Tag: Speeches

Ed Vaizey – 2012 Speech to Oxford Media Convention

Below is the text of the speech made by Ed Vaizey, the then Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Culture, Communications and Creative Industries, at the Oxford Media Convention on 25 January 2012.

Delighted to be opening the tenth Oxford Media Convention. In 2002, I wasn’t even yet a Parliamentary candidate, and people in my constituency were campaigning for dial-up internet access. Nobody knew what a smartphone was, and very few people had digital television,

So we have come a long way.

But one theme that perhaps links the two dates is the continued success of what we now call – thanks to Chris Smith – the creative industries.

Let me begin by saying what a privilege it is to represent the creative industries in Government. It’s a commonplace nowadays to talk about the success of the creative sector in the UK, but it’s a commonplace because it’s true.

You know how successful you are but it is always good for a Minister to rehearse your success in public.

As I might say if I were presenting the BAFTAs, “let’s pause and look back on a successful year”…

In the last twelve months we’ve seen:

– UK films – from Harry Potter to the InBetweeners top the UK box office for 20 weeks in the UK;

– the King’s Speech become the most successful independent movie in history, earning £46 million in the UK and £266 million worldwide;

– Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, made in the UK, earning more than any other 2011 release (over £73 million in UK, which is the third highest ever);

– The highest ever amount of UK film production activity growing by 7% to £1.16bn;

– UK acts charting at number 1,2 and 3 in the same week in the US for the first time in 25 years, with Adele’s album, 21, the best-selling digital album of all time;

– UK TV formats dominating television schedules all across the globe, accounting for two in every five global programmes;

– and of course Downton Abbey continuing UK success at the Globes; exports of UK television content are worth more than £1.3 billion per year;

– the BBC’s global reputation for excellence cemented, with BBC Worldwide supporting the creative industries and increasing international sales by 9.6% in 2010-11;

– the UK consolidating its place as the European hub for video games, with 35% of video games software sold in Europe being developed by UK studios, with almost half of the world’s top 100 development studios based in the UK;

– UK-based games companies taking the lead in online markets:Jagex’ online multiplayer;

– Hand Circus’ iPhone App; Playfish’s social network games;

– VFX company Double Negative winning an Oscar for Inception;

– the VFX hub in Soho is home to four of the largest VFX companies in the world;

– one of the most innovative and successful advertising industries in the world grow despite the recession: 2010 revenue growth of 5.9 per cent to £15.5 billion, with forecasts of 1.4 per cent growth in 2011 and over 5 per cent in 2012. A recent PwC report predicted that the size of the UK advertising industry would grow 4.8 per cent in the next four years to £17.7 billion;
– one of the most successful and creative fashion capitals anywhere in the world continue to flourish, with Burberry a UK company increasing its sales by a quarter;

– and the largest of the UKs creative industries, the UK publishing industry, adapt and remain one of the most successful in the world for the breadth, depth and quality of content it creates, as well as the multiple ways in which that content is brought to market.

Publishing in the UK has a turnover of £19 billion.

Before I talk about the future, I hope you’ll indulge me further as I also want to highlight some of the achievements of my Department.

In the last 18 months we’ve established the Creative Industries Council and Creative England; merged the UK Film Council and the BFI and increased Lottery funding for film; brought forward revolutionary plans for local television; settled the licence fee until 2017; secured S4C’s future; launched our plans for digital radio switchover; put in place ambitious plans for broadband, both mobile and fixed; continued to implement the DEA and make progress on copyright infringement; implemented the e-privacy directive; launched the e-accessibility plan; persuaded the DfE to revolutionise the computer science curriculum …I could go on.
I want to take this opportunity to thank the officials in my Department who have worked to make this happen, as well as some of the organisations we work with, particularly Ofcom, which I think does an outstanding job.

Anyway, I’m now beginning to sound like I am delivering an Oscar acceptance speech. So. The future.

We know we have some of the tech savviest consumers in Europe: two-thirds shop on the web; one in four already have a smartphone; and soon one in four will have a tablet too. So again it’s become traditional to predict the end of big media, and the dominance of new internet companies. Throw in a prolonged downturn, and the doom mongers seem to hold all the cards.

But hold on a minute. This afternoon you’ll hear from Channel 4 how they have turned around from where they were a few years ago, angling for licence fee money; the BBC is launching the Space, a hugely significant cultural event; ITV has hugely ambitious plans focused on content; more and more international companies like Discovery are investing in UK content.

In the last two years, linear television viewing has increased by almost 8 per cent;86 per cent of people who can time-shift still choose to watch linear television; 9 out of 10 us together still consume a billion hours of radio a week.

The future’s not binary. It’s evolutionary. In a digital age, content is crucial.

It may seem odd to say this given the concerns we have around digital copyright infringement, but my view is that technology provides huge opportunities for the content industry in the UK. Technology may change the platform through which we view or hear content. But it will not remove the desire for the consumer to access great content. Our viewing habits will evolve – but they will not change fundamentally. And in a digital age, the chance to monetise content through advertising may well increase, as enhanced and targeted advertising commands higher prices.

In a world in which much is changing, but more will stay the same than perhaps we think, Government’s role is to provide regulatory certainty, and the right infrastructure for business. The publication of the Green Paper is imminent, but let me focus on just a couple of issues.

Infrastructure

To give us the infrastructure we need, we’re investing more than three-quarters of a billion in digital infrastructure – rural, mobile and urban – that will give us the best broadband network in Europe by 2015. This adds to BT’s investment of £2.5 billion as part of the most rapid broadband investment in the world. And Virgin Media has recently announced it is investing to double the speed for its existing customers.

The largest part of the Government funding is £530 million to extend superfast broadband to 90% of the UK and to ensure universal availability of standard broadband. We have asked local authorities and the devolved administrations to match this funding, to give total public funding of around £1 billion, which we expect to be supported by a further £1 billion of private investment.

Our aim is to complete this roll-out by 2015. This gives us a very tight timetable. We have asked local authorities to submit draft Local Broadband Plans by the end of February and to have these signed off by the end of April, so that they can complete procurement by December. I can announce that today we will have signed off the broadband plans for almost a third of the total areas in England, which is fantastic news.

As well as broadband, we’re looking at how spectrum policy can underpin innovation. In a world of mobile data, spectrum is the new railway. Ofcom has announced its plans for a 4G spectrum auction later this year. We’ve committed to releasing 500MHz of spectrum over the next ten years – more than double the amount being made available in the 4G auction. And we’re monitoring the trial of the use of white space in Cambridge to see how we can use this to stimulate innovation. All in all Ofcom estimates the net value of unlicensed spectrum might be as high as £100 billion over the next 20 years.

In short, we want to create the conditions to ensure that effective use of spectrum can continue to support economic growth and innovation, which is why it will feature heavily in the forthcoming Green Paper.

Content Regulation

As well as infrastructure, we need to put in place the right business conditions to support UK creative industries and encourage inward investment. We will address the regulatory environment across the board in the Green Paper, but today I want to focus on public service broadcasting.

Despite digital television, we still believe the obligations placed on public service broadcasters are important, to ensure a vibrant production sector throughout the UK. But the quid-pro-quo, of free, scarce spectrum, is not what it was.

So we need to find new ways to reward public service broadcasters who invest in UK content, and also to perhaps broaden our definition of what a public service broadcaster is.

One idea we are keen to explore is the potential for Government to encourage investment in UK content through the Electronic Programme Guide.

At present the EPG, though statutory, is governed by a Code of Practice policed by Ofcom. The main PSBs are meant to be given appropriate prominence, but the broadcasters have some discretion, and Ofcom does not have the power to prescribe or guarantee a position. Further, current regulations only apply to linear television.

In addition, many non-PSB channels invest in UK content that could fall within the traditional definition of public service content – obvious examples are news, current affairs, children’s television, documentaries and quality drama. So we need to look at whether the prominence rules could be used to reward those who invest in that kind of content.

So we have commissioned research on this issue, and we will seek further views in the Green Paper. It’s important that any new regime is sufficiently flexible and does not prejudice the UK’s huge success in attracting inward investment.

While we might look at one or two areas where we think regulation might help, I want to make it clear that we believe very firmly in self-regulation where possible. We have seen how the implementation of the e-privacy directive has caused huge problems for business. And we have now seen draft proposals from the Commission on amendments to the data protection directive, which will need careful scrutiny.

So we need to take a step back, and consider what it is we want to achieve. If viewers can access content in many different ways, top-down regulation won’t work on its own. We need to do two things – give viewers the tools to protect their kids from inappropriate content, and give viewers the guidance they need to choose what they want to watch.

We’ve seen this operate with some success already: the PEGI ratings for on-line games; the BBFC’s work in classifying websites; and UKCCIS’s work in encouraging ISPs to make parental controls available to their customers.

And given that data is now king, it is absolutely right that consumers should have a say in how their data is stored and used – so that means transparency, education and the right of redress where appropriate. Self-regulation, and engagement from industry in this area, can help reduce the burdens on business and ensure that you can continue to innovate.

Conclusion

These are just some of the successes and challenges facing this sector. It is a unique moment of change for the media, as we enter a new phase of the digital revolution, one that is transforming our lifestyles and touching deeper into personal and public life than ever before.

Predictions aren’t easy. We’ve got some very difficult balances to strike, but I’m confident that with your help, we can find the right solutions and keep British creative industries at the forefront of the new digital economy that’s emerging.

January 26, 2016
David Cameron – 2012 Speech on the European Court of Human Rights

Below is the text of the speech made by David Cameron, the Prime Minister, on 25 January 2012.

Once in a generation, each member has the honour of leading the Council of Europe.

Today, I want to speak about the once-in-a-generation chance we have, together, to improve the way we enhance the cause of human rights, freedom and dignity.

We have an ambitious agenda for the coming months…

…to reinforce local democracy…

…to combat discrimination…

…to strengthen the rule of law across Europe.

But the focus of our Chairmanship, as you know, is our joint effort to reform the European Court of Human Rights.

The role of the Court has never been more challenging.

As the Council has expanded, more and more people have applied to seek justice.

We need to work together to ensure that throughout these changes, the Court remains true to its original intention: to uphold the Convention and prevent the abuse of human rights.

So today, I want to explain why I believe the Court needs reform and set out some of the proposals on the table.

UK Commitment to Human Rights

First, I want to make something clear.

Human rights is a cause that runs deep in the British heart and long in British history.

In the thirteenth century, Magna Carta set down specific rights for citizens, including the right to freedom from unlawful detention.

In the seventeenth century, the Petition of Right gave new authority to Parliament; and the Bill of Rights set limits on the power of the monarchy.

By the eighteenth century it was said that:

“This spirit of liberty is so deeply implanted in our constitution, and rooted in our very soil, that a slave the moment he lands in England, falls under the protection of the laws, and with regard to all natural rights becomes instantly a free man”.

It was that same spirit that led to the abolition of slavery…

…that drove the battle against tyranny in two World Wars…

…and that inspired Winston Churchill to promise that the end of the “world struggle” would see the “enthronement of human rights”.

As he put it, victory in that war was the “victory of an ideal founded on the right of the common man, on the dignity of the human being, and on the conception of the State as the servant, not the master, of its people”.

These beliefs have animated the British people for centuries – and they animate us today.

When the Arab Spring erupted, the UK was a principal supporter of resolutions at the UN Human Rights Council.

We are leading EU partners in maintaining pressure on Syria.

We have played a key role in securing EU sanctions against Iran.

Through the UN, we are working to empower women in Afghanistan, Iraq and the Middle East.

We have pledged additional money to the Special Fund for Torture Prevention.

And we are contributing to the Council of Europe’s own Human Rights Trust Fund.

All these are clear signals of our belief in fundamental human rights.

And if called to defend that belief with action, we act.

When the people of Libya were reaching for the chance to shape their own destiny, Britain stepped forward with our allies to help.

Visiting Tripoli a few months ago, seeing the crowds of people who were jubilant and free, I was reminded of what Margaret Thatcher once said:

“The spirit of freedom is too strong to be crushed by the tanks of tyrants”.

It is our hope that this spirit of freedom spreads further – and we will continue to support those reaching for it across the Arab world.

We are not and never will be a country that walks on by while human rights are trampled into the dust.

This has a lot to do with Britain’s national character – a love of freedom and an instinctive loathing of over-mighty authority.

But it is also about our national interest – to live, travel and trade in a more open, secure world.

When a government respects its citizens’ human rights, that makes for a more stable country – and that is good for all of us.

It was that great champion of freedom, Vaclav Havel, who said it best:

“Without free, self-respecting, and autonomous citizens there can be no free and independent nations. Without internal peace, that is, peace among citizens and between the citizens and the state, there can be no guarantee of external peace”.

In other words, a commitment to human rights is both morally right and strategically right.

Achievements of the Council and the Court

So I want no one here to doubt the British commitment to defending human rights…

…nor the British understanding that the Council of Europe, the Convention and the Court have played a vital role in upholding those rights.

But believing these things does not mean sticking with the status quo…

…because as we are agreed, the time is right to ask some serious questions about how the Court is working.

Over sixty years ago the Convention was drafted with very clear intentions.

It was born in a continent reeling from totalitarian rule…

…shocked by the brutality of the holocaust…

…sickened by man’s inhumanity to man.

Its purpose was clear: to spread respect for vital human rights across the continent – for life, liberty and the integrity of the person.

It has achieved some vitally important things over the decades: exposing torture; winning victories against degrading treatment in police custody; holding heavy-handed states to account.

And since the Berlin Wall fell, it has played a major role in strengthening democracy across central and Eastern Europe.

Of course, we should remember that oppression and brutality are not just facts of Europe’s past.

As we sit here today, in Belarus there are people being thrown into prison for their political beliefs.

Dissidents’ voices are being silenced and their rights are being crushed.

What is happening less than a thousand miles from here underlines the continuing importance and relevance of the Council, the Convention and the Court.

It reminds us that now, more than ever, we need a Court that is a beacon for the cause of human rights, ruthlessly focussed on defending human freedom and dignity, respected across the continent and the world.

It is in that spirit that I have come here to speak to you today.

Because today, the ability of the Court to play this vital role is under threat.

As I see it, there are three inter-linking issues that should cause us concern.

Too many cases

First, the Court is being compelled to do too much, and that threatens its ability to do what is most important.

We have seen a massive inflation in the number of cases.

In the first forty years of its existence, 45,000 cases were presented to the Court.

In 2010 alone, 61,300 applications were presented.

This has created a huge backlog – more than 160,000 cases at its peak.

There can still be a delay of some years before cases are heard, which means tens of thousands of people with their lives on hold.

These will inevitably include some of the most serious cases: of detention; torture; people who have had their fundamental rights denied.

Let me be clear: impressive steps are already being taken to filter out inadmissible cases more quickly.

The Court should be congratulated on that – but a new problem is emerging.

More and more of the backlog is now made up of admissible cases that, according to the current criteria, should be heard in full.

Again, the Court is doing good work to deal with this.

A system to prioritise the most important cases is in place.

But the sheer volume risks urgent cases being stuck in the queue.

That means the very purpose of the Court – to prevent the most serious violations of human rights – is under threat.

Court of the fourth instance

This flood of cases is linked to the second issue.

The Court is properly safeguarding the right of individual petition – and it’s a principle the UK is committed to.

But with this, comes the risk of turning into a court of ‘fourth instance’…

…because there has already been a first hearing in a court, a second one in an appeal court, and a third in a supreme or constitutional court.

In effect that gives an extra bite of the cherry to anyone who is dissatisfied with a domestic ruling, even where that judgement is reasonable, well-founded, and in line with the Convention.

Quite simply, the Court has got to be able to fully protect itself against spurious cases when they have been dealt with at the national level.

A good start has been made with Protocol 14, which makes clear that cases aren’t admissible if there is no significant disadvantage to the applicant.

The initial case where the protocol has been used shows exactly the kind of thing I mean.

The applicant was taking a bus company to court for 90 Euros compensation, because they felt their journey from Bucharest to Madrid hadn’t been as comfortable as advertised.

One of the matters at issue was that they didn’t provide fully-reclining seats.

The domestic courts had turned him down, and he was taking his case to the Court.

Now I think we can all agree that fully-reclining seats would be very desirable on a trip from Bucharest to Madrid…

…but we can also agree that this is a completely trivial case, and is not the kind of case that should be heard here.

The Court agreed – and quite rightly rejected the claim.

But this case just underlines how important it is for the Court to have that consistent power to control the cases it admits.

Slim margin of appreciation

The third issue is that the Court is, quite rightly, determined to make sure that consistent standards of rights are upheld across the 47 member states…

…but at times it has felt to us in national governments that the ‘margin of appreciation’ – which allows for different interpretations of the Convention – has shrunk…

…and that not enough account is being taken of democratic decisions by national parliaments.

Let us be frank about the fall-out from this issue.

As the margin of appreciation has shrunk, so controversy has grown.

You will know that in the UK there is a lively debate about the way human rights law works, and how our own national courts interact with Europe.

Yes, some of this is misinterpretation – but some of it is credible democratic anxiety, as with the prisoner voting issue.

I completely understand the Court’s belief that a national decision must be properly made.

But in the end, I believe that where an issue like this has been subjected to proper, reasoned democratic debate…

…and has also met with detailed scrutiny by national courts in line with the Convention…

…the decision made at a national level should be treated with respect.

Another example of this – and one we can all agree on – is in the area of immigration.

At Izmir, we collectively invited the Court, “to avoid intervening except in the most exceptional circumstances.”

All states agreed that the Court was, in some cases, too ready to substitute its judgment for that of reasonable national processes and all agreed that that was not its role.

In other words, it should not see itself as an immigration tribunal.

Protecting a country from terrorism is one of the most important tasks for any government.

Again, no one should argue that you defend our systems of rights and freedom by suspending those freedoms.

But we do have a real problem when it comes to foreign national who threaten our security.

In Britain we have gone through all reasonable national processes…

…including painstaking international agreements about how they should be treated…

…and scrutiny by our own courts…

…and yet we are still unable to deport them.

It is therefore not surprising that some people start asking questions about whether the current arrangements are really sensible.

Of course, no decent country should deport people if they are going to be tortured.

But the problem today is that you can end up with someone who has no right to live in your country, who you are convinced – and have good reason to be convinced – means to do your country harm.

And yet there are circumstances in which you cannot try them, you cannot detain them and you cannot deport them.

So having put in place every possible safeguard to ensure that ECHR rights are not violated, we still cannot fulfil our duty to our law-abiding citizens to protect them.

Together, we have to find a solution to this.

These concerns are shared by many member states.

And at the heart of this concern is not antipathy to human rights; it is anxiety that the concept of human rights is being distorted.

As a result, for too many people, the very concept of rights is in danger of slipping from something noble to something discredited – and that should be of deep concern to us all.

Upholding and promoting human rights is not something governments and courts can do alone…

…it is something we need all our societies to be engaged with.

And when controversial rulings overshadow the good and patient long-term work that has been done, that not only fails to do justice to the work of the Court…

…it has a corrosive effect on people’s support for human rights.

The Court cannot afford to lose the confidence of the people of Europe.

Right moment for reform

Taken together, these issues threaten to shift the role of the Court away from its key objectives.

The Court should be free to deal with the most serious violations of human rights; it should not be swamped with an endless backlog of cases.

The Court should ensure that the right to individual petition counts; it should not act as a small claims court.

And the Court should hold us all to account; it should not undermine its own reputation by going over national decisions where it does not need to.

For the sake of the 800 million people the Court serves, we need to reform it so that it is true to its original purpose.

Already 47 members are agreed on this, and great work has been done.

Now we would like to use our Chairmanship to help progress that work.

This is the right moment for reform – reforms that are practical, sensible and that enhance the reputation of the Court.

Our proposals

So we are looking to improve the efficiency of the Court.

New rules could enable it to focus more efficiently and transparently on the most important cases.

We want to improve the procedures for nominating judges.

The Assembly needs consistently strong shortlists from which to elect judges – and clear guidelines on national selection procedures could help with that.

And we are hoping to get consensus on strengthening subsidiarity – the principle that where possible, final decisions should be made nationally.

It is of course correct that the Court should hold governments to account when they fail to protect human rights.

In these instances it is right for the Court to intervene.

But what we are all striving for is that national governments should take primary responsibility for safeguarding their citizens’ rights – and do it well.

Subsidiarity is a fundamental principle of the Convention, and at Izmir, we were all clear that more needed to be done to give it practical effect.

For that reason, we will shortly set out our proposals for pushing responsibility to the national system.

That way we can free up the Court to concentrate on the worst, most flagrant human rights violations – and to challenge national courts when they clearly haven’t followed the Convention.

Of course, re-balancing this relationship is a two-way street.

The other side of the deal is that members get better at implementing the Convention at national level.

That is why, in the UK, we are investigating the case for a UK Bill of Rights, and thoroughly examining the way our liberties are protected.

Parliaments also have a key role – and we are proud of the role that our own Joint Committee on Human Rights plays.

And of course, this Assembly makes a vital contribution, helping states to honour their obligations.

Together, through these institutions, we can reduce the number of violations and ultimately ease the burden on the Court.

Conclusion

Let me finish today by saying this.

With this Chairmanship we have a clear opportunity to agree a practical programme of reform.

Built on the noble intentions of the Convention.

Forged through consensus.

Driven by a belief in fundamental human rights and a passion to advance them.

This is undoubtedly a challenge – but it is a challenge we can meet together.

January 26, 2016
Theresa May – 2012 Speech on Olympic Security

Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May, the Home Secretary, on 25 January 2012.

The 2012 London olympic and paralympic games will be the greatest sporting event in British history – an event of which the whole nation can be proud.

This summer we will welcome athletes from around the world to our shores.

10,500 olympic athletes from 205 national olympic committees and 4,200 paralympic athletes from 170 national paralympic committees will come to Britain.

The busiest competition day will attract 800,000 spectators to the various olympic events. Millions of lucky fans will get to see the games in person.

Around the globe, the TV audience will number four billion.

And it is our aim to host a games and to hold a celebration that captures the imagination of the world.

Safe and secure games

As Home Secretary, I am ready to take on the challenge of delivering a safe and secure games.

Security planning began even before we won the bid in 2005. It has been going on ever since.

Our aim is to deliver a safe and secure London 2012 games, that upholds olympic values and the olympic ethos.

That means we need a security approach that is robust but seamless; visible but not intrusive; tough but intelligent.

And that is what we will deliver.

Our security plans are well-developed and our security operation is on track. I know the international olympic committee shares that judgement.

Today I want to tell you about our security operation so that you too can have the same reassurance that the games will be, not only an amazing spectacle, but also a safe one.

Ongoing threats

Like all western countries, the UK faces a number of ongoing threats to our national security. We have taken all of them into account in our planning.

We know we face a real and enduring threat from terrorism and we know that the games – as an iconic event – will represent a target for terrorist groups.

Our olympic security plans have been developed against an assumption that the terrorist threat level at the time of the games will be severe.

The terrorist threat has developed and evolved over the past few years.

That is why our security plans compliment and draw on the capabilities and expertise developed through our world-leading counter-terrorism strategy, CONTEST.

But importantly, we have specifically designed in the ability to be flexible and we have kept everything under regular review.

That flexibility will be crucial at games time. It will allow us to respond rapidly and effectively to any unforeseen developments.

The police will be the lead agency in charge of olympic security. They know how to keep the streets of Britain safe better than anyone else. But our overall approach to security is that this will be a joint effort.

The police will be working with their colleagues from LOCOG – the london organising committee – the fire and ambulance service, and the private security industry to deliver a safe and secure games.

And the police will be drawing on the important capabilities that the military can provide.

An inter-departmental security group, which I chair, has been established to ensure that all of the different organisations involved are working seamlessly together and that their plans are all aligned.

And I’m sure that throughout this conference you will hear from all of the agencies involved about how closely together they are working.

A nationwide event

There are now just over six months to the opening ceremony for the olympic games on 27th July.

But our security operation does not start with the opening ceremony. It begins with the olympic torch relay, starting at Lands End in Cornwall on the 19th of May, with a dedicated team of police officers trained and ready to run alongside the torch for the entire 70 days it is on the road.

The torch will be carried by 8,000 torch bearers who will carry the torch through more than 1,000 cities, towns and villages across the UK.

That just shows that this will be a nationwide event, not just a London Games.

Most events will take place in the newly constructed Olympic Park in East London, one of the largest urban parks created in Europe for 150 years.

If you’ve visited the olympic park, as I have several times, you will know just how impressive it is.

But the games are not just about the olympic park. And they’re not just about London. The games are for the whole of Britain.

There’s sailing in Dorset; rowing in Buckinghamshire, near to my constituency.

There’s canoe slalom in Hertfordshire; mountain biking in Essex; road cycling in Surrey and paralympic road cycling at Brands Hatch in Kent.

And there will be olympic football matches taking place in Coventry, Glasgow, Cardiff, Manchester, Newcastle and Wembley.

The sheer size and scale of the games shows how complex managing security is.

It is an unprecedented challenged.

But we start from a position of strength.

Security investments

Our police service is admired and emulated around the world. Our counter-terrorism strategy is widely studied and copied. Our security and intelligence agencies are recognised as amongst the best in the business. And our track record of hosting major events – from state visits, to music festivals and from premier league football matches, to Royal weddings is unparalleled – in fact, it’s one of the reasons we won the bid.

Building on that excellent existing capacity, we’ve made specific security investments to respond to the specific security challenge of the olympics.

Over 95 per cent of construction at the olympic park has now been completed on time and on budget. That includes the security side.

High levels of protective security have been put in place at the olympic park, and security has been designed and built into the venues, making them safer both at games time and when they are used after the games.

We’ve already upgraded and enhanced the capability of police control rooms at Lambeth and Hendon.

We’ve expanded the capacity of the airwave emergency services radio system.

And we have now opened the olympic clearing house, which I visited last week. In that excellent facility, I saw the screening and background checking process that will be used to check more than 380,000 applicants for accreditation to the games.

Added to these important investments, we have also opened two new security and intelligence coordination facilities.

The police led multi-agency National olympic coordination centre is now up and running. Led by assistant commissioner Chris Allison, this unique facility will have a national overview of how the olympic security operation is working.

And we have also put in place a specific intelligence capability in advance of the games to allow us to identify and disrupt threat.

The olympic intelligence centre is now producing and disseminating national olympic threat assessments on areas like crime and terrorism for use by our police, intelligence agencies and by security liaison officers from the different countries attending the games.

And there will be other issues to face during the games, including public disorder and serious organised crime.

Cyber security

A strong possibility is the threat from cyber crime and cyber security.

We are aware of the threat from so called ‘hacktivist’ groups. These groups may attempt to target the games and may also attack the websites of high-profile sponsors associated with the games.

We already have our own robust plans in place to deal with a cyber attack against games systems.

And we are now also working with industry to strengthen their ability to defend themselves from cyber attacks.

The police are also working against cyber criminals, with a dedicated police operation against those who would seek to illegally profit from the games.

That operation has already made nearly one hundred arrests of organised criminals and work continues behind the scenes.

We are also helping the police and LOCOG to deal with the other emerging threats that have faced the Home Office in recent months, such as encampment protests.

So we have recently clarified and strengthened our policy on encampment style protests inside olympic venues.

Three aspects

Our approach to such protests will now be based on three aspects:

Strict security and screening measures to help stop the necessary equipment being brought into olympic venues.

Encouraging an immediate response from LOCOG to any encampment that does get through.

And rapid follow up action by the police, in support of LOCOG, using all available powers to remove encampments and equipment.

I have explained this new policy to LOCOG, as the event hosts for the olympics. Its success will depend on LOCOG adding tents and related equipment to the list of items prohibited from being brought into games venues – I trust they will now do so.

I have also stressed to the police that they must act swiftly in support of LOCOG should they receive a complaint.

Alongside preparing plans, designing systems, building structures and training people we also need to ensure that our plans are sound, that systems work, that buildings are suitable, and that everyone with a role knows precisely what they are doing during the games.

Every police force’s individual operational plans have now been independently scrutinized by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and assessed through a series of peer reviews.

And we have a comprehensive testing and exercising programme to ensure that absolutely everything runs smoothly come games time.

Last week, officers from the Metropolitan Police’s marine policing unit and the Royal Marines carried out joint exercises on the Thames.

Speedboats, helicopters and armed officers operating on London’s iconic waterway are a very visible example of the olympic exercise programme.

Behind the scenes, the testing and exercise programme is even more impressive.

It ranges from simulated incidents to ‘live play’ with police officers and other emergency services, with the blue lights on and sirens blaring, as they would during a real incident.

Several large exercises have already taken place involving thousands of participants acting in the role they would actually play during the games.

These exercises test all aspects of planning, including resilience and decision-making.

All of these exercises are aimed at testing our plans and learning the lessons. Where things go well, we will build on that success. Where things go wrong, we will correct the mistakes. We will develop and improve.

UK’s largest ever peace time logistical operation

The games time security operation will be the UK’s largest ever peace time logistical operation.

It will involve hundreds of thousands of police officer deployments across the country at 36 competition venues.

Alongside those officers will be 23,700 LOCOG venue security personnel.

And the armed forces will also be on standby to support the civilian authorities should they need it. In particular, they will provide certain specialised capabilities such as bomb disposal, maritime support and enhanced air security over London.

The overall security operation will be active 24 hours a day, 7 days a week from before the torch relay enters London in July, right through to after the paralympics closing ceremony in September.

It is because of this unprecedented challenge that we have undertaken such thorough planning, have made such significant investments and will carry out such extensive testing and exercising.

We must now grasp the opportunity that 2012 represents to show the whole world all that is great about Great Britain.

We will rise to the challenge.

Thank you.

January 26, 2016
Peter Luff – 2012 Speech at Defence Academy

Below is the text of the speech made by Peter Luff, the then Minister for Defence Equipment, Support and Technology, at the Defence Academy in Shrivenham on 25 January 2012.

Introduction

Thank you Frances [Chief Executive, Dstl] for that kind introduction, and for inviting me to Dstl’s new starter conference.

I endorse your point about “bothering the boss”, ask obvious questions; ask why; challenge orthodoxy.

After a remarkable five-year tenure, your time as Chief Executive is drawing to a close.

I have greatly enjoyed working with you over the last 20 months, so I want to begin by thanking you for all that you’ve achieved.

Under your leadership, the new centralised headquarters at Porton Down was created, not just a new building and a very impressive one at that, but new systems and new ways of working that make for an altogether more vibrant and engaged Dstl than the one you inherited.

Dstl has also taken the lead role in formulating the MOD’s science and technology programme for the Chief Scientific Adviser.

This requires Dstl to reach out to the widest pool of potential innovators in industry, academia, and other research organisations.

The flagship of this effort is perhaps the Centre for Defence Enterprise.

I’m a very big fan of the CDE; it has the potential to make a major contribution to our armed forces and the economy, not least SMEs.

Crucially, Dstl’s continuing status as a trading fund means you can offer transparency to your customers and gives Dstl every incentive to perform even better, it’s an entirely suitable status for the job in hand.

Of course, your successor, Jonathan Lyle, while receiving a strong inheritance, still has some pretty demanding challenges ahead of him, not least the move from Fort Halstead, a project I’ll be watching closely.

Delivering battle winning technologies to our armed forces during a major period of transformation for defence will be a formidable test of Dstl’s capabilities, and you in this room, as well as Jonathan’s leadership.

But, Frances, you’ve bequeathed Jonathan a fine legacy: both he and Dstl can look to the future with confidence.

Importance of science / new blood

And that future is represented by you, the new starters with us today.

It’s great to see the injection of new talent which is the lifeblood of any effective organisation, and Dstl is no exception.

History is replete with world-changing discoveries by young scientists, often by sheer accident.

Take chemistry.

In 1856, the 18 year old British chemist, William Perkin, made the first ever synthetic dye while trying to produce artificial quinine.

80 years later, the young American chemist, Roy Plunkett, discovered Teflon while working on a new kind of CFC.

And just 10 years ago, I am reliably informed, American student, Jamie Link, discovered smart dust when one of the silicon chips she was working on burst.

Incredible discoveries, and all 3 still have defence and security applications today.

For those of you who’ve joined Dstl further on in your careers, I have some words of encouragement too.

Research and who are we to challenge the value of research, suggests that genius strikes later in life than it used to for those engaged in physics, chemistry, and medicine.

Today the average physicist does his Nobel prize-winning work at age 48.

And for those, like me, who still find that very young, you can be encouraged by Professor Hawking, arguably the world’s most famous scientist and still going great guns at 70.

In fact, I often wish I had opted for a science or engineering degree instead of studying economics, the dismal science.

But one of the great privileges of my work as a minister is that I have the opportunity to engage world-class scientists, engineers, and of course analysts, across the whole of the defence community.

Their collective aim is to ensure that the equipment our armed forces use remains at the cutting edge of technology, that’s what it’s all about.

And Dstl, this unique scientific community of 3,500 talented and creative people, is the heart of that effort.

I’m immensely proud of the work everyone does in Dstl, on your own, collaboratively with the private sector and universities, and internationally with other governments.

Almost every week I see things to celebrate thanks to the scientific endeavours Dstl undertakes.

I want the public to hold defence scientists, engineers, and analysts in the same high regard they hold our armed forces.

I’m also conscious that much of the equipment we have today is based on the defence science and technology of the past.

I’m grateful for the investment made by previous generations in today’s armed forces.

And that should remind us of the responsibility we have for future generations.

That’s why protecting the defence science and technology budget has been probably my critical bottom line since becoming a Minister.

That support should never be unquestioning, however.

As someone who studied economics instead of science, I’m acutely aware that science without practical application is a tough sell in these austere times.

I have to show taxpayers that we are spending their money wisely and providing our armed forces with the equipment and support they need.

And the economic situation we inherited is forcing everyone to prioritise, including Dstl.

I believe Dstl has 3 priorities which I want to talk about this morning: supporting current operations; preparing for future challenges; and making every pound count.

Role of Dstl, supporting current operations

First, current operations.

I am delighted to see that ‘Maximising the impact of science and technology on front-line operations’ is the theme for your conference.

And that’s only right, because the main test of your worth is your ability to translate ingenuity into combat edge in the field.

That might mean helping surveillance in counterpiracy operations off Somalia.

Or countering IEDs in Afghanistan.

Operations in Afghanistan, of course, are particularly dynamic.

The threat is constantly evolving.

Our enemies quickly adjust their tactics.

We have to bring new solutions to the front line at pace.

Thankfully, innovation is the heart of what Dstl does.

More scientists have deployed to the front line in recent years than at any time since the Second World War.

Indeed, some of you new starters may be hoping to deploy there; I’m sure some of you certainly will.

I, and my ministerial colleagues, regularly meet Dstl personnel on our visits to Afghanistan, and what really shines through is their commitment to what they’re doing.

They’re great ambassadors for the organisation.

Above all, military commanders tell me how much they rely on the expert scientific advice, statistical analysis, and on the spot technical solutions which Dstl staff deliver.

That advice, analysis, those solutions, are protecting our people, boosting their capability, and saving lives.

Like Tarian Quickshield which Dstl developed in partnership with Amsafe Bridport in Dorset.

For those of you who don’t know already, it’s a new form of netting which acts as vehicle armour.

It’s incredibly light, and is capable of stopping a lethal RPG attack in its tracks.

On the commercial side, it’s great to see a British SME involved in the product development.

And now that they are in partnership with ‘Singapore Technologies Kinetics’, the makers of the Warthog armoured vehicle, I’m sure that this new technology will do well in the export market.

It’s a textbook example of how our acquisition cycle can work.

Dstl expertise has also been central to the tremendous advances in battle field medicine we’ve seen in Afghanistan.

The management of military trauma patients has been significantly improved by new blood clotting assessment techniques.

That really is saving lives today, including members of the public here at home who are benefiting from these pioneering techniques.

And when a requirement for a new generation of lightweight protected vehicle was identified to replace Snatch Land Rover, Dstl was involved throughout the process, in particular, working with DE&S on a novel specification which would maximise survivability.

Now known as Foxhound, this was a project which incorporated the latest armour research, state of the art technology from the motorsport industry, and underwent rigorous trial including simulating IED explosions.

The whole process from initial concept to production took just 36 months, and again it’s likely to attract significant export interest.

The first vehicles will arrive in Afghanistan fairly soon.

Of course, not every operation is thousands of miles from home.

This year’s Olympic and Paralympic Games will be a busy time for defence to say the least.

We will be making a significant contribution to the safety and security of the games in support of the Home Office and Police.

Dstl will be providing a number of niche capabilities to keep athletes, spectators, and the public safe.

Now, frustratingly, the problem is that the classification of the work you do means we can’t talk about it as freely as we might like.

But your work will always be valued by those ‘in the know’.

And we must be sure we talk about it whenever we can.

Role of Dstl, helping to meet new and emerging challenges
While current operations remain the overriding priority, we’ll be looking to Dstl to help us meet new challenges too.

Wherever you’re based, and whatever your particular role, you will be helping to shape and protect our future in all sorts of ways.

For example, during the Strategic Defence and Security Review, Dstl policy analysts and embedded military personnel ran a series of war games to help defence planners identify the type and size of forces that could be required in the future.

Their work was absolutely crucial in helping Ministers and the Defence Board to make evidence based decisions about the transformation of defence and is precisely the kind of creative work Dstl excels in.

Looking ahead, I think we have several main challenges.

For instance, the benefits of blueskies and longterm research are undoubted.

It balances our focus on the here and now, and is the best guarantee that the here and now of 10 to 20 years’ time can be met with confidence.

But we need to find ways of working with the people who know what potential opportunities and threats will emerge in the next two decades, people in our excellent universities.

That’s why we’ve introduced defence sponsored PhDs, 32 new ones this year.

Candidates will investigate topics of relevance to defence and the wider community, and will hope to bring wider academic thinking to bear more directly onto defence challenges.

And how do we get the balance right between the here and now, and our future needs?

There are many options, not least closer co-operation with partners like the US and France, and I’ll say more about that shortly.

And we must, going back to the theme I’ve mentioned already, become better at communicating the importance of committing scarce resources to invest in defence science and technology, and properly communicate the role of Dstl within the MOD.

We must help people understand why technology which can’t be seen or touched is as vital as tanks, ships, or planes.

I’ll have more to say about these things very soon indeed, when the Defence and Security Equipment white paper is published.

Role of Dstl, helping to make every pound count

The third main priority for Dstl is one that’s also close to my heart as a politician.

You are integral to making every pound we spend on equipment, support, and technology count.

To begin with, your trading fund status gives you a financial edge and flexibility.

It keeps everyone’s eye on the bottom line.

But you must still be very careful not to do what would be more appropriately done in the private sector.

You are not free to compete with private sector or academia, but to do the things for defence which can only be done by and in government.

That’s why I’m pleased that intellectual property can be exploited through Dstl’s subsidiary, Ploughshare Innovations Ltd, which licenses the technology or exploits it through joint ventures.

I strong support that entrepreneurial approach.

I want to see a lot more of it across defence science and technology.

Dstl can also help through innovation and partnership.

Scientific innovation and engineering ingenuity relevant to defence are often found in surprising places.

By reaching out to industry, particularly SMEs and the academic world, the Centre for Defence Enterprise is bringing much needed innovation to defence, and proving that value for money and profitability are far from mutually exclusive.

One of CDE’s particular strengths, I believe, is its accessibility.

The regular surgeries where individuals and companies can get personalised guidance on what MOD is looking for, and how to pitch their ideas.

It’s about widening MOD’s supplier base.

Providing visibility of MOD’s requirements.

Educating and supporting new supply networks.

Giving opportunities for the military to become directly engaged in science and technology.

And helping potential suppliers understand defence, potential suppliers who didn’t understand that they could work with defence or what actually might be required or needed by defence.

The CDE successfully cuts through a lot of the red tape.

What I want now is to see more of those ideas and concepts becoming mature products which contribute to Defence capability.

But perhaps the most important contribution Dstl can make is by helping the MOD to become a more intelligent and demanding customer.

We need solutions which offer cutting edge technology yet are cost effective.

A big ask, but I believe it can be done.

Dstl has the right sort of culture and approach to drive this ethos forward, taking others, industry in particular, with you.

By understanding how integration really works and marshalling open systems, we can access the best of innovation and ensure it delivers the best for our armed forces.

To help this process, as I mentioned earlier, we will very shortly and I mean very shortly, be publishing our white paper which will address several critical defence science and technology issues:

– what should the balance of priorities should be for the science and technology programme over the next five years?

– what are the main elements of being an intelligent customer for capability, equipment and services which depend on science and technology to ensure better value for money?

– how can government encourage and champion greater pull through of innovative ideas into applications and contracts?

Making sure we get the very best out of our budget also means a greater focus on international partnerships.

And, I repeat, by only doing in government what has to be done in government.

Collaboration is the way forward: with the private sector; with industry; with academia; with our allies.

Now, we have long established links with the US, of course.

And now we’re actively looking to work with others, particularly with France and with India.

For example, our work on complex weapons with the French is demonstrating the benefits of mutual dependency, where it makes sense and we are keen to explore other opportunities with industry.

And we’re developing a new collaboration programme with India’s research and development organisation to explore areas like ‘energetic technologies’, ‘horizon scanning’, and ‘human factors’.

I know that CSA came back from India recently and was very impressed by its scale and quality.

There will be more detail in the white paper which will set our future course in science and technology.

Conclusion

One thing is certain.

All of you new starters here today will be underwriting the future of Britain’s security.

Whether as scientists, engineers, or analysts.

And whether it’s force protection capability and operational planning.

Medical research or CBRN analysis.

Or C4ISTAR, which was so crucial in delivering precision weapon effect in our operations in Libya.

You are Dstl new starters at a time of great change across defence.

But you are joining a highly influential organisation with a global reputation.

And you are joining an organisation committed to nurturing your talent and developing your skills.

Please take advantage of the opportunities you will be offered to work in industry or specialist work in universities such as getting chartered status for your profession.

These wider experiences will stand you in good stead.

Because you are the ‘go to’ hub when we need the kind of ‘out of the box’ cost effective ideas and solutions that industry is not always able to research or provide.

Dstl regularly tests the art of the possible.

Finding solutions, for today and tomorrow and working with industry to deliver them.

Dstl has an outstanding reputation for exploring new horizons for defence and science on a tight budget.

It will often be hard with many challenges along the way.

But the work you will be doing will be fascinating and incredibly worthwhile.

And surely few endeavours are as noble as making sure that taxpayers’ money is spent wisely and well, delivering battle winning capability to our armed forces, and ensuring our country’s security.

That is the endeavour you have embarked upon, and I think you have made a very wise choice.

January 26, 2016
Greg Clark – 2012 Speech on Civil Leadership

Below is the text of the speech made by Greg Clark, the then Minister of State for Decentralisation and Planning, at the Birmingham Chambers of Commerce on 25 January 2012.

I’m delighted to have this opportunity to speak alongside Lord Adonis and Lord Heseltine, who have done so much to galvanise the debate on the future of our cities.

It’s also an honour to share a stage with Mike Ward and Sir Peter, each of whom brings so much passion and intelligence to working for the future of their respective cities.

All I want to do today is answer a simple question. It is to explain why, in the Coalition Agreement, the Government made a commitment to establishing elected mayors in cities outside London, subject to a confirmatory referendum of local people.

Let me start with an example that will be familiar to everyone here. Nearly one hundred and forty years ago, Joseph Chamberlain became mayor of Birmingham. At the age of 37, he was not what would now be called a career politician. He had spent his early life running family businesses – trading in ironware and shoes. But his business acumen equipped him well for civic life. After just three years as mayor, he was able to boast that he had left his city “parked, paved, assized, marketed, gas and watered and improved.”

His influence is still evident today, from parks that soften the city, to fine buildings on Corporation Street, to the University. But his legacy is more than physical: he has become a symbol of what good local government can achieve, and an abiding inspiration to generations of people who believe in public service in their city.

It is no coincidence, I would argue, that Chamberlain represented a particular brand of leadership. He was a charismatic individual who assumed the captaincy of his city, exercised broad powers, and set a clear personal vision.

Today, the great challenge before us is one of economic growth. And I am convinced that the battle for Britain’s prosperity will be won or lost in our cities. It is a challenge on a global scale. Consider Birmingham, the second largest city economy in the United Kingdom, but only now the 71st largest in the world. A world, in which economic power is shifting from West to East and North to South. Where, when it comes to competing for the brightest graduates and the best investment, you don’t just have to beat Barcelona, but Bangalore too.

Our cities have great strengths and a proud history, but they need to fight harder than ever to be heard in world that is dawning. Vigorous local leadership is becoming more important as every year goes by.

It is self evident that each of our cities is distinct and unique. Bristol and Newcastle, Manchester and Leicester, they all have different ambitions, different assets. No team of ministers or officials in London – no matter how bright or well-intentioned – can devise one set of solutions that fit these very different circumstances. To achieve their ambitions, to fulfil their potential, cities need to take charge of their own destinies. The drive must come from within, not without.

To achieve their ambitions, to fulfil their potential, cities need to take charge of their own destinies.

Where we can see strong leadership, complemented by clear accountability to local people, we in central Government are ready to help cities do things their way. Our great cities should not be run as branch offices of central Government. This may turn the established order on its head, but it’s time that Whitehall knew its place. Let Birmingham be Birmingham, let Manchester be Manchester. Let cities have the powers and freedoms they need tailored to their individual circumstances. I am, for example, looking forward to talking with Sir Peter about the new freedoms he needs to help him shape Leicester’s future.

Local leadership can come in many forms. Look at Mike’s past eight years as leader here – producing ambitious plans for the city centre, securing improvements to New Street Station, and getting the new library underway. Or take Mike’s key role in making a success of the new Local Enterprise Partnership, for example by securing the involvement of Andy Street – the MD of John Lewis – one of Britain’s most outstanding business leaders in one of Britain’s most admired companies. Mike’s achievements stand as testament that great things are possible under current arrangements.

But I believe the evidence also shows that some forms of leadership are better suited than others in helping cities reach their full potential. The experience, both in this country and abroad, suggests that the leadership model with the greatest promise of all is the elected mayor.

Research undertaken on behalf of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation in 2005 found that the democratic mandate provided by directly elected mayors has – and I quote “provided a basis for a stronger, more proactive style of leadership than other models.”

The world’s great cities have mayors who lead for their city on the national and international stage, attracting investment and jobs.

Look at the cities that Birmingham is twinned with: Chicago, Frankfurt, Johannesburg, Lyon and Milan. All led by an executive mayor.

We believe that mayors can help English cities achieve their full potential too.

In its twelve years of existence, the Mayoralty of London is already hailed across the world for its influence in raising the profile of the capital and for securing major projects the city needs – from Crossrail to the Olympic games.

Mayors have clout – a personal mandate to speak truth to central Government, to argue for the interests of those they represent.

Mayors are visible – with a profile that makes them natural ambassadors for their cities, especially when it comes to attracting investment.

And with a four-year term, mayors have the space to think for the long term, to make tough strategic decisions, to get public and private sectors working together effectively.

In short, I believe that mayors have the greatest potential of any leadership model, which is why we are asking our largest cities to vote on whether they want to move to a mayoral system.

To those who worry that our proposals represent an imposition on communities – I would say that, on the contrary, referendums give people a chance to look at the evidence and decide for themselves. All we are doing is insisting on the debate – and giving the people of each city the chance to have their say.

Last Thursday, Parliament considered the order that would allow the people of Birmingham can have their say on the 3rd May. Subject to further parliamentary debates, we soon hope to confirm that ten more cities will be having a referendum in May too. If cities vote yes to having a mayor, a further ballot will take place to decide who that first mayor should be.

The new mayor should be in place sooner rather than later to get on with the job. So I can announce today that our intention is that this ballot will take place on November 15: the same day as the elections for the first police commissioners – and hence a day that I hope will be a landmark in the shift of powers and influence from Whitehall to communities.

2012 will be a mayoral year in Britain. We will see a contest that will decide who will be leader of our capital city in this, its Olympic summer. We will see mayoral referendums in 11 of our great cities. Where cities want it, we will see further votes in November. There is every prospect that by the end of this year a new generation of mayors will be in post.

Now it’s over to you. This May, the people of our cities will have the chance to have their say. Now is the time to start weighing up what a mayor can do for your city, and so I welcome today’s debate as just such an opportunity.

Thank you to the Chamber of Commerce for hosting this occasion. Birmingham has made a rich contribution to the history of municipal leadership. I can’t think of a better place to witness a debate that is key to its future.

January 26, 2016
William Hague – 2012 Speech on India

Below is the text of the speech made by William Hague, the then Foreign Secretary, at King’s College in London on 26 January 2012.

I am very grateful to Lord Duoro and Professor Khilnani for their very kind introduction; and to everyone at King’s College for the great privilege of inaugurating your venerable university’s newest Institute.

When I travel overseas I am struck by how often the leaders I meet begin our discussions with stories of studying here in Britain. Shared educational experiences create a bond for life. The fact that so many people of other nationalities find the allure of British universities irresistible is a great asset to our nation. It contributes to our economy, to our reputation as an open society and to our cultural influence in the world. Conversely – although this is an impression rather than a hard and fast rule – I have noted that when I visit a country in which we do not traditionally have a close partnership in foreign policy, it is often the case that our educational links are at a low level as well.

Foreign Policy is not just about international summits and resolutions. It rests on a web of connections, and more so as the twenty-first century goes on, between individuals, families, civil society, companies, and academic institutions like your own. And in order to have successful relations with a country like India we have to have the deepest possible understanding of its culture, its history and politics, its rich traditions and its complex geography. We need a strong awareness of all the factors that contribute to its policies and its relations with the rest of the world, and we must constantly update our assumptions as those factors change over time.

This is why I have launched a new programme in the Foreign Office called Diplomatic Excellence, which is designed to foster and retain deep cultural knowledge and understanding of other nations among our diplomats, including their language skills. It is a programme which our diplomats have embraced with enthusiasm, and it includes the formation of a new cadre dealing with India and a new diplomatic training programme to deepen our expertise in contemporary India.

One of the first to take up this programme was our new High Commissioner in India, who had just spent more than two months travelling across the country before taking up his post, to deepen his own understanding of the beautiful and fascinating country he now serves in – and in which I spent my honeymoon.

So I applaud the thinking behind this Institute as being very much in tune with our own, and hope that the Foreign Office will also benefit from the fresh perspective you will bring to our understanding of India, and that we will be able to draw upon you as a source of expertise.

We are working hard to champion British education overseas as a Government, including very recently signing an agreement with Brazil, which I visited last week, that will bring 10,000 Brazilian students to study here in Britain over the next four years. They will be joining the 400,000 foreign students who already do so, including 40,000 from India alone – not to mention the many others who are on joint programmes between British and Indian universities. Today British universities are developing closer ties with many first class institutions in India, and are champing at the bit to set up in India themselves once changes to Indian legislation permits them to do so.

So it really is a promising moment for King’s College to open an Institute devoted to promoting intellectual and practical engagement with contemporary India.

For this century will be shaped by India more than any other that has come before it.

Now is the time to study India, to invest in India and to work with India. This applies to all of us; to those of us in Government seeking a stronger foreign policy and economic future for this country; to businesses seeking to expand, and to individuals seeking new opportunities and a deeper understanding of today’s world.

India is making its mark on the global economy with electrifying skill, innovation and dynamism. It is already one of the largest economies in the world and will soon have the world’s largest population.

It is leading the way in the development of renewable energy and green technologies.

It is playing an increasingly important role in the affairs of the world – from tackling piracy off the Horn of Africa to United Nations peacekeeping and development support to Afghanistan.

It stands as a beacon of successful democratic and economic development, one that many developing nations look to for an example to follow.

And it enriches our shared culture in innumerable ways – from the prize-winning novels of Aravind Adiga to the sporting prowess of Sachin Tendulkar.

I was delighted to be able to join the Prime Minister on his trip to India soon after we took office. There was a tangible sense of optimism in the air. People across India are justifiably proud of the direction that their country is taking, and their enthusiasm is infectious. At the same time, the Indian people and their representatives are rightly focused on ensuring that each one of the 1.2 billion Indians shares the benefits of this amazing development story.

There can be few other countries anywhere in the world that are as genuinely optimistic and positive about India’s success as we are here in Britain.

India’s success speaks for itself, but nonetheless I spent several years in opposition speaking at the parliamentary despatch box, describing the great and inexorable shift in the international landscape typified by the rise of India and the other emerging powers, and calling for British foreign policy to expand its reach and ambition in response to these changes.

The rise of India and other nations is good for the people of those countries; it is good for the world; and it brings immense opportunities for a country like Britain that is able to seize them.

We are at a crucial moment in the global economy, in which nations must adapt and compete successfully or risk falling behind.

Here in Britain we have every confidence that we will be a nation that adapts and that thrives over the long term. We are reforming our welfare and education system, adopting the most competitive tax system in the G20, and using our foreign policy to plug Britain into the fastest-growing parts of the world economy and to boost exports and investment. This is an enormous challenge and it comes at a time of great economic difficulty, but we have brought all the energy of the Government to bear on these issues.

It is why, alongside all the effort I devote as Foreign Secretary to global crises and problems, my Department is devoting more effort to supporting the British economy than at any time in our recent history. That means intensifying the relationship with India.
We are investing far more diplomatic and resource into relations with the other rising economic and political powers, opening six new Embassies and up to seven new Consulates General, and sending more staff to over 20 countries. This is helping us to support British business, but it is also necessary in order to understand an influence the far greater number of centres of decision-making that exist today.

India is very much at the forefront of our efforts.

We came into Government seeking a new Special Relationship with India. We see enormous value in the ties between our countries; in our shared values, the living bonds between our citizens, our membership of the Commonwealth and the complementary nature of our economies.

We want a relationship between India and Britain that is stronger, wider, and deeper.

We want to be India’s partner of choice in a whole range of areas as it develops its economy, supporting jobs creation and growth in both our countries.

We have set the target of doubling our trade with India by 2015 compared to 2010 and are making good progress: our exports were up more than 40% last year and India is now our third largest market outside the EU.

And we also want to see India represented at the top table of international decision-making, working more closely with us and other nations to address global issues.

That is why we support reform of the UN Security Council and a permanent seat for India. The time has come to make Security Council reform a reality. The institutions that underpin global governance must become more representative if they are to succeed in finding legitimate and sustainable solutions to the challenges of this century. This will not be easy to achieve, but it is essential. And while our countries do not always agree in foreign policy, we have a strong base to build on many shared values and a growing range of common interests that bind us.

In building this stronger relationship we know, as our Prime Minister has said, that, as he put it, “Britain cannot rely on sentiment or on shared history for a place in India’s future”. It is something that we must work hard to achieve.

Our Prime Ministers are in regular contact, seven British cabinet Ministers have visited India since May 2010, and I hope to visit again this year.

We are increasing our frontline staff in India by thirty officers. This is a considerable diplomatic reinforcement.

We have ambitious plans to open up to eight new British Trade Offices around the country, as part of a strategy to widen our focus beyond Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai, Kolkata and Bangalore.

And we plan to open new Deputy High Commissions in some of India’s other fast-growing cities.

We see many benefits for India in this stronger relationship.

We support the greater international role and voice for India that I have described, at the UN and elsewhere.

As India’s companies go global, reaching into new markets, the United Kingdom offers the brands, the creativity and the technology that Indian consumers and entrepreneurs want.

As India develops the skills of its growing workforce, we have the expertise to help.

We are a springboard into the European Single Market and the leading advocate of EU Free Trade Agreements, including that with India which we hope to see concluded this year.

We have refocused our long-standing development relationship to focus on attracting pro-poor private investment into the poorest states, on women and girls; and on laying the foundations for an enduring partnership on global issues.

Through the British Council and their Project English Initiative, and with support from Department for International Development, we have reached 17million learners and are helping train one million English teachers across India.

And I must also say here a word about immigration. We want the brightest and the best to come to Britain. We have made our immigration system far more efficient and targeted. For too many years it was chaotic. Over the past two years this Government has put a stop to the abuse that had damaged the reputation of our immigration system. But we are clear that if you want to come to Britain legitimately as a student, a business person or a visitor, then you are very welcome in the UK.

So for all these reasons this new Institute could not have come at a better time.

I wish the King’s College India Institute and its students every success in the coming years.

I congratulate Professor Khilnani and all those involved for the foresight and vision behind this project, and I share their great enthusiasm for it.

It is inspiring to think of all those who will expand our intellectual horizons and cement our ties with India in the years to come by studying here.

And it is a great pleasure, on India’s Republic Day and the 62nd anniversary of the signing of its Constitution, to express my sense of optimism and excitement about our relations with India and all that lies ahead for the citizens of both our countries, and the firm commitment of Her Majesty’s Government to even closer ties in the years to come and indeed we can hope throughout this century, which is very much India’s to shape.

January 26, 2016
Dominic Grieve – 2012 Speech at London Common Law and Commercial Bar Lecture

Below is the text of the speech made by Dominic Grieve, the then Attorney General, at the London Common Law and Commercial Bar Lecture on 26 January 2012.

It is a great pleasure to have been invited here this evening to address such a learned audience. I would like firstly to thank Michael Kent, for inviting me to do so.

Although the thrust of my lecture is about human rights, I thought it might be helpful to start by explaining something about my role as a Law Officer and how human rights law impacts on and forms a key part of my work. I want then to turn to consider what, from my perspective, are the key challenges facing the Human Rights Act and European Convention on Human Rights and how meeting these challenges requires an understanding of the proper relationship between Strasbourg, our domestic courts and Parliament and their reconciliation.

Role of the Law Officers

So I will turn first to the role of the Law Officers. I as Attorney and the Solicitor General as my deputy have three main roles: as Chief Legal Advisers to the Government, as the Government Ministers responsible for the ‘Law Officers Departments’ and finally as guardians of certain public interest functions which include, for example, our role as protectors of charity and of the administration of justice-something which has just lead me to prosecute a juror for contempt of court.

In terms of the ‘Law Officers’ Departments’, I am responsible for the superintendence of the Crown Prosecution Service, the Serious Fraud Office and Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate. This superintendence role involves supporting the independence of the prosecutors in taking prosecution decisions and means that l am answerable to Parliament for these prosecuting bodies and for negotiating their budgets.

In carrying out my role as Chief Legal Adviser to the Government, I have a special relationship with the Legal Advisers to Government departments which entitles them to consult me on any matter. Indeed, the Ministerial Code sometimes requires it. Many of the difficult legal issues that policy development gives rise to never come to the Attorney General and the lawyers of the Government Legal Service could be described as the day to day guardians of legality, propriety and indeed, human rights. However, Government lawyers do consult us on legal issues which are particularly difficult or sensitive legally or politically and, often, those issues may involve human rights. The fact that Government lawyers can come to us for advice means that they can discharge a role in their respective departments that reflects ours at their head, not as politicians of course, but as Civil Servants who are also independent professionals.

From this position they advise Ministers on the legality of what they want to do, working up solutions when what is proposed collides with the constraints imposed by, say, the Human Rights Act, or EU law.

Unlike civil servants, the Law Officers are also of course politicians and members of the Government. Although I am not a member of Cabinet, I will attend when my advice is required or when matters within my responsibility come up for consideration. I will also attend Cabinet committees if my presence is needed in order to give legal advice or to understand policy issues on which my advice is likely to be required.

The role and human rights

Although as a matter of Convention, we do not disclose whether the Law Officers have advised on a particular issue or not, it is clear from the fact that the Human Rights Act 1998 has implications for a whole range of government policies that human rights issues are never far from my mind or that of government lawyers more generally. Indeed, it can be no secret that I am regularly asked to advise on whether particular policy proposals are compatible with one Convention right or another.

In addition, the Law Officers have a specific role in ensuring that human rights implications of proposed primary legislation are given careful consideration. This role is not always well known by those outside Government so I will explain it a little further.

As Law Officers, both I and the Advocate General for Scotland, the Liberal Democrat peer Jim Wallace, are members of the Cabinet Committee on Parliamentary Business and Legislation. The main function of this Committee is to consider the readiness of Government Bills and to authorise their introduction.

As a part of this process every department is required to produce a memorandum containing a full and frank legal analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the human rights issues raised in the Bill and an indication of whether the Minister in charge of the Bill can make a statement that in his or her view the provisions of the Bill are compatible with the Convention rights as required by section 19 of the Human Rights Act.

Either the Solicitor General or I read all these memoranda to satisfy ourselves and provide assurance to the Committee that the department has adequately demonstrated its human rights reasoning. This oversight role has given us a very good insight into how the Human Right Act operates and, indeed, shapes Government policy before it becomes law.

In this respect, I think it is worth pausing here to consider how the Human Rights Act has affected the basic model of English law. According to Dicey, the Vinerian Professor of English Law at Oxford in the late 19th century, a key tenet of the rule of law is that no man is punishable or can suffer any detriment save for a distinct breach of law established in the ordinary legal manner before the ordinary courts of the land. In other words, a person can do anything he wants as long as it is not against the law. Although this still holds true, section 6 of the Human Rights Act makes it unlawful for public authorities to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right.

The types of judgment that have to be made in determining whether a particular act is compatible with a Convention right may make it very difficult to explain clearly what a public authority can do and what it can’t. Sometimes it will be obvious that the European Convention prevents a particular approach. But quite often the judgment will be fact specific, for example, in respect of a decision about whether to disclose personal information to another body or individual. It may also involve the law and lawyers entering territory which might previously have been left entirely to Politicians in the executive and to Parliament.

Take the case of Mr Gleaves and Mr Grant, two prisoners who brought test cases against the Ministry of Justice, on which the High Court gave judgment last month.

The claimants alleged that the fact that they were housed in a single cell with no in-cell sanitation was a breach of their Article 3 and Article 8 Convention rights.

An electronic system was in operation to enable them to leave their cell to access a lavatory. However, this did not always enable prisoners to leave their cells promptly for this purpose. Mr Justice Hickinbottom, who decided the claims, accepted that on occasion a prisoner might be forced to rely on the bucket in their cell. The question was whether that amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 or a breach of their right to respect for their private life contrary to Article 8. Mr Justice Hickinbottom decided that it did not. However, if he had found otherwise, the prison service could have been forced to spend significant amounts of money building new cells and modifying old ones given that each cell would not have been big enough to house a lavatory. This would no doubt have been at the expense of other worthy projects and programmes.

I don’t seek to suggest that prison accommodation should not be required to comply with some basic standards or that the court should not have had jurisdiction to decide this case, but I simply seek to highlight that the nature of the judgments which must be made in some human rights cases can be intensely political and may stray into what Lord Justice Laws has previously described as areas of ‘macro-policy’.

Lord Sumption in his impressive F.A. Mann Lecture last year described the way in which the Human Rights Act ‘has significantly shifted the boundaries between political and legal decision-making.’ He explained that when judges make decisions involving qualified Convention rights, the determinations almost always involve striking a difficult balance between competing public interests, which is an inherently political exercise.

Although by enacting the Human Rights Act Parliament has sanctioned the courts to make these decisions, he concludes that there is no denying that ‘it removes important areas of policy from the domain of democratic accountability.’

Equally, there is no doubt that there are many examples of the Human Rights Act helping to improve the way that public authorities make decisions. For example, few could disagree with the outcomes of cases such as R v East Sussex County Council which overturned a ban on manual lifting of severely disabled patients which had been imposed solely with regard to rules for the health and safety of carers and without sufficient thought as to its impact on the disabled people they were serving. The court did not seek to interfere with the balance the local authority might ultimately decide to strike between these competing interests but it did ensure that both interests were properly taken into account by the local authority in formulating its policy.

It is true that in judicial review cases the courts may also become involved in areas of macro-policy but the common law limits of judicial review mean that there is at least some recognition that it is for the policy maker to make the initial decision. In areas where the law provides the policy maker with a discretion, the elected decision maker may opt for one of a range of permissible approaches and the common law principles of judicial review recognise that their choice should normally be respected by the courts in a democratic state. The Human Rights Act does not, on its face, recognise the same limitations.

It seems to me that this explains to a large extent why human rights law remains almost constantly in the news. Almost every week sees a new judgment from the Supreme Court or a decision of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. There are frequent calls to scrap the Convention and there is a current debate about the repeal of the Human Rights Act.

There is also a great deal of polemic on how the Convention works in practice to affect our lives -a subject that appears to often generate rather more heat than light.

In order to try and introduce a little more light than heat the Government has taken two initiatives. On 7 November the United Kingdom took over the Chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers, the governing body of the Council of Europe which is the international organisation through which the Convention was adopted. The UK Chairmanship is a once in a generation opportunity to drive forward reform of the European Court of Human Rights. We want to help the court deal with its backlog of cases to ensure that serious breaches of Convention rights are handled speedily and to help the Court to focus on those cases that genuinely need to be addressed at Council of Europe level.

Furthermore in March the Government established a Commission to investigate the creation of a UK Bill of Rights. The Commission on a UK Bill of Rights provides us with the first proper opportunity since the passage of the Human Rights Act to consider how we should best enshrine the Convention rights in UK law and follows much academic debate on the subject which I shall touch on later in this talk.

Court reform

In addressing the topic of court reform in Strasbourg I want to stress at the outset that there is no question of us withdrawing from the European Convention of Human Rights or the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights as some critics of the Convention have advocated. The Government believes that both the court and the Convention are an essential part of the system for protecting human rights across Europe.

Reform however is necessary. At present the court is drowning under the volume of work that its presence has generated. To get an idea of the scale of this, in the first 40 years of its existence, 45,000 cases were presented to the court. This contrasts with last year when 61,300 applications were made to it. This has led to a huge backlog of cases, amounting to more than 160,000 at its peak. And although steps have been taken to reduce that backlog by extra resources to filter out the hopeless cases it means that those remaining will need more detailed scrutiny and very lengthy time delays still exist. The latest figures from the Court Registry tell us that the average waiting time between a case being received by the court and it being communicated to the relevant Government is 37 months. On average it then takes a further 17 months to get judgment in Committee cases and this figure rises to 25 months in Chamber cases. The Court has 3,100 applications pending that were lodged before 2005, 400 of which have yet to be communicated to the relevant Government.

Not surprisingly therefore the United Kingdom is not alone in its concern. There is unanimous agreement across all the 47 member states that reform is needed and the process is already underway and we want to build on the measures adopted by the Council of Europe at the Interlaken and Izmir Conferences in the past two years during our Chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers.

Following interim advice from the Commission on a UK Bill of Rights, we have now made clear what our objectives during the Chairmanship will be. In particular, we want to help the Court deal with the backlog of applications. The Court has already made significant progress by developing new, more efficient working methods and prioritising cases more effectively. But further improvements are needed and that’s what we want to support. We are keen to look again at the admissibility criteria to ensure that the Court can focus on those serious cases which genuinely need to be dealt with at supra national level.

We also want to improve the procedures for the selection of well-qualified judges to the Court.

Our period of chairmanship only lasts for 6 months and therefore these are certainly ambitious objectives. However, the prize is an important one – a court which is able to focus on handling the most important cases more quickly, efficiently and transparently. It is therefore my sincere hope that with the help and assistance of the other 47 member states we will be successful in delivering the reforms the Court so badly needs. I and my ministerial colleagues have been investing a lot of effort consulting and lobbying other member states. The Prime Minister made a speech to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe yesterday, as I did earlier in the summer.

The Foreign Secretary, William Hague, the Minister of Europe, David Lidington, and the Lord Chancellor, Ken Clarke, have both been out to Strasbourg and to various European capitals to explain and build support for the proposals along with other Ministers. We are also engaging with the technical working groups at official level on the proposals. We have made some progress but there is a long way to go. But we are ready to put in the necessary effort.

The reforms I have mentioned so far are primarily procedural. But I want to say more about one other idea which I believe can both help reduce the backlog of cases and will also allow the Court to assume its proper role as the guardian of the Convention – that is, strengthening the principle of subsidiarity.

Subsidiarity has a specific meaning in the context of the Convention. The principle of subsidiarity is that the national authorities of Member States (that is, their governments, legislatures and courts) have the primary responsibility for guaranteeing and protecting human rights at a national level and the European Court of Human Rights has a subsidiary role in supervising the protection of Convention rights. The principle of subsidiarity recognises the fact that, as I was saying earlier, the Court is at times having to make intensely political judgments and the balance to be struck between competing interests should often be decided at a local level. As Lord Sumption has said ‘rights are necessarily claims against the claimant’s own community, and in a democracy they depend for their legitimacy on a measure of recognition by that community.’

It helps to ensure that proper account is being taken of democratic decisions by national parliaments – a concern which has arisen most forcefully in the prisoner voting debate – and that the views of the national courts who will have considered the issue prior to it reaching Strasbourg are also accorded due respect.

This principle of subsidiarity is well established and has been recognised by the Council of Europe in both the Interlaken and Izmir Declarations on reform of the Court as well as in the case-law of the Strasbourg court.

The United Kingdom agrees that this should be the guiding principle governing the relationship between our national courts and the European Court of Human Rights. Of course the United Kingdom must still be subject to the judgments of the Strasbourg Court but the Court should not normally need to intervene in cases that have already been properly considered by the national courts applying the Convention.

One way of strengthening the principle of subsidiarity is for the Court to afford Member States a wide margin of appreciation where national parliaments have implemented Convention rights and where national courts have properly assessed the compatibility of that implementation with the Convention.

During our Chairmanship we will work with Member States of the Council of Europe to see how this agreed guiding principle of subsidiary can be strengthened. However, it is important to note that the corollary of this principle is that there should be effective systems in place to protect the Convention rights at the national level – which neatly leads me on to the second challenge I said was facing us today.

Human Rights Act

How best should we enshrine the Convention into the law of the United Kingdom? This is the question the Government has asked of the Commission on a UK Bill of Rights.

To be precise the terms of reference are to:

… investigate the creation of a UK Bill of Rights that incorporates and builds on all our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, ensures that these rights continue to be enshrined in UK law, and protects and extend our liberties. It will examine the operation and implementation of these obligations, and consider ways to promote a better understanding of the true scope of these obligations and liberties.

The Commission is due to report by the end of the year and I am looking forward to its conclusions and recommendations. However, we should not underestimate the difficulty of the task facing the Commission and I think it would be helpful to set out some thoughts about the Human Rights Act and what it means for the relationship between our domestic courts and Parliament and the domestic courts and Strasbourg.

First, we need to be clear about what the Human Rights Act does. The Human Rights Act is not synonymous with the Convention. Nor is it some sacred tablet of stone. It is simply the method by which the United Kingdom has chosen to incorporate the Convention into our domestic law. The Government has asked the Commission to investigate the case for replacing the Act with a UK Bill of Rights which will ensure that the Convention rights continue to be enshrined in UK law.

The Government is not intending to limit or erode the application of any of the rights and freedoms in the Convention. However, as with the question of court reform, deciding how best to incorporate the Convention into UK law requires an understanding of the nature of some of the judgments which have to be made in human rights cases and the fact that where there is a balance to be struck between competing rights, there may be more than one permissible answer.
This was recently recognised by the Court of Appeal in the case of PE (Peru) v the Home Office where the Court accepted that whether a person’s deportation was proportionate or disproportionate for the purposes of Article 8 was a question of judgment and that the courts and tribunals were essentially carrying out an evaluative exercise. In some deportation cases, the only permissible finding would be that deportation was proportionate. In others, the only option would be a finding that it was disproportionate. However, there would be cases where either finding was permissible and could not be appealed against. In other words, the court considered that it should defer to the views of the first tier tribunal when it came to look at these cases on appeal.

Jonathan Sumption appeared to go further than this in his F.A. Mann lecture when he said that there needs to be some separation between the determination of a policy’s lawfulness and an assessment of its merits.

In his view, this requires a measure of restraint on the part of the judges which involves deference not to ministers but ‘to the constitutional separation of powers which has made the minister the decision-maker’ and not the judge.

The principle of deference supports the Home Secretary’s decision to give a greater steer to judges on where Parliament considers the balance should be struck in cases involving the deportation of foreign criminals where Article 8 of the Convention protects the right to a private and family life but may be moderated in the public interest. The Government is entitled to say that the domestic courts have placed too much weight on the family rights of foreign criminals and to redress the balance in the Immigration Rules by ensuring that they more fully reflect the compelling public interest in the maintenance of an effective immigration control in respect of those who have committed criminal offences.

Parliament, before whom these changes to the Immigration Rules will be laid, is best placed to decide on difficult policy questions such as where the balance should be struck in relation to the deportation of foreign criminals. In changing the rules we will respect the jurisprudence of the Strasbourg court and reflect the margin of appreciation that the European Court of Human Rights has correctly afforded to Member States in coming to such decisions.

Indeed, my work as a Law Officer has shown me how difficult policy-making has become. Courts are increasingly being asked to make judgments under the Human Rights Act which would previously have been considered to be questions of pure policy and it can be very difficult for the policy maker to second guess whether a particular policy will, in the end, be found to be compatible with the Convention. This level of uncertainty can, as we all know, lead to significant amounts of litigation, sometimes at great cost to the public purse.

To deal with this problem, I have explained how we need to clarify how the Strasbourg Courts should view the judgments of our domestic courts and how the domestic courts should take into account the balance struck by Parliament and Ministers on human rights issues. Before I end, I also want to say something about the way in which the domestic courts may view the judgments coming down from Strasbourg.

Section 2 provides that national courts determining a question which has arisen in connection with a Convention right must take into account any judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in so far as, in the opinion of the court, it is relevant to the proceedings in which that question has arisen.

Although as a matter of international law, Strasbourg judgments against the UK are binding on us, domestically British courts are not bound to follow the jurisprudence of the Strasbourg court when considering other cases. They must take it into account. But what does that mean in practical terms? We must turn to Lord Bingham’s judgment in Ullah v Special Adjudicator in 2004 and I quote:

“The House is required by section 2(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 to take into account any relevant Strasbourg case law. While such case law is not strictly binding, it has been held that courts should, in the absence of some special circumstances, follow any clear and constant jurisprudence of the Strasbourg court … This reflects the fact that the Convention is an international instrument, the correct interpretation of which can be authoritatively expounded only by the Strasbourg court.

From this it follows that a national court subject to a duty such as that imposed by section 2 should not without strong reason dilute or weaken the effect of the Strasbourg case law. It is indeed unlawful under section 6 of the 1998 Act for a public authority, including a court, to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right. It is of course open to member states to provide for rights more generous than those guaranteed by the Convention, but such provision should not be the product of interpretation of the Convention by national courts, since the meaning of the Convention should be uniform throughout the states party to it. The duty of national courts is to keep pace with the Strasbourg jurisprudence as it evolves over time: no more, but certainly no less”.

Interestingly however, Lord Irvine of Lairg made it very clear last month in his lecture ‘A British Interpretation of Convention Rights’, that he did not consider that this was the intention of Parliament when it enacted the Human Rights Act. In his view, section 2 means that the courts must take account of the Strasbourg jurisprudence but they are not bound by it. Indeed, an amendment to the Human Rights Act when it was going through Parliament to the effect that the courts were bound by the Strasbourg case law was expressly rejected by Parliament as I well remember from my participation in the debates at the time.

An interpretation of section 2 which recognises that the national courts are not always bound by Strasbourg jurisprudence and may disagree with Strasbourg in at least some circumstances is necessary if we are to fully take into account the principle of subsidiarity.

The key question is whether domestic courts – and the Supreme Court in particular – should be allowed to differ from Strasbourg where they consider that they are better placed to understand the impact of Convention rights in the UK and thus enter into a productive dialogue with the Strasbourg court?

This issue has been the subject of growing discussion amongst the judiciary and academics. Lord Hoffman raised it in his lecture to the Judicial Studies Board in March 2009 as did Lady Justice Arden in her Thomas More lecture here two years ago. The Lord Chief Justice also discussed the point in his evidence to the Lords Constitutional Committee last year. In the case of Horncastle, the Supreme Court considered whether legislation which allowed for the admission of evidence of an absent witness at a criminal trial will result in an unfair trial.

In doing so the Court had, by virtue of section 2 of the Human Rights Act, to take into account the Strasbourg decision in Al-Khawaja and Tahery v United Kingdom which had found that convictions based solely or decisively on hearsay evidence of an absent witness, whom the accused had no opportunity to examine, were incompatible with the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the Convention. However, the Supreme Court declined to follow the Strasbourg decision, on this rare occasion, as it had concerns about whether the European Court had sufficiently appreciated or accommodated particular aspects of the UK trial process. The Supreme Court was entering precisely into a valuable dialogue with Strasbourg where the Grand Chamber has now reconsidered the matter, deciding that a conviction based solely or decisively on hearsay evidence of an absent witness would not automatically breach Article 6.

Judge Bratza, in his concurring opinion in the Grand Chamber, described this as ‘a good example of the judicial dialogue between national courts and the European Court on the application of the Convention’. Whilst the Grand Chamber was not able to accept all the criticism of the European Court’s previous judgment, in his view, it has now addressed what appears to be one of the central problems identified by the Supreme Court, namely the inflexible application of the ‘sole or decisive test’. He explains that the Grand Chamber not only took into account the views of the Supreme Court but also re-examined the safeguards in the relevant legislation which are designed to ensure the fairness of the criminal trial.

We would therefore benefit from better definition of the very important relationship between the national courts and Strasbourg. Had we wished, in 1998 the UK could have made it clear that the national courts must follow the jurisprudence of the international court and allowed the courts to strike down primary legislation. We specifically chose not to do so.

If the current system is not working we could positively provide for a right of rebuttal, as Lady Justice Arden put it in her Thomas More Lecture, which allows the Supreme Court here or in another member state to be able to say to the Strasbourg court that it has not made the principle clear, or that it has not applied the principle consistently, or that is has misunderstood national law or the impact of its decisions on the UK legal system.

This it seems to me is an area which needs further thought and I will not attempt to provide a complete solution here tonight. It is for the Commission to consider the position and reach its conclusions first.

Whatever one thinks about the success or failure of the Act in incorporating the Convention into UK law, it must be recognised that it is a complex piece of legislation. This complexity arises from its attempt to deal with a number of fundamental constitutional relationships – between the national courts and Strasbourg; between the national courts and Parliament as well as the relationship between the executive and Parliament.

There is I believe a unique opportunity during the time of our Chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers and with the Commission for a UK Bill of Rights now considering these issues, for us to ensure that these relationships are examined and perhaps better defined.

I hope we will be able to have a reasoned and accurate debate about the challenges posed by the European Court of Human Rights and the operation of the Human Rights Act to our democratic institutions as well as a proper appreciation and recognition of its undoubted benefits.

It is important also that we include the general public in this debate to ensure that they too understand the benefits of the Convention and its influence on their lives. The public do not always see the way in which human rights help to ensure structure and rigour in policy making. For example, the Human Rights Act may lead a lawyer in Government to ask an official to gather more evidence for the proposed policy approach or to give a person the opportunity to be heard before a particular decision is made. It is this aspect of the Human Rights Act which may largely go unnoticed by the public but which can bring real benefits to them.

Acceptance of human rights will always be controversial because of the fact that certain fundamental rights are universal and should apply to everyone, whatever they may have done and whether or not they themselves have shown respect for the human rights of others. Nevertheless, there can be debate about how far those fundamental rights extend and in setting those limits we must properly recognise the role of Parliament and elected politicians as well as the courts. If we do that, I am confident that we will be able to achieve consensus both at home and throughout Europe on a flexible framework of human rights which can meet the challenges ahead and continue the essential promotion of human rights for both ourselves and future generations.

January 26, 2016
Justine Greening – 2016 Speech at the Education World Forum

Below is the text of the speech made by Justine Greening, the Secretary of State for International Development, at the Education World Forum in London on 18 January 2016.

Introduction

I’m delighted to be here with you this evening, to discuss education priorities for the next generation. It is fantastic to see so many countries represented here at this conference.

When I was attending my local comprehensive school in Rotherham, I never thought I would one day find myself talking to the Education World Forum as the UK’s Secretary of State for International Development.

I know that I wouldn’t be here today if it wasn’t for my school – and particularly those amazing teachers who supported me to learn and then inspired me to achieve my dreams.

I still remember, in particular, my French teacher and what was great about him as a teacher, was that he would make learning fun but you would always come away with clear points learnt. 10 years later I still remembered a lot of what he taught me – and one of the real tests of education is not just what you remember at the end of the year, but what is still with you a decade later. Teachers also give the opportunity for us to learn important values and provide us with the space to develop our own style and be creative.

These teachers transformed my life and prospects – and, I’m sure, many of you looking back on your schooldays would feel the same way. Everyone starts school a rough diamond – our teachers are like jewellers who polish us and make us the best and brightest we can be.

For me, this is why education matters, to realise your potential and ultimately be able to choose the life you want and have a chance to put dreams into action.

And that’s why this Forum matters – it’s a moment to come together and a chance for us to reflect on the progress that is being made – but also on the challenges that remain. This gives the opportunity to take stock, reflect and understand the perspective in order to develop a strategy, and also to share experience of what works and doesn’t work.

The challenge

In my role as Secretary of State at DFID, we really have seen tremendous progress. The world has made dramatic and unprecedented progress – helping more and more children go to school, since the Millennium Development Goals were agreed 15 years ago. A whole generation received an education that was denied to their parents and their grandparents. The education goals are some of the most important within the Global Goals.

The North Nigerian Chibok girls exemplify the importance of education. They had managed to complete primary and secondary school already and were denied the opportunity to progress.

So we cannot rest on our laurels.

In September, the world signed up to the new SDG Four for providing a quality education for every child by 2030 and ensuring that all girls and boys have access to quality early childhood development as well.

This is the right ambition at the same time – as we know – it is not going to be easy. There is a huge challenge ahead.

My teachers, and many of your teachers, were fantastic but there are still millions of children around the world without teachers, without a classroom, without so much as a textbook.

It is an issue of quantity. 124 million children and adolescents are out of school, rough diamonds. This means we may never see what they could’ve been and what they might’ve achieved.

It is also an issue of quality. And many more are in school but without basic skills. At least 250 million children of primary school-age cannot read and write – even after some of them have spent 4 years in school. The issue of quality is so important.

We know girls around the world are still less likely to attend school than their brothers. There is an unseen army of girls.

Some of these girls come under pressure to take on the burden of domestic work in their homes. Some of them are taken out of the classroom to undergo FGM (Female Genital Mutilation) or child marriage and never return… Still more out of school because of their country being in conflict situations.

Either way, all of these girls are losing out on an education and losing out on the life and future they might have chosen for themselves. This is why it has been a focus for DFID for a number of years and also why the UK has a vital role around the world.

Some children are being denied an education because of where they are – such as the 37 million children out of school in crisis-affected countries. I have just returned from Lebanon and Jordan where I met Syrian refugee children who are in school.

In my recent visit it showed that by working together with the Jordan Minister we can achieve great things. I also had an excellent meeting with the Lebanese Minister. We are hugely supportive of their aim to get every Syrian child into education.

DFID’s work

All of this is why, for my Department, education is an absolutely core part of what we do.

The UK has helped 11 million children get a decent education in the last five years, training 190,000 teachers, building classrooms and ensuring the poorest girls and boys have school bursaries and textbooks. And we’re going to keep on doing all of that work – we’ve committed to help 11 million girls and boys gain a decent education by 2020.

It is important that we focus on those that are most likely not to be in school. The hardest to reach children – particularly girls and children in crisis affected countries – are, and will continue to be, a huge focus of our work. We are working in Democratic Republic of Congo to try and encourage this.

Educating children in emergencies is, of course, an urgent, global challenge.

And the UK has allocated £115 million to provide protection, psychosocial support and education for children affected by the crisis in Syria and the region.

And this year there will be two key moments for the world to rise to this challenge.

One is, at the London conference on the Syria crisis next month, where we are proposing that the Conference agrees the ambitious goal that all refugee children from Syria and host country children are in education by the end of the 2016/2017 academic year. I hope the whole international community can get behind this vital commitment. There will be no future for Syria if we do not invest in its young generation now.

We all have choices about how we want to educate our children and want them to grow up with a chance to fulfil their potential. We must look to focus on those out-of-school and about ensuring they are able to go back and rebuild. You have to realise they feel cheated out of education.

And secondly, beyond Syria, the World Humanitarian Summit in May is another crucial moment for us all to commit to a better international model for schooling the millions of children affected by conflict and disaster.

Through education, we can also help protect children and young people from the dangers of extremism by teaching tolerance, freedom of religion or belief, and global citizenship.

Conclusion

Investing in education is to invest in a country’s potential and future. This is important because a country’s best asset is its people.

Ultimately, if we get this right, we are building better, safer futures for all children around the world

You all have amazing jobs – roles that will shape children’s’ futures. I believe a countries biggest asset is its people.

For me education is about about freedom, it’s the way you become yourself, the best version you can be and it’s about choice – being able to choose the future you want and there is nothing more important.

Thank you – and enjoy your evening.

January 26, 2016
Nick Gibb – 2016 Speech on School Leadership

Below is the text of the speech made by Nick Gibb, the Minister of State for Schools, at The Key in London on 26 January 2016.

Can I start by saying thank you for inviting me to visit The Key and discuss school leadership with you today? In just 8 years you have grown to become a fixture in the English education ecosystem, and I am a great admirer of the guidance and support you offer to school leaders.

I am all too aware that a government cannot drive up school standards alone. What government can do is set the conditions in which schools are able to improve themselves. That is why heads are so central to our vision of a school-led system, and why I want to talk about school leadership today.

In his memoirs about his own school days, Winston Churchill recalled his old master Dr Welldon, and observed that: “Headmasters have powers at their disposal with which Prime Ministers have never yet been invested.” And that was before the current era of unprecedented school autonomy.

Compared with 2010, all headteachers have more power to exclude pupils whose behaviour disrupts the education of those around them, more power to move on teachers who do not meet their expectations of quality teaching, and more power to determine how teacher pay should relate to performance.

In addition, headteachers no longer have to complete self-evaluation forms, submit annual absence and performance targets to local authorities, or instruct their teachers to teach in a particular style – and produce written lesson plans – simply to please Ofsted inspectors.

We have got rid of 10 different data collections for schools since 2010, such as ‘making good progress’ and ‘standards fund monitoring’, and we have removed 21,000 pages of unnecessary school guidance, reducing the volume by 75%, and centralising all that remains in one place on the GOV.UK website.

For headteachers who lead academies the freedoms are more extensive still. They have more control over their funding, the ability to change term times and the school day, greater freedom over their curriculum, and the freedom to choose where to go to get the best services, such as behaviour support and school improvement – or indeed to provide such services in collaboration with other academies.

But, more importantly, the academies programme has been driven by the fact that, like the lotus fruit in The Odyssey, once headteachers taste school autonomy there is no going back.

We have been guided in this policy by the international evidence that high levels of school autonomy, coupled with strong accountability and excellent leadership, are consistent features of the top-performing education systems. Conversely, there is nothing more deflating than being responsible for an organisation over which you do not have adequate control.

A great privilege of having served as Schools Minister in 2 successive governments has been meeting inspiring headteachers. In particular, I have been deeply impressed by those heads who have grasped the opportunities offered by today’s era of school autonomy to make a clean break with the current orthodoxies of how schools should be run, and plough their own furrow.

It is a remarkable fact that the best non-selective state secondary school in the country today, according to the 5 A*-to-C measure, is not situated in a middle-class suburb, or a pleasant rural town. Instead, it is situated in one of the most disadvantaged London wards for child poverty, and 41% of the school’s pupils are eligible for free school meals – almost 3 times the national average.

Yet at this school, King Solomon Academy, 95% of pupils gained 5 good GCSEs in 2015, and 77% of pupils passed the EBacc, an achievement which would have been branded fanciful at the time of their opening in 2009. In that year, King Solomon Academy was founded by Max Haimendorf as a ‘new academy’, and from its inception it used academy freedoms to break from the orthodoxies of English state-schooling.

The behaviour and ethos of King Solomon Academy is explicitly modelled on the strict ‘no excuses’ approach of American charter schools, but coupled with a deep concern for the well-being of the pupils – tough love, some may say. In addition, the curriculum focused on depth before breadth. Their inspirational mathematics teacher Bruno Reddy ensured that every pupil mastered their number bonds and times tables to the point of instant recall, as a prerequisite for further teaching.

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

Ever since she burst onto the public stage in 2010, I have been a great admirer of Katharine Birbalsingh. She is currently running a free school in Wembley which shows an admirable disregard for the way in which English schools are normally operated. At her school, desks are always in rows, there are no graded lesson observations of teachers, and pupils memorise subject content for weekly tests. And, if visitors to the school do not like what they see, Katharine says ‘tough’ – they must reserve judgement until the school’s first set of GCSE results in 3 years’ time.

However, we can’t have a school system defined by a handful of exceptional individuals. For there to be a real step change in the life chances of pupils throughout the country, we need school leadership to show strength in depth in all parts of the country.

And to ensure that heads are the best they can be, there is a role for the government to play. Over the past 6 years, our reforms have focused on building the networks of collaboration and support which will allow best practice to spread to most schools.

The National Professional Qualifications are now delivered by schools and other providers, allowing aspirant heads to train on the ground with serving headteachers. Some of our leading teaching schools and MATs have embraced this opportunity to create new leadership development organisations, such as Inspiring Leaders, Taudheedul Education and Cabot Learning Federation.

We have funded other targeted programmes to develop excellent leaders for challenging schools, such as High Potential Senior Leaders, currently delivered by Future Leaders, and High Potential Middle Leaders, currently delivered by Teaching Leaders.

Programmes such as these act as a pipeline for young, aspirant heads who want to gain leadership responsibility, and are keen to do so in those schools that need them most. So far, High Potential Senior Leaders has provided training to 667 assistant and deputy headteachers, helping them to secure and excel in their first headship position.

In addition, we are encouraging more of the best school leaders in the country to become national leaders of education (NLEs), with a stated purpose of improving education provision beyond their own school. As of January 2016, there are over 1,000 NLEs and more than 370 national leaders of governance.

For bright and ambitious young graduates, a career in teaching now offers rapid advancement opportunities to rival any other profession. If our schools are to improve across the board, our education system needs to reward hard work and ambition, not just time served.

And career advancement for teachers does not end with headship. The challenges of running a multi-academy trust demand a whole different set of abilities compared to headship, but equally should offer an exciting new avenue for our brightest and best in the profession to continue progressing throughout their careers.

This government will have achieved its aims, if, in the years to come, teaching has become established as one of the most exciting, rewarding and fulfilling professions available to young people.

We are aware, however, that even the best headteachers are not superhuman. That is where organisations such as The Key serve a clear purpose. Running a school is a demanding and complex process, and the help that The Key offers in all areas, from planning a budget for the coming year, to risk-assessing a school trip, is invaluable.

The Key also offers help in school improvement, school curriculum and classroom teaching. Here, I would encourage your organisation, and all other organisations involved in the same field, to be as discerning and rigorous as possible in deciding what to promote as ‘good practice’.

I will give an example of how it can be done badly. In a report last year, a highly influential international thinktank examined ‘Schools for 21st-Century Learners’, promoting to schools approaches such as ‘authentic learning’ and ‘technology-rich environments’.

In a passage on ‘inquiry learning’, this report cited a case study of a secondary school in the north west of England where pupils work for 1 day a week on research projects; where they were free to pursue their own interests with teachers simply acting as ‘facilitators’.

On reading this case study, I decided to investigate how well the school in question actually performs. It turns out that for the past 2 years, over half the pupils have not achieved 5 GCSEs graded A* to C including English and maths, and in 2013 the school was graded ‘requires improvement’ by Ofsted.

Why on earth, I ask myself, would an organisation which is geared towards improving educational outcomes profile a struggling school with unimpressive examination results as an exemplar? The only answer I can reach is that for many in education, a preference for child-centred teaching methods is still allowed to trump actual evidence of failure and success.

I am confident that the education sector is moving towards becoming a mature profession, where evidence is finally allowed to trump orthodoxy and dogma. To speed this process along, it is the responsibility of all organisations involved in helping headteachers with school improvement to be absolutely rigorous in scrutinising the methods and approaches they promote.

Whether promoting the merits of project work or direct instruction, synthetic phonics or whole word, a knowledge-based curriculum or a thematic curriculum, educators must ask themselves, “Do I wish this to be true, or do I know this to be true?”.

In England, we have some truly astonishing schools which achieve great results against the odds, and the number of such schools is growing with every year. We should not be looking to struggling schools where half of the pupils do not meet the minimum expected standard for inspiration.

So my challenge to The Key, and any organisation of a similar nature, is to ask yourselves whether you are comforting schools by reflecting current orthodoxies, or challenging schools to improve by promoting approaches which have been proven to work.

I look forward to answering your questions.

January 26, 2016
Claire Perry – 2016 Speech on Train Tickets

Below is the text of the speech made by Claire Perry, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Transport, at the Transport Ticketing and Passenger Information Conference 2016, Old Billingsgate Market, London on 26 January 2016.

Introduction

Good morning.

I jumped at the chance to speak today (26 January 2016) at the seventh Transport Ticketing and Passenger Information Conference. Because although transport ticketing has come a long way in 7 years, the impressive technology on display here today shows how much more can be delivered. And I think we are at a tipping point of improvement and innovation, where government can help but private transport operators can drive forward and deliver the changes.

So this morning I would like to give you a refreshed government perspective on transport ticketing. To set out what has already been achieved. But also to set out a direction of travel for the future.

How far we have come

The great news from recent years is just how far smart ticketing has spread outside London.

While London still leads in the number of journeys made using smart tickets, the regions are catching up.

Britain’s 5 biggest bus operators have just announced their plan to introduce contactless payments on all their 32,000 buses operating outside London by 2022. And next month, customers with a smart card registered account travelling on Essex’s C2C rail services who suffer a delayed journey, even for only a few minutes, will receive compensation automatically.

While rail customers in the Midlands and the north can now download tickets directly to their mobile phones and have them scanned on-board and at the station gatelines. I saw the system in action last July and was really impressed — a simple and quick digital ticketing system planned and introduced by the rail industry working together. It’s fitting that the north of England, the birthplace of the modern railway and a place where the first Edmondson railway ticket was issued is once again pioneering the future of ticketing.

That pioneering spirit is one reason why in the Spending Review we committed £150 million to support Transport for the North — a new partnership of the northern city authorities, government and national transport agencies who are together working on a plan to bring a single smart ticketing and travel information system to the north of England, making travel by rail, bus, Metro and tram as simple and convenient as possible.

Making rail journeys better

So there’s a huge amount happening across all forms of transport.

But as Rail Minister, my primary focus is on making rail journeys better. It’s no easy responsibility.

For decades, successive governments have failed to spend the amount of money needed to support the demands we are placing on our railway network. Since privatisation, passenger journeys have more than doubled, and customers rightly expect a good journey for what they are paying.

But by 2009, the World Economic Forum ranked the quality of Britain’s railways as 21st in the world. Far behind Germany at 5th and France at 4th, and even one place behind India. That is completely unacceptable.

Rail is not some heritage “has been”, but a vital, fast and clean part of a 21st century transport landscape. So since 2010, we have begun a massive programme of rail investment: committing over £38 billion to improve our railways — and that sum does not include the vast bulk of HS2 spending.

We are building new stations, and refurbishing old ones like Reading, Manchester Victoria, Birmingham New Street and London Bridge. Laying new tracks. Electrifying more than 850 miles of the network. And bringing thousands of new train carriages into service.

Since 2013, we have also had a fresh approach to franchising. Rather than assessing franchise bids purely on the basis of the best possible price, we also take into account quality of service for rail customers. So any operator who wants to run a rail franchise in this country must show how over the lifetime of the franchise they will deliver a better service for customers.

It’s an approach that is delivering real benefits, such as better trains, more frequent services, onboard wi-fi, refurbished stations and better customer information and service.

But we cannot claim to have truly modernised our railways if we don’t also transform ticketing.

South East Flexible Ticketing

Since 2011, we have made good progress on smart ticketing in the south east of the country through the South East Flexible Ticketing programme, known as SEFT.

SEFT is a government-backed programme under which train companies can collaborate to offer smart ITSO-based tickets that work seamlessly across the south-east.

The programme has grown to include 5 train companies covering over 70% of the south-east’s annual season ticket commuter market.

But SEFT is doing more than extend smart ticketing coverage. SEFT is showing that different operators can come together. They can get their back-office IT systems to talk to one another. And they can provide a seamless customer experience across different operators and different transport modes.

So SEFT has helped smart ticketing technology to mature and industry expertise to grow. But above all, it has helped us reach the point at which future innovation can be led by the private sector. By companies who know their customers’ needs and have the ambition to meet those needs, and an ambition to run their businesses with more innovation and efficiency.

And it’s that sense of ambition that our new approach to franchising is designed to stimulate.

So when last year we set out our aims for the forthcoming Southwestern and West Midlands franchise competitions, we said that we wanted bidders to make a significant increase in the use of smart ticketing.

When the competition begins in earnest in the spring, we expect to see some really exciting proposals. But this expectation isn’t a one-off.

In the future, anyone who bids to operate a rail franchise will need to show plans to offer smart ticketing that meets customers’ needs.

Thanks to our SEFT programme there’s a proven system ready for train operators to use, so customers can enjoy a seamless travelling experience.

The future — moving on from magstripe

Because, after all, the industry’s overriding commitment should be to the fare-paying customer.

And if smart ticketing is to become established on our railways, it will mean the death of the tangerine ticket; the familiar orange magstripe paper ticket that has served Britain’s rail customers for thirty years.

A ticket that has done its job well, but now seems woefully inadequate for the future — especially for an industry focused on customer service.

Convenience

As Rail Minister and a regional MP, I travel on our railways a lot. And I know how after a few journeys the tangerine tickets proliferate in every purse, pocket and bag.

Tickets, seat reservations and even the receipt from the ticket machine — all the same size and colour. All needing to be physically printed at some point in my journey. Easily lost or mistaken. Leading to the familiar gate line ‘pocket pat-down’. Or the shamefaced plea for mercy from the harassed station staff. “Honestly I did buy the return, here is my receipt.”

Imagine how much worse that is when you are the Rail Minister.

But it’s not my experiences that matter. But the missed opportunity to link ticketing across travel modes, deliver much more customer convenience, and drive great customer relationship management.

Customer choice

Any good business wants to get to know its customers better. To know their preferences and habits. To be able to close the gap between what customers pay for and what they actually use. And to offer new products and services that meet their needs. That’s what smart ticketing can offer both company and customer. And that’s why it’s important that in the longer term customers are offered not just digital tickets, but truly smart tickets.

I am often asked what sort of smart ticketing the government wants to see. And my answer is this. The government is agnostic. The choice should be the customer’s.

If the customer wants to load their tickets onto the bank card they used to buy their tickets online, or onto their phone, a watch, or a bracelet, or, if like one Moscow Metro user they want to insert a chip under their skin, the choice ought to be theirs.

And rail operators should be free to figure out how to deliver what their customers want and what works for their business.

But amid all the radical ideas, careful thought must also be given to the needs of customers who over many years have grown used to paper tickets.

There’s nothing wrong with a big bang introduction of new technology. But some people will benefit from a staged approach, or extra help from staff. Many people still like interacting with others when buying tickets. Or carrying paper proofs of their purchase. And of course, smart devices need electrons.

Conclusion

So I hope that I have given the conference plenty to talk about.

Since privatisation, customer numbers on our railways have more than doubled, and the government is now investing an unprecedented sum of public money in rail.

It’s fair to expect the industry to respond with new ticketing that customers want to use. Because the momentum is with smart ticketing. It’s no longer an optional extra. It’s an inevitability.

Smart ticketing has already made travelling easier for millions of customers. Now the challenge is to bring its benefits to millions more.

That’s an exciting prospect — and I’m looking to the industry to make it happen.

Thank you.

January 26, 2016