UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Theresa Villiers – 2016 Speech on Northern Ireland

    Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa Villiers, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, at Ulster University in Belfast on 11 February 2016.

    This morning I want to talk about this Government’s approach to the past, and set out our proposed way forward on delivering the legacy bodies in the Stormont House Agreement.

    It is evident that for many people in today’s Northern Ireland, the legacy of the past continues to cast a very dark shadow over the present.

    And it’s not hard to see why.

    Over the period of the so-called Troubles, broadly speaking from 1968 to 1998, over 3,500 people were killed, mostly, though not all, here in Northern Ireland.

    Thousands more were maimed or injured.

    Businesses and livelihoods were destroyed, pre-existing sectarian divisions were deepened and entrenched.

    Widespread disruption, either as a result of terrorist activity or the security presence needed to counter it, was a daily fact of life.

    And of course of those who might not have suffered physically, many still carry the mental scars of what happened.

    Bearing in mind that for much of this period the population of Northern Ireland was around 1.5 million, it follows that a large proportion of those living here were directly touched by the Troubles.

    And even those not directly affected themselves will invariably know someone who was.

    So I never underestimate the continuing impact of the Troubles today, not just on individuals, but also on society more widely.

    For all that’s been achieved in moving Northern Ireland forward, public housing and education is still very segregated, interface barriers loom over many streets, and disputes over flags and parades retain the capacity to spill over into serious public disorder.

    Moreover the costs of division are an additional financial burden on an already stretched public purse.

    So as the representative of the sovereign Government here I am acutely aware that we have a responsibility to do all that we can to tackle the legacy of the past in this part of the United Kingdom.

    The Government fully recognises that it will be much more difficult to achieve our objective of building a genuinely shared future for everyone in Northern Ireland unless and until we can find some way of coming to terms with a divided past.

    Of course people’s opinions on the past will always differ sharply, shaped by their own background and experiences.

    It is not an area where we can ever achieve a consensus view on what happened, though we might at least be able to come to some common understanding of key facts through initiatives like the historical timeline project envisaged in the Stormont House Agreement.

    For the record I want to set out the position of this UK Government.

    The first and most fundamental point is this.

    In our view terrorism was wholly wrong.

    It was never and could never be justified,from whichever side it came, republican or loyalist.

    No injustice, perceived or otherwise, warranted the violent actions of the paramilitary groups.

    The terrorist campaigns caused untold misery and suffering.

    And we will never agree with a version of history that seeks to legitimise them.

    We wholly reject any suggestion of equivalence between the security forces and those who carried out acts of terrorism.

    And I believe that there is a real risk that those who seek to justify the terrorist violence of the past risk giving a spurious legitimacy to the terrorist violence of the present.

    Ultimately, of course, terrorism did not succeed here.

    And I believe there were three main reasons for that.

    First, there was the sheer resilience of the people of Northern Ireland, supported by the overwhelming majority of citizens throughout these islands.

    In this I include those involved in politics, business, and wider society who even in the darkest days, and often at great personal risk, helped to hold this place together.

    Second, there was the insistence of successive UK Governments that the future of Northern Ireland would only ever be determined by democracy, and never by violence.

    The consent principle enshrined in the 1993 Downing Street Declaration which went on to form such a key part of the 1998 Belfast Agreement.

    And third, there was the remarkable dedication, professionalism and courage of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Armed Forces.

    Over 1,000 members of the security forces lost their lives over the period of Operation Banner – the longest continuous military deployment in our country’s history.

    Around 7000 awards for bravery were made and, quite simply without the dedication of the security forces to keeping people here safe, the circumstances that enabled the peace process to take root would never have happened.

    Yet today we face a pernicious counter narrative.

    It is a version of the Troubles that seeks to displace responsibility from the people who perpetrated acts of terrorism and place the State at the heart of nearly every atrocity and murder that took place – be it through allegations of collusion,misuse of agents and informers or other forms of unlawful activity.

    For some, every allegation of wrongdoing by the State – or those working for it – is treated as fact,however unsubstantiated or whatever the source, and whatever the consequential distress to victims.

    Let me be clear.

    I am not going to say that over a period of thirty years there were no instances where members of the police and armed services fell below the high standards we expect of them.

    Sadly we know that there are some truly shocking instances where they fell drastically short of those standards.

    That includes the appalling murder of Patrick Finucane, the anniversary of whose death takes place tomorrow.

    And like the Prime Minister I will never seek to defend the security forces by defending the indefensible.

    Where there is evidence of wrongdoing it will be pursued. Everyone is subject to the rule of law.

    Yet we need to be mindful of the context in which the security forces were operating.

    While we will always judge our security forces against the highest standards of integrity and professionalism, both then and now, we do need to recognise that policing practice and methodology has changed radically over the intervening years, right across the UK.

    We should therefore be wary of expecting modern investigatory practices to have been applied in past decades, lest we become guilty of historical anachronism.

    We should also be conscious that gathering and assessing intelligence is not, and never will be, an exact science.

    It varies greatly in quality, clarity and reliability.

    Assessing its credibility can frequently involve finely balanced judgements.

    What might seem to have a certain meaning with hindsight, at the time could well have been just one of a long list of conflicting and vague reports all pointing in different directions.

    As a government, we have been more forthcoming than any of our predecessors in accepting where the State has failed to live to the highest standards, and in apologising where that is the right thing to do.

    The Prime Minister’s ground-breaking statement on Bloody Sunday is the most obvious example of that, but it’s not the only case.

    We also issued full and clear apologies in the Patrick Finucane and Claudy cases.

    And where it is warranted we will continue to do this.

    But to suggest that misconduct by the police and our Armed Forces was somehow rife or endemic is, in the view of this Government, a deliberate distortion and a narrative of the Troubles that is not justified by the facts.

    Of all the deaths that occurred during the Troubles, 60 per cent were caused by republican groupings, 30 per cent by loyalists, and 10 per cent by the State.

    I don’t for one moment dismiss the scale of the tragedy which that 10 per cent involves.

    It includes many terrible losses for which families still grieve to this day.

    But over 250,000 men and women served in the RUC and the Armed Forces in Northern Ireland during the Troubles.

    I am convinced that in the vast, vast majority of cases they carried out their duties with exemplary professionalism, fully within the law.

    Remember this.

    It wasn’t the RUC or the Army who planted the bombs at La Mon, Enniskillen, or the Shankill, or pulled the triggers at Loughinisland or Greysteel.

    But it was the RUC and the Army who, often at great personal danger , foiled countless terrorist plots and attacks and in doing so saved hundreds of lives.

    So as we said in our manifesto we will always salute the RUC and our Armed Forces for the role they played and the sacrifice they made.

    We will never forget the debt of gratitude that we owe them.

    Today of course Northern Ireland is a very different place.

    While we continue to face a severe and lethal threat from dissident groupings, the overall security situation has been transformed.

    We have inclusive, power sharing devolved government, with parties taking their place in the executive as of right and according to their mandate.

    Because of the Stormont House and Fresh Start Agreements I believe devolution is now on a more secure and stable footing than for some time.

    Thanks to the UK Government’s long term economic plan, and to the hard work of the people of Northern Ireland and the Executive they elect, the economy is growing and unemployment is falling.

    But as I said at the outset of my speech, legacy issues have a continuing capacity to disrupt that hard won political progress.

    There is a pressing need to make progress because it is clear that the current structures for dealing with legacy cases are not working as they should.

    They are not working for victims and survivors – as I know at first hand from my many meetings with their representatives.

    They currently focus disproportionately on cases where the State was involved or alleged to be involved, leaving families in other cases feeling overlooked and disregarded.

    And the legal aid bill continues to grow, diverting resources which could be used for policing the present rather than the past.

    I fully understand the concern felt about delays in the inquest system and would emphasise that the UK government and its agencies and the PSNI are working hard to fulfil the disclosure requirements placed on us.

    I do not accept the argument that the problems with inquests stem from lack of commitment on the part of the Government or the police.

    The PSNI holds over 9 million documents relating to the Troubles and they and the MoD have between them disclosed thousands of documents through inquests and other legal processes.

    Rather, it’s a simple fact that the current system was never designed to cope with a large number of highly complex and sometimes linked cases involving very sensitive information.

    So we will continue to seek a workable reform of the system of legacy inquests.

    I understand the concern felt about resources and if reforms go forward, of course the UK Government would look very seriously at whether some of the Stormont House legacy funding could be released early to support inquests.

    But even the problems with inquests are tackled, it is clear that additional mechanisms are needed.

    So we are committed to establishing the legacy bodies set out in the Stormont House Agreement – the Historical Investigations Unit, the Independent Commission on Information Retrieval and the Implementation and Reconciliation Group, along with the Oral History Archive and the Historical Timeline project.

    We have an express manifesto commitment to deliver them.

    And in our view, they offer the best way forward if we are to achieve better outcomes for victims and survivors, the people who suffered more than anyone else as a result of the Troubles.

    They also come with an additional £150 million of funding from the UK Government – just one part of the financial packages supporting the Stormont House and Fresh Start Agreements which give the Executive around £2.5 billion in extra spending power to reflect the unique circumstances faced by Northern Ireland.

    So the Government shares the widespread disappointment felt that the Fresh Start talks last year were unable to deliver the new structures set out in the Stormont House Agreement.

    And today I re-affirm the Government’s determination to do all that we can to remedy that -working with victims’ groups,with the Northern Ireland parties and with the Irish Government on seeking a way forward.

    In fact this Government has taken this issue further forward than any of our predecessors.

    Very significant progress was made in both sets of cross party talks thanks to the hard work of the participants, including dedicated input from Charlie Flanagan and the Irish Government.

    I believe we are closer than ever before to finding a way forward.

    We have listened very carefully to those who fear that any new bodies will have a disproportionate focus on the State and the security forces, and others who fear they might not be independent enough.

    So we would write into legislation in the clearest terms the requirement that these bodies are under an obligation to carry out their functions in ways that are fair, equitable, balanced, proportionate and transparent.

    We have sought to remove the politics from sensitive appointments – for example the director of the Historical Investigations Unit.

    And, crucially, any legislation we bring forward will make absolutely clear that there will be no amnesties or immunity from prosecution.

    This Government believes in the rule of law – and we will not countenance amnesties.

    And although the cross party talks did not result in sufficient consensus to enable legislation to be introduced, we did establish common ground between the participants on a significant number of important questions.

    The most difficult outstanding issue relates to how the Government fulfils its duty to protect national security.

    I accept that for some this is a loaded term.

    But what it means in practice is the Government’s duty to protect its citizens from harm.

    As the text of Stormont House Agreement recognises, it is the Government’s duty to keep people safe and secure, and to ensure no individuals are put at risk.

    All the participants accept that this vital responsibility must be upheld.

    The remaining issue is how best to do so, and how any necessary decisions can be reviewed and appealed.

    National security is not an open-ended concept which can be used to suppress information about whatever actions the State does not want to see the light of day.

    In fact, as I have said, over recent years the State and its security forces have already disclosed several thousand of documents on Northern Ireland’s Troubles.

    During the talks, I listened carefully to those who were worried that the UK government might misuse its powers relating to national security.

    And we agreed that the Government and its agencies would give full disclosure of all relevant documents to the HIU without any redactions – that is everything – all we have which relates to the cases HIU will investigate.

    The dispute is not about whether the HIU will have access to all the information it needs, It will.

    The dispute is about onward disclosure from the HIU.

    And it is an inescapable fact that there is information which would put lives at risk if it were put into the public domain.

    There are notorious examples of where people accused of being informants have been hunted down and murdered.

    I do not want to be explaining to inquests in years to come why I failed to protect the information which led to more such tragedies in the future.

    And there are techniques and capabilities available to our security services that if known would be of value to terrorists.

    That’s not just violent dissidents in Northern Ireland, but also Islamist terrorists who want to attack our whole way of life.

    No responsible government could allow this to happen, and we must retain the power to prevent it.

    This has led some to assume that the Government will be constantly seeking to block the onward disclosure by the HIU of information to victims’ families and the public.

    This is simply not the case.

    The fact that disclosure of information may be embarrassing or difficult is not a justification to withholding it and no one is suggesting that it should be.

    In order to offer re-assurance we stretched ourselves during the talks and offered a significant compromise.

    I was able to agree with Government colleagues that where material or information is withheld on national security grounds, families would be told this.

    And then they or the HIU director would be given an automatic right to challenge it in the High Court.

    We believe this to be both fair and reasonable.

    Anyone who doubts the independence of the High Court should consider the regularity with which it rules against the UK government.

    So I would like to conclude my speech on a note of optimism.

    I do not believe that the remaining differences which exist in relation to establishing the new legacy bodies are insurmountable.

    That is why I am determined to do all I can to resolve them as soon as possible.

    We owe victims and survivors nothing less.

    I’m not for a moment suggesting that the new structures will be perfect, or that they will provide all of the answers to all of the questions posed by victims and survivors.

    Unfortunately there is no set of proposals which could ever deliver that or make up for even a fraction of the pain and loss suffered over the thirty years of the Troubles.

    But I am confident that they will be a significant improvement on what we have now.

    For that reason I believe that they are worth pursuing – as part of our commitment to do more for victims and survivors, and as part of our broader commitment . As a One Nation government dedicated to bringing our country together, to build a more stable, peaceful and prosperous Northern Ireland and create a brighter, more secure future for everyone who lives here.

  • Lord Bourne – 2016 Speech on Investing in Green Innovation

    lordbourne

    Below is the text of the speech made by Lord Bourne, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Climate Change, on 11 February 2016.

    It is fantastic to be with you today at Cleantech Innovate.

    I am really pleased to be partnering here with the Swiss Federal Office of Energy.

    And Doris Leuthard the Swiss Government Minister for Energy and Climate Change, will be giving her own perspective on cleantech innovation immediately after me.

    This fourth London showcase event promises to be a real celebration of ground-breaking, green innovation.

    How fitting that it is taking place at the Royal Institution, where so many pioneering, great British scientists made their own historical, ground-breaking discoveries that ‘changed the world’:

    – Michael Faraday, with his advances in steel alloys, electro-magnetism and electricity,

    – Humphry Davy and his pioneering work, including on optical glass and the miners’ safety lamp

    – And John Tyndall, who identified the ‘greenhouse effect’, so significant in a world that faces the biggest change of them all – global climate change.

    Why green innovation is crucial

    Modern day innovators need to make their own ground-breaking discoveries to tackle climate change, and in my Ministerial role I have already seen impressive progress, including the ‘SPECIFIC’ project near Port Talbot.

    Work being done there – by Swansea University’s Innovation and Knowledge Centre – is developing functional coated steel and glass products.

    These can improve the energy performance of buildings and even build a surplus, turning them into mini power stations.

    Potentially a disruptive technology break through, and the very innovation we need to tackle the status quo and the challenge of climate change.

    Paris

    That is why the deal secured in Paris in December was so important.

    For the first time ever the world committed to work together to limit global temperature rises, to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.

    The outcome of Paris certainly gives a strong signal for investment in green innovation.

    And other initiatives are reinforcing that message.

    The Prime Minister joined 19 other world leaders to launch ‘Mission Innovation’ in Paris.

    All 20 member nations of Mission Innovation pledged to double clean energy research and development investment over 5 years.

    Doubling our investment means the UK public sector as a whole will spend over four hundred million pounds in 2020/2021 on clean energy R&D.

    What is being done to invest in green innovation?

    DECC and Innovate UK

    As part of that commitment, DECC will double our 5-year budget for clean energy research, development and demonstration.

    Our new innovation programme will be worth over five hundred million pounds.

    Our investment will stimulate and leverage private sector investment in the most promising technologies and systems.

    And our investment in new ideas will go hand-in-hand with breaking down barriers to market entry, creating the right environment for innovation and helping new ideas flourish.

    Others in the public sector are also investing in green innovation. Innovate UK – fellow sponsors of today’s event – will be introducing new finance products to support companies to innovate.

    These products will replace some grants, and will be worth one hundred and sixty five million pounds by 2019-20 – across a range of innovation activities, including energy.

    Wider UK Government

    Our public sector innovation partners are working with us, investing in green, innovative technologies that will take-off at scale, bring about system change, and bring down costs.

    But we must also use public money wisely and invest where we can make a difference – remembering that subsidy should be short-term, not for ever.

    We know we do not have all the low carbon innovation answers, yet we must develop technologies that are both cheap and green.

    We know prices can fall from the examples of onshore wind power and solar. We must aim for a balance between supporting new technologies and being tough on subsidies, to keep bills as low as possible.

    For those reasons, we are looking to enhance the way public sector organisations supporting green innovation work together, sharing resources and expertise and refining our existing shared evidence base.

    Prioritising technology support

    DECC has already used evidence to choose technology areas we will support, that we can make work at scale. Progress that was made on energy technologies in the past – such as nuclear here, and shale gas in America – did not happen by accident.

    Spending on energy research and development needs to be better targeted; and we need to be tough on how we spend it – on areas that will help the UK.

    So we are targeting offshore wind and nuclear. We are world leaders in both these areas, and globally we can make a lasting technological contribution.

    On current plans, we expect to see 10GW of offshore wind installed by 2020.

    This is supporting a growing installation, development and blade manufacturing industry, with around 14,000 people employed in the sector.

    For nuclear, too, our expertise is already world leading.

    But innovative new technologies could offer energy security and economic benefits – such as small modular reactors.

    These are small nuclear power stations – up to 300 megawatts in size – that could be factory-made in the UK.

    Each one could supply the total annual electricity needs of around 500,000 households.

    A detailed study currently taking place will help assess these benefits.

    From DECC’s five hundred million innovation budget, we have set aside two hundred and fifty million pounds to invest in nuclear innovation in general, including small modular reactors.

    We will ensure that our clean energy technology priorities fit with our wider Departmental goals on decarbonisation, smart systems, heat in homes and in industry, and energy efficiency.

    And they will fit with our top priorities of keeping the lights on, keeping bills low, and reducing emissions in the most cost effective way.

    Innovation in energy

    It is becoming increasingly clear that investing in green innovation is crucial and cross-cutting right across the energy agenda. From community energy, biogas, hydrogen and heat pumps, to digital platforms and demand side response and storage.

    Not only is green innovation in energy technologies vital, but so are radical new models or business ideas, and price-lowering competition and novel approaches in the energy markets.

    Such as Moixa Technology’s Maslow Energy Storage System – supported by DECC’s Energy Storage Demonstrator.

    This is a platform for smart control of distributed battery energy storage for homes and offices.

    It stores spare solar or night-time electricity to reduce peak demand and costs – giving user cost savings, but also bringing grid benefits.

    Cleantech Innovate

    The list of 36 finalists presenting here later today is equally impressive.

    As is the engagement in this area of all attending Cleantech Innovate – whether you are inventors, entrepreneurs, investors or related service providers. Just by being here you are ‘investing’ your time and commitment in this important area.

    Let’s not forget that one of the aims of today is to give investors exclusive access to innovators building fast-growth commercial green solutions.

    We can build upon the UK’s success in green innovation investment.

    Cleantech Clusters

    The UK already has Europe’s largest cleantech innovation cluster, incubating green technology business start-ups.

    And cleantech clusters are particularly clever at capitalising on innovation through collaboration.

    Collaboration will become increasingly important, both within the UK and beyond these shores.

    We are not alone in transforming our energy system.

    The scale of the challenge faced to develop new and improved technologies for low carbon transition, is larger than any single country’s budget can afford.

    Horizon 2020

    In Europe, Horizon 2020, the EU’s Research and Innovation funding Programme, has a budget of around €6billion for energy innovation between 2014 and 2020.

    Despite strong competition, provisional results for 2015 indicate that UK organisations have been allocated €85m, the second largest share of 40 countries at 15% of the budget. A great result for the UK.

    We now need to build on this success. For 2016, there is around €340m available in the current Horizon 2020 Energy Call. Let’s make sure UK innovators obtain a good share of this and its future business opportunities.

    Our Swiss fellow sponsors of this event are also actively looking for collaboration opportunities. I know that some Swiss and British innovators met up yesterday to look for links and synergies between their work. And we are keen for collaboration to deliver for both our countries.

    Worldwide investment

    But UK and European investment in green innovation is not enough on its own.

    We need to leverage worldwide investment through existing and new international initiatives, for mutual benefit – and we hope UK innovators will be a part of this.

    Through international collaboration, risks can be shared; new knowledge, skills, research facilities and funding can be accessed; and new business networks developed.

    Mission Innovation, which I mentioned earlier, is an exciting new opportunity to stimulate increased investment – both from the public and the private sectors.

    Conclusion

    Increased investment in green innovation is absolutely critical. The International Energy Agency recently stated that:

    “Innovation support for technologies across all energy sectors provides the greatest potential to keep the 2 degree climate goal achievable.”

    So, in conclusion, thank you for what you are already doing – learning by linking up, collaborating together, engaging internationally – but most of all, please carry on investing in green innovation – your involvement really does have the power to change and transform our world.

  • Andrew Jones – 2016 Speech on Buses

    andrewjones

    Below is the text of the speech made by Andrew Jones, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Transport, at the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre in London on 11 February 2016.

    Introduction

    It’s a real pleasure to open the Transport Times UK Bus Summit 2016.

    I’m really grateful to the Transport Times for running the event and to everyone here for coming.

    I’ve chosen as my topic this morning (11 February 2016) the government’s forthcoming Buses Bill.

    I want to set out clearly, and in more detail than the government has done before, why we are introducing a Buses Bill, what the bill will do, and what we expect to change as a result.

    Context and aim of the bill

    But first, I would like to provide some context.

    In preparing this bill, we have one clear aim, which is this: to increase bus passenger numbers.

    Buses help people get to the shops and to work, boosting our economy.

    Buses enable people to visit friends and family, providing great social benefits.

    And buses can reduce congestion and air pollution, offering great benefits to our environment.

    So it is a matter of concern that over the years there has been a general decline in passenger numbers. And it explains the overriding aim of our bill; to get more people using buses.

    What the bill will not do

    But second, I would also like to dispel a few misconceptions by setting out what the bill will not do.

    The bill will not impose any particular arrangement on local authorities or on bus operators.

    Neither will the bill give local authorities new powers to take bus operators’ assets, such as vehicles or land.

    Oversight of anti-competitive behaviour will be left to the Competition and Markets Authority — exactly where oversight lies at the moment.

    And nor does the bill impose wholesale re-regulation.

    Instead, the Buses Bill is an enabling bill.

    It gives local authorities new choices.

    Choices about how they can improve bus services in the interests of their residents, and, I believe, in the long-term interest of the bus industry too.

    So, why are we introducing a Buses Bill?

    After all, the government is plainly on the side of free enterprise.

    We are in favour of cutting red tape, and giving the private sector the space it needs to grow.

    And there’s so much about today’s de-regulated bus industry that works well.

    The latest Transport Focus survey shows that nearly 9 out of 10 customers are satisfied with their bus services. In my own area I can see good practice, with Transdev launching new state-of-the-art buses on route 36 between Leeds, Harrogate and Rippon.

    At the same time, a challenger operator — Connexions buses — is pioneering new routes and reaching new markets.

    Across the country, commercial operators are introducing smart cards, installing Wi-Fi, co-ordinating timetables, and making great strides in improving accessibility — 89% of buses comply with accessibility standards, and we are on track for virtually 100%.

    All this progress is down to operators taking decisions in the interests of their passengers.

    It shows that the de-regulation of the industry has been a success.

    But it would be wrong to pretend that there’s no room for improvement.

    We only have to look to the streets outside this building to see how, in some circumstances, things can be done differently.

    And just as in London, passengers right across the country want Oyster-style ticketing, better access to information about timetables, better information on fares before they travel, and real-time data about when the bus is going to arrive at their stop.

    There are many other opportunities for improvement, too.

    To make sure that bus routes reflect and support local economic development, such as new housing, and new business parks.

    As things stand, areas that want these improvements have a choice.

    They can enter into voluntary partnerships with bus operators.

    They can agree quality partnerships, which have the backing of law.

    Or they can propose quality contracts, under which local authorities take on responsibility for services. But each of these choices have drawbacks.

    Voluntary arrangements are only as good as the personal relationships between those involved.

    Statutory partnerships force local authorities, by law, to spend public money on new infrastructure, even when everyone agrees it isn’t needed.

    While the quality contract scheme process — introduced in 2000 — has proved more time consuming, costly and challenging than anybody could ever have imagined.

    So we believe there’s room for some additional choices.

    Choices that keep the best features of a de-regulated market, but that give local areas greater say over bus services.

    What the bill will include — open data

    So, first, our bill will address passengers’ need for better information.

    It is in everyone’s interests for people to know as much as possible about the bus services in their area. So our proposal is that all operators will be required to make data about routes, fares and times open and accessible.

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

    What the bill will include — new partnerships

    Second, the bill will introduce new arrangements for local authorities and bus operators to enter into partnership.

    We will remove the requirement that a quality partnership scheme must always involve new infrastructure. And we will introduce new, enhanced, partnerships that allow local authorities and bus operators to agree their own standards for all services in their area — perhaps focusing on frequency and reliability along a particular route or transport corridor, or setting emissions standards to improve local air quality, or introducing common branding, marketing and ticketing rules over a wider geographical area.

    In this way, the bill will build on the strengths of existing partnership arrangements while addressing their weaknesses, including the weakness that allows a small minority of operators to block improvements that have been agreed by the majority.

    This new partnership approach won’t be right for every area. In many cases it may be better to leave things just as they are. For those cases, our message will be — if it isn’t broken, don’t fix it. The status quo is acceptable too.

    Yet sometimes there will be a case for more radical change. For example, some of the things that Londoners have come to expect can be difficult to deliver in a fully de-regulated bus market, such as a single fare structure across different operators and transport modes.

    What the bill will include — franchising

    So the bill will honour our devolution deal commitments to give local authorities the choice to use new powers to franchise bus services in their areas.

    I want to keep the good parts of the quality contract scheme process, which at least forces people to think things through properly, but I want to lose the parts which don’t work, such as the excessive cost, the bureaucracy and the second-guessing.

    The decision to take up those powers will for local areas to make.

    Local areas will need clear arrangements for ensuring the powers are used accountably, the capability to meet their promises to passengers, and a system that does not disadvantage bus services that cross local authority boundaries.

    Operators will need to play their part too.

    This will an important decision for local areas to make, and it must be made on the basis of solid information, provided in a timely way.

    We certainly do not foresee a one-size-fits-all approach in every area.

    Some local authorities may want to introduce newly-integrated, uniformly branded networks of services just as you see in London.

    Others will just want to build and improve on what’s already there.

    Whatever approach is chosen — and that will be a local decision — we want to ensure that bus operators and the wider supply chain have as much notice of change as possible.

    And that the effects on small operators are considered properly.

    In every case, local authorities will need to work closely with the operators in their area to manage the process in the best interest of passengers, particularly during periods of transition which will need to be handled with care.

    Conclusion

    So in conclusion, I hope that’s given everyone plenty to talk about.

    I can’t yet tell you exactly when the bill will be introduced into Parliament, save to say that the finest minds are working on it and you will see it very soon.

    We are hoping for Royal Assent by early next year.

    But we are certainly not at the end of the road just yet.

    Everything in the bill will be subject to Parliamentary scrutiny.

    And it won’t become law until Parliament is satisfied.

    So there’s plenty of opportunity to shape the content.

    And I look forward to much debate and discussion in the months ahead.

    Thank you.

  • Justine Greening – 2016 Statement on Situation in Madaya

    justinegreening

    Below is the text of the speech made by Justine Greening, the Secretary of State for International Development, in London on 11 January 2016.

    I am grateful to the honourable Lady and to you, Mr Speaker, for the chance to discuss this important matter today.

    No-one who has seen the pictures coming out of Madaya can say it’s anything other than utterly appalling.

    This atrocious situation is deliberate and man-made. The Assad regime has besieged the town since July, causing horrific suffering and starvation.

    I should remind the House that the UK has been at the forefront of global efforts to help people suffering inside Syria from day one, day in day out, for the last 4 years.

    The House will be aware that a humanitarian convoy is delivering enough food to all those in Madaya for the next month. The aid on this convoy is UK funded.

    We have allocated £561 million to help people specifically inside Syria. This is partly delivered out of Damascus – which is around 40km from Madaya – with the consent of the regime, as well as across borders from neighbouring countries without regime consent.

    This sits alongside all the work the UK is doing to help Syrian refugees across the region. Our overall response of £1.12 billion for Syria and the region represents our largest ever response to a single humanitarian crisis and makes us the second largest donor after the US.

    We lobbied hard for UN Security Council Resolutions 2165 and 2191 – superseded by Resolution 2258 – which now enable the UN to deliver aid across borders, without the consent of the regime. This is pivotal in order to get to people we need to.

    But we must remember the people of Madaya are not alone in facing these horrors. They represent just 10% of people in besieged areas and 1% of people in so-called hard-to-reach areas in Syria. There are 400,000 people now live in besieged areas like Madaya and around 4.5 million in hard-to-reach areas in Syria.

    Across Syria, Assad and other parties to the conflict are wilfully impeding humanitarian access on a daily basis. It is outrageous, unacceptable and illegal to use starvation as a weapon of war.

    The most effective way to get food to people who are starving and to stop these needless and horrific deaths is for Assad and all parties to the conflict to adhere to international humanitarian law.

    So, right now, I call on the Assad regime and all parties to the conflict to allow immediate and unfettered access to all areas of Syria, not just Madaya.

    We will not stop in our fight – whether through hard work on a political solution that will deal with the root cause of this problem, or humanitarian efforts that provide immediate life-saving relief.

    This shocking situation underlines the vital work of aid agencies and the importance of them knowing they have the resources to keep going, and the importance of next month’s Syria Conference in London which we are co-hosting.

  • Anna Soubry – 2016 Statement on the UK Steel Industry

    CBI Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Anna Soubry, the Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise, on 18 January 2016.

    This morning, Tata Steel announced plans to make over 1,000 redundancies across its UK strip business as part of its continuing restructuring plans. The proposals involve 750 job losses at Port Talbot, 200 redundancies in support functions at Llanwern, and 100 redundancies at steel mills in Trostre, Corby and Hartlepool. This will be a difficult time for all the workers and their families, and our thoughts must be with them. Our immediate focus will be on helping any workers who lose their jobs back into employment as quickly as possible. We will also continue to support the steel industry.

    Given the United Kingdom’s devolution settlement, much of the support that can be offered in south Wales, both to the workers and to Tata Steel, will come from the Welsh government, but the UK government want to ensure that Port Talbot has a commercial and sustainable future. It is encouraging that the Welsh government are to launch a taskforce this week – I believe that it is to meet for the first time on Wednesday – to support those affected by today’s announcement. We have offered our support to the chair of the taskforce, Edwina Hart, and we will continue to work with the Welsh government. I welcome the commitment that the First Minister made today to work closely with the UK government. I am confident that the Welsh government will accede to our request to play a full part in the taskforce. I can assure hon. members that we are also working closely with the Secretary of State for Wales – he is there today, which is why he is not in the House.

    It is important to remember that the fundamental problem facing our steel industry is the fall in world prices, caused by the over-production and under-consumption of steel. We know, for example, that the price of slab has almost halved over the past 12 months, and that Tata has been losing £1 million a day as a result of the slump in prices. All that the industry has asked for – this includes the unions – is a level playing field, and that is what we are achieving. The government have been working closely with Tata to do all we can to ensure a sustainable future for Tata Steel in the United Kingdom, both at Port Talbot and at Scunthorpe. We have offered our assistance to Tata as it seeks to find a buyer for its long products division. It is encouraging that it has announced that Greybull Capital is its preferred bidder. We remain in close contact with Tata as its commercial negotiations continue. The government stand ready to play our part to help secure Scunthorpe’s long-term future.

    Returning to today’s announcement, the same offer is there for Port Talbot. Tata is currently working with consultants to develop a plan to address the near-term competitiveness of its business at Port Talbot. We and the Welsh government are in regular dialogue with Tata. This dialogue includes my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary, as well as my officials and, of course, me. While the future of Port Talbot must be commercially led, we will help where we can within the parameters of state aid rules. I want to make it absolutely clear that, in the words of the Prime Minister, we are unequivocal in saying that steel is a vital industry. This government are determined that steel is produced not just at Scunthorpe but at Port Talbot, and that it has a sustainable future.

    As I say, we are creating the level playing field that the industry has asked of us. It set out 5 asks when we had our steel summit back at the end of last year. On dealing with lower energy costs, in December we secured state aid approval to pay further compensation to energy-intensive industries (EIIs), including steel, to include renewables policy costs. We have already paid about £60 million to the steel industry to help to mitigate the costs of existing energy policies. The new state approval will enable us now to extend the scope of compensation. It will go live tomorrow, enabling steel and other energy-intensive industries to apply. That will save the steel industry about £100 million over the financial year – roughly 30% of its energy bills – but we are going to go even further and exempt EIIs from most of these costs. Our support for these industries will save them hundreds of millions of pounds over the next 5 years.

    The sector asked for flexibility over EU emissions regulations, and that is exactly what we have secured. Derogations for Port Talbot have already been agreed by Natural Resources Wales. The Environment Agency has accepted Tata Steel’s proposals for derogations for improving emissions from Scunthorpe, subject to a current public consultation. Once approved, this will give it a further 6 years to improve emission levels from the coke ovens. Both of Tata Steel’s major power plants have been included in the UK transitional plan that the UK has submitted to the European Union. This gives it until June 2020 – a further 4 years – to meet the emission requirements. These actions will save the industry millions of pounds.

    We have further updated and published, specifically and properly, new guidance about procurement, of which mention was made during Defence questions. We are the first country in the European Union to take advantage of and implement these new flexibilities, so social impact, job impact and staff safety can now be taken into account. In short, there is no excuse not to, and every reason to, buy British steel. Having just met the Aluminium Federation, I want to make it clear and put it on the record that those procurement rules include aluminium.

    I have heard it said that the government have blocked the reform of trade defence investigation, but they have not. I can assure the House that the government have been acting decisively to safeguard the United Kingdom’s steel interests in Europe. In July last year, and again in November, we voted in favour of anti-dumping measures on certain steel imports. The United Kingdom lobbied successfully in support of industry calls for an investigation into imports of reinforcing steel bar. I hope that we will have an announcement soon on the result of those actions under the excellent leadership of the Business Secretary. The European Commission has taken this forward swiftly, including responding quickly to industry requests to register imports. The United Kingdom secured an extraordinary meeting of the EU’s Competitiveness Council and agreed faster action. Next month I will return to follow that up at a stakeholder conference where I will push for further progress.

    The review of business rates in England will conclude this year. Of course, the Welsh government, because this is devolved, have responsibility for business rates in Port Talbot and other parts of Tata’s workings in Wales.

    We have seen today that the steel industry remains subject to unprecedented global pressures. While the immediate causes of these are beyond the government’s control, I can assure the House that we continue to do all we can to help this industry, and we will stand by all the workers who face redundancy in south Wales and other parts of the United Kingdom.

  • Shailesh Vara – 2016 Speech on Family Justice

    shailehsvara

    Below is the text of the speech made by Shailesh Vara, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Minister for the Courts and Legal Aid and Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, on 21 January 2016.

    Just prior to the Christmas recess, an error was identified in an online version of Form E.

    This is the form provided by Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) in order to enable people to disclose financial information during divorce and similar proceedings.

    This fault meant that the automatic calculator in the form calculated the wrong total for an individual’s net assets by failing to deduct certain liabilities.

    The Ministry of Justice (MOJ) was alerted to the fault on 10 December 2015 and a corrected version of the form was put online on 14 December. However the wider implications of the faulty form were not immediately recognised.

    As soon as I was made aware of this issue on 16 December, I ordered an urgent investigation.

    The investigation found the faulty formula was present in versions of Form E which were online between April 2014 and mid December 2015 and between April 2011 and January 2012.

    A total of 36,527 cases contain a version of Form E filed from these periods. HMCTS staff have now reviewed all these cases and found that 3,638 files – 10% – contained the faulty calculator version of Form E with an incorrect figure for net assets figure in the summary table.

    1,403 of these cases are still live, allowing HMCTS to intervene immediately to clearly flag these cases to the courts in order to avoid the error affecting the final orders in these cases.

    The remaining 2,235 files – 6.1% – were closed cases. Although the faulty form was used in these cases, it will not necessarily have had any effect on the ultimate outcome. Form E is only a part of the material used by the parties and the court and is used at an early stage, so the information is often disputed or superseded by further information introduced during proceedings.

    Following the error coming to light, HMCTS established a dedicated email address which people could use if they were concerned about their own case: formE@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk. This email address was advertised on our website and also in all responses to media enquiries. As of 21 January, 51 members of the public have emailed us about their case.

    I have instructed HMCTS to write to all parties in the 2,235 closed cases. The letter expresses our sincere regret for the error, sets out what happened and explains that, although Form E is just one part of the evidence used in their case, there remains a possibility that the error affected the final outcome.

    The letter sets out options available to people involved in these cases. Some may wish to do nothing, if, for example, they know that the error was corrected during the proceedings or they do not wish to re-open their cases. If people think they have been affected by this error then they can apply to the court to vary or set aside their order. My officials consulted the President of the Family Division about the court rules and procedures that would apply to such applications or for any other proceedings that might be open to the parties. My officials also consulted the President on the development of a specific form for such applications. We have provided a link to the new form in our letter to the parties, as well as guidance on how to complete the form.

    I have instructed that no court fee will be charged for making this application, and this is also made this clear in the letter from HMCTS.

    We are also uploading a new version of Form E which makes clearer how the calculation of net assets should be made. We will also consider the future of Form E as part of our broader court reforms and the automatic calculator function will be disabled during this process.

    This failure should not have happened. Divorce proceedings can be very difficult and I sincerely apologise for this situation and any distress it may have caused.

  • Jane Ellison – 2016 Speech on Infected Blood

    janeellison

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jane Ellison, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Public Health, on 21 January 2016.

    In the urgent question on 16 December I committed to publishing the consultation on infected blood scheme reform in January. I am therefore pleased to be here today to announce the launch of that consultation.

    I recognise that for some this will come too late, Mr Speaker, I can’t right the pain and distress of 30 years and the truth is that no amount of money could ever make up for the impact this tragedy has had on people’s lives.

    For legal reasons, I should be clear that, in the majority of cases, it is not appropriate to talk about compensation payments. I have made that point before. But Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to echo what has been said before in this House and say sorry on behalf of the government to every person affected by this tragedy.

    Scheme reform is a priority for me and for this government, and for this reason I can announce today that the Department of Health has identified £100 million from its budget for the proposals set out in the consultation. This is in addition to the current spend and the £25 million already announced in March 2015. This will more than double our annual spend on the scheme over the next 5 years. This is significantly more than any previous government has been able to provide for those affected by this tragedy.

    I know all too well of the ill health and other impacts on many of those affected by the tragedy of infected blood. I have corresponded with many of those affected, and their MPs; they each have their own story to tell. I have reflected carefully on all of this in developing the principles upon which the consultation is based.

    These are that:

    – we focus on those who are infected

    – we are able to respond to new advances in medicine

    – we provide choice where possible

    – we maintain annual payments to everyone currently receiving them

    This consultation is an opportunity for all those who have been affected to have their say, and it’s really important this extends to those quieter voices who we hear from less often.

    It would not be appropriate for me, nor will I have the time Mr Deputy Speaker, to go through the whole consultation document today but I would like to highlight some of the key components.

    The infected

    There is a large population within the infected blood community who currently do not receive any regular financial support, these are the people with hepatitis C. I believe it is important that everybody receives support from the new scheme, and that this is linked to the impact that infection has on their health.

    I therefore propose that all those registered with the schemes with hepatitis C at current stage 1 would be offered an individual health based assessment. Completion of this assessment would determine the level of annual payment received. This would also apply to anyone who newly joins the scheme.

    The consultation document outlines our proposal that those who are currently receiving annual support would have their payments uplifted to £15,000 a year. Those who are co-infected and currently receive double payments would continue to do so.

    Mr Deputy Speaker, I often hear that people are unhappy about applying for discretionary charitable payments and it is my hope that the introduction of new regular annual payments will remove this requirement. I am keen that those who respond to the consultation take the opportunity to answer all the questions about the support proposed for the infected so that I can make informed final decisions on the shape of a new scheme once all the responses are collected and analysed.

    Treatment

    During the urgent question on 16 December I said that I was interested in the opportunities offered by the advent of simpler and more effective treatments that are able to cure some people of hepatitis C. The NHS is at the start of its programme to roll out the new hepatitis C treatments recently approved by NICE. As members of this house will know, the NHS must prioritise treatment on clinical need and not on route of infection. While this will mean that some in the infected blood community will be eligible for treatment right away, others may have to wait.

    More than anything I want, if we can, to give the chance to limit the impact of hepatitis C on this affected community. Over recent months I have received many letters from people expressing a wish to halt the progress of their infection. One of many letters that particularly struck me, Mr Deputy Speaker, asked simply: “please make me well.”

    So my intention is that through the new scheme we can provide an opportunity to enhance access to treatment, especially for those who fall just short of the current criteria for the NHS. I would hope that we could treat more people if finances allow.

    That is why the consultation is seeking views on offering treatment to those with hepatitis C in the infected blood community who will not yet be receiving treatment on the NHS.

    The bereaved

    In keeping with the principle of offering choice where possible I am pleased to announce that we are consulting on a choice of options for the bereaved.

    Currently bereaved partners or spouses are eligible to apply for means tested support from the charities. As I have said I have heard concerns from many people who do not like having to apply to charities. With that in mind the consultation offers the choice of continued access to discretionary support or a one-off lump sum payment for the bereaved, based on a multiple of their current discretionary support.

    There are questions on this in the consultation document and I am keen to hear from those affected so that I can understand their preference.

    One scheme

    Having listened to the concerns about the complex nature of the 5 schemes, the consultation proposes that, following reform, there will be one scheme run by a single body. That body will have access to expert advice including from NICE, so that we can keep pace with any new advances in treatment, for hepatitis C and HIV which emerge.

    Next steps

    The consultation published today will run until 15 April. This is a 12-week consultation to ensure that all those who wish to respond have time to do so. Those who read the consultation document will see that there a number of questions on the proposals on which I would welcome views.

    I recognise that there has been disappointment that we have not consulted sooner. The outcome of the consultation will be crucial to inform our final decisions about how to proceed and I give the house, and those affected, my commitment that we will proceed as rapidly as possible to implementation thereafter.

    We need, as a priority, to make progress in rolling out the health assessments as quickly as possible; ensuring people get access to the support and clinical advice they need. However, I should be clear that my intention is that annual payments for the current stage 1 cohort be backdated to April 2016 regardless of when each individual’s assessment takes place.

    This is the first time that government is consulting fully and widely with the entire affected community, and all those who may have an interest, on the future reform of the scheme. In developing proposals to include within the consultation I have taken account of points I have heard during debates in the house, correspondence sent to me, as well as my discussions with the APPG and views gathered during pre-consultation engagement.

    The consultation is now open and it is my hope, Mr Speaker, that all those affected by this tragedy will respond and that we can move forward from here. I commend this statement to the house.

  • Theresa Villiers – 2016 Speech on the Independent Commission on Information Retrieval

    Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa Villiers, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, on 21 January 2016.

    The cross-party talks that ran from 8 September to 17 November last year, which culminated in the Fresh Start agreement, brought us closer than ever before to consensus on the best way to deal with Northern Ireland’s past. While we established much common ground, it was not possible to reach agreement on all issues. I am committed to working with the Northern Ireland parties, with the Irish Government as appropriate, and with representatives of victims and survivors, to build on the progress made during the talks. The UK Government is determined to resolve the outstanding issues that are preventing the establishment of the legacy institutions set out in the Stormont House Agreement.

    One of these institutions is the Independent Commission on Information Retrieval (ICIR). This will be an independent body designed to enable victims and survivors privately to receive information about the Troubles-related deaths of their next of kin. As set out in the Stormont House Agreement, and building on the precedent of the Independent Commission on the Location of Victims’ Remains, the ICIR will be an international body. To that end, the UK and Irish Governments have signed an international agreement to enable the establishment of the ICIR and to set out its functions. Today I have placed a copy of this treaty in the libraries of both Houses.

    The ICIR will be an important institution which will help victims and survivors to seek information which it has not been possible to obtain by other means. Engagement by families with the ICIR will be entirely voluntary. Information provided to the ICIR about deaths within its remit will not be admissible in court, something which families will always be told in advance. The ICIR will not, however, provide any form of amnesty or immunity from prosecution.

    This Government believes in the rule of law and would not countenance such a step. As the Stormont House Agreement set out, information provided to the ICIR will be protected but no individual will be protected from prosecution if evidence is obtained by other means. It is the Government’s intention that the legislation needed to implement the ICIR will contain provisions clearly setting this out.

    It had been our aim to lay the treaty before Parliament at the same time as introducing the legislation required to establish the legacy bodies. However, as agreement has not yet been reached on this legislation, this is not possible. Once any treaty is formally laid, Parliament has a period of 21 sitting days, in which it can resolve that the treaty should not be ratified, in accordance with the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. I believe that it would be best if this consideration took place alongside the legislation, which will contain more detail about how the ICIR will function. I propose therefore formally to lay the treaty once we are able also to introduce legislation. These particular circumstances mean that placing a copy of the treaty in the libraries of both Houses is an appropriate way to ensure that Parliament is aware of the text of the treaty, without instigating the formal process of consideration.

    In addition to the ICIR, the Stormont House Agreement envisaged the establishment of the Historical Investigations Unit, the Oral History Archive and the Implementation and Reconciliation Group. Together, this set of institutions provides the best opportunity to help Northern Ireland deal with its past and provide better outcomes for victims and survivors, the people who we must never forget suffered more than anyone else as a result of the Troubles. The Government is committed to implementing the Stormont House Agreement and to establishing the legacy bodies it contains. I will continue to meet victims’ representatives and others over the coming days and weeks to discuss these matters and to build support for the new institutions.

     

  • Michael Gove – 2016 Statement on Youth

    michaelgove

    Below is the text of the speech made by Michael Gove, the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor, on 26 January 2016.

    As I assured the House on 11 January, the safety and welfare of all those in custody is vital. We treat the allegations of abuse directed towards young people at the Medway Secure Training Centre (STC), run by G4S, with the utmost seriousness. Kent Police and Medway Council’s child protection team have launched an investigation which will determine whether there is any evidence to justify criminal proceedings. The Ministry of Justice (MOJ) and Youth Justice Board (YJB) will fully support and co-operate with their enquiries.

    Following the allegations, our immediate priority has been to ensure that young people at the centre are safe. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP) and Ofsted visited Medway STC on 11 January and their findings are published today. YJB, which is responsible for commissioning and oversight of the secure youth estate, has increased both its own monitoring at Medway STC and the presence of Barnardos, who provide an independent advocacy service at the centre. YJB immediately stopped all placements of young people into the Centre and suspended the certification of staff named in the allegations.

    I believe, however, that we need to do more in order to have confidence that the STC is being run safely and that the right lessons have been learned. Today’s report by HMIP and Ofsted recommends the appointment of a commissioner to provide additional external oversight of the governance of the centre. I agree that additional external oversight is necessary and am also concerned that it draws on the broadest possible expertise.

    I am therefore today appointing an Independent Improvement Board, comprised of 4 members with substantial expertise in education, running secure establishments and looking after children with behavioural difficulties. This Board will fulfil the same function, with the same remit, as HMIP and Ofsted’s recommendation for a commissioner. We have tasked G4S with putting an improvement plan in place, which this Board will oversee.

    I have appointed Dr Gary Holden as the chair of the Improvement Board. Dr Holden is the chief executive officer and executive principal of The Williamson Trust, a successful academy chain in Kent. This includes the outstanding Joseph Williamson Mathematics School, located less than a mile from Medway STC. He is also a National Leader of Education and chair of the Teaching Schools Council. His experience as a head teacher and leader of a high-performing organisation make him ideally suited to identify the steps that should be taken to raise standards at Medway STC.

    Dr Holden will be joined by: Bernard Allen, an expert in behaviour management and the use of restraint; Emily Thomas, interim governor of HM Prison Holloway and former governor of HM Young Offender Institution Cookham Wood; and Sharon Gray OBE, an education consultant and former head teacher with experience of working with children with behavioural difficulties, including in residential settings.

    The Board will provide increased oversight, scrutiny and challenge of managerial arrangements, in particular in relation to the safeguarding of young people. Board members will have authority to visit any part of the site at any time, access records at Medway and interview children during their investigations. The Board will report any concerns about the provision of services at Medway to me. The Board’s work will assist me in determining the necessary improvements that G4S must make to restore confidence that young people are properly safeguarded at the STC.

    The Terms of Reference for the Independent Improvement Board are to:

    – investigate the safeguarding arrangements at Medway in order to inform the development and approval of the improvement plan to be produced by G4S and any steps to be taken by the Youth Justice Board (YJB) and other organisations.

    – oversee, challenge and support G4S in implementing their improvement plan.

    – report to the Secretary of State on the Board’s confidence in the capability of G4S, YJB and other organisations to meet appropriate safeguarding standards at Medway STC in the future, and the performance and monitoring arrangements required to provide assurance.

    – submit any recommendations on the safeguarding of young people in custody, including the role of the YJB and other organisations, to inform practice in the wider youth custodial estate and Charlie Taylor’s review of the youth justice system.

    The Board will complete its work by the end of March 2016.

  • Theresa May – 2016 Speech on New Fraud Taskforce

    theresamay

    Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May, the Home Secretary, at the Mansion House in London on 10 February 2016.

    Thank you Lord Mayor for those opening words, and for generously hosting this morning’s event in such an impressive venue.

    I am delighted to be here today and particularly glad to see such strong representation from the financial sector. In this room are senior figures from world-leading banks, law enforcement and government. The chief executives of some of the biggest banks and payment providers in the world, responsible for countless transactions, worth millions of pounds, every second. And we are joined by those responsible for regulating and stewarding the financial system – Mark Carney, the Governor of the Bank of England, and Tracey McDermott, Acting Chief Executive of the Financial Conduct Authority, and Harriett Baldwin, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury.

    Together the people in this room are responsible for one of the great engines of our economy and an incredible creator of jobs, wealth and economic power in this country – the financial services industry. It is the reason that London is the world’s pre-eminent financial centre and a hub for the global exchange of currency, capital and shares.

    Our economy relies on the financial system and everyone in this country benefits from its global success. But the scale and volume of financial activity also brings serious risks of economic crime and real opportunities for criminals to defraud hardworking taxpayers and vulnerable pensioners of their savings and earnings.

    Fraud shames our financial system. It undermines the credibility of the economy, ruins businesses and causes untold distress to people of all walks of life. Some of you will know first-hand the financial and emotional impact of being defrauded, and the industry leaders in the room will know the true financial cost of fraud to their businesses, from reimbursing consumers to repairing your reputations with affected clients. But for too long, there has been too little understanding of the problem and too great a reluctance to take steps to tackle it.

    Last year, the Office for National Statistics estimated that there were 5.1 million frauds in the UK. The City of London’s size and openness to global trade makes it particularly exposed to the risk of international money laundering and the frauds that are inevitably linked to it.

    And it is clear that fraud is often coordinated by organised criminal gangs, increasingly using online channels to dupe unwitting individuals and access their accounts. There is growing evidence they do so from jurisdictions out of reach of traditional policing, using technology that make them difficult to investigate. And we know that individuals travelling to join Daesh in Syria have used frauds to fund their travel. In one successful prosecution, a group linked to a terrorist investigation was found to have defrauded or attempted to defraud elderly and vulnerable victims of a total in excess of £1 million.

    So I am delighted that we are joined by those leading the law enforcement response –Ian Dyson, the new Commissioner of the City of London Police and Lynne Owens, the new Director General of the National Crime Agency.

    So everyone in this room has an interest in stamping fraud out and disrupting the criminals that lie behind it. Fraud is not and never has been a victimless crime and its impact is much wider than is commonly recognised.

    That is why today is so important. It represents a united front of government, law enforcement and industry in preventing, identifying and cracking down on fraud.

    A unified front against fraud

    Today’s event builds on some excellent joint working across the financial sector and law enforcement to tackle fraudsters. Many of the banks and card companies in this room, and more broadly, are investing heavily in increasingly sophisticated security systems to detect and prevent fraud. Industry has funded the Dedicated Card and Payments Crime Unit, where police work alongside professional fraud investigators to disrupt fraudsters and gather evidence to secure convictions. And the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau, operated by the City of London Police, helps identify established and emerging frauds and those who are committing them.

    At the same time, the Home Office and law enforcement offer targeted prevention advice through sources such as Cyber Streetwise and GetSafeOnline to encourage individuals and businesses to adopt safer behaviours to protect against fraudulent activity.

    But as everyone in this room knows, we need to go further. New technology is facilitating new ways to commit cyber crime and to defraud members of the public. Organised criminals are becoming more sophisticated in their actions and “buying in” expertise to mount increasingly complex frauds that can wipe millions off the value of accounts at a keystroke. Even public sector institutions are attractive to fraudsters, who either attempt to hack databases or impersonate institutions to defraud people and businesses. Quite simply, we are not making up enough ground on the criminals and people’s livelihoods are at risk.

    The Joint Fraud Taskforce

    So today, I am delighted to officially launch the Joint Fraud Taskforce, which will bring the collective powers, systems and resources of banks, payment providers, police, wider law enforcement and regulators to bear on this threat.

    We will achieve this in a number of ways. First, we must build a better understanding of the threat. So we will bring together expert knowledge from each Taskforce member to identify and map key threats, vulnerabilities and drivers of fraud. This greater understanding will ensure that the activities of the Taskforce can be clearly focussed on areas that can and should be tackled.

    We must concentrate efforts to improve our collective response on fraud. This means focusing on targeting high harm nominals and improving fast-track intelligence sharing between banks and law enforcement. It is only by systematically sharing information and data between banks and law enforcement investigators that we will be able to identify suspicious financial flows, track fraudulent funds through the system, and prove fraudsters are profiting from such illegal activity to support convictions.

    We will focus the Taskforce efforts on victims too. By better data sharing and matching we hope to speed up the identification of victims and potential victims and address the barriers preventing the refund of funds to scam victims. And this work cannot just be digital in scope, with closer cooperation between bank staff and the police to identify potential victims when they present themselves in branch too.

    Finally, the Taskforce will identify and tackle the vulnerabilities that the fraudsters depend on to successfully target the public and businesses. These are often simple fixes that can have big results, like our work with telephone providers to reduce the amount of time a telephone line stays open after one person has dialled, closing a loophole which criminals used to pretend to be from a bank or other legitimate organisation. Or they can be innovative technical solutions, such as the development of Chip-and-Pin introduced in 2006 to tackle specific types of card fraud. Since its introduction, counterfeit card fraud has dropped 72% since it peaked in 2008, and fraud losses on the UK high street have fallen 78 % since 2004.

    A true partnership between industry, law enforcement and government

    I want the Joint Fraud Taskforce to signal a new type of partnership – truly collaborative, driving our collective action to reduce the numbers of victims; reduce the impact of fraud; and increase the prosecution and disruption of fraudsters.

    And I will do everything I can to ensure it is a success.

    But if the taskforce is to achieve everything it needs to, I need your support. The Taskforce can only work if there is genuine collective ownership and commitment from everyone in this room.

    So my ask is simple – lend your expertise to this new body. Come forward to lead specific work. Encourage your brightest and best to offer their leadership and expertise. Join your intelligence teams, your data experts, and your customer care teams with law enforcement to improve the response to fraud. The Taskforce will be open and transparent, the public will hear of its successes, your businesses will be less at risk of fraud, and your customers will know that you have been part of something truly worthwhile.

    We know this approach works. Some of you will know that we launched the Joint Money Laundering Intelligence Taskforce last year. That Taskforce has already had an impact through its collaborative approach to tackling the increasing threat from serious and organised crime groups involved in high-end money laundering. Working together, members of that taskforce have developed cases, identified and closed banks accounts, issued alerts on methodologies, obtained 50 new court orders and made 8 arrests.

    It is a clear demonstration of what can be achieved in a relatively short space of time when the industry, law enforcement and government come together with a common aim.

    We are going to hear shortly from representatives in banking and law enforcement who have already recognised the importance of the Joint Fraud Taskforce and become actively involved. They have committed their organisations to supporting its work, bringing knowledge, expertise and fresh new thinking to the table. I cannot stress enough how valuable this collective work is, and I urge you to make the decision to get involved.

    Thank you again for taking time to be here this morning and I look forward to listening to the other speakers, and I would like to invite Mark Carney, Governor of the Bank of England to say a few words.