Tag: Speeches

  • Natalie Bennett – 2021 Comments on the Environment and Norwich Western Link [Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle]

    Natalie Bennett – 2021 Comments on the Environment and Norwich Western Link [Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle]

    The comments made by Natalie Bennett, Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle, in the House of Lords on 15 September 2021.

    My Lords, I have to question the description given by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, of HS2 as affecting a

    “small area of ancient woodland”,

    given that the Woodland Trust says that 108 areas of ancient woodland are at risk of “loss or damage”. However, it will probably please your Lordships’ House to know that I will not restart the HS2 debate at this moment.

    I will focus on Amendment 100, to which we in the Green Party would have attached one of our names, had there been space. We are talking about something very ancient and precious, and we can make comparisons with cathedrals and indeed with your Lordships’ House. I was on the site of what is supposed to be the Norwich western link, standing at the base of an oak tree that was a sapling when Queen Elizabeth I was on the throne. An ancient woodland containing trees like that is comparable to your Lordships’ House or a cathedral. Think about the protections we offer to those and all the money we are thinking about putting in to preserving this building; we are in a different place on that.

    We often think of ancient woodland as being out in the countryside somewhere. I want to be a little parochial and point out that Sheffield has 80 ancient woodlands within its boundary. I want to think and talk about the benefits to human health and well-being of having these ancient woodlands—indeed, London has some of them, and, when I lived here, I used to walk in them as well. They have enormous human health benefits that we have to take account of.

    Returning to the subject of walking through ancient woodland in Sheffield or the threatened woodland in Norwich, we are talking about not just trees here but crucial, utterly irreplaceable habitats for bats and insects. These woodlands would have a chance truly to flourish without air pollution and other factors. Lichens and mosses—crucial, complex organisms that are absolutely foundational to rich, healthy ecosystems—depend on those ancient trees to thrive and indeed survive. So I commend both these amendments to your Lordships’ House, and I encourage the noble Baroness to press Amendment 100 in particular to a vote.

  • Chloe Smith – 2019 Statement on the Norwich Western Link

    Chloe Smith – 2019 Statement on the Norwich Western Link

    The statement made by Chloe Smith, the Conservative MP for Norwich North, on 21 February 2019.

    Ensuring that Norwich has the transport infrastructure it needs is one of my key priorities for the local area. It was really useful to meet with colleagues from Norfolk County Council recently to hear about the need for the Western Link and to have an update on council’s plans for our roads network.

    The Western Link is a proposed section of road that links the newly built Northern Distributor Road and the A47. Norfolk County Council is considering different options on the precise location of the Western Link Road.

    Encouraging people to have their say in how our County makes decisions is also something I think is really important, which is why I actively encouraged Norwich North residents to take part in the County Council’s consultation to have their say on the options available.

    Now the consultation period has concluded, Norfolk County Council will consider the responses it has received from the public and affected stakeholders, before publishing the consultation findings.

    I have personally been a big supporter of the Northern Distributor Road and the Western Link to create a complete northern link from the west of Norwich to the business park to the east. This complete link will allow traffic to flow better around the north of Norwich; this will allow businesses to benefit from quicker transportation times, which means more investment and more jobs, and it will help people simply to get about more easily in their everyday lives.

    I was proud to lead the lobbying by Norfolk MPs to secure the extra funding to make the NDR a reality and am proud to support plans to build the final quarter of the road, the ‘Western Link’.

    Earlier this month, I wrote to the Secretary of State for Transport, together with other Norfolk MPs in relation to transport priorities for the East and urged him to prioritise three areas:

    1.       The full dualling of the A47, including the Acle Straight, after completing the current committed works, and consideration of the Western Link between the A47 and the Norwich Northern Distributor Road

    2.       The feasibility study and associated actions to improve the Ely North rail junction – to unlock half hourly train services to King’s Lynn and Norwich from Cambridge.

    3.       The promises already made by this Government to make infrastructure improvements to the Great Eastern Mainline so that the new rolling stock will enable ‘Norwich in Ninety’ across the whole timetable rather than the short form promoted in this franchise

     I will continue to support Norfolk County Council in taking forward their plans for the Western Link Road and will be writing on their behalf to the Department for Transport seeking an update on the funding decision for the Transforming Cities project.

  • Norfolk County Council – 2016 Technical Report on the Norwich Western Link

    Norfolk County Council – 2016 Technical Report on the Norwich Western Link

    The technical report issued by Norfolk County Council on 1 June 2016.

    Technical Report (in .pdf format)

  • Norfolk County Council – 2021 Outline Business Case for the Norwich Western Link

    Norfolk County Council – 2021 Outline Business Case for the Norwich Western Link

    The business case for the Norwich Western Link published on 1 June 2021.

    Outline Business Case (in .pdf format)

  • Clive Lewis – 2022 Statement on the Norwich Western Link

    Clive Lewis – 2022 Statement on the Norwich Western Link

    The statement made by Clive Lewis, the Labour MP for Norwich South, on 18 May 2022.

    Bulldozers could soon be tearing through a pristine area of natural beauty and biodiversity to make way for the Western Link. This fossil fuel infrastructure and ecological destruction is not what Norwich needs.

    The river Wensum and the rich ecology in the Wensum Valley is part of our shared environment, a natural corridor for wildlife, and a beautiful area in its own right that should be preserved so we can all continue to access and enjoy it.

    This is why I support the campaign to stop the Western Link road being built.

  • Emma Corlett – 2023 Interview on the Norwich Western Link

    Emma Corlett – 2023 Interview on the Norwich Western Link

    The interview with Emma Corlett, the Deputy Leader of the Labour Group on Norfolk County Council, on 1 January 2023.


    (i) Are the Labour group on Norfolk County Council opposing the project primarily on the cost or environmental grounds?

    Our initial opposition and manifesto position was on environmental grounds and in favour of investing in public transport infrastructure. Over the past eighteen months concerns about the rocketing cost have given an additional dimension to our steadfast opposition to the proposed road.

    (ii) Is the suggested need for the road simply a legacy of an inadequate public transport system in the county?

    In part, but also a failure of a vision by the council as strategic transport authority that genuinely addresses the climate crisis, tackles social inequality (see car ownership stats below for 2011 census – 2021 not yet available but we anticipate being worse due to austerity of past twelve years). It is also ideologically driven in that the ruling Tory administration have a very outdated view of “growth” and are not focussed on sustainable and inclusive growth. They love leaving a “legacy” and like 1970s style legacy infrastructure projects such as this road.

    Households with no car (2011 census)

    Norwich 33%

    Great Yarmouth 28%

    King’s Lynn & West Norfolk 17%

    North Norfolk 17%

    Broadland 12%

    South Norfolk 12%

    (iii) Do you agree with the council’s suggestion that the road is essential for economic growth or do you feel that there are alternatives?

    No, we do not agree the road is essential for economic growth. There are greater priorities in the County that would bring sustainable growth such as in integrated and affordable public transport system to get people around the county not just for work and education but for leisure and social life. People will spend money in the local economy if they can access it easily and cheaply. It would also boost sustainable tourism. Our vision for ‘growth’ is based on the principles of the Green New Deal (eg, Pettifor’s Case for A Green New Deal – the Ecologist – Ann Pettifor) rather than the outdated vision of growth that we are being presented with. Norfolk is well placed to develop the renewable energy sector. We face a social care crisis and investment in the social care skills and workforce would pay dividends with the challenge of a rapidly aging population.

     

  • Stop the Wensum Link Group – 2023 Interview on the Norwich Western Link

    Stop the Wensum Link Group – 2023 Interview on the Norwich Western Link

    The interview with Stop the Wensum Link Group published on 1 January 2023.


    (i) The county council has modelled numerous routes for the Norwich Western Link (NWL). Do any of them have your support, or is there any new road development or improvement that you would support?

    We would support single-carriageway improvements to B1535 and its junctions with A1067 and A47, in conjunction with other non-new-road initiatives e.g public transport and restriction of traffic through villagesMost of such a road improvement was proposed and agreed amongst local villages in 2008, but a much lower-cost scheme was put in place instead. 

    (ii) The NWL has the support of numerous public bodies, including emergency services, the majority of councils and many business groups. Are they mistaken in that support?

    Unfortunately, they are.  

    We have never seen an analysis by any emergency service to show how many emergency journeys would be shortened by the building of the proposed road, and by how many minutes. We suspect the difference is negligible; after all, the blue light allows high speed on existing roads.  Ambulance response times currently are much more affected by the availability of vehicles than how fast a route is.

    Councils and business groups always see new roads as reducing travel times, making industry and commerce more efficient.  This is probably true to a certain extent, but its effect is exaggerated.  The Norwich Distributor Road, for instance, predicted commercial gain, but this has not yet been assessed; the ‘one year after’ report declined to do an analysis, and promised to do one after 5 years (2023). We need to see and evaluate that report before giving credence to the idea that an NWL would improve commerce. 

    Any improvement in commerce has to be weighed against the major harm such a road would do, and its escalating financial cost. 

    (iii) The Norwich Northern Distributor Road (or Broadland Northway) was finished in 2018 and nearly completed a circle around Norwich with the exception of the proposed NWL. Isn’t there an inevitable number of car journeys which would be more efficiently completed along one joined-up road rather than having to cut through villages? Do you feel that evidence has been produced by the council to quantify that number of journeys?   

    Certainly, many car journeys may be more efficiently completed on the proposed new road, depending on exactly is meant by ‘efficiently’.  Much better fuel and emissions efficiency would be achieved by encouraging travellers to use a good public transport system, instead of their cars. 

    Council predictions show much of the 15,000 journeys per day across the valley would transfer to the NWL. We believe this is hugely exaggerated, and that many journeys will still be pressed through villages and suburbs. Especially closer to Norwich where the time saving of driving out to the NWL will be negligible at best. Council traffic counts have shown how many vehicles travel through the villages, but not their origins and destinations. So NCC do not have full information to base their decision on. Such information could inform the creation of the most efficient bus routes. 

    (iv) The county council has said that there would be no public transport along the route of the road as there would be limited demand. Do you consider that this excludes those who can’t afford a car?

    Yes, clearly it does.  Those members of society are excluded now, as there is no public transport across the valley.  We cannot agree that there would be limited demand for good, well-planned  joined up, frequent and affordable public transport.  Figures show a minimum of 15,000 journeys each way (mostly cars) within the valley sector. A proportion of these could be shifted to public transport. But this needs to be a comprehensive system, not a couple of infrequent bus routes. This could be instated at low capital cost without building the proposed new road.

    (v) The county council claims that the majority of the public support the construction of the road. Is this a legacy of a failure of public transport policy in Norfolk over recent decades?

    That is certainly a major component.  Public transport throughout the country is poor, not only in Norfolk, despite government statements of the need for ‘modal shift’.  This has led the public to lose trust in public transport outside the very big cities.  Norfolk, in particular, has reneged on its promise to introduce ‘bus rapid transit’ services, which was an agreed action when the NDR was approved. Cost, reliability, frequency, speed, and lack of useful routes has meant that much of the public prefer to rely on their own transport, with resulting increasing congestion and harm to the environment.  The attitude of Norfolk CC has been that ‘this is a car county’. Many people do love their cars, but if public transport were good, more people would not need to meet the costs of running one. 

    (vi) The cost of the road is estimated to be over £250 million with the majority paid for by national Government (if agreement is reached), but much to be funded by Norfolk County Council (perhaps around £50 million). Would it better for the county to use that money to fund the public transport network? Do you have any view on how the money could be spent instead?

    Most certainly.  With regard to the NWL area, subsidised bus routes could be introduced from, say, Dereham to the Airport area, Aylsham to Wymondham, Fakenham through Hellesdon and Costessey to the Hospital; a consolidation of bus routes on the A47.  These are just a few examples.  Bus routes need to be informed by detailed origin and destination analysis, with continual review when in operation.  We have noted much support for the improvement of bus services when have raised this at events. It is worth bearing in mind that the result of the most recent general questionnaire on transport in Norfolk (before the NDR was built, in 2005) the MOST popular policy was ‘improve public transport’. Yet NCC then made building the NDR their top priority. 

    (vii) You have raised concerns about numerous aspects of the environmental damage, including removing ancient woodland, destroying the habitat of bats and impacting on the River Wensum. How much of this can the council mitigate if the road is constructed?

    Very little.  No mitigating measures can compensate for the loss of an ancient woodland, or an important hedge. They take centuries to develop, and the wildlife cannot wait for newly panted saplings to grow into old trees. Unfortunately, many councillors and others seem to think that all wildlife can learn to live anywhere, and will easily move and adapt to change, as do wood pigeons, blackbirds and rats. This is not the case. If we carry on disturbing their habitats, the more specialist animals will not survive, and we risk ending up with an environment with reduced variety.  

    No doubt care can be taken in construction of the viaduct to reduce possible contamination of the river (which is an SAC), but this depends on maintenance of filters.  With the death of so many trees on the NDR, NCC have shown themselves incapable of handling such necessary maintenance.  

    (viii) Would you consider this sort of project as being something that might have been acceptable twenty years ago, before there was more prominence placed on environmental issues?

    For those of us who care deeply about the protection of the natural world, its landscapes, and about the well-being of us all, whether living in town or country, these projects have never been acceptable.  The M25 was built around 40 years ago, with huge destruction and at huge cost, and now it is regularly congested and there are calls for its expansion.  Building large roads cures nothing long-term; we are a finite country (and planet), and we need to be enacting policies which let us live well without destroying our own habitat.

  • Martin Wilby – 2023 Interview on the Norwich Western Link

    Martin Wilby – 2023 Interview on the Norwich Western Link

    The interview with Martin Wilby published on 1 January 2023.


    ROUTE QUESTIONS

    (i) The county council undertook work on several routes early on during this process, coded Option A, Option B (East and West), Option C and Option D (East and East). The preferred route is Option C, but would it be too late in the process for the council to switch to, for example, Option A? Would it rather switch than lose the project entirely? Some campaigners have suggested that the improvement of existing roads would be possible, is that still an option?

    The proposed route for the Norwich Western Link was selected as the best overall solution for the road having considered a number of factors, such as transport benefits, environmental effects, value for money and impacts on local communities. 

    We wanted, and continue to want, to strike the right balance in providing infrastructure that provides great benefits to residents, businesses and visitors in Norfolk which effectively tackles the transport issues that exist to the west of Norwich but also limits impacts on the local area. 

    The process we need to follow for a major infrastructure project of this kind means there is still some way to go before we can be certain that the project will be delivered; reaching milestones such as receiving a funding commitment from central government and receiving planning approval will be crucial. We are focused on achieving these milestones and we have no plans to change the route. If that position were to change in the future, we would need to consider the reasons for that change in any decision-making on how to proceed.

    (ii) When the preparatory work was done by the council to choose a preferred route, there was preference given to Option C because of the limited presence of bats compared to other routes. It has transpired that there are bats on this route and amendments have been needed. Would this have impacted on the council’s decision earlier on if this information had been known? Is it normal for mistakes of this sort to be made on projects of this scale and funding?

    As referred to above, the proposed route for the Norwich Western Link was chosen based on a number of factors, which included information gathered about the presence of bats in the area to the west of Norwich. It is not therefore true to say that decision-making about the route selection was based, or would ever be based, on one element but rather by taking all the relevant elements into account.

    Before the decision on the preferred route was reached, a great deal of work had been carried out. Objectives for the project were established with input from local communities and a long list of options was developed. These were reduced to a shortlist of options based on how effective the options were at meeting the project objectives, and a public consultation on this shortlist was conducted as well as other assessment work including a range of surveys in the area. Bat surveys were among the surveys conducted before the preferred route was agreed.

    Surveys over a number of years had identified the presence of bats in the area to the west of Norwich, including around the proposed route for the Norwich Western Link, and mitigation measures including green bridges and planting were developed to take account of this. Our 2021 surveys identified a roost used by a maternity colony of barbastelle bats in an area of woodland close to part of the route. We therefore needed to develop our design to minimise our impact on these woodlands.

    It is entirely normal on an infrastructure project for further surveys to be carried out at the point at which a single, preferred route has been agreed and for the design of the route to be developed as further detail is known. And continuing to develop the design of the road and its associated measures in response to evidence until the planning application is submitted is a normal and expected part of the process. 

    (iii) The route has the support of most councils in the county, business groups and also the emergency services. Do you believe that some opponents of the new road have underestimated how much support the project has in many areas?

    There is strong support for the project, not least from those people who are living in communities to the west of Norwich which are badly affected by traffic congestion on unsuitable local roads and in residential areas. And with planned growth in and around Norwich, existing traffic congestion to the west of Norwich is expected to significantly worsen without the Norwich Western Link. I don’t know if anyone has underestimated the support that exists for the project, I can’t think of anything that would lead me to think that.

    ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS

    (iv) Assuming that the council’s preferred route receives approval and funding, is it confident that it has done all that it can to minimise the negative environmental impact? Are there things that the council would like to do, but can’t justify the cost of doing?

    Cost and value for money are of course important considerations across all aspects of this project, as they should be when national and local public investment is involved. But there are also other important considerations and these include our environmental responsibilities on a project like this.

    We’re continuing to take an evidence-based approach to the project and to receive expert advice and follow relevant guidance. If we receive planning approval this means we would have satisfied the planning authority and environmental statutory bodies that our proposals are acceptable to them, which is of course a crucial aim.


    TRANSPORTATION QUESTIONS

    (v) The council has suggested that the road has significant public support. Is this a failure of the wider public transportation policy over recent decades, both within and without the control of Norfolk County Council? Is a new road primarily necessary as there are poor public transportation options, particularly when crossing Norfolk rather than on arterial routes?

    There are a number of reasons why people might support the creation of the Norwich Western Link: businesses may welcome more efficient journeys for the transportation of goods, enabling them to increase productivity and profitability; local residents may be looking forward to quieter, safer local roads and better air quality close to their homes; and emergency services and the people who rely on them are likely to be relieved that many journeys to the west of Norwich will be shortened, including for ambulances to and from the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital.

    It’s also important to remember that public transport requires good infrastructure just like any other mode of travel. Bus operators need to be able to run quick, reliable services to attract and retain passengers and make routes commercially viable, and getting stuck in queuing and slow moving traffic significantly hinders this.

    We want to support people to shift their journeys from using a car to more sustainable forms of transport, such as walking, cycling and public transport where appropriate. This will generally be more achievable over relatively short distances and in and between larger centres of population, or where there is a concentration of public amenities or employment. 

    We have been investing in improvements to facilities for public transport users and walkers and cyclists for several years now, particularly in our towns and larger villages and in and around Norwich through our multi-million Transport for Norwich project (www.norfolk.gov.uk/tfn). We have, among other things, improved pedestrian and cycle access to railway stations in Norwich and Great Yarmouth, there have been upgrades to bus facilities in Norwich, Thetford, North Walsham and Cringleford, and we’ve created an off-road pedestrian and cycle path linking Norwich to the fast-growing populations in Hethersett and Wymondham, and extended our very popular Beryl bike/e-bike/e-scooter hire scheme from Norwich into those areas.

    So my view is that there isn’t a ‘one size fits all’ approach to transport and we need to continue to invest in a wide range of transport infrastructure in Norfolk to support all kinds of journeys.

    (vi) The council has suggested that it is unlikely that there will be public transport provided along the route of the road itself. Does this further exclude those who can’t afford cars, don’t want cars or are trying to avoid acquiring a car? Does more road building make it harder to ever increase public transport usage?

    As stated above, reducing congestion on the existing road network as well as creating a more resilient road network that is able to cope with planned growth will bring benefits to all road users, including bus companies and passengers. So making sure we have good infrastructure is important to everyone who travels in Norfolk.

    I would also add that the possibility of a new bus service being established to connect communities to the west of Norwich directly to employment hubs and services, such as the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital, once the Norwich Western Link is in place is being discussed with bus operators. By taking traffic off the existing road network, the Norwich Western Link would make such a service more viable. 

    We are also planning to support people to walk and cycle more by improving the Public Rights of Way network in the vicinity of the Norwich Western Link route as well as putting in measures to make walking and cycling more attractive across a wider area.

    (vii) Is the council comfortable with the level of money that has already gone into the project? What are the latest figures for the total cost of the project?

    The latest cost of the project is £251 million as set out in the July 2022 Cabinet report, of which we anticipate 85% would be funded by central government.

    Cost is of course an important factor when managing a project of this nature but so is value for money, and the Norwich Western Link is considered ‘high’ value for money according to Department for Transport criteria. Providing and improving infrastructure is an investment in the future of an area that will provide benefits for many years to come and enable it to grow successfully. So this is how I see the Norwich Western Link – an investment in Norfolk’s future.

    (viii) The council is relying on the support of national Government financing to fund the majority of the project. Is a problem the council faces that it is easier to get funding for road projects in Norfolk than perhaps subsidised bus routes or new light rail/rail routes?

    I wouldn’t say funding for road projects is easier but rather there are different processes, partners and mechanisms involved with the different types of projects and services you mention. 

    Infrastructure improvements to the council’s highway network – whether that’s projects aimed at supporting all road users or more specific interventions like creating bus lanes or cycle paths – are by and large funded by a one-off investment that we will deliver, and the infrastructure will then be added to the network for which we are responsible. Our £32 million Transforming Cities Fund project in Norwich is wholly funded by the Department for Transport and is currently delivering a range of improvements aimed at investing in clean and shared transport, creating a healthy environment, increasing social mobility and boosting productivity through enhanced access to employment and learning.

    Network Rail are responsible for the country’s rail network, so while we can make the case for investment, any new or improved rail infrastructure in Norfolk would generally be delivered and owned by them. That said, we are currently working to develop a proposal for a new rail station at Broadland Business Park to the east of Norwich, which would be on an existing rail line adjacent to the business park.

    Subsidised bus routes are a recurring rather than a one-off cost to a council, so this is funded by revenue rather than capital spending. We do subsidise some bus services in Norfolk and we’ve recently secured £50 million of funding – £31 million of capital funding and £19 million of revenue funding – from the Department for Transport for our Bus Service Improvement Plan, which will deliver measures to support and expand bus services across the county over the next three years.

    QUESTIONS ABOUT POLITICS AND BEING A COUNCILLOR

    (i) Projects such as road building are controversial because of the balance of ensuring the local economy thrives whilst limiting the damage to the environment. As a councillor and portfolio holder, have you found the debate on the road’s construction generally positive and engaged? Or can being a councillor sometimes feel a little thankless?

    The vast majority of the people I encounter in my role as a county councillor and cabinet member are very polite, friendly and respectful and I get a lot of satisfaction from holding a position which gives me the opportunity to help Norfolk and its residents. People will always have different views about how this should be achieved and of course it isn’t possible to please everyone, but I’ll just keep trying to do the best job I can.

    (ii) Would you like councils to have more power and influence over public transport to help deliver an integrated transport policy?

    The county council certainly supports the principle of devolving powers to local government so that local decision makers have more control over how money is spent in their area, as the recent County Deal announcement has demonstrated. I think we at the county council, the Department for Transport, public transport companies and other partners are all committed to making sure we have good public transport services that are viable options for many journeys people want and need to make.

    (iii) Is standing for election in local politics something that you would recommend those interested in the environment to get involved with?

    I think the most important quality in any elected representative is the desire to represent a community and an aptitude for public service. For me, it’s less about what I’m interested in and more about what the people I’m representing want and need. That’s obviously not always easy and, as I said above, it’s impossible to please everyone when people have different and sometimes competing priorities, and – being realistic – there’s a finite amount of time and money. But I’ll keep trying my best and that’s all I can do.

  • Andrew Smith – 2002 Speech to the Institute of Actuaries Seminar

    Andrew Smith – 2002 Speech to the Institute of Actuaries Seminar

    The speech made by Andrew Smith, the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, on 6 February 2002.

    Introduction

    I am very pleased to be here today.

    2. Thanks very much to the Institute of Actuaries and the Institution of Civil Engineers for organising this conference.

    3. Now is the time for reform in our public services.    Reform means new relationships: new relationships within government between the policy makers and the frontline professionals who deliver our services; new relationships between the public and the private sector. But we are determined to match that reform with increased investment.

    4. So it is crucial to the success of our programme that the public and the private sector – the leaders in the boardroom, the finance directors, and their counterparts in government can come together, share expertise, and agree on the way forwards.

    Investment

    5. When this Government came to power, the public services were run down.  Confidence in the public services had been eroded by years of under investment.  Confidence within the public services had been eroded too by years of some bad faith and some bad practice.

    a. Public sector net investment had fallen from a high of 5% of GDP in 1963-64 to a low of 0.5% in 1997-98.
    b. It fell by an average of almost 16% each year during the last Parliament of the previous administration.

    6. Under investment is irresponsible – storing up problems for future generations.  When we came into office we faced around a £7bn backlog of repairs in schools, £19bn in social housing, £3.5bn in the NHS.  Schools, houses, hospitals, the infrastructure of our country – eroded by neglect.

    7. We are committed to reversing the legacy of under-investment in our public services.  The 2000 Spending Review set out ambitious plans.

    8. We set ourselves the target of more than doubling public sector net investment between 2000/01 and 2003/04.  The latest figures show that we are on course to meet that target – Public Sector Net Investment was £6.3bn in 2000/01 and is forecast to reach £18.6bn by 2003/4.

    9. This means that with this Government, between 2000/1 and 2003/4, public sector net investment will rise by an average of 40% each year in real terms.

    10. This is investment in our priority areas as a government and as a nation.  Investment in our homes, hospitals, schools, and transport system.

    11. The damage done to our capital infrastructure from years of neglect cannot I think be underestimated.  Reversing it will take time – but we are already starting to see results.

    a. 68 major hospital development projects worth over £7.3 billion given go ahead since May 1997 in England alone.
    b. £31billion allocated to local authorities to eliminate the backlog in local road maintenance.
    c. By March 2002, 17,000 schools will have received funding for repairs.

    12. We are determined to sustain these levels of investment in our national infrastructure.  It is investment that is affordable: after all we base our plans on the most cautious of assumptions.  Of course in the current economic climate there will be tough choices to be made – competing priorities, but the focus will continue in this year’s Spending Review.

    Reform

    13. This investment must be matched by reform in the way in which public services are delivered.  The Prime Minister has set out four principles of public service reform:

    a. High national standards and full accountability;
    b. Devolution to the local level – encouraging diversity and creativity;
    c. Flexibility at the front line to support modern public services – intervention in inverse proportion to success, freedom for the nurses, doctors, teachers and managers who have proved they can deliver;
    d. The promotion of greater choice and alternative providers – a new focus on the citizen as customer.

    14. I want to focus for a moment on the last of these – the consumer of public services.

    15. Customers and clients have higher expectations of public services than they used to – and rightly expect improvement in the outcomes that really matter to them.  We are determined to deliver these improvements and we have put in place a strategy to do it – to bridge the gap between expectation and reality:

    a. We have set out challenging PSA targets – yoking investment to reform by holding departments accountable for the delivery of improvements – indeed the first ever attempt by a British government to set out clear targets against which they would be judged. The National Audit Office has commented that “The Introduction of Public Service Agreement targets, and in particular the move to outcome-focused targets, is an ambitious programme of change which puts the United Kingdom among the leaders in performance management practice.”
    b. We have established the Office of Public Services Reform – reporting directly to the Prime Minister – to strengthen the capacity and to improve the performance of our public services.
    c. The Office of Government Commerce is spreading best practice around government and helping to ensure value for money on the tax payers investment, its no exaggeration to say the work of OGC is revolutionising government procurement in this country;
    d. I launched the Gateway review process – a technique for delivering procurement projects based on proven private sector practices, designed to ensure value for money improvements in major Government projects. So far 104 projects – or £18bn of Government investment – have benefited from the Gateway process.
    e. We established Partnerships UK in June 2000 to build on the work of the Treasury Taskforce in helping the public sector to deliver modern, high quality, public services.  Their focus is on helping us to deliver Public Private Partnerships that are developed quickly and efficiently; built on strong, stable relations with the private sector; with savings in development costs on both sides.

    16. Working together, we can reform the relationship between the government, the public sector staff, and the private sector institutions that will deliver the reforms we all want to see.

    Partnership

    17. The role of the private sector – organisations represented here today – in this agenda has excited greatest interest.  There have been suggestions that private sector money raised through Public Private Partnerships will be used to replace public sector investment.

    18. Let me make one thing clear.  Money raised from the private sector through arrangements like PPP is not used as a replacement for public sector investment.  In fact private sector investment will amount to less than 13% of total investment in our public services this year.

    19. The key thing is this 13% represents an additional £4bn investment in our public services – it is a valuable addition, not a replacement.  To regard extra money flowing into our programme of public sector investment and reform as somehow a bad thing would, to my mind, be perverse.

    20. Investment is important but, on its own, it is not enough.  Public Private Partnership is and always has been about more than funding – it is about developing new ways of working and improving the efficiency of public services for the user.  Additional investment from the private sector – in some cases from your organisations – will bring with it the expertise, ingenuity and rigour of private sector practices.

    21. So we need PPPs to help us manage increased investment efficiently, and to make the money we invest go further. We need PPPs to create the incentives to innovate, to manage risks effectively, and to deliver projects on time and on budget.  You only have to look at the Jubilee line extension – almost two years late and £1.4 billion over budget – to realise that the public sector can’t always do this on its own.

    22. That is why we need to harness the efficiency and management skills of the private sector.  We have got big plans for our schools, our hospitals and our transport infrastructure.  To realize our ambitions we need turn the powerful discipline of the markets to the service of the public good.  We need private sector management and employees to challenge inefficiency, and to develop imaginative approaches to delivering public services and managing state-owned assets.

    23. Now businesses of course need to generate a return – they are forced to innovate and look for ways to enhance the service offered to customers.  By forging partnerships between the private sector and the state, at all levels, we can turn this innovation towards the improvement of our public services.

    24. There are some who claim that private sector involvement is somehow at the expense of front line staff and service delivery.  This is simply not the case – when you look at public staffing levels they have risen by 140,000 between 1997 and 2000 – more people in jobs not less, with plans to employ even more doctors, nurses and teachers.  In fact private sector profits flow from an ability to innovate, consider the whole life costs of projects, and to manage risk effectively.  It is where the private sector are better at managing risk that we can redistribute the risks associated with delivering large and complex procurement projects.

    25. Where the average over-spend on London underground schemes was 22% the taxpayer had to carry that extra burden.  Where schools and hospitals were completed over time and over budget it was the citizen who suffered and the taxpayer who picked up the bill.  But where the private sector has capital at stake there is the incentive to deliver on time and to budget, and if they fail, they must meet the costs.  Transferring risks to the private sector frees the taxpayer from unnecessary burden, creates the incentive for the Private sector to deliver, and when they do, benefits the citizen and the service user. To give a few examples:

    a. Carlisle hospital opening several months early; Dartford and Gravesham ready in 44 months – well ahead of what the public sector could have achieved alone;
    b. Over 160 Local Authority projects approved since 1997 – 40 fully operational delivering important services to local people; and
    c. The Barnhill Community high school opening a year after the contract was signed, providing state of the art facilities to educate 1450 pupils.  Ian Marshall – the Headmaster – said the partnership of the private sector allowed the Local Education Authority ?to think about being ambitious, to think about a learning environment that is second to none?.

    26. So PPPs are a means by which the Government is seeking to bring together the best of both sectors – aiming to deliver a higher quality of public service than is possible through the public sector alone.  Aiming to deliver public services that are indeed second to none.

    27. So this is the key. We are boosting the quantity of public sector investment – not, as our predecessors have done, substituting private investment for public responsibility, but using the private sector to boost the quality of that investment too.

    Conclusion

    28. Expectations of the public sector have been raised.  It is the service ethic in the best of organisations – private and public sector – that has raised them.  We have to go beyond offering a basic standard and deliver public services around the needs of consumers and clients.  To do so we have to increase investment, of course.  But alongside investment must come reform:

    a. Reform within the public sector – driven by the Office of Public Sector Reform, the PSA targets, and the framework of national standards with the power to deliver devolved opportunities to motivated frontline professionals;
    b. Reform of relationships with the private sector – OGC and PUK building capacity within government to act as an effective partner, private sector efficiency driving improvement and innovation in a flexible, customer orientated public sector.

    29. For investment in the public sector, public service reform, and Public Private Partnerships this is really just the beginning.  In the spirit of co-operation that exists between government, hard working staff in our hospitals, schools, and local authorities, and the innovators in the private sector, there is the chance to build a truly world class public sector.  Our shared vision must be of the highest quality public services, focused on the needs of customers, and providing for the taxpayer a decent return on their social investment; delivered by efficient public and private sectors, working together through a common commitment to the idea of public service.  Working together – I know this is a vision we can achieve.

    30. Thank you.