Category: Speeches

  • Keir Starmer – 2020 Letter on Government Limiting Media Access

    Keir Starmer – 2020 Letter on Government Limiting Media Access

    Below is the letter sent by Keir Starmer, the Labour MP for Holborn and St Pancras, to Sir Mark Sedwill, the Cabinet Secretary, on 4 February 2020.

  • Ursula von der Leyen – 2020 Comments on Draft Negotiating Directives

    Ursula von der Leyen – 2020 Comments on Draft Negotiating Directives

    Below are the comments made by Ursula von der Leyen, the President of the European Commission, on 3 February 2020.

    I am just coming from a meeting with the UK staff of the European Commission. We had a very good continental breakfast. They are very dedicated people, great staff, very keen to work for the European Commission. My basic message to them was: Let us not look back, let us move forward now. There is a new chapter we are opening and let us be progressive with that.

    Today, as you know, the European Commission will propose to the Council the draft negotiating directives concerning our future partnership with the United Kingdom. If we are looking at these topics, one thing is for sure. We know that there is a very close cooperation that we aim at with the United Kingdom. There will be no surprises. We outlined with the United Kingdom already the future parameters we will have in our negotiations in the Withdrawal Agreement. There we are very clear: The draft directives show also that we are very ready to be very ambitious and to negotiate a new partnership unprecedented in scope.

    The draft directives cover a whole range of topics, from trade to mobility, to energy, from law enforcement to judicial cooperation, from foreign policy to security and defence. It shows that there are a lot of files to work on. The most ambitious model that could be there is membership – and this is not relevant right now. There are other models out there. You know we have free trade agreements with Singapore, with Norway, with Canada, with Australia, with Japan. Important is that all the models are an offer and every model comes with a right balance of rights and obligations. They are always together, rights and obligations in each model. There is no such thing like a free ride to the Single Market, it is always rights and obligations in a good balance.

    In any negotiations, both sides will do what is best for them. The European Union will protect of course the interests of our citizens and of the European companies. The Commission will continue to work hand-in-hand with the European Parliament and the Council, and we will stay successfully united, as we have done over the last three and a half years. We know time is short and the road is long, so we kick off the negotiations today.

  • Ursula von der Leyen – 2020 Speech on the UK Leaving the EU

    Ursula von der Leyen – 2020 Speech on the UK Leaving the EU

    Below is the text of the speech made by Ursula von der Leyen, the President of the European Commission, on 31 January 2020.

    Indeed, yesterday, when we were at Bazoches, there was a very nice quote from Jean Monnet, who has said: ‘I am not pessimistic, I am not optimistic, I am determined.’

    I think it goes very nicely with the three of us joining forces. We are not optimistic, we are not pessimistic, we are determined. It was a very good retreat yesterday at Bazoches. We discussed indeed the matters that have been named, mainly also the digitalisation and the European Green Deal.

    We know that digitalisation is happening anyways, so we must harness it and we must shape it. We are convinced that technology sovereignty is consistent with an open market. And it means to build competitiveness with our values embedded in it.

    The same goes for the European Green Deal. We have been discussing the European Green Deal as our new growth strategy towards competitive sustainability. Europe is frontrunner in this topic, and it is not only our European mobilising project, but it also requires that Europe leads in this topic as a global authority.

    Therefore, we thought that we know very well that as the sun rises tomorrow, a new chapter for our Union of 27 will start. And with it comes a once-in-a-generation opportunity to ensure that Europe leads the way on these two twin ecological and digital transformations.

    Indeed, tomorrow, almost half a century of the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union is over. When the UK joined – I was still at school –, we were 6 Member States. Tomorrow we will be 27 Member States.

    During all these years – 47 plus years –, our Union has gained political impetus and has become a global economic powerhouse. Our experience has taught us that strength does not lie in splendid isolation but in our unique Union.

    Nowhere else in the world can you find 27 nations of 440 million people, speaking 24 different languages, relying on each other, working together, living together. This is not by accident or by chance. This is grounded in centuries of shared history, decades of shared experience and a determination and confidence to shape our common future together.

    Let there be no doubt: The challenges that Europe faces, and the opportunities that it can grasp, have not changed because of Brexit.

    – It is the climate change and the European Green Deal.

    – It is being at the forefront of the digital revolution.

    – It is managing migration in an effective and humane way.

    – It is building strong partnerships across the globe.

    And as part of this, we want to have the best possible relationship with the United Kingdom. But it will never be as good as membership.

  • Boris Johnson – 2020 Statement on UK/EU Relations

    Boris Johnson – 2020 Statement on UK/EU Relations

    Below is the text of the statement made by Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister, in the House of Commons on 3 February 2020.

    This statement sets out the Government’s proposed approach to the negotiations with the EU about our future relationship. Further details on this and other trade negotiations will be made available to Parliament as the process develops.

    The Government wish to see a future relationship based on friendly co-operation between sovereign equals for the benefit of all our peoples. There is complete certainty that at the end of 2020 the process of transition to that relationship will be complete and that the UK will have recovered in full its economic and political independence. The Government remain committed in all circumstances to securing all those benefits for the whole of the UK and to strengthening our Union.

    The question for the rest of 2020 is whether the UK and the EU can agree a deeper trading relationship on the lines of the free trade agreement the EU has with Canada, or whether the relationship will be based simply on the withdrawal agreement deal agreed in October 2019, including the protocol on Ireland / Northern Ireland. In either event the UK will be leaving the single market and the customs union at the end of this year and stakeholders should prepare for that reality.

    The Government will work hard to achieve a balanced agreement that is in the interests of both sides, reflecting the wide range of shared interests. Any agreement must respect the sovereignty of both parties and the autonomy of our legal orders. It cannot therefore include any regulatory alignment, any jurisdiction for the Court of Justice of the European Union over the UK’s laws, or any supranational control in any area, including the UK’s borders and immigration policy.

    This points to a suite of agreements of which the main elements would be a comprehensive free trade agreement covering substantially all trade, an agreement on fisheries, and an agreement to co-operate in the area of internal security, together with a number of more technical agreements covering areas such as aviation or civil nuclear co-operation. These should all have governance and dispute settlement arrangements appropriate to a relationship of sovereign equals.​

    Future co-operation in other areas does not need to be managed through an international treaty, still less through shared institutions. The UK will in future develop separate and independent policies in areas such as (but not limited to) the points-based immigration system, competition and subsidy policy, the environment, social policy, procurement, and data protection, maintaining high standards as we do so. Co-operation on foreign affairs and related issues is of course likely to be substantial, but does not in itself require a joint institutional framework.

    In its negotiations with the EU, the Government will be acting on behalf of the UK Crown dependencies and overseas territories: the whole UK family.

    The UK proposes to agree similar arrangements with the European Free Trade Association states.

    Further information is set out below. Unless otherwise stated, it should be assumed that the UK’s aspiration and level of ambition is to reach agreement on provisions which are at least as good as those in the EU’s recent trade agreements, such as those with Canada or Japan.

    Free trade agreement

    A free trade agreement between the UK and EU should reflect, and develop where necessary, existing international best practice as set out, inter alia, in FTAs already agreed by the EU.

    It should cover the following areas:

    National treatment and market access for goods

    There should be no tariffs, fees, charges or quantitative restrictions between the UK and the EU. There should be a protocol setting out appropriate and modern rules of origin, in order to facilitate trade between the parties to the greatest extent possible.

    Trade remedies

    The agreement should enable the UK to protect its industry from harm caused by unexpected surges in imports of goods or by unfair trading practices, while making the appropriate commitments to transparency, due process and proportionate use of trade remedies.

    Technical barriers to trade

    There should be provisions to address regulatory barriers to trade in goods, providing for co-operation on technical regulation, standards, conformity assessment procedures and market surveillance, building on the WTO technical barriers to trade agreement. Annexes to the agreement could include provisions facilitating trade in specific sectors, such as organic products, motor vehicles, chemicals and pharmaceuticals, as well as mutual recognition agreements focusing on conformity assessment, with full coverage of the relevant sectors.

    Sanitary and phytosanitary measures

    The UK will maintain its own autonomous sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) regime to protect human, animal and plant life and health and the environment, reflecting its existing high standards. In certain areas it may be possible to agree equivalence provisions to reduce practical barriers to trade at the border.

    Customs and trade facilitation

    Facilitative customs arrangements, covering all trade in goods, should be put in place in order to smooth trade between the UK and the EU. These should ensure that both customs authorities are able to protect their regulatory, security and financial interests.​

    Cross-border trade in services and investment

    Significant provisions on trade in services are an essential component of a comprehensive FTA. Accordingly, the agreement should include measures to minimise barriers to the cross-border supply of services and investment, on the basis of each side’s commitments in existing FTAs. In areas of key interest, such as professional and business services, there may be scope to go beyond these commitments.

    There should be measures to support digital trade, building on the most recent precedents.

    Temporary entry for business purposes (mode 4)

    As is normal in a free trade agreement, the agreement should include significant reciprocal commitments on the temporary entry and stay of individuals, so that both EU and UK nationals can undertake short-term business trips to supply services. This is of course without prejudice to the future points-based immigration system.

    Regulatory framework

    There should be measures that reduce unnecessary barriers to trade in services, streamlining practical processes and providing for appropriate regulatory co-operation.

    Mutual recognition of professional qualifications

    The agreement should provide a pathway for the mutual recognition of UK and EU qualifications, underpinned by regulatory co-operation, so that qualification requirements do not become an unnecessary barrier to trade.

    Financial services

    The agreement should require both sides to provide a predictable, transparent, and business-friendly environment for financial services firms, ensuring financial stability and providing certainty for both business and regulatory authorities, and with obligations on market access and fair competition. Given the depth of the relationship in this area, there should also be enhanced provision for regulatory and supervisory co-operation arrangements with the EU, and for the structured withdrawal of equivalence findings.

    Road transport

    There should be reciprocal commitments to allow EU and UK road transport operators to provide services to, from and through each other’s territories, with associated rights, underpinned by relevant international agreements and commitments, and ensuring the necessary co-operation on monitoring and enforcement.

    Competition policy, subsidies, environment and climate, labour, tax

    The Government will not agree to measures in these areas which go beyond those typically included in a comprehensive free trade agreement. The Government believe therefore that both parties should recognise their respective commitments to maintaining high standards in these areas; confirm that they will uphold their international obligations; and agree to avoid using measures in these areas to distort trade.​
    Agreement on fisheries

    The UK will become an independent coastal state at the end of 2020 and any agreement must reflect this reality. The UK will, like Norway, Iceland and the Faroe Islands, have annual negotiations with the EU on access to waters and fishing opportunities, and will consider a mechanism for co-operation on fisheries matters.

    Agreement on internal security co-operation

    Protection of citizens is the highest duty of any Government. The UK believes it is in the UK’s and EU’s mutual interest to reach a pragmatic agreement to provide a framework for law enforcement and judicial co-operation in criminal matters between the UK and the EU, delivering strong operational capabilities that help protect the public. The detail of such an agreement must be consistent with the Government’s position that the CJEU and the EU legal order must not constrain the autonomy of the UK’s legal system in any way.

    Other areas of co-operation

    The Government believe there is mutual benefit in an air transport agreement covering market access for air services, aviation safety and security, and collaboration on air traffic management.

    The UK is ready to work to establish practical provisions to facilitate smooth border crossing arrangements, as part of independent border and immigration systems, and on social security co-ordination. All such arrangements should be reciprocal and of mutual benefit. The UK is ready to discuss co-operation on asylum, including family reunion, and illegal migration.

    The UK is ready to consider participation in certain EU programmes, once the EU has agreed the baseline in its 2021-2027 multiannual financial framework, and taking into account the overall value to the UK of doing so.

    Finally, there are certain areas where the UK considers agreement is self-evidently in the interest of both sides, and where early progress is a test of the constructive nature of the negotiating process. For example, there should be rapid agreement that the UK and the EU would list each other for trade in live animals, animal products, seeds and other plant-propagating material. There should be rapid progress towards a civil nuclear agreement, given the implications for both sides of not doing so and the clear benefits of co-operation. Similarly, the UK would see the EU’s assessment processes on financial services equivalence and data adequacy as technical and confirmatory of the reality that the UK will be operating exactly the same regulatory frameworks as the EU at the point of exit. The UK intends to approach its own technical assessment processes in this spirit.

    A copy of this statement will be placed in the Library of the House.

  • Michel Barnier – 2020 Speech in Belfast at William J Clinton Leadership Institute

    Michel Barnier – 2020 Speech in Belfast at William J Clinton Leadership Institute

    Below is the text of the speech made by Michel Barnier at the William J Clinton Leadership Institute at Queen’s University in Belfast on 27 January 2020.

    Ladies and gentlemen,

    Vice-Chancellor,

    It is a pleasure to be in Queen’s University, Belfast this evening. And it is an honour to deliver the William Clinton Leadership Lecture. It is a sad day for Northern Ireland. My thoughts are with the friends and family of Seamus Mallon. He played a fundamental role in the peace process. He was one of the architects of the Good Friday (Belfast) Agreement. Queen’s University shares its motto with the city of Belfast:

    “Pro tanto – quid retribuamus”,

    “For so much – what shall we give in return?”

    This captures well the societal responsibility of your university. Your dedication to cutting-edge research is a testimony to that motto. Here, researchers like Dr Joanne Murphy, Professor Richard English, and many others, address some of the world’s biggest societal challenges: food security, cancer, cybercrime, terrorism and conflict. On Brexit, researchers such as Dr Katy Hayward or Professor David Phinnemore have made an important contribution to the debate, in Northern Ireland, in Westminster, and beyond. Thanks to you, Northern Ireland’s unique political, social and economic reality is understood more broadly.

    “For so much – what shall we give in return?”

    Anyone who holds public office should reflect on this question. Including myself, as the EU’s Chief Negotiator for a new partnership with the United Kingdom.

    Over the last three years, I have had the privilege of working with an exceptional team.

    Together, we enjoyed the trust of:

    Former Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker and, now, President Ursula von der Leyen,

    Former Council President Donald Tusk and, now, Charles Michel

    27 united Member States,

    and the European Parliament, first with Martin Schultz, Antonio Tajani, now with David Sassoli.

    With such trust comes a great responsibility: the responsibility to work hand in hand with the elected representatives in the European Parliament, EU leaders in the European Council, ministers and members of parliaments in the Member States. The responsibility to clearly explain our positions to all those affected. The responsibility to engage respectfully with UK negotiators, who represent a great country – one which has been part of the EU for 47 years. We have always stuck to this line: No aggressiveness, no punishment, no spirit of revenge.

    No frustration or impatience when the House of Commons was unable to agree on what kind of Brexit it wanted. We have always respected the ongoing debate in the UK, and we will continue to do so. Lastly, we had – and we still have – the responsibility to encourage a genuine public debate on Brexit: on how it affects the EU and the UK, and in particular Ireland and Northern Ireland.

    This debate hasn’t always been easy. But it is important. People must be aware of the consequences. Because it is absolutely clear that there will be negative consequences. UK Chancellor Sajid Javid recognised last week that parts of industry will face a negative fall-out.

    Whatever agreement we reach on our future relationship, Brexit will always be a matter of damage limitation.

    Not one single person – from the UK or elsewhere – has ever convinced me of the added value of Brexit.

    At least, with the Withdrawal Agreement, which has now been ratified by the UK,we have managed to secure an orderly Brexit – for now. One that limits the destruction of value for our citizens and businesses. This is also our objective going forward.

    I am pleased to be in Northern Ireland again: to explain where we stand in the process and our position going forward, but also to listen and engage.

    This is my third visit to Northern Ireland in my current role. I have been to the border a number of times. I walked on the peace bridge in Derry/Londonderry. I have engaged with politicians of all parties, students, workers and business owners. I’m sure the Northern Ireland Rural Women’s Network in Dungannon remembers how moved I was by my meeting with them. I talk about it often. Because, Brexit is first and foremost about people. I can still hear their words: ‘Never again!’

    Ladies and gentlemen,

    The European Union has always been a peace project. We are reminded of this today on Holocaust Remembrance Day. After years of devastating war and conflict, European integration transformed the meaning of national borders. The genius of the founding fathers of the EU was to focus on open trade and economic exchange as an element of peace, not just prosperity. This was true for France and Germany in the 1950s. It was also true when the Berlin Wall and the Iron Curtain came down.

    The EU gradually became a community of 28 countries, reuniting the continent and breaking down borders. Today, people, goods, services and capital can circulate freely from one Member State to another.

    Ladies and gentlemen,

    The Single Market is much more than a free trade zone. It is an ecosystem that Europeans build together everyday, with: common laws and regulations; common rights and standards for workers and consumers; common standards for the environment; common supervision mechanisms; and, on top of this, a common jurisdiction: the Court of Justice of the European Union.

    It is an ecosystem that the UK contributed to for 47 years. An ecosystem that builds trust between countries – and with it, prosperity, fairness and, most importantly, peace. Once again, the UK contributed a lot to these achievements. And it benefitted enormously from the Single Market.

    That is perhaps why Brexit came as such a shock to so many. In June 2016, 52% of the people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union. Indeed, considerably less here in Northern Ireland, at 44%. But the General election that took place in December 2019 confirmed the UK government’s mandate to ‘get Brexit done’. And so the UK will leave the EU in just four days.

    Ladies and gentlemen,

    Brexit is meant to be about ‘taking back control’. But what else does it mean? It means creating trade barriers that do not exist today. The decision to stop free movement means stopping citizens from moving freely between the EU and the UK to study, work or retire. Brexit is about diverging from EU rules. Rules, developed together with the UK, that protect the public interest, guarantee open and fair competition, and thereby allow frictionless trade. Brexit is meant to be about ‘Global Britain’. But, for us, it is the EU that helps make Member States more global. Even without the UK, the EU forms a Single Market of 450 million people – a truly global market. Our economic power allows us to stand proudly on the world stage; To speak with other superpowers as equals on questions such as the economy, climate change, security and trade.

    There is no way that any of our countries, alone, could have the same impact. Especially as other economic giants emerge around the world. As you can see in this slide: By 2050, no individual European country can expect to be among the global top five economies. Not the UK. Not even Germany. But together, as you see here, the EU27 will remain in the top 4.

    Just a few days ago, Chancellor Merkel compared the EU to a “life insurance” for her country. She recognised that in today’s global environment: “Germany is far too small to exert geopolitical influence on its own”. For that, she said, it needs the Single Market. This is why our Single Market is so crucial to us. And yet, in the UK, it seem that many still believe: That they can leave the EU institutions; Leave the biggest trading bloc in the world; Depart from regulations that they helped to put in place; Without experiencing any negative side effects.

    Ladies and gentlemen,

    Northern Ireland will be the part of the UK most impacted by Brexit. Why?

    Northern Ireland has a specific constitutional and legal set-up. Both in terms of governance, and in terms of cooperation with Ireland. The Good Friday (Belfast) Agreement set up specific cross-community, power-sharing governance structures here in Northern Ireland. Thanks to that, people like David Trimble, John Hume and, of course, Seamus Mallon, Martin McGuinness and Ian Paisley, could find solutions to accommodate the different identities and competing political views across Northern Ireland. This work needed political courage and hard work from politicians across Northern Ireland. They managed, with the help of the Irish and British governments, and notably Bertie Ahern and Tony Blair. And let us not forget the role of others like Bill Clinton, George Mitchell, or Hillary Clinton, this university’s new chancellor.

    The Good Friday (Belfast) Agreement cannot be celebrated enough. It was, and still is, indispensable for progress. The Good Friday Agreement allowed, and still allows, the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves as British, or Irish, or both – and be accepted as such. You can choose to be British, Irish, very British with a bit of Irish, more Irish than British, Irish and European, British and European. Others might think of themselves as Northern Irish, or Northern Irish and European. Or, indeed, Northern Irish and anti-European.

    This multitude of identities is a distinctive aspect of Northern Ireland.

    Similarly, Stormont is not based on the rule of the majority, but on power-sharing and compromise – an essential element of building peace. And indeed, we missed Stormont during the negotiations on Brexit and Northern Ireland. Although I met with Northern Ireland’s leaders many times in the last years, the requests were always to meet separately, with one party. Never to meet together. This afternoon, I met with Sinn Fein’s Deputy First Minister, Michelle O’Neill, together with the DUP’s Economy Minister, Diane Dodds, representing the First Minister, Arlene Foster. So I am very glad to see the Legislative Assembly restored.

    Finally, I think it is fair to say that the fact that both Ireland and the UK were members of the EU was also very important in bringing stability to the island of Ireland, because they shared the same rules and had a common trade policy. Companies could trade in a frictionless way without checks or customs procedures.

    Ladies and gentlemen,

    Very early on in the withdrawal negotiations, both the EU and the UK acknowledged that the situation in Northern Ireland was unique. That it required a specific solution. A solution that was legally operative and could reconcile the many different interests at play, in particular:

    1. Avoiding a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland and preserving the all-island economy in the interest of peace and security;

    2. Preserving the integrity of the EU’s Single Market, and all its guarantees for consumer protection, public and animal health.

    3. Respecting the place of Northern Ireland as an integral part of the United Kingdom’s internal market.

    Of course, finding common ground was not easy. But the EU was tireless in its efforts.

    We listened to Irish, Northern Irish and British concerns. We mapped out North-South cooperation, with the UK. We investigated different options. We went back to the drawing table, various times, to design new measures or to reassure. With Prime Minister Theresa May, we had found an agreement on a UK-wide backstop. This meant the whole of the UK forming a single customs territory with the EU – unless and until a better solution could be found. Many people in Northern Ireland acknowledged the benefits of having a backstop. But there were also fears in Westminster that the UK could get ‘trapped’ in a customs union with the EU for an indefinite period of time, without its own trade policy. Despite reassurances that we enshrined in law, Westminster was not convinced that the EU had no intention of acting in bad faith.

    So, in summer 2019, Prime Minister Boris Johnson asked us to abandon the backstop. He wanted a permanent solution, not a temporary one. One that enables the UK to deploy its own, independent trade policy immediately after the transition period. Again, we showed flexibility and understanding. And we found an agreement.

    Ladies and gentlemen,

    The Protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland that we have agreed on is indeed complex but operational. It allows Northern Ireland to remain in the UK customs territory and, at the same time, benefit from access to the Single Market without tariffs, quotas, checks or controls.The Protocol is not an insurance policy, but a workable system, built to last. And, importantly, it gives the elected representatives of Northern Ireland’s legislative Assembly the right to decide whether to continue applying the system or not, four years after it starts to apply. I look forward to Northern Ireland’s Executive playing a stronger role on this matter, now that it is up and running.

    Ladies and gentlemen,

    Implementing this new system will be a big challenge, in particular for UK authorities. In agreeing to the Protocol, the UK has agreed to a system of reinforced checks and controls for goods entering Northern Ireland from Great Britain. I understand the fears of negative economic fallout expressed by some about these checks. But Brexit unfortunately has consequences that we must manage. The UK has chosen to become a third country; to leave the Single Market and the Customs Union;

    to leave behind the EU’s framework of common rules, common supervision and common Court of Justice. It has chosen to create two regulatory spaces. This makes frictionless trade impossible. It makes checks indispensable. We will need sanitary and phyto-sanitary checks on food products and live animals. The EU must be able to assess risks on any product coming into its market and, if necessary, activate physical controls. These checks must take place somewhere. And as the whole point of the Protocol is to avoid a hard border and protect the all-island economy, it was clear that they could not take place at the land border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. The only real option was to use Northern Ireland’s other entry points. This is also where such checks are the easiest to implement. And controls will also take place in Dublin and other EU entry points.

    Ladies and gentlemen,

    It is now the EU and the UK’s joint responsibility to make this agreement work on the ground.

    The EU takes this responsibility very seriously. And let’s be clear: We have been creative and flexible in finding a workable solution. But this is a detailed legal text. Now is the time to implement it precisely. The Withdrawal Agreement must be applied with rigour and discipline by all sides. It cannot be re-opened under the guise of implementation. We will be monitoring its correct application very carefully.

    This is also true of the other crucial element covered in the Withdrawal Agreement: namely citizens’ rights.

    Whilst Northern Ireland will no longer be part of the EU, people born and raised here that choose to be Irish citizens will still be EU citizens. This means they can continue to move and reside freely within the EU, The UK has committed to upholding their rights. They cannot be discriminated against on the basis of nationality. And the Withdrawal Agreement will also protect the rights of all British nationals living in the EU, and their families, for life. The Commission will make sure that each and every one of the 27 Member States lives up to their commitment. But we will also be watching closely to make sure that the UK government does the same for the more than 3 million EU citizens residing in the UK. I have already raised the issue with Stephen Barclay, the UK’s Secretary of State for Exiting the EU. And we will continue to be particularly vigilant to this. In particular to the setup of the Independent Monitoring Authority. This body must be truly independent and deal effectively with complaints from Union citizens and their families. The EU will never turn its back on its citizens. And the EU will not turn its back on Northern Ireland, even as it leaves the Union. The PEACE funding programme, which I was responsible for as Commissioner for Regional Policy, since 1995, supports peace and reconciliation and promotes economic and social progress in Northern Ireland and the Border Region of Ireland will continue. This is a sign of our commitment to peace and stability here.You can continue to count on our support.

    Ladies and gentlemen,

    The Withdrawal Agreement settles all aspects of the UK’s divorce from the EU. It also provides us with at least 11 months of continuity. We need this time – and probably much more – to build a new relationship.

    Negotiating the future partnership between the EU and the UK is another huge challenge. A new clock is ticking. 11 months is extremely short. Prime Minister Johnson has said he will not extend this period. This means that the UK will leave the Single Market at the end of this year. This is the UK’s choice. We respect it. And we will do everything we can in the short time that this makes available. Never will it be the EU that fails on common ambition. But this is clearly a unique situation. Since its inception, the EU has been in the business of removing borders. Not creating them. Our aim has been to bring Europeans closer to each other – students, researchers, professionals, employees, entrepreneurs, pensioners. Now, the UK wants a stricter migration policy that may apply to EU and non-EU nationals alike – possibly as early as 2021.

    Similarly, when we negotiate with third countries, our aim is usually to remove barriers to trade.

    We do this by aligning standards and regulations. The EU has even become so good at this that many of its standards and regulations have become the gold standard internationally. Our regulatory influence goes well beyond our borders because of the size of our Single Market.

    Our high standards are the reason why our trade and investment partners trust us. They are a core part of our competitive edge. Aligning with our standards may have a price. But the return is access to our Single Market. Our standards testify to the quality and safety of our products and services: Whether it’s an EU logo on a toy or a Geographical Indication. But they are also a testimony to our dedication:

    to continuously improving working rights,

    to raising environmental standards and leading the fight against climate change,

    to fighting tax fraud and evasion,

    and to ensuring fair and open competition.

    In our joint Political Declaration on our future relationship, the UK agreed that we need common standards to avoid unfair competitive advantages.

    So when it tells us it does not want to align with EU standards and regulations in the future, it is not clear to me where, or by how much, it wishes to diverge: on standards relating to the safety and quality of products? Or on those relating to fair competition?

    It is not clear to me whether, when the UK leaves the EU and the Single Market, it will also choose to leave Europe’s societal and regulatory model. That is the key question, and we are waiting for an answer. Because that answer will be key for our future relationship. I hope that our UK friends are reflecting carefully on this issue. Because the UK cannot expect high-quality access to our Single Market if it insists on competing on State aid, social or environmental standards. I would not want to be misunderstood: Competition between our economies is not a bad thing. Countries compete with each other, also within the Single Market. But competition needs to be based on common high levels of standards to make sure it is fair.

    Once again, the UK is faced with a choice. Our ambition – the EU’s ambition – is to create a close economic partnership: One that is based on a level playing field.That is the only way we will be able to achieve a truly ambitious deal.

    A deal that that benefits both sides.

    A deal that is fair for our workers, for our taxpayers, our businesses and for the planet.

    A deal that – even if it will never match what we have now

    – lives up to our ambition to remain the best of friends and allies.

    And of course, an ambitious partnership cannot be limited to trade, but must also cover our internal and external security and defence policy.

    Ladies and gentlemen,

    It is clear that the negotiations on a future EU-UK relationship will be a prominent focus in 2020. But this will not be our only horizon. We will continue to work on strengthening the EU. Together, as 27, we will continue working to protect our citizens, and to equip them to deal with the challenges of our time.

    Among others, that will involve:

    1.An ambitious new Green Deal that will help to reconcile our economy with the planet, and turn the EU into the world’s first climate-neutral continent by 2050.

    2.We will also do more to support Europe’s most vulnerable as we transition to a clean and digital economy.

    3. We will increase funding for Erasmus so that more Europeans have the opportunity to live, study or work in another EU Member State.

    We know that education and research can be a game changer in tackling some of our biggest societal challenges upfront.

    4. We will step up our efforts to protect our external borders.

    5. And we will deepen cross-border cooperation on security including, where possible, with the UK as a third country to tackle gaps in the fight against serious crime and terrorism in Europe.

    These are just some of the priorities that Commission President Ursula von der Leyen will take forward in the next five years. These are the issues that the EU will focus on as it strives to deliver more for its citizens.

    Ladies and gentlemen,

    “For so much, what will we give in return?”

    We did not create the European Union. We inherited it from our parents and grandparents.

    It has brought us peace, opportunities, regional development and a better understanding of each other. It is now our responsibility to take this project forward, to improve it, to change it, where necessary, and to equip it for the next generations.

    On 1 February, the 27 EU Member States will open a new chapter of their history. They will continue dismantling barriers between themselves. They will do so without the UK.

    But we will be willing to build a close relationship with a country which will remain our partner, our ally, our friend. And in doing so, we will never lose sight of the unique situation on the island of Ireland. Finally, we will continue to engage as widely as possible in a spirit of openness and respect. Allow me to finish on a more personal note. For many reasons, I regret Brexit. I will always continue to believe that we are better off together than alone – especially in today’s world.

    That is why I will remain a patriot of my country and a European at the same time. But I will also always have profound respect for the UK – its people, culture, great leaders and its solidarity with the rest of Europe during its darkest hours. That is why at the beginning of this new chapter of European history, I would really like to wish the UK well. So, thank you for giving me the opportunity to do so here, tonight.

  • Tracy Brabin – 2020 Point of Order Following Journalist Walkout from Downing Street

    Below is the text of the point of order made by Tracy Brabin, the Labour MP for Batley and Spen, in the House of Commons on 3 February 2020.

    On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am seeking your advice on an urgent and important matter. This afternoon, accredited lobby journalists based here in the House of Commons were denied access to an important briefing with David Frost, the Prime Minister’s Europe adviser on post-Brexit trade plans. David Frost is a civil servant and therefore his briefing on the most prominent issue of the day is supposed to be neutral and not political. The issue of post-Brexit trade plans is one of great public concern, and access to a high-level briefing should not be hand-picked by Government and political advisers. The exclusion of some publications led to every major national broadcaster and newspaper walking out.

    I know that all Members of this House will agree that lobby journalists’ access to Government is vital for a functioning and healthy democracy, and this latest deterioration in relations between the Government and the lobby is deeply concerning. Members are also aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, of your commitment to improving the culture in this place, and pass-holding lobby journalists are part of our community. Therefore, what advice can you offer me as to how Members might be able to formally raise this issue with the Government and ensure that this does not become commonplace?

    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)

    I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order and for giving me notice that she wished to raise it. Of course I agree with her, as everyone will, that accredited lobby journalists are indeed part of our parliamentary community and so of course must be, should be and normally are treated with respect—and, indeed, within the behaviour code that we all apply, or should apply, to each other. The responsibilities of the Chair do not extend to the specific matter that she raises, so I can give no further answer, but I am quite sure that she will find a way of bringing her concerns to the attention of the Government in some other way. If she has any difficulty in doing so, she should please ask for further advice and I will be happy to help.

  • Michael Russell – 2020 Statement in the Scottish Parliament on the EU Exit

    Below is the text of the statement made by Michael Russell, the Cabinet Secretary for Government Business and Constitutional Relations, in the Scottish Parliament on 30 January 2020.

    I want to provide an update on the EU-United Kingdom negotiations, including Tuesday’s meeting of the joint ministerial committee on European negotiations where, along with representatives of the Welsh Government and the Northern Irish Government—making a welcome return to the forum after three years’ absence—I discussed the role of the devolved Governments in the forthcoming negotiations.

    Before continuing, I must acknowledge the desperately sad fact that, despite the unambiguous message of the Scottish electorate in the referendum in 2016 and in subsequent elections, the UK and Scotland will be leaving the European Union at 11 pm tomorrow—although we will be back. After tomorrow night, the UK will become a third country.

    One minute past 11 on 31 January may feel no different from one minute before 11, but a profound change will have taken place. No one should be lulled into a false sense of security by that initial sameness, because at one minute past 11, the clock will start again, ticking inexorably down towards the end of the year, when the UK Government insists that the transition period must end, and when we will feel the full impact of what is the most damaging change to our constitutional settlement in generations. It will be ticking down, once again, to no deal or something very similar, with all the extra hardship that that will entail.

    The Scottish Government’s single overriding concern over the 42 months since the Brexit referendum—in which we did not choose to leave the EU—has been to protect Scotland’s national interests. We will continue to do everything that we can, inside and outside the formal structures, to minimise the profound damage that Brexit will inevitably cause. That is why I continue to attend increasingly difficult meetings of the JMC(EN).

    I go to those meetings because it is vital that Scotland’s core interests—those include the competences exclusively held by the Scottish Parliament—are always spoken for and protected.

    It is a fact that the JMC(EN) terms of reference, agreed jointly by heads of Government in October 2016, have so far never been fulfilled. The JMC(EN) is ostensibly the mechanism by which the four Governments

    “seek to agree a UK approach to, and objectives for,”

    and have

    “oversight of”,

    negotiations—those are the words of the protocol—in order to secure joint outcomes.

    The core problem is that the actions of UK ministers have never matched those commitments, despite the best efforts of the devolved Administrations to persuade them to do so. There are many examples of that disrespectful behaviour—too many to list in full. They began as early as January 2017, when the then Prime Minister announced in the Lancaster house speech her intention to leave the single market and customs union without any consultation and without even considering the detailed arguments that we set out in “Scotland’s Place in Europe” only a few weeks before. It has gone on, right up to the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill, which we saw in its final form only after it had been sent to Westminster to begin its parliamentary process.

    We know that UK Government departments are now working feverishly on negotiating positions and proposals. Ministers have had no sight of those, despite a formal request being made by us and the Welsh Government at the meeting of the JMC(EN) that was held in London earlier this month. How can we contribute effectively to the development of the UK negotiating position on the most broad and complex negotiations in living memory while being left in the dark about the way in which the UK Government is shaping its own approach?

    The fact is that the UK Government has ignored our views, and those of the people of Scotland, throughout the Brexit process. We have repeatedly tried to alter that pattern. Three weeks ago, at the meeting in London, I acknowledged, openly but with regret, the electoral mandate that the UK Government has for Brexit. However, I continue to think that it is fundamentally the wrong approach and will damage Scotland enormously. Regrettably, the UK Government has refused to reciprocate and will not acknowledge the clear mandate that we received to give Scotland the right to choose.

    Without mutual recognition of mandates, there can be no trust. With a mutual recognition of mandates, we could start to move forward. With that in mind, I also proposed a model for engagement in the second stage of negotiations. The model suggested an approach that would allow detailed discussion of devolved competences and could make a difference if there was also a genuine commitment from all parties to take part and make it work. With a recognition that Scotland will be able to choose this year whether to become an independent country, the model could provide a period of stability in the political structures and allow a more constructive dialogue. However, it cannot work if there is no binding commitment to it through a reformed intergovernmental relationship, the UK Government proposals for which have not yet been provided to the devolved Administrations, despite promises.

    Alas, the UK Government has also made the situation worse by two actions in recent days. First, after this Parliament refused on 8 January by a margin of 92 votes to 29 to give its consent to the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill, the Northern Ireland Assembly did the same on 20 January, and the Welsh Senedd followed suit on 21 January. That is a unique situation, but the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union responded by simply confirming that the decision of all three devolved bodies would be ignored. In fact, they went further, insulting our intelligence by profusely supporting in their statements the very convention—the Sewel convention—that they had just buried forever.

    Secondly, as members in the chamber heard in the debate yesterday, the Prime Minister wrote two weeks ago to the First Minister rejecting summarily her request for a section 30 order that would allow the right of Scotland’s people to choose their own future.

    For more than three years, the Scottish Government has sought to engage with the UK Government in the Brexit process. We have developed and passed primary and secondary legislation for withdrawal, and ensured that Scotland is as ready as we can make it for exit, however much we oppose and regret that fact. We have played our part: the UK needs to reciprocate. We must move beyond the current process, mandated by the UK Government, which does not allow constructive engagement and meaningful input, and restricts our ability to protect Scotland’s interests.

    How do we make progress? The negotiations, like all aspects of our relationship with the UK Government, cannot be treated as business as usual without a mutual recognition of mandates. Once again, we have done our part. The UK Government must do its part, and it is enabled to do so afresh by the vote in this Parliament yesterday to take forward a new referendum. Despite the shadow that the situation casts over the negotiations, I will continue to seek the meaningful engagement with the UK Government that will allow me to protect Scotland’s interests. That is now urgent, with negotiations likely to start with the EU in a matter of weeks.

    At the JMC, alongside my devolved Government colleagues, I identified the two essential components of the step change that is required. The first is for the UK to provide the necessary detail of its developing thinking, in order for us to have a meaningful discussion of the UK negotiating mandate. We are ready to have that discussion at the earliest possible moment but, in order to contribute in a constructive way, we need the information that the UK Government has. The UK must commit itself to a process, no matter how brief, that is seen to offer the devolved Administrations a clear and effective input to that vital final document.

    Secondly, the UK Government must give us confidence that, in spite of all the previous false dawns, it will work with us on the negotiations in a way that meets our legitimate expectations and the remit of the JMC(EN). We need to see the imminent UK proposals for the new relationship between the Governments. As devolved Governments, we must be given the space to consider them together and to seek changes as required, with a view to securing statutory backing, in order that—for as long as we are part of this union—we have a platform for discussion and decision making.

    It is my sincere hope that this Parliament will support the continued efforts of the Scottish Government to ensure that the legitimate voices of this Parliament and of Scotland are heard in the most important negotiations that any of us are likely to witness, and that it will support the constructive way that we are going about it.

    We oppose many things in the Brexit process, as well as the process itself. We must continue to have the right to argue against the UK Government’s reckless decision to rule out any extension to the transition period. Imposing an arbitrary end-of-2020 deadline will sacrifice the depth and quality of any future relationship and, at best, will result in a bare-bones agreement that will serve no one’s interests.

    It is a stark fact that, tomorrow, we leave—dragged out against our will, despite the clear instruction of the Scottish people.

    Scotland has the right to choose its own future, and the best option for Scotland is to be an independent country in the EU. In the meantime, we will stand shoulder to shoulder with the rest of Europe around our shared values and interests, while doing everything in our power to ensure that none of Scotland’s interests are adversely affected as the Brexit process continues. That is a mature way to go forward, but it requires the UK to show an equivalent maturity and a respect for democracy.

    Scotland might lie on the edge of Europe, but we have always been—and want to remain—at its heart. We are committed to doing all that we can to get back to where we belong. As we do so, we ask all the remaining 27 members to leave a light on for Scotland as we navigate our way out of an incorporating union that does not work for us into a union of equals that does. We will leave a light on here, to guide us back into our European home.

    We ask the UK to behave like the decent, generous democracy that it has been and—I hope—will be again, and to work with us as friends and neighbours as we make our choices for ourselves.

  • Danny Kruger – 2020 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made by Danny Kruger, the Conservative MP for Devizes, in the House of Commons on 29 January 2020.

    I rise for the first time in this place as the hon. Member for Devizes and as the successor to my friend the great Claire Perry O’Neill. Claire was a brilliant Minister in several Departments, and she brought huge zest and zeal to her work in government. Most of all, however, she was a great campaigner for our constituency. We owe her for the faster, better trains through Pewsey and Bedwyn and for the superfast broadband that is now enjoyed by some of our smallest communities. Thanks to her, we have the promise of a new health centre in Devizes, which is badly needed and, I am afraid to say, quite long overdue. I have inherited from Claire the tradition of posing with the Health Secretary in an empty field outside Devizes, pointing to the spot where the health centre will appear at any moment. I pledge to Claire that I will see the project through as soon as possible.

    Claire is now focusing on the presidency of COP26, the UN climate conference that the UK is hosting in Glasgow in November. This vital role is crucial for the future of our country and the world. I wish her all the very best in this, and I thank her for her work locally and for her friendship to me.

    I represent a corner of the country that is not only the most beautiful in the land but, in a sense, the oldest. It is the ancient heart of England. My constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen), can boast all he likes about Stonehenge, but we have Silbury Hill, the largest prehistoric structure in Europe— a great mound of earth the size of a small Egyptian pyramid built, for reasons we will never know, on a bend of the A4 just outside Marlborough.​

    We have Avebury, the largest stone circle in the world. It is not only much bigger but much older than Stonehenge, which is a vulgar upstart by comparison. We have the ancient burial grounds of our forgotten forebears in tombs and barrows 4,000 years old. We have white horses on the chalk hillsides.

    We have big skies and tough people, and we have the British Army. A quarter of our Army is based in Wiltshire, including the regiments recently returned from Germany and now stationed in Tidworth, Larkhill, Bulford and villages round about. I am deeply honoured to represent our soldiers, and I pledge to serve them and their families as faithfully as they have served us.

    My constituency is in a beautiful part of the country, but we face deep social challenges and many of the problems that are familiar to rural communities everywhere. We need better funding for our health service, for education, for police and for rural transport, and we need a new deal for our farmers. In the brave new world we are entering, in which rural businesses will face global competition and new environmental responsibilities, we need to remember our own responsibilities to the stewards of our countryside. I will be their champion.

    I voted leave in 2016, and I am glad that we are leaving the EU on Friday. The 21st century will reward countries that are nimble, agile and free, but Brexit is about more than global Britain; it is a response to the call of home. It reflects people’s attachment to the places that are theirs. Patriotism is rooted in places. Our love of our country begins with love of our neighbourhoods. Our first loyalties are to the people we live among, and we have a preference to be governed by people we know. That impulse is not wrong; it is right.

    As we finally get Brexit done this week, it is right that we are considering how to strengthen local places, especially places far from London. I wholeheartedly support the plans to invest in infrastructure to connect our cities and towns—the broadband and the transport links that will drive economic growth in all parts of the UK.

    Just as important as economic infrastructure is what we might call social infrastructure: the institutions of all kinds where people gather to work together, to play together and to help each other. I make my maiden speech in this debate because I spent 10 years as the chief executive of a project I founded with my wife Emma that works in prisons and with young people at risk. It was the hardest job I have ever done, and I worked in some very tough places. We often failed, but we were always close to the people we tried to help. Never bureaucratic, and never treating people as statistics or—a phrase I do not like—service users, we saw them as people whose lives had gone wrong and whose lives, but for the grace of God, could have been ours.

    We are now trustees of that charity. If I might make a plea to Ministers, it is for them to recognise the role of independent civil society organisations—charities and social enterprises—in the fight against crime and, indeed, against all the social evils we debate in this place.

    Social problems demand social solutions, not just a state response. Of course we need the police, the prison system and the probation service—we need them very badly, and we need them to be better—but, just as important, we need the social infrastructure that prevents crime, supports victims and rehabilitates criminals.​

    The Government have a great mission as we leave the EU and try to fashion a UK that is fit for the future. This mission represents a challenge to some of the traditional views of both left and right. The main actor in our story is not the solitary individual seeking to maximise personal advantage, nor is it the central state enforcing uniformity from a Department in Whitehall; the main actor in our story is the local community.

    We need reform of the public sector to create services that are genuinely owned and cared for by local people. We need reform of business so that directors are incentivised to think of people and the planet, as well as their quarterly profits. And we need reform of politics itself to give power back to the people and to make communities responsible for the decisions that affect them.

    I finish on a more abstract issue, but it is one that we will find ourselves debating in many different forms in this Parliament. It is the issue of identity, of who we are both as individuals and in relation to each other. We traditionally had a sense of this: we are children of God, fallen but redeemed. Capable of great wrong but capable of great virtue. Even for those who did not believe in God, there was a sense that our country is rooted in Christianity and that our liberties derive from the Christian idea of absolute human dignity.

    Today those ideas are losing their purchase, so we are trying to find a new set of values to guide us, a new language of rights and wrongs, and a new idea of identity based not on our universal inner value or on our membership of a common culture but on our particular differences.

    I state this as neutrally as I can, because I know that good people are trying hard to make a better world and that Christianity and the western past are badly stained by violence and injustice, but I am not sure that we should so casually throw away the inheritance of our culture. There is so much to be positive about. I share the Prime Minister’s exuberant optimism about the future, but we need a set of values and beliefs to guide us.

    As we advance at speed into a bewildering world in which we are forced to ask the most profound questions about the limits of autonomy and what it means to be human, we may have reason to look about for the old ways and to seek wisdom in the old ideas that are, in my view, entirely timeless.

  • Nick Thomas-Symonds – 2020 Speech on UK Telecommunications

    Nick Thomas-Symonds – 2020 Speech on UK Telecommunications

    Below is the text of the speech made by Nick Thomas-Symonds, the Shadow Solicitor General for England and Wales, in the House of Commons on 28 January 2020.

    I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for his statement and for giving me advance sight of it.​

    I am pleased that the Government have finally set out the conclusions of the telecoms supply chain review in relation to high-risk offenders after far too long a period of dither and delay. As the Intelligence and Security Committee made clear in July of last year, this debate has been unnecessarily protracted and damaging. A decision was required urgently so that everyone concerned can move forward. Our telecoms sector, businesses and households need clarity and certainty to move forward; leaks, rumour and confusion on this simply cannot continue.

    The safety and security of our critical national infra- structure is crucial. Robert Hannigan, the former head of GCHQ, has said that decisions about providers should be made on

    “technical expertise and rational assessment of risk”,

    and I agree. It is for the Government to consider the best expert security advice they are given, and act upon it. Ministers should have robustly investigated the risk posed to our critical national infrastructure. I appreciate the confidentiality of National Security Council meetings, but I hope the Foreign Secretary can provide a firm assurance that that is the case.

    Guarantees about the safety and security of the network going forward are now absolutely crucial if Huawei is to be involved in building the 5G network. It is for Ministers to make decisions in our national interest now and going forward, and never to be held hostage by shifting transatlantic geopolitics. A rush by the Government to throw themselves into the arms of President Trump to secure a trade deal must not govern everything they do. There is a wider point here. As we assess potential risks to our critical national infrastructure, whether from Huawei or anywhere else, we should ensure that the UK network is constructed in such a way that it is in the best possible condition to withstand attacks, wherever they come from. Resilience in the network is essential, irrespective of this decision or decisions about any other 5G provider. I hope the Foreign Secretary will provide reassurance on that.

    Huawei is already embedded in the 4G network, but there is a wider question. After a decade of successive Conservative Governments, we do not have our own capacity to secure our critical national infrastructure and security, rather than relying on other countries. As I think the Foreign Secretary conceded, the UK has been left to choose between just three 5G vendors. What will the Government do to support local manufacturing and our own tech sector in growing businesses that can secure our critical national infrastructure? I have heard his words today about market diversification, but they are not enough. The Government need to act.

    5G will have an extraordinary impact on our day-to-day lives. It is transformational, with faster data speeds, higher capacity and faster responsiveness. The majority of our constituents now have access to a large number of smart devices. Every year that number is growing, and the 5G network will have the advantage of being able to cope with that growing capacity. 5G will shape the economy of the future. Innovative technologies of the future rely on its development, and it must progress speedily.

    The Government’s original announcement that the UK would be a global leader in 5G was back in 2017. The Government also set a target of the majority of the population being covered by a 5G signal by 2027. In his ​statement, the Foreign Secretary committed to securing national coverage of gigabit-capable broadband by 2025. Those targets have to be met. The UK is already way too far behind in its digital infrastructure, and we need to act fast. In September 2019, about 10% of premises in the UK—3 million premises— had access to full fibre. In France, 38% of households have access. In Spain, it is 77%. In Portugal, it is 70%. It is simply not good enough. It is letting all our constituents and businesses down, and the Government have to do more.

    Moving forward, I would be grateful if the Foreign Secretary responded to the following points. Given the concerns expressed by our Five Eyes partners, if Huawei is to be deemed a high-risk vendor, will the Foreign Secretary again be as transparent as he can be and make clear how the decision will not bring about risk to communication channels that are used for intelligence sharing? Will he explain how the controls on how high-risk vendors are deployed will work? How durable is the barrier between core and periphery in the 5G network, and how will that be overseen? He mentioned the Huawei cyber-security evaluation centre oversight board, and more detail on how that will work would be appreciated.

    The Intelligence and Security Committee’s statement on 5G suppliers of July last year set out that the Government must assume all worst-case security scenarios and protect the network accordingly. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that such contingency planning is taking place? Finally, will he also confirm when the world-leading regulations he talked about will be brought before the House?

    The public deserve a durable, secure and reliable 5G network for the future to ensure that our economy moves forward. The Government’s decision today is a small step in a very long process. They can be assured that we will hold them to account on the delivery of a secure, world-class service for all our constituents.

  • Dominic Raab – 2020 Statement on UK Telecommunications

    Dominic Raab – 2020 Statement on UK Telecommunications

    Below is the text of the statement made by Dominic Raab, the Foreign Secretary, in the House of Commons on 28 January 2020.

    Mr Speaker, with permission, I would like to repeat the statement by my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport in the other place on the security of the telecoms supply chain.

    This Government are committed to securing nationwide coverage of gigabit-capable broadband by 2025, because we know the benefits that world-class connectivity can bring—from empowering rural businesses to enabling closer relationships for the socially isolated and new possibilities for our manufacturing and transport industries. We are removing the barriers to faster network deployment, and we have committed £5 billion of new public funding to ensure that no area is left behind. It is of course essential that these new networks are secure and resilient; that is why the Government have undertaken a comprehensive review of the supply arrangements for 5G and full-fibre networks.

    The telecoms supply chain review laid before this House in July underlined the range and nature of the risks facing our critical digital infrastructure, from espionage and sabotage to destructive cyber-attacks. We have looked at the issue of how to maintain network security and resilience over many months and in great technical detail; we would never take decisions that threaten our national security or the security of our Five Eyes partners.

    As a result, the technical and security analysis undertaken by GCHQ’s National Cyber Security Centre is central to the conclusions of the review. Thanks to its analysis we have the most detailed study of what is needed to protect 5G anywhere in the world, and because of the work of the Huawei cyber-security evaluation centre oversight board, established by the NCSC, we know more about Huawei and the risks it poses than any other country in the world.

    We are now taking forward the review’s recommendations in three areas. First, in terms of world-leading regulation, we are establishing one of the strongest regimes for telecoms security in the world, a regime that will raise security standards across all the UK’s telecoms operators and the vendors that supply them. At the heart of the new regime, the NCSC’s new telecoms security requirements guidance will provide clarity to industry on what is expected in terms of network security. The TSRs will raise the height of the security bar and set out tough new standards to be met in the design and operation of the UK’s telecoms networks. The Government intend to legislate at the earliest opportunity to introduce a new, comprehensive telecoms security regime to be overseen by the regulator, Ofcom, and Government.

    Secondly, the review also underlined the need for the UK to improve its diversity in the supply of equipment to telecoms networks. Currently, the UK faces a choice of only three major players to supply key parts of our telecom networks, and this has implications for the security and resilience of those networks, as well as for future innovation and market capacity. It is a market failure that must be addressed. The Government are developing an ambitious strategy to help diversify the supply chain, and this will entail the deployment of all the tools at the Government’s disposal, including funding. ​We will do three things simultaneously: we will seek to attract established vendors who are not present in the UK to our country; we will support the emergence of new, disruptive entrants to the supply chain; and we will promote the adoption of open, interoperable standards that will reduce barriers to entry.

    The UK’s operators are leading the world in the adoption of new, innovative approaches to expanding the supply chain, and the Government will work with industry to seize these opportunities. We will also partner with like-minded countries to diversify the telecoms market, because it is essential that we are never again in the position of having such limited choices when deploying such important new technologies.

    The third area covered by the review was how to treat vendors who pose greater security and resilience risks to UK telecoms, and I know that the House has a particular interest in this area, so I will cover the recommendation in detail. The risks identified may arise from technical deficiencies or considerations relating to the ownership and operating location of the vendor. As hon. Members may recall, the Government informed the House in July that they were not in a position to announce a decision on this aspect of the review. We have now completed our consideration of all the information and analysis from the NCSC, industry and our international partners, and today I am able to announce the final conclusions of the telecoms supply chain review in relation to high-risk vendors.

    In order to assess a vendor as high-risk, the review recommends that a set of objective factors are taken into account. These include the strategic position or scale of the vendor in the UK network; the strategic position or scale of the vendor in other telecoms networks, particularly if the vendor is new to the UK market; the quality and transparency of the vendor’s engineering practices and cyber-security controls; the vendor’s resilience both in technical terms but also in relation to the continuity of supply to UK operators; the domestic security laws in the jurisdiction where the vendor is based, and the risk of external direction that conflicts with UK law; the relationship between the vendor and the vendor’s domestic state apparatus; and, finally, the availability of offensive cyber-capability by that domestic state apparatus or associated actors that might be used to target UK interests.

    To ensure the security of 5G and full-fibre networks it is both necessary and proportionate to place tight restrictions on the presence of any companies identified as high-risk. The debate is not just about the core and the edge of networks, nor is it just about trusted and untrusted vendors. The threats to our networks are many and varied, whether from cyber-criminals or state-sponsored, malicious cyber-activity. The most serious recent attack on UK telecoms has come from Russia, and there is no Russian equipment in our networks. The reality is that these are highly complicated networks, relying on global supply chains where some limited measure of vulnerability is almost inevitable. The critical security question is how to mitigate such vulnerabilities and stop them damaging the British people and our economy.

    For 5G and full-fibre networks, the review concluded that, based on the current position of the UK market, high-risk vendors should be excluded from all safety- related and safety-critical networks in critical national ​infrastructure; excluded from security-critical network functions; limited to a minority presence in other network functions up to a cap of 35%; and subjected to tight restrictions, including exclusions from sensitive geographic locations. These new controls are also contingent on an NCSC-approved risk mitigation strategy for any operator who uses such a vendor.

    We will legislate at the earliest opportunity to limit and control the presence of high-risk vendors in the UK network, and to allow us to respond as technology changes. Over time, our intention is for the market share of high-risk vendors to reduce as market diversification takes place, and I want to be clear that nothing in the review affects this country’s ability to share highly sensitive intelligence data over highly secure networks, both within the UK and with our partners, including the Five Eyes. GCHQ has categorically confirmed that how we construct our 5G and full-fibre public telecoms networks has nothing to do with how we share classified data, and the UK’s technical security experts have agreed that the new controls on high-risk vendors are completely consistent with the UK’s security needs.

    In response to the review’s conclusions on high-risk vendors, the Government have asked the NCSC to produce guidance for industry. This guidance was published earlier today on its website. The NCSC has helped operators manage the use of vendors that pose a greater national security risk, such as Huawei and ZTE, for many years. This new guidance will include how it determines whether a vendor is high-risk, the precise restrictions it advises should be applied to high-risk vendors in the UK’s 5G and full-fibre networks, and what mitigation measures operators should take if using high-risk vendors.

    As with other advice from the NCSC on cyber-security matters, this advice will be in the form of guidance. The Government expect UK telecoms operators to give due consideration to this advice, as they do with all their interactions with the NCSC. I hope the whole House will agree that if we are to achieve our digital connectivity ambitions, it is imperative that we can trust the safety and security of our telecoms networks. Risk cannot be eliminated in telecoms, but it is the job of Government, Ofcom and industry to work together to ensure that we reduce our vulnerabilities and mitigate the risks.

    The Government’s position on high-risk vendors marks a major change in the UK’s approach, and when taken together with the tough new security standards that will apply to operators, this approach will substantially improve the security and resilience of the UK’s telecoms networks, which are a critical part of our national infrastructure. It reflects the maturity of the UK’s market and our world-leading cyber-security expertise, and follows a rigorous and evidenced-based review. It is the right decision for the UK’s specific circumstances.

    The future of our digital economy depends on having trust in its safety and security, and if we are to encourage the take-up of new technologies that will transform our lives for the better, we need to have the right measures in place. That is what this new framework will deliver, and I commend this statement to the House.