UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Helen Liddell – 1997 Speech to the Association of Friendly Societies

    Helen Liddell – 1997 Speech to the Association of Friendly Societies

    The speech made by Helen Liddell, the then Economic Secretary to the Treasury, at the Association of Friendly Societies’ conference held in Leicester on 25 September 1997.

    It really is a genuine pleasure to be here today. Any politician given an invitation to a conference of Friendly Societies will seize it gratefully. Indeed, to refuse it would be unthinkable. Ours is a profession whose invitations are sometimes issued in the same spirit of tolerance as the manager of Glasgow Rangers might expect if asked to speak to the supporters of Glasgow Celtic. Or vice versa.

    But I have a particular personal reason for wanting to come here today – and not one, I suspect, shared by every Minister of the previous Government. Two of my grandparents were collectors for friendly societies. The community in which I grew up was typically working class, the kind of community where friendly societies always provided stability and security. Financial stability for many people not regarded as sound and profitable prospects for more commercial organisation; and financial security for the pre-NHS medical bills because we knew the “shilling a week” man always came good.

    Every Scottish politician is expected, at one time or another, to speak at a Burns’ Night Supper and we become experts at quoting him. Burns had the immeasurable advantage of saying something about almost every subject under the sun, including, though he little suspected it at the time, your conference today:

    “When first the human race began, “The social, friendly, honest man, “Whate’er he be, Tis he fulfils great Nature’s plan, And none but he.”

    Social, Friendly. Honest. That was the motivation of friendly societies. They were trusted by communities who needed to trust someone, someone to turn to when times were bad.

    Your societies were built on the principles of self-help and mutual support. I believe that many of the changes of recent times will work to your advantage. The Government elected on May 1 is a Government committed to community and equality, a Government which recognises what friendly societies have known since their creation – that encouraging thrift and providing protection and savings for those on modest incomes is not just good neighbourliness but sound economics.

    Alistair Darling told you at last year’s conference, almost a year ago to the day, that the promotion of the savings culture would be an important part of our economic strategy. Our manifesto was our prospectus. It recognised that the benefits of savings and planning for the future – having something behind you for when the bad times come – should be available to all.

    The Government is grateful for the help and advice which members of your Association are already giving to the Department of Social Security’s work on Welfare Reform. At the Treasury, I have already met representatives of the Association. I’ve learned from them. I look forward to many more meetings in the future.

    One of the things we’re looking at is the Individual Savings Accounts which will embody our shared belief that it isn’t only the well-off who are entitled to share the fruits of prudence. Indeed, prudence matters most to those whose incomes are the least.

    These Individual Savings Accounts are intended to encourage long-term savings, especially among those on low incomes, and to further the principles of existing savings schemes such as TESSAs and PEPs.

    Ours is a Government where Scots, to say the least, are prominent, including the Chancellor, Gordon Brown. The Rainy Day is something with which, literally and metaphorically, we grew up. Putting something aside for it in the metaphorical sense is in our bones, part of our nature.

    I know you are anxious to ensure that the spirit of mutual self-help which your individual societies represent can be made better use of and extended through the activities and functions which they are already authorised to carry out. We look forward to hearing what you may propose and to working with you to make those services, savings or insurances, even better to give comfort and confidence to those who want to provide for their future.

    These are not empty words; they are also a well-meant and well deserved compliment to your Association. That so much has been achieved in only two years demonstrates the value of a unified movement which acts as a focal point and clearing house for discussion and analysis of future developments and can act as a direct route to Government.

    I can assure you, with absolute confidence, that as the Government redraws the structure of Financial Services regulations in this country, your Association will have a key role in ensuring that the new structure will take into account the distinct needs of your unique contribution to the industry.

    Let me tell you, briefly, what our intentions are and how you can play your part.

    The 1980s saw a huge change in the nature of financial services, a change that outstripped the legislation. Financial products became increasingly sophisticated and complicated; the boundary lines between different kinds of financial institutions became blurred; the Financial Services Act, with its emphasis on self-regulation became out-dated and unable to meet the needs of the customers.

    There were great scandals, too, not least the huge scandal of the mis-selling of personal pensions and we have by no means heard the last of that. I promise you.

    Those scandals were the inspiration for the Chancellor’s statement on May 20 – less than three weeks after labour became the Government – that the entire regulatory structure would be reformed.

    There will be only one financial regulator, which will give the retail customer one point of contact; within the new structure, there will be varying levels of sophistication so that the man and woman in the street can have complete confidence that their best interests are being cared for. At the other end of the spectrum, the wholesales end of the business will have the freedom to be creative while the regulator keeps track of the risks sometimes associated with complex financial products being traded.

    Financial services are big business in Britain. To be world leaders, we must have a regulatory system which is also a world leader, one which will give our financial services industry a true, competitive advantage. Above all, the public must be certain that financial regulation is in the best possible hands.

    Work on the necessary legislation has already begun. In July, Sir Andrew Large produced a Report for the Chancellor which charts a way forward to integrate the existing self- regulatory organisations and the other financial services regulators into an enhanced Securities and Investment Board (NewRO) which will become operational within two years or shortly afterwards. New Millennium, new regulator, to coin a phrase.

    The Friendly Societies will fall within the ambit of the new regulator. It is important to you. Let me take a minute or two to explain why.

    The chaos of the 1980s taught us that we need a consistent and coherent approach to the regulation and supervision of financial institutions which give advice or services to the public. It would be illogical to have Friendly Societies outside NewRO. More than that, excluding them would have sent the wrong signal about the value we place upon the societies’ work. In effect, exclusion would have downgraded the work you do and the service you provide.

    What’s more, the benefits from bringing different regulators together, so that they can share best practice and learn from each other’s experience and expertise, are clear, apart from the financial and operational economies of scale which NewRO will create. If we are to breed public confidence in the new system, we need to demonstrate efficiency, and efficiency includes keeping a firm grasp upon cost. Placing friendly societies’ regulation at the heart of the financial services regulator will help us – Government and members here today – to create the kind of financial climate that will allow the members of your Association to prosper and grow. That’s where you come in. We need advice and guidance from you in creating this super-regulator and tailoring it to the needs of your societies and your members – and we want it now.

    We will publish the Bill for consultation next summer. It will be long and complex. It will bring together and rationalise regulatory structures at present and set out in five major statutes and hundreds of pages of ancillary legislation and regulations. It is a mammoth task. I ask you now to work towards our publication timetable so that you can seize the opportunity to influence these fundamental changes.

    The Prime Minister has made clear his ambition for a more modern Britain. A modern Britain is not compatible with closed, exclusive Government. We want those with knowledge and experience to help us in creating a framework for the future. The chance and the challenge I offer to you today is for you to help us create a financial services industry for the next century. One which we can together build on the crucial role friendly societies will have in providing a unique service to their members.

    There’s a lot to be done in which we need your help. Individual savings accounts. Work on Welfare Reform. The reform of financial regulation. I know that you, in turn, are anxious that we should take into account the need to make the industrial assurance business more efficient. The present legislation is out of date, framed in the 1920s and the late 1940s – if I may say so, before I was born. That increased efficiency must be balanced by consumer protection for policyholders. Officials in my department are currently working with the Friendly Societies Commission and the Association of British Insurers to find a solution which meets these twin – and inseparable – requirements.

    I think the future is exciting. There is the opportunity for fresh thoughts, new initiatives and modernised practices. But the principles on which they are to be based are already with us. They are timeless : mutual respect and assistance, the values of community. They are as valid today as they were when friendly societies were first created.

    Your contribution over the past two hundred years has too often been unsung and unrecognised, except by those like me and my family who have been past beneficiaries.

    You should raise the national profile of your work. Let a wider public know what you do. Friendly Societies are important institutions, with much to be proud of. They have a special role in our community. Of course, they are also big business. You collected 790 million Pounds in 1995, and your members benefitted from payments of 770 million Pounds. That is a great achievement. On that basis, you are well able to play your part by giving consumers an alternative to your more commercial competitors.

    As I said earlier, there’s a lot to be done. Today, I am offering you the prospect of working with a Government which shares your aims and principles. You are serious people and so are we. You now have a once in a lifetime opportunity to help meet the challenges of the 21st century. I’m sure you will respond in the spirit of your traditions and make your future even more valuable than your past.

  • Gordon Brown – 1997 Statement in the House of Commons on EMU (Economic and Monetary Union)

    Gordon Brown – 1997 Statement in the House of Commons on EMU (Economic and Monetary Union)

    The statement made by Gordon Brown, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the House of Commons on 27 October 1997.

    With permission, Madam Speaker, I want to make a statement on Economic and Monetary Union.

    Since the end of the Second World War Britain has faced no question more important and more contentious than that of our relationship with Europe.

    Divisions within governments of both parties, and hence indecision, have made British policy towards Europe, over many years, inconsistent and unclear.

    The economic consequences of these weaknesses have been a loss of international initiative and influence, recurrent instability and continuing questioning of our long-term economic direction.

    To break with this legacy, and to establish clear national purpose, which has eluded us for decades, economic leadership is essential, and Britain must now make the difficult decisions on Europe, however hard.

    The decision on a single currency is probably the most important this country is likely to face in our generation. Yet until now, there has been no detailed examination by government of the practical economic issues of EMU. There has been no proper preparation for a decision, because no previous Government could agree on whether they supported it in principle, nor whether there was an overriding constitutional objection on grounds of sovereignty or not; nor whether, even if a single currency worked and worked well, the Government would wish to be part of it. Forms of words like ‘keeping the option open’ – while no preparations were ever made to render the option practicable – have similarly served as a pretext for postponing the hard choices

    Now is the time to make these hard choices and set a long-term direction for our economic future in Europe.

    So I will deal, in turn, with the question of principle, the constitutional implications of EMU, and the economic tests that have to be met. In each area, I will set down the Government’s policy.

    When we came into Government I asked the Treasury to carry out an assessment of the economic tests that have to be met. Accompanying my statement is this comprehensive and detailed Treasury assessment which I am publishing today, copies of which are available in the Vote Office.

    ISSUES OF PRINCIPLE

    I start with the question of principle. The potential benefits for Britain of a successful single currency are obvious: in terms of trade, transparency of costs and currency stability. Of course, I stress it must be soundly based. It must succeed. But if it works economically, it is, in our view, worth doing.

    So in principle, a successful single currency within a single European market would be of benefit to Europe and to Britain.

    Secondly, it must be clearly recognised that to share a common monetary policy with other states does represent a major pooling of economic sovereignty.

    There are those who argue that this should be a constitutional bar to British participation in a single currency, regardless of the economic benefits it could bring to the people of this country.

    In other words, they would rule out a single currency in principle, even if it were in the best economic interests of the country.

    That is an understandable objection and one argued from principle. But in our view it is wrong. If a single currency would be good for British jobs, business and future prosperity, it is right, in principle, to join.

    The constitutional issue is a factor in the decision, but it is not an over-riding one. Rather it signifies that in order for monetary union to be right for Britain the economic benefit should be clear and unambiguous.

    So I conclude on this question of principle: if, in the end, a single currency is successful, and the economic case is clear and unambiguous, then the Government believes Britain should be part of it.

    There is a third issue of principle – the consent of the British people. Because of the magnitude of the decision, we believe – again, as a matter of principle – that whenever the decision to enter is taken by government, it should be put to a referendum of the British people. So whenever this issue arises, under this Government there will be a referendum. Government, Parliament and the people must all agree.

    So we conclude that the determining factor as to whether Britain joins a single currency is the national economic interest and whether the economic case for doing so is clear and unambiguous.

    THE FIVE ECONOMIC TESTS

    I now turn to the Treasury’s detailed assessment of the five economic tests that define whether a clear and unambiguous case can be made.

    These are:

    Whether there can be sustainable convergence between Britain and the economies of a single currency.

    Whether there is sufficient flexibility to cope with economic change.

    The effect on investment.

    The impact on our financial services industry.

    Whether it is good for employment.

    I. Economic Cycles

    Of these, the first and most critical is convergence: can we be confident that the UK business cycle has converged with that of other European countries so that the British economy can have stability and prosperity with a common European monetary policy? That convergence must be capable of being sustained and likely to be sustained – in other words, we must demonstrate a settled period of convergence.

    Currently Britain’s business cycle is out of line with our European partners. Interest rates here are 7 per cent. This is the level the Bank of England has set in order to achieve our inflation target. But in Germany and France interest rates are close to 3 per cent. Across the continent, because business cycles are more coincident, short-term interest rates have been converging for some time.

    This divergence of economic cycles is, in part, a reflection of historic structural differences between the UK and other European economies, in particular the pattern of our trade and North Sea oil. These differences are becoming less distinct as trade with the rest of Europe grows and the single market deepens.

    But divergence is also a legacy of Britain’s past susceptibility to boom and bust: the damaging boom of the late 1980s and the severe recession of the early 1990s.

    Since coming into office, the Government has introduced long-term measures to ensure that we are capable of maintaining stability by giving operational responsibility for interest rates to the Bank of England and by implementing our deficit reduction plan for public borrowing.

    We will need a period of stability with continuing toughness on inflation and public borrowing. The Treasury’s assessment is that, at present, the UK’s economic cycle is not convergent with our European partners and that this divergence could continue for some time. To demonstrate sustainable convergence will take a period of years.

    II. Flexibility

    To be successful in a monetary union, countries will need even more flexibility to adjust to change and to unexpected economic events once the ability of countries to vary their interest rates and exchange rates has gone and the Euro and a single European interest rate are in place. Flexibility may be particularly important for the UK if there is any risk that our business cycle has not fully converged with those of the other EMU members.

    The Treasury assessment of the second test is that, in Britain, persistent long-term unemployment and lack of skills – and in some areas lack of competition – point to the need for more flexibility to adapt to change and to meet the new challenges of adjustment. The Government has begun to implement a programme for investing in education and training, helping people from welfare into work and improving the workings of our markets.

    Of course, other European countries need to tackle unemployment and inflexibility to make sure Europe as a whole is able to withstand any shocks that arise. The government will continue to argue that employability, flexibility and stronger competition policies must be a top priority so that monetary union can be successful.

    III. Investment

    The third test is investment: whether joining EMU would create better conditions for businesses to make long-term decisions to invest in Britain. The Treasury assessment is that, above all, business needs long-term economic stability and a well-functioning European single market. It concludes that membership of a successful single currency would help us create the conditions for higher and more productive investment in Britain.

    But the worst case for investment would be for Britain to enter EMU without proper preparations and without sufficient convergence and with all the uncertainty that would entail.

    IV. Financial services

    The fourth test asks what impact membership of the single currency would have on our financial services industry. EMU will affect that industry more profoundly and more immediately than any other sectors of the economy.

    The Treasury’s assessment is that we can now be confident that the industry has the potential to thrive whether the UK is in or out of EMU, so long as it is properly prepared. But the benefits of new opportunities from a single currency could, however, be easier to tap from within the Euro zone. This could help the City of London strengthen its position as the leading financial centre in Europe.

    V. Employment

    For millions of people, the most practical question is whether membership of a successful single currency would be good for prosperity and jobs. The Treasury assessment is that our employment-creating measures, and welfare state reform, must accompany any move to a single currency. Ultimately, we conclude that whether a single currency is good for jobs in practice comes back to sustainable convergence. A successful single currency would provide far greater trade and business in the Europe.

    The Treasury assessment is that in vital areas the economy is not yet ready for entry and that much remains to be done. The previous policy of keeping options open, without actively making preparations, has left parts of the economy un-prepared.

    Our overall assessment is that Britain needs both a period for preparation and a settled period of sustainable convergence. Both require stability.

    THE GOVERNMENT’S CONCLUSIONS ON EMU

    Applying these five economic tests leads the Government to the following clear conclusions.

    British membership of a single currency in 1999 could not meet the tests and therefore is not in the country’s economic interests. There is no proper convergence between the British and the other European economies now. To try to join now would be to accept a monetary policy which would suit other European economies but not our own. We will therefore be notifying our European partners, in accordance with the Maastricht Treaty, that we will not seek membership of the single currency on 1 January 1999.

    The issue then arises as to the period after 1st January 1999. We could simply leave the options open, as before, but with no clear direction either way for the rest of the Parliament. That would be politically easy but wrong.

    There would be instability, perpetual speculation about “in or out”, “sooner or later”, which would cause difficulties in the financial markets and for business and industry.

    It would make it harder to prepare for the possibility of a single currency because every step in preparation, every time the issue was discussed, would feed fresh bouts of speculation.

    It must be in the country’s interest to have a stable framework within which to plan.

    And we are fortified in this because on the economic tests we have set out, the practical difficulties of joining a single currency in this Parliament all point to the same conclusion.

    There is no need, legally, formally or politically, to renounce our option to join for the period between 1st January 1999 and the end of the Parliament, nor would it be sensible to do so. There is no requirement under the Treaty for this. What is more, no government can ever predict every set of economic circumstances that might arise.

    What we can and should do is to state a clear view about the practicability of joining monetary union during this period. Applying our economic tests, two things are clear. There is no realistic prospect of our having demonstrated, before the end of this parliament, that we have achieved convergence which is sustainable and settled rather than transitory. And Government has only just begun to put in place the necessary preparations which would allow us to do so. Other countries have for some years been making detailed preparations for a single currency. For all the reasons given, we have not.

    Therefore, barring some fundamental and unforeseen change in economic circumstances, making a decision, during this Parliament, to join is not realistic. It is also therefore sensible for business and the country to plan on the basis that, in this Parliament, we do not propose to enter a single currency.

    There are those who urge us to seek consent, in principle, in a referendum now or soon, but with a view to entering sometime later. Any serious gap between the referendum and the actual entry date would undermine the conclusions of the referendum.

    Because the essential decision is economic, it can be taken only at a time when government and then the people can judge that sustainable convergence has been established.

    So in our view the interval between the decision to join and our joining must not be unduly protracted.

    PREPARATIONS

    I have said that if a single currency works and is successful Britain should join it. We should therefore begin now to prepare ourselves so that, should we meet the economic tests, we can make a decision to join a successful single currency early in the next Parliament. At present, with no preparation, it is not a practical option. We must put ourselves in the position for Britain to exercise genuine choice.

    The questions of preparation are immense – practical questions for business, as well as for government. Euro notes and coins will, for example, be circulating across Europe from January 1st 2002. Some companies, like Marks and Spencer, have already decided to prepare to accept Euros in Britain. Others, will want advice on what is best for them.

    Because both the Government and business must prepare intensively during the next years, we will:

    commence work on the detailed transition arrangements for the possible introduction of the Euro in Britain, including the introduction of notes and coins, should we wish to enter;

    step-up the work on what business should do now to prepare for the introduction of the Euro in 1999, whether we are in or out; work with business on what government must do to prepare for EMU, should we decide to join it in the next parliament.

    To help with essential preparations, I have invited the Governor of the Bank of England and Sir Colin Marshall, the President of the CBI, to join me and the President of the Board of Trade in leading a standing committee on Preparations for EMU. I am pleased to say that they have agreed. I am also inviting the President of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce to join us. I can also announce that, from January a series of regional and sectoral conferences on preparations for monetary union will be held.

    Also, the Prime Minister has today decided to extend Lord Simon’s Treasury responsibilities to include European Business Preparations in the government, covering the long-term planning of the new standing committee.

    In addition to these practical preparations, there are reforms we can take which are both right in themselves, in the national economic interest, and which will help us to meet the five economic tests.

    We will promote greater flexibility in the UK economy and in Europe through our “Getting Europe to Work” initiative;

    We will be introducing new competition legislation, which draws on the best of European and wider international policy and practice as well as continuing to negotiate to secure the best interests of our financial sector and for the opening up the single market in financial services.

    We will set as one of the key objectives of our EU Presidency completion of the European single market.

    In my Mansion House speech I said that if we succeed in strengthening the ability of the British economy to sustain growth with low inflation, and if international conditions permit, I would hope to lower the inflation target. So we will monitor our inflation target and do so in the light of the European Central Bank;

    And we will ensure that our fiscal rules, and our deficit reduction plan, continue to be consistent with the terms of the stability pact, thus underlining our commitment to avoid an excessive deficit under Article 104c of the Treaty, and supporting greater coordination in ECOFIN;

    In Britain’s interests, we need to keep inflation low and public borrowing firmly under control.

    The single currency will affect Britain, in or out of it. It is in the British national interest for it to work. Vital decisions will be made during our EU Presidency in the first half of next year. We will use our position constructively and supportively and we will play a full part in ensuring its launch is successful – something that is in Britain’s interests as well as Europe’s.

    CONCLUSIONS

    To sum up:

    we believe that, in principle, British membership of a successful single currency would be beneficial to Britain and to Europe; the key factor is whether the economic benefits of joining for business and industry are clear and unambiguous. If they are, there is no constitutional bar to British membership of EMU;

    applying the economic tests, it is not in this country’s interest to join in the first wave of EMU starting on Ist January 1999 and, barring some fundamental and unforeseen change in economic circumstances, making a decision, this parliament, to join is not realistic;

    but in order to give ourselves a genuine choice in the future, it is essential that the Government and business prepare intensively during this Parliament, so that Britain will be in a position to join a single currency, should we wish to, early in the next Parliament.

    On Europe, Madam Speaker, the time of indecision is over. The period for practical preparation has begun. Today we begin to build a new consensus – modern and outward looking – for a country that throughout its history has looked outward to the world.

    We are the first British government to declare for the principle of monetary union. The first to state that there is no over-riding constitutional bar to membership. The first to make clear and unambiguous economic benefit to the country the decisive test. And the first to offer its strong and constructive support to our European partners to create more employment and more prosperity.

    The policy I have outlined will bring stability to business, direction to our economy, and long term purpose to our country. It is the right policy for Britain in Europe. More important it is the right policy for the future of Britain and I commend it to the House.

  • Gordon Brown – 1997 Speech at the Launch of the Stock Exchange Electronic Order Book

    Gordon Brown – 1997 Speech at the Launch of the Stock Exchange Electronic Order Book

    The speech made by Gordon Brown, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on 20 October 1997.

    Today’s launch is the most significant development that London markets have experienced since “Big Bang” 11 years ago.

    “Big Bang” brought electronic share price information which enabled telephones and computers to replace face-to-face trading. Today’s event is a further step, perhaps an even more significant step – a fully-automated way of trading shares, first for FTSE 100 companies, but destined to expand.

    It demonstrates the Stock Exchange’s commitment to the continuing technological evolution that is essential to maintaining London’s position as one of the world’s top three equity markets.

    Staying ahead in today’s financial markets means constantly harnessing and adapting the power of rapidly advancing technology.

    And today’s launch of the Stock Exchange’s electronic order book is about applying new technology.

    But it is about something much more than that – it is about City firms and institutions working together to remain competitive and to help ensure that the UK economy remains competitive.

    The City and the UK financial services industry require three other crucial ingredients:

    first, a skilled workforce at the forefront of technical know how, but also retaining the expertise amassed over many generations and for which this country has become renowned – in trading, investment management, banking, corporate finance, the law, and accountancy;

    second, a robust transparent and accountable framework of regulation that recognises the global reach of the modern financial services industry;

    third, a stable macro economic backdrop against which the UK financial services industry can plan and compete.

    Every measure we have set in place since May is designed to enhance the long term stability of the British economy so we can have sustainable levels of growth.

    First, our monetary framework which includes independent interest rate decision-making powers for the Bank of England.

    Second, our new fiscal framework at the centre of which is a five year deficit reduction plan which allows us to meet the golden rule in public finances.

    Third, our plan to modernise the welfare state to create flexible labour markets matched by investment in education and employment opportunity.

    Fourth, our European policy with our commitment to apply to Monetary Union the five British tests – the impact on jobs, investment and the City, ensuring flexibility and the convergence of the business cycles – to ensure the long term interests of Britain.

    The Review I set up into Monetary Union will report conclusively to Parliament on the five British economic tests and the following issues:

    the formal communication to our European partners, under the Treaty, about 1999;
    the Government’s approach to the working of the stability pact and the convergence criteria;
    the Government’s position on the future of ECOFIN and economic co-ordination in Europe;
    any action that the Government proposes on economic convergence;
    the action the Government proposes on ensuring greater flexibility in Europe to avoid any risks of potential shocks if there is a Monetary Union and progress it proposes to make the European economy more flexible and employment-friendly;
    the Government’s determination not only to have a successful Presidency and proper and orderly decisions about EMU under the Treaty – the way in which the Government’s business advisory task force will help business and the City to prepare in or out;
    the need for a period of stability.

    The Government is determined not to fall into the old trap of saying that we will join “When the time is right” and implying, in so doing, we could join the next day or the next month, allowing that possibility to dominate every waking hour and week of the Government and then eventually being forced to make the decision for short-term reasons – not, as it should be and should always be, the long-term national economic interest.

    I have said consistently that it is unlikely we will join the first wave – we have to ask questions about our levels of preparation, our flexibility and the economic cycle which has been out of line with our European partners – and that there are formidable obstacles throughout.

    If we do not join in 1999, then Britain will need a period of stability without continuing speculation while Britain endeavours to meet the five economic tests.

    At the heart of our policy will always be our determination to pursue policies of low inflation and to control public borrowing.

    In every decision therefore this Government rejects short-term pressures and will not be diverted from the long-term national economic interest.

    So this is the very best environment for the City to succeed.

    So, thank you again for inviting me to join you this morning.

    My congratulations to the Stock Exchange for leading this exciting development for the London Market.

    The whole country’s best wishes to the investment houses and trading firms as they acclimatise to a new method of trading, one which I am sure is going to bring huge benefits to the City, the financial services sector and investors.

    We all look forward to being back here at some point in the future to mark the next stage of the City of London’s continuing development and success.

    Thank you very much.

  • Gordon Brown – 1997 Speech to the CBI Conference

    Gordon Brown – 1997 Speech to the CBI Conference

    The speech made by Gordon Brown, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, to the CBI Conference held in London on 10 November 1997.

    I am grateful for the opportunity to address the CBI conference, to be able to thank you as business leaders of Britain for the contribution you and your companies make to the success of Britain at home and abroad, and to be able to agree with the CBI that to equip ourselves for the future, and to build the national economic purpose this country longs for, we need as our building blocks for prosperity:

    • first, stability with low inflation;
    • secondly, sustainable public finances;
    • third, high levels of investment, fourth higher levels of skill and productivity; and
    • fifth, not just open markets but a constructive engagement with Europe.

    Now when I spoke to you last year we were agreed on the need for a credible framework for monetary stability for the long term.

    Our decision on our first Tuesday of government to make the Bank of England independent, and to set in place a more open and accountable system of monetary decision-making, not only implemented one of the CBI’s own proposals, but it has in my view already given consistency confidence and credibility to monetary policy making.

    I believe we are agreed it is right to take these decisions out of politics, and to free them from short term political pressures. Our aim, business’ aim: in place of stop go long- term stability.

    When I spoke to you last year we were also agreed that responsible public finances are the cornerstone of stability. And our two year ceiling on public spending is not a one off measure but it is now part of a five year deficit reduction plan that will not only bring public borrowing down from an unacceptable 22 3/4 billion Pounds last year to 5 1/2 billion Pounds next year, but will also allow us to meet our priorities for education investment and health. Sustainable public finances: our aim, your aim, in place of taking risks with inflation, long-term fiscal stability.

    When I spoke to you last year we were – all of us -agreed that rising levels of investment were the key to future prosperity. The 2 per cent cut in corporation tax to its lowest level ever, the reduction to 21 per cent of small business corporation tax, and the new investment incentives for small and medium sized companies not only reflect a Government that listened to the CBI’s proposals, but are the first stage in raising from too low levels, the quality and quantity of investment in the future of Britain. In place of short termism, a practical set of commitments to the long term and I pledged that in future Budgets we will do more.

    At this point in every cycle in the past the British economy has been prone to inflation instability and to a return to stop go. My pre-Budget report later this month which will – I hope – be the start of a national debate about next year’s Budget will show that with disciplined action against inflation, with prudence and with responsible wage bargaining the British economy can be put back on track next year.

    Last year when I spoke we were agreed too on the importance of that fourth building block for success; a highly skilled and adaptable workforce for the future. To encourage work incentives we have promised not to raise basic and top tax rates for the period of a Parliament, a policy I reaffirm today.

    And this year we have begun the modernisation of the welfare state, rebuilding it around the work and learning ethics, and I am grateful to all the companies represented here today for signing up to what I have called a national crusade to solve, once and for all, our problems of youth and long-term unemployment. A fresh start for Britain.

    Stability, investment, responsible public finances, skills and employment – four basic building blocks for long-term economic success. And when the battle is not British workers against British managers but both British managers and workers working together against aggressive competitors overseas nothing – neither out of date attitudes, nor backward looking dogma,

    Neither vested interests nor restrictive practices – should stand in the way of Britain equipping ourselves for the challenges ahead.

    There is a final building block- strong and lasting trading relationships with the world.

    We are not only one of the most open economies in the world – trading 25 per cent of our GDP compared with America’s 10 per cent. But, in addition, nearly 60 percent of our exports are to mainland Europe and an astonishingly high level of international investment into Europe – 40 per cent of it – comes to the UK.

    Let us be clear about the immediate challenges we face.

    In less than fourteen months from now, a German business selling products to France or the Netherlands will be able to do so without exchange rate risk, with lower transaction costs and with more transparent prices, something that in itself will pose a big challenge to a British competitor hoping to supply the same order.

    So EMU will lead to fiercer competition for trade and for future investment across Europe.

    And the time to prepare is now long overdue.

    Indeed Siemens and Daimler-Benz are among the first of what will be a long list of companies to use the euro for all their transactions with all suppliers, including those in the UK. Others can be expected to follow suit.

    It is why two weeks ago Natwest corporate banking services announced they will train their staff to handle euro, and then last week announced a range of euro products and services will be available early next year.

    That is why Marks & Spencer has decided to put in place the capability to accept euro in the UK.

    The euro will radically transform the whole single market. So from now my message is: let’s get down together to the serious business of preparation.

    For five years since Maastricht while other countries were making preparations our country refused to prepare.

    But I believe it is now time in the national economic interest to set aside the divisions over Europe that have caused – over a long period of time – indecision, instability, a loss of influence abroad, and denied us a national economic consensus.

    I do not dwell on the past to criticise but to show that Britain -and British companies- cannot make practical progress without clear and unequivocal answers on the critical European questions that face us and without preparation to meet the challenges ahead.

    And these preparations on how we compete in a single currency Europe – of vital concern to each company in the country – are too important to leave to dogma or internal party politics, and too important to leave aside for years more of indecision and drift.

    I am sure the British way is not to retreat into a shell or, in any way, to cut ourselves off, but to be true to our outward looking and internationalist traditions and take, as we have normally done, a pragmatic rather than a dogmatic view of our relationship with Europe.

    That is why two weeks ago for the first time a British government made the position of Britain in Europe clear: that the vital test for a single currency was not one of dogma – but one of economics, Whether it is good for business, jobs and prosperity.

    That is why we said that if a successful single currency can meet our economic tests, then Britain should join. In other words, that we were in principle in favour of joining a successful single currency.

    And that is why we said , again for the first time for a British government, That while joining does involve a pooling of economic sovereignty – as in the single market – that if the economic benefits were proven then they should outweigh any constitutional bar.

    If the Government recommended it, it would then be up to the people to decide in a referendum.

    And for the first time again, a fortnight ago, the British Government also stated that it was committed to real preparations for the euro.

    Britain, we said, needs a time of preparation before a time of decision, early in the next Parliament.

    The strategy must be to prepare and then decide.

    And I firmly believe that it is now possible to build a broad consensus – stretching across the country and in particular the world of business – a new consensus that sets the old arguments behind us.

    To those who say that we need not answer the question of principle and that we can even postpone consideration without loss of influence for another 10 years, and who say that even if the economic arguments are compelling they would not necessarily want us to join and that we need not prepare, I reply:

    – that it is practical common sense that the long period of indecision and loss of influence should be brought to an end;

    – it is practical commonsense that, after almost 18 years of debate, we should be able to resolve the question of principle and agree that the economic benefits will mark the decisive test;

    • it is practical common sense to say that if the economic case is compelling we should be prepared to join; and
    • it is practical sense that when other countries have been preparing seriously for five years since 1992 we should begin real preparations now.

    And these preparations should not only include creating the flexibility – the skills, the adaptability and the employability – necessary for a successful single currency, but also business preparations that enable us to be ready for every challenge ahead.

    And I am determined that, even though making a decision this Parliament, to join EMU is not realistic, we will play our part in shaping it, so that, if we wish to, we can join a single currency early in the next Parliament:

    • first by the practical and constructive role we will play at the centre of the creation of the euro in our UK presidency next year;
    • second by preparing for membership of the European Central Bank as soon as we join the euro;
    • and thirdly by leading the debate about the competitiveness of the European economy and especially, as we are doing in Luxembourg, about the flexibility needed to make the euro work. So I say to this conference today:
    • as a matter of practical commonsense, let’s get down together to the serious business of preparation;
    • let us together start building a national consensus stretching across the country about making this period of preparation work for Britain.

    And let us agree that this period of preparation means that companies should first of all have the information to respond as others trade in euros.

    Second companies need the information to trade and compete in euros themselves.

    Third companies need to know what they have to do to compete when the single currency starts in 1999.

    And fourth companies need to know what they will need to do if and when Britain decides to join the euro.

    It is so as to be prepared that, before the summer break, the Government published a practical guide on EMU for business, and it is why we then we set up a Business Advisory Group comprising business, trade union, and consumers groups to look at the crucial practical questions.

    The Group will report to me in December and I will publish their findings in the New Year.

    But it is time to go further to ensure business has the necessary information on which to prepare and that government and business work well to iron out any possible problems.

    I am delighted that Sir Colin Marshall will sit on the new standing committee which the Government is now setting up to oversee and to coordinate preparatory work across the economy, in public and private sectors.

    And I am pleased that David Simon who has joined the Government from BP has agreed to be Minister responsible for the long-term planning work.

    Together we will draw up an agenda for preparations, as we did for decimalisation, which sets out all the practical steps government and business will need to take before a final decision to join the single currency. And we will hold a series of conferences in the new year to ensure that all regions and sectors of the economy are aware of the need to prepare.

    In providing information and guidance, and in removing obstacles to using the euro in the UK, we will draw on the experience and expertise of private sector firms at the vanguard of preparations and our partners in other European countries.

    Let me just explain the scale of the task: from its introduction, businesses in the UK will be able to use the euro as they can the dollar today. From 1999 they will be able to:

    • file company accounts in euro;
    • issue shares in euro;
    • have bank accounts in euro;
    • pay taxes in euro;

    But unlike the dollar or the dm today the British banking system will have the capability to process payments in euro domestically.

    This should make it much easier and cheaper for banks to offer euro services to their UK customers.

    And the Government will do as much as we can to facilitate the use of the euro in the UK from its introduction in 1999:

    • the DTI will consult business on the possibility of amending the companies act to make it easier for British firms to issue shares in euro, and to convert existing shares into euro. And following the advisory groups advice – we will look at any other legislative steps the Government should take to make the euro easier for firms to use;
    • we will work with banks to introduce an official “seal of approval” so that firms and individuals can identify which banks offer reliable information about the euro, and allow customers to bank in euro without paying high charges;
    • we will work not only with the banks, but with accountancy firms, trade associations, and others to make sure their clients are getting the consistent and accurate information they need. We will make available to them treasury information and advice for inclusion in their company literature;
    • and today, I have sent the top 1000 British firms an information pack “business preparations for the euro” containing the most up to date information we can offer. There are copies available for conference delegates here today.
    • And in future we will publish six monthly reports for business on preparations.

    And can I add also that during our Presidency we will apply for community funding for an information service, and we will produce packs for schools, just as we will make all our information available on-line through the links to libraries and information centres across the UK.

    There is one further question we will address: how to put the euro bank notes and coins into circulation in Britain, if we wish to join a single currency – the timescale, the amount – the practical details.

    So following the report of the Advisory Group we will also be publishing guidance for firms on changes they need to make to their computer systems.

    The strategy I said was to prepare and then decide.

    This is a Government that having declared for the principle will make sure that the preparations are made.

    And I believe that with information, and preparation, the national consensus embracing people business and their government – the very consensus that has eluded us for years – is now possible as we plan for the future.

    Just as business has a right to expect, we have moved from the ideological to the practical.

    We have moved from talking about preparations to making them in practice.

    We have set in motion preparations, by both government and business, that will allow the people to make a clear choice and a final decision.

    We will work with you to promote the British national economic interest in Europe.

    Work with you to ensure that British business is equipped for the challenges in the year ahead.

    Work with you to be certain that Britain gets the best out of its position with Europe.

    And to work with you to ensure that Britain, once again, can lead in Europe.

    I believe that we have a unique opportunity – Government and business working together to make this happen.

    So, from this conference, I make the promise that Government will do everything it can to create the conditions in which you can succeed.

    And let me say by way of conclusion that our policies for stability, investment, education and employment -just like our policies for Europe- are designed to nurture those qualities that are best in Britain and British industry:

    • our creativity and adaptability;
    • our belief in hard work and in team work;
    • our openness and outward looking traditions.

    Qualities that made Britain great in the first industrial revolution, qualities we should call the British genius, qualities that we must encourage more resolutely today if we are to master the unprecedented challenges ahead.

    Nothing should stand in the way of the practical task of equipping ourselves for the future, of making the next century a century of British prosperity, a Britain top of the league in Europe, and I believe here, from Birmingham, we can continue to work practically and constructively together so that this prosperity at home and in Europe is our achievement in the years ahead.

  • Stuart Andrew – 2022 Speech on Government Support for Leisure Centres

    Stuart Andrew – 2022 Speech on Government Support for Leisure Centres

    The speech made by Stuart Andrew, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, in the House of Commons on 15 December 2022.

    I am pleased to respond to this debate and I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) for securing it. The contributions that we have heard across the Chamber show the importance that this House places on the provision of good-quality public leisure facilities, and I think all hon. Members will agree that those spaces are vital to allowing people, wherever they may be in the country, to participate in sport and to lead an active lifestyle.

    Hon. Members have spoken in this debate of the challenges faced by their own local leisure centres, gyms and swimming pools. The most significant challenge is the rises in energy costs, further to the abhorrent Russian invasion of Ukraine, but there are other challenges with inflation, as the hon. Lady mentioned, the ability to keep qualified and dedicated staff and shortages of pool-cleaning chemicals. While a number of facilities are facing similar problems, no two are exactly the same—just as no two constituencies are the same, I guess.

    The leisure sector as a whole has a wide range of stakeholders and operating models, encompassing providers from across the public, private and civil society sectors such as the community interest company in the hon. Lady’s constituency. Local authorities will choose the model that works best for them as part of their consideration of how they can best deliver their services for local communities.

    In times such as these, I recognise that local authorities are having to make difficult decisions about which services to protect. I remind the House that leisure provision is not a statutory service for local authorities and, as such, may be deprioritised when it comes to setting budgets for the next year. However, I urge my colleagues in local government to consider the essential services that those facilities provide for their communities, because I firmly believe that public leisure facilities provide so much in the way of positive opportunities and benefits to those communities.

    Charlotte Nichols

    In my own area in Warrington, the funding available from central Government has been cut by about 60% over the last 10 years, which means that approximately 70% of the council’s spending is on statutory services, particularly things such as adult social care. Clearly ,those cannot be cut back on, and we expect the proportion of council spending spent on statutory services will only rise, as an ageing population will have more complex health needs. While I appreciate what the Minister says, that leisure facilities cannot be prioritised since they are not a statutory service but that he encourages councils to do all they can to support them, does he not agree that councils are being put in a difficult position, and that without additional public support and finance, they are fundamentally not able to do that?

    Stuart Andrew

    I recognise those challenges. That is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced the additional support for local authorities in the recent autumn statement, and I hope that will help in these challenging circumstances.

    I was referring to the positive opportunities and the benefits that leisure centres provide. I am sure hon. Members are aware that we have very high levels of inactivity in this country, as the hon. Lady mentioned, with almost one third of adults—more than 12 million people—classed as inactive. On top of that, 2.2 million, or 30%, of children are inactive.

    While the figures show some signs of improvement post pandemic, we know that more work needs to be done to target the long-term inactive and make sure everyone can receive the benefits that being active brings. We will be publishing our sporting strategy, which will outline how we intend to do that, in the new year. A key part of that strategy will be making sure that people throughout the country, from Carlisle to Cornwall and west London to Warrington, have access to the right facilities for them to get active and feel part of their community.

    That is why public leisure centres and facilities are so important: they provide a wide range of opportunities to be physically active—badminton, swimming or even Zumba— at low cost, and in doing so they become hubs for the community, places to meet and to make new friends and new social connections. They also offer jobs and volunteering opportunities to the communities they are in, and the hon. Lady gave a good example of the benefits those centres bring.

    Why is this access to sport and physical activity so important? It is proven that regular activity genuinely helps to avoid a range of health issues, whether physical or mental, and that eases the pressure on our NHS. It helps to bring communities closer together, and gives young people essential leadership and teamwork skills. We know that sport works. I know from my own personal experience, when I do get the chance to go to the gym, that it is a great opportunity to reset and refresh, and hopefully that helps me to do my job in a better way.

    Speaking to staff at my local facilities, and through conversations with people across the sector, I know that the sport and fitness sector has endured challenging times over the past few years. During the pandemic, the Government prioritised access to sport. We encouraged people to get out once a day for a walk. We worked with gyms to make sure they could reopen safely. In addition, we provided the £100 million national leisure recovery fund, which was part of more than £1 billion of support to the sport sector to ensure its survival.

    On top of that, we continue to invest heavily in sport and physical activity through our arm’s-length body, Sport England, which receives over £100 million a year in Exchequer funding, along with over £200 million from the players of the National Lottery. We are continuing to support the sector now as we face the challenges of increased energy costs. Our energy bill relief scheme has limited energy costs for swimming pools, leisure centres, gyms and sports clubs throughout the country to half of what they could have been with wholesale prices as they are. That support will continue over the winter until March next year.

    Charlotte Nichols

    On a point of clarification, I asked what support would be available beyond March 2023, because a lot of leisure centres look as if they will not be able to survive after that cliff edge. I know the Minister will not be able to make a financial commitment today, but is he having conversations with the Treasury about the continuance of a scheme of that kind, in the hope that that support might continue beyond March 2023?

    Stuart Andrew

    The hon. Lady rightly predicts that I cannot make a financial statement here—my colleagues in the Treasury would be extremely angry with me if I did—but I will come on in a moment to some of the work we are doing.

    We have also provided business rates relief for those providing these essential services in the private sector, which will remain in place until March 2024. Throughout the implementation of the energy bill relief scheme, officials in my Department and I have been working closely with partners in the sector, such as ukactive, and with colleagues in local government, such as the Local Government Association, to monitor the scheme’s impact and make sure that we are fully aware of the situation facing the leisure sector. Their feedback and the insights they have been providing and sharing with us are so important for ensuring that support can be continued where it is needed most. I take this opportunity to thank them all, as well as the staff at Sport England who have supported us with the review.

    The energy bill relief scheme has been under review over the last months, and officials in my Department have engaged with colleagues in Treasury to make sure we have made the strongest case possible for further support. Outside of that energy review, the Department is continuing to review how best we can support the provisions of leisure centres across the country. That includes ongoing engagement with our partners in the public, private and civil society sectors, and across Government, and we will continue to make sure that we support those essential services every way we can. As I have said throughout my speech, I recognise the huge benefit that those services provide to our communities, to the health of the nation and, ultimately, to many of the services that Government provide. I thank the hon. Lady again for bringing this important matter to the Floor of the House.

  • Charlotte Nichols – 2022 Speech on Government Support for Leisure Centres

    Charlotte Nichols – 2022 Speech on Government Support for Leisure Centres

    The speech made by Charlotte Nichols, the Labour MP for Warrington North, in the House of Commons on 15 December 2022.

    I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak about the important issue of leisure centre provision. As we consider all the sectors struggling with increased bills and financial pressures, we must not forget leisure centres. In many ways, they are something of a Cinderella service even in good times—they are not glamorous and they are taken for granted as spaces where people can meet, socialise, rehabilitate, exercise and, in this bitter weather, keep warm —and, as we all know, we are in anything but good times.

    I will speak about my local leisure centres in Warrington, but I first want to set out the national picture, and I am grateful to the Local Government Association for many of the figures that I will use. Councils in England are currently the biggest funder of sport and leisure services and facilities. If we include parks and green spaces, councils currently spend over £1.1 billion a year and are responsible for 2,727 leisure centres, a majority of the UK’s 27,000 parks, 31% of grass pitches, 33% of all swimming pools—the majority of publicly accessible pools—20% of health and fitness facilities and 13% of sports halls.

    Our councils cannot prioritise leisure centre provision because these centres are not statutory services, and while we all understand the pressures from more acute needs, the swimming pools, sports facilities and community halls that are provided by local authorities are treasured by the public like few other council facilities. Up to and including the past decade of austerity, councils have broadly managed to be self-sustaining for day-to-day leisure spending through fees and other charges, while seeking to subsidise poorer users—in some cases even being able to raise revenues for other council services. They have not, however, had the scope to afford capital expenditure to upgrade buildings, make repairs or improve insulation. As an aside, I say that 68% of sports halls and swimming pools are more than 20 years old, and so are used less by the public than newer facilities.

    And then came covid. Despite the Government’s support through the national leisure recovery fund, this did not match the significant maintenance and staffing costs that leisure facilities incurred even without the footfall and income that they would usually have. Many councils used their own funds to save facilities from closure and provided £159 million of emergency funding in total, while leisure providers contributed £144 million from their reserves. Following this emergency funding, operators were already financially vulnerable going into the current energy crisis. They now face bills up to 200% higher this year compared with 2019—the last normal operating year—with costs set to grow by up to 240% next year.

    Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)

    In my constituency, Freedom Leisure works alongside the local authority to deliver services, and it was able to upgrade as a result. It was really tough during covid. I met Jeremy Rowe, its operations director, and he told me that in Wales alone there is a £3.3 million uplift in energy costs. The figure for Swansea is £1.4 million. Does my hon. Friend agree that the loss of these vital community assets could devastate our local communities?

    Charlotte Nichols

    Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes an important point. As I will come on to, we cannot put a pounds-and-pence figure on the value of leisure centre provision locally and what it means to our communities, and particularly our most vulnerable residents. That is why this debate is so important, and I am grateful that she has come to support it.

    In October, ukactive research found that 40% of council areas are at risk of losing their leisure centres or seeing reduced services at their leisure centres before 31 March 2023. Three quarters—74%—of council areas are classified as “unsecure”, which means there is a risk of leisure centres closing and/or reducing services before 31 March 2024.

    The LGA believes that, without Government intervention, large numbers of public sector leisure facilities are unlikely to make it through to next spring, with service restrictions and facility closures already growing. As the voice of local government, the Local Government Association has called for discussion of a number of measures to address the immediate financial pressures: an in-year grant with an increase to the local government settlement from 2023-24 to ringfence and protect public leisure facilities; an immediate review of sector taxation and regulation that minimises other outgoing costs, with longer-term business tax reform to collectively support the sustainability and growth of the sector; and support for a move to non-carbon-intensive heating methods, including opening up existing capital funding programmes to ensure that new build facilities are eligible for support, improving energy efficiency for the future, while also ensuring that they meet the needs and expectations of future communities, encouraging them to be active. I hope that the Minister will take all those on board, and confirm that he is engaging with the LGA on these specific points to save our leisure centres.

    I want to turn now to our leisure services in Warrington, provided by LiveWire. At this point, I should declare an interest, in that I rent my constituency office from Warrington Leisure and Library Trust at commercial rates—I am not sure whether that is strictly declarable, but I wanted to flag it up. The building my office is in, the Orford Jubilee Neighbourhood Hub, also houses our local gym, pool, library and other services, such as the pharmacy, Macmillan Cancer Support and even a Subway—which I spend far too much of my money in on the days I am in my office, but I digress

    LiveWire is an employer of more than 352 people in Warrington, delivering leisure, library and lifestyles services that attract more than 422,000 visits from local residents per quarter and make a vital contribution to the health and wellbeing of the community. LiveWire operates three neighbourhood hubs, two leisure centres, one community hub and 13 libraries. It is important to note here that it has been managing those services in Warrington since May 2012 as a community interest company. That means that it is designed to re-invest in services and facilities; it is not a private business, it does not have shareholders and it does not own any assets that it can leverage bank loans against. It is therefore specifically vulnerable to the economic storm that we face.

    As LiveWire has noted in a letter to me:

    “Our income-generating activities underpin discounted access to many health programmes—such as rehabilitation, prehabilitation and preventative services—to some of the poorest and most in need of support. Services that would not be operated in a market driven solely on a for-profit basis.”

    Now, due to increased energy costs, higher than budgeted pay awards for staff, a lack of customers returning post covid, customer cancellations because they have less disposable income due to the massively increased cost of living, and increased prices for raw materials and services, LiveWire tells me that its expenditure has increased by £2.3 million compared with 2021, which is not sustainable. It is at serious risk of being unable to operate after March 2023 without financial support, despite increased demand for swimming and aquatics activity, for example.

    I have already written to the Chancellor about this situation, and would like to repeat LiveWire’s plea to this Minister today. First, charitable trusts and community interest companies should be named as a vulnerable sector in January’s energy review, with support offered beyond March 2023. Secondly, any future cap should be more generous than the current cap, which still resulted in significant losses for CICs such as LiveWire.

    I am very aware of the demands on the public purse, but I also note the role that this sector plays in keeping the public healthy. We all know that preventive healthcare is far cheaper than later interventions, and these facilities in the heart of our communities, which subsidise getting fit and keeping healthy for people who need it most, are truly vital. Swim England states that swimming alone saves the NHS more than £357 million every year, and the contribution to the nation’s mental health will be enormous.

    We have a chronic lack of long-course pools across the country, and it is tragic to think that access even to our short-course pools could be even further curtailed. Swimming is a vital life skill, especially in communities such as mine, which have rivers and canals running through them—it saves lives. It is also a vital skill for participation in other sports, especially rowing, which we are trying to make more inclusive and accessible in Warrington, through the incredible work of Warrington Youth Rowing and the Warrington Rowing Club.

    When we consider all the sports and activities that our leisure sector supports, including things such as self-defence classes for women and classes catered specifically towards our more elderly residents, we see how much of a loss it would be to our communities if these became less accessible to, or priced out, those who benefit from them the most. Public participation in public leisure fell by 35% between April 2021 and January 2022. It would be a false economy to let this sector flounder and close. I want to hear from the Minister and the Government what they will be doing to help it through this most difficult time, for all our sakes.

  • Dan Poulter – 2022 Article on Increasing Pay for Nurses

    Dan Poulter – 2022 Article on Increasing Pay for Nurses

    A section of the article written by Dan Poulter, the Conservative MP for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich, with the full article in the Guardian on 16 December 2022.

    The government’s decision to squeeze nursing pay will push more nurses to vote with their feet, to leave the NHS and earn more money by either working for temporary NHS staffing agencies or to work for private healthcare providers. This could even result in the perverse situation where reductions in real-terms pay mean that the same nurse could leave their NHS job and return to work for the NHS, perhaps even in the same hospital department, as an agency nurse. The NHS will foot the bill for the agency costs and the increased salary paid to the nurse.

    This is poor healthcare economics. Pay needs to be set at a level that helps to recruit and retain the NHS workforce and the time has come for some joined-up thinking from government. Investing in better pay for nurses and other NHS staff would help improve staff retention and reduce the ever-growing temporary staff bill.

  • Huw Merriman – 2022 Speech on West Coast Main Line Services

    Huw Merriman – 2022 Speech on West Coast Main Line Services

    The speech made by Huw Merriman, the Minister of State at the Department for Transport, in the House of Commons on 15 December 2022.

    I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie) for securing this important debate on rail transport services to the communities served by the west coast main line. She is a doughty campaigner and advocate for train services in her area. In my short tenure, we have spoken many times, and I know that we will speak more.

    I also thank all right hon. and hon. Members who contributed to the debate, who were my right hon. Friends the Members for Tatton (Esther McVey) and for Clwyd West (Mr Jones), my hon. Friends the Members for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt), for Aberconwy (Robin Millar) and for Delyn (Rob Roberts), and not forgetting the hon. Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) and my shadow colleagues the hon. Members for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) and for Slough (Mr Dhesi). I think that I have remembered everybody.

    May I start by empathising with all my colleagues and their constituents for the challenges they have all faced on the west coast main line service? I am very sorry about the situation and am determined to see it turned around. I will explain how we will do that, but I owe it to those who have taken part in the debate to explain why the service levels have deteriorated so sharply.

    Colleagues whom I have spoken to about this matter in recent weeks have told me that, prior to the summer, the service had been holding up relatively well. Indeed, between 9 January and 1 May, 3% of cancellations were attributed to Avanti. After the end of July, the figure rose to 25%, which is clearly unacceptable. The reason for such a dramatic deterioration can be traced back to the decision on 30 July by many drivers not to work beyond their contracted hours. Let me put that into context and perhaps explain why that may have happened.

    A two-year qualified Avanti train driver is paid almost £67,500 and typically works 35 hours over three to four days. To ensure that the railways can operate over a seven-day period, the industry has relied on drivers working additional hours during their rest days. That, in my view—it would also appear to be the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West—has never been a satisfactory means to run our railway, as it relies on good will and means that a train operator cannot put its roster together without drivers volunteering.

    On 30 July, as I said, things changed. Avanti experienced an immediate and near total cessation of drivers volunteering to work passenger trains on rest days. More than 90% of drivers who had previously volunteered to work overtime informed Avanti that they would no longer do so, which would not occur without some level of union organisation. That left Avanti unable to resource its timetable and, in the immediate term, resulted in the significant short-notice cancellations that right hon. and hon. Members have described. Avanti therefore reduced its timetable in response to the withdrawal of rest-day working. Although highly disruptive, it gave passengers a chance to try to make alternative plans. That approach reduced cancellations from about 25% of the service in late-July and August to about 5% this month.

    May I now look more towards the future and be more positive as to what we are seeking to deliver? Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn touched on this in her speech. The Department has been working with Avanti to overcome the operational issues. Agreed steps include almost 100 additional drivers entering service, extra trains on its key routes and extended booking options. Avanti is now operating a seven trains per hour timetable amounting to 264 daily train services on weekdays, which is a significant step up from the 180 daily services previously offered during the last six-month period, and more than those offered before the cessation of drivers volunteering to work rest days. Importantly—this is the really important part—the services are not dependent on rest-day working. That is good for Avanti, because it allows the company to put a roster together seven days a week, and it is seemingly good for the 90% of drivers who decided over the summer that they did not wish to work beyond their contracted hours. This timetable change represents an opportunity to put in place a long-term timetable base and to return to the extended booking horizons that passengers rightly expect.

    I will touch on one point from the hon. Member for Stockport about catering services. I do not recognise those exact figures, but I will write to him. I have heard many stories where the catering services and the on-board service have just not been good enough, and within that we look to turn it around. He also touched on route knowledge and transferring between operators—a point with which the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North agreed. We completely concur; it takes months of route knowledge to get a driver to be able to travel a route safely.

    The Office of Rail and Road and Network Rail have reviewed Avanti’s plan and are supportive of the proposition, noting that its full and successful delivery requires agreement with trade unions. The Department is monitoring Avanti’s delivery and holding the company to account as appropriate. The new timetable started on Sunday 11 December—Sunday just gone. Alas, as highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy, we are now in a further period of national industrial action, so it may take time to assess fully the performance of the new timetable. I put on record that I am grateful to all the staff at Avanti who have allowed us to introduce this new timetable.

    Many hon. and right hon. Members have inquired about Avanti’s contract extension. On 7 October this year, a short-term contract was entered into with the incumbent operator. The contract extends the delivery of the West Coast Partnership and Avanti West Coast business for six months until 1 April 2023. This gives Avanti a clear opportunity to improve its services to the standards that we and the public expect. The Government will then consider Avanti’s performance while finalising a national rail contract for consideration in relation to the route, alongside preparations by the operator of last resort, should it become necessary for the operator to step in at the end of the extension period.

    Mr David Jones

    Can the Minister say in percentage terms what his expectation is for Avanti being able to deliver a full timetable by the end of March?

    Huw Merriman

    I cannot, unfortunately, because as things stand we have industrial action. I would be unable to determine even what the service will be like into the first week of January, because there is an expectation when national industrial action takes place that only 20% of services can run, and the day after—a day like today—only 65% can run. Until that industrial action comes down, which I will touch on, I cannot give my right hon. Friend that assurance at all. I call on all parties in this House to call for industrial action to come down.

    Mr Jones

    I fully understand that we have national rail strikes, but putting that to one side, and focusing on the efforts that Avanti is making and the work that the Minister’s Department is doing, what is his expectation in percentage terms that Avanti will deliver a full timetable?

    Huw Merriman

    My right hon. Friend is experienced in this place, and he will perhaps be aware that I cannot give a percentage. All I can say is that the rail regulator and Network Rail’s project management office have reviewed the recovery plan, and they are content, while recognising the challenges that the operator faces, that matters within Avanti’s control look to be within its control, and therefore it should be able to roll the timetable out. Indeed, with 100 extra staff and not working on rest-day working practices, Avanti should be confident, and I am confident as well, but I cannot give him a percentage figure, I am afraid; I can just give him my optimism.

    Navendu Mishra

    Will the Minister give way?

    Huw Merriman

    I will not, because I want to make some progress, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind.

    My hon. Friends the Members for Milton Keynes North and for Delyn called for the decision to award a short contract to have a “keep options open” status, and they are right to say that. An extension to the contract at this stage will not preclude transferring the contract to the operator of last resort at the end of the extension term.

    I will respond to what the hon. Member for Stockport said in exchanges with the hon. Member for Slough, who then brought up the TransPennine Express franchise. I was asked specifically why the Secretary of State was blocking an offer to resolve issues at TPE. I am happy to tell the hon. Member for Stockport that the Secretary of State signed off an offer for rest-day working to be put back to ASLEF on TPE, because that rest-day working agreement was not extended at ASLEF’s request at the end of last year. That offer was made, so he will be pleased by the Secretary of State’s input, but it was rejected by ASLEF despite being equally the most generous at time and a half. I will work on the basis that he will call for ASLEF to take a refreshed view on that situation.

    That leads me nicely on to workforce reform; my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy both touched on industrial action. The way that passengers use the railway has changed. With more people working at home, we need to ensure that rail is put on a sustainable footing. The railway is losing up to £175 million of revenue each month as a result of fewer passengers post pandemic. That cannot continue. Passengers rightly expect a regular, reliable service seven days a week, but as we have found with Avanti, current shift patterns and voluntary weekend working for railway staff make that vision almost impossible.

    Getting stuck in endless disputes will not solve any of that, or bring back the passengers that the railway so badly needs. The only solution is for everyone to come together and agree a new way forward. Contrary to what has been said, the Secretary of State and I have met the trade unions and heard their concerns. We helped to facilitate a fair offer that delivers a pay increase more generous than those in the private sector are gaining and that guarantees no compulsory redundancies. More than a third of RMT members voted to accept Network Rail’s proposal, despite being instructed not to. There is clearly an appetite among workers to strike a deal and I welcome today’s decision by the Transport Salaried Staffs Association—the second-largest union—to do just that. We urge the RMT to reconsider and to return to the negotiating table with the employers.

    We have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to rebuild a world-leading network. The result will be a thriving rail industry that continues to support Britain’s economy and society for generations to come. The hon. Member for Stockport urged me, through the hon. Member for Slough, to get involved. I can tell him that after this debate, I will be sitting down with Mick Lynch from the RMT and the employers to try to facilitate some form of agreement.

    Navendu Mishra

    The Minister is being generous in giving way. On his point about the workforce, I encourage him to comment on low pay, zero hours and the treatment of cleaning contractors who work on the railway. Inflation is at almost 11% and they deserve fair pay and a decent pension.

    Huw Merriman

    I will look into that and get back to the hon. Gentleman, because the stories that he shared need investigating. My constituent, who is also on a zero-hours contract, is concerned because every day that the trade unions go on strike on the railways, she loses her wages. She contrasted her wages with some of those taking strike action. I hope that we can work together in that spirit of compromise.

    It is vital that we invest in infrastructure in the long term. The Department is investing £54 million to improve the power supply on the west coast main line at Bushey near Watford, which will create additional reliability and support the introduction of new bi-mode rolling stock for use on partially non-electrified routes, such as those in north Wales. In control period 7 between 2024 and 2029, we will invest more than £44 billion in the existing rail network to support Network Rail’s operations, maintenance and renewal activity. Network Rail’s business planning processes for control period 7 will focus on how the railway can contribute to long-term economic growth; support levelling up and connectivity; meet customers’ needs; and deliver financial sustainability.

    As all right hon. and hon. Members have said, the west coast main line is critical to the national network today, but it is also important to the future of the railways. For example, on completion of High Speed 2 phase 2a, new HS2 trains will join the existing west coast main line to create direct services to places including Liverpool, Manchester, Preston, Carlisle and Glasgow.

    Turning to the name change, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy has made his pitch. All I can say is that, with a name such as mine, I am very much attracted to the idea, although I am sorry to say that my family came from south Wales rather than north Wales. However, that will not hold back the appetite for work.

    Robin Millar

    Will the Minister give way?

    Huw Merriman

    I was about to conclude, but I will.

    Robin Millar

    I thank the Minister; he is being very generous with his time, and I shall be brief. The reason for the name change is not simply to change the name; it is to reflect the strategic importance of north Wales to the integration of the United Kingdom and everything that flows from that. Does he accept that?

    Huw Merriman

    I do, and I accept that we are not talking gimmicks here; we are talking about detailed descriptions of what the line actually does, but also about what it can do to enhance the north Wales economy and community. I absolutely do get that.

    To conclude, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn and all right hon. and hon. Members for contributing to this important debate. Passengers on the west coast main line have had a torrid time, and we owe it to them to deliver a vastly improved service. The additional drivers, the move away from voluntary working and the new timetable afford the opportunity to turn matters around. I am determined to play my part. I expect Avanti, the unions and everyone connected with this to join me and ensure that this line delivers once again.

  • Tan Dhesi – 2022 Speech on West Coast Main Line Services

    Tan Dhesi – 2022 Speech on West Coast Main Line Services

    The speech made by Tan Dhesi, the Labour MP for Slough, in the House of Commons on 15 December 2022.

    I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this important debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie) on securing it. Given that the west coast main line is, in the words of the Minister’s own Department,

    “one of our most important rail corridors”,

    it was crucial for the House to have the opportunity to discuss the state of the line’s services—or, more accurately, lack of services—on this Government’s watch.

    While there are numerous challenges across the line, as we have heard today from one Member after another, the bulk of the issues faced by passengers comes from just two operators. Let us look at suspect No. 1, Avanti West Coast, with 33% of services running on time. That is its current record, and it means two thirds of passengers being left out in the cold on platforms—two thirds of passengers who are late for their commitments or, even worse, never make them; two thirds of passengers who have been let down by Avanti’s shocking rail services. Instead of acknowledging the shortcomings of these operators, the Government have rewarded Avanti’s ongoing failures with a new contract extension, much to the consternation of Conservative Members. That contract was paid for out of the pockets of the very passengers who are being let down by Avanti, again and again.

    Figures show that, last year alone, £12 million in dividends was paid to Avanti, the country’s worst-performing operator. Why is that? Why are the Government prepared to make hard-working passengers pay for a service that is delayed or cancelled almost as often as it is on time? One would be forgiven for thinking that having removed thousands of services from its schedules in August, reducing the number of trains between Euston and Manchester Piccadilly from one every 20 minutes to one every hour, Avanti would be capable of producing a more reliable network. Sadly, even expecting that minimal level of service has been wishful thinking. Instead, those who rely on the busiest main line in the country face the reality that one in every eight Avanti west coast trains are cancelled. It is utterly absurd that millions of people, let alone numerous local businesses, cannot rely on these services.

    Local metro Mayors have repeatedly raised concerns with the Government about the devastating impact the rail chaos is having on the northern economy, cutting people off from jobs, cutting businesses off from opportunities and cutting towns off from investment. Rewarding rail operators that obstruct northern growth is a far cry from the Government’s levelling-up agenda, which promised to better connect our towns and cities. The Government’s willingness to reward failure appears to be the common policy choice for west coast main line operating companies.

    That brings us on to suspect No. 2: TransPennine Express. Six years ago, TransPennine Express blamed staff shortages, rest day working and driver recruitment for its failing services. Today, it is peddling the same old tired excuses. It therefore comes as no surprise that the Government plan to reward it with an eight-year contract in May. Some may be overly generous and say that the Government are incapable of recognising failure, but when we see how they are managing our public services across the board—from our health services and our schools to our borders—it is clear that they are simply doubling down on their failures and are happy to leave hard-working members of the public to pay the price. The Government have come up with a litany of excuses on behalf of west coast main line operating companies—excuses that do little to reassure those impacted by shambolic services.

    Instead of making excuses, the Government should be looking at operators who are getting it right. On the east coast main line, as was explained earlier, more services are being delivered on time, with fewer cancellations. The Government have a responsibility to ensure that Britain’s rail infrastructure rivals that of our global partners. Instead, because of years of Tory failure to properly invest in our network, they have left our country with a second-rate infrastructure and rail services in crisis. To build the rail network that Britain needs, if the Government are not willing to strip franchises, they must at the very least place failing operators on a binding remedial plan to restore services for the British public, with clear penalties that discipline failure, not reward it. The new Rail Minister—the Minister of State, Department for Transport, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), for whom I have a great deal of respect, especially in his previous role as Chair of the Transport Committee—has himself admitted that he absolutely sees the urgency of the current situation. If that is the case, why is he not taking urgent, decisive action?

    Perhaps now would be a good time for the Minister to also come clean on whether the Transport Secretary is blocking an offer on rest day working that could stabilise rail services in the short term. The spokesman for the SNP, the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), highlighted how the Transport Secretary, at the very last minute, torpedoed talks and an agreement that would have prevented strikes, but we shall leave that to debate another day.

    The Government have demonstrated time and time again that they cannot be trusted to follow through on their promises, and now Avanti is following suit.

    Navendu Mishra

    I am often confused, because the Department for Transport often comes across as the public relations department for private rail operators, rather than as a Government Department resolving disputes and their root causes. Does my hon. Friend feel the same?

    Mr Dhesi

    I thank my hon. Friend for that invaluable point. That is the central point: the Government must work for the people who have elected us, rather than the operators themselves. We owe it to the British people to ensure that they have world-class, quality rail services.

    Robin Millar

    Does the hon. Gentleman think that the public relations arm of the unions on the Opposition Benches would do a better job?

    Mr Dhesi

    In the last few months the Labour party have called again and again on Transport Secretaries—we are on our third one, and I have faced one Rail Minister after another and hope that the incumbent will be in his position for a lot longer—to get around the table to resolve these issues. If they had, they would have been long resolved. As was exposed by The Daily Telegraph, along with other media, had it not been for the Transport Secretary torpedoing the talks between the rail unions and operators at the last minute by introducing another condition on driver-only trains, the British people would not have had to face train strike action.

    In November Avanti promised a full timetable for December, but managed only a 40% increase in services. We have heard cross-party complaints. The hon. Member for Ynys Môn eloquently explained Avanti’s repeated broken promises and rip-off rail, as she termed it. She said that Avanti’s services have deteriorated even more than before. We have heard about the failures in staff shortages, recruitment and morale—comments underpinned by the ASLEF rail union general secretary, Mick Whelan. This must be the last chance saloon before it is stripped of its franchise and put under the operator of last resort.

    My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) spoke about the damage to Stockport’s economy and the region, and how catering roles had been cut significantly. He spoke eloquently about the RMT’s “Justice for Cleaners” campaign and how it is unacceptable that so many hard-working rail workers who kept our country moving during the pandemic are now relying on food banks. Shockingly, 84% of rail workers are struggling to make ends meet. He described how the privatised, fragmented franchise model has failed us.

    The right hon. Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones) said that he came here by car because he could not rely on the rail services. He spoke about how since 2019, Avanti has operated deplorably and is incapable of building good relations with its staff. He said that north Wales Conservative MPs wrote to the Minister to ask him not to renew Avanti’s franchise. He laments that the Minister says that he is working with Avanti, but he may be flogging a dead horse.

    The right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) spoke with considerable experience about how we are all suffering the same fate, especially given that she is a frequent user of this service. She said that, sometimes, not even the guards know whether a train is coming. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt) spoke about how his constituents are being thoroughly let down. Appallingly, he often has to sit on the floor in his usual spot next to the toilets. He mentioned the accessibility problems faced by disabled passengers.

    The hon. Member for Delyn (Rob Roberts) spoke about how levelling up is being undermined by the consistent rail fiasco. The hon. Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar) saw fit to make biting interventions, but none the less he spoke about the importance of the line for England, Scotland, and Wales and how we seem to debate poor services on the west coast mainline on a weekly basis—more reliable than Avanti’s current services.

    When can we expect Avanti to deliver a full service for the north? Will it finally be stripped of the franchise? Finally, on TransPennine Express, can the Minister reassure the House that, given its record of failure, its contract will not be renewed for a further eight years? In the run-up to Christmas, people should be spending time with family and friends, not wasting time on platforms waiting for trains that never turn up. The Government need finally to get a grip.

  • Gavin Newlands – 2022 Speech on West Coast Main Line Services

    Gavin Newlands – 2022 Speech on West Coast Main Line Services

    The speech made by Gavin Newlands, the SNP MP for Paisley and Renfrewshire North, in the House of Commons on 15 December 2022.

    I thank the Backbench Business Committee for facilitating this afternoon’s timely debate. The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie) started the debate powerfully, and I do not disagree with a word she said. In fact, I do not disagree with pretty much anything anyone said, other than the comments of the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar) about the Union and how it binds us all together. He failed at the last minute to get consensus across the Chamber. The hon. Member for Ynys Môn started well by talking about the importance of Holyhead not only to her local economy but to the wider Welsh economy, and how much Avanti’s terrible service has impacted that economy and her constituents.

    On Monday, every single Avanti train leaving Glasgow for London was late, in most cases by at least half an hour. Five trains were more than an hour late. The passengers on those trains were actually the lucky ones. Anyone looking to travel in the afternoon from Scotland’s biggest city to England had a choice of two trains, both leaving late and arriving even later. Every other service was cancelled or terminated at Preston, which is a fine Lancashire city but about 237 miles from Euston. Lest any apologists for Avanti try to rely on the seasonal weather as an excuse, the first train on the previous Thursday was nearly two hours late arriving. The passengers on the last train arrived at Euston close to 1 am, more than six hours after they departed.

    Avanti has set the west coast main line back decades, which is not hyperbole. I checked the British Rail timetables from 1982, 40 years ago, and the journey times that Avanti is now delivering almost daily are slower than the locomotives that were the backbone of the nationalised rail network in 1982.

    Any criticism of Avanti or TransPennine Express in my speech is of upper management and executives, not the frontline staff, who, like everyone who has spoken in this debate, I have always found to be exemplary in their professionalism and courtesy. I am not just saying that because I am one of the many Members who will be seeking to get home on Avanti west coast main line services this evening. These services should be the Crown jewels of the British rail network, but instead they are straight out of the pound shop bargain bin, although not at a price to match.

    TransPennine Express is just as bad as Avanti, and in some ways worse. On Monday it managed to run three of its seven timetabled services from Glasgow Central. Only one of four services made it to Manchester airport. Anyone looking to travel to Manchester after lunchtime was out of luck, as there were no trains at all. I put it to TransPennine Express’s chief executive at yesterday’s Transport Committee that, in the three weekdays prior to the strike action, only one of 12 scheduled trains made it from Glasgow to Manchester airport. That includes last Friday, when TransPennine Express managed a single train to Manchester before 5 am, after which there were zero services to England’s second biggest urban area from the biggest urban area in Scotland. It is almost as if all we have heard over the past 30 years about the benefits of rail privatisation and the wonders of the free market have been hot air and blether.

    At least trade unions give advance notice that their actions will mean train cancellations and disruption, so travellers can make alternative arrangements and amend their plans. Avanti and other train operators can, and often do, wait until the very last minute before pulling the plug, leaving the trains that remain in service overcrowded, late and dirty, with the staff running them bearing the brunt of passenger frustration and anger.

    It is clear from Avanti, TransPennine Express and the remaining privatised parts of the rail network that the system has completely and utterly broken down. The fragmentation of operators and network infrastructure has led to a system of little accountability and no cohesion, with long-term thinking left to outsiders and the occasional individual. Private operators have no incentive to provide a public service and every incentive to wring every penny out of its operations until the next rider on the gravy train takes over the contract. For months, the Government tried to maintain the line of laissez-faire non-intervention, before scuppering negotiations by adding conditions that they knew were guaranteed to send workers back to their trade union reps. We have a rail system in England that is edging closer and closer to collapse.

    Navendu Mishra

    The hon. Member referenced the term “fragmentation” earlier, and Avanti often talks about the fact that it does not have enough drivers available for its services. If we had a unified public transport system that was designed to serve our communities and our planet rather than private rail operators, perhaps we could have a system where, if there was a shortage of drivers in one part of the country, they were licensed to drive trains in other parts of the country.

    Gavin Newlands

    That seems to be an eminently sensible suggestion, which I hope Ministers can take up. GBR, which I will touch on later in my speech, seems to be no more, but I hope that the Government look at all the factors in our entire rail network in the round. That is a perfectly good suggestion.

    Collectively, the privatised rail network is letting Scotland and the north of England down—I should also say north Wales; my apologies for not doing so. What is the economic impact on communities relying on the west coast line? How much badly needed growth in our regional and national economies is being sacrificed at the altar of free market gospel? What opportunities for developing freight and pushing a modal shift from road to rail are being lost and decarbonisation gains unrealised? How much more imbalanced is the UK economy becoming every day that the west coast line remains a shambles?

    The Transport Committee heard from Avanti and TransPennine Express yesterday morning. I almost felt sorry for them trying to defend the indefensible—almost. I asked them if they thought that the travelling public believed that they should continue to operate train services. They at least had the good grace to dodge the question rather than admitting that passengers trying to use their services would probably just as soon see the Chuckle Brothers running them as TPE and Avanti. They at least have the excuse that they are only in it to make money. The UK Government have a wider responsibility.

    Just six months ago, the then Transport Secretary, the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), told the House that his flagship project, Great British Railways, was how

    “we are transforming the industry”.—[Official Report, 15 June 2022; Vol. 716, c. 318.]

    The Chairman of Network Rail now says:

    “I have stopped using those three words…it was clearly the invention of Boris Johnson, Andrew Gilligan and Grant Shapps”.

    After all the fanfare, all the hype, a contest to decide its headquarters and the Transport Secretary of the time intervening to slap his name on the report that proposed it, GBR is dead in the water before it even began.

    Given that the so-called Williams-Shapps review, as I suppose we should technically call it, stated clearly that GBR

    “will be the single guiding mind and leader that the railways currently lack”,

    one has to ask the question: without GBR, who will be the single guiding mind? Where is the leadership? Perhaps the new Rail Minister, who I get on well with, will be that leading mind. We shall see. The rail network is too important to leave to a Transport Secretary who, in recent weeks, has been a “here today, gone tomorrow” figure. Yet without some kind of arm’s length entity running and controlling our railways, we are doomed to short-termism and a strategy designed to get us through to the end of the latest crisis. Bringing the west coast operations under direct public control, as the Scottish Government have with ScotRail, would be a first step towards a rational and forward-thinking model of ownership and operation.

    Scotland’s railway operates at arm’s length from the Government through Transport Scotland, but allows for greater integration with the Government’s political objectives. Even without the devolution of Network Rail, which we have called for in this place many times, the Scottish Government—and, to be fair, previous Scottish Executives under Labour and the Liberal Democrats—have expanded and transformed rail in Scotland and are still going full steam ahead with a programme of electrification that will, within just over a decade, help to fully decarbonise Scotland’s railway.

    As with any public service at a time of economic crisis, there will be issues, but the settlement of disputes with ASLEF and the RMT at ScotRail earlier this year shows that, once again, the apparently radical tactic of Ministers treating trade unions and workers as partners rather than mortal enemies benefits everyone. I commend that approach to Government Members, mainly because it appears to be working. However, we are lucky in Scotland to have decades-long political consensus on how our railway should develop and the powers to make those choices happen.

    Robin Millar

    I am listening with a great deal of interest to the hon. Member. As he said, there is a lot of consensus in the Chamber. I cannot resist the chance to ask him this: does he think that a strong, integrated, high-performing, decarbonised railway network would inevitably bring all parts of the United Kingdom closer together?

    Gavin Newlands

    On the face of it, that sounds like a sensible suggestion, but where is that going to come from? There is no evidence from the Department for Transport and the UK Government of that actually happening. Scotland has decarbonised, or electrified, its railways twice as fast as the UK Government for more than 20 years now. There is no urgency about decarbonisation in the UK Government. About 16% of freight trains are still diesel because not enough of the network has been electrified, and that is down to this Government. So I must say to the hon. Gentleman that I do not see that happening any time soon. We are just getting on with it in Scotland.

    I realise that my time is short, Mr Deputy Speaker, so I shall wrap up as quickly as I can. Transport for the North has seen its core budget slashed and projects such as Northern Powerhouse Rail trimmed, cut, cancelled or abandoned. TfN has protested every time another proposal for rail in the north has been binned, but ultimately Westminster and Whitehall decide what is best for communities there, and how much cash should be spent there. How can the west coast line have infrastructure and service fit for the future when every penny of expenditure is decided by someone sitting at a desk half a mile from here, rather than by elected Members and civil servants on the ground? How can a line with 20 of its 400 miles south of Watford be fully realised when those along the other 380 miles are seen as irrelevant when it comes to decision making?

    Meanwhile, the latest performance statistics show that the gold-plated Elizabeth line—complete with stations costing £695 million, £661 million and £634 million, and an overall price tag of £19 billion—sits at the top as by far the most punctual train operator in the country, and no wonder, given the amount of money that has been ploughed into it. That level of investment in rail in the rest of England would generate huge benefits for the economy outside London and the south-east, but, as we know, anywhere outside the M25 can go to the back of the queue when transport investment is being lined up.

    The current crisis on the west coast line may be because of current events, but its origins lie in decades of metropolitan establishment disdain for what are still condescendingly called “the regions”. I am afraid that, unless and until England begins to radically change the way in which it makes decisions about transport policy—decisions that have implications way beyond its borders—the west coast line, like the rest of the rail network outside the M25, will atrophy and continue to be a hindrance rather than a boost to local and national economies. I urge the Secretary of State and his new team to roll up their sleeves like their counterparts in Scotland, get involved in the nitty-gritty rather than leaving it up to private corporations, and then begin the process of putting control over national assets such as the west coast line back into the hands of those who benefit most: the people and communities who rely on them.