UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Speeches

  • Philip Hammond – 2019 Speech at TheCityUK Annual Dinner

    Below is the text of the speech made by Philip Hammond, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on 30 January 2019.

    Paul, thank you very much for those kind words of introduction, and for inviting me to speak to you again tonight.

    Let me start where you left off, by offering my thanks to John, as he steps down later this year as Chairman of TheCityUK’s Board.

    I know you are a keen singer John. So let me just say that your leadership was pitch perfect…and best of luck with the next gig.

    And, of course, thanks to you too, Paul, as you start your final year as Chairman of the Advisory Board.

    This really is the changing of the guard for TheCityUK, and I thank you both for your exceptional leadership over a critical period.

    Let me also pay tribute to all of you in this room.

    You lead and champion a crucial sector of the British economy…

    …supporting business with capital and services…

    …and households with mortgages, insurance and pensions.

    You contribute over £176 billion of GVA to our economy…

    …creating a trade surplus of over £75 billion at the last count…

    …and employing more than 2 million people in every region and nation of the UK.

    But as the world changes, so must The City.

    And I want to talk this evening about how we work together to ensure that your sector remains at the forefront as Britain rises to the challenges of a changing world…

    …and that the UK continues to be a world-leading finance and business centre long after the Brexit turmoil has died down.

    There is a story about a politician whose wife would introduce him at speaking events, by saying:

    I am afraid my husband cannot speak for more than ten minutes, or he will have a problem with his throat – I will slit it.

    My wife, sadly, isn’t here tonight, but with the dessert still to come, I promise you I will pretend she is.

    Let me start by updating you on Brexit.

    I do, of course, understand your frustration at the Brexit process.

    I cannot make it go away…

    …(the frustration nor the process)…

    …but I can try to explain what is happening and what is likely to happen next.

    Last night’s vote gives us, for the first time, a clear commitment by Parliament to support a deal.

    But it is, of course, a deal with significant differences to the one that has been agreed with the EU…as I think the EU quickly observed!

    So we face a challenging task in seeking to persuade the EU to move its position. But that is what we will be seeking to do.

    The PM also made a very important commitment to those who were seeking to prevent a “No Deal” outcome.

    She told them that yesterday would not be their last chance to attempt to persuade the House to do so – and that there will be an opportunity to repeat last night’s vote on February 14th.

    So we now have a clear timescale: the PM will work up a new proposal to put to the EU over the coming days.

    She will negotiate on the basis of that proposal for the very best deal it is possible to secure – and will bring that back for approval by the Commons.

    If that approval is not forthcoming, there will be a further opportunity for Parliament to reach a majority decision about how to proceed on February 14th.

    Navigating Brexit in good order is clearly our most immediate task – but it is not the only challenge on the horizon.

    Nor, over the long-term, is it necessarily the most significant.

    The City would be facing profound change, even if we were not leaving the EU.

    The global economy is changing; an irreversible shift of wealth and power is taking place.

    Dramatically higher savings rates in some Emerging Market economies…

    …and the growth of a vast new middle class…

    …mean the geographical balance of asset holdings is changing at a breath-taking pace.

    At the same time, the technology revolution is having a profound impact on our economy and society…

    …forcing us to take radical action to ensure we have the skills and talent we need for the future.

    Against this backdrop, and even without Brexit, we would have had to make the case all over again for Britain as the best place in the world for financial and business services.

    And we have a plan to do so.

    We start from a position of strength.

    The City has a long history of dynamism and agility, and significant structural advantages, that mean it is well-positioned to respond to challenges and turn them into opportunities.

    The fundamentals of our economy are robust…

    …we are dealing with the deficit, cutting taxes, and tackling the productivity challenge through our modern Industrial Strategy…

    …and it has grown continuously for eight years – proving remarkably resilient in the face of Brexit uncertainty.

    Paul, you rightly challenged me on what the government is doing about investment and infrastructure.

    And I have an answer:

    Through initiatives like the National Productivity Investment Fund…

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

    …and is committed to 2.4% of GDP being spent on research and development, in a partnership with industry to ensure Britain remains at the cutting edge.

    But despite these successes I am not for one moment, complacent about our economic performance; I know we will only stay ahead by being one step ahead of the competition.

    So let me set out my vision for the future prosperity of the UK’s finance sector – and then, I promise, it will be time for dessert.

    First, our future success will depend on becoming more, not less open as an economy.

    The deal that we have negotiated with the EU – which remains in my opinion the best basis for a negotiated Brexit…

    …means that we will retain close economic and trading links with our EU neighbours, including in financial services, even as we leave the EU.

    But of course, that relationship will evolve…

    …and over time we must expect EU business to be a gradually declining share of our financial services exports…

    …as a steadily rising proportion will be with the fast-growing economies beyond Europe.

    We are well equipped to make this transition.

    We have always had a global outlook – part of the world, not just part of Europe.

    Our historic relationships mean we are uniquely well-positioned to build trade and economic partnerships with the fastest expanding markets.

    And we should not underestimate the significance of the change that is underway in the global balance of financial power…

    …nor the scale of the opportunity it represents.

    Emerging and developing economies together are home to 85% of the global population and 90% of people under 30…

    …and their economies already account for nearly 60% of global economic activity and one third of global trade…

    …but they account for just 10% of the global financial system.

    So, as savings accumulate and the new middle class grows exponentially…

    …there is an enormous opportunity for the City.

    The government is taking action to support you to take advantage of this profound transformation.

    Our Global Financial Partnerships strategy is an ambitious programme to build Financial Services links with sophisticated financial centres around the world…

    …that will provide new levels of market access and new channels into emerging and developing economies for UK businesses.

    That strategy will utilise the new flexibilities at our disposal as we leave the EU…

    … as well as leverage existing approaches, like bilateral Dialogues and regulatory cooperation.

    So that a Bank based in London can deliver services as easily to a business on the other side of the world as it can today to one on the other side of the Channel.

    We are already seeing the first fruits in insurance agreements signed in recent weeks with the US and Switzerland.

    I am grateful for your support and input in developing this strategy – and I look forward to working with TheCityUK to build on this momentum in the months ahead.

    In parallel with these profound changes, the rising tide of protectionism is imposing tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars of trade.

    I am clear that Free Trade is the only way to secure prosperity around the world.

    So we need to make and remake the case for free and open markets.

    But we must also make the case for reform.

    And nowhere is that reform more needed than in liberalising the rules for trade in services.

    Services now account for 65% of global GDP…

    …and as much as 80% of the most developed economies.

    So liberalising trade in services would be one of the simplest and quickest ways to rebalance global trade.

    Doing so would be:

    …good for the global economy as a whole – IMF analysis shows that reducing trading costs for services by 15% could boost total GDP of G20 countries by more than $350 billion this year…

    …good for developing countries, with the IMF and World Bank estimating that liberalising services trade could raise manufacturing productivity in these economies by over 22%…

    …and exceptionally good news for the UK as the world’s second largest exporter of services.

    So I very much welcome the start of formal negotiations in Davos last week on the eCommerce agreement between 75 WTO members.

    But we must go further still.

    The UK will lead the world in arguing for services liberalisation, through pushing for ambitious services provisions in Free Trade Agreements…

    …and multilaterally through the wider WTO reform agenda…

    …using our expertise to shape and influence the liberalisation of the global services economy.

    In the new global economy, our world-leading record on innovation and technology will secure the UK’s competitive advantage.

    Nowhere is that truer than in financial services.

    The FinTech revolution is driving a remarkable transition in the way we access financial services – changing the way these services work, and the structure of the industry.

    And Britain is at the forefront of it.

    We’ve heard a lot about ‘unicorns’ over the last few weeks. But frankly, I’m more interested in growing tech ‘unicorns’, than slaying Brexit ones..

    A record-breaking £12 billion was invested in UK Fintech in the first six months of last year alone – so I expect to see a lot more of them, grazing contentedly in UK fields, in future.

    But alongside investment and innovation, a safe and transparent regulatory environment – one that fosters, rather than stifles, innovation – will be a key location driver for cutting edge technology businesses in the years to come.

    So we’ve set up the Cryptoassets Taskforce to provide certainty about regulation and tax while protecting consumers and markets in the face of growing use of cryptoassets and distributed ledger technology.

    We are leading the world in meeting the ethical challenges of technology innovation, by establishing the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation…

    …and through the Regulators’ Pioneer Fund, we are supporting our statutory regulators to develop world-leading regulatory responses to the challenge of new technology.

    Finally, for the professional services industry, Britain must remain open to talented professionals from around the world. And it will.

    As we leave the European Union, free movement from the EU will end…

    …and we will move to a globalised immigration system.

    But the Immigration White Paper is clear, it proposes removal of the cap on numbers for highly skilled workers, and the resident labour market test; and the continuation of short-term business mobility.

    Our objective is a system that responds to public concerns about freedom of movement, while protecting our economy…

    …by making sure that businesses can get the talented people they need, when they need them, with minimal friction.

    We have announced a 12-month engagement period – and I urge the City to engage constructively with this process.

    Domestic skills will also be crucial to the future of this sector. And I’d like to thank TheCityUK, and Mark Hoban in particular, for their crucial work on our domestic skills pipeline.

    I look forward to hearing your proposals soon.

    The City has long been a world-leading financial centre;

    Our history is one of innovation, resilience and openness.

    Our success today is built on a complex ecosystem, not easily or quickly replicable by others.

    But to remain ahead, we must evolve, as we have done continuously in the past.

    Managing our exit from the EU…

    …developing new opportunities in our domestic market…

    …and building our presence in the fast-growing Emerging Market economies.

    Fighting for liberalisation of trade in services…

    …embracing and shaping technology…

    …leading the regulatory response to it…

    …and developing the skills we need for our future.

    Working together…

    …capitalising on London’s strengths…

    …we will build the most cyber-secure; best regulated; most innovation-friendly financial centre in the world.

    The trading location of choice.

    Match fit, and ready for the future.

    Let’s do it together.

  • Matt Hancock – 2019 Speech on AIDs

    Below is the text of the speech made by Matt Hancock, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, on 30 January 2019.

    It’s great to be here today at this global forum with such a global audience. And somewhat of a relief.

    When George called and asked me to be part of a project that’s very close to Elton John’s heart, I have to admit I feared the worst.

    Luckily for us all, it wasn’t a musical collaboration, but Sir Elton’s other great passion. And it’s a passion that I share and fully support.

    I pay tribute to the work Sir Elton John has done over so many years, and to the Evening Standard for your leadership and campaigning and support.

    HIV and AIDS are challenges that we must rise to together. The injustice, the unfairness, and the sadness they have brought and bring to this day must be tackled by us all.

    They are global challenges that require global solutions and global co-operation. But I’m here because every global solution starts locally.

    Just up the road from here, in Soho, is the building where perhaps the most important, and most successful, public health campaign in history was born.

    In 1986, one of my great predecessors, the Health Secretary Norman Fowler, faced a controversial health challenge. A lot of people felt helpless and there was a lot of tension.

    Instead of flinching, he did the right thing and brought together medical experts and the finest minds in ad-land with one clear aim: to stop people dying of AIDS.

    I was 7 years old. And I still remember the advert that came out of that meeting. I guess many of you do too.

    There was a volcano erupting, a tombstone with the word ‘AIDS’ carved into it in huge letters and a very scary voiceover from John Hurt warning the audience: “don’t die of ignorance”.

    And it worked. I, for one, was terrified. I didn’t know what AIDS was – but, like everyone else, I found out.

    That campaign saved lives. His decision showed that governments can make a difference.

    It was imitated around the world. It stayed true to Fowler’s principle of “fighting the disease, not the person”. And it continues to inspire us about the power of public health interventions.

    The Terence Higgins Trust found that countries who were slower to act still had twice as many HIV infections as the UK more than 2 decades later.

    Thanks to that campaign, my generation grew up knowing AIDS was a potential death sentence.

    That doesn’t have to be the case anymore. Thanks to medical breakthroughs, public health campaigns, breaking down stigma and better education, AIDS is no longer a death sentence here.

    I feel proud that Britain has made such progress. But when I think about what’s going on elsewhere, I feel anger that our progress is not yet reflected around the world.

    Just look at the statistics: 1.8m children are still living with HIV. Every week, 7,000 young women become infected with HIV.

    In 2017, 940,000 people died of AIDS-related diseases. That’s equivalent to all the people living in Manchester and Liverpool.

    The fight against HIV is indistinguishable from the fight for equality and the fight against discrimination.

    Let’s not pull our punches: discrimination costs lives. Discrimination on gender or race or sexuality makes it harder for people to seek protection and help.

    As Oscar Wilde said: “The road to freedom has been long and smeared with the blood of martyrs, and the fight’s not over yet.”

    For a generation, the road to justice has been smeared with the blood of those who suffered the injustice of HIV. We have it within our grasp to end that discrimination and to end HIV, and we must not fail.

    Britain demonstrated global leadership on AIDS with that ad campaign in the 1980s. And we are determined to do that again.

    So today we’re redoubling our commitment to act with a new global campaign.

    I’m delighted this campaign is a joint effort between us in health and my brilliant colleague Penny Mordaunt in international development.

    Because what the success of that campaign 30 years ago proves to me is that what we do in this city, in this country, can resonate around the world. It can make a difference.

    What we do locally in London, in Delhi, in Nairobi, in Maputo, in Kiev, in Atlanta, in other cities, has an impact globally.

    We’re all part of the global solution to this global challenge, and none of us have all the answers or can do it alone. So I’m delighted to announce we’re putting in money.

    In a minute, Penny will explain what we’re doing internationally, and the money we’re putting in to help other nations.

    But setting an example matters. So I’d like to, just for a moment, to share with you a new world-leading initiative here in the UK.

    Today we’re setting a new goal: eradicating HIV transmission in England by 2030. No new infections within the next decade, becoming one of the first countries to reach the UN zero-infections target by 2030.

    This goal will be stretching it because it means preventing infections in higher-risk and harder to reach groups. But it is a realistic aim.

    Part of our approach is our HIV Innovation Fund, which will support 13 local innovative initiatives to reduce the risk of people contracting or passing on HIV, reduce stigma and reach hard-to-reach communities.

    Another part will be to review how we commission sexual health services, to make sure they are available to all.

    And we’re going to increase access to PrEP for people in high-risk categories. We’re going to double the number of people who can receive the potentially life-saving HIV prevention drug.

    The NHS is halfway through a 3-year clinical trial into PrEP, but we’ve decided to expand it early to include 26,000 people because the need has been far greater than anticipated.

    From the ultra-local to the truly global, that’s the approach we must take to eliminate AIDS.

    Each nation may be at a different stage, face different challenges, possess different resources, but we share the same goal.

    And let us just allow ourselves to dream that one day we can bear witness, within a generation, of going from ‘don’t die of ignorance’ to an AIDS-free world.

    That goal is now within our grasp. Let us work together to achieve it.

    We will fight prejudice, we will fight wrong, we will fight evil, whether the evil of an indiscriminate virus or of an evil discriminatory heart.

    We will champion the dignity of all human beings and the dignity of the human spirit. Let us pledge together: we will do our part and we will not fail.

  • James Brokenshire – 2019 Speech at Building London Summit

    Below is the text of the speech made by James Brokenshire, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, on 30 January 2019.

    Introduction

    Thanks, John [Dickie], it’s great to be here.

    As a London MP, I know just how vital the capital’s businesses and the talented, dedicated people who lead them, work in them and support them are to our country’s prosperity.

    And I want to thank you for helping make London the global beacon for creativity, diversity and enterprise that it is.

    To be a Londoner, born or adopted, is a badge of pride and testament to this great city’s ability to embrace opportunities and challenges like no other.

    As such, I know that our capital – and, by extension, our country – is well–placed to seize the opportunities that lie ahead.

    But of course, I recognise that also means delivering economic certainty and stability, that means delivering a Brexit deal in the best interests of our economy, and the best interests of our country.

    Last night’s vote in the House of Commons showed that Parliament does not want to leave the EU without a withdrawal agreement and future framework.

    The government will now redouble it’s efforts to secure arrangements which will do just that, and secure a deal that Parliament can support and deliver on the vote of the British people in the referendum and get on with delivering our vision of building a country that works for everyone.

    That very much means building the homes our country needs and that is central to that ambition, and indeed what today’s event is all about.

    There are few places in our country where this need is more acute – where the gap between demand and supply, between what people can afford and what’s on offer, is more stark.

    This isn’t just a top priority for Londoners.

    As the Prime Minister has said, it’s a top priority for our country.

    We’ve made some important progress.

    Last year, we delivered the highest number of new homes in a decade – 222,000 – up 2% on the previous year.

    And just a fortnight ago, we learned that the number of new homes being built had hit the highest level for a decade – up 12% on the previous year.

    This is positive news.

    And I want to pay tribute to everyone here today for your contribution to this.

    In all, since 2010, this government has delivered over one million new homes and we’re determined to get that up to 300,000 homes a year by the middle of the next decade.

    London will be key to achieving that goal.

    Which is why it was disappointing to see that net additions in London were down by almost 20% last year, with 21 boroughs showing a dip in their annual supply.

    So, there’s no question that we need to raise our game urgently – to seize every opportunity to boost supply across the capital and key transport corridors and deliver for the Londoners who just want a place to call home.

    The government is playing its part.

    We’re putting billions into housing and infrastructure – at least £44 billion of financial support over 5 years.

    We’re reforming planning to provide greater certainty and clarity for developers and communities and have empowered Homes England, our new national housing agency, to take a more strategic and assertive approach to increasing supply around and outside London.

    We’ve also removed the government cap on how much councils can borrow to build more – a real breakthrough – and are investing £2 billion of long–term funding to help housing associations deliver.

    And I’m delighted to announce today that we’ll be making £497 million available to housing associations to help build 11,000 new affordable homes, including properties for social rent.

    These strategic partnerships – agreed by Homes England – will give associations from Essex to Ecclestone the freedom to spend this money where it will have the biggest impact.

    Taking us a step closer to meeting our ambition of delivering 300,000 homes a year.

    But this isn’t just about getting the numbers up.

    It’s also about putting fairness at the heart of the housing market – by restoring the dream of home ownership and championing renters through our new £7.2 billion Help to Buy scheme to 2023 and initiatives like Build to Rent.

    And by taking action to end rough sleeping for good and implementing a new regulatory framework for building safety following the tragedy at Grenfell Tower – ensuring we deliver for all parts of our society.

    London stands to benefit hugely from these measures – particularly the removal of the removal of the borrowing cap which could unlock around 10,000 homes – and which many in the sector have been calling for for some time.

    It’s been great to see how warmly this has been welcomed by councils in London and elsewhere – and how ambitious they are about making the most of this opportunity to deliver the next generation of council housing.

    It’s notable, too, that the capital has received around half of the national funding pot for the Affordable Homes Programme in recent years and we’re providing £486 million to the Greater London Authority to help deliver 3 of our new funds: Accelerated Construction, Land Assembly and Small Sites.

    Funds that, together, will help generate over 8,000 new homes by unlocking land, delivering homes more quickly and diversifying the house building market.

    On top of this, there’s the Budget announcement that the first successful Housing Infrastructure Fund Forward Funding Bid would be in London.

    This amounts to £291 million of grant funding for vital infrastructure on the Docklands Light Railway, which will ease pressure on existing services in the area and unlock up to 18,000 homes across East London.

    We’re also investing in skills through, for example, a £24 million Construction Skills Fund that will see 7 housing sites in London benefit from on-site construction training hubs.

    And, crucially, we’re backing innovation in housebuilding such as Modern Methods of Construction.

    I want to see the sector really embracing this more innovative approach over the coming months to build faster, improve productivity and drive up choice and quality for people in and outside the capital.

    Which is why I’m delighted to be announcing today that Homes England will be putting £9 million towards building new modular homes on top of some of London’s buildings.

    An exciting venture that will see homes constructed offsite and then transported to 5 sites across the city – and that demonstrates our commitment to working with diverse developers to promote innovation and deliver for London.

    So, across board, this government is making every effort, from every angle, to get London – and Britain – building.

    And we now need to see the GLA also stepping up.

    Because despite all the talk of putting housing first, its record in recent years has been disappointing.

    And it’s ordinary Londoners who are paying the price.

    I share your worries about the consequences.

    About the young people who can’t afford to take up a job here because of sky-high rents.

    About the family who have to move out to get a place with a garden where their children can play.

    About the workers who keep London going priced out of even living within commuting distance.

    It’s with them in mind that the government has raised concerns about the Mayor’s draft London Plan, which we will be pursuing through the Examination in Public which is currently underway.

    But, first and foremost, we want to see the GLA urgently picking up the pace and delivering against their programme targets on the Affordable Homes Programme as well as the new land funds I mentioned earlier – and working with authorities in London and the South East, as well as private developers, to drive up overall housing delivery.

    London’s boroughs can and must also lead the charge – both individually and by working together across boundaries – to match the record of those such as Croydon, Westminster and Wandsworth, which are going the extra mile to build more homes.

    Because there has been no better time – with all the support this government is providing – for local authorities to develop new partnerships and to be bolder and more ambitious in their thinking about how to drive up supply and meet their residents’ needs.

    We can see this starting to happen through projects such as Capital Letters, an unprecedented collaboration between London’s boroughs and government, backed by £38 million of funding, to provide extra homes for vulnerable families who are at risk of becoming homeless.

    And on this same, critical issue, there’s PLACE, the first collaboration of its kind by London’s boroughs to use temporary modular accommodation to tackle homelessness.

    Exciting, inspiring examples of just what’s possible when councils join forces and can count on government support when needed.

    We need others in the sector – developers, housing associations, forums like this – to also get involved and explore what more we can do.

    I’m ready and willing to play my part in this – to work with individual boroughs, if needed, to push up supply.

    If you have thoughts and ideas about how we go further, faster, about what might be holding us back from delivering, tell me. I will listen.

    And, working together, I’m confident that we can and will fix this – and raise the bar for all our communities.

    And, yes, that includes London.

    Conclusion

    Our capital punches well above its weight in so many respects, but we know that it includes people and places that are struggling to forge their own destinies, to reach their potential.

    Who can see success, but feel cut off from it.

    We have a chance to change that – to create a housing market that works for everyone.

    And, in doing so, create a country that works for everyone.

    That means not just building more homes, but building stronger communities.

    The terrible events at Grenfell and last year’s terror attacks underline why this matters so much.

    So, we must keep this issue in our sights – especially if we’re to ensure all parts of our country and all parts of our capital can take advantage of the opportunities that lie ahead.

    On this and on delivering the homes we need, there are few places better equipped to take the lead than London, with its endless diversity, boundless ambition and openness to the best the world has to offer.

    That’s why this government is doing everything we can to deliver for the capital and its people.

    And it’s now time for others with a stake in their future to make the most of the support and tools on offer and make the difference we all want to see…

    …this great city continuing to succeed, with all Londoners sharing in this success and being able to truly make it their home.

    Thank you.

  • Penny Mordaunt – 2019 Speech at AIDSfree Cities Global Forum

    Below is the text of the speech made by Penny Mordaunt, the Secretary of State for International Development, on 30 January 2019.

    Good morning everyone, the first thing I want to say is a huge thank you for you all for coming together and for our shared commitment to create an AIDS free for all.

    I am just going to go slightly off-script, don’t panic Officials but are Dean Street in the room today? I just wanted to give a shout out to Dean Street, because on my travels I have met so many people that have benefited from your amazing service. What you do is truly phenomenal and I think sometimes when we look at, what my budget is doing and DHSC’s budget is doing; we think about tests, we think about drugs and we think about all those numbers and things we can measure, what we sometimes don’t think about is health care professional time.

    The thing that everyone always says about Dean Street is that quite often very vulnerable people with very complex lives are given time with health care professionals that makes a difference to them and gave them something that their GP couldn’t do for them, that other people couldn’t do for them and that I think is absolutely fantastic. At a moment when the Health Secretary and I and other members of the Cabinet are scratching our heads and thinking about Global Britain this is what Global Britain means to me, it’s our technical expertise, it’s our fantastic NHS as well as our budgets and all that we want to lever in and it’s everything that Britain has to offer the rest of the world; but Dean Street you’re wonderful.

    I am delighted that the Department of Health and Social Care, is joining with DFID along with the the Elton John AIDS Foundation and the Evening Standard as well as the Fast Track Cities Initiative and Johnson&Johnson to achieve this fantastic partnership. And through the partnership we’ve highlighted that – while the world has made great strides in addressing HIV and AIDS – we must step up our efforts if we are to meet the Global Goal 3.3 to end AIDS by 2030.

    That battle is far from over especially in poorer countries where stigma, lack of awareness and scarcity of life-saving medicines may persist. AIDS remember, is still the biggest killer of women of reproductive age around the world.

    The UK continues to be at the forefront of the global AIDS response. In 2017, UK aid helped the Global Fund provide 17.5 million people with treatment and protect nearly 700,000 babies from infection. And our 20-year agreement with Unitaid and support to the Clinton Health Access Initiative has given the world great advancements in HIV testing and treatment, at affordable costs.

    Our task is not easy, while we continue to advance some treatment, we must also address some of the most challenging drivers of HIV infection. Through UK aid supported research we now know that we will not reduce HIV infections if we don’t also address gender inequality and violence against women and girls. That’s why DFID continues to put women and girls at the heart of everything that we do.

    In some parts of the world we are also seeing growing stigma and discrimination and a backlash against rights, all of which fuel HIV infections among some of the world’s most vulnerable people. In July last year, we proudly extended our support to the Robert Carr Civil Society Networks Fund by £6m to support populations affected by HIV.

    And we are also delivering change at home. In the LGBT Action Plan, with my other hat on, we have committed to ensuring that health and social care services better meet the needs of lesbian, gay, bi-sexual and and trans people. From appointing a National Adviser on LGBT health, to make the changes to gender identity services, and to ensure that LGBT people receive better and more appropriate care.

    In London and the UK, we have demonstrated what is possible if the right services and support are in place. We are so proud of London’s success and we are thrilled to be able to share our experiences and inspire other cities to accelerate towards their own 90-90-90 targets.

    Through the AIDSfree appeal we are proudly supporting the Elton John AIDS Foundation to expand testing and treatment in Maputo in Mozambique and Nairobi in Kenya, for vulnerable young people. Through UK Aid Match, we are doubling public donations made through the Evening Standard appeal up to £2m, for projects in these two cities.

    UK Aid Match means that every time the British public donate to the AIDSfree appeal, we will match this pound for pound and double their generosity. In this case, it will directly change – and in many cases, save – the lives of people living with HIV in those two cities. The appeal is still going so please help us publicise it.

    And also through our significant funding to Unitaid, UK aid is supporting further work by the Elton John AIDS Foundation and it’s partners in Kenya to expand HIV testing and treatment for young men. This is the first project within the MenStar Coalition an initiative launched in Amsterdam last year to tackle HIV and AIDS which I was very pleased to endorse.

    Today is about celebrating success and driving action – I applaud you for your leadership, your commitment and this partnership. We look forward to a productive day ahead, and to seeing the strides that we are going to take to achieve Global Goal 3.3: to end AIDS by 2030. Starting right here today at the Global Forum.

    The scale of our ambition is clear, we all passionately believe that we can create an AIDS free future for the world, and I know that we’re going to.

  • Jeremy Hunt – 2019 Speech on Persecution of Christians

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jeremy Hunt, the Foreign Secretary, on 30 January 2019.

    Archbishop, bishop, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, a very warm welcome this morning to this very important occasion and very significant launch.

    Last Sunday, many people here will have been going to church, as indeed was the case in the Philippines at the Cathedral of Our Lady of Mount Carmel in the Southern Philippines. And in the middle of that service, a bomb exploded and 20 people were killed and the perpetrators then issued a hate-filled statement labelling the Cathedral as a ‘crusader temple’.

    And this was a very vivid reminder of the terrible truth that freedom of worship is something that cannot only not be taken for granted, but is a growing concern all over the world.

    And what happened in the Philippines has happened in Egypt. We know now from the excellent Open Doors report that a quarter of a billion Christians are suffering some sort of persecution all over the world, and we know that a number of the countries where this happens are countries that we don’t necessarily talk about.

    Countries like Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, North Korea, but also in some of the bigger countries.

    We know that there are serious and growing issues in China. And also in countries where we might have hoped there wouldn’t be a serious issue, like India, we know that this is becoming a much bigger issue.

    And as me and my team at the Foreign Office reflected on this, we wanted to ask ourselves a question as to whether the FCO, which has one of the best global networks of any diplomatic service – we basically after the Americans and the Chinese have the third biggest diplomatic network of any country alongside the French – and we wanted to ask ourselves a question as to whether we really are doing as much as we possibly could.

    And we wanted to do this not just because freedom of worship is a fundamental human right, but because also freedom of worship is the invisible line between open societies and closed societies.

    Where freedom of worship is hampered or prevented, then usually that’s a sign of lots of other things going wrong, and we wanted to make sure that the UK is doing everything to champion the values that we all believe in.

    I am a Johnny-come-lately to this, because we have in the Foreign Office a fantastic minister, Lord Ahmad, who has been championing religious freedom since before I became Foreign Secretary, and himself comes from a Muslim minority faith – the Ahmadiyya community that have effectively been banished from Pakistan because it’s not safe for them to be in Pakistan, and have had to move away. And many of them are based in the UK, but actually all over the world, so this is someone who knows from his own life the dangers.

    But very much on his advice, we particularly want to look at the issue of Christian persecution.

    Because the evidence is that 80 per cent of all the people who are suffering religious persecution are Christian.

    And we want to, if I can put it this way, banish any hesitation to look into this issue without fear or favour that may exist because of our imperial history, because of the concerns that some people might have in linking the activities of missionaries in the nineteenth century to misguided imperialism. And all those concerns may have led to a hesitation to really look at this issue properly, and we don’t want that to happen.

    And in order to keep us on the straight and narrow I’ve asked the Bishop of Truro, Bishop Philip Mounstephen, to do an independent review, and to work with all of you, to work with the FCO, and to tell us how we should approach this and what more we can do.

    And what I want to do is, what I’m hoping the outcome of this will be is, first of all in practical terms, I want to make absolutely sure when I am meeting a foreign minister, a prime minister or a president in another country, and there’s an issue concerning religious freedom, and in particular the rights of Christians, I want to make sure that it is absolutely on my list of things that I need to raise.

    Sometimes you do these things publically, sometimes you do them privately, but we should always be doing them if they need to be done and I want to make sure that happens and I don’t think it does at the moment.

    But secondly, I want to see what we can do to build an international coalition of countries that are concerned about this so that we can play, I think the role that Britain has played for many years, which is whilst recognising that we’re not a superpower, at the same time, not underestimating the power and influence that we have as a very well-connected country to bring together other countries that share our values and give a voice to people who don’t have a voice.

    And I think the final point I want to make which everyone in this room will be well aware of, but I’m not sure necessarily that the public outside are: we are a wealthy country and we sometimes think that when it comes to the rights of Christians this is really about wealthy people.

    It isn’t.

    The people who are suffering are some of the poorest people on the planet and they happen to have the faith that I have, that many people here have, and they happen to be suffering very badly for it.

    There is sometimes good news.

    I think the news about Asia Bibi this week is extremely encouraging, but the truth is that unless we make a real effort and unless the world knows that we are making a real effort, those bits of good news will become the exception and not the rule. And that’s what we don’t want to allow to happen.

    So thank you very much for your support.

    I’m sure, I say this in advance as a bit of expectation-setting, I’m sure we won’t be able to do absolutely everything you want, Philip, but we are very, very serious about doing what we can and we’re incredibly grateful for the support of many people here and many people outside as we in the Foreign Office go on a journey and think really hard about what we could do better.

    Thank you very much.

  • Oliver Letwin – 2019 Speech on Brexit

    Oliver Letwin

    Below is the text of the speech made by Sir Oliver Letwin, the Conservative MP for West Dorset, in the House of Commons on 29 January 2019.

    Unlike the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), I am a very easy man to please. I voted for the Prime Minister’s first deal, I shall vote for whatever she brings back and I am going to vote for the Brady amendment. I am past caring what deal we have, I will vote for it to get a smooth exit.

    The fact is that tonight we are faced with a choice of huge significance for our country, but it is not about the deal we do or do not get eventually, which I suspect in ​the long run will have to be done through some kind of consensus we have not yet found in this House. We are not really voting about that tonight.

    The 29th of March is not an abstract fact, it is going to happen. There is going to be a 29 March, which is a real day, and what we are really voting about tonight is the question whether, in the absence of this House taking action, we will leave the EU without a deal—in fact, in the absence of the House taking action tonight rather than two weeks from now, because I do not believe that vote is really going to happen. I am perfectly aware that some very old friends of mine, whose integrity and passion I respect and admire, believe that leaving without a deal is a perfectly tolerable outcome, or even a good outcome, for this country. I respect that opinion, but I do not share it.

    I am also aware that many people think the Conservative party will suffer if it is seen in any way to do anything that delays the exit date. I accept that there is some suffering, and I have experienced some of it in my constituency. I have experienced some of it through the tirades of those who send me emails and the like. I accept that.

    What my hon. Friends ignore is what will happen, first, to this country, which should be our first preoccupation, and, secondly, to our party if we leave on 29 March, taking the risks involved in not having a deal, and it goes wrong. Incidentally, I entirely accept that it might be perfectly all right, but it might not. If it is not, it will be Conservative Members and our Government—it will not be Opposition Members, some unseen force or the EU—to whom those difficulties will be attributed by the population of our country. When the people elect a Government, they expect that Government to look after them and not to impose risks and difficulties.

    If those risks materialise, our party will not be forgiven for many years to come. It will be the first time that we have consciously taken a risk on behalf of our nation, and terrible things will happen to real people in our nation because of that risk, and we will not be able to argue that it was someone else’s fault. I beg those Conservative Members who are still in doubt—I know there are many who are not—to consider that issue when we go into the Lobbies tonight.

    Finally, I will say one word on the question whether amendment (b) and the Bill proposed by the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles) is some kind of constitutional outrage. The Father of the House spoke about it, as did my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), and I will add a word.

    It is a fine thing to debate constitutional process but, if one is going to do so, it is important to read the books. It is important to know what our constitution is. There is one pre-eminent authority on the law of our constitution, and the one thing that A. V. Dicey makes clearer than anything else in his very large book is that the House of Commons has undisputed control of its own procedures. The Standing Orders of the House of Commons, which Bagehot tells us are the nearest thing in this terrible constitutional melee to a constitution in our country, are under the control of this House. There is ​nothing improper, wrong or even unusual about changing Standing Orders by a majority of this House of Commons. Until 1906, the Government did not have control of the Order Paper. It was invented for a particular reason that the Government should have that control, but there is no need for them to have it in future.

  • Nigel Dodds – 2019 Speech on Brexit

    Below is the text of the speech made by Nigel Dodds, the DUP MP for Belfast North, in the House of Commons on 29 January 2019.

    It is a privilege to follow the right hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab). Let me say at the outset that we have had very good discussions with the Government and, indeed, with Back Benchers in both parties in recent days, and that, for the reasons that he gave, we agree that the right approach is to vote for amendment (n) in order to give the Prime Minister the backing that will indicate to the European Union that there is a way through this which can command support in the House.

    The Prime Minister’s agreement to bring back any final deal for a meaningful vote, the fact that she will seek legally binding changes, what she has said about reopening the withdrawal agreement, and the fact that serious consideration will be given to options that can bring together those on the Brexiteer and remain sides of the argument are all powerful reasons for supporting the amendment. I believe that there is a way through the current difficulties and deadlock, but some of the options presented in other amendments do not, in my view, command a majority. We must be realistic about that.

    We, certainly on these Benches, want a deal: we do not want a no-deal outcome. However, the idea of taking no deal off the table is more likely to lead to a no-deal outcome than anything else, because that is exactly what will ensure that the EU holds out and gives absolutely nothing in any future negotiations. I have dealt with the Irish Government—Irish Governments of different hues—over many years, and that is exactly the approach that they have told us they will take, so it should not come as any surprise.

    The Prime Minister has focused on the issue of the backstop. We have some other issues with the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration, but the backstop is the main issue, and if it is dealt with, that will mean that we can get a withdrawal agreement through the House. I do not need to rehearse all the reasons why the backstop was so difficult for us as Unionists. However, ​the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) described it as damaging to the Union, the Father of the House, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) described it as a ridiculous proposition, and the Prime Minister herself has criticised it in strong terms as something that no one wants and everyone detests. Yet it remains at the heart of our debate. We must address the fact that with it in place, we cannot support the withdrawal agreement.

    People say that the position cannot possibly be revised. However, as the right hon. Member for Esher and Walton has just said, Michel Barnier himself, when he had to deal this week with the criticism that came the way of the European Commission’s spokesperson who had said that there would have to be a hard border in the event of no deal, said “No, no, there does not have to be one.” I will not repeat the quotation that the right hon. Gentleman has just given, but the fact is that if we can have no hard border in a no-deal situation, that will certainly be possible in the event of a withdrawal agreement and a deal.

    The position in the Irish Republic is not as homogeneous as people think. Its Prime Minister, Leo Varadkar, said the other day that in the event of no deal we would have to send troops to the Irish border. The Irish Government swiftly retreated from that. The Prime Minister was out in Davos. He may have been mixing with all sorts of characters—I do not know who those could possibly be—and he obviously got carried away with the rhetoric. Some wild stuff is being said.

    One of the most damaging arguments, which is of concern to many Unionists—and we in the House speak for the vast bulk of Unionists who are concerned about the implications of the backstop—is that this is designed to protect the backstop and the Good Friday agreement, as amended by the St Andrews agreement. It does nothing of the sort. Lord Bew, one of the architects of, or the people behind, the Good Friday agreement, said in a recent article for Policy Exchange that it drives a coach and horses through the agreement. We need to be realistic about this.

    Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)

    I believe that Lord Bew went even further in the other place last week, when he said:

    “there is one great problem with the backstop: it does not protect the Good Friday agreement.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 December 2018; Vol. 794, c. 1012.]

    He has made that point repeatedly. Surely that is the issue: as he has said, the backstop drives a coach and horses through the agreement.

    Nigel Dodds

    That is absolutely right, and I urge Members on both sides to read what Lord Bew has said. He voted remain, he is a supporter of the Good Friday agreement; read what he said about this, instead of listening to some of the myths that are about. For instance there is the myth that the open border is part of the Good Friday agreement—the Belfast agreement. The Belfast agreement does not mention anything to do with an open border; this is a complete myth. What we want in Northern Ireland—on all sides—is no hard border on the island of Ireland; we in our party are absolutely committed to no hard border on the island of Ireland, but not at the expense of creating borders down the Irish sea with our biggest market and affecting the integrity of the United Kingdom.​

    That has got to be the sensible position, and I believe now that if we get behind the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady) and send the Prime Minister out to Brussels with that strong support behind her, we can achieve something that people have said is not possible: we can get this deal sorted out for the good of all our country.

  • Vince Cable – 2019 Speech on Brexit

    Below is the text of the speech made by Sir Vince Cable, the Leader of the Liberal Democrats, in the House of Commons on 29 January 2019.

    We have had an emotional and raucous debate, whereas, as the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) said, the people outside are looking for something rather more calm, deliberative and constructive.

    The central issue we are addressing today is how we dispose of the no-deal option. As the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) pointed out, there is an overwhelming majority in this place to do that, and a whole series of amendments have been tabled to achieve it. The amendments go about it in different ways: the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman) is a declaratory statement; the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield wants a better process; and the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) and the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford want more time. None of the amendments in themselves provides a solution, but they are an important and positive step on the way, and we should support them.

    The issue we have to address is why the whole concept of no deal is out there. Let us be clear: it is a choice. It will not be imposed on the UK by the European Union. The UK has the legal authority to stop it, and if it is not stopped, it is a choice. It is out there because there is a complex game of chicken going on. The option of no deal was used initially to try to frighten the European Union, which had no effect whatever. It has been used to frighten wavering Members of Parliament; we will see how many do waver. It certainly had an impact on frightening business.

    One thing that worries me about today’s debate is that this game of chicken has now acquired a dangerous new twist. If there is support for the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady), the Government will go back to Europe to ask for what they call “alternative arrangements”, ​but we have no idea what those are. I have heard no mention today of Chequers. Does anybody remember Chequers? Six months ago, the Prime Minister held a special summit to discuss alternative arrangements. The best brains in Britain were employed to look at technological solutions, and the others were rejected. There were no alternative arrangements. Has somebody invented something in the last six months? If so, we have not been told about it. I am not always cynical, but I think there is nothing in it, although that remains to be seen.

    The Government will go back to the European Union, and the EU will be very polite—I think it genuinely wants to help the Government—but it will ask, “What is all this about?” and it will say no, not because it wants to but because it has to. The Government will then come back here, and there will be another round of anger. I am sure that it will not be the Prime Minister or the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West, but people will say, “Ah, you see? It’s all these bloody Europeans. They’re blocking it and pushing us out. They’re going to cause mayhem. It’s all their fault.” The ugly nationalism lurking under the surface will bubble up. That is what is in store, and the Government’s action today makes that more likely.

    We talk about no deal as if it is a hypothetical possibility, but it is real, and it is now. Partly because of the job I had in the coalition Government, I spend a lot of time talking to businesses big and small around the country, and they all say to me that no deal is happening now. They are having contracts cancelled, either directly or because a company down the supply chain is losing a contract. They are piling up inventories that they do not need, at great cost. Estate agents are having travel cancelled because of the need for three months’ notice. The impact is already being felt. Companies are absorbing it, as they would, but a few months down the track, the economic impact will be very real.

    The private enterprise system depends on what Keynes called “animal spirits”, and one of the animal spirits is panic. There is a real danger now of panic getting hold in the way it did 10 years ago in a different way in the financial crisis. The longer we leave no deal on the table, the greater the risk of that happening and of its consequences.

    There are other alternatives, and there is one we are not discussing tonight. The Prime Minister is quite right when she says, as she often does, that the alternative to no deal is a deal. She is absolutely right, but there are two deals already on the table: there is the one she has negotiated, and the one we already have. There is also the option that we are not debating today, but which I think we will probably come back to, of saying we should put that choice to the public. The Government say this is horrendous and that it will stir up deep social divisions, but I just ask her to consider whether the social divisions that might be accentuated in that way are greater than the social divisions that would be created if we have a no-deal world, which we are in danger of heading towards. That is why I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues will return—I am sure there will be a greater appetite for this in a few weeks’ time—to considering the option of going back to the public to have the final say.

  • Caroline Spelman – 2019 Speech on Brexit

    Below is the text of the speech made by Caroline Spelman, the Conservative MP for Meriden, in the House of Commons on 29 January 2019.

    It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), who spoke with great wisdom and clarity, as always.

    A no-deal Brexit would have not just a huge economic cost, but a huge human cost, and that is what drove me to table amendment (i). The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) and I are co-authors of this amendment, and we are neighbours. We have seen the lives of our constituents transformed by the renaissance of manufacturing in our region. It now exports more than any other region to the EU, which is its principal market. But Brexit is putting this at risk. As a group of cross-party MPs, we began meeting six months ago to discuss how to help, as we are already losing jobs—not just because of Brexit, but it has made it worse. We co-authored a letter to the Prime Minister calling for a no-deal Brexit to be ruled out, and I thank those who signed it. It attracted 225 signatures from MPs of six parties from all over Britain. The signatories are remainers and leavers, but we agree on one thing—we are against a no-deal Brexit.​

    Hardly a day goes by without another business calling for no deal to be prevented. Yesterday, it was the supermarkets which fear their shelves will be empty. Before that, it was the security analysts advising us of increased risks and before that, Airbus, Rolls-Royce, Siemens, Ford, and the National Farmers Union and other farming organisations. The list is simply endless. The CBI has described this as a monumental act of self-harm to be avoided at all costs. Crashing out without a deal simply makes our exports instantly less competitive.

    The Government say that it is not their policy to leave with no deal, so let us rule it out. The threat of no deal has been used as a stick to get more concessions, but in my view that card has played out. It has not secured the needed changes, as on the backstop, for example. So as a former negotiator, I would flip that card round the other way as a carrot, offering to take no deal off the table in return for concessions that will get the deal over the line.

    I want to be clear: I am not blocking Brexit. I am committed to honouring the referendum result. I voted for the withdrawal agreement; I have read all 585 pages. I urge colleagues perhaps to have a fresh look at it. It may not be perfect, but local businesses tell me that it is good enough and works for them.

    Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)

    In addition to the businesses themselves, does my right hon. Friend welcome the communications from the workers in those businesses, particularly Jaguar Land Rover, who have communicated with Members of Parliament such as myself to tell me their concerns about a no-deal Brexit?

    Dame Caroline Spelman

    My hon. Friend is quite right. As a fellow west midlander, he will know that many of us had a personal handwritten letter, or an original email, about the impact—the human cost—on our constituents’ lives, which we simply cannot ignore.

    I know that others need persuading about the withdrawal agreement. I encourage colleagues to read the document produced by the House of Commons Library, “What if there’s no Brexit deal?” This document could usefully inform six days of debate, because we ought to debate what the House of Commons Library tells us are the really important issues that we need to consider.

    Heidi Allen

    Will my right hon. Friend give way?

    Dame Caroline Spelman

    I am short of time now, so I ask my hon. Friend to allow me to continue.

    As no deal looms, just think of the human cost. Hundreds of young people like the single mums on my council estates got apprenticeships, then well-paid work in manufacturing, and now their jobs are at risk. Voting no to no deal means that we must agree a deal. The longer the uncertainty continues, the harder it gets for business. Stockpiling is costly and inefficient—the cost comes off the bottom line, and in the end that costs jobs. Just-in-time supply chains will be “not-in-time” with any hold-up at the border, and some factories are already stopping production to limit the disruption.

    If we agree that no deal is not an option, then it is incumbent on all party leaders to get round the table—and I think I heard the Leader of the Opposition say today that he would. The Malthouse initiative is an example of a new contribution to break the deadlock. But to ​negotiate any new deal with the EU will take time and cause an inevitable delay, and I am with the Leader of the House in trying to keep delay to a minimum. The Leader of the Opposition does not seem to have read my amendment because he thinks that it calls for a delay. It does not, because time costs money for business.

    We know that there is a majority for “no to no deal” in this Parliament because it was voted on as part of the Finance Bill, but the sheer complexity of that put some people off, including me. So this is a simple vote on whether colleagues support no deal or not. As the commentators say, it is not “processy”. I am surprised that, having been defeated on this issue once, the Government might still want to whip against this amendment —but then, these are not normal times in politics.

    The public are weary with the Brexit debate. It is not quick and painless, as promised. They want us to come together in the national interest, and we can do that by agreeing that no to no deal means that there has to be a deal. I am not a natural rebel. Indeed, I do not accept that label as someone supporting something that commands a majority in this House. I see that the Speaker’s chaplain is here to remind us all that we need to be respectful. I am a peacemaker, and I urge all parties in the House to come together in an outbreak of pragmatism and to agree a deal. To vote for my amendment commits us all to that quest.

  • Dominic Grieve – 2019 Speech on Brexit

    Below is the text of the speech made by Dominic Grieve, the Conservative MP for Beaconsfield, in the House of Commons on 29 January 2019.

    I cannot deny that I have found the process of Brexit one of the most wearisome and unpleasant periods of my time in this House, but the cloud has a little bit of a silver lining. I find this afternoon that an amendment I first proposed last summer, which was vehemently denounced by some of my hon. and right hon. Friends as being about to break the party apart, and that I brought back just before Christmas, and passed with the help of many hon. and right hon. Members, now appears to have something to commend it to the very people who denounced it then. I note with pleasure that amendment (n) appears to command some support among Conservative Members, and from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, but it could not even have been brought up for consideration if the system that had been devised for this House, simply to have motions in neutral terms be unamendable, had been followed. I derive some slight satisfaction from that.

    I now tempt the House to accept another amendment, amendment (g), and I will briefly explain why. We are mired in complete paralysis. The deal that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister brought back, which I suspect is probably the best deal available, does not commend itself to many of my hon. and right hon. Friends. If they voted to leave, it does not meet their dreams at all. What about somebody like myself? When I look at the deal objectively, from the point of view of an ex-remainer, I simply cannot understand how we are going to be better off leaving on such terms than remaining in the European Union.

    Sir William Cash

    Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

    Mr Grieve

    No, I am going to make some progress, if I may.

    In those circumstances, we have to find a way forward. Throughout the times that I have tabled amendments for this House to consider, I have tried to avoid objectives ​and look at process. Frankly, we could do with more days of debate of this sort unless or until we reach agreement. Of course, if we do reach agreement, with this amendment we can have another business of the House motion and we will just drop the remaining sitting days. It is rather sensible to set aside six days between now and the end of March when this House can debate, free of the interference of government, which I have to say I am afraid has sought consistently to restrict debate into an absolute straitjacket of what it wanted to hear and nothing else. If we have those days, it will help us, just as we are actually starting to tease out this afternoon, to make a little bit of progress towards compromise.

    Of course my views are well known about the desirability of a further referendum, and I will come back to them right at the end, but I am perfectly aware that many Members in this House do not agree with that, even if they also share my regret at what we are doing in leaving the EU. But that in no way diminishes for me the value of these days, and I agree entirely with the Father of the House and with my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) that the idea that this is some constitutional abomination simply does not bear scrutiny; we are in control of our Standing Orders and changing them in this way to get the debates we need is entirely in keeping with the traditions of this House and the fact that the Government, in this area, simply do not enjoy the majority that some Governments have normally used to suppress it.

    Sir William Cash

    Somebody who refers to national suicide, as my right hon. and learned Friend did the other day, is now moving towards a proposition that involves constitutional homicide, but let me put it another way. Does he agree that he voted for the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which states unequivocally that the European Communities Act 1972 will be expressly repealed? Therefore, is what he is now saying going to contradict that, because he does not want the 1972 Act to be expressly repealed—yes or no?

    Mr Grieve

    I say to my hon. Friend that he is familiar enough with the constitutions of this country and this House to know that this House can propose, debate, pass and revoke laws—we do it quite often sometimes, including laws that have never actually been implemented. So this House can do what it thinks is right at any given moment, and that is the flexibility we need. I tabled my amendment in the spirit of trying to reach some sort of understanding of where the majority might lie to bring this unhappy episode to a conclusion. I have also made it clear that in doing that one has to keep in mind and respect the decision of the earlier referendum, but that does not mean—I will come back to this in a moment as well—that one simply says that one is going to drag the country out on terms that nobody very much seems to support and towards a future that on the face of it looks pretty bad. To do that would be an abdication of our responsibility.

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has also said that this House should say what it wants and what it does not want. May I say to her that knowing what one does not want can be quite a good starting place to understanding where compromise is reached over what one is prepared to accept? There are amendments down this evening on no deal that I shall support, because it is ​quite clear to me that this House utterly rejects no deal. Therefore, I will vote for those as well and I ask the House to vote for my amendment, which is neutral in objective but which will give us the opportunity we need to continue developing the debate we have to have if we are to resolve this matter sensibly.

    There is then amendment (n), which I have to say is quite tempting in some ways. Our party has deep divisions over Brexit, and we know the pleasure we get when, because of the respect and affection we have for each other, we can all vote together. We did it when we supported my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on the motion of confidence. For that reason, it is very tempting to be told that we should just vote for amendment (n) and send some message that we might just be close to resolving our disagreements with the EU, and doing it collectively. I have some slight anxiety about this, however.

    The backstop is indeed a rather humiliating thing, which is why Democratic Unionist party Members do not like it. As a Unionist, I can understand that, to the bottom of my heart, because it highlights the fact that when we leave the EU, the EU is going to continue to have a hold constitutionally over some of the things that we do. But the truth is that the backstop is just the outward sign of a much more profound truth: that ever since we signed up to the Good Friday agreement to resolve, on a permanent basis, an outstanding constitutional issue of identity on the island of Ireland, we have bound ourselves to keep an open border. The unpleasant truth is that that is incompatible with the aim of some hon. and right hon. Friends, who want to take us to a future in which we diverge on tariffs and regulation, and which inevitably therefore leads to a hard border having to be introduced.

    I fear that our being asked to support amendment (n) this evening is a piece of displacement activity—something in which I am afraid the House has specialised in the past two and a half years, and which one often sees young children doing when they are asked to face up to something they do not like. That seems to me to be what the amendment is about because, first, it is quite clear that the EU will not negotiate on it—although I do accept that if you do not ask, you do not get—and secondly, even if we were to get the backstop removed, the trouble is that what some of my hon. and right hon. Friends are asking for is inevitably going to bring this conflict into the open once we are gone. If I may gently say so to them, this is one of the issues that we need to debate in those six days that I hope I may have set aside for the House. There is a lack of trust about future intention that makes 29 March completely irrelevant, because the truth is that the disputes about the nature of our state and how we relate to those around us will resume immediately afterwards.

    For those reasons, I am afraid I cannot support amendment (n), but I am delighted to have provided—if only by my previous amendment, at least—an opportunity to this House to start having a dialogue. I very much hope we can pursue that.