Tag: Amber Rudd

Below is the text of the speech made by Amber Rudd, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, at Kennington in London, on 11 January 2019.

Introduction

It’s great be here in Kennington this morning.

I’m particularly pleased to be joined by frontline colleagues and work coaches in the audience today and I’d like to acknowledge the incredible work you do, each and every day, to ensure our claimants receive the payments and support they need. I’d also like to welcome Alok Sharma, the Minister for Employment who I’m pleased could join me here today.

And I am delighted to be here to speak about Universal Credit – a vital reform delivering a fair and compassionate welfare system, which helps people into work.

Let’s not forget that Universal Credit began with near universal support – across party lines, and from charities and stakeholders.

Because everyone agrees with the principles of helping people into work, making work pay, and providing support in times of need.

And I want Universal Credit to retain that support as we deliver it in practice.

This means delivering it in a way that meets the needs of claimants, who come from every conceivable background and each with the potential to achieve their ambitions.

In welfare, there is no one-size-fits-all solution, and Universal Credit offers the opportunity to move away from that.

It must treat individuals as individuals – and I will set-out the first steps I will take to achieve this today.

The principle of UC and why it matters

Our welfare system is based upon 3 fundamental principles.

First: work – those who can, should; and those who cannot should be protected from poverty.

Second – work should always pay.

And third, the system should be fair. Fair for taxpayers who pay for it and fair to those who receive it, and fair to future generations – who do not deserve to become trapped in it.

As a nation, I believe we all want a decent safety net: if you’re facing a difficult moment in life, the state should be there to help you.

Whether that’s becoming unemployed, falling ill, or facing bereavement – nobody should find themselves alone in desperate circumstances.

But it is vital that people are supported by this safety net, not trapped beneath it.

It is there to help people get through difficult times – it is not meant to be a mode of long term subsistence for those who can work.

For the vast majority of people, it is ultimately work, not benefits, which provides the route to a better life. And the welfare system should clear a path for that route, not block it.

Work gives purpose, dignity and security. The opportunity to provide for your family, progress in earnings, and build a fulfilling life.

In this respect, the old system was broken; it is why we had to reform it.

Despite what some people suggest, the legacy system – 6 different benefits administered by 3 government departments – was not a utopia that we should return to.

Indeed, 700,000 claimants on that system are currently failing to claim their full entitlement because they find it so confusing. These people – some of the most vulnerable in society – are failing to receive, on average, £285 a month.

Under the old regime, claimants who moved off benefits into full time work lost welfare payments almost immediately, which resulted in effective ‘tax rates’ of up to 90% on their income.

As an MP, I frequently met people who wanted to earn more but were too scared to take-on extra hours, knowing they’d have so little to gain.

In 2010, 1.4 million people in this country had been out of work for at least 9 of the previous 10 years.

1.9 million children lived in households where nobody worked, making it more likely that tragically, they too would live a life on welfare – with little chance of any kind of progression.

We have re-introduced fairness into the system.

We have capped benefits – so that where the adults in a household are able to work, they cannot claim more than what many working families earn.

We have taken millions of the lowest-paid out of income tax altogether.

And we’ve introduced the first National Living Wage, giving many a much-needed pay rise.

But by far the most important and crucial reform is Universal Credit.

Let me explain why Universal Credit is a force for good. It is based on these principles:

a social security system that provides a safety net, but doesn’t trap people in welfare
certainty that every extra hour of work pays more than staying on benefits, with these being withdrawn at a consistent taper rate
help to enter work – through increased, tailored support provided by work coaches at jobcentres like this one
accuracy of benefits payments, with those made to in-work claimants responding in real-time, each month, to income earned. A digital system – where claimants can access information about their payments online, at their convenience

These principles pumped much-needed fresh air into a failing system, and failed thinking on welfare.

Which is why it is vital that we turn these principles into success in practice. We have steadily invested in Universal Credit, adding £4.5 billion in the last budget, following the extra £1.5 billion allocated in 2017 – giving claimants more money as they transition to Universal Credit.

And in many areas we are succeeding. More people will enter work as a result of Universal Credit and work coach support.

The provision of Universal Support – to provide tailored help for people to make and complete their Universal Credit claim – is a significant new step in creating personalised support for claimants.

And it’s very exciting that from April this year, Citizens Advice will be working to deliver this new support across the country.

But in other areas we can improve – in particular, we must ensure that Universal Credit always meets the different needs of different claimants.

And today, I will outline 3:

First – the delivery of the next phase of Universal Credit, known as managed migration, must be handled carefully so it works for all claimants.

Second – flexibility in payments, especially on rent and frequency, should support people financially in a way that works for them.

And third – the system must do even more to support women.

A standard offer cannot work for everyone. People’s work patterns, the pressures they face, their families – everyone’s circumstances are unique.

I want to make sure Universal Credit has enough flexibility to adapt to personal circumstances – particularly the needs of the most vulnerable.

So let me set-out in detail the changes that I’m going to make.

Delivering UC in a way that works for individuals

In the first instance, I am not going to be rushed into the mass migration of existing claimants onto Universal Credit. My priority is to ensure that the transition is done well.

As we embark on this next stage, I want to be absolutely sure that every person switched over to Universal Credit is getting a personalised service.

I will tread cautiously – not rushing but instead proceeding with the utmost care.

I want to ensure every individual is thoroughly supported to access Universal Credit quickly and successfully.

We need to reach out to claimants – so the onus should be on us to deliver managed migration in a way that meets everyone’s needs.

So I am going to change the current regulations, removing the powers government previously planned to migrate all legacy claimants onto the new system. The regulations will continue to uphold our commitment to protecting claimants receiving the Severe Disability Premium.

Instead, I’m only going to seek powers for a pilot: the chance to support 10,000 people through the process. This is an opportunity to learn how we can best facilitate the transition – before returning to Parliament with the legislation which we will need for future managed migration.

This will begin, as planned, from July 2019.

These next 6 months will be a period of careful preparation, working closely with claimants and partners – many of them who are in the room today – to design our communications and support systems effectively.

We want to ensure the process goes smoothly for claimants, so we will provide tailored communications, help with applications, and even home visits – with bespoke support for the most vulnerable claimants.

From July, we will carefully migrate up to 10,000 claimants, monitoring and adjusting our approach as needs be, before reporting our findings to Parliament.

The lessons from the pilot will inform our next steps, but there will be no overall delay.

Universal Credit migration will be completed, as planned, by the end of 2023. However, I will consider carefully the results of the pilot, and its implications for scaling-up migration.

It would not be sensible to move immediately from the pilot phase of 10,000, to full scale managed migration.

Instead we should start small and build up over time, as we develop our processes and learn more. This is the approach any big organisation would take when delivering a complex project.

I want to be clear: I will only proceed with this process when I know it can deliver the best possible service for everyone who relies on it.

Alternative Payment Arrangements

But equally, I don’t need to wait for the results of the pilot to see there are issues with Universal Credit’s implementation which can be fixed now.

Much of the premise of UC, and the positive change it offers, is based on the fact that it mirrors the world of work. Payments are made monthly, in arrears, and all the money goes straight to claimants.

For many people this is an advantage – providing financial independence and preparation for monthly bills and salary payments.

But for others this approach does not work; managing their money month-to-month can be challenging, even impossible.

That can cause difficulties for people who are already vulnerable, and I am determined to do more to help those claimants.

There is already some flexibility in the system, thanks to the changes that we have already made.

Around 60% of Universal Credit claimants apply for advances to tide them over the initial wait for their first payment.

20% of claimants with housing costs have their rent paid directly to landlords, because a vulnerability or special need has been identified.

And for people unable to budget, there are provisions to receive payments twice, or even four times, a month. But currently only 2% of claimants have taken this option.

So although these ‘Alternative Payment Arrangements’ exist to provide people with the bespoke payments they need, they aren’t yet helping as many claimants as I believe they could.

One third of UC claimants in social rented housing have their rent paid directly to their landlord. But in the private sector, that number is only 5%.

People in the private rented sector already face a far higher risk of losing their tenancy, and I know from talking to claimants and landlords that the current system isn’t working for some of them.

So we need to make it easier for tenants in the private sector to find and keep a good home, by giving landlords greater certainty that their rent will be paid.

Therefore, I have asked the Department to build an online system for private landlords, so they can request (where necessary) for their tenant’s rent to be paid directly to them. And I will consider what else we can do, because I am determined to help keep people in their homes.

I am also looking at what more can be done to support those who find monthly payments hard to manage.

We need to go back to first principles: reviewing how we identify claimants who might struggle to manage on monthly payments, and ensuring work coaches are moving them onto more frequent payments where necessary.

I have asked Jobcentre Plus to test how we can to improve the provision of more frequent payments for new claimants; these pilots will start shortly, and once we have evidence of what works, we will roll it out further.

We must ensure that provision of frequent payments doesn’t slow the system for users who don’t require them – but I believe we can offer this facility more widely, so those in genuine need can take it up more readily.

Women’s economic empowerment

Indeed, some of the most exciting results we’ve seen from Universal Credit have resulted from personalised and targeted support reaching the right people.

This is particularly true for groups who have historically been left out of the labour market.

Women can never be truly free until they have economic independence.

It is fantastic that 1.6 million women have entered employment since 2010 but for some women, economic empowerment remains the final frontier.

Many women still don’t have access to the opportunities and independence that comes from earning their own money.

This can be particularly true of communities that hold a more traditional view of gender specific roles.

Under the old system, millions of women could be written off as “dependents” and left without any encouragement or support from the system. Under Universal Credit that won’t happen.

For example, last week I visited our Jobcentre in Birmingham Yardley – which has piloted a brilliant project focusing specifically on how to support Bangladeshi and Pakistani women into work.

It is early days, but projects like these suggest there are ways to free untapped female potential. And in doing so, we’ll benefit communities across the country, and inspire the next generation to understand the value of financial independence.

Since taking office, I have also listened to a number of concerns – from Refuge, Women’s Aid and others – about how the current structure of household payments penalises women.

Although one payment per household is an established feature of the welfare system (Housing Benefit, for example, has always been paid in this way) I recognise the validity of these concerns.

This is why I am committed to ensuring that household payments go directly to the main carer – which is usually, but not always, the woman.

For those couples currently claiming UC, around 60% of payments already go to the woman’s bank account. However, I am looking at what more we can do to enable the main carer to receive the UC payment, and we will begin to make those changes later this year.

Childcare is essential to enable parents to work. Although UC’s provision of funding up to 85% of a claimant’s childcare costs is higher than its predecessor, this is paid in arrears only once actual costs are known.

So I recognise that this can cause financial difficulty, with some claimants struggling to pay upfront or report their costs on time.

Therefore I’ve instructed jobcentres that if the initial month’s childcare costs prevent a claimant from starting work, the Flexible Support Fund should be used to help smooth the transition for this priority group.

Secondly, I’ve decided we should be flexible when parents are unable to report their childcare costs immediately, so that these costs will be reimbursed.

Taken together, these improvements will help to drive the take-up of childcare, as we strive to close the lone parent employment gap and further boost female employment rates.

I believe passionately that economic independence liberates women, and I will continue to look at what more Universal Credit can do to support them into work.

Cancelling the extension of the Two Child policy

There is one additional change I am going to make.

I know that many people are concerned about the two-child limit in the welfare system.

Most families make a conscious decision about how many children they have, considering in part their income and the additional costs each child will bring.

I think it is fair that those on welfare are asked to make the same considered decision as other taxpayers, who support themselves solely through work. So I believe it was right to limit the number of children for whom support can be provided through Universal Credit – funded by the taxpayer.

However, I believe it is unfair to apply that limit retrospectively.

As it stands, from February the two-child limit will be applied to families applying for UC who had their children before the cap was even announced. That is not right.

So I can today announce that I am going to scrap the extension of the two-child limit on Universal Credit for children born before April 2017.

All children born before that date will continue to be supported by Universal Credit. And that will help approximately 15,000 families a year.

And it means that by removing any retrospective application, the two-child policy retains its fundamental fairness.

Conclusion

I am determined to deliver Universal Credit’s vital principles in practice. A system that supports people into work, supports those in need and provides fairness to the taxpayer.

So here’s what’s going to change:

a more considered approach, so we can provide a better service for everyone moving onto Universal Credit from the old system
greater flexibility on payments, so the benefit fulfils its promise to adapt to individual needs and circumstances
more support for women: moving payments to the main carer, and making childcare payments more accessible
and every child born before April 2017 will now be supported by Universal Credit

I know there is more to be done to support the most vulnerable, and finesse the system – so that Universal Credit truly works for everyone.

The goal is clear: a safety net, but also a system that can transform lives through work – not just financially, but in life chances, health and social wellbeing

I am optimistic – because I know the basic principles are sound – which is why I am so excited to have the chance to get this right.

A British welfare system should reflect the values of our country.

We believe in fairness and compassion.

We believe in standing-by people when times get tough.

We believe in helping each individual reach their full potential.

These values are at the heart of the Universal Credit I am determined to deliver.

Below is the text of the speech made by Amber Rudd, the Home Secretary, on 18 April 2018.

It’s a great honour to be with you all in London for the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting.

Our 53 countries are home to 2.4 billion people. And over seven decades, our association has helped nations to deepen and strengthen their democracies, by working together in partnership on issues that affect all of us.

Today across the Commonwealth, we face an unprecedented security threat, threats that do not respect borders and require us to work even closer together to tackle them.

We no longer just need to be concerned about the threat of terrorism.

We face security including serious and organised crime, cybercrime, violent extremism, human trafficking and Hostile State Activity.

So I am pleased to be with you today for the first ever Commonwealth security event. The theme for this year’s summit is ‘Towards a Common Future’ and I want to talk a bit today about what the threat picture looks like in the UK, and how we can have a more secure future, and achieve that together.

The threat faced by Commonwealth countries from terrorism is clear to us all.

Last year in the UK, five terrorist attacks took place in London and Manchester. And 36 people were killed, and many more injured.

As Home Secretary, there are various stages of horror and shock you go through when you learn that there has been a terrorist attack.

The first of course is when you hear for the first time what has happened. That moment when you get the initial news about what’s gone on. When you learn where the attack has taken place, the casualties the scale of the tragedy.

The 2nd stage of horror is when you learn more about the personal stories of the victims and their loved ones.

And there’s one encounter which really sticks in my mind.

It was in the aftermath of the terrorist attack here in London in June 2017, after a van left the road and struck a number of pedestrians on London Bridge. After the van crashed, the three men ran out to the nearby Borough market area and began attacking people enjoying themselves in and around the restaurants and bars

Eight people were killed and 48 injured.

One of the victims was Sara Zelenak, a 21-year-old Australian who had been working in London as a nanny.

She was stabbed while out celebrating getting a new job with a friend.

It was meeting her parents, which I did a few days later, that really brought home to me the agony of losing a loved one in such appalling circumstances.

They told me she had come to London for a once in a lifetime experience.

I really felt their grief.

It’s moments like this that really reinforce how important strong national security is.

And in the UK, we continue to disrupt terrorist plots. Since 2017, 10 Islamist terrorist plots and four extreme right wing plots were successfully disrupted.

And under the UK’s counter-terrorism strategy, we work to reduce the risk to the UK and its interests overseas from terrorism, so that people can go about their daily lives freely and with confidence.

But the terrorist threat is changing, evolving and moving more quickly than ever. And as the threat we face from terrorism becomes more complex, our strategies need to evolve, and they will continue to do so. For instance, like many of you, we are looking at the issue of online radicalisation more closely than ever before.

But recent events here in the UK are a reminder that terrorism is not the only threat to our national security and prosperity.

Last month’s nerve agent attack in Salisbury shows us that we need to be increasingly wary of other states who wish to subvert our democracy, attack our rule of law and are prepared to endanger us with the unchecked use of chemical weapons.

Though the attack in Salisbury has been shocking in its indiscriminate and reckless nature, it is just one part of a progressively worrying picture that we’ve seen in recent times.

Last year, we saw a number of major cyberattacks including the ‘Wannacry’ and ‘Not Petya’ incidents which had significant economic repercussions.

We saw numerous attempts to influence democratic elections through illegal and subversive means.

And we saw significant evidence uncovered of abundant disinformation campaigns being committed in our democracies in an attempt to divide our societies and challenge our values-based approach to domestic and international issues.

But we are determined not to let that become the new normal.

The UK has led the response to this hostile state activity, and we will continue to do so, engaging our friends and partners across the world to provide a coordinated international response to the threat.

We have shown this in our recent response to the Salisbury attack, where we have led the international response to what the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons deemed the first use of a chemical weapons on Western European soil since the Second World War.

And we thank allies who have taken measures in support of the UK’s position. The expulsion of more than 150 Russian diplomats from 28 different countries sent a clear message to Russia that its hostility will no longer be tolerated. However, this is not the end of the story, and we stand ready to go even further should Russia wish to continue its blatant aggression towards us or others.

But there’s another group who pose a significant risk to our security and our prosperity.

That’s the serious and organised criminals.

In the UK there are around 6,000 organised crime groups, comprising approximately 40,000 individuals.

These groups target vulnerable people and ruin the lives of victims and their families, local communities and legitimate businesses. They use online tools and services designed for legitimate purposes – such as end-to-end encryption, cryptocurrencies and the dark web – to facilitate their offending.

Overall, serious and organised crime costs the UK over £24 billion each year.

As the threat evolves rapidly, so must our response.

And I think that there is significant potential for strengthening law enforcement cooperation between Commonwealth countries to tackle serious and organised crime.

Only this morning, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office announced that it is spending nearly half a million pounds to establish a new partnership between the UK’s Counter Proliferation and Arms Control Centre and the Commonwealth Secretariat to help combat illicit flows of firearms.

Significant potential also exists for strengthening co-operation between Commonwealth countries, including through our enhanced use of INTERPOL. I’m delighted that INTERPOL’s Secretary General, Jürgen Stock, is here to join us today and we will be hearing from him shortly.

But let’s not forget that security is also about safeguarding – safeguarding citizens to make sure they can live freely and without fear.

But it’s a sad fact that around the world today, millions of men, women and children are cruelly enslaved and trafficked.

And to combat this too, we need a truly global response.

In September 2017, we announced we would give £150 million to tackle these crimes internationally.

This includes a £33.5m Modern Slavery Fund to tackle trafficking and exploitation in partnership with countries the UK receive a high number of victims from.

And today I’m pleased to announce that we will give a further £5.5m for projects aimed at strengthening the Commonwealth’s response to these crimes.

These projects, delivered in countries across the Commonwealth, will work to support the development of human trafficking legislation in parliaments, and will strengthen law enforcement capabilities to disrupt the criminal networks behind human trafficking and identify those most at risk of becoming victims and protect them.

Because we can only hope to succeed in our ambition of combating this detestable crime at home if we work in partnership with our neighbours around the world.

That is also why last year, the UK Prime Minister endorsed a Call to Action to end Forced Labour, Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking at the UN General Assembly, alongside over 20 world leaders.

I think there is an opportunity for the Commonwealth to show real leadership on this agenda.

Over 50 countries have now endorsed this Call to Action, including more than a third of the Commonwealth, and more are expected to do so during the Summit.

I encourage all of you to make very clear that these crimes are not acceptable in the 21st century, by endorsing the Call to Action if you have not done so already.

Now, there’s another crime which I haven’t yet talked about which is a real threat to the security of all of our children and that’s the threat of child sexual exploitation and abuse.

We’ve done a lot of work to tackle this both in the UK and internationally, but today I am pleased to announce that we will be going even further.

We will be taking further measures to combat child sexual exploitation across the Commonwealth.

This will include £2 million of Commonwealth funding for international projects to tackle child sexual exploitation online.

A number of Commonwealth countries will receive a share of the £2 million for projects to teach children and young people how to protect themselves online and to put in the infrastructure to prevent child sexual exploitation.

We will also give an additional £600,000 funding for projects to support UK victims. This will help fund a national helpline for victims and bespoke therapy to help children with learning difficulties to share and recover from their experiences of abuse.

And we have begun the process of ratifying the Lanzarote Convention against Child Sexual Abuse. Ratifying this shows our continued determination to play a global role in tackling this crime across the globe.

I hope that these comments have given some insight into the threats we face here in the UK and the threats we are aiming to tackle abroad as well. I’ve talked a lot about the importance of working internationally. And that’s because I am clear that when we stand together as one Commonwealth, we are better prepared to face the threats which challenge us.

Thank you.

Below is the text of the statement made by Amber Rudd, the Home Secretary, in the House of Commons on 19 January 2018.

The UK and France share a special relationship. The operation of juxtaposed controls, provided for by bilateral agreements, is an essential element of our border strategy. Since the juxtaposed controls were introduced, the number of asylum claims made in the UK has decreased dramatically. Before the controls were in place, asylum claims reached over 84,000 a year, three times higher than the 26,617 claims in 2016-17. The reduction in claims we have seen has significantly reduced the impact on public services and the UK taxpayer—with every reduction by 10,000 asylum claims saving the UK at least £70 million in costs.

Juxtaposed controls play a hugely important role in protecting our national security and have significant economic value for both the UK and France—creating a smooth border and making trade more efficient. Having UK border controls based in France allows Border Force officers to check passengers and freight destined for the UK in France, ensuring we can take action against illegal migrants, those trying to smuggle people into the UK and criminals attempting to bring illegal goods into the country, before they reach British soil.

Yesterday, we signed a supplementary agreement that demonstrates the UK and France’s long-term commitment to the future of the juxtaposed controls, recognising that they are in the common interest. This treaty with France—the treaty between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the French Republic concerning the reinforcement of co-operation for the co-ordinated management of their shared border, recognising the importance of cooperation at the juxtaposed controls—is established to sit alongside the Le Touquet and Canterbury treaties and will come into force on 1 February 2018. In securing the future of juxtaposed controls in this way we are able to strengthen operational co-operation, both in northern France and further upstream, to reduce the illegal flows into France. The treaty will not affect the operation of our juxtaposed controls, but demonstrates the UK and France’s long term commitment to their successful operation, and secures some of the mechanisms that we need to further strengthen our joint capabilities to prevent the formation of any new migrant camps.

Building on the successful co-operation of the clearance and relocation of the migrant camp in Calais in 2016, the UK and France have now agreed a comprehensive “whole of route” approach to migration. The aim is to reduce the number of migrants making the dangerous and illegal journey to northern France and manage the pressure on our shared border from those who do travel. The elements are to:

jointly work upstream in source and transit countries to discourage migrants who do not have any lawful basis for doing so from making the dangerous journey to northern France;

invest in strengthening our shared border through investment in port security and infrastructure and further improving operational co-operation with France; and,​

work to ensure that migrants who have travelled illegally to Northern France are able to quickly claim asylum in France so we can meet our international obligations.

The UK has a shared interest in co-operating with France to manage migratory pressures. The support announced as part of the UK France Summit will help ensure migrant camps do not reform and that those willing to engage with the asylum system in France can claim asylum there. It also includes working with France to facilitate the return of migrants with no legal right to be in Europe to countries further upstream where they can be lawfully admitted.

Our co-operation with France on migration and our shared border is a long-term commitment. Just as we invest in our borders around the rest of the UK, it is only right that we constantly monitor whether there is more we can be doing at the UK border controls in France and Belgium. Signing the treaty yesterday ensures a continuation of operational co-operation in a number of ways. It reaffirms both parties’ commitments to the operation of procedures for determining the member state responsible for an asylum claim under the Dublin III Regulation. It establishes a new co-ordination centre for operational co-operation at our shared border and strengthens co-operation on returns. It sets up a strategic dialogue and commits both countries to working towards joint practical measures in countries upstream, further demonstrating our commitment and leadership on this agenda. These practical measures will help to reduce flows to northern France and underpin our joint commitment to fight modern slavery and human trafficking.

In addition, the UK and France recognise their humanitarian responsibilities towards unaccompanied asylum-seeking and refugee children. In 2016, the UK transferred over 750 unaccompanied minors from France as part of our comprehensive support for the Calais camp clearance. We have also announced a number of further measures in respect of unaccompanied asylum-seeking and refugee children:

France, Greece and Italy will now be able to refer unaccompanied children who arrived in Europe before 18 January 2018 to the UK under section 67 of the Immigration Act 2016. The Government had previously insisted on the previous eligibility date of 20 March 2016 to avoid establishing an open-ended relocation scheme from Europe, as this would increase the pull factor that puts children’s lives at risk. After extensive discussion with France, Greece and Italy, we have agreed to amend the eligibility date on an exceptional basis to ensure we can transfer the circa. 260 remaining unaccompanied children and meet our obligation under section 67 of the Immigration Act 2016. Over 220 children are already here and we are fully committed to transferring the specified number of 480 children as soon as possible, in line with our published policy. The specified number of 480 under section 67 of the Immigration Act 2016 remains unchanged following the UK France Summit.

The allocation of a £3.6 million development fund, as part of the UK’s overall £45.5 million funding commitment, which the UK intend to use to work with France to identify projects which support genuine claims through the Dublin process and ensure that those with no prospect of transferring to the UK are informed of their options.

The strengthening of co-operation with France on the operation of the Dublin Regulation, including shorter timescales for decisions and transfers. These commitments apply whilst both the UK and France are participants in the Dublin Regulation.​

The deployment of a UK Liaison Officer to France by 1 April 2018.

The Government have not agreed to any new obligations to take more unaccompanied children from Europe. The commitments set out in the treaty and this Written Ministerial Statement will improve joint working with France and support the delivery of existing obligations.

The deal that we have done yesterday recognises the importance of the juxtaposed controls for both the UK and France, and seals confirmation by President Macron to ensuring that we work together to operate them as efficiently as possible, and sets up a new phase of co-operation that will enable us to break the cycle of camps forming in northern France.

We have a shared interest in co-operating with France on our whole of route approach to migration and the commitments set out at the UK France Summit, and in this Written Ministerial Statement further underline the value of our enduring strategic relationship.

Below is the text of the speech made by Amber Rudd, the Home Secretary, to the APCC and NPCC Partnership Summit on 1 November 2017.

London is one of my favourite cities to travel through. I love the architecture, the history and the throng of the crowd. But today’s route really made me stop and think. My journey started near Parliament, and from there I drove over Westminster Bridge, past Borough Market and through London Bridge, and this year, these places of course have taken on a new significance.

We’ve witnessed terrorist attacks at these sites and Manchester Arena, Finsbury Park and Parsons Green. On each occasion police officers responded with exemplary skill and bravery – working long hours and putting themselves in harm’s way to keep others safe. We will never forget the heroism of PC Keith Palmer who was fatally stabbed while defending our Parliament.

So today I want to start by saying thank you to all of you who have played your part and I know it’s been utterly exhausting.

I would also like to take this opportunity to extend my deepest condolences and sympathy to the victims and families who have lost loved ones in New York in such a vile and cowardly act of terrorism. Our thoughts are with you at this most difficult time.

The day after the Parsons Green attack, I met officers who had been part of the response team. I could see what a strain events like this put on emergency services. And in Manchester, I met the team of detectives who are working tirelessly to investigate the Manchester Arena bombing. It’s true that in all jobs there are bad days at work, but there’s few which involve confronting terrorists.

But I’m not here today to talk about terrorism – horrific as it is. What I want to talk about is local policing and how best to fight the day to day crime which blights people’s lives.

The Crime Survey for England and Wales, acknowledged by the ONS as our best measure of long term crime trends, shows there’s been a substantial 9% fall in crime over the last year – and a 38% drop since 2010. This has led to more confidence in the police with latest figures showing that 78% of people now have confidence in their local force.

But we also know that police-recorded crime had gone up by 13% this past year. This reflects continued improvements in crime recording and an increased willingness of victims to report crime. However, it also reflects a genuine increase in some specific crime types including homicides, knife crime and firearms offences.

Types of crime which ruin lives and cause irrevocable damage to families and communities.

We all need to account for, and find solutions to, these worrying rises.

But behind these national rises are huge local variations.

Take the example of police recorded knife crime for instance. While in the year to June 2017 it was up by 36% in the Metropolitan Police area, it was down 16% in the Greater Manchester Police Force area. During this same period, the East of England has seen a 19% drop in homicides, whereas the East Midlands has seen a 35% rise.

Local policing can make a difference. You’re probably tired of Conservative Home Secretaries standing here and saying the Home Office doesn’t run policing.

But it’s crucial. You are the ones who are responsible for cutting crime and delivering an effective and efficient police service for your local area.

Of course, part of being a Police and Crime Commissioner is about speaking to the government about resourcing. But it mustn’t just be about lobbying the government for money.

It needs to be about cutting crime, delivering on the priorities you were elected on and being held to account by local people in your area when you don’t.

So when crime statistics go up, I don’t just want to see you reaching for a pen to write a press release asking for more money from the government. I want you to tell your local communities and the victims in your area what your plan is to make them safer.

Because policing can make a difference.

Just as we at the Home Office will set out what we are doing to make the country safer.

Because we do still have a role to play. Giving you the powers you need. Supporting you when you need to be supported. Challenging you when you need to be challenged. And yes, in making sure you have the right resources.

When it comes to powers, I hope you, as police leaders, feel we are responding to the recent changes in crime. Because as crime changes, the powers you need are changing too.

Following the worrying recent rise in violent crimes, we’re taking action. We’ve recently published our consultation outlining how we’re intending to crack down on violent crime and offensive weapons. This will be complemented next year by the publication of a new strategy to combat serious violence.

We’re going to prevent children purchasing knives online and we’re going to stop people carrying acid in public if they don’t have a good reason. And as I outlined at the Conservative Party Conference, the sale of acids to under 18s will be banned and the public sale of sulphuric acid dramatically limited.

Attacks with knives and acid ruin lives. Confidence and happiness can be lost forever.

We need to make sure that the thugs who think of attempting these horrible acts are stopped before they are able to realise their hateful ambitions – and that they face the full force of the law.

And on stop and search.

I know there are those who think it’s a controversial tactic, and I know it has been badly used in the past.

But figures show that stop and search reforms are working. The stop-to-arrest rate has risen and once again is the highest on record. The new data published as part of the ‘best use of stop and search’ scheme shows that around two-thirds of searches result in some kind of police action.

It is my belief that stop and search is a useful tool for the police, especially to target rising levels of knife crime and acid attacks, and that you should have the confidence to use it where necessary. My message to you today is that officers who use stop and search appropriately will always have my full support.

However, let me be quite clear. No-one should be stopped because of their race or ethnicity. Locally, where there are racial disparities in the use of stop and search, chief constables will still need to explain these.

Because if stop and search is misused, then it is counter-productive and, more importantly, it damages confidence in policing.

And when you tell me you need additional powers, it’s my job to listen carefully.

You said that officers have concerns about pursuing and apprehending moped-riding criminals. You explained that some officers worry about their legal position when pursuing suspected offenders when they’re on mopeds or scooters.

So we’ve listened and we’re taking action. We’re reviewing the law and practice regarding police pursuits. We want to make sure officers feel they have the legal protection they need to go after moped and scooter gangs. And I can announce today that we will finish the review early next year.

My officials at the Home Office are working with the police, including the Police Federation as well as the IPCC and other criminal justice agencies, to do this. But I can say today that there will be change. Officers have said they don’t feel confident they will be supported if they pursue a criminal on a moped. These criminals terrorise our streets, intimidating people into giving over their phones or wallets and leaving many too scared to walk outside their front doors. I don’t want any officer to feel that they cannot pursue someone like this because they have taken their helmet off. We will always support the police and officers, not the criminals who commit these awful crimes on our streets.

But the job of the Home Office isn’t just to give new powers; it’s also about providing support, constructive challenge and ideas.

Because police reform is not an objective which left the Home Office when Theresa May did. And whilst policing is in a much better state now than it was in 2010, there’s still work to be done and that work is easier to do when we collaborate.

I’m really pleased that in the policing vision 2025, you’ve set out a transformative programme for yourselves. My department is committed – and stands ready – to do whatever it takes to support you with these plans. This includes making our expertise and resources available to the Police Reform and Transformation Board where helpful, for example to help them address commercial, procurement or programme management issues.

We also want to help you further professionalise the sector. That’s why we continue to work alongside the College of Policing. We are putting in place multiple reforms in this area, such as the Policing Education Qualifications Framework, to ensure that policing continues to develop its existing workforce and attract the best recruits. We are also establishing the Licence to Practise Scheme to give those who operate in the most high risk and high harm areas the correct skills and training to do so.

We’re also supporting those of you in the audience who want to deliver greater efficiency and effectiveness through closer collaboration between emergency services, to benefit your local communities. We’ve legislated to enable PCCs to take on responsibility for fire and rescue services locally, where a local case is made, and to place a statutory duty on all three emergency services to collaborate. But you are in charge and you can decide where the opportunities lie for your area and your communities.

I am delighted that on the 1st October, Roger Hirst in Essex formally became the country’s first Police, Fire & Crime Commissioner, and I know PCCs elsewhere have, or are considering, submitting their own proposals.

And look, as I’ve said, I know that policing can be a stressful business. You work long hours, you deal with people at their worst and no doubt this has an impact on physical and mental health. That’s why in July I announced £7.5 million of funding to pilot and – if it is successful – fund a dedicated national police welfare service to help those who need it.

But I’ll tell you something that we won’t stand for. Officers being attacked, abused and spat at while they do their jobs. This sort of behaviour is unacceptable. That’s why we are supporting new legislation which will send a clear message that we will not tolerate attacks on emergency workers and we will ensure that those who are violent are punished.

You protect us and it’s right that we protect you.

So the Home Office’s job, and my job, is to give you the powers you need to keep us safe.

We will use our coordinating role to support and, where necessary, challenge you.

And, yes, it’s our job to provide you with the right level of funding and resources.

We’re investing £1.9 billion in cyber security which will contribute to relieving pressures on individual forces tackling online and cyber enabled crime.

We’re providing funding to bolster counter-terrorism policing in the wake of this year’s terror attacks. For example, we’re putting an extra £24 million into counter-terrorism policing in addition to the £707 million already announced.

And since 2015 we’ve protected the total amount of spending that goes to policing in line with inflation. That means that overall police spending is increasing from £11.4 billion in 2015 to 2016 to around £12.3 billion in 2019 to 2020.

Within that we’re spending hundreds of millions of pounds to ensure you continue to reform and become more productive.

And today I am pleased to announce the award of £27.45 million police transformation funding to a further ten projects which includes:

– £1.9 million for the Metropolitan Police to design a single call handling system and centralised control rooms for London’s emergency services

– £6.87 million to South Wales Police to help them join up with health professionals and other local partners to better support the vulnerable people they come into contact with, many of whom have had traumatic childhoods

– £2.87 million to MOPAC’s drive project which involves working with serial perpetrators, offering one-to-one support to break the cycle of domestic abuse

All the remaining successful bids will be listed on the Home Office website.

I know a number of you have been calling for more money on top of this. We’ve always been clear that decisions about funding need to be based on evidence and not assertion.

That’s why the policing minister will have visited or spoken to every force in the country ahead of this year’s spending settlement.

We appreciate that the increase in complex, investigatory work has put pressure on forces, as well as the efforts to deal with the unprecedented wave of terrorist attacks we’ve sadly seen this year.

But police financial reserves now amount to more than £1.6 billion and the independent inspectorate remains clear that there is more forces can do to transform, with greater efficiencies still available.

So these are the considerations we will balance as we take decisions on future funding. Listening to your concerns, but also critically evaluating them. So we get the decisions right for the people we serve.

But I don’t want to finish by talking about resourcing. Because I don’t believe the people we serve want to hear disagreements between us on whether a hundred million pounds should be given straight to forces as part of the core grant, or instead bid for as part of the transformation fund.

They want to hear about what we are doing, together, to cut crime.

Because being a PCC, or chief constable for that matter, should be about agreeing and then delivering on a plan to cut crime in your area.

Remind yourselves that millions of people voted for you in the PCC elections in 2016. They voted for your plans to keep them safe.

Because, they like me, believe policing can make a difference.

And we’re already seeing some great examples of your initiative:

Like Marc Jones, the PCC in Lincolnshire who has funded an initiative to deploy a team of nurses to the police control room to help officers deal with incidents involving mental health issues. Or like Martin Surl, the PCC for Gloucestershire who backed a 12 month trial to reintroduce horseback patrols to help serve the public and reduce crime.

And if you look back over the cumulative effect of your work since PCCs were first elected in 2012, then you should be really proud.

You’ve presided over a fall in traditional crime, you’ve made efficiencies which have saved hundreds of millions of pounds for the taxpayer, and you have increased the proportion of officers on the frontline. You’ve brought real democratic accountability to British policing and you’ve shown true leadership.

But now it’s time for you to rise to the challenge of leading the next chapter of reform so you deliver for your local communities.

Because policing can make a difference. And together we can improve people’s lives.

Thank you.

Below is the text of the statement made by Amber Rudd, the Home Secretary, in the House of Commons on 22 June 2017.

With permission Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the terrorist attacks we have seen since Parliament last sat.

There has been no summer like it.

When we rose seven weeks ago, we left this House in the wake of the worst terrorist attack our country had seen in over a decade. With Khalid Masood trying to strike at the heart of our democracy.

He was foiled that day by one of our brave police officers. But tragically it has proved to be the first of many attempts to bring terror and hate to our streets.

Two months later, a cowardly and devastating attack in Manchester left 22 people dead and 59 injured after a suicide bomber targeted children at a concert in the Manchester Arena.

On the 3rd of June, a van was deliberately driven into pedestrians on London Bridge before three men got out of the vehicle and began stabbing people in nearby Borough market. Eight people were killed and 48 injured.

And then on Monday, almost exactly one year after Jo Cox was brutally murdered in Birstall, we woke to the news of the return of far right terror, when a man viciously drove into a group of Muslim worshippers in North London. One man who had fallen ill before the attack died and nine others were treated in hospital.

Westminster. The Manchester Arena. London Bridge. And now Finsbury Park.

36 innocent people dead and over 150 hospitalised. A tragic loss of innocent life.

Last week I met a mother and father who had lost their daughter in the vicious attacks on London Bridge. She had been stabbed while out celebrating her new job with a friend in Borough Market.

Just under two weeks before, she planned to be at the arena in Manchester where Salman Abedi committed his heinous crimes, but she decided not to use her ticket.

She had come to London to enjoy a wonderful trip away, a once in a lifetime experience. But instead it was the last trip she ever made.

I know everyone in this House will want to join me in expressing our sorrow for the pain her family will be feeling. And all those families who have lost loved ones.

As well as passing on our thoughts and prayers for those victims who are still trying to recover from the trauma and tragedy of these events.

I also know that the House will want to join me in acknowledging the incredible efforts of our emergency services during this difficult period.

The events of recent months serve to remind us of the bravery, professionalism and, above all, incredible sacrifice made by those who work to keep us safe.

As Home Secretary there is nothing more saddening than standing before Parliament to deliver a statement like this.

These acts of terrorism represent the very worst of humanity. They seek to spread fear, intolerance, hate.

Countering this threat has always been a crucial part of the work of this government. That’s why we have introduced measures to disrupt the travel of foreign fighters. That’s why we have passed the Investigatory Powers Act which gives the police and intelligence service more powers and tools that they need to keep the public safe. And that’s why just seven weeks ago we legislated to strengthen our response to terrorist financing with the Criminal Finances Act.

We have also protected overall police funding in real terms since 2015, increased counter-terrorism budgets and funded an uplift in armed police officers. We are now in the process of recruiting over 1,900 additional security and intelligence staff.

The Channel programme, which offers voluntary tailored programmes of support to people assessed as being at risk of radicalisation, has supported over 1,000 at risk individuals since 2012.

And following referrals from the Counter Terrorism Internet Referral Unit, social media providers have removed 270,000 pieces of illegal terrorist material since February 2010. But we are entering a new phase of global terrorism and many of the challenges we are facing are unprecedented.

We now believe we are experiencing a new trend in the threat we face. Between June 2013 and the Westminster Bridge attack in March this year, the security services foiled 13 plots linked to or inspired by Islamist extremists. But since just then, we have seen 5 plots prevented as well as 3 such Islamist extremist plots succeeding and the appalling attack of course on Finsbury Park earlier this week. We must do more.

We must do more to defeat ideologies of hatred by turning people’s minds away from violence and towards pluralistic British values.

We must make sure that these ideologies are not able to flourish in the first place.

We must do more to force tech companies to take down terror-related content from their platforms.

And we must also do more to identify, challenge and stamp out the extremism that lurks in our communities.

That is why we will be setting up a Commission for Countering Extremism. For just as the Labour government in the 1970s set us on a course to tackling racial inequality in this country by setting up the Commission for Racial Equality, we need – and must – do more to tackle these extremists who seek to radicalise and weaponise young people in Britain today.

Doing more also means asking difficult questions about what has gone wrong. In light of the terrorist attacks in London and Manchester, Britain’s counter-terrorism strategy will be reviewed to make sure that the police and the security services have what they need to keep us safe.

In addition to this, there will be a review of the handling of recent terror attacks to look at whether lessons can be learned about our approach. I am pleased to announce that David Anderson, former Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation will be overseeing it.

Mr Speaker, what we have witnessed in Manchester and in London are the depraved actions of murderers, intent to tear our country apart. But each act of hate has been met by overwhelming defiance.

In Borough Market recently, I saw stallholders dishing out olives into plastic pots, shoppers searching for delicious treats and tourists flicking through guidebooks in the shadow of the Shard. Rather than being divided by recent violence, people seemed ever closer together.

We should follow the example of the traders and the shoppers of Borough Market.

What terrorists want is for us to fear and turn in on one another.

But we will never give terrorists what they want.

We will stand together and we will make the point that terrorists will never win. That our values, our country, our unity will prevail.

I commend this statement to the House.

Below is the text of the statement made in the House of Commons by Amber Rudd, the Home Secretary, on 20 July 2016.

Last week my noble friend the Advocate General for Scotland answered an oral question asked by Lord Balfe of Dulwich on whether the Government had yet decided whether there would be an inquiry into police actions during the Orgreave miners’ clash in 1984. He explained that the previous Home Secretary had been considering the Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign’s submission, and that the Independent Police Complaints Commission is working with the Crown Prosecution Service to assess whether material related to the policing of Orgreave is relevant to the Hillsborough criminal investigations with decisions yet to be made by them on whether any criminal proceedings will be brought as a result.

The Government take all allegations of police misconduct very seriously and the then Home Secretary considered the campaign’s analysis in detail. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that I have today written to the campaign secretary, Barbara Jackson, to say that I would be very happy to meet her and the campaign immediately after the summer recess. I would also be happy to meet the right hon. Gentleman to discuss this case as I know this is something that he feels very strongly about. This is one of the most important issues in my in-tray as a new Home Secretary, and I can assure him that I will be considering the facts very carefully over the summer. I hope to come to a decision as quickly as possible following that.

Below is the text of the speech made by Amber Rudd, the Home Secretary, in the House of Commons on 18 July 2016.

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the terrorist attack in Nice and the threat we face from terrorism in the UK.

The full horror of last Thursday night’s attack on the Promenade des Anglais in Nice defies all comprehension. At least 84 people were killed when a heavy goods lorry was driven deliberately into crowds enjoying Bastille day celebrations. Ten of the dead are believed to have been children and teenagers. More than 200 people were injured and a number are in a critical condition. Consular staff on the ground are in touch with local authorities and assisting British nationals caught up in the attack, and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is providing support to anyone concerned about friends or loved ones.

Over the weekend, the French police made a number of arrests, and in the coming weeks we will learn more about the circumstances behind the attack. These were innocent people enjoying national celebrations—they were families, mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, daughters, sons, friends, and many of them were children. They were attacked in the most brutal and cowardly way possible, as they simply went about their lives. Our thoughts and prayers must be with the families who have lost loved ones, the survivors fighting for their lives, the victims facing appalling injuries and all those mentally scarred by the events of that night.

I have spoken to my counterpart, Bernard Cazeneuve, to offer him the sympathy of the British people and to make it clear that we stand ready to help in any way we can. We have offered investigative assistance to the French authorities and security support to the French diplomatic and wider community in London. This is the third terrorist attack in France in the last 18 months with a high number of deaths, and we cannot underestimate its devastating impact. We have also seen attacks in many other countries, and those killed and maimed by these murderers include people of many nationalities and faiths. Recently, we have seen attacks in Bangladesh, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Turkey and America, as well as the ongoing conflict in Syria, and last month we marked a year since 38 people—30 of them British—were murdered at a beach resort in Tunisia.

In the UK, the threat from international terrorism, which is determined by the independent joint terrorism analysis centre, remains at “severe”, meaning that an attack is “highly likely”. The public should be vigilant but not alarmed. On Friday, following the attack in Nice, the police and security and intelligence agencies took steps to review our security measures and ensure we had robust procedures in place, and I receive regular updates. All police forces have reviewed upcoming events taking place in their regions to ensure that security measures are appropriate and proportionate.

The UK has considerable experience in managing and policing major events. Extra security measures are used at particularly high-profile events, including—when the police assess there to be a risk of vehicle attacks—the deployment of the national barrier asset. This is made up of a range of temporary equipment, including security fences and gates, that enables the physical protection of sites. Since the terrorist attacks in Mumbai in 2008, we have also taken steps to improve the response of police firearms teams and other emergency services to a marauding gun attack. We have protected and increased counter-terrorism police funding for 2016-17 in real terms, and over the next five years, we are providing £143 million for the police to boost their firearms capability further.

We continue to test our response to terrorist attacks, including by learning the lessons from attacks such as those in France and through national exercises involving the Government, the military, the police, the ambulance and fire and rescue services and other agencies.

The threat from terrorism, however, is serious and growing. Our security and intelligence services are first rate, and they work tirelessly around the clock to keep the people of this country safe. Over the next five years, we will make an extra £2.5 billion available to those agencies, and that will include funding for an additional 1,900 staff at MI5, MI6 and GCHC, as well as strengthening our network of counter-terrorism experts in the middle east, north Africa, south Asia and sub-Saharan Africa.

We have also taken steps to deal with foreign fighters and to prevent radicalisation by providing new powers through the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015, and we continue to take forward the Investigatory Powers Bill, which will ensure that the police, the security and the intelligence agencies have the powers they need to keep people safe in the digital age.

The UK has in place strong measures to respond to terrorist attacks and since coming to office in 2010, the Government have taken significant steps to bolster that response, but Daesh and other terrorist organisations seek to poison people’s minds and they peddle sickening hate and lies to encourage people to plot acts of terrorism or leave their families to join terrorists. That is not just in France or this country, but in countries all around the world. We must confront that hateful propaganda and expose it for what it is.

In this country, that means working to expose the emptiness of extremism and safeguard vulnerable people from becoming radicalised. Our Prevent programme works in partnership with families, communities and civil society groups to challenge the poisonous ideology that supports terrorism. This includes supporting civil society groups to build their own capacity, and since January 2014, its counter-narrative products have had widespread engagement with communities. In addition, more than 1,000 people have received support since 2012 through Channel, the voluntary and confidential support programme for those at risk of radicalisation.

This is an international problem that requires an international solution, so we are working closely with our European partners, allies in the counter-Daesh coalition and those most affected by the threat that Daesh poses to share information, build counter-terrorism capability and exchange best practice.

As the Prime Minister has said, we must work with France and our partners around the world to stand up for our values and for our freedom. Nice was attacked on Bastille day, itself a French symbol of liberation and national unity. Those who attack seek to divide us and spread hatred, so our resounding response must be one of ever-greater unity between different nations but also between ourselves. This weekend we saw unity in action as people came together to support each other. People sent messages of condolence, and Muslims in this country and around the world have said that those who carry out such attacks do not represent the true Islam.

I want to end by sending a message to our French friends and neighbours. What happened in Nice last Thursday was cruel and incomprehensible. The horror and devastation is something many people will live with for the rest of their lives. We know you are hurting; we know this will cause lasting pain. Let me be quite clear: we will stand with you; we will support you in this fight, and together with our partners around the world, we will defeat those who seek to attack our way of life.

Below is the text of the speech made by Amber Rudd, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, in London on 29 June 2016.

The decision to leave the EU is of historic significance.

To be clear, Britain will leave the EU.

The decision of the British people was clear.

The key challenge now, as the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have stressed, is to work towards a settlement that is in the best interests of Britain.

As a Government, we are fully committed to delivering the best outcome for the British people – and that includes delivering the secure, affordable, clean energy our families and business need.

That commitment has not changed.

Because while the decision to leave the EU is undoubtedly significant, the challenges we face as a country remain the same.

How do we protect the strong economy that we have built over the past 6 years?

How do we ensure we build the infrastructure we need to underpin our strong economy?

How do we ensure people have good jobs that pay them well?

The challenges to our environment remain the same.

How do we make sure people can have respite from the daily grind in safe, clean green spaces near their home?

How do we ensure we protect our most precious species?

How do we ensure our green and pleasant land is protected both to respect the efforts of generations past and as a responsibility to generations to come?

In particular, I want to underline our commitment to the issue over which I have primary responsibility; climate change.

Climate change has not been downgraded as a threat. It remains one of the most serious long-term risks to our economic and national security.

I was lucky enough to lead the world-class team of British diplomats at last year’s Paris climate talks. Our efforts were central to delivering that historic deal.

And the UK will not step back from that international leadership. We must not turn our back on Europe or the world.

Our relationships with the United States, China, India, Japan and other European countries will stand us in strong stead as we deliver on the promises made in Paris. At the heart of that commitment is the Climate Change Act.

Its success has inspired countries across the world, and its structure of 5-yearly cycles inspired a core part of the Paris deal.

I know many of you are keenly awaiting the outcome of our deliberation on the 5th Carbon Budget. You can expect the Government’s decision tomorrow.

It is an important building block of our economy’s future and you would expect us to take our time to ensure we got the decision right.

And however we choose to leave the EU, let me be clear: we remain committed to dealing with climate change.

The Act was not imposed on us by the EU.

The Climate Change Act in 2008 underpins the remarkable investment we have seen in the low carbon economy since 2010.

Investment in renewables has increased by 42% since 2010.

In 2014, 30% of all of Europe’s renewable energy investment took place in the UK.

Annual support for renewables is expected to double during this Parliament to more than £10 billion.

Last year I set out a clear vision for the future of our energy system.

We said that security of supply would be our first priority. Since then we have consulted on changes to the capacity market which has further secured our position.

We are likely to see significant investment following the auction later this year.

Beyond that, we will continue to invest in clean energy.

We have agreed to support up to 4GW of offshore wind and other technologies for deployment in the 2020s – providing the costs come down.

At the same time we made tough decisions on support for renewable energy, reflecting our core belief that technologies should be able to stand on their own two feet.

We remain committed to new nuclear power in the UK – to provide clean, secure energy.

Government has prepared the ground for a fleet of new nuclear stations. Three consortia have proposals to develop 18GW of new power stations at six new sites across the UK.

These will support more than 30,000 jobs across the nuclear supply chain over the coming years.

We have announced record investment in new heat networks, to enable new and innovative ways of heating our homes and businesses.

And we made a commitment to closing unabated coal-fired power stations – a commitment that was praised by leaders across the world.

All these commitments remain in place. They will help us rebuild our energy infrastructure.

And I am certain that future investment in this sector will continue to flow to Britain’s strong economy.

As the Chancellor made clear earlier this week, thanks to the reforms of this Government, the United Kingdom approaches the challenges of leaving the EU from a position of strength.

Growth has been robust.

The employment rate is at a record high.

And the budget deficit has been brought down from 11% of national income, and was forecast to be below 3% this year.

Britain remains one of the best places in the world to live and do business: the rule of law; low taxes; a talented, creative, determined workforce; a strong finance sector.

We have to build on the strengths of our economy, not turn away from them. We have to enhance our scientific leadership including our co-operation with other countries.

These factors – a clear energy policy framework and a strong, investment-friendly economy – combine to make the UK an ideal place to attract energy investment.

Whatever settlement we decide on in the comings months, these fundamentals will remain.

At the heart of the approach I set out last autumn is our commitment to innovation in energy – and I am delighted this topic is top of your agenda today.

We do not yet have all the answers to addressing climate change.

We must nurture new technologies and industries that will make our future energy system both cheap and clean.

In energy, we are leading the way.

Last autumn as part of the Paris talks, Britain committed to Mission Innovation – a global partnership to encourage greater support for innovation. It was complemented by the Breakthrough Energy Coalition: 29 wealthy investors pledging to invest in energy research and development.

I met Bill Gates earlier this year to discuss this and we agreed the need for a transformation of our energy system.

We also agreed that the transformation would only happen if we could find technologies which are reliable, clean and cheap.

We are doing our part. That is why, as a Government, we have committed more than £500 million over this Spending Review to supporting new energy technologies.

This means supporting entrepreneurs as they look to develop the innovations of the future – in storage, in energy efficiency, in renewables.

As part of that programme, we will build on the UK’s expertise in nuclear innovation. At least half of our innovation spending will go towards nuclear research and development. This will support our centres of excellence in Cumbria, Manchester, Sheffield and Preston.

Our nuclear programme will include a competition to develop a small modular nuclear reactor – potentially one of the most exciting innovations in the energy sector.

Let’s be honest, as the Chancellor said we now face a period of uncertainty. The decision on Thursday raises a host of questions for the energy sector, of course it does.

There have been significant advantages to us trading energy both within Europe and being an entry point into Europe from the rest of the world. Europe has led the world on acting to address climate change.

The economic imperative that drove those relationships has not changed, an openness to trade remains central to who we are as a country.

As the Prime Minister said, we will work towards the best deal possible for Britain.

Securing our energy supply, keeping bills low and building a low carbon energy infrastructure: the challenges remain the same.

Our commitment also remains the same.

As investors and businesses, you can be confident we remain committed to building a secure, affordable low carbon infrastructure fit for the 21st Century.

Below is the text of the speech made by Amber Rudd, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, on 24 March 2016.

Introduction

I’m here today because on the 23rd of June, you will make a decision that will set the direction of the country for generations to come.

A definitive, lasting choice that will impact upon the lives of our children and grandchildren.

Are we stronger, safer, better off inside the European Union?

I wholeheartedly believe that the answer to this question is a resounding yes.

As the Energy Secretary, my first responsibility is to make sure that our families and businesses have the certainty of secure energy supplies that they can rely on…now and in the years ahead.

Today I want to make the case for why being a member of the European Union helps to deliver that certainty.

It’s actually pretty simple.

It’s about safeguarding our national and economic security…

It’s about lower costs for our households and businesses…

It’s about creating jobs and investment which mean the security of a regular pay packet for working people…

It’s about getting our voice heard and influencing action taken in response to the biggest global challenges we face.

In short, I’m not willing to take the risk with our economic security.

So why do I believe that energy is an important issue in this debate?

Energy at the heart of the Union

65 years ago, on 18 April 1951, a treaty was signed in Paris that created the European Coal and Steel Community.

This was the first concrete step towards the EU we know today.

This was born out of the ravages of two world wars.

European co-operation began with an agreement on energy resources.

To ensure we didn’t fight for them, but traded freely and fairly.

And energy co-operation remains at the heart of the Union today.

Whether it’s about making us collectively more energy secure, making energy cheaper, or dealing with the global issue of climate change.

But more fundamentally, safe and secure energy supplies support everything we do in our day to day lives and everything we do as a country.

When we turn on the light, switch the heating on, or plug in our phone to charge. We never think about that energy not being there.

But it wasn’t always this way. I’m old enough to remember the power cuts of the 1970s. When Britain was the sick man of Europe.

When I was growing up, we had candles and boxes of matches dotted around the house just in case.

But because of the hard work of the British people, this is no longer the case.

In fact, the UK is now ranked the fifth most energy secure nation in the world.

But I also believe that our membership of the European Union has played its part in delivering this security.

Let me tell you why.

Security

Here in Kent, I am reminded that whilst we are an island, we have very real and physical connections to Europe.

We’re at the site of one of those connections today. The BritNed interconnector helps to provide the electricity we need.

And over the next five years we intend to double our ability to import electricity with similar new connections to France, Belgium and Norway. And there are potential new projects with Denmark, Iceland and Ireland further down the track.

These new connections alone could save British households nearly £12bn over the next two decades by driving down the price of electricity.

They act as an extension lead to the vast European energy market, bringing cheap electricity from the continent.

They are the perfect example of how being in Europe helps to deliver energy security at home.

Britain’s geography means we are exposed.

We are an island. It is potentially much harder for us to import and export electricity and gas.

Of course, our North Sea reserves have helped to ensure UK energy security for decades.

And, as the Chancellor’s budget last week demonstrated, we continue to support the industry in maximising the recovery of oil and gas.

But reserves in the North Sea are declining.

In 2015 we imported almost half of the gas we need to heat our homes and power our businesses. And two thirds of this imported gas comes through pipelines from the continent.

By 2030, even if we develop the potential of UK shale gas, we are expected to import about three quarters of our gas.

In other words, we will have to continue to work with our closest neighbours to deliver energy security in the future.

Relying on energy from abroad is not without risk.

We have seen how countries such as Putin’s Russia use their gas as a tool of foreign policy. Threatening to cut off supplies or drastically increase prices.

We mustn’t let our energy security be hijacked as a political pawn to bring Europe to its knees.

By working together in the European Union we can stop this becoming a reality.

As a bloc of 500m people, we have the power to force Putin’s hand.

We can coordinate our response to a crisis. We can use the power of the internal market to source gas from elsewhere. We can drive down the price of imports, as has happened recently in Eastern Europe.

To put it plainly – when it comes to Russian gas, united we stand, divided we fall.

However you look at it, an internal energy market helps to guarantee our energy security. Which is the bedrock of our economic security.

I’m not willing to play fast and loose with either.

Prices

Let me turn to getting the best for our households and businesses.

The European internal energy market is about making sure it is cheaper and easier for us to buy and sell energy.

Without barriers – a level playing field.

This is Britain’s agenda – trade and liberalisation to drive down prices – which has now been embraced by the rest of Europe.

It was Britain that pushed to break up the monopolies on building cross-border cables, like the one we are at today, exposing them to proper competition that drives down costs and ensures real value for money.

It has been estimated that a fully integrated internal energy market could save up to £50bn per year by 2030.

Existing EU energy efficient product standards for items such as TVs, fridges and washing machines, will save UK households an average of £60 on their energy bills this year, rising to £120 a year by 2020.

And that’s ignoring the benefits of new and tighter product standards in the future.

That would mean lower bills not just for families and businesses across Europe, but right here in Britain.

You might ask what’s the alternative? A question that those campaigning to leave seem unable or unwilling to answer.

I’m clear that our energy security is non-negotiable so let me try again.

Outside the EU, could we still benefit from these lower prices?

Could we still set the rules that govern the internal market to ensure that they are in our interest?

Could we still trade energy between ourselves and Europe without facing higher costs or barriers?

Well, we don’t even know on what terms we could negotiate these important questions.

How long it would take?

How would the markets respond to the economic shock of Brexit?

And those who want us to leave simply cannot tell you what a future outside the internal energy market would look like.

And most importantly, they can’t or won’t tell you what the cost might be.

But we can get an idea of what these costs might be.

National Grid, which is responsible for running Britain’s electricity system, is neutral in this debate.

It has assessed the risks and costs, because it will have to deal with whatever decision we make as a country.

Today, it has published an independent report looking at what the consequences of leaving the EU could be.

Either to become like Norway – inside the internal market but with no say over its shape.

Or like Switzerland – who are outside the internal market and have been negotiating without success for almost a decade to try and get access on decent terms.

The study contains some eye-catching numbers.

The UK’s membership of the European Union helps keep our energy bills down. If we left the internal market, we’d get a massive electric shock because UK energy costs could rocket by at least half a billion pounds a year – the equivalent of peoples’ bills going up by around one and a half million pounds each and every day.

People want and deserve lower energy bills, and we’re doing everything we can to make that happen, but leaving the EU could put all of that at risk and would hit the poorest in society the hardest.

These are the hard facts from an independent body charged with operating our energy system.

Even if we managed to negotiate to remain part of the internal market – on the lines of Norway – we would have to pay for access and have no say over the rules.

This would be giving away power, not getting it back.

I don’t know about you, but the prospect of being an EU rule taker, but not an EU rule maker, has no attraction whatsoever.

Investment

The report from National Grid also highlighted the impact of Brexit on investment and businesses in the energy sector.

Their analysis showed the risk of several hundred million pounds of higher investment costs for UK energy infrastructure as a result of the uncertainty Brexit would bring.

And this doesn’t include the impact on the UK’s energy sector due to the uncertainty about sterling in the event of a Brexit. This would likely increase the cost of importing electricity, gas, oil and energy equipment – all needlessly adding costs to UK energy.

This isn’t just an energy issue. Almost half of all foreign investment in Britain comes from the EU.

100,000 British businesses export to the EU. 3.3 million jobs are linked to trade with other EU countries.

Yes, we are the 5th largest economy in the world – something we should be proud of – but our economy is stronger because we are in Europe.

So is our ability to secure the investment we need in UK infrastructure to make sure it’s fit for the 21st Century. Being in the EU helps attract that investment.

Just look at the record levels of investment in UK energy infrastructure.

In 2014, direct investment in UK utility projects from elsewhere in the EU amounted to some £45bn.

We win a third of all the EU’s renewable energy investment.

And this investment creates jobs.

There are around 12,000 companies in Britain working in the low carbon economy.

£121bn of turnover. £44.9bn of value added to the UK economy.

Take for example DONG energy from Denmark.

They have invested £4bn so far helping to develop offshore wind in the UK. And they intend to spend a further £6bn in the years ahead.

Investments that will create over 2000 jobs.

Take Siemens.

They employ almost 14,000 people in the UK and are currently investing over £300m in a new factory in Hull, creating up to 1,000 direct jobs.

They certainly want us to stay in.

Siemens’ Chief Executive has been pretty clear.

“To me,” he told ITV, “this is not about surviving, it’s about thriving, it’s about growing and we’re very sure we can better grow our business in the UK as part of the European Union.”

Being in the EU helps us attract billions and billions of pounds of investment in our energy system and supply chain. Taken together, this investment helps support 660,000 jobs in the UK’s energy sector. Does anybody really think all of that investment would continue if we left the EU, and with no extra cost? Why would we want to cause worry and hardship to hundreds of thousands of families in the UK who rely on our energy industry for their livelihoods? A stable regime gives investors confidence. For them unfettered access to the EU single market of 500m people can make the difference between being merely a going concern and a booming business.

Leaving the EU would put all this investment at risk.

The leave campaign cannot tell British businesses how long they would have to wait to re-negotiate the existing EU trade deals with over 50 other markets, not to mention missing out on those EU trade negotiations, like with the US and Japan, that are well under way.

In the race for investment, why would we shoot ourselves in the foot by creating this uncertainty?

Working people will ultimately pay the price for this with fewer jobs and higher prices.

That is not a price I am willing to pay.

Global Standing

The final point I want to make is a personal one.

Just like our membership of the UN Security Council, and NATO, remaining in the EU is about our standing in the world and the impact we can have on global issues as an individual nation.

With Putin on the prowl and Daesh sharpening their swords, our unity and our shared values – of free speech, democracy and equality – are more important than ever.

Beyond these immediate dangers, there are longer term challenges that require us to work together to resolve.

Take the recent climate change conference in Paris where 200 countries came together to sign the first global climate deal ever agreed.

I was there. I saw first-hand how the EU played a pivotal role in driving this deal through.

The deal was ultimately negotiated between the world’s biggest economic powers: the US, China and the EU.

And it was UK representatives who were leading negotiations on behalf of the EU.

If we left the EU, with the UK responsible for just 1% of global emissions, I doubt we would have even been in the room.

How do I know? Because I was there in the room, and many others weren’t.

The global deal in Paris is in the UK’s interests, and frankly we wouldn’t have got it without being part of the EU.

I firmly believe that from our position in the EU we can influence the great geopolitical challenges of the day – to make the world a safer place for Britain.

And let’s be clear, the deal in Paris is not just about our national security, it’s also about our economic security.

Those who want us to leave have a tendency to argue that tackling climate change hampers our economic competitiveness.

I disagree.

It is our own domestic law – the Climate Change Act – that sets out obligations to the next generation.

Our own system – the UK’s Carbon Budgets – sets the pace.

We are also not the only ones taking action.

The Paris Agreement was about levelling the playing field between us and the rest of the world. Making sure that every country makes its fair share of effort to combat climate change.

And within the EU, we are at the table, shaping climate policies so they work for British businesses.

And so they are focused on cutting carbon in a cost effective way. Not driven by backward looking renewables targets.

And by having a seat at the table we are reforming the EU itself.

Since we re-entered Government in 2010, we have led the way on convincing other countries that binding renewables targets aren’t effective.

This kind of reform was at the heart of the Prime Minister’s renegotiation.

Getting a new deal for Britain. But remaining a member of the EU so we can continue to have a seat at the table to set the rules, and effect change at a global level.

In other words, the best of both worlds.

Conclusion

Today I have laid out my case for why I believe we should remain in the European Union.

I firmly believe that we will be stronger, safer and better off as a member of the EU than we would be out on our own.

Our businesses will be better off because they have full access to the free trade single market, bringing jobs, investment and financial security.

Our families will benefit from lower households bills.

Our children will grow up in a safer, more secure world, as we play a leading role in one of the world’s largest organisations from within. Helping make the decisions that affect them.

Those who would have us leave can’t even provide a plan for what happens next.

They are offering risk at a time of uncertainty. A leap into the dark.

For me, having to risk paying a Brexit premium to keep the lights on doesn’t feel like “stepping into the light’.

It’s clear to me that the alternatives won’t work for Britain.

Paying all the costs, but making none of the decisions that set the rules of the game.

Paying more to guarantee our economic security, whilst losing out on business opportunities, exports and jobs.

So I ask, why cut ourselves off?

Of course, the EU isn’t perfect. We have to continue to reform it to make sure that we are getting the best deal for the UK.

But I don’t believe we should make the best the enemy of the good.

I don’t want this country to just be on the fringes.

I want us to be at the centre of things, making things happen, leading in Europe and getting the best for our people.

My judgement is clear.

In the EU, our future is stronger and more secure, and our families and businesses are better off.

My answer is this.

We choose in. We remain. We stay.