UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Speeches

  • Chris Skidmore – 2019 Speech on Making Science Work

    Below is the text of the speech made by Chris Skidmore, the Minister of State for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation, on 25 January 2019.

    Thank you for inviting me here to Culham today. On a chilly day, it’s a pleasure to visit what Ian Chapman tells me is hottest place in the solar system! And this isn’t the only superlative that Culham can claim. The Joint European Torus is one of the most impressive international scientific facilities not just in the UK, but perhaps in the world. It symbolises the application of world-leading research and engineering to tackle one of the world’s greatest challenges: the challenge of clean energy. At the same time, it’s providing the skills our country needs for the future, training both the next generation of nuclear researchers and apprentices for businesses across Oxfordshire and beyond. What could be a better place to give my first speech on science, research and innovation?

    I feel very fortunate to be Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation. Several of my predecessors have said they felt it was the best job in government. It has a special significance for me because I began my career as a historian: I profoundly believe in the importance of research. I recognise the joy, and the occasional frustrations, of the pursuit of knowledge. And I deeply respect the passion that drives people to dedicate their lives to it.

    Science, research and innovation represent this country’s best hope for the future. From an economic point of view, scientific developments underpin prosperity and growth and help create rewarding, high-wage jobs in every part of the UK. From a societal point of view, they offer ways to tackle the grand challenges of the future. And crucially, they are valuable in their own right. Pushing the boundaries of knowledge, seeking to understand the universe, the human race, our past and our future – these are all things we should be proud to invest in.

    I’m proud of Britain’s world-leading scientific and technological heritage. And of our wider strengths: the invaluable work done in the arts, humanities and social sciences; the ground-breaking interdisciplinary research that goes on in our universities; and the R&D done outside academia – in businesses, independent research institutes, charities and public labs.

    Today, here at Culham, I will be visiting a remarkable firm called Reaction Engines that is designing a new type of engine called SABRE, which could revolutionise air and space travel and make it possible to fly from the UK to Australia in just four and a half hours. The development of the engine, which has had £60 million in backing from the UK Space Agency and £50 million from the private sector, is a clear example of the UK being at the forefront of technological and scientific discovery, and exemplifies the aims of the government’s modern Industrial Strategy.

    There is no better backdrop to talk about my priorities and ambitions for science, research and innovation in the UK, and how we can work together to make it a reality.

    Priorities

    I believe there are two overarching priorities for UK science and research in the year to come.

    The first is the most urgent: ensuring, as the UK leaves the European Union, we have the right relationship with European research programmes and with the wider world of science and research.

    The second may be less urgent, but it is no less important. How we chart a path to an economy that invests more in science, research and innovation, and puts R&D at the heart of our economy.

    This second goal may seem to some to be a distraction from the issue of Brexit. But it is crucial to the future not only of science and research in the UK, but to our wider destiny as a country. And we would be unwise to put it off.

    The decisions we take now, ahead of the Spending Review later in the year, will be crucial to our ability to invest more in R&D, and to crowd in investment from business and from overseas.

    Today I’d like to talk about these two priorities in turn.

    Brexit and the future of UK research

    First, the urgent question that is on so many of our minds: the question of the UK’s place in the global research community as we prepare to leave the EU.

    My thinking on this is guided by an old conservative principle: the idea of Chesterton’s Fence. It was 90 years ago that GK Chesterton came up with this warning to political reformers: never tear down a fence, he said, until you understand why it was there and what its purpose was. This is especially pertinent today as we inch towards Brexit.

    With this in mind, I’ve been grateful to the researchers, universities and National Academies who have taken the time to speak to me and my officials about this, as well as to the participants in the High Level Group on Brexit set up by my Ministerial predecessors.

    The message I’ve had is clear: participation in EU framework programmes is vital to UK researchers and innovative firms for a host of reasons.

    The money is one: through our EU membership, the UK gains £1 billion of R&D funding each year. The fact we are so successful is a measure of our excellence. But I know it is not just about the money: Horizon 2020 connects our labs, universities and businesses to researchers across Europe. I also recognise the importance of the prestige of ERC grants or the Marie Sklodowska-Curie Actions.

    I acknowledge the importance to Britain’s labs and universities of researchers and staff from overseas, including from the EU. Indeed, I want to express my gratitude to the tens of thousands of researchers, whether from elsewhere in Europe or the wider world, who have chosen to make the UK their home, and bring their talents to work here.

    Leaving the EU with a deal remains our top priority and the PM has been clear that we want to have the option to associate to future EU programmes including Horizon Europe and the Euratom Research and Training Programme. But we are also preparing in the event of no-deal. The government’s underwrite guarantee will cover the payment of awards for all competitive bids to EU funding programmes submitted before Brexit. We’ve taken steps to ensure that this will work as smoothly as possible if it needs to, notably with the UKRI grant registration portal that was set up in September and which already has 5,000 registrations. I urge all researchers working on EU-funded projects to make sure their project is signed up.

    I’ve heard loud and clear the message that leaving the EU presents unique challenges to science, research and innovation in the UK. So, I ask you and your fellow researchers and innovators to work with me to deliver a Brexit that works for your sector, and to help design the UK’s post-Brexit relationship with the EU that builds on our scientific strengths and ingenuity.

    At the same time, we continue to strengthen our relationships with researchers across the world. As I announced earlier this week, we are investing more than ever in partnerships with both the leading science and innovation nations and with the developing world. Joint projects which bring together the best with the best enable us to further our ambitions under the modern Industrial Strategy and to tackle the global challenges which affect the poorest and threaten the future prosperity and security of us all. To support such joint ventures, we will build upon our global strategic partnerships at government level, for example with the US, Canada, Israel and China – the latter of which I intend to visit in the coming months to progress our Joint Science, Technology and Innovation Strategy.

    Making 2.4% target a reality

    My other priority for the coming year is how we ensure a bright future for R&D in the UK. In particular, how we deliver the commitment this government has made to increase the amount the UK invests in R&D to 2.4% of GDP by 2027, and 3% in the longer term.

    Measuring R&D in percentages of GDP is perhaps not the most vivid way to capture the wonders of science, the power of technology, or the ingenuity of innovation. But the change it will make will be truly transformational. 2.4% of GDP may sound like a dry statistic: but if we can realise it, it will represent national renewal. Increasing our R&D investment to 2.4% is equivalent to around 3 new GlaxoSmithKlein and 4 new Rolls-Royces and 5 new Unilevers. This will help keep the UK’s economy competitive, and create good, meaningful jobs and prosperity across the country.

    It will also help us make great strides to tackle the big societal challenges facing Britain and the world at large.

    But reaching the 2.4% target must not be an end in itself. It is the opening of a new chapter for UK R&D and the cornerstone to building a great future based on the collective strength of science, engineering, technology, the arts, humanities and social sciences.

    Just this week, we have seen an extraordinary project announced by the University of Strathclyde with the potential to help patients suffering from osteoporosis. Experts will use technology originally used to help measure the collisions of black holes in space to vibrate stem cells in people’s bones to turn them into new bone. This is an example of government funded, interdisciplinary research having real world benefits to help people living, longer, healthier lives.

    On Tuesday, we also announced 28 new international research projects, backed by £279 million of government funding. Many of these projects are led by experts in UK universities and tackle global challenges, from reducing the impact of oceans pollution, to controlling the spread of infectious diseases.

    The work of the UK Atomic Energy Authority here at Culham is a great example of what we want to achieve. World class science, tackling a big global challenge, deeply embedded in the real world and in its community. I’m especially glad that the government has committed to double down on our ambition when it comes to nuclear fusion, committing £20 million to begin development of a new UK based Nuclear Fusion reactor, STEP the Spherical Tokamak for Energy Production, paving the way to practical, energy-producing fusion power.

    The UK already leads the world in innovative, compact fusion devices; the Duke of Cambridge turned on the UK’s upgraded fusion test reactor, the Mega-Amp Spherical Tokamak, just last October. The work of UKAEA here at Culham will help make British fusion power a reality – this kind of national endeavour is a great example of the vision we need to pursue to deliver the 2.4% R&D target.

    In the coming months, we will be developing and publishing our roadmap on how to reach the goal of investing 2.4% of GDP in R&D. We have already shown that we are serious: the £7 billion of additional funding we have announced in recent years represents the biggest increase in public R,D&I funding for four decades.

    I want us to go even further. Making the 2.4% target a reality will be a top priority for me in the coming year, as we manage our departure from the EU and agree the terms of the Spending Review that will dictate public investment over the coming years.

    A few principles will guide my thinking here.

    The first is the right public investment. While it is too early to pre-judge the results of the Spending Review, analysis by both my own officials and by others, including the National Academies, shows that meeting 2.4% of GDP will require significant increases in public investments in R&D across the UK.

    OECD statistics show that the UK’s mix of public to private R&D is relatively strong: for every pound of public R&D we fund, the private sector funds around £2.60. This compares favourably with many other rich countries: it is slightly more than Germany and Finland, and quite a bit more than Canada, France or the Netherlands, but somewhat behind that in the USA or Switzerland.

    An important takeaway from this is that even if the ratio of private to public contribution were to increase to that of the US or Switzerland, but public investment kept at the same level as a proportion of GDP, we would still be some way from meeting the 2.4% target. This means that to meet the target, an increase in public investment will almost certainly be required. This is the case I will be making to the Treasury, and I’d call on everyone who cares about the health of research and innovation in the UK to work with me to do so.

    Yet, it is also clear from the statistics that the public sector cannot meet the target on its own. Innovation and R&D happen in an ecosystem, where government, academia, businesses, and other institutions all have complementary roles to play.

    We will only meet the target if businesses and charities also increase their investment in innovation. That’s why we have been working and will continue to work with businesses to identify what policies will help them commit to investing in R&D across the UK in the decade to come. This is also why we have developed new funding streams to back important and impactful work, including the Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund and the Strategic Priorities Fund, which support research with the potential to transform the economy and the world.

    The willingness to invest in innovation will also be determined by the quality of our institutions, the relationships between them and the way we approach the culture that underpins them.

    For example, how we can ensure greater access to research careers. How we can ensure the UK’s research community leads the world on research integrity. How we will make sure we adopt digital technologies to do better research. How we will assess and manage research effectively. And how we can build the right links between the worlds of research and practice, and between science and industry.

    In this respect, the establishment of UK Research and Innovation, planned and launched by two of my predecessors, will be vital.

    UKRI are in a position to use analysis and the wealth of data they possess to work with researchers, businesses and policy makers to understand where our research and innovation strengths are, how our interventions are enabling the growth of high-tech businesses, and how we are delivering against our four Grand Challenges.

    UKRI also has the potential to tackle the cross-cutting issues that will determine the health of the UK research and innovation system in the years to come.

    One of these is research integrity. If we are relying on research to boost our economy and tackle societal challenges, we need to know the system is working. Research that is not replicable or that fails to meet ethical standards is not just bad in itself: it is a waste of resources that could have contributed to the common good.

    Similarly, we need to ask ourselves whether we are making the most of our talent. Recent economic research has documented the phenomenon of “Lost Einsteins” – people who could have been researchers or inventors but who seem, by reason of background, to have missed out on the opportunity. We also hear accounts of those driven out of promising research careers by harassment or bullying. These issues matter both for their own sake – as they are the kind of “burning injustices” this government has set out to tackle – and because tackling them will make for better science and research, from which society at large will benefit.

    Finally, UKRI should work toward making sure the benefits of research and innovation are felt widely across the country and across society. This is partly a matter of involving the public effectively in the processes by which decisions about science and research are made. In an age when technologies from AI to robotics are raising big social questions, public engagement is important both from an ethical point of view and from a democratic one.

    It also has a bearing on where UKRI makes investments. Historically, public research funding has been concentrated in particular places, notably the Golden Triangle between Oxford, Cambridge and London. It is right that we fund excellence and support successful clusters. But we need to make sure we recognise the potential of other areas and the case for investing in them. That’s why we recently launched the first round of the Strength In Places Fund, to back excellence broadly across the UK.

    Another necessary complement to a strategic UKRI is the diversity of funding at the institutional level, including the charitable sector. With this in mind, I recognise the great value of Quality Related (QR) funding, and the role it plays in both building research capability across the disciplines and in providing additional sources of intelligence in our funding system.

    I will be working closely with UKRI to make the most of their potential – and aiming to make sure they become recognised as one of the world’s great funders of research and innovation, and a lynchpin in a successful knowledge ecosystem.

    So, I’d like to finish with an appeal to anyone dedicated to the pursuit of knowledge.

    We have the opportunity to make a step-change to the world of science, research and innovation in the UK – with more investment, better training, and a renewed focus on changing the world. To do that, we need to work together, both to make the case for investment, and to make sure that investment has the greatest possible effect. The next few months may be a time of political uncertainty. But if we work together, the best days for research and innovation in the UK could well be ahead of us.

  • Chloe Smith – 2019 Speech at SOLACE

    Below is the text of the speech made by Chloe Smith, the Minister for the Constitution, at SOLACE (the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives) on 24 January 2019.

    Thank you very much indeed for asking me to be here today, it’s an absolute pleasure to come back and see many of you and Louise thank you for the invitation.

    It’s very good to see a number of familiar faces in the room, but also I understand some new members, so I hope you all had a very good conference morning.

    There is a lot that we do together, and first of all I would like to thank Dave Smith all of his work in the last year, and to welcome Louise to the role for Elections and Democratic Renewal. It’s a role where I really hope we will be able to achieve together.

    As the past few years have clearly demonstrated, facilitating and sustaining a flourishing democracy is a very important thing – it is essential that we all understand the weight behind all of our democratic decisions and that everyone has their say.

    We all recognise our shared responsibility to inspire participation and tackle democratic exclusion among under-registered groups.

    When I was here twelve months ago, I set out the approach the government is taking to these issues following the publication of our ‘Every Voice Matters’ Democratic Engagement Plan.

    It was the first time government had announced a comprehensive strategy for addressing exclusion in our democratic system.

    Today, we are publishing a ‘One Year On’ update, so I want to tell you what we have achieved, but also what we hope to do, to respect, protect and promote our democracy.

    Because there is still so much more to do.

    As I look at what’s possible in the coming years, I know that we cannot achieve our aims alone.

    Meeting the challenges that our democracy faces, and reaching the many different groups that we all must serve, requires us to work collaboratively with a range of experts across the public, private and third sector.

    So today I have come here to ask you all for your continued commitment to helping citizens have confidence in our historic, strong and successful electoral system.

    It is you who hold local knowledge and relationships. I really thank you for the tremendous work of your elections teams supporting their Electoral Registration Officers and Returning Officers.

    You do that hard work and I would love for that gratitude to be passed on to the teams behind you.

    Local authorities – you and your teams – are the frontline of our democracy.

    Our approach to democracy has to be one based on respect – underpinned by the principle of fairness, of course.

    We believe everyone in this country should have confidence that their vote matters, that they are making a difference, and that their voice is being heard.

    Votes of course should not carry any more weight for one than for another.

    That is why the government is committed to making our democratic system fairer by supporting the independent and impartial reviews from the Boundary Commissions, which will deliver equal representation for voters across the UK at the next scheduled general election.

    Channeling a culture of respect and inclusion should be a priority for anyone involved in the democratic sphere at this critical time.

    For if we, at the forefront of the democratic agenda, do not promote a culture of respect – how can we expect those we serve to follow it?

    As a Member of Parliament, I have been lucky enough to travel to places like Myanmar and countries in East Africa where they are only just beginning their journeys to full democracy.

    As last year’s Suffrage Centenary reminded us, the UK’s democracy has come a long way.

    But 100 years on since some women won the right to vote and 90 years since women received equal voting rights in this country, there is a lot more still to achieve.

    I am playing my part in this journey by working to ensure that everyone understands and respects the need for debate that is robust and healthy.

    At a time of rising levels of intimidation in public life, it’s important we work to prevent this worrying trend from stopping talented people going into public service.

    I think our politics will be the poorer if talented people do not get involved, whether as candidates or campaigners, or indeed in local authorities, because they see the unacceptable abuse hurled at those who do volunteer for public life.

    That is why last year we launched a consultation on Protecting the Political Debate which sought views on new measures to tackle this growing trend. We are analysing the evidence that we received back from that consultation and I look forward to publishing our response and next steps early this year.

    Respect for our democracy is also rooted in the public having confidence that our processes and systems are secure – that elections will always take place on a level playing field. And so I take my responsibility to protect our democracy very seriously indeed.

    We have taken action across a range of areas.

    Part of the consultation I just touched on also looked at the requirement for digital campaigning material to include the details of who has produced it and paid for it.

    We believe voters should be able to see which organisation or individual is targeting them, and thus be informed and empowered.

    Protecting our democratic processes also means recognising the importance of cyber security – a point the newly appointed Government Chief Security Officer has made in a letter to the President of SOLACE this week.

    My colleagues in the Government Security Group will also be providing much advice through the Local Government Association’s weekly bulletin – which I hope you’ll be able to see in the coming weeks.

    All of us have an important role to play then, in protecting the operation of our elections from from those who seek to undermine them.

    For example, electoral fraud is not a victimless crime.

    We must work together to stamp this problem out.

    We can do so through a solution so simple it is already used by people everyday – and I’m referring to showing ID at the polling station. We do of course already use ID in many, many walks of life and showing ID to prove who you say you are before you vote is a common sense approach to tackling voter fraud.

    Indeed, voters in Northern Ireland have been required to show a form of ID since 1985 without adverse effect on turnout or participation.

    So, last May local authorities held Voter ID pilots in five local elections. Both our own evaluation and that of the independent Electoral Commission showed that the trials were a success. The overwhelming majority of people were able to cast their vote without any problems.

    It is a real credit to the local authorities involved that their awareness-raising campaigns were effective in making voters aware of the change. So it’s a big thank you to those Chief Executives and Returning Officers who helped deliver those five pilots last year. And thank you to those who have agreed to hold pilots again or for the first time.

    I am delighted by the collaborative, supportive work between each pilot authority and my staff to ensure the success of the 2019 pilots. Doing so will no doubt benefit you by improving your preparedness for national roll-out. It will also help us prepare for that moment because the more pilots and subsequent data we have to analyse and learn from, the better the final proposal for Voter ID will be. So I would urge everyone here to think about following in their footsteps by volunteering to pilot in future.

    I do think this work is absolutely essential to be able to look those arriving at polling stations in the eye and tell them: ‘your vote is yours and yours alone’. But we have to get it right, which is why I am also currently holding meetings with representative groups from a broad range of charities and civil society organisations.

    My conversations with the Equality and Human Rights Commission, Stonewall, Shelter, Operation Black Vote and Age UK – to give some examples – will ensure that we fully understand the impact of voter ID and the needs of all voters in our country.

    That positive engagement with groups which reflect our diverse society reflects our broader approach towards driving up participation. As well as respecting our democracy and protecting it, we must also promote it. We have made excellent progress in this area.

    Reforms to our electoral registration system now completed have resulted in record levels of people registering to vote. Nevertheless, this year’s Hansard Society Audit of Political Engagement showed that just a third of people believe they can affect political change by getting involved. So we must always be reminding ourselves that our democracy is only ever as strong as the people who are part of it. That’s why I’ve made it my ambition to make the next general election more accessible.

    As things stand, for example, there are just over one million people with a learning disability who are of voting age in the UK. I’m very concerned that less than a third of those are exercising their democratic right to vote – and I’ve been determined to do what I can to change this.

    Last year we launched a call for evidence on access to elections and have since worked out a number of steps to improve the voting experience of disabled people.

    We are making polling stations more accessible – physically speaking.

    We are improving the accessibility of the Register to Vote website – including by introducing an ‘Easy Read’ guide on the homepage of the service to enable people with learning difficulties to apply online without so much trouble.

    And we have updated the Certificate of Visual Impairment so that local authorities are better able to help those with sight loss register to vote and then vote at elections.

    I would also say that disabled people are also not sufficiently represented in public office.

    To help address this, in December 2018, government also launched the interim EnAble Fund for Elected Office. This is a £250,000 commitment to support disabled candidates – primarily for the forthcoming local elections in May. It will help cover disability-related expenses people might face when seeking elected office.

    I really hope this money will encourage more disabled people to become candidates and enrich our public life as a result.

    As a further example of opening up elections, we have changed the law, allowing anonymous voter registration to help protect survivors of domestic violence and others.

    As you will know, we want to help make legislation match more closely to the way people need to make those requests.

    Another group facing unnecessary obstacles to participating in our democracy are those UK nationals who live overseas – our expats.

    We think that no matter how far you have travelled, participation in our democracy is still a fundamental part of being British.

    This is why in Parliament we are supporting the Overseas Electors Bill, which will end the current 15-year time limit on British expats voting in UK Parliamentary elections, delivering on votes for life, and why we are pursuing bilateral arrangements with EU Member States – to secure the voting rights for UK nationals living in the EU and vice versa.

    It is right that both sides of this are considered together – that is both UK citizens living abroad and EU citizens living in the UK.

    It is right in this time of change that we provide certainty to EU citizens living here where we can – many of course who are citizens who play an active role in our society and our democracy.

    So I can therefore confirm that EU citizens currently living in the UK will retain their voting and candidacy rights in the next local elections in May.

    I have been working closely with my colleagues in other departments, and earlier this week we announced an agreement with Spain that will allow UK nationals living in Spain, and Spanish nationals in the UK, to continue to vote and stand in local elections.

    This agreement is the first of its kind and it secures the democratic rights of over 300,000 UK nationals living in Spain – the country with the biggest population of British expats living in the EU.

    One final area of progress I want to highlight is our proposed reform of the annual canvass, which will make the process easier for citizens, and for your teams.

    It will deliver the most accurate electoral register to date, while saving £27 million a year.

    I know that the current canvass process is seen by EROs and others as too paper-based, too prescriptive, and too complex.

    I am aiming to modernise it, allowing for a data-led approach and giving EROs more flexibility over their use of communications channels – and to target your precious resources where it is most needed to the properties where household change has occurred.

    My team will shortly be communicating plans for Local Authorities to start preparing to use their own data and to test the data match step in early 2020.

    I encourage you to support your electoral services teams in accessing and using local data, whether it is local authority owned or third party, where they are keen to do so. Including local data in the data match test will provide important information on the accuracy and usefulness of those data sets. This will be highly beneficial when it comes to the full roll-out of canvass reform.

    I hope to legislate to allow for the reformed canvass to be implemented in 2020.

    We make these changes as part of our broader commitment towards promoting a more inclusive democracy.

    The Democratic Engagement Plan that I was able to speech about last year, charted a course towards that goal by identifying and tackling barriers that prevent some people – particularly those in under-registered groups – from participating in our democracy.

    The update we will be publishing later today sets out the government’s future approach to democratic engagement – it outlines the role the government plays as a legislator, funder, convenor for registration activity and in promoting good practice.

    I ask you – as leaders – to consider the significant role you can continue to play in sustaining a flourishing democracy, by encouraging improvement and building capability within your own organisations.

    Good practice is at the heart of building capability.

    I was pleased to begin to discuss this with Louise yesterday, and I am looking forward to continuing to work together to identify and promote good practice so that it becomes embedded in all of our teams.

    Today’s publication makes clear how government intends to convene the various parts of the electoral community to make best use of our evidence, skills, knowledge, and our resources.

    I see that the Cabinet Office role includes supporting others’ capability to lead and ultimately to act independently, to encourage people to register, to participate and to vote.

    For instance, the Cabinet Office published details of what works on student registration; a brokering role that the government undertook as part of implementing the Higher Education and Research Act 2017.

    The government will share more examples this year where we are best placed – for example we are leading on research on how to remove registration barriers for people who are homeless or move frequently. I really look forward to sharing the results of this.

    But there is much to learn and benefit from at a local level. So let’s do this together.

    As part of this, I am pleased to launch the Atlas of Democratic Variation – a collection of maps which, for the first time in this format, displays the geographical data variations on electoral registration – and data relevant to that.

    The project was a collaboration between government and the Office for National Statistics.

    I hope that it allows EROs , you and your colleagues, the wider electoral community, democracy organisations and others to:

    examine the variations in the data, and seek to identify any trends or relationships between registration activity and population demographics, and use it to inform and support the development of your democratic engagement strategies

    In other words, to get more people involved.

    I don’t see it as being used to evaluate EROs performance nor the quality of the registers, we encourage stakeholders and interested parties to examine the maps included in the Atlas, to reflect on how they can support their democratic efforts.

    This publication also highlights our commitment to ensuring everyone can make their voice heard free from abuse, making voting easier and more accessible for vulnerable and under-registered groups, and introducing measures to protect electors’ votes.

    Government has a unique role to play in respecting, protecting and promoting our democracy.

    I understand that in order for you to accommodate the very diverse needs of voters in your communities, there are certain things that only government can progress on your behalf.

    Government naturally has a large impact in facilitating funding and promoting good practice.

    We are working with counterparts in Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government to ensure that funding for delivery of elections at both local and national level is effective.

    Also, only government, with the Parliament and the Devolved Administrations, can change the law. And I do hope to make the most important changes to keep our body of electoral law up to date and effective – even if I can’t do all the change that some call for.

    But such things form only part of the equation and together we are greater than the sum of our parts.

    It is essential to me that government creates an environment in which democracy can thrive: one which enables our democratic partners – such as yourselves here today – to put your unique knowledge, skills and resource, to work for your voters.

    My message to you today is that I am committed to working with all of you to respect, protect and promote our democracy.

    I look forward to doing that and I thank you for having me today.

  • Caroline Dinenage – 2019 Statement on Social Care

    Below is the text of the statement made by Caroline Dinenage, the Minister for Care, in the House of Commons on 23 January 2019.

    Today I would like to update the House on social care funding following the Opposition day debate of 17 October 2018.

    Modern society is in the fortunate position where people are living longer and life expectancy for those living with complex health conditions, including disabilities, has dramatically increased. However, with 1.5 million more people aged over 75 expected in the next 10 years, we recognise the pressures this places on the health and social care system and the Government are taking steps to support the sector in responding to these challenges.​

    In the short term, the Government have given Councils access to up to £3.6 billion more dedicated funding for adult social care in 2018-19 and up to £3.9 billion for 2019-20. This injection of funding is the biggest that councils have ever received and is helping the NHS and social care to support people to live for longer and more independently.

    Despite the fact that the NHS is busier than ever before, the majority of patients are discharged quickly. We know that adult social care capacity can become increasingly pressured over the winter months and this can have a knock-on effect on NHS hospitals. This funding is helping to reduce delays, get patients home quicker and free up hospital beds across England for more urgent and acute cases. This is having a tangible effect with delayed transfers of care accounted for 4,580 occupied beds per day in November 2018—a decrease of 2,081 per day against the February 2017 baseline.

    The autumn Budget also announced an additional £650 million of new money for social care in 2019-20. This includes another £240 million for adult social care to alleviate winter pressures on the NHS next year and a further £410 million to improve social care for older people, people with disabilities and children. Councils will also benefit from an additional £55 million increase in the disabled facilities grant in 2018-19. This additional capital funding will provide home aids and adaptations for disabled children and adults on low incomes to help them continue to live independent lives in their own homes.

    References to £1.3 billion of cuts are entirely misleading as the figure refers only to the revenue support grant which should not be considered in isolation when councils have access to council tax, business rates and other local income to deliver their local services. In fact, funding for local government will increase in real terms in 2019-20. This means more money for councils to deliver for their local communities.

    This Government’s actions mean that funding available for adult social care is set to increase by 9% in real terms from 2015-16 to 2019-20 and the additional funding is allowing councils to support more people and sustain a diverse care market.

    All councils have statutory duties to look after the vulnerable, elderly and disabled people in their area. The Care Act established a national threshold that defines the care needs that local authorities must meet which eliminates the postcode lottery of eligibility across England. In addition to providing social care services, last year local authorities in England advised over 500,000 people on how to access other services to meet their care needs. This includes services provided by leisure, housing, transport and care providers as well as voluntary groups.

    In the longer term, the NHS’s Long-Term Plan is committed to supporting people to age well. As part of this the Government will increase investment in primary medical and community health services by at least £4.5 billion by 2023-24. This will support people to get joined-up, integrated care closer to home and will increase the capacity and responsiveness of community and intermediate care services to those who will benefit the most. Furthermore, the plan recognises the importance of integration between health and social care and commits to upgrading NHS support to all care home residents ​who would benefit by 2023-24 through the enhanced health in care homes programme, which embeds healthcare professionals into care homes.

    The Government have committed to publishing the Green Paper at the earliest opportunity which will consider the fundamental issues facing the adult social care system and present proposals for reform while the social care funding for future years will be settled in the spending review where the overall approach to funding local government will also be considered.

  • Chi Onwurah – 2019 Speech on Newcastle United Football Club

    Below is the text of the speech made by Chi Onwurah, the Labour MP for Newcastle-upon-Tyne Central, in the House of Commons on 24 January 2019.

    Madam Deputy Speaker, I must start by declaring an interest: I am a Newcastle United fan. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Thank you. When I raised this with the House authorities, I was told I did not need to declare it as I “derived no real benefit” from it. I would dispute that. Supporting Newcastle United has brought me great joy, and a sense of belonging, shared purpose, and community as well as the opportunity to watch the beautiful game at its beautiful best in that cathedral to football, St James’ Park. But it has also brought me deep despair and disappointment, particularly in the last few years. I also wanted to present myself in my Newcastle team shirt today, but I was told in no uncertain terms that that was not allowed. Instead, I have settled for a Newcastle Libraries T-shirt with our city on it.

    Newcastle United is at the heart of the city. Unlike Liverpool or London, we have only one professional football team and we are united in our support. And what support it is! Hon. Members may recall that, back when we had regional development authorities and investment in our regions, the One NorthEast tourism slogan was “Passionate people, passionate places”. Well, the passion of Newcastle is football. We have consistently high attendances—some of the highest in the league until recent times—and the economy of the city is influenced by the success on the pitch. If we are winning, we are singing—and spending. If we are losing, the gloom hovers over all our heads like individual storm clouds. It is part of our culture.

    Anyone who moves to Newcastle—and we certainly have an unparalleled quality of life, so I recommend that everyone does so—will find it an open, welcoming and warm city, but whereas elsewhere they might get away with talking about the weather, in Newcastle they will need to know how the Toon are doing. It is part of our mental wellbeing—90 minutes spent at the Gallowgate end would be enough to convince anyone of that—and this is true not only in Newcastle, as my hon. Friends—and fellow fans—the Members for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) and for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon) can attest. They would have liked to be here today.

    Football is the lifeblood of many cities, particularly in the north, and that remains the case despite changes that have seen money, not fans, become the driving force of football thanks to the creation of the Premier League and billions of pounds from Sky Sports. While I will speak mainly about Newcastle United football club, its finances and its owner, much of what I say applies to football as a whole.

    Since 2008, Newcastle United has been owned by Mike Ashley, who also owns Sports Direct, House of Fraser and several other retail businesses. In July last year, I presented a petition reflecting the concerns of fans groups, such as If Rafa Goes We Go and the Magpie Group, and that caught the attention of Mr Ashley, something which I had been unable to do as the MP for St James’ Park, despite writing to him to ask for a meeting. It is testimony to the power of Parliament that, after announcing this debate, I was able to meet Mr Ashley on Saturday. I committed to Mr Ashley that I would make no personal attacks on him—I will not avail myself of parliamentary privilege to do so—and I say to all the fans that personal attacks on Mr Ashley or his employees are wrong and hurt our cause.

    I shared with Mr Ashley my concerns about financial transparency and funding, and he was passionate in his defence of his investments and in saying that he has not taken any money out of the club other than, he said, short-term funding on a temporary basis. That, he said, was in contrast with the period prior to his ownership. He also emphasised that he had made it clear the club must stand on its own two feet and can only spend the money it generates. Well, to put it diplomatically, we disagreed. The meeting was open, frank and robust, with strong views on both sides, and I hope to continue the dialogue. Indeed, this debate is part of that dialogue. It has to be, because I have still to receive a reply to my letter of last year in which I raised several critical issues that I have also raised in correspondence with the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and the previous Sports Minister, the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch).

    Mr Ashley said that the club can spend only what it is generates—a form of austerity economics of which those on the Tory Benches could be proud—but Newcastle United needs investment to reach its potential. Earnings have been hit by uncertainty and the bad feeling between fans and the owner, but even if we accept what he says, how are we to know what income the club generates? As the Secretary of State said in his letter to me, clubs are treated as any other private business and must submit accounts to Companies House. I am not an accountant, but I have an MA in business administration, studied corporate finance and worked in business for 20 years. However, I have looked at the NUFC accounts and cannot work out what is going on.

    Faith in Newcastle’s accounts has not been helped by comments made by Mr Ashley at the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee last December, when he said:

    “People cheat. That is what businesses do.”

    He also said:

    “Accountants are able—this is their job, by the way—to move the numbers about pretty much at will.”

    That seems to be what is happening at Newcastle. Mr Ashley’s ownership of the club passes through four separate companies: Mash Holdings, St James Holdings, Newcastle United, Newcastle United Football Holdings. In addition, dozens of other companies are associated with the club and Mike Ashley, and managing director Lee Charnley has more than 30 other directorships. Newcastle United’s accounts do not include a cash flow statement, although having one is a requirement of reputable accounting. All that seems designed to make it harder to follow the money and see what income is being generated.

    I hope that the Minister will agree that that is unacceptable and that she will commit to ensuring that the following income streams can be identified. First, TV payments. These should be more than £123 million, but they are not reported separately. Secondly, merchandise. Mr Ashley turned the club shop into a Sports Direct shop, but the revenues from Sports Direct do not go to the club. Thirdly, player sales. The way in which the purchase and sale of players is booked and amortised is in itself arcane. Newcastle United are consistently reported as having one of the lowest spends on players in the English premiership, and many estimates indicate the club have actually made a profit on player sales overall during Mr Ashley’s ownership. Does the Minister agree that we should be able to calculate that sum?

    Fourthly, advertising. Sports Direct hoardings are all over St James’ Park and, yet again, we do not see the revenue in the accounts. Finally, land sales. Next to St James’ Park is an area called Strawberry Place, which Mr Ashley allegedly purchased from the club for less than it was worth—we do not know, because the price is not visible. What we do know is that Strawberry Place is being developed for student accommodation. Selling the land stopped any further expansion of the stadium, and fans believe that the profit from the sale of that land will not benefit the club, but how are we to know? There is also an issue about land and property apparently sold to companies called Project J Newco No.39 and Project J Newco No.40, which appear to be connected to Mr Ashley, but there is no evidence of any payment.

    Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)

    Has the hon. Lady seen Deloitte’s “Football Money League” report? It seems to identify some of those incomes, such as £27 million for match day, £143 million for broadcasting and £32 million for commercial, figures that we can only dream of for Walsall football club.

    Chi Onwurah

    I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s interest in Newcastle United, and I have seen the figures in Deloitte’s report, which make Newcastle United the 19th richest club in the world. My concern is that those figures should be reported visibly for all clubs, particularly in the Premier League, where there is so much money going around.

    Mr Ashley appears to be able to move assets between his privately owned companies at will, despite the club being a historic cultural icon and the other companies being of somewhat less reputable status and longevity.

    We do not know what income the club is generating and whether that money is being used on the club. What is certain is that this transfer window, like the last one, is closing without money being spent on players or training facilities. Mr Ashley’s principal investment in the club has been in the form of loans, rather than equity—presumably to protect his financial exposure. Those loans are interest free, which is good, but as loans they can be called in if needed, so the sustainability of Newcastle United depends on his other businesses being successful.

    That leads me to Mr Ashley’s business practices more generally. The BEIS Committee likened them to a Victorian workhouse, with employees being paid below the minimum wage. A “Dispatches” investigation found employees were publicly shamed for talking, for spending too long in the toilet or for falling ill, and lived in fear of being fired. Now Mr Ashley says that he is going to save the high street. Forgive me for being somewhat cynical, having seen how he has saved Newcastle United.

    Newcastle United is an asset to our city, a cultural giant in our lives. I explicitly pay tribute to the fantastic Newcastle United Foundation, which uses the power and passion of football to do great work across the north-east and is, in part, funded by the club, although again that funding is not transparent. The Premier League also uses some of its vast wealth for the benefit of local communities, at least what can be spared from expenditure such as its £5 million farewell gift to departing executive chairman Richard Scudamore.

    Neither Newcastle United nor the Premier League consider themselves to be accountable to fans. As many constituents have made clear to me, fans feel powerless before the slow destruction of what we believe in. Newcastle United is the beating heart of our city, and we should be able to protect it.

    That goes to the heart of the matter. Why is it that a person can buy a stately home in the wilds of Wiltshire and not be able to change even a window frame, but they can buy Newcastle United, which is in the heart of Newcastle, and strip it of its assets without so much as an eyebrow being raised? Why is football left largely to regulate itself when other businesses, from pubs to social media companies, must meet social requirements?

    I know that the Minister recognises the importance of football clubs and the custodian role of owners, because she said so during the recent debate on Coventry City. Will she now put that recognition into action? Will she launch an inquiry into the reporting requirements of premiership clubs, using Newcastle United as a test case? Will she ensure that that inquiry answers the financial questions that I have raised? Will she ensure that supporters have a voice on football club boards, as Labour has called for? Will she make reputable custodianship a requirement of club ownership? The fit and proper person test is clearly not fit for purpose.

    It is with great sadness that I say that I have come to the conclusion that football is broken. Its governance has not kept pace with its income, and money has won over sport. We cannot turn back the clock, but we can put in place effective regulation so that financial transparency enables the beautiful game’s true splendour to shine forth once more.

  • Matt Hancock – 2019 Speech at World Economic Forum in Davos

    Below is the text of the speech made by Matt Hancock, the Secretary of State for Health, in Davos on 24 January 2019.

    The purpose of the World Economic Forum is to bring together world leaders and big business to solve the world’s most difficult problems.

    One of these problems is antimicrobial resistance, where the world has come together over the last 5 years, but so much progress needs to be made, to stop an otherwise terrible future.

    As health secretary responsible for one of the most advanced healthcare systems in the world, I could not look my children in the eyes unless I knew I was doing all in my power to solve this great threat. When we have time to act. But the urgency is now.

    Each and every one of us benefits from antibiotics, but we all too easily take them for granted, and I shudder at the thought of a world in which their power is diminished.

    Antimicrobial resistance is as big a danger to humanity as climate change or warfare. That’s why we need an urgent global response.

    The UK has taken a global lead by setting out a 20-year AMR vision explaining the steps we must take nationally and internationally to rise to this challenge. It fits into a pattern of work across the world to keep this driving forward.

    The plan incorporates 3 things we all need to do: prevention, innovation, and collaboration.

    First: preventing infections is vital. We have today set a target in the UK of cutting resistant infections by 10% within the next 5 years.

    We’re going to cut antibiotic use by a further 15% within 5 years by only using antibiotics when absolutely necessary. Everybody can play a part in only using antibiotics when they’re really ill.

    And we’re going to work with the livestock industry to build on the amazing 40% reduction in antibiotic usage in just 5 years – 71% in chicken farming, while increasing productivity by 11%.

    We’re going to do it through immunisation, better infection control and working with doctors, vets, farmers and patients to prevent unnecessary prescription of antibiotics.

    Second: innovation. There hasn’t been a single, new class of antibiotic since the 1980s.

    No new innovation in the most basic bedrock of every health service in the world – shocking. And deeply troubling.

    Any health secretary or minister, who doesn’t lie awake at night worrying about that last pack of antibiotics, must have a prescription to some seriously strong sleeping pills.

    We know the reasons why. Compared to expensive new cancer or heart drugs, putting time and money into developing new antibiotics is commercially unattractive for pharmaceutical companies.

    And under the traditional model of revenue linked to volume, there is an added disincentive for pharmaceutical companies with a product that must be conserved.

    So we need a new model, one that works with, and incentivises the pharmaceutical industry.

    And this is where the NHS, because of its unique position, can take a global lead in pioneering a new payment system, one that reflects the true value of antibiotics to society.

    At the heart of it is changing the way we think of antibiotics from a medical product to a medical service.

    It’s a service that we all rely on: patients, doctors, and pharmaceutical companies.

    So within 6 months, the NHS is going to start work on paying for the service, and security, of having access to critical antibiotics when we need them, rather than hoping there’s a product we can buy in the future.

    We’re going to be more of a Spotify subscriber than a vinyl record shopper.

    We will pay upfront so pharmaceutical companies know that it’s worthwhile for them to invest the estimated £1 billion it costs to develop a new drug.

    We will work with the industry to develop the next generation of antibiotics, ones that are available and accessible to all.

    But the only way this system can incentivise innovation globally, is if it is expanded globally.

    Which brings me to my third and final point: collaboration.

    I am proud of the work the UK has done to secure antimicrobial resistance on the global agenda. We’re playing our part both at home and on the world stage.

    Because we recognise that none of us can stand alone against AMR. It won’t be solved by one nation, no single action or intervention.

    It is a fight that requires continued collaboration, across borders, now and in the future.

    I’ve been meeting health ministers from across the world here to agree further action, and next week the UN inter-agency co-ordination group are publishing their draft recommendations on the next steps needed to tackle AMR.

    Hopefully that will take us one step closer.

    It is a challenge, I believe, we can rise to if every step forward, we push ourselves further. Together, I’m convinced that with a proper plan we can achieve that goal.

  • Chris Grayling – 2019 Speech on HS2

    Below is the text of the speech made by Chris Grayling, the Secretary of State for Transport, on 24 January 2019.

    Thank you and good afternoon everyone. I’d like to thank you all for inviting me to this event.

    It’s a real pleasure to be here today and to see so many familiar faces from the world of transport, as well as across the political spectrum.

    This government’s plans for projects such as High Speed 2 will not only revitalise the north and the Midlands, they will have a transformational effect on Britain.

    And many of you in this room have the responsibility of not only bringing these plans to fruition but also ensuring the entire country enjoys the full benefits.

    For it’s no exaggeration that good transport connections can have an extraordinary impact on people’s lives. They bring communities closer together, provide new work and educational opportunities and help businesses to thrive. But I am all too conscious that the last time we built new rail links to the centres of our great northern cities, Queen Victoria was still on the throne.

    Back then the north was home to some of the earliest railway innovations.

    For instance, in 1830 the first modern intercity passenger railway in the world ran between Liverpool and Manchester.

    The 35-mile trip was a thrilling experience for travellers, if not a rather bracing one – as many passengers sat in carriages virtually open to the north-west’s weather.

    But it inspired real excitement among the public about the potential offered by railways and it’s my aim to create that same sense of enthusiasm towards the benefits of our modern railway projects.

    However it is a great shame that half a century of underinvestment means cities in the north and Midlands don’t just have poor rail connections to the rest of the UK – they have poor connections to each other.

    These inefficient links have meant that opportunity is less accessible for people than in other parts of the country, such as the south-east.

    I am proud to be part of a government that has called time on that trend.

    And I believe the creation of HS2 will super charge economic growth for the north and the Midlands while providing the extra capacity required on busy north to south rail routes, which are currently among the most intensively used in Europe, and encouraging employers and businesses to not just focus on London and the south-east but the country as a whole.

    I’ve been delighted to see the progress HS2 is making.

    Last autumn I joined West Midlands Mayor Andy Street to meet the team delivering the HS2 station at Curzon Street in Birmingham where the railway will help transform the city centre, and could unlock up to 36,000 jobs and 4,000 new homes.

    But as people in this room know, HS2 is not just about improving train links between London and Birmingham.

    It’s a project that will benefit the whole country, boosting opportunity and breathing new life into towns and cities.

    You may have seen media stories suggesting that the second stage of the project might not happen. Those stories are completely inaccurate.

    Let me be very clear. High Speed 2 is vital beyond Birmingham and failure to deliver it would be a dereliction of our duties to improve the life chances of everyone in this country, an abandonment of our ambition for one of the most extraordinary engineering projects since the Victorian age and a huge betrayal of the people in the Midlands and the north.

    Some of you may have been at the event, where I was reported to have made these remarks.

    In fact I said we must keep on making the strategic case for HS2 and work hard to win over the public about its potential benefits.

    Let me reiterate. We are committed to a second stage between the West Midlands and Leeds and between Crewe and Manchester, completing the ‘Y axis’ and it is very heartening to see that the positive impacts of HS2 — both the first and second stage — are already being felt all over the UK.

    So far it has already created 7,000 jobs and 100 apprenticeships. While over 2,000 contracts for the railway are being delivered by businesses large and small everywhere from Colchester to Coventry.

    So HS2 is a project that will transform our country, regenerate our regions and rebalance our economy. But I want to be clear that it will not come at the expense of other transport projects for the north. And conversely nor will other railway projects come at the expense of HS2.

    It’s a complete misnomer to say we can only have either Northern Powerhouse Rail or HS2. We need both. In fact there are strong reasons why HS2 should actually pave the way for NPR and why the case for NPR is actually bolstered by HS2.

    That’s why we are integrating HS2 into the emerging proposals from Transport for the North for Northern Powerhouse Rail, as well as with our Midlands transport plans.

    I’d like to conclude by thanking our hosts TFN, Midlands Connect, Core Cities and the Northern Powerhouse Partnership for organising this event.

    Your help is vital in achieving our ultimate goal of a transport network that is fit for the future.

    We are committed to delivering HS2 for you and the businesses, people, passengers and local authorities that you represent.

    It’s your work today that will help ensure the growth and prosperity of the whole country for generations to come.

    We have a fantastic opportunity with HS2 to transform capacity, boost connectivity and spark even greater economic growth. Let’s seize it with both hands. Thank you.

  • Philip Hammond – 2019 Speech at CBI Lunch in Davos

    Below is the text of the speech made by Philip Hammond, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, at the CBI in Davos on 24 January 2019.

    Let me start by passing on the PM’s apologies – I know she wanted to be here to address you this afternoon, but events have dictated otherwise.

    But I am delighted to be back here in Davos…

    …and to have the opportunity to address you once again.

    Professor Schwab first invited political leaders to what would become the World Economic Forum in January of 1974.

    It was a more leisurely affair in those days…

    In between skiing, the group of leaders who gathered here in 1974 were grappling with profound economic and political uncertainties:

    …the energy crisis…

    …sky-high inflation…

    …the collapse of the Bretton-Woods consensus.

    And here we are, 45 years later…

    …grappling with profound economic and political uncertainties!

    Plus Ça change!

    Closest to home, the terms of Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union remain unresolved, as the deadline looms ever larger.

    More broadly, the global economy is slowing…

    …and the threat of rising protectionism is increasingly affecting patterns of trade.

    And the impact of the coming wave of technological change on our societies and our economies is becoming ever more apparent…

    …bringing with it both challenges and opportunities.

    But I want to argue today that even against this rather inauspicious backdrop, Britain can – and will – prosper in the years ahead.

    The fundamentals of our economy are strong.

    Its resilience through the turbulence of the Brexit process has been particularly noteworthy…

    …and its growth prospects, according to the latest IMF forecast – providing we approve a deal with the EU – look perfectly respectable alongside our G7 peers.

    Our commitment to free and open markets is deep and enduring.

    And we are at the front of the pack in preparing our economy for the technology change.

    So my message today is this: Britain is a great place to do business.

    And we are determined, as we leave the European Union, to make sure that it remains that way.

    Let me begin with the subject that is uppermost in everybody’s mind – Brexit.

    It’s clear from our soundings last week that while Parliament has voted against the PM’s deal…

    …it has not yet formed a clear view of what it is in favour of.

    Next week, we will see various interventions by backbenchers.

    Some of which will attempt to create a mechanism for Parliament to express its view of the way forward.

    And in the meantime the government will continue to pursue a negotiated settlement that is likely to be acceptable to Parliament.

    And believe me, I understand the perplexity with which many of you, as business leaders, view the politics of Brexit.

    And I feel your frustration at the process and I have to say I share much of it!

    But politics doesn’t work like business.

    And while I am pretty clear what all my business interlocutors are seeking is an economic fix…

    …I want to explain to you this afternoon why we need to get the politics, as well as the economics, of this process right.

    Because even from the narrowest interpretation of business interest, it would be a Pyrrhic victory indeed to deliver a Brexit that appeared to meet the needs of the economy…

    …but which shattered the broad consensus behind our country’s political and economic system.

    In the 2016 referendum a promise was made to the majority who voted for Brexit – that they were voting for a more prosperous future.

    Not leaving would be seen as a betrayal of that referendum decision.

    But leaving without a deal would undermine our future prosperity, and would equally represent a betrayal of the promises that were made.

    And that is why I, having campaigned vigorously to remain, in the referendum have come to believe that the only credible and sustainable solution is for us to leave the European Union.

    To honour the referendum decision but to do so in a way that protects our economy in order to allow us to deliver that future prosperity that those voters were promised when they voted to leave the EU.

    The only sustainable solution is a negotiated settlement with the EU:

    A deal that supports the economy, protects jobs and allows us to continue a close trading partnership with our European neighbours.

    Now to do that right now, we need to find a way around the impasse over the backstop.

    And if we are to do so, it will take ingenuity and flexibility on the part of the EU.

    As well as a spirit of compromise on the part of some of my colleagues.

    It is surely in our national interest, all of us, to preserve faith in the political system and the democratic process…

    …as well as protecting our economy as we leave this process…

    …Surely in our interest to move forward to agree a negotiated Brexit that is a compromise that can begin to heal the nation and heal both political parties.

    Failure to do so could lead to instability, populism (political content removed).

    I know that for many business leaders…

    …right up there alongside the question of access to European markets…

    …is the question of access to labour.

    Openness to global talent is a fundamental feature of the UK economy.

    Migrants have made a huge contribution to our country over our history – and they will continue to do so in the future.

    But at the same time, one of the messages that almost all politicians divine from the Referendum result…

    …is a concern about our ability to control European Union migration: less, I personally think, about absolute numbers and more about a sense we have lost control of our own borders.

    And so we have to be clear that as we leave the European Union, free movement will end…

    …although I can assure you that short-term mobility for both business and leisure will continue.

    And the immigration white paper, published in December, offers a pragmatic way forward.

    First, while it constructs a universal framework for future migration control, it does not rule out the possibility that future trade deals – including with the EU – might make provision in this area.

    Second, it proposes a skills-based immigration system – where it is workers’ skills that matter, not which country they come from.

    And third, we have announced an extensive consultation into where the threshold for the highly skilled tier should be set…

    …and how we should deal with the challenge presented by the economies need for intermediate-skilled workers:

    The technicians; the carers; the chefs, the construction workers and the myriad others whose skills we badly need – but who often earn less than £30,000.

    Business should be hugely reassured by this commitment to engagement.

    And particularly to a twelve-month consultation period.

    So, while free movement is ending, the detail of what will replace it remains to be decided.

    And business has a real opportunity to help shape the policy.

    But if I may say so, it will only do so if it engages effectively and presents a clear consensus from the business community.

    So I urge you, collectively, to seize the opportunity to engage with this consultation…

    …and to bring forward constructive, consistent and evidence-based proposals.

    Let’s work together to design a system that responds to public concerns about immigration…

    …but also protects our economy and our businesses…

    …and becomes a part of the UK’s competitive advantage for the future.

    While negotiating Brexit it must of course be the immediate priority, we must also deliver a message to the British people and to our trading and investment partners, about Britain’s future, beyond Brexit.

    And it is a future based on a fundamentally strong economy.

    One that has grown continuously for the past eight years…

    …with employment breaking records again just this week…

    …and wages now thankfully rising significantly faster than inflation.

    The world’s fifth largest economy, ranked the 8th most competitive by the WEF…

    …which between 2015 and 2018, attracted more Foreign Direct Investment than any other EU nation, and more than France and Germany combined.

    These achievements are not an accident.

    They are the result of a deliberate economic strategy by this government:

    …to deal with the deficit so that debt is now falling…

    …to cut taxes on the wages people earn…

    …and on the businesses that employ them…

    …and deliver an Industrial Strategy, that is tackling the productivity challenge head on to sustainably improve our competitiveness, and hence the living standards of our people.

    We are driving investment through initiatives like the National Productivity Investment Fund…

    …the biggest sustained programme of public sector investment since the 1970s…

    …and our commitment to 2.4% of GDP as R&D spending.

    I am not, for one moment, complacent about our economic performance…

    …especially as we see increased risks in the global economy, and lower forecasts for global growth…

    …and I certainly recognise that continued Brexit uncertainty is taking a toll.

    But that should not obscure the strong foundations we have built for the future…

    …foundations that will ensure our economy grows and prospers, whatever the future has in store for us.

    That prosperity will be sustained by a deep and enduring commitment to free and open markets, to intelligent and appropriate regulation, and to a globally competitive tax system.

    We know that the free market is the only way to deliver the high-wage, high-skill economy of the future.

    And that Free Trade is the way to spread prosperity globally.

    (And by the way, the quickest way to boost global growth right now would be to liberalise trade in services).

    But we also know that to maintain public trust in the free market, we must make sure that the rules of the game evolve to keep pace with the changing nature of the economy…

    …especially when there are populists waiting in the wings to propose radical – and dangerous – so called “solutions” in response to every perceived failure.

    For example, it is clearly not sustainable or fair that global digital platform companies can generate substantial value in the UK, without paying UK tax on their earnings.

    That’s why the UK has been leading attempts to deliver international corporate tax reform for the digital age.

    But pending that global agreement, we have introduced a UK Digital Services Tax…

    …to make sure that global tech giants, with profitable businesses in the UK, pay their fair share towards supporting our public services.

    And now the French have followed us – with a tax broader in scope and with higher rates.

    We are also conducting an external Review of competition policy in the digital economy…

    …to examine the impacts of the emergence of a small number of dominant players in digital markets…

    …and how we can ensure that competition plays its proper role in driving business innovation and expanding consumer choice…

    …so that the economy as a whole benefits from new technologies.

    These initiatives show our determination to remain at the cutting-edge of these policy debates – and of regulatory solutions.

    Demonstrating in deeds, not just words, our commitment to build a digital economy that works for everyone.

    I spoke to you last year about the opportunities of the fourth industrial revolution:

    About how technological advances will lead to a revolution in the way we live and work…

    …with Artificial Intelligence transforming everything from factories to hospitals…

    …and in turn boosting our productivity and our living standards.

    But I also spoke about the challenges that this revolution represents…

    …and how they link to some of the concerns that drove the Brexit vote.

    About the need to address fears that automation and new technology may bring, not higher wages, but mass unemployment…

    …and that as new technology drives greater productivity improvements, the returns may flow to capital, rather than labour.

    In Britain, we are taking these concerns seriously.

    We are providing investment of course to build on the UK’s position as a world-leader in innovation and new technology:

    We have announced £1.6 billion funding in science and innovation and £950 million in our Artificial Intelligence sector deal…

    …and £50 million for the new Turing Artificial Intelligence Fellowships, which will attract and retain the best researchers from around the world.

    But we can and must go further.

    Artificial intelligence could add $15.7 trillion to the global economy by 2030.

    But only countries with the most advanced digital skills will fully realise these benefits. And we intend that Britain will be at the front of that cohort.

    So I can announce today that in addition to the Turing AI fellowships…

    …we will commit £100 million to establish 1,000 new PhD places in centres across the UK…

    …to create the next generation of AI innovators and build on the established research excellence of Britain’s universities.

    The potential prizes of the 4th industrial revolution are great, but we can only seize them if we can take our public with us.

    So we are also taking action to manage the impact of technological change on Britain’s society and economy…

    …by investing in programmes like the National Retraining Scheme – which we are delivering in partnership with the CBI and the TUC – to provide employers with the skills they need as the economy evolves…

    …and to reassure workers that they won’t be abandoned when the technological revolution reaches their job.

    And the new ‘T Levels’, which will also – admittedly decades too late – import into the UK’s technical education system important lessons from Germany, Scandinavia and the US.

    And Britain is also leading the debate on the ethical challenges of the Fourth Industrial Revolution.

    With the establishment of the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation…

    …and through the Regulators’ Pioneer Fund, we are leveraging Britain’s track record of regulatory innovation to deliver a competitive advantage for our future economy.

    So in conclusion the future of Britain’s economy clearly depends on making a success of Brexit.

    But that is a necessary, not a sufficient condition for a prosperous future.

    If we look up for a moment from the immediate challenge of Brexit, we can see profound change ahead – and enormous opportunity.

    And Britain is leading the way into this future.

    Investing in new technologies…

    …promoting, not abandoning our commitment to free and open markets…

    …taking action to manage the impact of profound technological change…

    … building on our strong economic foundations.

    And, when the economic history of the first half of the 21st century comes to be written, it will not be about Brexit.

    It will be about a technological revolution of a speed and impact the like of which the world had never seen before…

    …a revolution that touched every aspect of our society, our economy, and our politics…

    …and if we get it right, it will be the story of how we in the UK leveraged our historic strengths to manage this change…

    …and to place Britain at the forefront of it…

    …as a nation ready for the future…

    … a great place to do business.

    Thank you.

  • Lucy Frazer – 2019 Statement on the IT Systems in Courts

    Below is the text of the statement made by Lucy Frazer, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice, in the House of Commons on 23 January 2019.

    I am grateful for the opportunity to update the House on the IT issues facing the Ministry of Justice over recent days.

    I start by apologising to those who have been affected by the intermittent disruption, which was caused by an infrastructure failure in our supplier’s data centre. Although services have continued to operate and court hearings have continued, we know how frustrating this is for everyone. The issue is that some of our staff in the Courts and Tribunals Service, the Legal Aid Agency, probation and Ministry of Justice headquarters have been unable to log on to their computers, but we have contingency plans in place to make sure that trials can go ahead as planned.

    The Prison Service has not been affected and—to correct inaccurate reporting—criminals have not gone free as a result of the problem. We have been working closely with our suppliers, Atos and Microsoft, to get our systems working again, and yesterday we had restored services to 180 court sites, including the largest ones. Today, 90% of staff have working computer systems. Work continues to restore services and we expect the remainder of the court sites to be fully operational by the time they open tomorrow morning. We are very disappointed that our suppliers have not yet been able to resolve the network problems in full.

    This afternoon, the permanent secretary, Sir Richard Heaton, will meet the chief executive of Atos and write personally to all members of the judiciary. I am very grateful to all our staff who have been working tirelessly and around the clock, alongside our suppliers, to resolve the issues.

  • Oliver Dowden – 2019 Speech at ICT Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Oliver Dowden, the Minister for Implementation, on 22 January 2019.

    Well good morning.

    I was also at the conference in Paris [GovTech Summit 2018]. It was a great occasion bringing together representatives from GovTech from across Europe. And it’s a sharp reminder that whilst I think we can pat ourselves on the back for being leaders in the UK, there is an awful lot of competition out there, and the fact that President Macron himself lent his support to the event, demonstrates the commitment across other countries to ensure that they get up to speed in the race.

    So it really is a pleasure for me to join you at the government ICT conference.

    The internet has made the age we live in, one of options. If Google Maps doesn’t suit your needs, you might download CityMapper or Traveline instead. When it comes to social media, you might (as I do) prefer Instagram to Twitter. I can assure you there is no product placement going on there.

    Companies strive to give us the very best user experience so that we choose their product. With every tweak and iteration, we benefit from that competition and, in turn, our expectations are raised.

    People don’t have that option when it comes to interacting with government. From appointing a lasting power of attorney to checking your state pension, government provides services which cannot be found elsewhere.

    So, when you don’t have options (and you’re used to choice in pretty much every aspect of your online day-to-day life) you really do expect the best.

    It is crucial therefore that we do all we can to deliver an excellent service to citizens. I believe that we do this by exploring new technologies and sensibly implementing them, by supporting those who undertake this work and by encouraging the partnerships between the private and public sectors. And it’s this last component, I believe, which is the accelerant.

    It’s the right thing to do and it’s the only thing to do. In business, we’ve seen all too often that when it comes to embracing innovation and digital practices, it’s a case of adapt or close. Government clearly can’t close. We have people to serve. Government can’t deliver a second-rate online experience either. Our citizens deserve the best.

    That is why I have made this one of my top Ministerial priorities. This is for a number of reasons. First of all, I really want to make sure innovation that is standard practice in the private sector, becomes standard practice in the public sector. I also want to ensure there is benchmarking within government, and the best performing departments can share that best practice.

    I also want the government to think differently about how it can do things. If you think about the consumer experience, it’s been revolutionised in the past decade. The way we live has changed. But this change has not yet been reflected in government. So I want to put the building blocks in place to ensure this can happen.

    Finally, I’m also committed to ensuring that in doing this, we support the wider tech sector in the UK. Government can lead the way if it’s an intelligent and coordinated buyer of emerging technologies, and in so doing, help those small and innovative businesses to thrive, and address some of the challenges highlighted today about ensuring we create a level playing field so that SMEs are able to get their fair share of government contracts.

    We have the willing – the large audience I see before me attests to that. We certainly have the expertise – our tech sector attracts bright minds and billions of pounds of investment every year and, thankfully, we’re not starting from scratch. The Government Digital Service, for example, has changed the way people interact with government. From creating a single online home for government – GOV.UK – to creating the Digital Marketplace to make it easier for companies of all sizes to do business with government – the Digital Marketplace recently went Global – we’ve made great progress already.

    A strong tradition of public and private sector collaboration is part of the reason why the UK is a world leader in digital government.

    I firmly believe that in order to serve people efficiently, we need to partner with, and learn from our private sector. There is some incredible work being done – British companies working in Big Data, Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Blockchain have seen record levels of funding in 2018 and more investment than other European hubs. While the UK continues to attract more venture capital investment and tech IPOs than any other European hub in 2018, investment was down on 2017. That’s why I’m doing all I can to champion the UK’s govtech sector and our SMEs.

    Improving the process of procuring private sector expertise was one of my early priorities as a Minister. Helping level the playing field for small businesses – who are often the most innovative and flexible – has been a main priority in this work. I was pleased to introduce measures to exclude government suppliers from being awarded new contracts if they do not pay their subcontractors on time. This should provoke a behaviour change among our suppliers and provide a real boost to small businesses.

    It has been, and continues to be, a priority for me to identify and encourage relationships between the public and private sectors. To that end, I’d like to share exactly some of what has been achieved and give you some examples.

    One brilliant way we’ve been able to do this is through the GovTech Catalyst programme. Through it, we’re tackling terrorist images online, helping to solve the problem of rural isolation and loneliness and improving firefighter safety with tracking technology.

    The GovTech Catalyst is part of the push to bring innovation in government – but it has to be innovation that is appropriate, viable and strategic.

    The GovTech Catalyst fund encourages private sector companies to help solve public sector problems. Through the programme, public sector organisations are able to submit challenges. Successful challenges will become competitions that are open to private sector innovators to solve.

    It really does allow the public sector to trial innovative technology in a quick and cost-effective way, with a view to it being deployed at scale.

    The private sector is given a new route to work with government, government benefits from that expertise, and the public, who we are ultimately all here to serve, feels the benefit.

    That’s why I’m very pleased today to announce the five latest challenges today. So, let’s begin.

    Last month, an ex-Google engineer undertook what he claimed was the first US coast-to-coast drive completed entirely by self-driving technology. If that engineer was looking closely, he will have seen Oxford County Council gaining speed in his rear-view mirror. Oxfordshire County Council wants to investigate how it too can manage autonomous vehicles in local traffic management control systems.

    It is an ambitious aim, designed to make Britain’s roads safer, enabling a smoother passage from conventional to autonomous vehicles when that time comes. They are working closely with a number of partners, including Department for Transport and the Centre for Autonomous Vehicles.

    The next challenge comes from Leeds City Council. It wants to investigate how sensors can be used to monitor the condition of social housing. By using data and taking proactive steps to intervene and help vulnerable residents, we will save money and improve the quality of people’s lives.

    Leeds City Council will ensure that privacy concerns are addressed. This is about monitoring the property, not the person. Between 2016 and 2017, there were 330,000 new social housing lettings in the UK – the solution to this problem has the potential to improve housing conditions significantly and at scale.

    The third challenge comes from Scottish National Heritage. It seeks a digital tool to clarify the planning permission system. Scottish National Heritage, land managers and developers will be able to use the solution to better understand requirements and regulation, in doing so saving time and money. The solution could have a much wider application beyond Scotland, and indeed perhaps internationally as well.

    In Wales, Torfaen County Council wants to look at how, by better using data, it can better predict, sequence and modernise its social care offering. The result of this work will mean that resources can be better delivered to vulnerable users and lessen the so called ‘bed-blocking’ burden on the NHS.

    Finally, Waltham Forest Council in north east London, wants to use data to tackle housing issues in the capital using geospatial intelligence.

    An innovative approach using geospatial technology could accelerate house building. For decades this country has failed to build enough homes. It’s a problem successive governments have struggled with. And certainly it’s something that I’m very much engaged with in my wider portfolio brief as Minister for Implementation. In March, the Prime Minister announced that the planning process would be streamlined, so that building the homes we need isn’t held up by bureaucracy.

    So do search for GovTech Catalyst on GOV.UK for more information on how to apply to solve a GovTech Catalyst challenge.

    I hope you agree those are very interesting and exciting innovations that we’re embarking upon.

    And linked to that last challenge, the UK is a geospatial world leader and this government is committed to supporting the growth of this sector. Research estimates that by better using public and private sector geospatial data up to £11 billion of extra value could be generated for the economy every single year.

    In November, the newly created Geospatial Commission partnered with Innovate UK to launch a new government competition, in which organisations can apply for a share of £1.5 million to fund projects which use crowdsourced data linked to a location. Between £50,000 to £750,000 could be granted to eligible organisations. The deadline for applications is fast approaching (30th January).

    It’s open to businesses of any size, academic organisations, research and technology organisations and public sector organisations – this list isn’t exclusive, so do please check the website for more details.

    And we are soon to start a geospatial technology review and the Commission will publish its first Annual Plan in March, with the UK government’s first ever Geospatial Strategy by the end of this year.

    It does, I’m afraid seem to be the year of strategies, because the Innovation Strategy, which I announced last year, will also be published in spring this year.

    It will share our vision of how GDS and wider Cabinet Office can lay the foundations for government to use emerging technologies.

    The idea of this is to encourage collaboration between the public and private sectors to experiment together to find innovative solutions to public sector challenges.

    The strategy will guard against the risks, and there are risks that come with new technologies and digital developments. But it will also highlight the opportunities, and how departments can benefit from them to produce improved public services and better value for money.

    The strategy will cover issues that public sector teams face when developing, procuring and scaling emerging technologies. It will address the requirements on skills, leadership and governance that these technologies bring, including the need to ensure they are used ethically.

    This will also support the wider aims and ambitions of the government’s industrial strategy, which is designed to create an economy that boosts productivity and builds a Britain fit for the future.

    I want this innovation strategy to be developed in collaboration with experts inside and outside of government. For that reason, I’ve met with as many experts as my diary will allow. On Thursday, in fact, I’m heading up to Scotland to continue these conversations.

    This strategy will set the direction of travel and I hope that as Minister, I will be able to attract the attention, resource and funding to deliver the best public services. And certainly my conversations with the Treasury and Chief Secretary to the Treasury – this is all part of ensuring that as we approach the next spending round we’re thinking about all these challenges and how we can use these emerging technologies to drive greater efficiencies and better public services. And I know it’s something that the whole government is committed to.

    So, to end, it is by working together that we will drive our prosperity. Working together means learning from the successes and frustrations of others and forging new partnerships. I hope you will use this conference as an opportunity to do that.

    I’d like to end by thanking you all for the contribution you have made and will make to the delivery of first-class public services in this country.

    Enjoy the day. And thank you all for your time.

  • Liam Fox – 2019 Speech on Global Britain

    Below is the text of the speech made by Liam Fox, the Secretary of State for International Trade, in the House of Commons on 14 January 2019.

    As we take this debate into the early hours of tomorrow morning, I hope that we will be able to replicate the good humour, good manners and resilience that the Prime Minister showed during her two hours in front of the House this afternoon.

    It is a pleasure to open this debate on “global Britain and the economy” as we consider how to honour the decision made by the British people, in a democratic referendum, to leave the European Union. When Parliament made the decision to hold the referendum it made a contract with the British people that said “we are unable, or unwilling, to make a decision on this constitutional relationship. This will be decided by the British people and Parliament will abide by that decision”.

    We have a duty to honour our side of that contract, whether we ourselves voted to remain or leave in the referendum. When we, as members of Parliament, voted in that referendum we did so in the knowledge that our vote carried an equal weight to that of all other citizens of our country.

    For Parliament to attempt to block Brexit by any means would be an act of vanity and self-indulgence that would create a breach of trust between Parliament and the people with potentially unknowable consequences.

    It is clear that there are three possible outcomes to our deliberations. I want to say at the outset that Members will determine which route they choose, and while we may disagree, I do not doubt either their motives or their patriotism as they choose the course available to this country.

    The first is to accept the deal that has been negotiated – and there is no other deal available. The second is to leave the EU with no deal and the third is no Brexit at all.

    Before considering the implications of these options I think it important to underline the fundamental strengths that underpin the UK economy, the changing patterns of our trade and the future patterns of global trade.

    Mr Speaker, the UK has an excellent economic success story to tell. Since a Conservative-led government came to power in 2010, exports have grown by 38.1%, around 6% per year, driven by an increase in services exports of 54.8%.

    We sold some £618billion worth of goods and services in 2017, up 10.9% on the previous year.

    New figures released last week by the ONS revealed exports (of goods and services) in the year to November 2018 were worth £630bn, growing by £13.9bn since the previous year.

    There has now been 32 consecutive months of exports growth.

    As the UK considers future FTAs with the likes of the USA, Australia, New Zealand and the CPTPP countries, goods exports to these countries continued to boom:

    To the, USA: up 6.9% to £54.9bn

    To Australia: up 2.9% £5.1bn

    To New Zealand: up 3.8% to £869m

    To CPTPP: up 4.2% to £28.4bn

    With other notable goods exports growth to non-EU markets including Nigeria (up 29.2%), India (up 27.3%), and Thailand (up 18.5%), this news comes as London retained its position as the top tech investment destination in Europe earlier this week. According to Pitchbook and London & Partners, the capital received £1.8bn tech investment in 2018, more than Berlin and Paris combined.

    These achievements are no accident but the result of the innovation and hard work of British businesses, large and small, supported by a Conservative government that understands that wealth has to be created and that governments cannot simply promise to spend money without knowing where the income will come from.

    It is a matter of fact that the relative importance of the EU as an export market has been declining over the last decade – falling from 48.9% of the total in 2010 to 45.2% in 2017.

    Of course, the importance of the UK to EU trade varies from country to country.

    Figures compiled by Japanese investment bank Nomura show that Belgium’s economy is the most reliant on trade with the UK, with around 8% of Belgian GDP dependant on trade with Britain. That’s the highest level within the EU27.

    Belgium exports over €30bn of goods to the UK, which is Belgium’s fourth largest export market. It sells things like textiles, vehicles, chemicals, and food and beverages to the UK.

    Belgium’s finance minister has previously called for a quick trade deal with the UK post-Brexit to protect thousands of jobs in the country.

    When trade is looked at purely in terms of exports, Ireland is the most exposed. Around 13% of all Irish exports end up in Britain. The Netherlands also has a large reliance on the UK for exports and GDP.

    At the same time as the proportion of Britain’s exports to the EU has fallen we are trading more with other partners around the world.

    We export a huge variety of commodities. For example, we sold £22 billion worth of food, feed and drink abroad in 2017.

    In the year to November 2018, we sold £33.7 billion worth of cars, £25.2 billion worth of medicinal and pharmaceutical products, and £24.6 billion worth of mechanical power generator products – from aircraft engines, to gas turbines, steam generators to nuclear reactors. So much for Britain not producing anything anymore.

    But we also export a great many services – we are, in fact, the world’s second largest services exporter. In the year to September 2018, we sold some £82.4 billion of business services, £60.9 billion of financial services and £37.7 billion of travel services. Here, across the services sectors, the UK has huge comparative advantage. Services account for almost half of all our exports, 42.4% going to the EU, and 57.6% to non-EU countries.

    World trade is also at a pivotal moment. We are at the intersection of a series of major global trends – trends so seismic that they have transformed, or will transform, economies and societies across the world.

    Services are now a larger part of the world economy than ever before, and more easily traded across borders thanks to the internet and digital telecommunications.

    We live in an emerging knowledge transfer-based trading system where an engineering report, a 3D printer design, or new advances in machine learning can be just as valuable as the contents of a cargo container. The transfer of services and expertise in things like product design and software engineering – are becoming ever more important.

    A revolution in e-commerce is now underway. It is already a major component of world trade, from some of the world’s largest corporations, like Alibaba and Amazon, to the thousands of small companies who have never before been able to trade internationally.

    Major new opportunities are arising in the rapidly developing commercial and consumer markets of South East Asia, Africa and Latin America, and it is essential that Britain leverages its unique strengths to realise them.

    Britain’s consumers have embraced e-commerce, with around 20% of all goods in the UK bought online. At the same time, of goods sold online, the UK is third globally behind only China and the United States. Last year one in seven global online shoppers bought UK goods.

    It is therefore essential that we are able to operate an independent trade policy, allowing us to access the EU market which remains hugely important to us without tying our hands in our ability to access markets in some of the world’s fastest-growing economies.

    This deal enables us to develop a trade policy that will mean we can make the most of the opportunities of new technologies, and the changing shape of the global economy, striking a balance between protecting the markets we already have and tapping into new and rapidly expanding markets elsewhere.

    Mr Speaker, we must have a policy which is flexible and nimble, where we can make the most of the opportunities of new technologies, and the changing shape of the global economy.

    We can boost productivity, raise living standards and promote competitiveness. Working with Parliament, business, civil society and the devolved administrations, this deal allows us to have an independent trade policy for the first time in over 40 years.

    We have not got everything we wanted in this deal – but neither has the EU. There is give and take in any negotiation, and compromises have had to be made. But today I would just like to emphasise what this agreement and the political declaration do.

    They give the United Kingdom the freedom to decide for ourselves who comes here.

    How to support our farmers.

    Who fishes in our waters.

    And it gives us the freedom to open up new markets to world-class British goods and services around the globe.

    The Political Declaration sets out a clearly agreed vision for the UK’s future relationship with the EU and provides precise instructions to negotiators.

    What the Political Declaration does is set out an unprecedented arrangement for UK-EU economic cooperation, ambitious arrangements for services and investment, and ensures that our relationship is far more comprehensive than any other free trade agreement the EU has signed to date.

    The Political Declaration will enable both parties to deliver the legal agreements that will give the future relationship effect by the end of 2020, covering an economic partnership; a security partnership; and specific agreements on cross-cutting cooperation.

    There has been much speculation as to what the alternative to this agreement is.

    Let me be clear: there is no alternative agreement to that which has already been negotiated.

    The EU and the UK Government have painstakingly thrashed out this deal. It has been endorsed by the Prime Minister and the 27 leaders of the other EU Member States.

    Failure to accept a negotiated deal will lead us to either no deal or no Brexit.

    This government has been clear that it neither wants nor expects a ‘no deal’ scenario.

    Of course the government will continue to do the responsible thing and prepare for all eventualities in case a final agreement cannot be reached.

    But the evidence is clear that the best way forward for our businesses, for jobs and for our collective prosperity, is to have a Brexit deal.

    Some have suggested that it would be possible under article 24 of the GATT to maintain tariff free trade as an alternative to this negotiated agreement in a no deal scenario. Let me say that there are two immediate problems facing this suggestion. The first is that it would require the agreement of the EU itself and be based on the expectation of a future trade agreement or customs union to be operable.

    While it might be argued that this would be in the economic interests of the EU 27, we know from experience that the politics of the EU can take precedence over economic pragmatism. In the political atmosphere of no deal it would be difficult to cultivate the good will necessary for this to proceed.

    Secondly, this suggestion would not deal with all of the regulatory issues which are so important to many businesses.

    There are of course, Members of this House who want there to be no Brexit at all.

    I have to say this would be a democratic disaster. It would be a betrayal of the commitments given by this House to respect the result of the EU referendum and the manifesto commitments on which over 80% of MPs were elected.

    Mr Speaker, there are many who say that democracy exists on the understanding that a voter can change their mind.

    This is undoubtedly true. But democratic consent by the people is also founded on the understanding that the result of the vote will be carried out.

    Failing to do so would undermine the trust of the people. Not only that, but it would be politically unacceptable, a betrayal of our principles and potentially, a seismic and existential threat to our political system. We should not underestimate it. It would be to create a chasm of distrust between the electors and the elected of an unprecedented nature, a wilful destruction of the reputation of Parliament in the eyes of the people.

    We should also be under no illusion that the United Kingdom could somehow retain the status quo of its EU membership.

    This is not possible. It wasn’t possible even before the referendum was called because the EU itself is changing.

    The EU is committed to ever closer union.

    Even since the referendum there have been calls to move to qualified majority voting in areas from VAT to common foreign policy. These may, indeed, be right for those who wish to move towards greater integration, but they are not the right course for our country.

    Remaining in the European Union would be either to tie the United Kingdom into a more integrationist future or to create ever more tension and friction between ourselves and our European partners.

    Let me just say something briefly about two other suggestions. Some members of this House have raised the prospect of a so-called ‘Norway’ or EEA option.

    Re-joining the EEA Agreement would mean that we would have to accept all of the four freedoms of the Single Market, including free movement of people.

    It would not on its own be sufficient to enable our commitments to Northern Ireland to be met, including on avoiding a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

    We’d be stuck in the Single Market, and if this were also coupled with staying in a Customs Union, as some have suggested, we would also be prevented from pursuing a fully independent trade policy.

    It would also leave our financial services industry exposed to a rapidly evolving body of EU regulation over which we would have no influence.

    In many ways it would be worse than remaining in the European Union, leaving us with many of the restrictions but, in perpetuity, unable to utilise any of the levers of decision-making.

    Mr Speaker, there are also Members of this House who have advocated a second referendum. But there are three substantive problems with this suggestion: on practical grounds, democratic grounds and constitutional grounds.

    Firstly, in practical terms, it would take time for this House and the other place, to pass the necessary primary legislation.

    The Electoral Commission would also have to fulfil its statutory duty to assess the ‘intelligibility’ of the question to be posed – a process taking around 10 weeks.

    A further 12 weeks would be required between the question being determined and the referendum actually being held.

    It is therefore completely impractical to hold such a referendum before the United Kingdom leaves the European Union on 29 March. It is entirely possible to see such a process taking up to a year before it could be completed.

    Secondly, there are clear democratic grounds to oppose a second referendum.

    This House voted overwhelmingly to hold the referendum – to give the decision on Britain’s membership of the European Union to the British people.

    A ‘People’s Vote’ has been held already – and it produced a clear, unambiguous instruction from the British electorate for us to leave the European Union. We are honour-bound to respect it.

    This House confirmed that it would do so when it voted -again overwhelmingly – to trigger Article 50 and begin the process of negotiations. This was further confirmed by the last General Election, in which the two main parties – comprising over 80% of the total votes cast – promised to respect the referendum result.

    Let us imagine, Mr Speaker, that a second referendum were held in which the Remain side won – perhaps with a narrow majority, on a lower turnout.

    Leave supporters such as myself could well begin demanding a third referendum – a best-of-three scenario. Where would it end?

    This would not settle the issue or heal our divisions – quite the opposite. It would further divide our already fractious country at a time when we need to come together.

    There is also the constitutional issue. If we overturn this referendum result, we will be setting a precedent that could be applied to other referenda too.

    Furthermore, a second referendum would create prolonged – not diminished – political and economic uncertainty.

    Mr Speaker, it is time to consign the divisions of the referendum to the past. This is a time to raise our sights and acknowledge that there is a world beyond Europe and there will be a time beyond Brexit – to build the economic opportunities this country needs to thrive as a truly Global Britain.

    This Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration is the way forward to achieve this Global Britain. To bring us together, seize the new opportunities out there in the world economy, and lead our country to a more prosperous, stable and secure future.

    Whilst the UK is leaving the EU, we are certainly not leaving Europe, and this agreement provides the foundation on which to build our continued cooperation with our European partners on trading, political and security matters.

    It will enable us to play a full and active role on the global stage, working closely with friends new and old and building an independent trade policy which caters to the strengths and requirements of the UK economy.

    This deal allows the United Kingdom to continue to participate in the EU’s existing free trade deals during the implementation period.

    But crucially, we will also have the benefit of being able to negotiate, sign and ratify new trade agreements and lay the foundations for future relationships with our trading partners across the world.

    We need to take a balanced approach, acknowledging the continued importance of our EU partners, whilst taking advantage of opportunities beyond the borders of our continent in the high-growth economies of Africa, Asia, and South America. I believe these will be key to our economic success as a Global Britain.

    This deal will give us the freedom to implement our own trade remedies regime, protecting jobs and livelihoods from unfair trade, set our own tariffs, and take up our independent seat at the World Trade Organisation for the first time in over 40 years.

    This will be a key opportunity to further our support for the international rules-based trading system, ensures it delivers free and fair trade, and particularly, to pioneer the liberalisation of trade in services.

    As I have outlined, there are fundamental changes in the global economy which simply didn’t exist when the Uruguay round concluded, and it is right that we position the British economy to take advantage of them.

    Even as the information revolution continues to transform our world at a staggering pace, with the system of free and fair international trade which underpins it lifting millions out of poverty, there is still much to do to reduce existing – and emerging – tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade that post a serious threat to global growth.

    And Britain can play a key role in this.

    Mr Speaker, we have an abiding duty to do what is right for our country.

    This agreement carries out the democratic will of the British people, to leave the European Union, as expressed by the referendum.

    It allows the United Kingdom to take back control of our borders, laws and money – and it delivers a close and cooperative partnership with the EU.

    Crucially, it delivers for the British economy. No negotiated agreement is likely to deliver everything that anyone wants. Perhaps no agreement could ever do so.

    But for our communities, our prosperity and for future generations, I believe this Agreement is the right thing for the United Kingdom.

    I commend this deal and this motion to the House.