and regulatory regime to achieve it.

    Last year, we published our Gas Strategy which set out our expectation that gas generation will be an essential part of our energy supply.

    In June, we published draft strike prices for renewable energy generation – providing the certainty needed to make investing in new technologies less risky and more attractive.

    We’re introducing ambitious and radical reforms to the electricity market – a new way of paying for generation will bring forward up to £110 billion of private sector energy investment.

    We’ve set up a Green Investment Bank to invest in green energy projects and leverage further investment from the private sector.

    We’ve already committed to invest up to £3.8 billion through the Bank.

    On Shale, let me say this, because I know it’s an issue that has been in the news a lot recently.

    Of course, we want exploration of our shale resources to be safe, to avoid environmental damage, and be done in a way where communities get the benefit of what’s happening in their backyard.

    That’s why we got the industry to commit to generous community benefits.

    But let me also say this.

    Britain led the way in finding new sources of energy – coal in the 18th and 19th centuries, oil in the 20th century, and renewables at the turn of the 21st century.

    If we turn our back on new sources of energy which countries like China and the US are exploiting, then:

    – we’re saying to British families: you pay energy bills that are higher than those paid by families elsewhere;

    – we’re saying to British companies: you’ll face costs higher than companies face elsewhere;

    – and we’re saying to our country: we’ll have fewer jobs, less investment and higher costs of living – and I’m not prepared to say that to the British people.

    Britain is not going to turn its back on the energy sources of the future.

    So we’ve set out a generous new tax regime for shale gas and removed the bureaucratic obstacles to its use onshore and offshore.

    And when I talk about Britain I mean a United Kingdom.

    I’ve talked about predictability in this speech, but I know that one issue that has created uncertainty is the possibility of Scottish independence.

    We determined to end that uncertainty by holding a referendum that will reach a decisive outcome next year.

    The question of whether Scotland’s future lies within the UK or without needs to be answered.

    As an Englishman, I passionately hope people in Scotland vote to stay within the UK in just over a year’s time.

    This hope is, I know, shared by the great majority of people living in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

    The reason is simple: we’re better together.

    For those tempted to think that the rest of the UK would be better off without Scotland, let me be clear.

    Separation would bring consequences for not just Scotland.

    We would all suffer.

    The rest of the UK is by far the most important market for Scottish goods and services.

    Scotland’s trade with the rest of the UK is almost double its entire trade with the rest of the world – and it’s a share that’s growing.

    This trade benefits companies and employees the length and breadth of Scotland.

    And it’s a two-way street: Scotland benefits from being a strong part of the UK, and the UK also benefits from Scotland’s place within it.

    As our economy recovers, I want Scotland to lead the way.

    All achieved within the UK, not outside.

    So let’s lay to rest some myths once and for all.

    Independent European countries of similar size don’t out-perform Scotland.

    In fact, Scotland performs well against comparable European States.

    Introducing an international border between Scotland and the rest of the UK would reduce business and trade across the border.

    You don’t need passport controls and customs officers for there to be a negative effect.

    It’s the gradual growing apart of institutions, policies and regulations;

    It’s the slow unpicking of the unified labour market, an integrated infrastructure and a single tax system – the possibility of different currencies.

    Today, we’re publishing clear analysis that shows the value of Scotland being part of the UK, in terms of extra trade and economic activity over the coming generation.

    As the paper says: Scottish GDP could be 4 per cent higher in 30 years if it is part of the UK. £2000 for every family in Scotland.

    Put it another way: separate from the UK, create an international border, and the loss to every Scottish household will be £2000.

    So, we should think very hard before Scotland exchanges a UK domestic market that works well for a new foreign export market that won’t work as well.

    If it ain’t broke, don’t break it.

    Your industry is a great example of how we’re better together when we work together, when we are together.

    Oil & Gas UK talk about the “need for fiscal predictability and long-term planning to optimize recovery of the country’s offshore oil and gas resource”.

    Today all of the major tax revenues, whether it’s from oil, or retail, or consumption, or income or duties are pooled across the UK.

    This provides Scotland with secure and stable funding; the Scottish government with budgetary predictability and Scotland’s public services with the stability to plan for the long-term.

    As part of the UK, Scotland doesn’t have to cope with the challenge of managing volatile oil revenues.

    This is no small challenge – Scottish tax revenues from oil can fluctuate from year to year from £2 billion to £12 billion.

    They are the most volatile tax revenues that exist.

    Finance ministries are always at risk of being over optimistic about how much revenue they’re going to get in.

    That’s why we created the Office for Budget Responsibility.

    It is totally independent.

    And it now provides for us independent estimates of tax revenues – including from oil and gas.

    So when you hear big numbers bandied about that aren’t impartial, and it sounds too good to be true – it probably is.

    The UK government can provide the oil and gas industry with a long-term commitment to decommissioning relief.

    This commitment represents around 1 per cent of UK GDP.

    It would represent around 12 per cent of Scottish GDP.

    It’s for the Scottish government to explain how they would pay for that.

    The UK’s approach looks at the wider economic contribution of oil and gas, not just at tax revenues.

    We’ve been prepared to take the long-term decisions needed to unlock investment.

    We accept that’s cost us in lower tax receipts in the short term – but its worth it for the benefits over the long haul.

    We’ve been able to pursue this course because the UK has broad shoulders – a big domestic market, a diverse economy, a wide tax base and a broad energy mix.

    Look at the facts.

    Oil and gas is an important national asset, but revenues from oil and gas are just 2 per cent of our total tax receipts.

    Renewable energy is an increasingly important part of the energy mix.

    Many of the companies represented here today are also leaders in renewable energy.

    Last year over £1.5 billion was invested to develop Scotland’s abundant sources of renewable energy, which now supports over 11,000 jobs and generates nearly 40 per cent of Scotland’s electricity.

    This is made possible by over £500 million a year of UK support, with the costs spread amongst 26 million households across the UK, keeping average electricity bills in Scotland lower than they would be if funded by Scottish consumers alone.

    How likely is it that this kind of subsidy would be provided to the energy market of a foreign country?

    As I’ve said many times before, Scotland could go it alone.

    But to suggest that spending can be increased; tax bills cut; an oil fund established; household energy bills kept down and investment in renewables increased simply doesn’t add up.

    Texans played an important part in the early exploration of the North Sea.

    So you’ll recognise the well-known Texan phrase – “all hat and no cattle”.

    I hope those who advocate Scottish independence will offer a little less hat and a bit more cattle.

    Let me end by saying this.

    How we manage our country’s natural resources goes to the heart of the solidarity between the peoples and nations of these islands.

    Whether we are realising the assets from the dark waters of the North Sea or West of Shetland, or shale gas reserves in Lancashire, or coal in Yorkshire or renewable energy in the Thames Estuary and the Firth of Forth.

    You have my total commitment to your remarkable industry.

    I will work with you to get the tax regime right, to support more investment, to create the climate for more production and more jobs.

    My door is always open to hear what you have to say and to help you.

    Volume and value.

    Valuable and valued.

    We know that when we:

    – pool our resources

    – share our advantages

    – and join forces to tackle future challenges

    – we achieve far more by working together

    Industry and government.

    Scotland and Britain.

    The whole is so much greater than the sum of the parts.

    Thank you.

  • Gregory Barker – 2013 Speech on Low Carbon Technology

    gregorybarker

    Below is the text of the speech made by Gregory Barker, the then Minister of State at the Department of Energy and Climate Change, at Carlton House Terrace in London on 3 September 2013.

    Good morning, it’s a real pleasure to be here today to talk about the opportunities and challenges in commercialising new low carbon technologies.

    Thank you to the NPL Centre for Carbon Measurement and the Energy Technology Institute for organising a forum on this important topic.

    Earlier this year, I had the opportunity to visit NPL and witness first-hand some of the amazing research they do.

    Such as new ways to measure carbon emissions and spot leaks from fracking and carbon capture which will be critical for building trust and public acceptance.

    Both NPL and ETI are working directly with SMEs and large industrial companies supporting them to bring their innovations to market.

    There are three key points I would like to make in my speech today:

    Firstly, that low carbon innovation is a huge opportunity for the UK – both for growth and for greening our planet.

    Secondly, there still remain several challenges to overcome to capitalise on innovation.

    Thirdly, collaboration between Government and innovators will be key.

    To my first point, UK innovation in low carbon technologies is a fantastic opportunity for the economy.

    A key driver of future growth.

    To quote comments made by the Prime Minister earlier this year, he said:

    “Make no mistake, we are in a global race and the countries that succeed in that race … are those that are the greenest and the most energy efficient.”

    Indeed, recent growth figures show that green investment is paying back in spades and helping the UK to stay ahead in this global race for jobs and growth.

    According to the CBI last year at least one-third of the UK’s recent economic growth was likely to have come from green business.

    In 2011/12, the UK enjoyed a £128 billion share of the low-carbon and environmental goods and services sector, LCEGS.

    Where the international market is worth £3.3 trillion.

    The UK is sixth in the global LCEGS market and the sector employs close to a million people.

    The key to this progress has been our unrelenting focus on driving innovation up while driving costs down.

    We must capitalise on this and continue to innovate to maintain our competitive advantage.

    In addition, meeting our 2050 carbon targets will require rapid and large-scale changes in energy efficiency, electricity generation, heating, transport and industrial processing.

    But equally the Coalition understands the pressure rising energy bills are putting on hardworking families up and down the country.

    Cost savings through innovation are helping to cushion consumers against the upward trend in energy prices.

    Over the next 40 years, the ETI’s ESME model suggests that savings to the UK economy could be up to £600 billion .

    So the opportunity is there.

    But how do we ensure the UK takes it?

    This brings me to my second point, that by understanding the challenges we need to overcome, we can capitalise on our innovation.

    The 3 key challenges we face are:

    – Skills

    – Finance and

    – Risk.

    To take the first of these, skills:

    The UK has a world class research base built on the skills of our scientists and engineers underpinned by a yearly 6 billion pound research budget.

    We need to capitalise on the opportunity this investment in our research capacity brings.

    A few months ago a report published by Shell Springboard and the Carbon Trust showed that small businesses account for more than 90% of the UK’s low carbon sector!

    We can help these businesses grow and benefit from the jobs they will create.

    A second challenge innovators face is securing financing at the right time and throughout their development journey.

    This is a particular challenge for smaller businesses who are not generating sufficient revenue to borrow from banks and the complexity of their technology is unlikely to be widely understood.

    It is in our interest to ensure companies can find the help they need within the UK so that we can benefit from their innovation.

    The final challenge, which is closely tied to costs, is risk.

    New technologies have inherent risk.

    They are untested; trust needs to be built through the generation of a track record or through independent performance verification and certification that a technology will work.

    A good example is technologies trying to break into the notoriously non-innovative domestic and non-domestic buildings efficiency market.

    If we can help reduce this risk we will speed the uptake new technologies.

    And encourage further private investment .

    To my final point, collaboration between government and innovators is essential.

    Programmes all across government aim to help transform small businesses into high-growth businesses.

    The Department for Business Innovation and Skills runs a ‘Growth Accelerator’ programme providing coaching support to businesses from every sector.

    And DECC’s Energy Entrepreneurs Fund provides incubation support alongside project grants to ambitious high growth potential companies.

    Under the first phase of the programme we are funding 30 projects to support young innovative enterprises develop low carbon products.

    Two examples are Radfan and Ultramo.

    Radfan is being funded to develop and market a radiator mounted fan to make room heating more efficient.

    Ultramo is being supported to develop a new type of highly efficient engine.

    The second phase of the Energy Entrepreneurs Fund has recently closed and we will have a whole host of exciting new projects to announce soon.

    Overall, DECC schemes are contributing to growth in more than 100 entrepreneurial companies.

    And in the past year alone, I have announced DECC funding for a number of innovative technologies including £6.3 million for offshore wind components £19 million for energy storage £5 million to integrate UK nuclear research infrastructure the world’s first Renewable Heat Incentive. And £10 million for energy efficiency technologies through the ‘Invest in Innovative Refurbishment’ programme,

    In addition, the ETI have helped build a 15 megawatt drive train testing facility at the National Renewable Energy Centre near Newcastle.

    And Samsung will soon be the first manufacturer to use the facility.

    These last two programmes are great examples of government support to help companies test and demonstrate their products specifically to reduce that ‘new technology’ risk and help them enter the market.

    We are also working across government and all the public sector funders of innovation have come together to form the Low Carbon Innovation Coordination Group, LCICG.

    Together we will provide 1 billion pounds between 2011 and 2015 to directly support energy innovation.

    To identify how best to identify and target our support the LCICG has published a series of Technology Innovation Needs Assessments, TINAs.

    These reports cover technologies from domestic buildings to energy storage and new nuclear with the 11th report on hydrogen to be published shortly.

    The LCICG are now building on the TINAs to develop a strategy, due to be published later this year which will lay out a shared vision of public investment principles approach and technology improvement priorities between now and 2020.

    The strategy will deliver greater confidence to the energy sector supporting de-risking and alignment of investment.

    And we will work with innovators and private investors to build development pathways and flexible finance so companies can secure the help they need to grow.

    These are just a few examples of where Government is collaborating with industry and I hope that today we can learn more from innovators and investors about particular challenges in this area.

    In conclusion, low carbon innovation is a huge opportunity for the UK there are challenges we need to overcome and collaboration between business and Government will be central to this.

    This Government plays a key role as an enabler.

    But it is our scientists, engineers and entrepreneurs that are the sources of innovation.

    It is your ideas that will reduce energy costs, create jobs and stimulate growth.

    It is a diverse landscape and transforming our economy is a broad and complex challenge but to borrow another quote from the Prime Minister:

    “Together we can make Britain a global showcase for green innovation and energy efficiency”

    Thank you.