Tag: Speeches

  • Barbara Castle – 1966 Diary Entry on Meeting with Rail Unions

    Barbara Castle – 1966 Diary Entry on Meeting with Rail Unions

    The diary entry on 24 May 1966 in Barbara Castle’s diaries, The Castle Diaries 1964-1970.

    Tuesday 24 May 1966

    A vital day in the evolution of my policy. I met all three rail unions a BR’s headquarters in order to let Raymond [Sir Stanley Raymond] explain the proposed new rail network to them. My heart was in my mouth because I knew it meant the closure of 3,000 more miles of lines, although the outcome would be a network of 11,000 route miles instead of the 8,000 proposed in the second Beeching Report.

    I told Raymond to pile on the positive side of the policy and he excelled himself. I told them I had got my colleagues’ agreement to the survey into railway finances and stressed this meant a subsidy – open and overt – to the railways, something we had refused to other nationalised industries like coal. I then asked for questions. There was a long silence while I waited, hardly daring to breathe. As last Sid [Sidney Greene] said slowly, “I am very pleased with what we have heard. Clearly there is going to be a very good future for the men who are left in the system. Our trouble is, as I expect you know, with the men who will not have a place in it. I know you think we are always moaning and are against change, but we have to deal with our members and we have to speak for those who are affected. I shall to moan a lot more, but nonetheless I am pleased with what we have heard and not least for the fact that we have had it all explained to us so fully in this way, not like when the Beeching Report came out – that blue book – and the first we heard of it was when a copy was put into out hands two hours before publication”.

    The other unions leaders echoed him in turn, ASLEF saying almost pathetically, “You must help us with our members”. Tom Bradley played into my hands by asking how we proposed to get private hauliers to use the railways more. I launched into a passionate appeal for open terminals through which even Kelly sat silent, at a loss for a wrecking question. And I warned them that I was having trouble with TGWU who suspected I was favouring rail too much – so they had better hurry up and get as much on to rail as they possibly could while the going was good. In all a most encouraging afternoon.

  • Michelle Donelan – 2023 Speech at Bloomberg

    Michelle Donelan – 2023 Speech at Bloomberg

    The speech made by Michelle Donelan, the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport at Bloomberg in London on 27 January 2023.

    Good morning, thank you all for coming here today – and thank you to Bloomberg for hosting this morning.

    I am really delighted to be here, opening this event, and as Digital Secretary, to be in charge of what I think is one of the most important portfolios in government.

    Last year, this small island became just the third country in the world to have a tech sector valued at over $1 trillion – behind only China and the United States, and first in Europe by some distance.

    Our sector is worth more than double of Germany’s and three times more than France’s, and is home to hundreds of unicorns – including household names like Deliveroo and Monzo.

    And perhaps most importantly, we are world leaders in the kind of tech that is going to dominate our future, like AI.

    And this didn’t happen by accident.

    We got here thanks to the people in this room – thanks to your ideas, and your passion and your entrepreneurial spirit.

    We also got here because we have a clear vision for where this country is going, and a government that is prepared to match that ambition with action.

    I believe that Britain is uniquely placed in the world to become the world’s number one when it comes to tech.

    Now that we are outside of the EU, and with our proud history of being a nation where we offer measured, proportionate regulation, that sparks and enables innovation, where we also really value and encourage the entrepreneurial spirit,

    One where entrepreneurs have both the stability, but also the freedom, to invest and innovate.

    And that’s why in the decade or so since the start-up scene first began springing into life, the UK has seen a sustained explosion of investment and growth.

    It happened because we brought together a potent mix of four key fundamental things:

    The right people.

    The right money.

    The right ideas.

    And the right regulation.

    Which is why all of these four things underpinned the government’s Digital Strategy.

    And if we want to take things to the next level – to the very top – then we need to double down on all of those four things.

    To double down on people – through things like addressing the skills gaps, which is the theme of one of my roundtables.

    And having spent three years in the Department for Education prior to this, I have first hand seen how the skills element really can play a key role.

    And for me just two stats illustrate the urgency of that challenge very clearly:

    Firstly: digital roles are now increasing four times faster than the workforce as a whole.

    And secondly: there are an average of 173,000 vacancies per month for digital occupations in the UK. Those unfilled roles are costing us up to £150 billion a year in lost GDP.

    So we need to continue to focus on people.

    This is a country that has on average produced a Nobel Prize winner every year for the past two decades, and we need to keep it that way.

    We need to continue as well to focus on money: to keep venture capital investment flowing through, prioritise our science and tech budget and work together to drive investment in our 5G and gigabit networks.

    On ideas – we need to continue to foster investment in research and development, to help our world-class universities even more world-class graduates, and skills that will drive the tech sector forward even faster.

    And we need to keep providing the right regulation – to create the kind of competitive and innovative environment where people can start the next Deliveroo or DeepMind, and can scale it up, and go on to become global success stories.

    So we already have the right list of ingredients. We just need to double down on them.

    And I will just finish by saying I think it is the perfect time to be so ambitious and bold.

    There is no doubt that this is an extremely challenging time for our economy.

    We have just been through a once-in-a-century pandemic, we are experiencing war in Europe, soaring inflation and an increase in the cost of living across the globe.

    But let’s not forget our world-renowned tech ecosystem sprung up in the shadow of the 2007/8 financial crisis.

    And if any country has the brain power and ingenuity to repeat history, and use tech to drive us out of another challenging period, I genuinely believe it is this one.

    The Business Secretary, the Chancellor and I will work closely with all of you over the coming months to make this happen. We will ensure that your views and your ideas are represented as your voices in government.

    And on that note, I would now like to hand over to the Business Secretary, Grant Shapps.

  • David Rutley – 2023 Speech at the Latin American Security Conference

    David Rutley – 2023 Speech at the Latin American Security Conference

    The speech made by David Rutley, the Minister for Latin America and the Caribbean, on 27 January 2023.

    Introduction

    Good morning, buenos dias, bom dia. Indeed, a very early good morning if you are dialling in from Latin America.

    Thank you to RUSI for inviting me to speak today. I’m joining you from my constituency of Macclesfield, where I’ll be spending the day speaking to constituents – as I do most Fridays.

    Since I became Minister for Latin America and the Caribbean three months ago, I’ve spent a lot of time far from Macclesfield.

    Last week I was in Bolivia and Ecuador.

    The week before that, I was at the United Nations in New York, discussing Haiti, Colombia, Venezuela and many issues important to the region.

    And before Christmas I was in the Dominican Republic, Panama and Colombia. And I will be on the road again in a few weeks.

    There is no substitute for meeting my counterparts, talking to a wide range of people, and seeing the difference our overseas missions make – for the UK and for our partners.

    The beauty and vitality of each of the countries I’ve visited has been plain to see. So too is their potential and promise.

    Latin America is home to more than 660 million people, that’s nearly a tenth of the world’s population. And has a combined GDP of almost six trillion dollars.

    It has a quarter of the world’s forests, a quarter of the world’s cultivable land, almost two-thirds of the world’s lithium reserves… and the list goes on.

    In short, Latin America is big and it matters. It has immense resources and potential. And of course, it also has its challenges.

    Some are the same global problems we all face as we recover from COVID, grapple with inflation flowing from Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, and fight climate change.

    But the region also has the greatest disparities globally between the rich and the poor. And democratic institutions have come under strain in a number of places.

    In his speech in December, the Foreign Secretary set out how over coming decades “an ever greater share of the world economy – and therefore the world’s power – will be in the hands of countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America”.

    He committed to “make a long term and sustained effort to revive old friendships and build new ones, reaching far beyond our long-established alliances.”

    In doing so, we build on the work of our predecessors.

    Two centuries ago, we sent our first consuls to many newly independent countries in the region – a set of anniversaries that we plan to mark this year, in a series of events around Latin America.

    Since 2010 we have expanded our diplomatic network – reopening Embassies in Paraguay and El Salvador, and establishing new consulates in Recife and Belo Horizonte.

    Together with countries in the region, we face a rapidly growing set of global challenges and opportunities, from climate to commerce, security to science.

    And our shared values and interests mean that we have many natural partners in the region.

    Including on many aspects of security you will be discussing today.

    Geo-politics

    Turning firstly to geo-politics.

    Earlier this month I spoke at the United Nations Security Council meeting on the rule of law.

    I underlined the importance of the international community coming together to uphold the UN Charter in the face of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

    It was heartening to hear Ecuador, who joined the Security Council this month, condemning Russia.

    In General Assembly votes last year, 85% of countries in the Americas voted to condemn Vladimir Putin’s actions; second only to Europe in the unanimity of condemnation.

    It has been encouraging to see the region’s multilateral bodies taking similar action, with the Organisation of American States and the Inter-American Development Bank both taking significant steps to exclude Russia.

    Although Ukraine is many thousands of kilometres away, Latin America is suffering from the fallout from Putin’s war in terms of higher energy, food and fertiliser prices, which as we all know feed into higher prices across the board.

    And this despite Latin America’s potential to be a part of the solution to food and energy insecurity, with its vast natural resources.

    As I travel, I hear deep concern about rocketing prices, but no lessening of the determination to condemn Russian aggression, and the challenge it presents to all of our security, and to the international order on which we all rely.

    That is why, as the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary have said, we are accelerating our support to the Ukrainian Government to ensure they prevail.

    It is incumbent on all free countries to stand for freedom, democracy and the sovereignty of nations around the world.

    We know – in our increasingly multipolar world – that pressure is applied on countries on a variety of issues.

    China, for example, is conspicuously competing for global influence in the region, using a variety of levers of state power.

    China’s system and approach – their view of democratic norms, human rights and national security for example – brings risks alongside the economic opportunities for the region.

    But we know that Latin America is aware of the risks associated with accepting large-scale investments from wealthy third countries, and we understand why tough decisions are needed.

    Which is why the UK is working to support the infrastructure development that the region needs with UK expertise and finance, including investments from the private sectors.

    There is also competition for values.

    In the last few years we have seen a coordinated attempt by some states across the globe to roll back women’s and LGBT rights.

    I applaud Latin American countries for taking a progressive stand internationally and domestically.

    Cuba’s September legalisation of same-sex marriage and adoption being a good example.

    Such progress has often had to overcome disinformation from third parties – just as Latin America has been a key target for Russian disinformation in relation to Ukraine.

    Despite lots of good practice and progress in many countries, concerns for Human Rights and gender equality remain.

    In a region where ‘disappearances’ remain worryingly high, most obviously in Mexico, more must be done to support vulnerable groups, and those who seek to shed light on their plight.

    Economic Security

    Global events last year served to remind us all how strongly economic security and national security are linked.

    Which is why the UK Government works to expand free and fair trade, and build links between UK and foreign businesses, innovators and scientists.

    The UK is negotiating to join the Trans-Pacific free trade agreement as soon as possible – which will further benefit our trade with Chile, Mexico and Peru.

    We are negotiating a new trade agreement with Mexico.

    And we signed a Double Taxation Agreement with Brazil late last year – which will help companies in both countries.

    I want to see trade with the UK growing right across the Americas.

    Climate change is the ultimate threat to global security and prosperity, and Latin America has a key role to play is limiting it, including the global transition to clean energy.

    Two thirds of known global lithium reserves are in Latin America.

    Chile and Peru have 40% of the world’s copper reserves – a key component of wind turbines.

    And Brazil is home to the majority of the world’s niobium resources.

    So I’m pleased that Anglo-American have invested five and a half billion dollars in the Peruvian Quellaveco mine.

    This will increase copper production and add one percent to Peru’s GDP, while also pushing better environmental, social and governance standards.

    The UK Government is supporting and pursuing an increasing number of exciting joint projects with partners in the region.

    Including work with the Chilean government and regulators to help shape global standards for the production and supply of green hydrogen.

    And the agreement signed last week with the University of Warwick, that will provide scholarships, training and joint research on battery production to the Bolivian Government.

    Climate Security

    Beyond the clean energy transition, broader cooperation on climate change is central to our partnerships in the region.

    Since 2011, Colombia has been one of the largest recipients of UK International Climate Finance, which has helped protect one of the world’s most biodiverse countries, tackle environmental crime and associated violence, as well as develop sustainable and inclusive economies in conflict-affected areas.

    Many Latin American countries were joint architects of the COP 26 Glasgow Leaders’ Declaration on Forests and Land Use – an agreement that promotes biodiversity and sustainable land use where it is most needed.

    Ensuring that forests, and the indigenous peoples and local communities who live there are protected, is a huge challenge. And hugely important.

    The UK Government continues to deliver on our pledge to spend up to £300m tackling deforestation in the Amazon region.

    We are contributing £100 million to the Biodiverse Landscapes Fund in Honduras, Guatemala and other countries.

    And we help fund CMAR – the Eastern Tropical Pacific Marine Corridor – with Blue Planet Funds.

    President Lula’s return offers an opportunity to deepen our relationship with Brazil on climate change, as well as on trade, development, security and other shared priorities.

    In 2023, Brazil has a seat on the UN Security Council, and will assume the G20 Presidency next year. It has also launched a bid to host COP30 in the Amazon in 2025.

    Lula has an ambitious programme to deliver a green and inclusive economic transition for Brazil, which would have clear benefits for the UK and the world.

    As a leader in green finance we are working to mobilise private investment, and align our existing ODA funding on climate and nature, with Lula’s green and inclusive economic transition agenda – which has ‘keeping forests standing’ at its heart.

    Peace and Democracy

    Healthy democracy – with institutions that are responsive to people’s needs – is another important insurance policy against insecurity.

    There has been well-publicised constitutional unrest in Peru and Brazil – and we have been vocal in our support for democratic principles and the constitutional order.

    We are also steadfast supporters of those who bravely defend democratic principles in Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua.

    Talking of democracy, it would be remiss of me not to mention the Falklands.

    The Falkland Islanders, like everyone else, deserve the freedom to decide their own future, in political, cultural, economic and development terms.

    The people of the Falkland Islands have made very clear – most comprehensively in the 2013 referendum – that they wish to maintain their current relationship with the UK, as is their absolute right.

    The UK will continue to support the islanders’ right of self-determination as firmly as we have done to date. The principle is one that deserves wide international support.

    Where democratic institutions fail, it is often voices of freedom and the most vulnerable who suffer the consequences most acutely.

    In Nicaragua, repression is increasing.

    In energy-rich Venezuela, the World Food programme estimates that there are currently 5.8 million people in need of humanitarian assistance.

    Millions have been forced to flee the country as refugees, putting a huge strain on generous neighbours

    We continue to encourage all parties to do everything necessary to return democracy to Venezuela, and to hold free, fair presidential elections in 2024, in accordance with international democratic standards.

    Organised crime, fuelled in large part by the production and trafficking of illegal drugs, continues to curse the region, feeding corruption, corroding institutions, and damaging the environment through deforestation and illegal mining.

    Last week I saw how equipment donated by the UK helps protect Ecuador’s Special Mobile Antinarcotics Unit. An investment that helps limit the drugs heading for our shores.

    And in the UN earlier this month, we won support for the latest UK-led Security Council resolution backing the Colombian Peace Process.

    There is a long way still to go to end the violence and criminality that has plagued Colombia for so long.

    But the 2016 peace agreement between the government and the FARC shows what can be achieved with determination and leadership on all sides.

    We have supported that process with almost 70 million pounds from the UK’s Conflict, Stability and Security Fund. And we will continue to ensure the Security Council offers the support and guidance needed.

    We are also working with partners in the region to make cyberspace an open and secure engine of knowledge and growth – shaping the international governance of cyberspace in accordance with our shared values.

    In the last three years alone, the UK has funded cyber capacity-building for over a dozen countries in Latin America and the Caribbean.

    From promoting initiatives around women in cyber in Argentina. Helping Uruguay carry out a National Cyber Risk Assessment. To signing a cyber Memorandum of Understanding with Brazil.

    Closing Remarks

    To conclude.

    Security is multi-faceted.

    And the threats to it are constantly evolving.

    This government has committed to intensify our work with partners in Latin America…

    to strengthen international peace and security…

    to bolster economic and climate security…

    and to support the democratic institutions that underpin national security.

    I look forward to discussing that work with you.

  • Eric Pickles – 2023 Speech at Holocaust Memorial Day

    Eric Pickles – 2023 Speech at Holocaust Memorial Day

    The speech made by Eric Pickles on 27 January 2023.

    A chilling fact about the Holocaust is that it could never have taken place without the willing participation of many millions of ‘ordinary people’.

    In Germany, many individuals who were not ardent Nazis nonetheless participated in varying degrees in the persecution and murder of Jews, the Roma, the disabled, homosexuals and political prisoners.

    There is no better example than the ordinary men of the Reserve Police Battalion 101. Five hundred policemen, most from Hamburg, most in their 30s and 40s – too old for conscription into the army.

    Men who, before the war, had been professional policemen, as well as businessmen, dockworkers, truck drivers, construction workers, machine operators, waiters, pharmacists, and teachers. Only a minority were members of the Nazi Party and only a few belonged to the SS.

    During their stay in Poland, these ordinary men participated in the shootings, or the transport to the Treblinka gas chambers, of at least 83,000 Jews.

    Ordinary people were witnesses; many cheered on the active participants in persecution and violence.

    Sadly, most, ordinary people remained silent.

    Responsibility for the Holocaust does not rest with the Nazi leadership alone.

    Responsibility for later genocides in Cambodia, Rwanda, Srebrenica, and Darfur does not rest solely on the leaders who incited hatred and violence.

    Ordinary people bear responsibility too. For some, that has meant responsibility for the most appalling crimes. For others, the responsibility of failing to act.

    Thankfully, there have also been ordinary men and women willing to stand against hatred.

    Ordinary men and women who often showed extraordinary bravery to save Jews.

    Their selfless acts demonstrate the best of us.

    The Holocaust and subsequent genocides show that ordinary people have choices. It is up to all of us to ensure that the choices we make today and tomorrow ensure a world without genocide.

  • Stuart Andrew – 2023 Speech to the Pro Bono Economics’ Civil Society Unleashed Event

    Stuart Andrew – 2023 Speech to the Pro Bono Economics’ Civil Society Unleashed Event

    The speech made by Stuart Andrew, the Minister for Civil Society, on 26 January 2023.

    Thank you for the introduction, Gus and for inviting me to join you here today.

    It is fantastic to see so many of you here representing the huge variety of different sectors and perspectives, in recognition of the vital role that civil society plays in not just supporting communities, but helping them thrive.

    I am pleased to be celebrating the achievements of the Law Family Commission on Civil Society. Your final report concludes an ambitious programme of work seeking to understand the potential of civil society and how to unleash it.

    Thank you to everyone who has contributed over the course of this Commission.

    The wealth of knowledge generated will be fundamental to pushing forward our understanding of civil society and importantly, what more is needed to bolster it, especially after such a period of rapid change.

    I was delighted to take on responsibility for working with civil society as part of my portfolio last year although I’m equally excited to be the minister for the Eurovision song contest.

    As you just heard, my early career when some would say I had a proper job, was in the charitable sector.

    I worked for 16 years within the charitable sector working with national charities but also local charities, and hospices in particular, and I learnt a great deal through my time working for those organisations, not least seeing the benefits that donating gives not just to the individuals but certainly to many corporate organisations who saw their employees getting a great deal of benefit from working with our charities.

    And also many of the community organisations that I’ve been involved with, both before and since becoming a member of parliament, and seeing the enormous contributions that they have not just on their local community but the many benefits they bring to individuals whether through volunteering, benefitting their mental health and wellbeing but also in my other roles in tackling loneliness.

    The global pandemic, Putin’s war on Ukraine, and the cost of living have created significant impacts across the country. And civil society organisations are on the front line, helping individuals most in need.

    I’m aware that we are experiencing a challenging economic climate at the moment, and many in the sector are facing increased demand for their services. This is alongside them experiencing higher energy prices themselves.

    It is important that we acknowledge how challenging these times are. And that is why the government is supporting energy bills for all organisations until March this year.

    This report therefore comes at a critical time.

    There is a real opportunity to grasp these challenges facing civil society, and work together to ensure charitable organisations can thrive. And the government has a critical role to play in this journey.

    Whilst more time and discussion is needed on the recommendations themselves, I’m keen to briefly touch on some of the main themes of the report here today.

    Firstly, the report provides a call to action on philanthropy and giving. I know how generous the public are, even in this challenging economic environment. I know from my time in the hospices, when we had challenges like the Kosovo crisis, despite that challenge people were still generous to our organisation.

    This was evident in the £260 million that was raised for the Disasters Emergency Committee’s ‘Ukraine Humanitarian Appeal’, which the government contributed to. This clearly demonstrates the generosity of the nation, and how we are compelled to try and support those in need in any way we can.

    However, there is more to be done to bring our combined resources together to maximise our collective funding power.

    I look forward to continuing the conversation on philanthropy, and working with you to consider how we further encourage giving to charitable causes.

    Secondly, the Commission’s work also highlights the importance of improving data and evidence across the civil society sector.

    Better data helps the charitable sector to tell a richer story about the impact it has on communities. It will enable decision makers and funders to better understand the unique value civil society brings.

    As noted in this report, there have already been great strides in improving data from the charitable sector itself. And the Government is contributing to this change.

    For example, we have worked closely with the Charity Commission on their new charity classification and updated annual return. As noted in this report, these changes will help improve the coverage and accessibility of data collected.

    My department is also working with Pro Bono Economics on a feasibility study for a Civil Society Satellite Account, which will bring together data to help us better understand the economic value of the sector.

    But there is more to be done, and the Commission provides some thought provoking ideas for how the sector can develop better data infrastructure for the future.

    Thirdly, this report puts a spotlight on how greater investment in productivity will help civil society maximise its already considerable impact, and ensure resources are most effectively used.

    There are bold recommendations on how the sector, funders, regulators and the government can support this endeavour.

    I believe that a key part of this is for civil society organisations to be able to access the appropriate forms of finance they need to thrive.

    Evidence has shown, for example, that social investment has increased the long term financial sustainability of many organisations operating in the heart of communities. This has also leveraged private capital to ensure that this money is going further.

    In recent years, the government has provided support to the sector through helping to grow the social investment market, ensuring more community organisations can access appropriate forms of capital through a blended finance approach.

    We are also delivering change in this space by increasing civil society organisations’ delivery of public service contracts, thanks to the Contract Readiness Fund.

    The intersection of civil society, the private sector and the public sector can bring long lasting and meaningful change to productivity, and I look forward to working with many of you on this.

    Fourthly, the power and importance of collaboration across sectors is a key tenet of this report, and I am keen to see the government play a role in this. And you can have that personal commitment from me that I will invest my personal time and resources in this.

    Research from the Commission notes that almost all MPs and councillors surveyed have had contact with charities and community groups.

    MP’s from across the political spectrum see the impact charities have in their constituencies, and how vital they are to a flourishing community.

    DCMS wants to build on this by connecting civil society with key government priorities, bringing the diversity and expertise of the sector to the discussion.

    Over the last year, there have been some fantastic examples of civil society and the government collaborating.

    For example, my department worked with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities on the ‘Homes for Ukraine’ scheme. This was a great example of government departments and civil society organisations coming together to provide targeted support for those displaced by the war in Ukraine.

    More recently, the voluntary and community sector has led the creation of a  ‘Vision for Volunteering’, setting out an ambitious set of aims for volunteering in the ten years post-COVID.

    I am proud that DCMS is investing £600,000 into the next steps of the Vision, and we will continue to work together on the vision’s aim to make England a great place to volunteer.

    We will do more together when we continue to harness knowledge and share expertise.

    My department and I will continue to work to build bridges between the sector and the government, and ensure civil society representatives have a seat at tables across Whitehall.

    In conclusion, I want to thank everyone involved in producing these reports. Your vital work shines a light on the fantastic potential of the civil society sector, suggesting innovative solutions for a more sustainable future, and I look forward to working with you on this, because as I said earlier, my personal experience in the charity sector has shown me the enormous contribution they can make to improving so many people lives and making all of our communities a better place to live.

    Thank you again for inviting me here today.

  • Paul Scully – 2023 Speech to the Betting and Gaming Council Annual General Meeting

    Paul Scully – 2023 Speech to the Betting and Gaming Council Annual General Meeting

    The speech made by Paul Scully, the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport on 26 January 2023.

    Good morning everyone.

    I would like to start by thanking you for the invitation to speak today. And thank you for hosting it in such a convenient location for me to get to after DCMS questions in Parliament this morning.

    I am aware that you’ve seen a few different faces in the role of gambling minister in recent months and years. I took over the role in October, and I have enjoyed getting stuck into the varied and challenging issues in my remit, not the least of which is gambling.

    I have already met a wide variety of gambling stakeholders, including some of you, and I look forward to meeting more of you soon.

    Today, I want to recognise the contributions BGC members make to our national economy, but also talk about our reforms to make sure our gambling regulation suitably protects consumers from harm in the digital age.

    As you all know, our Gambling Act Review is a priority for the department, and our white paper will set out our vision for the sector in the coming weeks.

    In my role as Minister of London, I am fully aware how important entertainment sectors are in boosting the economy of a local area, by providing jobs and attracting tourism.

    I also know how online businesses provide high skill tech jobs across the country. BGC members’ ongoing commitment to apprenticeships is also welcome, and I can only encourage that to continue.

    Michael has already spoken about the recent report from EY which quantified some of these benefits, as well as the benefits to the economy and the exchequer more broadly. And it’s not always just in revenue terms.

    The millions of customers who engage with your businesses every month are for the most part choosing to spend their money on a leisure product they enjoy, and the majority suffer no ill effect. It’s important not to discount the social and entertainment benefits to customers when we think about gambling policy.

    But part of making sure the sector can flourish is making sure that we have the right regulation that protects people from harm.

    There are, to be blunt, still too many failings happening.

    Some customers continue to slip through protections and are allowed or even encouraged to spend too much.  Some go on to suffer real and serious harm, including taking their own life in extreme cases.

    I commend the actions you have been taking to address this risk, and of course the ASA and Gambling Commission have been working hard to continuously improve regulation.

    Our Act review, however, is a real opportunity to make sure we have the balance right.

    To make sure we respect people’s choice to gamble and the enjoyment they get from it. But also to follow the evidence and  address the products and practices which increase the risk of harm.

    In short, it’s an opportunity to build this county’s status as a world leader in gambling policy.

    I know you’ve all been engaged since the Call for Evidence launched and are patiently – or impatiently – awaiting the white paper.

    I also recognise regulatory certainty is important for your businesses.  We do want to have the white paper out in the next few weeks to give you that solid foundation, and so we can get on with implementing reforms.

    I want to be clear though, that the white paper is not the final word on gambling reform. It will be followed by consultations led by both DCMS and the Gambling Commission. I want the industry to stay engaged as policies are refined, finalised and implemented.

    In particular, I know one policy you’ll want to hear more on is so-called affordability checks for online customers.

    I’m not going to preempt the details of the white paper, but there are a few things I can stay at this stage.

    The first is that ‘affordability checks’ is the wrong title for the protections we’re envisaging. That word suggests that the government or Gambling Commission are going to set rules on how much people can ‘afford’ to gamble.

    Let me be really clear here, it is not the role of government or the gambling commission to tell people how much of their salary they are “allowed to” spend on gambling.

    A one size fits all approach is not the intention here. It may be more accurate to call them ‘financial risk’ checks – checking that a higher than usual level of spend is not itself an indicator of harm.

    The Commission has already identified key areas of concern, for example particularly vulnerable customers who can be harmed by even quite small losses – perhaps they have been declared bankrupt.

    Alongside that is high spending binge behaviour with the potential for lasting financial harm, and high sustained losses over a longer period of time.

    I also think ‘financial risk’ is a more appropriate term as a consideration of financial circumstances can only ever reveal that one type of risk – financial.

    I’ve heard from operators about the hundreds of markers of harm which are continuously monitored for every customer. While we all know loss and debt is often a major harm for people who are in the grip of a gambling problem, it’s not the only element.

    I don’t think we would be providing better protections to consumers by moving to a black and white world where only financial indicators are considered. It is essential that operators use all the information they have on customers and their wider risk profile to inform the right interventions.

    I also want to say a little about how this and other measures will be implemented after the white paper.

    I’ve already said that the white paper will be followed by consultations on details. When it comes to financial risk checks, the coming months will provide the opportunity to nail down and test the logistics for frictionless checks, to design the necessary data safeguards, and to establish the best possible framework for identifying and acting on financial risk. I strongly encourage you all to remain involved in the discussion, and responsive to the issues.

    Of course, making our regulatory and legislative framework fit for the digital age is also about looking at where regulation has become outdated – where it no longer provides the protection that was once intended.

    We want to make common sense changes to update the rules, preserving safeguards that do protect against gambling harm, but replacing unnecessarily restrictive controls with ones which make things better for customers and businesses. I’ll be meeting again with some of you from the land based sector in the coming weeks to talk about these issues.

    And part of the reason for getting these controls right is the economic headwinds which I know gambling businesses, particularly land based ones, are not immune from.

    I am acutely aware that many of you are still recovering from the impact of the pandemic, and recent increases in energy costs have hit your sectors particularly hard. I’m pleased we have the Energy Bill relief scheme, and I’m grateful to the BGC for its hard work to gather and submit the data to inform government decisions.

    So, we are putting the finishing touches to our white paper, making the final decisions and preparing for publication. We’re a matter of weeks away from you all seeing it, and then we can start the process of nailing down details and implementing reforms.

    As the Gambling Commission CEO said at his recent briefing for operator chief executives – the relationship between the industry and those charged with regulating it does not need to be antagonistic.

    Indeed, the BGC and its members have been very helpful throughout the review in providing data and information as requested. I hope that the spirit of positive engagement can continue after the white paper.

    I hope you enjoy the rest of your AGM, and thank you again for inviting me.

  • Jeremy Hunt – 2023 Speech at Bloomberg on the Future of the UK Economy

    Jeremy Hunt – 2023 Speech at Bloomberg on the Future of the UK Economy

    The speech made by Jeremy Hunt, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, at Bloomberg in London on 27 January 2023.

    Good Morning

    Thank you for that welcome, thank you all for joining us at Bloomberg.

    From the way we communicate and collaborate, to the way we buy and sell goods and services, digital technology has transformed nearly every aspect of our economic lives.

    How do I know that?

    Because I too, just like Matt asked ChatGPT to craft the the opening lines of this speech.

    Who needs politicians when you have AI?

    Like other countries, the UK has been dealing with economic headwinds caused by a decade of black swan events: a financial crisis, a pandemic and then an international energy crisis.

    And my party understands better than others the importance of low taxes in creating incentives and fostering the animal spirits that spur economic growth.

    But another Conservative insight is that risk taking by individuals and businesses can only happen when governments provide economic and financial stability.

    So the best tax cut right now is a cut in inflation.

    And the plan I set out in the Autumn Statement tackles that root cause of instability in the British economy.

    The Prime Minister talked about halving inflation as one of his five key priorities and doing so is the only sustainable way to restore industrial harmony.

    But today I want to talk about his second priority, to grow the economy. (In case you weren’t sure, I have them on the screen behind me.)

    We want to be one of the most prosperous countries in Europe and today I’m going to outline the 4 pillars of our plan to get there.

    Just as our plan to halve inflation requires patience and discipline, so too will our plan for prosperity and growth.

    But it’s also going to need something else which is in rather short supply – Optimism, but we can get there.

    Just this month columnists from both left and the right have talked about an “existential crisis,” “Britain teetering on the edge” and that “all we can hope for…is that things don’t get worse.”

    I welcome the debate – but Chancellors, too, are allowed their say.

    And I say simply this: declinism about Britain is just wrong.

    It has always been wrong in the past – and it is wrong today.

    Some of the gloom is based on statistics that do not reflect the whole picture.

    Like every G7 country, our growth was slower in the years after the financial crisis than before it.

    But since 2010, the UK has grown faster than France, Japan and Italy. Not at the bottom, but right in the middle of the pack.

    Since the Brexit referendum, we have grown at about the same rate as Germany.

    Yes we have not yet returned to pre-pandemic employment or output levels.,

    But an economy that contracted 20% in a pandemic still has nearly the lowest unemployment for half a century.

    And while our public sector continues to recover more slowly than we would like from the pandemic – strengthening the case for reform – our private sector has grown 7.5% in the last year.

    Yes inflation has risen – but is still lower than in 14 EU countries, with interest rates rising more slowly than in the US or Canada.

    And yes we have to improve our productivity. But output per hour worked is higher than pre-pandemic.

    And last week a survey of business leaders by PWC said the UK was the third-most attractive country for CEOs expanding their businesses.

    Economists and journalists know you can spend a long time arguing the toss on statistics,

    But the strongest grounds for optimism comes not from debating this or that way of analysing data points but from our long term prospects: because when it comes to the innovation industries that will shape and define this century the UK is powerfully positioned to play a leading role.

    Let’s just look at some of them.

    In digital technology, as we heard from Michelle, we have become only the third economy in the world with a trillion-dollar sector.

    We have created more unicorns than France and Germany combined with eight UK cities now home to two or more unicorns.

    The London / Oxford / Cambridge triangle has the largest number of tech businesses in the world outside San Francisco and New York.

    PWC say that UK GDP will be up to 10% higher in 2030 because of AI alone. Fintech attracted more funding last year than anywhere in the world outside the US.

    Or life sciences, where we have the largest sector in Europe. And a brilliant advocate with our superb Science Minister George Freeman.

    We produced one of the world’s first Covid vaccines, estimated to have saved more than 6 million lives worldwide.

    We identified the treatment most widely used to save lives in hospitals, saving more than a million lives across the globe.

    We are behind only the US and China in terms of high-quality life science papers published, and every one of the world’s top 25 biopharmaceutical firms has operations in the UK.

    Another big growth area is our green and clean energy sector.

    The UK is a world leader here, with the largest offshore wind farm in the world. Last year we were able to generate an incredible 40% of our electricity from renewables. But on one day, a rather windy December 30th, we actually got 60% of our electricity from renewables – mainly wind.

    McKinsey estimate that the global market opportunity for UK green industries could be worth more than £1 trillion between now and 2030.

    And we are proceeding with the new plant at Sizewell C, led by our excellent Business Secretary who also spoke very wisely and surprisingly classically earlier on.

    I could also talk about our creative industries which employ over two million people and grew at twice the rate of the UK economy in the last decade.

    They have made the UK the world’s largest exporter of unscripted TV formats and help give us a top three spot in the Portland Soft Power index.

    Or our advanced manufacturing sector, key to exports, where we produce around half of the world’s large civil aircraft wings and its biggest aeroengines as well as around half of the world’s Formula One Grand Prix cars.

    The golden thread running through the industries where the Britain does best is innovation.

    Amongst the world’s largest economies, the Global Innovation Index ranks us fourth globally.

    Those innovation industries now account for around a quarter of our output. They have been responsible for nearly all our productivity growth since 1997.

    And they’re also the reason that all of you are here.

    In the audience we have leaders from Meta, Microsoft, Amazon, Apple and Google, the world’s largest tech companies all with major operations in the UK.

    We have Monzo and Revolut, shining examples from our world-beating fintech sector.

    And we have founders and CEOs from some of our most exciting UK technology companies, like Proximie and Matillion.

    You are all vital for Britain’s economic future, but Britain is vital for your future too.

    So I want to ask all of you to help our country achieve something that is both ambitious and strategic.

    I want you to ask you to help turn the UK into the world’s next Silicon Valley.

    What do I mean by that?

    If anyone is thinking of starting or investing in an innovation or technology-centred business, I want them to do it here [in the UK].

    I want the world’s tech entrepreneurs, life science innovators, and green tech companies to come to the UK because it offers the best possible place to make their visions happen.

    And if you do, we will put at your service not just British ingenuity – but British universities to fuel your innovation, Britain’s financial sector to fund it and a British government that will back you to the hilt.

    Our universities are ranked second globally for their quality and include three of the world’s top ten.

    In order to support the ground-breaking work they do in so many new fields the government has protected our £20 billion research budget, now at the highest level in history.

    And as you look for funding to expand, we offer one of the world’s top two financial hubs and the world’s largest net exporter of financial services.

    The capability of the City of London combined with the research strengths of our universities makes our aspiration to be a technology superpower not just ambitious but achievable – and today I am here to say the government is determined to make it happen.

    But like any business embracing new opportunities, we should also be straight about our weaknesses.

    Structural issues like poor productivity, skills gaps, low business investment and the over-concentration of wealth in the South-East have led to uneven and lower growth. Real incomes have not risen by as much as they could as a result.

    Confidence in the future though, starts with honesty about the present.

    We want to be one of the most prosperous countries in Europe, so today I set out our plan to address those issues.

    That plan, our plan for growth, is necessitated, energised and made possible by Brexit.

    The desire to move to a high wage, high skill economy is one shared on all sides of that debate.

    And we need to make Brexit a catalyst for the bold choices that we’ll take advantage of the nimbleness and flexibilities that it makes possible.

    This is a plan for growth and not a series of measures or announcements, which will have to wait for budgets and autumn statements in the years ahead.

    But this plan is a framework against which individual policies will be assessed and taken forward.

    I set out that plan, those priorities under four pillars. They build on the “People, Capital, Ideas” themes set out by the Prime Minister last year in his Mais Lecture and as such are the pillars essential for any modern, innovation-led economy.

    For ease of memory the 4 pillars all happen to start with the letter ‘E’ . The Four ‘E’s of economic growth and prosperity. And they are Enterprise, Education, Employment and Everywhere.

    So let’s start with the first ‘E’ which is enterprise. If we are to be Europe’s most prosperous economy, we need to have quite simply, its most dynamic and productive companies.

    There is a wide range of literature citing the importance of entrepreneurship on business dynamism, whereby more productive firms enter and grow and less productive firms shrink.

    But I don’t just believe the theory, I have put it into practice.

    I set up and ran my own business for 14 years. It was one of the best decisions I ever made – and I actually owe it to Margaret Thatcher and Nigel Lawson.

    Because by the time I got to university and was thinking about my career options, they had changed attitudes towards entrepreneurship. Had they not, I would have probably ended up in the City or the Civil Service.

    Instead I took a different route to end up at the Treasury – less the Fast Stream, more the Long Way Round.

    Like thousands of others setting up on their own, I learned to take calculated risks, live with uncertainty and work through failures (of which there were many).

    Every big business was a start-up once – and we will not build the world’s next Silicon Valley unless we nurture battalions of dynamic new challenger businesses.

    Today, we are already ranked by the World Bank as the best place to do business amongst large European nations and second only to America in the G7.

    And the result of that pro-business climate is that since 2010 we have created more than a million new businesses in this country.

    But the question I want to ask is how are we going to generate the next million?

    Firstly, we need lower taxes. In Britain, even after recent tax rises, we have one of the lowest levels of business tax as a proportion of GDP amongst major countries.

    But we should be explicit: high taxes directly affect the incentives which determine decisions by entrepreneurs, investors or larger companies about whether to pursue their ambitions in Britain.

    With volatile markets and high inflation, sound money must come first.

    But our ambition should be to have nothing less than the most competitive tax regime of any major country.

    That means restraint on spending – and in case anyone is in any doubt about who will actually deliver that restraint to make a lower tax economy possible, I gently point out that in the three weeks since Labour promised no big government chequebook they have made £45 billion of unfunded spending commitments.

    But it isn’t just about lower taxes. We also need a more positive attitude to risk taking.

    Let’s start with one of the most public risks taken this year. Richard Branson, his team and the UK Space Agency deserve massive credit for getting LauncherOne off the ground in Cornwall.

    The mission may not have succeeded this time, but what we learn from it will make future success more likely.

    We should heed the words of Thomas Edison who said: “I have not failed 10,000 times – I’ve successfully found 10,000 ways that will not work.”

    Edison was American – and our attitude to risk in this country can still be too cautious compared to our US friends.

    But we are capable of smart risking in this country: at the start of the pandemic we bought over 350 million doses of vaccine without knowing if they would actually work – and ended up with one of the fastest and most effective vaccine programmes in the world.

    We also need, if we are going to deliver those competitive enterprises, smarter regulation.

    Brexit is an opportunity not just to change regulations but also to work with our experienced, effective and independent regulators to create an economic environment which is more innovation friendly and more growth focused.

    Our Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir Patrick Vallance, is currently reviewing how the UK can better regulate emerging technologies in high growth sectors and the government is identifying where to reform the laws we inherited from the EU.

    In the digital space Patrick is working with the brilliant , Matt Clifford – who we heard from earlier- and our amazing Culture Secretary Michelle Donelan, both of whom gave excellent speeches.

    Before we conclude those findings, we want to hear from you. That why we’ve invited you this morning – and we will repeat the process for green industries, life sciences, creative industries and advanced manufacturing.

    Finally when it comes to the ‘E’ of Enterprise there is a critical need for easier access to capital, particularly scale ups.

    I am supporting important changes to the pensions regulatory charge cap and I have used the regulatory flexibility provided by Brexit to change the Solvency II regulations which will begin to be implemented in the coming months.

    Alongside other measures announced in the Edinburgh reforms, this could unlock over one hundred billion pounds of additional investment into the UK’s most productive growth industries.

    But there is much more to be done and I want to harness the ideas and the expertise in this room to turn the ‘E’ of enterprise into an enterprise culture built on low taxes, reward for risk, access to capital and smarter regulation.

    The next ‘E’ is Education.

    This is an area where we have made dramatic progress in recent years thanks to the work of successive Conservative education ministers.

    The UK has risen nearly 10 places in the global school league tables for maths and reading since 2015 alone.

    Our teachers and lecturers are some of the best in the world.

    And as the Prime Minister has said, having a good education system is the best economic, moral, and social policy any country can have.

    That is why the Autumn Statement we gave schools an extra £2.3 billion of funding and why the Prime Minister recently prioritised the teaching of maths until 18.

    But there is much to improve. We don’t do nearly as well for the 50% of school leavers who do not go to university as we do for those who do.

    We have around 9 million adults with low basic literacy or numeracy skills, over 100,000 people leaving school every year unable to reach the required standard in English and maths.

    That matters.

    We are becoming an adaptive economy in which people are likely to have to train for not one but several jobs in their working lives.

    Not having basic skills in reading and maths makes that difficult, sometimes impossible.

    And equally important is what happens beyond school.

    We have made progress with T-levels, boot camps and apprenticeships and Sir Michael Barber is advising the government on further improvements to the implementation of our reform agenda and we want to ensure our young people have the skills they would get in Switzerland or Singapore.

    If we want to reduce dependence on migration and become a high skill economy, the ‘E’ of education will be essential – and that means ensuring opportunity is as open to those who do not go to university as to those who do.

    So, Silicon Valley enterprises; Finnish and Singaporean education and skills; let me now turn to the third ‘E’ which is Employment.

    If companies cannot employ the staff they need, they cannot grow.

    High employment levels have long been a strength of our economic model.

    Since 2010, the UK has seen a record employment rate, the lowest unemployment rate in nearly fifty years and labour market participation at an all-time high.

    Partly thanks to the coalition reforms of a decade ago we are at 76% ,employment levels higher than Canada, the US, France or Italy.

    But the pandemic has exposed weaknesses in our model. Total employment is nearly 300,000 people lower than pre-pandemic with around one fifth of working-age adults economically inactive.

    Excluding students that amounts to 6.6 million people – an enormous and shocking waste of talent and potential.

    Of that 6.6 million people, around 1.4 million people want to work. But a further five million do not.

    It is time for a fundamental programme of reforms to support people with long-term conditions or mental illness to overcome the barriers and prejudices that prevent them working.

    We will never harness the full potential of our country unless we unlock it for each and every one of our citizens.

    Nor will we fix our productivity puzzle unless everyone who can participate does.

    So to those who retired early after the pandemic or haven’t found the right role after furlough, I say: ‘Britain needs you’ and we will look at the conditions necessary to make work worth your while.

    That is why employment is such a vital third ‘E.’

    Enterprise, Education and Employment – three key components for long term prosperity.

    I conclude with my final ‘E’ – Everywhere. That means ensuring the benefits of economic development are felt not just in London and the South-East but across the whole of the UK.

    It is socially divisive if young people feel the only way to make a decent living is to head south. But it is also economically damaging.

    If our second cities were the productive powerhouses we see in the other major countries, our GDP would be nearly 5% higher – making us second only to the United States and Germany for GDP per head.

    That is why levelling up matters. And why last week it was so exciting to see the progress being made.

    Since February 2020, when the levelling up agenda really got underway ,70% of new employed jobs have been created outside of London and the South-East.

    Thanks to our powerhouse regions we remain one of the top 10 manufacturers globally, and the same is starting to happen with new industries: whether fintech in Bristol, gaming in Dundee or clean energy in Teesside.

    Every region has seen pay grow faster than London since 2010, which shows that our approach to regional growth is working.

    But there is much more to do, and whilst government grants can play a galvanising role they are not the whole answer.

    We also need the connectivity that comes from better infrastructure.

    That is why in the Autumn Statement we protected key projects like HS2, East West Rail and core Northern Powerhouse Rail.

    Digital connectivity matters as well. Under Michelle’s leadership, full-fibre broadband now available to more than 40% of all homes in the UK.

    Last year four million more premises got access, with the biggest increases in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

    But the ‘E’ of Everywhere has to be about local wealth creation as much as about local infrastructure.

    So this year we will announce investment zones, mini-Canary Wharfs, supporting each one of our growth industries, and each one focused in high potential but underperforming areas, in line with our mission to level up.

    They will be focused on our research strengths and executed in partnership with local government, with advantageous fiscal treatment to attract new investment.

    We will shortly start a process to identify exactly where they will go.

    But spreading opportunity everywhere needs local decision making alongside local infrastructure and local enterprise.

    So we must also give civic entrepreneurs the ability to find and fund their own solutions without having to bang down a Whitehall door.

    Shortly over 50% of the population of England will be covered by a devolution deal and two thirds covered by a unitary authority and that’s a very important part of that.

    But we need to move more decisively towards fiscal devolution so that fantastic local leaders like Ben Houchen and Andy Street have the tools they need to deliver for their communities.

    Four ‘E’s – Enterprise, Education, Employment and Everywhere – four ‘E’s to unlock our national potential to be one of Europe’s most exciting, most innovative and most prosperous economies.

    Bill Gates is supposed to have said people overestimate what they can do in one year and underestimate what they can do in ten.

    When it comes to the British economy, we are certainly not going to fall into that trap.

    We will remember the essential foundation on which long term prosperity depends, namely the sounds money that comes from bringing down inflation. But right now, starts our longer-term journey into growth and prosperity.

    World-beating enterprises to make Britain the world’s next Silicon Valley.

    An education system where world-class skills sit alongside world-class degrees.

    Employment opportunities that tap into the potential of every single person so businesses can build the motivated teams they need.

    And as talent is spread everywhere, so we will make sure opportunities are as well.

    Yes there are many structural challenges to address. And working our four pillars we will do just that. Never forgetting though the combination of bold ingenuity and quiet confidence that defines our national character.

    Ladies and gentlemen, being a technology entrepreneur changed my life.

    Being a technology superpower can change our country’s destiny.

    So let’s make it happen.

    Thank you very much.

  • David Neal – 2023 Statement on Suella Braverman and Windrush Lessons Learned Review

    David Neal – 2023 Statement on Suella Braverman and Windrush Lessons Learned Review

    The statement made by David Neal, the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, on 26 January 2023.

    I am disappointed the Home Secretary has decided not to progress Recommendation 10, since this presented an ideal opportunity to take stock and examine a number of issues relating to the independence and effectiveness of the ICIBI.

    The ICIBI was established in 2009; its budget has been stagnant since then, and staffing levels have actually decreased, even as borders and immigration issues have grown in prominence and complexity. A role and remit review would have provided an opportunity to assess whether the level of resourcing provided to the inspectorate is appropriate.

    Moreover, unlike other inspectorates, the ICIBI does not have the power to publish its own reports. The Home Office is responsible for publishing ICIBI’s reports, and it regularly fails to meet its commitment to ensure that reports are published within 8 weeks of submission. In many cases, reports are published considerably beyond this timeframe. So this is a missed opportunity to look at increasing powers regarding the publishing of reports as explicitly recommended by Wendy Williams. Of the 23 ICIBI reports that have been published during my tenure, only one was laid in Parliament within the agreed 8-week window. The inspection report on the initial processing of migrants arriving via small boats that I completed in February 2022 – and that documented security breaches at Tug Haven and Western Jet Foil – was not published until the week before last year’s summer recess, nearly five months after it had been submitted to the Home Secretary and some 13 weeks late. Such delays affect perceptions of the ICIBI’s independence and effectiveness and may hinder timely scrutiny of the Home Office’s performance.

    It is disappointing as well that no role and remit review will examine Wendy Williams’s recommendation that a duty be placed on ministers to justify the non-acceptance of ICIBI recommendations and that the Chief Inspector will not be able to work closely with a Migrant’s Commissioner when formulating his inspection programme, as the Home Secretary has also decided not to proceed with Recommendation 9.

    A role and remit review would also have provided an opportunity to explore how greater synergies could be established between the ICIBI and other similar inspectorates.

    While I regret that the role and remit review called for in the Windrush Lessons Learned Review will not go forward, it is my hope that the ICIBI will nonetheless be able to work with the Home Office to address these issues. Wendy Williams recognised that the ICIBI is ‘a critically important external review mechanism for the department’. I look forward to engaging with ministers and officials to ensure further progress towards meeting Williams’s call for the Home Office to become ‘an organisation that is more confident under the gaze of external scrutiny’.

  • Barbara Castle – 1967 Speech on Transport

    Barbara Castle – 1967 Speech on Transport

    The speech made by Barbara Castle, the then Transport Minister, in the House of Commons on 6 November 1967.

    This debate is on the Queen’s Speech and our present discussion is geared to the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) to the passage in the Gracious Speech relating to transport. In that Amendment the hon. Gentleman complains that the Government are not … concentrating on practical measures to improve conditions for the travelling public and for industry”. The passage in the Gracious Speech on which the hon. Gentleman bases this complaint reads: Legislation will be brought before you to provide for the better integration of rail and road transport within a reorganised framework of public control … That is an integration which has long been overdue and which the development of the container is making technically imperative.

    The passage continues: … to promote safety and high standards in the road transport industry … Is not that a matter that will improve conditions for the travelling public and for the public in general, who have been complaining for years about the danger of “killer” lorries on our roads?

    Then the Speech says: … to strengthen the powers of local authorities to manage traffic … Will any rational Member in this Chamber seek to claim that this will not be an important measure for improving the travelling conditions on the congested roads of our great cities? The hon. Gentleman did not have time for even a fleeting reference to it, although he asks the House to approve an Amendment condemning this whole paragraph.

    The paragraph states, finally, that the legislation will: … reorganise the nationalised inland waterways with special emphasis on their use for recreation and amenity “. Is not that another matter in which the public is very interested indeed? The hon. Gentleman is always pressing me to produce my White Papers elaborating the different aspects of the Bill I shall be presenting to Parliament before very long. I gave him a White Paper on the inland waterways part at the beginning of September. I do not think that he has even read it, and today he has not made so much as a passing reference to it.

    I will come in a moment to the perfunctory way in which he has dismissed another White Paper, which he has had in his hands all morning.—[Laughter.] Yes, I know—the hon. Gentleman is slow to pick up new ideas, but in the other part of his speech he was complaining that the ideas were not new at all, so I do not know what further time he needs to discuss it.

    Before I leave that aspect of the argument let us get the roads expenditure position quite clear. The hon. Gentleman believes in economy. He believes in economy in new speeches, and we have had this same one of his time after time. Let me therefore deal once and for all with this aspect of his argument, which is at the heart of the comparison between the records of the previous Administration and this Government in this important sphere.

    Under this Government, the total Exchequer expenditure on roads in the five years up to 1970 will be greater than that involved in the previous Conservative Government’s proposals—and let us remember that their proposals for the five years were merely paper plans. They had never got to the point of finding the money for them. They had never got to the point of having to turn a pre-election propaganda into concrete fact, but this is what we are doing.

    Mr. Peter Walker rose—

    Mrs. Castle Just a moment. This is what we are doing.

    The fact is that in the seven years 1964–65 to 1970–71, a period for which the Labour Government will be responsible, Exchequer expenditure on new and improved roads in Great Britain will be in the neighbourhood of £1,600 million. The total public expenditure on new and improved roads in Britain will be about £1,850 million. We have had to find the money, and we have been doing so, and we shall be doing so faced merely by demands from hon. Gentlemen opposite that we should cut public expenditure.

    Mr. Peter Walker Will the right hon. Lady explain why, in reply to a Question on 28th February of last year, the Parliamentary Secretary stated that, for the years 1965 to 1970, Exchequer expenditure would be £1,100,000 on new roads, yet in July, 1964, my right hon. Friend stated that expenditure would be £1,200,000 for the same period?

    Mrs. Castle I assure the hon. Gentleman that the figures I have given exceed the proposal of the former Conservative Administration, just as the expenditure has exceeded it beyond all bounds. I remind the hon. Gentleman that this year alone—and let us talk about 1967–68—Exchequer expenditure on new and improved roads will be nearly double what it was in 1963–64, the last full period of Conservative Administration. That was the peak of their achievement after 13 years in office; and it really does not lie in the mouths of hon. Gentlemen opposite to keep bringing up this Tory charge.

    The transport system which the Labour Government inherited required fundamental and practical improvement over the whole sphere. This was the approach which underlay last year’s White Paper. It is the approach which will dominate the Transport Bill, which will give effect to it—except, of course, to the ports issue, which, as has been explained, is a matter for separate legislation later in the lifetime of this Parliament.

    After that, I part company with the hon. Gentleman because his main preoccupation on every possible occasion, both inside and outside the House, is to denigrate public ownership. The Labour Government’s approach is to recognise that public ownership must play a vital rôle in transport, and to ensure that the nationalised industries are given the right social and financial targets to enable them to play their rôles. The publication today of the White Paper on railway policy shows how successfully the Government are succeeding with that task.

    It is no good the hon. Member for Worcester coming along with his sad story about morale in the railways. The constant propaganda of hon. Gentlemen opposite against the very concept of public ownership is one of the most damaging things that can be done to denigrate this publicly-owned industry. The fact is, of course, that the hon. Member for Worcester does not care about the railways. He does not care about any particular form of public ownership. My hon. and right hon. Friends, on the other hand, do care and we believe that the people of this country want to see their nationalised railways made a maximum success.

    Sir Robert Cary (Manchester, Withington) Does the right hon. Lady recall that in our debate on 18th July, when we were discussing bus operators and road hauliers, she promised to publish a White Paper, to be laid in August, with the Bill to come in September? She has laid a White Paper today on the railways. Why has she not also laid a White Paper on bus operators and road hauliers?

    Mrs. Castle I promised—I intend to keep this promise and I am in the process of keeping it—to lay detailed White Papers on the different aspects of the Transport Bill, before the publication of that Bill, so that the House fully understands the implications of what will be a very detailed Measure.

    I have already produced two of the White Papers and the remaining two, including the one to which the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Sir R. Cary) referred, will be appearing during the next few weeks. I assure the hon. Gentleman that he will get it well in advance of the publication of the Bill; and I shall be only too glad to enlighten him and his hon. Friend the Member for Worcester about some of the implications of the P.T.A.s, which he is so anxious to mis-represent.

    I have told the House that the details which I have circulated about my proposals are for consultation only. Those consultations have taken place. Ideas have been advanced and these have been adapted in the light of those consultations. The results of the consultations will appear in the White Paper for which the hon. Gentleman has asked and I certainly do not intend to anticipate that White Paper today.

    The hon. Member for Worcester has really wasted an opportunity. Instead of repeating, almost verbatim, the speech which he made the last time we debated this subject, he might have given a little attention to the White Paper on railway policy, which, at last, should have enabled him to deal not with speculation but with fact. I appreciate that this document was available in the Vote Office only at 11 o’clock this morning. It was due for publication tomorrow, but when the Opposition chose today for this debate I thought it only courteous to expedite its publication. [Interruption.] If it had appeared tomorrow, when the debate was over, I can imagine what hon. Gentlemen opposite would have said.

    Several Hon. Members rose–

    Mrs. Castle I must get on. The Stationery Office worked overtime during the weekend to enable the House to have the White Paper in time for this debate.

    I regret that the hon. Member for Worcester has seen fit to pay such perfunctory tribute to the outstanding work that has been done by the Joint Steering Group, under the chairmanship of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris). However grudging hon. Gentlemen opposite may be, I assure them that the Government are deeply grateful to the group for the long and arduous months of work they have put in.

    As for the date of publication, the simple position is this. Although it is true that the final Report of the Joint Steering Group—the Report in its final form—is dated September, that was only one part of the process. The Government had to consider the recommendations, decide their action on them and write and publish a White Paper; and this is, in fact, what we have done. It would be no good giving the House the Joint Steering Group’s recommendations without the Government’s reaction to them. To have produced that White Paper as quickly as we have is an indication of the sense of urgency which the Government feel about the railway situation, despite the frivolity of hon. Gentlemen opposite.

    This has been a novel kind of inquiry. On the Joint Steering Group have been representatives of the railways, of Government Departments and from outside. We are particularly grateful to the independent members who have worked tirelessly without reward and who have given us of their wisdom and long experience. The inquiry is also a shining example of worker participation because on the group and contributing his ideas was a rank and file railway man, in addition to representatives of the railway trade unions, who submitted their experienced views. I pay tribute to the masterly way in which this work has been chaired by the Parliamentary Secretary. The House should recognise the calibre of the Morris Report and pay tribute to all concerned.

    The hon. Member for Worcester is always complaining about the Government trying to keep things from the House. I assure him that we have been a great deal more forthcoming than the Administration who produced the Stedeford Report, not a word of which ever got published. Indeed, I have not even been allowed to see it, though a succeeding Minister. There has, therefore, been a very different practice between the two Administrations in handling what is a matter of widespread public interest.

    All that the hon. Member for Worcester could find to say was that there had been Press leaks. He said that The Times had it all on 26th June. He wanted to know what the Government were doing about it, what was the point of having a White Paper and what was the point of publishing the Report. The July Report of the group did not exist on 26th June. So the report was not even accurate. Certainly, the Government’s decisions upon it did not exist at that time. So it is absurd for the hon. Gentleman to suggest that in some way I had leaked the matter to the Press.

    I hope that the debate will now be concentrated on the White Paper and the indications that it gives of the kind of approach that we shall have in the Transport Bill. Let us look at what the White Paper says. It should be considered as one of the triumvirate. There will be other White Papers on the National Freight Corporation and the Passenger Transport Authorities, though the implications of the setting up of a National Freight Corporation on the finances of the railways are taken into account in Appendix B of the Report in the Annex, and also it is important to remember that the method of fixing the grants for the socially necessary lines will be appropriate whoever may become responsible for them.

    Today’s White Paper concentrates on two aspects which are critical to any business—finance and management. If these two are right there is a good chance that the business, whether it is private or nationalised, will prosper, and unless they are right, it will not prosper. But the railways are not just a business. That was the mistake that right hon. and hon. Members opposite made when they voted for the 1962 Transport Act. To treat nationalised transport as a business or a series of businesses without taking account of the social aspects of a public service is not to have any real grasp of the needs of the travelling public.

    The 1962 Act set up the railways as a separate entity, encouraged them to compete with other forms of nationalised transport and then left the profit and loss account as the sole criterion of success and did not even provide conditions in which the profit and loss account could be balanced. The Railways Board was early told to break even as soon as possible, but an open-ended grant was provided in case it failed. So it is not surprising that the deficit for the current year is almost as large as in 1962.

    This fact is a complete indictment of the whole purpose and machinery of the 1962 Transport Act. It took no account of the social factors. It provided detailed machinery for closing lines but imposed no duty on the Minister to heed social considerations when deciding closures, still less the effect on the workers involved.

    Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith (Glasgow, Hillhead) The right hon. Lady has made a charge—

    Mrs. Castle I have not given way.

    The Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher) Order. The hon. Member must resume his seat unless the Minister gives way.

    Mrs. Castle I object to being harangued by the hon. Gentleman on his feet when I am on my feet. If he will behave courteously I shall be glad to give way.

    Mr. Galbraith I am very grateful to the right hon. Lady. But she made a charge against the previous Administration when she said that social considerations were not taken into account. I can categorically deny that and would like her to accept it.

    Mrs. Castle To the extent that they were taken into account they were in breach of the terms of reference of the 1962 Act. The hon Gentleman had better make it clear. The 1962 Act placed an obligation on the British Railways Board to break even as soon as possible. The very fact that the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) could not follow the logic of his own statute does not mean to say that that made the position any better. Indeed, I believe that one of the serious sources of the problems of the railway industry is that it has never been given any clear-cut financial target appropriate to the sort of social conditions that a railway business has to take into account as well.

    During the 18 months from the publication of the Beeching Plan in March, 1963, and being swept out of office in October, 1964, the right hon. Member for Wallasey had already imposed on British Railways an annual burden of well over £1 million by refusing to consent to closures, which, therefore, showed the inconsistency of his own policy.

    What we are doing—it is long overdue, and when the hon. Gentleman says that nobody outside approves of my policy I would tell him that every sort of financial and economic commentator has been asking for a very long time that this kind of separation of financial and social objectives should be carried through—is to recognise and face the fact that there are many railway passenger services which do not pay and cannot be made to pay but are an essential part of any foreseeable transport system.

    This is what the White Paper is about. We said that, having decided that as a Government, and decided it as a point of principle, we ought to identify these services, consider whether they were of the right level, whether they should be increased or reduced, make sure that they run efficiently and then meet the full cost of any losses on these socially necessary lines, and meet that consciously as a community.

    The Joint Steering Group’s Report, which is annexed to the White Paper, explains in detail the procedure which has been worked out. I think that every hon. Member who studies that Report—and no one ought to talk about transport policy in future unless he has—will agree that the procedure has been systematically and carefully evolved to enable us to get the benefits of a social element of transport policy without undermining financial incentives and efficiency. For instance, the Report suggests that these grants, instead of being paid in arrears, should be based on estimated losses three years ahead, with no repayment if the Railways Board does better than the estimates, and this is designed to give an incentive to the Railways Board to do even better than at first had been hoped.

    Hon. Gentlemen opposite have frequently asked me for the estimated total cost of the grants, and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not consider even mentioning it in his speech. The best estimates that the consultants and the Group can make of what would be the total of these grants in any one year is a figure of some £40 million in 1969, plus £15 million allowance for interest, making £55 million in 1969, and reducing to some £50 million in 1974.

    This decision, which is in accord with the Government’s policy on nationalised industries, and is published in the White Paper, marks a major development in nationalised industry policy. No one in the House can talk about the need for greater efficiency in the Government or in the nationalised industries unless he fairly and squarely faces the fact that something of this kind had to be done. The hon. Gentleman who is so anxious to quote denigrations and attacks upon me might have paid a little attention to the leading article in The Times a day or two ago when it welcomed this new approach to the finances of the nationalised industries and said that it was imperative to their future efficiency that economic and social elements should be differentiated out from the financial ones.

    Mr. Gordon Campbell (Moray and Nairn) Did the right hon. Lady also notice the leading article in the Scotsman last Thursday, saying, “For integration read disintegration”?

    Mrs. Castle Yes, I read it. That leading article was applying to a wider field than just this. But I would tell the hon. Gentleman and the Scotsman that it is a curious definition of disintegration when the Government come along and say, “It is time the country established what size of railway network we need and then set about finding more intelligent ways of paying for it.” In my view, that is not disintegration. It is the first ray of rational light on this subject for many a long year.

    The Report also provides for a capital reconstruction of the railway industry so as to give a really efficient target to the railways and provide the basis on which we can expect the railways to meet their charges, including interest, out of revenue by the early 1970s. Here again, a first-class expert job of work has been done by all concerned.

    I think that it is helpful to the House to have had examined all the possible elements in railway costs that could be attributed to their social obligations. The Joint Steering Group, for example, examined the concept of stand-by capacity which the railways have argued for a long time as one of the excuses why they could not be expected to break even. The railways say, “The trouble with the public is that they want the railways, but only to use them very occasionally, so we should be compensated for an element of stand-by capacity.”

    This the Report has rejected, but it does point to the existence of surplus capacity in the railway system due to the duplication of track in many places where a reduction of track would achieve dramatic economies. Reducing tracks from four to two and, in some cases, from two to one can make a major contribution to cutting costs.

    Miss J. M. Quennell (Petersfield) The right hon. Lady keeps saying that the Report will be “useful” to the House. She has said that the Report was in the Vote Office at 11 a.m. I have been in the House all day and I did not know that it was available until I read about it in the mid-day edition of an evening newspaper. It was 2.15 when I got the Report, and it was not possible to read it sensibly before this debate.

    Mrs. Castle I also took the precaution of informing the House, in a Written Reply on Friday, that the Report would be in the Vote Office at 11 a.m. today. I am only too anxious to give the House as much time as possible to study the Report, but it was not I who chose the subject of today’s debate. The best I could do was to expedite the White Paper as quickly as possible.

    The Joint Steering Group’s Report therefore proposed—and I think that the House will agree that this is an imaginative and constructive suggestion—that the best way of helping to reduce costs and the deficit was for track rationalisation to be pressed ahead with the help of a track rationalisation grant which would taper off over the next few years.

    The major part of the Group’s Report is the emphasis it lays upon the management question. When capital reconstruction has been carried through, even if the Railways Board begins by breaking even, we know that it will have a very tough job to maintain that position. That is why an integral part of the Report is the emphasis that it lays upon the need to have another look at the management structure of the railways.

    As the House will have seen, the Report recommends a somewhat smaller Board whose members should not be tied down by day-to-day executive responsibilities for particular functions. This would leave the Board freer to concentrate on policy questions and on the long-term planning and financial control of the industry, helped by the appointment of two senior members of the Board with specific responsibility for these two aims, in addition to a chief general manager and a member responsible for long-term development of labour relations in the industry.

    The Government broadly accept these recommendations, which, clearly, will involve a considerable reorganisation of the Board’s work. The hon. Gentleman raised with me the position of the chairman of the Board. I believe that this reorganisation must involve a change in the chairmanship and I am currently discussing with Sir Stanley Raymond the possibility of his taking another job in transport. The outcome of our discussions will be announced in due course.

    As for the suggestion that there is some kind of breach between Mr. Philip Shirley and myself, I will tell the hon. Gentleman that Mr. Shirley resigned at his own request and that it was not as a result of any disagreement between him and me. I remind the hon. Gentleman that Mr. Shirley is, after all, a signatory of the Report which is in the Annex to the White Paper, and if there had been any such disgruntlement he would not have accepted my invitation to become a part-time member of the Board, which he has willingly done.

    It is sad that the hon. Member had nothing to say about the merits of these proposals in the Joint Steering Group’s Report. If he claims that he has known for some time what was in the Report, then I should have thought that he would have been giving a little thought to it in all his consideration of the problems of the railway system. If he has known, as he says he has, that the Joint Steering Group—and I have announced this to the House on more than one occasion—was working on the principles of a social grant to keep alive the socially necessary lines, he has had plenty of time to decide first whether he approves of the Government’s proposals to pay such grants on the socially necessary services which do not pay their way and, secondly, what principle the Government should employ in fixing them.

    The hon. Gentleman has challenged me more than once today. I challenge him now. It is not asking him very much, between 11 a.m. this morning—I saw that the hon. Gentleman had the Report; he got it personally—and 5 p.m., to decide whether he approves of the principle of paying grants on socially necessary lines which do not pay their way. Perhaps he will answer that one now.

    Mr. Peter Walker I did not receive the Report at 11 a.m., but somewhat later. I will judge this question on the criteria to be used for these services. I want to know how they are to be paid for. I am violently against their being paid for out of the rates. What are “social criteria”? The term can mean anything. I am not willing to commit myself to the details of the Minister’s proposals until she has expressed them fully.

    Mrs. Castle That will not do. The hon. Gentleman is dodging it. If he does not know what social criteria are, he should ask some of his hon. Friends behind him. Week after week they ask that railway lines be kept open in their areas. They say that they should be kept open because they serve tourism or remote areas, or because their constituents would not have alternative means of transport, or because the lines are heavily used by commuters or because they serve areas scheduled for future development and to which industry is being attracted.

    Mr. Peter Walker If that is the right hon. Lady’s view, where do the 3,000 miles of railway track that she is closing fit into these social criteria? May we have the answer to that?

    Mrs. Castle Certainly. The basic network published in the railway map some months ago was drawn up in full consultation with the regional economic planning councils and with the Government Departments concerned with development and the siting of new towns. All these factors were taken into account. But the 3,000 miles of line will still be subject to the full statutory procedure and it has been made clear that, as a result of the examination, some of these lines not marked for development in the basic map may be added to the “black line network”. That has been made clear to the hon. Gentleman time and again. Some pruning of duplicate lines as well as duplicate stations is not only inevitable, but desirable in the interests of railwaymen themselves who have to live in an industry that ought to be able to afford them higher standards.

    We need to find a balance between complete sentimental sterilisation of the status quo and an adjustment of the policy of drastic reduction which we would have been faced with under the 1962 Transport Act. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well what are the social criteria. He knows perfectly well that there are lines which the right hon. Member for Wallasey refused to close and other lines which his hon. Friends would like to Government to refuse to close.

    The question we now have to ask ourselves is, if, as a result of these examinations and the will of Parliament, some of these lines are to be kept open and will not pay their way, is it or is it not right that they should be included in the operating deficit of the Railways Board? Should they not rather be put into a separate account, carefully costed by the Ministry and the Railways Board, and have a proper grant affixed to them, the Government deciding to pay that grant? That policy will be widely welcomed by the travelling public and by railwaymen as one of the most practical contributions which the Government can make. It is a great pity that the hon. Member is still back in his July speech and has not moved a step further forward despite all the information and evidence we keep putting in front of him.

    So much for this Government’s interest in efficiency of the nationalised industries. There was not a word of praise from the hon. Member, although we are debating the references in the Queen’s Speech, for our intention through the computer licensing Bill to establish a licensing system for motor vehicle licensing and driver licensing. This is something which is urgently needed and which was welcomed by The Times Business Supplement. It reported that car dealers have to deal with 183 local authorities and they are expected to welcome this proposal as a practical contribution to the transport problem, but there was not a word from the hon. Member about it.

    There was not a word from him about our White Paper on the inland waterways which, once again, has taken the chaotic, muddled situation left by the previous Administration and clearly separated the commercial from social activities. This is what a Socialist transport policy means and it makes practical sense. There was not a word by the hon. Member about all the other practical contributions we have made. He is concerned and obsessed about the conditions of the passenger transport authorities. As I said earlier, we shall discuss this matter in the light of the White Paper. I certainly do not intend to anticipate the outcome of the consultations, which will be reported fully to the House in that document.

    In conclusion, I refer to one very practical activity in which the passenger transport authorities will be engaged. One of them is proposed for the Manchester area, S.E.L.N.E.C. area. The need for integration of road-rail services there, for something to be done practically and urgently to improve transport conditions for people using public transport, is demonstrable to anyone who ever tries to travel in that city.

    No one knows this more than Manchester City Council. That is why it gladly engaged with us in the promotion of a rapid transport study towards the possibility of which we paid a grant of 75 per cent. That is something else practical done in this matter by this Government. The report is now available and will be published tomorrow. A Question is to be asked of me about it and I shall be giving fuller details. It begins to hold out exciting possibilities of a breakthrough in the improvement of public transport.

    I merely say to the hon. Member—this is another of the practical things we have done to which he never troubles to refer —that my new power to pay capital grants towards the cost of new public transport authorities, a power I shall be seeking in the Transport Bill, will enable me to contribute to the cost of new major transport projects in Manchester, provided they form part of a comprehensive transportation plan.

    Here we have been acting while the hon. Member has merely talked. That is why I say to the House that the local authorities, whatever the hon. Member may try to do, will welcome these passenger transport authorities and cooperate with them because they know that what is needed are practical measures and that they are getting them from this Government.

  • Peter Walker – 1967 Speech on the Government’s Transport Policy

    Peter Walker – 1967 Speech on the Government’s Transport Policy

    The speech made by Peter Walker, the then Conservative MP for Worcester, in the House of Commons on 6 November 1967.

    I beg to move, at the end of the Question, to add: but humbly regret that the Gracious Speech contains proposals to nationalise further large sections of the transport industry instead of concentrating on practical measures to improve conditions for the travelling public and for industry. I am sure the House regrets that this debate is taking place under the shadow of a major railway disaster. I assure the House that any criticisms of the management or policies of British Railways are in no way connected with the railway’s safety record, which has been outstanding over the years, or the diligence with which our railwaymen apply themselves to seeing that railway travel is safe and secure.
    Last week’s by-election results are perhaps a reflection on the fact that the Government’s performance contrasts vividly with their plans. If the plans which have been published week by week, and month by month, had been fulfilled, or even started to be fulfilled, the Government’s popularity would be very much higher, but instead we have had a long series of plans contrasting vividly with performance, and this is particularly true of transport.

    An examination of the various forms of transport shows that in every sphere Government policies are hindering progress. In aviation one finds that B.E.A.’s future is in jeopardy as a result of the constant delay and indecision of the Government on replacing the present B.E.A. fleet. If one considers future developments in aviation, internal air services, the development of freight air services, and the indecision, and probably wrong decision, on matters such as Stansted, one sees aviation once again being affected by the Government. It is remarkable that this industry, which could perhaps best be quoted as an industry of the future, is completely and utterly without investment grants as a result of the Government’s policies.

    When one considers shipping, and ports and docks, one sees that only last week the Confederation of British Industry and the British Shippers’ Council gave their verdict on the Government’s policy. Their verdict is summarised in a statement issued last Wednesday or Thursday: To face the industry with an administrative revolution when it is already grappling with great changes would surely reduce operating efficiency, retard evolution, increase costs, and thus, by raising the price of exports, damage the economy. No case has been made for fundamental change now or in the future. The Minister’s proposals establish no reasoned case for a further change of ownership or control. On the railways, we see a fast increasing deficit, obviously completely out of the Minister’s control. Indeed, it was the Minister herself who said in reply to a Question on 25th January of this year, at col. 1471 that the railway deficit this year would be £130 million, but we were told in a debate in another place that the figure was now likely to be £150 million. Labour relations on the railways have never been worse than they are at the moment, and the position of top management is in complete chaos.

    One of the most fundamental needs is an improvement in the road building programme, but we see the Minister complacently going up and down the country boasting that at the moment expenditure on road building is higher than it has ever been in our history. This is a boast which every Minister of Transport has been able to make every year since 1950, but the real test of the Minister’s performance—and that of the Government—is to see how the right hon. Lady has carried out the road building programme which she inherited.

    The programme was laid down in great detail in July 1964. It proposed Government expenditure of £1,200 million on road building in the years 1965 to 1970. The party opposite said that it was an electioneering offer, and something to entice the voters. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss), who at that time was the shadow Minister of Transport, stated categorically in the Press and in speeches that the programme announced by the Tories for the period 1965–70 was too little and too late.

    Let us examine what has happened to the programme which the present Government described as too little and too late. We can establish the exact figures because my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) published a White Paper setting out the Government’s investment programme for 1967–68. He said that in that year at 1963 prices, £470 million would be spent by the Government and local authorities on roads in this country. Adjusted to 1963 prices, it would be necessary to spend £53 million this year to fulfil the promise which hon. Gentlemen opposite described as too little and too late. This year the Government and local authorities will spend £450 million on the roads, so this year alone they will spend £81 million less than that set out in a programme which they described as too little and too late.

    The Government have stated categorically that in the period 1965–70—this information was given in reply to a Question—they will spend £1,100 million. This is £100 million less than the sum laid down in the programme which they described as too little and too late, and during this period the motorist has had an extremely bad deal. Comparing this year’s figures with those for 1964–65, one sees that this year the Government will spend £70 million more on roads, but from the owners of motor cars they will get an extra £350 million in increased petrol tax, in increased Purchase Tax, and in increased motor vehicle licences. Thus, for every £1 extra which they are spending on reads they are taking an extra £5 from the motorist. This is the Government’s record for the motorist and the roads.

    The Government’s record on the railways, in aviation, in shipping, and in the road programme is bad, and what do they offer for the future? They have put forward a programme—which received enthusiastic support at the Labour Party conference as a good Socialist one for tackling transport problems—substantially to increase the nationalisation of public transport.

    First, I turn to the proposals for passenger transport authorities. These proposals have no friends. Local authorities do not like them; industry does not like them, and the bus industry in particular does not like them. Everybody is opposed to them. The Minister says that this is not nationalisation, and describes me as illiterate for speaking of it as such. She claims that it is local ownership and not nationalisation. The only real ownership which will be given locally is the ownership of losses.

    How can the Minister claim that these P.T.A.s will have local control? Let us consider some of the features of the proposal. These authorities will be very much in the hands of the Minister of Transport. First, the Minister will designate the boundaries of the P.T.A.s, and she has specifically stated that not only will she designate them but will allow no form of public inquiry into them, and there will be no appeal from her decisions. So much for local control of the boundaries.

    Secondly, local control will consist of immediately confiscating the assets of all municipal bus companies—a very odd and peculiar way of giving local control—and doing away with local bus companies.

    Thirdly, there will be considerable investment control in the hands of the Minister. Grants will depend on her being satisfied with the way P.T.A.s are run. Then, the Minister will have nominees on the boards of the P.T.A.s. Her first suggestion was that one-third of the representatives should be appointed by the Ministry of Transport and that the chairmen should also be so appointed. We are pleased to know that as a result of considerable criticism and pressure she has reduced her demands for representation, and the chairmen will now be appointed by the P.T.A.s. But let us remember that even if, for example, her representatives consisted only of 20 per cent. of the Board, this would be 20 per cent. more than the representation on the boards which are now running local government transport. Also, if, in a public transport authority area, 60 per cent. of the authorities were Tory-controlled and 40 per cent. Labour-controlled, with the Minister’s nominees and the Labour-controlled representatives the Minister’s nominees would have a majority on the P.T.A. Under the P.T.A.s, many major boroughs will have no appeal on the question of fares or timetables.

    There is much evidence that there is no great advantage in size, in respect of bus operations; indeed, the public will vouch for the fact that the bigger the size the less efficient is the bus company, the more inferior its labour relations, and the less direct contact it has with the public.

    It is becoming more and more clear that all the local authorities in the major conurbations and elsewhere are becoming bitterly opposed to this project. The Minister will say that this is due to briefing and interference on the part of the Conservative Central Office and the leaders of Tory councils, but she should remember that last May the people of this country overwhelmingly voted Tories to their local councils, and they did not vote for them to give back into public ownership private and municipal bus companies.

    But not only Tory councils are opposed to this scheme. One of the Minister’s civil servants—a person who is particularly responsible for P.T.A.s.; a Mr. Locke—spoke to municipal operators, and if he reported accurately to the Minister he will have told her that local authorities are passionately opposed to her proposals. At the M.P.T.A. conference five Labour chairmen of local authority transport committees spoke in the debate upon the P.T.A. proposals. Every one was opposed to those proposals. Perhaps their objections were most appropriately put by Councillor Williams, chairman at St. Helens, who said: It would be a voice in the wilderness. I am second to none as a supporter of the Labour party, but this is not one of the things they ought to be doing. Another opinion—and I am sure the Minister will appreciate this, as she represents a Lancashire division—was expressed by Alderman Walsh, vice-chairman at Bolton, who said that the whole programme could only be called a load of codswallop. It is understandable that local authorities should be strongly opposed to P.T.As. First, the ratepayers will have to bear the service charges necessary to compensate for the taking over of privately owned bus companies. Secondly, they will lose their municipal assets. Thirdly, they will have to make a contribution to the deficit of passenger railway services in their areas. Fourthly, fares will increase as a result of the levelling up of wages and conditions of all those employed in bus companies which are taken into P.T.As.

    One of the proposals which will be greeted with great alarm is a clear undertaking that P.T.As. will have control over coaches and coach excursions going out of their areas. Many people travel by coach because of the cheap fares. To travel from Birmingham to London costs 34s. by coach, but £3 6s. by second-class railway fare. We can understand this Minister, for what she will describe as good transport planning, deciding that it is wrong to take this traffic from the railways and therefore placing considerable restrictions on coach services.

    Alternatives to this programme are quite clear. They are immediately to repeal some of the policies which the Government have pursued, which are directly opposed to the efficient running of our bus companies. It was this Government who took away investment allowances for buses and coaches, immediately resulting in increased fares. It is this Government who made bus companies create an interest-free overdraft for the Government, in the form of S.E.T., and it is this Government who are dragging their feet on trade union reform, which would help to bring single manning and do away with some of the overmanning which exists today.

    It is a remarkable thing that if there was one proposal which should have waited for the report of a Royal Commission it was the P.T.A. proposal, which should have waited for the report of the Royal Commission on Local Government. But the Government were determined to hasten through these proposals before the published. What a different attitude to their attitude on trade union reform. The creation of passenger transport authorities will result in considerable increases in road fares and a great loss of freedom of choice in terms of transport for the individual, and we shall oppose this proposal.

    The post-war history of the railways is that from the early 1950s, as people began to own more and more motor cars, and passengers turned from the railways to the roads, and as a great modernisation programme was required to change from steam to diesel electric, the railways ran into increasing deficits. It was then that a Conservative Government appointed Lord Beeching and a major reorganisation started to take place. The success of this was reflected in the last two years of Tory Government, when the railway deficit was reduced by £37 million. In the first three years of Labour Government it will have increased by over £30 million.

    Today we have had published a White Paper. I say that it has been published today but, like all Government documents, it was really published many weeks previously in the Press. It is remarkable that every major proposal in the White Paper appeared in The Times of 26th June. That newspaper’s transport correspondent described the proposals of the Joint Steering Group under the chairmanship of the Parliamentary Secretary. He described its conclusions in respect of subsidies for services of social importance; he described the recapitalisation of the railways and the writing off of a great deal of capital. He described in detail the proposals for reorganisation of the main board and the doing away with regional boards, and he went on to describe the special subsidies for bridges, level crossings and railway police.

    If that same correspondent wanted to summarise the Minister’s White Paper he could not do better than repeat his article of 26th June. This is a terrible reflection upon Her Majesty’s Government.

    One political correspondent suggests today that the right hon. Lady should become the next Foreign Secretary. On Press leaks, she puts Lord Chalfont completely in the shade, because every major proposal from the Ministry since she has been Minister has been leaked, in one way or another, beforehand. If these proposals were not leaked by the Ministry itself, the Ministry should have done something to give this House the White Paper, the details of which appeared in the Press in June, some time before November, a few hours before this debate. Instead, with the normal sense of priorities of this Government, the Press came first and Parliament came afterwards.

    The White Paper carries the report and recommendations of a very distinguished firm of accountants, Cooper Brothers, who have done a great deal of work, and of the steering group which contained a number of distinguished men from industry and the British Railways Board, and a distinguished professor of finance, under the chairmanship of the Parliamentary Secretary. The whole House will want to examine carefully its proposals, and we obviously have not had time to study some of the background facts and statistics; some of the figures, of course, are not available in the White Paper. But there are some questions which I should like to ask the Minister.

    First of all, she states in the White Paper, in rather strange wording; that, after consultation with British. Railways, the Government have decided to adopt the proposals. Do British Railways agree with the proposals? I know that they had representatives on the Steering Group, but it has been said that the Chairman and many of the Board disagree with the proposals. We should like to know whether this is true or whether it was purely consultation, without the Board fully supporting the proposals.

    One of the things which will dramatically affect British Railways is the Minister’s proposals for a National Freight Authority. This Steering Group contains the advice of one of the best firms of accountants in the world, with men of considerable ability who have looked in depth into the management and financial problems of British Railways. I therefore challenge the right hon. Lady to ask this same Steering Group, with all its knowledge, whether or not it is in favour of the creation of the National Freight Authority. If it is, that will give great support to her case. If it is not, it will show that her proposals are thoroughly irresponsible and against the future interests of British Railways. If the right hon. Lady declines that challenge to put that question fairly and straightly to the Steering Group, the country will realise why?

    The real problem for the railways is not the proposals in the Report, interesting though they are and correct as many probably are. It is easy to study and decide what should be done, but the test is implementing that study. Everything that has so far happened has given us absolutely no confidence in the Minister’s ability to bring this Report into being, because the essence is the attraction of top and good management. The railways today have labour relations problems, and a rising deficit, yet, for more than a week, 350,000 men employed by British Railways— an industry losing £150 million a year—have known that their chairman has been under notice to quit, but have had no idea who his replacement is to be. That is an appalling situation for any major industry.

    Also, almost every national newspaper reported that, in the middle of the most crucial negotiations with the unions, in which a major strike was a possibility, the chairman of British Railways was called out to be hold by the Minister that she was going to offer him another job. What a way to handle top management. If this did not happen, the Minister should immediately have issued a statement saying that it did not, instead of leaving this situation for a week.

    Everyone knows that the chairman has been offered another job but does not know his replacement. The vice-chairman has said that he will join a shipping company and has given notice to quit. Did the Minister tell Mr. Shirley that she would like him to go, after which he found another job, or did the reverse happen? As the Minister has constantly praised Mr. Shirley in the country for the wonderful way in which he has organised freight liner trains, why can she not provide him with the terms and conditions under which he could stay? Either he was important and successful, in which case it was her duty to see that he was kept or enticed to stay, or else he has been inefficient for some time, in which case she has been wrong to praise him all over the country. As well as the chairman and vice-chairman, Mr. Fiennes, one of the most creative thinkers of all the general managers of British Railways, has been sacked and has left the service.

    This is the position of top management in British Railways after the Minister has been in charge for a couple of years. She says in the White Paper that the real need is for stability of British Railways. What a lot of stability there is at present—an army without a general, a major industry not knowing exactly what will happen in terms of top management.

    Who will be attracted to take on the jobs of top management? What is this Minister’s record in this respect? Just look at the treatment of top management. First of all, the road construction units were created so that the county surveyors, who had been vocal critics of all Governments, would no longer have that same say. Then, Sir Alexander Samuels was removed from his position as road traffic adviser to the Minister because, as we knew, he was having a number of disagreements with her. Then, Sir Alfred Owen had views on the 70 m.p.h. speed limit and was removed from his position as chairman of the National Road Safety Advisory Council and replaced by the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Rochdale, who was Chairman of the National Ports Council, opposed nationalisation and was in favour of developing Portbury, so he was given another job and replaced by someone from one of the nationalised boards. This is a complete record of any person who disagrees with the Minister being removed to another job.

    Who will take on the job of Chairman of British Railways, with this sort of background—[HON. MEMBERS: “George will.”]—when the Minister has already stated that the track will remain at 11,000 miles, no matter what the commercial considerations? The new chairman will immediately inherit that fixed position. She has also said that she will take away from British Railways its most expanding element, the freightliner trains, and give it to the National Freight Authority. So the new Chairman will be told. “You will have to keep the track as it is and I am taking away the best potential for the future, but, apart from that, you have every freedom and may get on with the job.” This is an impossible position for top management.

    Any top management coming into British Railways while the present Minister remains will, of course, remember her words at the Labour Party conference. When pressed to set up various organisations, she said: No, friends, when it comes to transport planning, I have got to be the overall authority. The real trouble is that any person working under this Minister knows that he will always be subject to considerable political interference.

    The other proposal which will be in the Government’s Bill, the National Freight Authority itself, also has no friends and no supporters in industry. No one in the railways supports it, either. There has been no pronouncement from the Railways Board or from the railway unions saying that it wants such an authority. Sir Donald Stokes, who would not be quoted as an enemy of the present Government, has made his position clear. He said: If we are going to have restrictions for Socialist doctrinaire reasons, it is absolutely crazy. He went on: … if they are going to restrict road transport, it is still worse, because in Great Britain we need above all a competitive transport system. This is the biggest machine tool of industry. Sir Donald Stokes has clearly stated his view, and so has the C.B.I.

    The proposal for a national freight authority is a proposal to allow the nationalised industries to take over a large section of the road haulage industry without compensation. Seventy thousand vehicles will be subject to new tribunals. How many bureaucrats will be employed on those tribunals? What sort of people will decide, and what criteria will those people use?

    The Minister has stated that licences will be taken away or refused only if it can be shown that the railways are faster, less expensive and more reliable. Those are the three criteria. Will all three have to apply or will it be a matter of balance? Who will judge the speed of British Rail? Will British Rail have to prepare a time-table? A lot of tribunals would not take much note of that. Who will decide whether the reliability will be better or worse? Is this to be based on promises? Who is to decide on cost in its relationship with time?

    We on this side of the House have made our position quite clear. We believe that the best people to decide how best to send their goods are the customers themselves, and not some bureaucratic tribunal trying to decide for them. The position is that £150 million worth of assets belonging to private road hauliers are in jeopardy without any form of compensation.

    Let us just look at the handicap which the Government have put on those in the road haulage industry before they start: three increase in fuel tax, graduated pension contributions up, National Insurance contributions up, Selective Employment Tax, postage and telephone costs up, industrial training 1.6 per cent. up, road vehicles licences increased by 50 per cent. and investment allowances on road haulage vehicles completely taken away by this Government. The Minister has said that the N.F.A. would give the road haulage industry a good run for its money, and so I should think, with the handicap put on the road haulage industry before ever it starts.

    In every sphere of transport the performance is bad, and instead of the Government offering remedies for these performances they are embarking on a programme of public ownership of all our ports and docks, considerable ownership of the bus industry, interferences in the ancillary services such as taxis and coaches, and a considerable extension of the public section of long distance road haulage. We on this side believe that this will make no contribution to efficiency. It is yet another attack on free enterprise by a Government that by now should realise that they are doing great harm to the country by their constant attacks on free enterprise, and that they will bring about a considerable worsening, and not an improvement, of the nation’s transport system.