Category: Speeches

Theresa May – 2016 Statement on Alexander Litvinenko Report

Below is the text of the statement made by Theresa May, the Home Secretary, in the House of Commons on 21 January 2016.

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the death of Alexander Litvinenko on 23 November 2006, and the statutory Inquiry into that death, which published its findings this morning.

Mr Litvinenko’s death was a deeply shocking event. Despite the ongoing police investigation, and the efforts of the Crown Prosecution Service, those responsible have still not been brought to justice.

In July 2014 I established a statutory Inquiry in order to investigate the circumstances surrounding Mr Litvinenko’s death, to determine responsibility for his death, and to make recommendations. It was chaired by Sir Robert Owen, a retired senior High Court judge. And it had the Government’s full support, and access to any relevant material, regardless of its sensitivity.

I welcome the Inquiry’s report today, and I would like to put on record my thanks to Sir Robert Owen for his detailed, thorough, and impartial investigation into this complex and serious matter. Although the Inquiry cannot assign civil or criminal liability, I hope that these findings provide some clarity for Alexander Litvinenko’s family, friends, and all those affected by his death. I would particularly like to pay tribute to Mrs Marina Litvinenko and her tireless efforts to get to the truth.

The independent Inquiry has found that Mr Litvinenko died on 23 November 2006, having suffered a cardiac arrest as a result of acute radiation syndrome, caused by his ingesting polonium 210 on 1 November 2006.

He ingested the fatal dose of Polonium 210 while drinking tea at the Pine Bar of the Millennium Hotel on the afternoon of 1 November 2006. The Inquiry – which in the course of its investigations has considered “an abundance of evidence” – has found that Mr Litvinenko was deliberately poisoned by Andrey Lugovoy and Dmitri Kovtun, who he had met at the Millennium Hotel on the afternoon of that day.

The Inquiry has also found that Lugovoy and Kovtun were acting on behalf of others when they poisoned Mr Litvinenko. There is a strong probability that they were acting under the direction of the Russian domestic security service – the Federal Security Service or FSB. And the Inquiry has found that the FSB operation to kill Mr Litvinenko was probably approved by Mr Patrushev, the then head of the FSB, and by President Putin.

The Government takes these findings extremely seriously – as I am sure does every member of this House. We are carefully considering the report’s findings in detail, and their implications. In particular, the conclusion that the Russian state was probably involved in the murder of Mr Litvinenko is deeply disturbing. It goes without saying that this was a blatant and unacceptable breach of the most fundamental tenets of international law and of civilised behaviour. But we have to accept this does not come as a surprise. The Inquiry confirms the assessment of successive governments that this was a state sponsored act. This assessment has informed the Government’s approach to date.

Since 2007 that approach has comprised a series of steps to respond to Russia and its provocation. Some of these measures were immediate, such as the expulsion of a number of Russian embassy officials from the UK. Others are ongoing, such as the tightening of visa restrictions on Russian officials in the UK. The Metropolitan Police Service’s investigation into Mr Litvinenko’s murder remains open. And I can tell the House today Interpol notices and European Arrest Warrants are in place so that the main suspects, Andrey Lugovoy and Dmitri Kovtun, can be arrested if they travel abroad.

In light of the report’s findings the Government will go further, and Treasury Ministers have today agreed to put in place asset freezes against the two individuals.

At the time the independent Crown Prosecution Service formally requested the extradition of Mr Lugovoy from Russia. Russia refused to comply with this request – and has consistently refused to do so ever since. It is now almost ten years since Mr Litvinenko was killed. Sir Robert Owen is unequivocal in his finding that Andrey Lugovoy and Dmitri Kovtun killed him. In light of this most serious finding, Russia’s continued failure to ensure that the perpetrators of this terrible crime can be brought to justice is unacceptable. I have written to the Director of Public Prosecutions this morning asking her to consider whether any further action should be taken, both in terms of extradition and freezing criminal assets. These decisions are, of course, a matter for the independent Crown Prosecution Service. But the Government remains committed to pursuing justice in this case.

We have always made our position clear to the Russian government and in the strongest possible terms and we are doing so again today. We are making senior representations to the Russian Government in Moscow. And at the same time we will be summoning the Russian Ambassador in London to the Foreign Office, where we will express our profound displeasure at Russia’s failure to co-operate and provide satisfactory answers. Specifically, we have, and will continue to demand that the Russian Government account for the role of the FSB in this case.

The threat posed by hostile states is one of the most sensitive issues that I deal with as Home Secretary. Although not often discussed in public, our security and intelligence agencies have always – dating back to their roots in the First and Second World Wars – had the protection of the UK from state threats at the heart of their mission. This means countering those threats in all their guises – whether from assassinations, cyber attacks, or more traditional espionage. By its nature this work is both less visible and necessarily more secret than the police and the agencies’ work against the terrorist threat, but it is every bit as important to the long-term security and prosperity of the United Kingdom.

The House will appreciate that I cannot go into detail about how we seek to protect ourselves from hostile state acts. But we make full use of the measures at our disposal from investigatory powers right through to the visa system. And the case of Mr Litvinenko demonstrates once again why it is so vital that the intelligence agencies maintain their ability to detect and disrupt such threats.

The environment in which espionage and hostile state intelligence activities take place is changing. Evolving foreign state interests and rapid technological advances mean it is imperative we respond. Last November the Chancellor announced that we will make new funding available to the security and intelligence agencies to provide for an additional 1,900 officers. And, in the same month, I published the draft Investigatory Powers Bill so that we can ensure that the intelligence agencies’ capabilities keep pace with the threat and technology, while at the same time improving the oversight of and safeguards for the use of investigatory powers.

In the Government’s recently published National Security Strategy and the Strategic Defence and Security Review, we set out the range of threats to the UK and our allies – including from Russia – and our comprehensive approach to countering these threats. Since the publication of the previous SDSR in 2010, Russia has become more authoritarian, aggressive, and nationalist. Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea and its destabilising actions in Ukraine have directly challenged security in the region. These actions have also served as a sobering demonstration of Russia’s intent to try to undermine European Security, and the rules-based international order. In response, the UK, in conjunction with international partners, has imposed a package of robust measures against Russia. This includes sanctions against key Russian individuals, including Mr. Patrushev who is currently the Secretary to the Russian Security Council.

This Government is clear that we must protect the UK and her interests from Russia- based threats, working closely with our allies in the EU and NATO. This morning I have written to my counterparts in EU, NATO and 5 Eyes countries drawing their attention to both the report and the need to take steps to prevent such a murder being committed on their streets.

We will continue to call on President Putin, for Russia, as one of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, to engage responsibly and make a positive contribution to global security and stability. They can, for example, play an important role in defeating Daesh, and – together with the wider international community – help Syria work towards a stable future.

We face some of the same challenges – from serious crime to aviation security. And we will continue to engage, guardedly, with Russia where it is strictly necessary to do so to support the UK’s national interest.

Mr Speaker, Sir Robert Owen’s report contains one recommendation within the closed section of his report. Honourable Members and Rt Honourable Members will appreciate that I cannot reveal details of that recommendation in this House. But I can assure them that the Government will respond to the Inquiry Chair on that recommendation in due course.

Finally, I would like to reiterate the Government’s determination to continue to seek justice for the murder of Mr Litvinenko. I would like to repeat my thanks to Sir Robert Owen and, in particular, Marina Litvinenko. As Sir Robert says in his Report, she has shown “dignity and composure” and “has demonstrated a quiet determination to establish the true facts of her husband’s death that is greatly to be commended.”

Mr Litvinenko’s murder was a truly terrible event. I sincerely hope that for the sake of Marina and Anatoly Litvinenko, for the sake of Mr Litvinenko’s wider family and friends, and for the sake of justice, those responsible can be brought to trial. I commend this statement to the House.

January 23, 2016
David Cameron – 2016 Speech in the Czech Republic

Below is the text of the speech made by David Cameron, the Prime Minister, in Prague in the Czech Republic on 22 January 2016.

Well thank you very much Bohuslav for those warm words.

I’m delighted to be back here in Prague today.

This visit has been an opportunity to discuss our strong bilateral relationship.

Our 2 countries have a great history of working together. I think of the brave Czech airmen who flew with the Royal Air Force in World War 2, I think of our armies fighting side by side in Afghanistan and our shared commitment today to an open and competitive European Union and also, as you said quite rightly, fighting against terrorism and extremism which are the threats to our countries and our world.

It’s also been an opportunity, as you said, to discuss the progress we are making in reforming the UK’s relationship with the EU to address the concerns that the British people have about our membership.

And it’s also an opportunity to discuss the challenges posed by the migration crisis and how we can work together as European allies to address this crisis, including through the Syria donors conference I am hosting in London next month.

Let me say a few words about each of these areas.

Firstly, EU reform. We agreed at the last European Council that we would work to find solutions in each of the 4 areas I have set out – on economic governance, on sovereignty, on competitiveness and on welfare.

The British people want to see a stronger role for national parliaments and an acceptance that ever closer union is not the aim of all.

They want new rules to govern the relationship between those inside the eurozone and those outside.

And they think, and I think, much more should be done to make the EU a source of growth and jobs – cutting back needless bureaucracy and driving forward completion of both the single market and trade deals with the fastest growing parts of the world.

I support the principle of free movement and I greatly value the contribution that many Europeans, including Czechs, make to Britain.

But the challenge British people have identified is the scale of the vast movement of people we have seen across Europe over the last decade and the pressure that can put on public services.

That is the problem we need to address.

It is hard work – because what we’re looking for is real and substantive change.

But I firmly believe there is a pathway to an agreement.

We’ve had very positive discussions about all of these things here today. And preparations for the discussion at the February European Council are now well underway in Brussels. So I’m confident that with the help of European partners, with good will, we will be able to get there and find genuinely mutually satisfactory conclusions.

We have also discussed today the importance of continuing to work closely together to find a comprehensive solution to the migration crisis, of securing a stronger external EU border – and of doing much more to help the vulnerable refugees in the region.

We agreed we need to continue to pursue a comprehensive approach that tackles the problem at source and stops migrants from making the perilous journey to Europe.

This is a problem facing the entire region, and Europe needs to work in unison to tackle it.

Britain is playing its full part, with over £1.1billion already committed to the humanitarian effort in Syria and the resettlement of over 1,000 Syrian refugees in the UK and plans to resettle 19,000 more.

And of course I will be hosting the international Syria donors conference in London next month as I said.

I hope we can all work together to raise funds for refugees in the region. And I want us to address longer-term issues around jobs and education, giving those vulnerable people real hope and opportunities for the future.

Above all, thank you very much Prime Minister Sobotka for welcoming us here today.

January 23, 2016
Damian Green – 2012 Speech to the National Asylum Stakeholder Forum

Below is the text of the speech made by Damian Green, the then Minister of State at the Home Office, to the National Asylum Stakeholder Forum on 5 July 2012.

Firstly let me begin by thanking you for inviting me to speak to you once again. It is a little over a year since we last met at city hall for what was an excellent and very informative event, with stalls showcasing various projects, and at which you were introduced to the then, new permanent secretary, Helen Ghosh.

Last year, when I met you, we were celebrating 60 years of the convention, and of the UK protecting refugees. We continue to be very proud of that tradition. The 1951 refugee convention was an attempt by the United Nations to set down terms to define who should be recognised as a refugee, and how they should be treated in the countries that received them. It was an admission by the world that we all have a responsibility to help those who cannot obtain protection in their own countries.

The convention and the protocol are the most comprehensive codification of the rights of refugees yet attempted on the international level. They are the principal international instruments established for the protection of refugees, and the UK takes its responsibilities and obligations as a signatory to those instruments very seriously. These are responsibilities which remain just as important today as they were back in 1951.

That is why the UK border agency are proud to continue to work in partnership with the UNHCR on the quality integration project, and the delivery of the gateway resettlement programme, which offers sanctuary to 750 vulnerable refugees from overseas every year, enabling them to start new lives in the UK.

The year has brought a lot of changes and a lot of improvements too. The UK border agency has welcomed Rob Whiteman as its new chief executive, and Rob is implementing a programme of work, and the necessary structures, to make the Agency a more intelligence-led organisation. Over the years to come the agency will need to employ its resources effectively against the changing challenges it faces. In doing so it will also work hard to ensure the delivery of compliance with its processes and protocols, and to ensure its work is carried out consistently across the country.

There have been a lot of developments in the world of asylum in particular as I am sure you are aware. Many of these have been achieved with the assistance of the strong relationships we have with corporate partners.

To highlight a few:

The UK border agency has increased the number of telephone lines for asylum seekers to make screening interview appointments. A pre-screening telephone appointment has also been introduced to provide us with an opportunity to understand any particular needs an asylum seeker may have, so that we do our utmost to meet those needs at the screening interview and thereafter.

The UK border agency has considered its removals capability and the need to ensure that asylum is reserved for those who truly need it; not those who use it as a backstop without just cause. To this end we have created removal hubs and worked with international partners to facilitate returns, both assisted and enforced.

The merits of a detained fast track (DFT) are an area of the asylum system upon which I know we, (corporate partners and the agency) will struggle to come to agreement. I do believe that DFT is an essential tool to help the agency process asylum claims quickly and effectively, right through to conclusion. That is why I have asked my staff to ensure that in delivering this element of the asylum system, we ensure it operates well and is managed sensitively.

The DFT team has worked closely with detention services, and has improved processes within the detention centre, to reduce delays in the DFT process. Particularly around the arrangement of interviews for detainees, and in ensuring that relevant healthcare information is shared with appropriate partners.

I am pleased that my officials are working with the Helen Bamber foundation and freedom from torture to identify how the agency might improve the screening process, to assist with identification of victims of torture or trafficking at the earliest opportunity – I understand you heard about this joint work this morning.

We have rolled out the case management suite – Chronos – to all regions. This tool is helping us to deal with asylum seekers’ claims more swiftly and more efficiently, meaning those with protection needs have their claims decided promptly, and can access mainstream social services and support faster.

The UK border agency has begun the COMPASS transition period. Each provider has been issued with a bridging permit to operate, which is the trigger for the gradual movement of service users from current to new providers’ accommodation. The complete package of accommodation and transport services will transfer to the new providers later in August, when the full permit to operate will be issued. The agency has been engaging closely with corporate partners across the regions to ensure all significant impacts and issues are addressed. The UK border agency is grateful for your engagement and involvement.

The case audit and assurance unit has made steady progress in dealing with the legacy caseload. At the end of March 2012, 80,000 cases were in the asylum controlled archive and 21,500 cases were in the migration controlled archive.

The evidence points to the fact that the vast majority of these individuals have already left the UK, and the UK border agency therefore needs to consider the benefit of spending public money pursuing these cases. With the re-introduction of exit checks by 2015 through the e-borders system, the agency will be in a far stronger position in future to ensure we have comprehensive records to tell us when individuals leave the UK.

The UK border agency will continue to manage the controlled archive and by 31 December all cases will have been through data matching with our partners twice, and will have been checked against our own internal databases at least twice. Where these actions reveal new information that allows us to progress the case, it will be transferred to a casework team to conclude any outstanding barriers. At the end of March 2012, the live asylum cases stood at 21,000; this number will increase as individuals are traced.

We have begun the development and implementation of the next generation quality framework, which you have played a significant part in. Under this framework the UK border agency is seeking to deliver a system that monitors and promotes quality, efficiency, professionalism, compliance, and consistency.

The framework will look at the whole asylum process, end-to-end and is designed to focus on those areas where improvements should best be made, such as credibility, as well as capturing best practice and trend information to inform better decision-making, and asylum guidance and instructions in the future. Your engagement so far has been extremely helpful and we will continue to engage you as the framework develops.

The UK border agency has worked with you on projects such as access and information; seeking to improve asylum seekers’ experience of the asylum system and to make the processes easier to understand. We know from that work that whilst there is already a lot of information provided to applicants, it needs to be much more balanced, consistent and focused. And that the agency needs to remove duplication where it exists. I hope that you will continue to work with the UK border agency on this, not only to help develop and implement an efficient suite of advice services, but also to help establish ways of listening to those who use the process day in, day out. The UK border agency needs their help to improve too.
All of these things the UK border agency has done to improve efficiency and deliver value for money to the tax-payer, so that despite the economic climate the agency can continue to deliver high quality asylum considerations, and to ultimately provide protection to those individuals who need asylum in this country.

You play a key role in helping the UK border agency achieve this aim, acting as a catalyst, and stimulating some of the thinking that has led to the development and implementation of these plans.

I know you, and your trustees, judge your success by how well you manage to influence the UK border agency in this forum, and the level or the type of change that results from your engagement with officials. But it is true that in just holding up a mirror to the UK border agency’s work, and the way we run our business, you help us to see things differently and have made a difference. I know that my officials have valued your perspectives.

The joint presentation from the Helen Bamber foundation, freedom from torture and the UK border agency that you had this morning is an excellent example, not only of sharing your perspectives, but also of joint working with the agency in a specific area to improve what the agency does and the outcomes for the people involved.

Going forward we must be realistic. All of us will continue to face challenging times financially and with regard to resources. This will mean a need for a tighter focus in terms of the areas we turn our attention to, and ensuring that we leverage our time and energy on things that will deliver most value, and are of the most importance. Later on today you will be discussing the future programme of work for the forum and the structures that will best support it. I am confident of your continued contribution to ensuring improvements are made to the way in which the asylum system operates.

January 23, 2016
Jeremy Browne – 2012 Speech on Business and Human Rights

Below is the text of the speech made by Jeremy Browne, the then Minister of State at the Foreign & Commonwealth Office, on 6 July 2012.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today, and for such a generous breakfast!

I am absolutely thrilled to be back in Hong Kong and, in particular, to be speaking again at an event organised by the British Chamber of Commerce.

This is my third visit to Hong Kong as a Foreign Office Minister. It is no accident that I am such a regular visitor: today, Britain is looking East like never before. As I mentioned last time I was here, we are setting our country firmly on a path to far closer ties with countries across Asia over the next twenty years. We want Britain to be a leading partner with Asia in developing a prosperous future, in trade and commerce, in culture, education and development and in foreign policy and security.

And we are serious about this, which is why we are adding sixty new jobs to our diplomatic network in China, and targeting a 40% increase in the number of Chinese speakers in the Foreign Office by 2015. I think there is a real opportunity this year, as we inherit the Olympic Baton, to drive forward the UK’s relationship with China. We look forward not only to welcoming Chinese athletes to the UK, but also Chinese businesses and spectators. We will also host a special event at the British Business Embassy during the London Games focused specifically on China – one of only two such events. China’s economic development will see more demand for the advanced services the UK is well-placed to provide. In return, there are significant opportunities for Chinese companies to invest in the UK.

So China remains a top priority for Britain. And Hong Kong is a uniquely important partner for us – as a place where we enjoy such special connections, and such strong ties in business, education and culture. It is particularly exciting to be here during the first week of the new Administration under Chief Executive C Y Leung. The Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary have congratulated him on his appointment. And there is clearly lots we can work on together. I am looking forward to discussing this with the new Secretary for the Administration when I see her later today.

When I was here last year, I spoke about Britain’s relationship with China and how Hong Kong fitted into this, particularly in terms of our business links.

But I thought we could take a slightly different approach this time around. I want us to talk this morning about how my Government is aligning its commitments to business and human rights. So I hope over the next fifteen minutes or so to answer the following questions: do human rights matter to business?; and, if you agree with me that they do, what does that mean for businesses?

Business and human rights

There is, I will not deny, a lot of scepticism around the commitment of governments and businesses to human rights. I understand that scepticism. But I don’t buy it. Simply put, respecting human rights, and promoting respect for human rights, is a win-win-win. It’s good for people, it’s good for business, and it’s good for governments.

Let me first consider the perspective of my own Government. Why have we put values like human rights at the heart of our foreign policy? There’s the obvious moral argument – that it is the Right Thing To Do. As the Foreign Secretary, William Hague, has said: “The belief in political and economic freedom, in human rights and in the rule of law, are part of our national DNA.”

But it’s also in Britain’s national interest. In the long run, states that respect human rights are more stable, less prone to conflict. In the long run, states with transparency and the rule of law are likely to be more prosperous; to provide more innovative, entrepreneurial markets for us to operate in. So it helps our security, and our prosperity. Just take North and South Korea as an example: the North is a security threat to the region and offers few trade prospects; the South is stable, and an important global trading partner with states all around the globe, not least the UK. We would rather inhabit a world of South Koreas than North Koreas.

This analogy works for business too. There is, first and foremost, a clear moral imperative that businesses feel as much as states do. But it is also a question of what is in your interests: in which world would you prefer to work? Surely it is easier and less risky for you to operate in countries with transparent regulation, freedom of expression, the rule of law and good governance.

And it is precisely those qualities that make Hong Kong such a good place to do business. Stability and freedom increase the chances of dispute resolution and protection for capital and intellectual assets. They breed creative, free-thinking individuals that can grow businesses – the sort of people that many of you here today will work alongside, or strive to work alongside. It is in the interest of businesses to have more liberal markets in which to operate.

That may seem to some of you to be a rather long-term argument. So let us consider too some of the more immediate benefits for companies that take human rights seriously.

For one, consumers – your customers – increasingly expect it. I believe we are seeing a shift towards a more ethically aware and discerning consumer, a shift we have seen over the past two decades or so on environmental policy. And no-one knows better than you how important human rights issues are to the people of Hong Kong.

This is one of the reasons why many companies in the clothing industry, for instance, have modified their supply chains to guard against the use of child labour. Reputational damage is a real risk in the modern market of ethically discerning consumers, and companies have been slammed in the past by allegations of complicity in human rights abuses (Nestle, Nike, Gap, Primark).

Nor is it just consumers. Institutional investors such as pension funds and mutual wealth funds are increasingly taking companies’ ethical standards into account when making investment decisions. The same can be said of shareholders. Employees are more likely to be motivated to work for ethical companies. And by taking a human rights-conscious approach to business, you are reducing the risk of costly and damaging litigation.

All of this is more relevant than ever. In a world of Facebooks, YouTubes and Googles – of social media and 24 hour news – companies are under the spotlight as never before. Just think of executive pay, which has been in the UK headlines – and which has led to the resignation of leaders of some of our biggest businesses, in the face of moral outcry over the size of salaries and bonuses.

So it makes sense, then, for governments and businesses to work together not only to respect human rights and ethical ideals, but to also spread respect for human rights.

And I think I can say with some confidence that, actually, business wants to do this. Today, there are countless examples of good practice across the business spectrum – half of the companies in the FTSE 100 already have human rights policies in place. And I know that your own Chamber is taking a growing interest in these issues.

The Guiding Principles

Indeed, it would surprise some if I were to tell them that businesses have been asking, like civil society, for guidance on where and how human rights fit in with the work they do.

This is why the adoption of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights in June last year is so important. Some of you may have heard of these already – but for the benefit of those who haven’t, the Guiding Principles have created a new common standard for business activity.

They help you to raise human rights standards in the countries you operate in – which benefits all of us. They provide guidance so you can demonstrate to consumers and investors that you are behaving in an ethical way. They remind you of your legal obligations as businesses, to help mitigate litigation and reputational risks. And by complying – and showing that you are complying – with recognised standards, they help you to attract and retain good staff, increase their motivation, and limit staff turnover and sickness absence.

So this is not about clogging up or constraining businesses, which are central to our prosperity. It is about levelling the playing field for businesses; mitigating against companies undercutting others by using unethical practices. It is about helping businesses to be aware of their legal obligations; helping them to demonstrate their ethical standards, to their reputational benefit.

What the UK is doing to help

The Guiding Principles are here to stay. They will be widely accepted, implemented and maintained. With that in mind, we are about to introduce a Government strategy on business and human rights – in part to ensure that we can more effectively examine our own record. And through working with other like-minded countries, including our EU partners, we are pushing for the wider international community to do more. It is important that we encourage other states to do what we are doing. It is, after all, ultimately for states to protect the human rights of people within their territory. This is not just an initiative that puts the onus only on businesses.

That being said, we are also doing what we can to support British companies like yours to ensure that you are aware of the Principles and understand what they mean for you.

As a first step, we are ensuring that our staff across the globe – including Andrew’s team here at the Consulate-General in Hong Kong – will be able to provide you with the guidance you need. We are updating our Overseas Business Risk Service, the joint FCO-UK Trade and Investment website that some of you may already be familiar with. And we are improving the way we signpost businesses to other resources.

I am confident that in taking these steps we will do our part – and help you do yours – to mainstream the Guiding Principles.

So it’s clear, I think, that respect for human rights is as crucial in the business world as it is outside of it. I believe that we are seeing a new trend emerging globally, with greater expectations of businesses on human rights. It may seem a long way off in some parts of the world, including in China. But if we can work together – as governments, businesses and indeed civil society – we can create a better environment that benefits all of us.

I have explained to you this morning why I think all of this is important, and what the British Government is doing about it. But now over to you: I’m interested in hearing your own views on the opportunities to take forward this agenda here in Hong Kong.

January 23, 2016
William Hague – 2012 Speech on International Law

Below is the text of the speech made by William Hague, the then Foreign Secretary, at the Hague in the Netherlands on 9 July 2012.

It is an honour to be here: in a country that has done so much to develop the international legal order; in a city that is the leading address for international justice; in a hall that was once itself a court; and in the company of many distinguished legal practitioners including the Presidents of the Tribunals and the new Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court.

I am also grateful to my colleague Foreign Minister Rosenthal for his kind words and warm reception. We are very lucky to have the Netherlands as such a reliable, like-minded and trusted friend, and I thank Uri for his part in that.

Some people may wonder why I have chosen to speak about international law and justice today.

This subject is more commonly the preserve of lawyers, academics and justice Ministers.

But there are three compelling reasons why I think it is important to speak about it as Foreign Secretary, and to do so now.

The first is that justice and international law are central to foreign policy.

The rule of law is critical to the preservation of the rights of individuals and the protection of the interests of all states.

To borrow Erasmus’s words, justice “restrains bloodshed, punishes guilt, defends possessions and keeps people safe from oppression”.

It is the common thread binding many of the pressing issues we face, from building peace, widening democracy, and expanding free trade, to confronting terrorism while upholding the law and respecting human rights.

We have learnt from history that you cannot have lasting peace without justice, accountability and reconciliation.

The Arab Spring has shattered the idea that nations can maintain long-term stability and prosperity without human rights, political participation and economic freedom for their citizens.

And international laws and agreements are the only durable framework to address problems without borders, from protecting our oceans to tackling terrorism and cyber crime.

Such agreements – if they are upheld – are a unifying force in a divided world, and they underpin our collective security.

That is why the UK attaches such importance to securing a Global Arms Trade Treaty this month that is robust and legally binding; that covers all types of conventional weapons including small arms, light weapons and all types of munitions, and that contains strong provisions on human rights, humanitarian law and sustainable development.

It is also why it would be so damaging to peace and security if Iran were to develop a nuclear weapons capability, despite being party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It would undermine the viability of this essential Treaty, and could lead to a new Cold War-style confrontation in the Middle East. A peaceful diplomatic solution, which we seek through negotiations, would respect Iran’s right to peaceful civil nuclear energy, but only if we can be confident that Iran is not seeking and will not seek nuclear weapons. Iran must be willing to negotiate seriously and to take concrete steps to demonstrate positive intentions. If it does not, the pressure and isolation it faces will only increase.

My second reason for giving this speech is our growing reliance on a rules-based international system.

We are far more vulnerable today than we ever have been to threats that no one nation can address alone, while our economic ties to other nations grown ever more complex. So we depend more and more on other countries abiding by international laws and agreements.

Despite this, the international community still has a tendency to fire-fight international problems one conflagration at a time.

We need to strengthen the international awareness and observance of laws and rules that are our best means of preventing the flames from bursting forth in the first place, or of beating them down before they spread and cause irreparable damage.

We need to work to bridge the gap in thinking and policy between Western democracies and some of the emerging powers on the protection of human rights overseas. Some of these nations have a strong record on human rights and democracy at home, but do not agree with us about how to act when human rights are violated on a colossal scale abroad. Other powers do not subscribe to the basic values and principles of human rights in the first place.

We can see the consequences of a divided international community very clearly in Syria.

Once again, the world is being called upon to stop a state-sponsored killing and torture machine, which has already claimed thousands of victims, and to end a vicious cycle of violence. So far our efforts have not succeeded.

The international community came together in an unprecedented way to address the crisis in Libya last year. The Arab League, the UN Security Council, the UN Human Rights Council, the European Union, NATO and the International Criminal Court all stepped forward and played their part to protect a civilian population.

In Syria we are seeking tough, concerted diplomatic intervention rather than a military response. For we believe that if the full weight of the Security Council were to be put behind Kofi Annan’s plan for a political transition and then was enforced by the international community, it would lead to an end to the violence and a political settlement on the ground. We will continue to try to work with Russia and China to achieve that, but if the Kofi Annan plan fails no option to protect lives would be off the table.

In the short term, the people of Syria are paying the devastating price for the lack of international unity. But in the longer term, the security and interests of all nations will be weakened by it. Looking ten or twenty years ahead, such strains are likely to grow and could undermine the international rules-based system if we do not begin to address them now.

There is no easy answer to these questions. But my argument today is that the overriding missing ingredient is political will:

The will to devote diplomatic resources to preventing conflict: giving early attention to crises, binding countries into peaceful solutions, being prepared to use force as a last resort in accordance with the UN Charter, and showing the strategic patience not to abandon countries which have emerged from war. We have to ensure that when we are trying to build peace, we don’t overlook the need for justice.

We also need the will to deter leaders from committing crimes through fear of international justice, and if that fails, to hold those responsible to account. This includes determined efforts to apprehend fugitives from international justice.

We need new commitment from nations which are not party to international treaties to join them, in particular the principal UN conventions on human rights, and those that are party to them should feel greater pressure to live up their responsibilities.

And of course, we also need to muster the will to reform international institutions like the UN Security Council, so that they are more representative while at the same time being effective.

This is a massive task. But it is the need to begin to generate this renewed political will that is the third and final reason why I am giving this speech today.

Our starting point should be a sense of achievement about the past two decades.

There has been a global revolution in accountability. It is an unfinished revolution, but it is unprecedented in history.

We can trace its origins back to the Nuremberg Trials, when Chief Prosecutor Jackson described the decision by the Allied Powers to submit their enemies to the judgment of the law as “one of the most significant tributes that Power has ever paid to Reason”.

But even twenty years ago, impunity for war crimes was still the norm.

Since then we have built the architecture of international justice.

Some of those responsible for appalling crimes have been and are being prosecuted, including Charles Taylor and former members of the Khmer Rouge.

None of those indicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia are free, and many have been convicted.

The International Criminal Court has concluded its first ever trial in the case of Congolese rebel leader Thomas Lubanga, who will be sentenced tomorrow, and is due to issue a ground-breaking decision on reparations for victims. In August Laurent Gbagbo of Cote D’Ivoire will appear for a confirmation of charges hearing, the first former head of state to come before the ICC.

There have been significant advances in international law, such as defining gender crimes and establishing that genocide can be committed through rape and sexual violence.

The tribunals have made an immense contribution to judicial capacity-building. The Rwanda tribunal for example has created a corps of internationally-experienced African judges, prosecutors and investigators.

And we have seen other encouraging developments, including a more robust approach from the UN Human Rights Council. Only last week it established a Special Rapporteur for Eritrea through an African-led resolution, the first time African states have brought forward such an initiative for one of their neighbours.

These and many other efforts have had a profound effect:

The presumption that leaders of nations are immune from prosecution has been eroded.

The idea of sovereignty as a barricade against international justice has been all but eradicated.

And the referrals of leaders in Libya and Sudan shows that not signing up to the Rome Statute cannot be relied upon as a way of avoiding being held to account.

The lesson of the last two decades is that if you commit war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide you will not be able to rest easily in your bed: the reach of international justice is long and patient, and once set in train, it is inexorable. There is no expiry date for these crimes, so that even if like Ratko Mladic you succeed in evading justice for 16 years, you will eventually be brought to account.

Equally, we have sent the message to victims of crimes that access to justice is their right: if their country cannot or will not take action to accord them justice, there is real hope for redress for the worst crimes.

These achievements are not the product of the history or values of just one part of the world – but of the whole world.

And none of it would have happened without the non-governmental organisations that have driven the global human rights movement: documenting atrocities, rallying public opinion, running campaigns, urging governments to act and monitoring the implementation of commitments.

I am also proud of the role played by British Judges sitting in the Courts and Tribunals based here in The Hague, including Sir Christopher Greenwood, Sir Adrian Fulford, Howard Morrison and Theresa Doherty.

The International Criminal Court and the tribunals are of course far from perfect.

They have been criticised for the length and cost of their proceedings.

And it remains the case that billions of people in 70 countries are still outside the protection of the Rome Statute.

Some of the criticism of the International Criminal Court is inevitable. It is an organisation that is the first of its kind, that breaks new ground with every case and ruling, that is required to cover most of the globe, and that is only ten years old.

The United Nations, by comparison, is 67 years old, and yet we are still talking about the need for urgent reform.

Some of these criticisms are fair and require action. The ICC must ensure that it learns the lessons of its first ten years, to refine its procedures and challenge those who argue that international justice is too costly or lengthy or that it has been solely focussed on Africa. The Court must also continue its efforts to become more efficient, particularly given the financial climate. And, as States Parties, we need to offer the best possible candidates for positions within the Court and help manage its cases.

There are two other criticisms often levelled at the International Criminal Court and the tribunals which I would like to tackle head on:

Some people have pointed to conflicts that have erupted since they were established and argued that they have failed to create a deterrent effect.

But the responsibility for deterrence cannot be laid on Courts. By the time we get to the stage where they can act, the international community has already failed to stop bloodshed in the first place.

The cycle of war is the product of the never-ending capacity of humans to be brutal to the powerless in the pursuit of power or wealth. It is the result of our collective failure to prevent conflict. And it has been fuelled by the uneven application of international law in different parts of the world, feeding a perception that governments that commit crimes still have a chance of getting away with it.

The second charge sometimes levelled at the Courts is that their work complicates the search for peace.

Each conflict is different and there have been times when local or regional agreements have been struck to persuade leaders to leave power. Such agreements may be reached again in the future.

But those – and there were many – who argued that the international community should offer immunity to Slobodan Milosevic, Radovan Karadzic and others like them in order to stop the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina were wrong.

Our coalition Government is firmly of the view that leaders who are responsible for atrocities should be held to account, whether nationally or internationally. Institutions of international justice are not foreign policy tools to be switched on and off at will.

Our challenge now – and it is immense – is to complete the work of the Tribunals, to strive to universalise the Rome Statute and increase the capacities of the International Criminal Court, and to make irreversible the progress that has been made in ending the culture of impunity for the worst crimes.

These are our collective responsibilities and achievements. But I would like to end with a few words about Britain’s own record and our commitment for the future.

We approach this debate with a degree of humility and a consciousness of our own history.

Having profited from and participated in the slave trade for hundreds of years, Britain led the world in abolishing it in 1807 and campaigning to eradicate it worldwide, and in doing so pioneered the introduction of ideas of human rights into the international law of the 19th century. But it was here in The Hague at the 1899 Peace Conference that Britain resisted calls to proscribe the general use of dum dum bullets, for fear that it would limit the freedom of action of military commanders in the British colonies.

In recent history we have been heavily involved in the forging of agreements to ban cluster munitions, anti-personnel landmines and to stem the trade in conflict diamonds – to take just a few examples. But we have also been drawn into controversy, including allegations of UK complicity in extraordinary rendition, leading to torture and the mistreatment of detainees.

The very making of these allegations undermined Britain’s standing in the world as a country that upholds international law and abhors torture. Torture is unacceptable in any circumstances. It is abhorrent, it is wrong, and we will never condone it.

It does sometimes happen that we fall short of our own standards. Mistakes are made. Governments can follow bad policies based on mistaken assumptions, or make poor decisions when confronted by competing priorities or urgent crises. But the test of our democracy is our willingness to shine a light on the mistakes of the past and to take corrective action – as we are doing in many ways including through domestic legislation, independent inquiries, changes to our machinery of government and the issuing of new guidance to our staff.

But there is no doubt where Britain stands: we are with those who say that international law is universal and that all nations are accountable to it, and we do not shy away from accountability to it ourselves.

We are a country that believes in and upholds the Responsibility to Protect, and that is prepared to act to save lives – including through military action as a last resort.

We actively support a rules-based international system. We champion the powerful role the Commonwealth plays to promote the rule of law internationally.

We welcome the European Union’s achievements in defending and spreading fundamental freedoms through the enlargement process and by taking a principled stand on human rights from Burma to Zimbabwe.

We are engaged in all six existing international criminal tribunals. We are one of only two Permanent Members of the United Nations Security Council to have ratified the Rome Statute. We are the only Permanent Member to accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ, and we exercise universal jurisdiction over the offence of torture.

We went to great lengths to ensure that our intervention in Libya had the full authority and backing of a Chapter VII UN Security Council resolution, to minimise civilian casualties throughout our operations, and to work side by side with Arab nations.

And our policies in other areas, such as the fact that we are the only member of the G8 to set out firm plans to invest 0.7% of gross national income as aid from 2013, support human rights and international law across the world.

But we can and will do more.

First, we pledge to recommit to the importance of fighting impunity for grave international crimes wherever they occur.

We will be a robust supporter of the International Criminal Court in its investigations. We will encourage states party to provide the necessary political, strategic, practical and financial support the Court needs. This includes urging voluntary contributions to the ICC’s groundbreaking mechanism to help victims rebuild their lives, the Trust Fund for Victims. We donated £500,000 to the Trust Fund for Victims last year and I am pleased to announce that we will match that donation this year. We will also urge states outside the Rome Statute to consider acceding to the Treaty.

Second, we will redouble our calls on all states to cooperate with the International Criminal Court and apprehend those it has indicted. Their names are known – Bosco, Bashir and Kony among them – and they should stand trial for the charges against them. There should be no hiding place or sanctuary for people indicted for crimes against humanity, war crimes or genocide. And states that are not party to the Rome Statute should consider the message they send to the outside world when they harbour or welcome indictees under the guise of regional solidarity. I pay particular tribute to President Joyce Banda of Malawi for her principled stance when she said recently that if President Bashir of Sudan travelled to her country for the African Union Summit he would be arrested.

Third, we will use our role in the European Union, NATO, and the United Nations Security Council to support more effective conflict prevention and the UN rule of law efforts.

We are pleased that the UN General Assembly will hold a landmark event on rule of law on 24th September. We can do more to help countries rebuild their legal systems and develop their economies after conflict, as we are doing in the UK through our own development budget. The event will also help to highlight the ICJ’s role as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, and to encourage more member states to consider accepting the Court’s jurisdiction.

Fourth, we will work to build greater consensus with emerging powers on how to translate shared values on human rights into action. In Britain we have made these discussions an explicit component of the stronger bilateral ties we are seeking with a range of countries. We believe that this conversation needs to be widened. I particularly call on NGOs to take up this issue and help mobilise public opinion in emerging powers, since the greatest hope of influencing government policy lies through an alliance of global civil society and concerned citizens.

And fifth and finally, we will use our international role and diplomatic network to pursue initiatives that support peace, security and human rights worldwide.

Last year we held the London Conference on Cyberspace, calling for agreement on ‘rules of the road’ governing the use of cyberspace, which is also emerging as an area of risk for human rights as well as of criminality that undermines economies worldwide.

This year we hosted the London Conference on Somalia, which brought together more than 50 countries and organisations to pledge more effective support and assistance to Somalia as it strives to emerge from conflict.

We have sent teams to Syria borders to help document human rights abuses, and the activists who uncovered the El-Houleh massacre received training from the United Kingdom. We will support the people of Syria as they seek accountability for the suffering they are enduring today.

And I have also announced a new British initiative on preventing sexual violence in conflict and post conflict situations.

We are setting up a new, dedicated team of experts in our Foreign and Commonwealth Office which will be devoted to investigating and preventing sexual violence in armed conflict. It will draw on the skills of doctors, lawyers, police, psychologists, social workers, gender advisers, forensic specialists and experts in the care and protection of victims and witnesses.

It will be able to deploy overseas at short notice to gather evidence and testimony to support international and national investigations and prosecutions. It will be available to support UN and other international missions, and to provide training and mentoring to national authorities to help them develop the right laws and capabilities.

We will use Britain’s Presidency of the G8, starting on January 1st 2013, to run a year-long diplomatic campaign on the need for stronger international action. We want to encourage others to follow suit, and increase the resources they devote in this area. We want to shift the view that sexual violence is an unavoidable consequence of armed conflict, to ensure that rape and sexual slavery in conflict are not given a lesser priority in investigations and prosecutions than other offences, and to secure an increase in prosecutions.

To conclude, the path to justice can be long and difficult.

It will always be a struggle to define and enforce rules of international conduct that promote the security, prosperity and just treatment of all nations and all people.

But the maximum safety for the greatest number lies in the rule of international law.

Having achieved so much over the last twenty years, we cannot say we have got this far but will go no further. We must continue to expand the frontiers of freedom and protection against human rights abuses. We have to maintain momentum and increase it if we can. We must show political will and commitment in the areas I have described, and demonstrate greater international resolve to prevent conflict, starting in Syria today.

It is a sad truth that the biggest advances in international justice came about because of our revulsion at atrocities: the horror of the World Wars, the killing fields of Cambodia, the premeditated barbarity in Bosnia and Kosovo, the slaughter in Rwanda, and the mass rapes in the Democratic Republic of Congo, all of which were an unbearable affront to the conscience of humanity.

Today, how much better it would be to look ahead and summon the political will to act to prevent conflict and expand human rights without needing to be shamed into doing so by the deaths and suffering of innocent people.

January 23, 2016
Nick Clegg – 2012 Speech on House of Lords Reform

Below is the text of the speech made by Nick Clegg, the former Deputy Prime Minister, in the House of Commons on 9 July 2012.

Mr Speaker, no one doubts the commitment and public service of many members of the House of Lords.

But dedicated individuals cannot compensate for flawed institutions, and this Bill is about fixing a flawed institution.

So let me begin by setting out why our upper chamber is in need of these reforms.

The three simple reasons why I hope members will give it their full support.

First: because we – all of us here – believe in democracy.

We believe that the people who make the laws should be chosen by the people subject to those laws.

That principle was established in Britain after centuries of struggle, and it’s a principle we still send our servicemen and women halfway across the world to defend.

Yet, right now, we are one of only two countries in the world – the other being Lesotho – with an upper parliamentary chamber which is totally unelected, and instead selects its members by birthright and patronage.

It’s an institution that then offers those members a job for life.

An institution that serves the whole of the UK yet draws around half its members from London and the South East.

An institution in which there are eight times as many people over 90 as there are under 40.

An institution which has no democratic mandate – none whatsoever – but which exercises real power.

The House of Lords initiates bills. It shapes legislation. As governments of all persuasions know, it can block government proposals too.

So these reforms seek to create a democratic House of Lords – matching power with legitimacy.

Under our proposals 80% of members would be chosen at the ballot box, with elections taking place every five years, the remaining 20% appointed by an independent statutory commission.

There would be no more jobs for life.

We’re proposing single, non-renewable limited terms of around fifteen years, and our reforms would guarantee representation for every region in the UK.

At the heart of this Bill is the vision of a House of Lords which is more modern, more representative, and more legitimate. A chamber fit for the 21st Century.

The second reason is that these reforms will lead to better laws. This Bill isn’t just about who legislates, it’s about how we legislate.

Right now, in our political system, power is still overly concentrated in the executive – governments, quite simply, can be too powerful.

Many members have seen, in their political lifetimes, landslide administrations able to railroad whichever bills they like through the Commons.

And we’ve all heard our colleagues complain about different governments trying to ram bills through the other place, when they should have been trying to win the argument in both Houses.

Despite its assertiveness, too often governments believe they can disregard the Lords. This Bill, by creating a more legitimate House of Lords gives it more authority to hold governments to account – a greater check on executive power.

That doesn’t mean emboldening the Lords to the point that it threatens the Commons – and I’ll come on to those concerns shortly – but it does mean bolstering its role as a chamber which scrutinises government.

It means forcing governments to treat an elected upper chamber with greater respect.

The aim of this Bill, to quote the Right Honourable member for Charnwood, is to create a second chamber: “more independent of the executive, more able to exercise independent judgement”.

That will not only mean better laws, but also fewer laws, restricting, again in the words of my Right Honourable friend, “the torrent of half-baked legislation” governments are capable of.

The third reason to support the Bill is simple practicality.

The House of Lords cannot continue on its current path. We need to reform the Lords to keep it functioning, and we need to do it soon.

Right now we have an upper chamber that is ever-expanding.

That’s one of the main consequences of the unfinished 1999 reforms.

Very simply: after a general election, new governments will always seek to reflect the balance of the vote in the Lords, but it is impossible to get rid of members – the only way to leave is to die.

So new administrations inevitably have to make more appointments to get the right balance.

The current membership is 816. That will soon be over 1000. Clearly the status quo is unsustainable.

The House of Lords is already too big and it will continue to grow bigger still unless we do something about it.

So this Bill reverses that trend. It gradually reduces the membership, and caps it at 450, plus 12 Bishops.

Some people have said the numbers could be dealt with much more easily:

That you can slim the other place by disqualifying convicted criminals or allowing members to resign.

The first solution would bring the total down by a handful, potentially. The second perhaps by none.

Others have said: yes, cap the House at an appropriate limit, but make it fully appointed.

But how could we possibly justify dramatic reform of the Lords that didn’t introduce a democratic element?

That would be unthinkable.

It would be in direct contravention of each of the three main party’s manifestos, flying in the face of our collective promise to renew our politics.

The only way to get to grips with the numbers is fundamental democratic reform. That is what this Bill does.

So democracy, better laws, the urgent and practical need for reform. The three reasons why members of this House should give this Bill their blessing and wish it a swift passage into law.

Mr Speaker, before I address some of the concerns around the Government’s proposals, I would just like to make the point that, while the Bill has been introduced by the Government, in many ways it’s not just the Government’s bill.

These reforms build on the work of our predecessors on all sides of this House.

As with all of the best examples of British constitutional reform, the proposals look to the future but are respectful of the past.

Veterans of these debates will know that the Coalition parties cannot claim full credit for the reforms presented here.

Go back to the White Paper produced by the Right Honourable Member for Blackburn in 2008; the late Robin Cook’s ‘Breaking the Deadlock’; the House of Lords Act in 1999; Lord Wakeham’s Royal Commission; and everything that went before over the last 100 years.

And it’s clear the reforms have a long bloodline that includes all of our parties and political traditions.

Indeed in 1910, when Government proposals to limit the power of the House of Lords were introduced, it was Churchill who said:

“I would like to see a Second Chamber which would be fair to all parties.

And which would be properly subordinated to the House of Commons …

And harmoniously connected with the people.”

He ended by saying:

“The time for words is past, the time for action has arrived.”

I couldn’t agree more.

In 2007 the Commons voted overwhelmingly for a mostly elected second chamber.

Each of the main parties stood on a platform of Lords reform at the last election and, since coming into Government, my Honourable Friend the Minister for Political and Constitutional Reform and I have looked for every way to take this forward by consensus.

We convened a cross-party committee, which I chaired.

We then published a white paper and draft bill for pre-legislative scrutiny.

A Joint Committee of both Houses spent nine months considering that White Paper and draft bill – and I remain extremely grateful for their forensic and detailed analysis.

We accepted over half the Committees recommendations and reshaped the Bill around their advice.

So this Bill is the sincere result of a long and shared endeavour.

Its history belongs to us all:

To Liberals, Conservatives, to Labour and to all other parties in this House, as well as to the great political reformers and pragmatists of the past.

Of course, that doesn’t mean every member of this House agrees with every clause. There is no perfect blueprint for a modernised second chamber.

Even within each of the main parties differing visions of reform can be found, and this Bill reflects a number of compromises that have been made to accommodate differences across this House.

And, I want to say to members of this House who have specific worries about particular aspects of this Bill: that’s precisely what further scrutiny of the proposals, in both Houses, will be about.

Of the concerns that remain – they fall into two camps.

The myths, which I will now seek to dispel, and the fears, which I hope to address.

Taking the myths in turn:

I have heard the accusation that the reforms will be too quick, too abrupt,

that the Bill amounts to some frantic act of constitutional violence.

The truth?

These reforms would be implemented over around 15 years.

New members would be appointed or elected in three tranches, over three elections.

The political parties and groups would have maximum discretion over how to reduce their existing numbers.

I have heard that the modernised Lords will cost the earth.

The truth?

Taken as a whole, and once completed, the Government’s reforms of Parliament will be broadly cost neutral.

The additional costs attached to running a reformed House of Lords – which, incidentally, are much more modest than some of the estimates doing the rounds – will be offset by the saving from reducing the number of MPs.

Once all this is implemented, the real terms cost of running Parliament is expected to be roughly the same as it is now.

The only additional cost will be conducting the elections themselves.

Next, I’ve heard Lords reform presented as some kind of Liberal Democrat crusade.

The truth?

All the main parties stood on a platform of Lords reform at the last election – and in elections before that too.

Indeed, it was in the Conservative Party’s manifesto in 2010, 2005 and in 2001, and the Labour Party has long campaigned against privilege and patronage in the other place.

Going back – as the Right Honourable Member for Neath has highlighted – all the way to Keir Hardie’s 1911 manifesto.

The final myth:

I’ve heard that the House of Commons should not be concerning itself with Lords reform at a time of economic difficulty.

Then let’s get on with it. Proper scrutiny, yes. Years of foot-dragging, no.

I don’t remember this complaint being made when we legislated to create elected police commissioners, or when we were debating local government finance, or legal aid reform.

And it’s odd to suggest that Parliament cannot do more than one thing at a time. But I certainly agree that jobs and growth are the priority.

So let’s not tie ourselves up in knots on Lords reform. We don’t need to – all the parties are signed up to it.

Vote for the Bill and the programme motion so we can scrutinise the Bill properly, while still allowing ourselves to make progress on other Government priorities.

So much for the myths.

Now let me address some of the fears about the Bill, many of which I believe have been expressed in good faith.

Broadly, there is a worry that we risk upsetting a delicate constitutional balance, creating a second chamber that is too assertive and so a threat to this place.

I’m not surprised by that – it’s part of a normal and familiar pattern.

Every time the other place has been reformed, questions over the primacy of the Commons have arisen, with predictions ranging from disaster to apocalypse.

In 1999 some said that new Life Peers wouldn’t accept traditional conventions, and so would start blocking manifesto bills, where Governments legislate on their election promises, resulting in endless gridlock over government priorities.

As with all these things, the prediction was completely wrong. The reformed House accepted that the conventions should continue.

It adjusted to its new status without overreaching its role as a junior partner – as it will again.

So, while questions of primacy are important and must be clearly answered, we should remember that these fears are the routine reflexes of Lords reform.

And this Bill will not turn the other place into some kind of monster. It relates to size and composition only, and does not contain any new powers for the other place.

Ultimately the primacy of the Commons will remain grounded in our conventions and absolutely guaranteed by our laws.

To ensure a rock solid legal backstop the Parliament Acts will remain, and we have reaffirmed the Acts on the face of the Bill to make that point crystal clear.

The Government will still be based in the Commons.

The appointed element of the new chamber means it could never claim greater electoral legitimacy.

And the Commons will of course continue to have sole responsibility for Money Bills.

A separate but related fear is that opening up the Lords to election will politicise it, creating a chamber of career politicians likely to rival MPs and robbing the Lords of its wisdom and expertise.

Let’s be clear on the current situation.

The other place contains some extremely eminent individuals, who bring a wealth of knowledge and experience to Parliament.

But it is hardly entirely dispassionate – an institution somehow untouched by party politics:

More than 70% received their peerage from party leaders.

That’s over two thirds of members taking a party whip – and very few rebel.

Members of the House of Lords are more likely to have come from this place than from any other profession – 189 are ex-MPs.

In a reformed House members will see themselves and their role very differently to us here.

Not least because of their longer term and the means by which they are elected.

This Bill attempts to make space in parliament for a different kind of politician.

A different character of parliamentarian.

The Government not only accepted the recommendation by the Joint Committee that appointed members should be able to combine membership with a role outside the House, but we have extended that principle to elected members.

Because the Lords should be a place for people who are public spirited, who have political and ideological affiliations, who want to serve this country, but who also want to continue to lead a life outside politics, who want or need to work, who have neither the desire or inclination to be an MP.

And they won’t be allowed to leave the Lords and immediately seek election in the Commons, encouraging them to see their time in the House of Lords as their one real chance to make their mark.

The combination of elections by proportional representation, single terms and a specific duty on the Appointments Commission to consider diversity could encourage more women, more members from BME communities, and more people with disabilities to serve.

And, crucially, the list system will mean that the new membership will properly represent all parts of the UK.

Right now nearly half of the members of the House of Lords are drawn from London and the South East.

Yet only 5% come from the North West. 2.6% from the North East.

Our proposals will correct those imbalances.

Proportionately, the West Midlands will see its representation more than double. For the East Midlands it will treble.

This Bill has sown into it the chance to create a richer, more diverse house, drawn from many more walks of life.

Mr Speaker, I would like to conclude my speech as I began.

There are three reasons to vote in favour of the Bill and its orderly passage.

Because we believe in democracy, for the sake of better laws, because reform cannot be ducked.

I welcome the reasoned and expert questions, arguments, concerns I know many members will raise.

I also know there will be those who are not interested in rational discussion.

Those who will oppose Lords reform in whatever form, at whatever time, no matter what commitments their parties have made.

This project has always been dogged by those who fear change.

What encourages me is that it has also been kept alive by those who champion democracy.

The reformers and modernisers who believe, simply, that power belongs in the hands of the people.

We, here, have a chance to finish their work. This has been a hundred year long project. Let us now get it done.

I commend the Bill to the House.

January 23, 2016
William Hague – 2012 Speech on Diplomatic Excellence

Below is the text of the speech made by William Hague, the then Foreign Secretary, at the Hague in Netherlands on 9 July 2012.

It is a great pleasure to be here. When Your Foreign Minister recently invited me to come to The Hague, I gladly accepted his invitation. We consider ourselves lucky to have such a strong and like-minded friend in the Netherlands. Our countries work extremely closely together in foreign policy. In the EU our countries are consistent champions of free trade, a deeper Single Market, and the fiscal discipline and structural reform which will be essential to future growth, and from Burma and the Western Balkans to Syria and Zimbabwe we work side by side.

I also like to think that the Dutch and the British have much in common, in the way in which we look at the world and in the way we do business: we are direct, we want to see decisions and action rather than process for its own sake, and we are outward-looking. We understand each other’s sense of humour, and I am told by our Ambassador that British television comedies such as Yes Minister are very popular here. I visited Unilever and Shell this morning: two of our most successful multinationals and shining examples of how well we work together in business.

I also believe that we share many of the same instincts and understanding of trends in the world. Your Foreign Minister has just spoken about some of these, and explained how the Netherlands is adapting to them. I congratulate him on this work and on his leadership, and I thank him for the chance to speak to you all.

My message to you today is that we are witnessing a Renaissance in the importance of diplomacy.

Some people thought that advances in technology, and the trend towards multilateralism, would lessen the demand for diplomats and Embassies in far-flung parts of the world.

But that has turned not to be the case at all. On top of the stresses and strains we are all experiencing here in Europe and in our own economies, the world we are operating in is rapidly becoming more challenging.

Today, there are far more centres of power and decision-making that we need to be present in, that we need to understand and to try to influence.

For although the world has become more multilateral, it has also become more bilateral at the same time:

In addition to the established ‘emerging powers’ such as the BRICs, many other countries are bursting onto the international scene, powered by a combination of economic dynamism, geographic location, youthful populations, natural resources, sovereign wealth, and the spread of global connectivity thanks to the internet and related technologies. We have moved irreversibly from a G8 world to a G20-plus world.

It is also true that countries are not settling into rival geographic blocs of states that think and act the same way. There is a far more dynamic and complex lattice-work of connections at play between states in terms of trade and foreign policy interests; and also a rich web of overlapping connections between business, civil societies in those countries which contribute to their choices and actions.

It also goes without saying that the same web of connections also applies increasingly to criminal gangs, cyber-criminals and terrorist groups, which now are often truly transitional in nature while rooted in local circumstances.

Working out how to navigate this much more complex landscape of a networked world;

How to protect our national interests and promote our common values and security;

How to work with countries that are not natural allies;

And how to address threats to our security and seek out economic
opportunity when both lie further afield;

All these things are the tasks of diplomacy today.

Some of these changes are uncomfortable.

We face the prospect of there being more situations in the world that we do not like but cannot easily change.

We have to adapt to the fact that some of our traditional diplomatic measures, including EU sanctions, will have a weaker impact as the EU’s share of global GDP declines relative to the rest of the world.

We have to expect more ambiguity in our foreign policy relations, as we work with countries that will be strong allies on some issues but vehemently opposed to us on others, or that do not share our values on human rights, democracy and the rule of law. Nonetheless we have to build confluences of interests with such countries over time, since they will be essential to achieving our common objectives.

But there are also tremendous opportunities:

This includes the potential to develop a broader sense of international responsibility among the emerging power, and to forge global on issues that matter to us all. Securing a robust and effective global Arms Trade Treaty this month would be one example of this.

Vast new opportunities for the prosperity of our citizens are opening up, with the world economy projected to double from $60 trillion to $120 trillion over the next fifteen years.

And as the Arab Spring shows, our model of democratic freedom under the rule of law remains a powerful aspiration for people everywhere, and gives renewed hope and impetus to our efforts to promote human rights.

So whether it is to seek opportunity or defend ourselves against threats, for Britain these changes in the world lead to one inescapable conclusion:

It is that there is no substitute for a global diplomatic network of Embassies that gives our country the reach and influence it needs.

We need more skilled diplomats on the ground in the places that matter, who are able to get under the skin of those countries, who are immersed in their language, culture, politics and history, and who have access to decision-makers and can tap into informal networks of influence. We need a more expeditionary approach to foreign policy, particularly in the area of conflict prevention, but also to tap into new opportunities for commerce and trade.

And so after a decade in which Britain closed many Embassies, we have begun a diplomatic advance that seeks to build up our presence and influence in the fast-growing parts of the world, and that strengthens our Foreign and Commonwealth Office as an effective institution for the long term. We think this is good for our country, but we also believe it will contribute to our ability to support peace, security and prosperity.

We do want to see the European Union use its collective weight in the world to good effect, and argue strongly that it must not turn inwards but remains outward-looking and engaged in its neighbourhood and the wider world.

I gave a recent speech in Asia calling for the EU to do more collectively in its relation with ASEAN. We want to see more EU Free Trade Agreements concluded, and an ambitious approach to the strengthening of human rights and democracy in our neighbourhood. And now the EAS has been established, we want to see it work efficiently. We are determined to play an active and activist role in all the Foreign Policy discussions and efforts by the European Union, from climate change to nuclear proliferation. But at the same time we believe that there is no substitute for our own national diplomatic network and capability.

Our focus on strengthening the Foreign Office and expanding British diplomacy takes three principal forms, which I want to set out briefly.

The first relates to policy. We are investing in our bilateral relationships with the fastest growing economies and the new powers of the 21st century. This means strengthening our ties beyond Europe and North America. We completely disagree with those who think that Britain has to choose between the EU and America. So while maintaining our close ties with the US and the European Union, we are tapping into our other networks and relationships with an intensity not seen in Britain in years.
This includes the Commonwealth, which we see as a unique network that has been undervalued in recent years. We have invested significantly in our relationships with the Gulf – which stood us in good stead during operations in Libya where we worked in equal partnership with Arab nations. It includes our ties with India, Pakistan, Japan, New Zealand, Canada and Australia, and we have begun the biggest effort to build up our relationships in Latin America since the 19th century.

The second change in our foreign policy relates to the first, and it is our conscious decision to expand our diplomatic network even at a time of budgetary constraint.

By 2015 we will have deployed 300 extra staff in more than 20 countries. We will have opened up to eight new consulates or trade offices, including two new Deputy High Commissions in India which brings the number of our posts there to seven, and we will have opened up to 11 new British Embassies in Liberia, El Salvador, Paraguay, Haiti, Laos, South Sudan, Kyrgyzstan, Madagascar, Cote D’Ivoire, and Somalia if circumstances permit.

The third change, which really binds this approach together, is a new focus on strengthening our Foreign and Commonwealth Office as a thriving institution at the heart of government. It must be as expert and effective as promoting our long terms interests as it undoubtedly is at being resilient and imaginative in dealing with urgent crises.

Our goal is a Foreign Office that continues to be capable of attracting and retaining the very best and brightest minds in the country, that equips its staff with effective diplomatic skills and places a strong emphasis on languages, history and regional expertise as well as on management and effective use of modern technology. I have summed this up as striving for ‘diplomatic excellence’ in the pursuit of our three core objectives: safeguarding Britain’s national security, supporting British nationals overseas and building our country’s prosperity.

This focus on skills and knowledge includes an increase in our budget for teaching languages to our staff by 30%. We are increasing the number of jobs overseas for which language skills will be an absolute requirement , and opening a new language centre in the building as well, so that our diplomats study together and foster a collegiate spirit. And I pleased that our Ambassador is a good example of this himself, being one of the few diplomats to master the Dutch language.

I launched a new Expertise Fund to deepen the geographical and thematic expertise of staff; this year we have so far supported over 300 projects worth over £800k.

We have introduced a sharper focus on commercial diplomacy, with a reinforced economics unit, more staff seconded to business, and Charter for Business.

We have brought Foreign Office historians into our main building for the first time ever, with their proximity reflecting the increased emphasis we are giving to the perspective they bring along with our Research Analysts.

We have adopted a new and much closer approach to Foreign Office Alumni so that we continue to draw on the skills and experience of our former diplomats. We have established alumni groups across different foreign policy areas, including my own Advisory Group of former senior FCO officials. As I put it to my colleagues, our staff should feel that they never really leave the Foreign Office, but are closely associated with it whatever else they go on to do.

At the same time we are bringing in more ‘outsiders’ from think tanks, non-government organisations, businesses and civil society groups, to test ideas and new and innovative approaches, and to help ensure that our policies are robust and remain relevant.

And as you are, we too are increasing our use of digital channels to discuss and inform our policy making: engaging on twitter personally, hosting Q&A sessions on foreign policy issues, and encouraging our Ambassadors to use twitter and Facebook. The FCO has 90 blogs, over 100 Twitter accounts and more than 130 Facebook pages. But there is still more that we can do to really harness the full power of digital diplomacy and we are studying this as I know you are.

So this is how we are responding to the challenges and opportunities we see in the world around us: the expansion of British diplomacy, an active and engaged role in the European Union, a greater focus on bilateral relationships, a programme of Diplomatic Excellence to build up the Foreign Office for the long term, and embracing the digital technologies of the 21st century.

We have a great sense of excitement and momentum about what we are doing. It is encouraging to know that others like the Netherlands are engaged in similar efforts. We have a lot that we can learn from each other and many areas in which we can work together, and I hope that we will collaborate even more closely in the years to come.

January 23, 2016
Tim Loughton – 2012 Speech at ADCS Conference

Below is the text of the speech made by Tim Loughton, the then Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Children and Families, at the ADCS Conference in Manchester on 5 July 2012.

Thank you Debbie. It’s a great pleasure to join you today to discuss our plans for the year ahead and beyond.

But before I look forward, I want to look back and pay a few words of appreciation and acknowledgement to your teams.

In particular, I want to say thank you to the ADCS and its members for your thoughtful, positive engagement with government over the last year in business critical areas like fostering, adoption and social work reform.

Thanks to you, we are beginning to see significant progress in the implementation of Professor Munro’s child protection recommendations and real evidence of sector led improvement, particularly in terms of supporting and challenging councils.

This is important progress – in an exceptionally difficult economic context – so let me start by offering my warmest congratulations, and can I ask that you please pass on my appreciation to your teams around the country.

I would like to say a few words this morning about the work we need to do to speed up progress in child protection, focusing on the most vulnerable children in particular. But I am going to start by laying down some very substantial challenges for local areas in the year ahead.

Over the 12 months, I have witnessed some truly inspiring turnarounds in fortune for many of the most vulnerable children and families in this country: for which you must all take enormous credit.

Young people moved back into education after months, sometimes years of disengagement. Chaotic families supported to establish loving attachments. Children rescued from neglect and abuse by the extraordinary professionalism of social workers.

This is the very best of child protection work in this country – the very best example of what can be achieved with focus and ambition.

But I am also acutely aware of the fact that these successes do not excuse the very serious examples of service failures we have sometimes seen:

Young people transported across the country to live in care miles from family and friends and familiar environments. Teenage girls lured away from residential homes by gangs of men to be sexually exploited. Children waiting years for high quality adoption placements to take place.

These kind of failures ask all of us to take a long, hard look at the circumstances in which they occur, and keep occurring.

Where is the drive in weaker areas to reduce delays in adoption and fostering placements? Where are the basic safeguards against children being placed in unsafe, unsuitable accommodation? Why are we still failing to protect children in care from abusers: surely the most elementary of all expectations?

These are questions we all, and I do mean all, need to confront: from politicians to policy makers, DCSs to staff on the frontline. They are also the challenges I want you to now put at the top of your in-tray if they aren’t already.

In saying this, let me make the point that I know, as well as anyone, the utter commitment of everyone in this room to protect young people from danger; to secure the best results for them; and to deliver the very highest quality services. I also understand as well as anyone that we cannot guarantee the safety of every child in this country.

But as leaders, we need to be relentless in our ambition to improve safeguarding arrangements: continually to assess where we could do better, where we could reduce risk.

I want us to be able to look each other in the eye at these conferences and say: ‘yes we have done everything humanly possible to safeguard those children in our care’.

But to accomplish this, we must first be honest and transparent about performance levels. We must be rigorous in our commitment to self-assessment and improvement. We must work across the sector to encourage, challenge and support one another. We must ensure that the experience of the best is transferred to those who are not so strong, and make sure there is no scope for the denial of weak performance.

For our part, we will continue to do everything we can as a government to support you, to get safeguarding right and to strengthen public confidence. I talk about an approach of spreading best practice, not just finger wagging. Sending out letters of congratulation, not just scrutiny and intervention

Already this year, we have made significant progress to bring Professor Munro’s widely acclaimed report on child protection into practice.

We have shortlisted several exceptional candidates for the position of Chief Social Worker and will announce the successful candidate shortly. Eight local authorities are testing new approaches to child assessment. Ofsted has introduced its new inspection framework to provide a sharper focus on the quality and effectiveness of support for children.

We have also responded to your concerns over excessive government control by cutting back disempowering bureaucracy in areas like the Working Together guidance. The three draft documents we have published for consultation will replace over 700 pages of detailed instructions with just 68 – focusing on the essentials and leaving the details to you.

These are radical reforms aimed squarely at putting the power of decision making back in your hands.

My plea to you this morning is to embrace this power shift enthusiastically and energetically. Don’t wait for government pronouncements that are not going to arrive, take charge of the opportunity and press ahead with local reform.

To support you we have invested in the Children’s Improvement Board to work with councils across the country to develop a model of sector-led improvement that is based around rigorous, honest and open self assessment, peer challenge and sector based support.

This is not an insignificant commitment from government. We are providing seed funding of £8.85 million over this financial year to support CIB and we expect to see lead members, chief executives and yourselves leading us towards a more open, transparent, innovative and collaborative approach to self improvement.

I have been hugely encouraged to see you putting the structures in place that will allow every region to make a reality of sector led improvement.

What we need to see now though, is more impact across the country – with self-assessment, peer challenge and support used as a routine way of securing meaningful improvement.

In particular, I want to see much faster progress towards raising standards of residential care for young people.

On Tuesday, I wrote to you all outlining the urgent reforms we are taking to protect children in care from sexual exploitation as part of a wider overhaul of the system.

These measures include ensuring more robust checks are made before children are placed in care outside their home boroughs, and ordering the immediate lifting of all regulations that stop Ofsted telling police and other agencies the location of children’s homes.

On top of this, we are reviewing all aspects of the quality and effectiveness of children’s homes – including their management, ownership and staffing.

It is important to say that there are many exceptional children’s homes that keep vulnerable children safe, as well as helping them to thrive and succeed. Last month I met inspirational residential staff who had been nominated for awards by the children in their care.

I know there are many more professionals like these around this country, who work tirelessly and passionately to support children in care, and they deserve our unstinting praise and respect.

But it would be entirely wrong to pretend there are not significant challenges before us. You know, and I know, that there are residential homes in this country that are clearly failing their children in the most tragic of circumstances.

Sue Berelowitz underlined the scale of the problem earlier this week and I am enormously grateful to her for responding to us so quickly with the early findings into her ongoing report on child sexual exploitation in gangs and groups.

As you will have seen, her report finds a clear pattern of residential homes being specifically targeted by abusers where there is, in her words: ‘a constant flow of vulnerable children for perpetrators to exploit’.

We are working with Ofsted to make sure all care homes match up to the very highest standards and are properly assessed. I have also set up a multi-agency taskforce to address the inadequacy of data relating to children missing from care.

Most importantly, as many of you will know we published the Child Sexual Exploitation Action Plan last November, identifying several key stages where we needed better intervention on child sexual exploitation: including taking more effective multi-agency action.

We are already seeing signs of positive progress, with the LSCB chairs’ network helping to spread best practice. And I thank Sue Woolmore for her efforts on this and for helping to coordinate the efforts of individual LSCBs.

But I remain acutely concerned at the worrying trend for placing children in unsuitable residential accommodation miles away from the familiarity of home. Some 45 per cent of young people in care now live outside their home boroughs.

If you look at a heat map of our towns and cities showing the locations of residential homes and then transpose onto them the whereabouts of known child sex abusers, drug dealers and criminal activity, you will find that we are too often placing our most vulnerable children into the most dangerous areas of our country.

We should not imagine that the public easily accepts or forgets failures in child protection of this kind. Or of the kind we saw in the Rochdale case this year, where young girls were lured from care homes with the promise of cheap vodka or drugs, before being passed around ‘like balls’ in the words of one of the victims.

So, I want to make it absolutely clear today that we expect action to be taken immediately, and decisively, if there is any suggestion that care homes are not passing muster or providing excellence in safeguarding.

DCSs have a critical role to play in selecting the best care homes for individual children: do not think it is ok to send a child to a poorly run home miles away from your own authority – or to take an ‘out of sight, out of mind’ approach to child protection.

This is an issue we must all work together on, with total determination. And I want today’s conference to mark the start of an uncompromising focus by councils on improving standards in residential care for children.

These homes should not simply be protecting children from danger, they should be supporting them to achieve to the very best of their abilities: to succeed at GCSE; to succeed at A Level; to go on to University; and to secure meaningful employment.

I want residential homes, and their staff, to take their responsibilities to these children as seriously as you or I take our own role as parents.

They should set world class benchmarks for the care of our most vulnerable young people and hold themselves to the highest possible standards of delivery.

As you are by now well aware, the other, related, area where we want to see significant progress is in adoption.

At the NCAS conference in October, I made the point that there are councils doing a sterling job of improving the quality of their adoption metrics.

But we know the wider picture is mixed. Overall adoption figures fell again last year. Still only 74 per cent of children are being placed within 12 months of their adoption decision, and there is significant variation at local level.

The evidence shows overwhelmingly that delay has a negative impact on the life chances of children. It is imperative that stable homes are found within a reasonable time, and we are determined, as a government, to do all we can to speed up and streamline the adoption process.

In March, I wrote to you announcing the publication of the Adoption Action Plan. Last month, we published our adoption scorecards setting out performance thresholds and minimum expectations for timeliness.

On top of this, we are undertaking critical research in areas like adoption breakdown so we can fill data gaps, and we’re working to recruit a greater number and wider range of prospective adopters.

We know this is already having a positive impact, with greater attention and interest by councils producing substantial improvements in their adoption figures.

I would like to thank those authorities straightaway for their work but I also want encourage the others to will themselves on to do even better.

I ask you to treat adoption as a priority issue and to take it as a given that we will do anything, and everything we can to support you as you take action.

At the same time, I ask you to focus hard on fostering, where the challenge is just as significant, just as urgent.

According to the Fostering Network, a child comes into care every 22 minutes. Of all the children who come into care, 75 per cent are looked after by foster carers. To cope with demand, an estimated 8,750 new foster carers are needed across the UK in this year alone.

Foster carers are in an unrivalled position to build strong, stable relationships with the children they care for and to help a child address difficulties resulting from their experiences before entering care so they can turn their lives around.

That is why I launched the Foster Carers’ Charter last year, to give foster carers the recognition they deserve. I am delighted that 86 local authorities have already signed up to the Charter with a further 37 in the process of doing so.

The issue now is to make sure all fostering services sign up to, and implement the Charter so that all foster carers, whether they foster for local authorities or independent providers, receive the support, training and recognition that they need.

Finally, I want to build on my comments from last year’s conference and encourage everyone here to ensure they are using Positive for Youth to inspire high quality services for young people.

As some here will already know, we are publishing new guidance for local authorities shortly that will show the key role that services for young people have to play.

As I said at NCAS, we are going to provide you with the flexibility you need to design services and prioritise resources around local needs. In particular, the guidance will be shorter and sharper and it will be up to you to assess the sufficiency of the offer you make to young people.

We’ll also be taking stock of progress on positive for youth at the end of the year and pushing ahead with the inspirational National Citizen Service programme.

But I want to take this opportunity to say that I have been delighted to hear so many stories about the involvement of young people in local decision making, scrutiny of services and commissioning.

In particular, it is enormously encouraging to see so many positive examples emerging of councils working together across professions, legacy service structures, and radically redesigned local services.

I appreciate these efforts and do please keep on sharing your experiences of what works, and indeed what doesn’t, with colleagues around the country.

I know many of you are already doing this as a matter of routine so I want to end with sincere thanks to the ADCS.

I am aware that I have been challenging at times today. I do not, however, want you to imagine that I either underestimate or under appreciate the inspirational impact that you can have as DCSs.

I see the difference you make with my own eyes every day: not just in the reports that cross my desk and the conversations we hold across board tables, but in the work I see being done on the frontline by your teams.

Nor do I live in ignorance of the tremendous pressure that is placed on you from all angles, particularly in these tough economic times.

It is very difficult for those not directly involved to appreciate fully the extraordinarily fine judgements involved in child protection, and the pressure under which your staff are expected to deliver.

On a day-to-day basis, DCSs negotiate conflicting demands and situations of inordinate complexity, making the most far reaching of decisions. I want to assure you I never forget this contribution or take it for granted.

So, thank you and please take my challenge only as a signal of my very highest regard: the confidence I have in you to make a lasting difference to the most vulnerable young people in this country.

January 23, 2016
David Cameron – 2012 Speech on Family Planning

Below is the text of the speech made by David Cameron, the Prime Minister, on 11 July 2012.

We’re here for a very simple reason: women should be able to decide freely, and for themselves, whether, when and how many children they have.

This is not something nice to have. Some sort of add on to our wider development goals.

It’s absolutely fundamental to any hope of tackling poverty in our world.

Why?

Because a country can’t develop properly when its young women are dying from unintended pregnancies and when its children are dying in infancy.

As a result of this Summit, in the next 8 years we will avert an unintended pregnancy every 2 seconds and 212,000 fewer women and girls will die in pregnancy and childbirth.

That alone, frankly, is a good enough reason for us to be here.

But there’s another reason why family planning is so important for development.

When a woman is prevented from choosing when to have children it’s not just a violation of her human rights it can fundamentally compromise her chances in life, and the opportunities for her children.

Without access to family planning, pregnancy will often come far too early.

In Sierra Leone, for example, a UNICEF survey found that a staggering two fifths of girls give birth for the first time between the ages of 12 and 14.

These young girls are not ready physically, emotionally or financially to become mothers.

They don’t want to give up school or the chance to go on and run a business and build a better life for themselves.

And yet suddenly their dreams are broken as they become trapped in a potentially life-threatening pregnancy.

Even if they survive, many are left with catastrophic scarring.

They struggle to bring up children that are healthy and educated and they are likely to have many more children than they have the resources to look after.

It’s a simple fact that as countries get richer, women generally have fewer children.

And by concentrating their resources on a smaller number of children those children are healthier, better educated and more likely get a job and build a prosperous future for themselves and their own children.

Family planning helps that process along.

The availability of contraception enables women to decide to have fewer children.

And as fertility rates decline, having fewer children to support can help the economy to grow.

We should be pragmatic about what works.

In East and Southeast Asia, this reduction in children accounted for more than two fifths of the growth in per capita GDP between 1970 and 2000.

In Matlab in Bangladesh, a 20 year study found that a family planning programme together with improved support for maternal and child health led not just to smaller, healthier families but also to women being better educated and earning more and their families owning more assets with the average value of an educated woman’s home as much as a fifth higher than for women in nearby villages where this programme hadn’t been introduced.

So we know this works.

So family planning works not just because smaller families can be healthier and wealthier but because empowering women is the key to growing economies and healthy open societies -unlocking what I call the golden thread of development.

The UK government is taking a whole new approach to development.

We know that in the long term we can not help countries develop just by giving them money.

Development can not be done to the poor by outsiders.

It has to be driven by the people who need the change.

Our role is to help the poorest countries create the building blocks of private sector growth and prosperity.

These building blocks are the same the world over.

No conflict, access to markets, transparency, property rights, the rule of law, the absence of corruption, a free media, free and fair elections.

Together these key enablers of growth make up the golden thread that runs through all stories of successful development across the world.

And they are quite simply life changing.

Curbing corruption means not having to pay a bribe to lease a plot of land.

Transparency means that people can monitor whether revenue from natural resources like oil is being invested in roads or wells for their villages, or wasted.

The rule of law means that a woman can go to court to settle a dispute knowing that her evidence will be given the same weight as a man’s.

Free and fair elections mean that every citizen has a voice in their government and the opportunity to stand for office.

But these vital building blocks of freedom and democracy can not be laid down without a transformation in the participation of women.

Why?

Because where the potential and the perspective of women is locked out of the decisions that shape a society, that society remains stunted and underachieving.

So enabling women to have a voice is a vital part of improving governance and achieving sustainable and equitable growth.

And this isn’t just the case in Sub-Saharan Africa.

This is the case all over the world.

A World Bank Study of 100 countries found that the greater the representation of women in parliament the lower the level of corruption.

While one of the most powerful signs that real change was afoot in Egypt and Libya was when women turned up and made their voices heard, refusing to be confined to their homes while men decided their future.

And one of the standards by which Egyptians will judge their new government must surely be the engagement and participation of women.

Crucially, it is by empowering women that countries can unlock their economic potential.

Studies show that limited education and employment opportunities for women in Africa mean annual per capita growth is almost a whole percentage point lower than it should be.

Had this growth been achieved, Africa’s economies would have doubled in size over the last thirty years.

Providing girls with just 1 extra year of schooling can increase their wages by as much as 20 percent.

And that really matters because a woman who can decide when to have children, will go to school for longer and then invest her extra money in her own family.

When women have opportunity, resources and a voice, the benefits cascade to her children, her community and her country.

So family planning is just the first step on a long journey towards growth, equality and development.

But it’s an essential step – saving lives and empowering women to fulfil their potential as great leaders of change.

So I am delighted that Britain is taking the lead – together with the Gates Foundation – to tackle an issue that has been ignored for so long.

Just like the money we gave last year through GAVI to immunise children against preventable diseases this aid is transparent and direct – it reaches the people who need it, and it doesn’t get caught up in bureaucracy.

Last year’s vaccines summit is saving 4 million lives.

This year’s family planning summit will prevent a further 3 million babies dying in their first year of life giving 120 million women and girls in the world’s poorest countries the chance to access affordable, lifesaving contraception for the first time.

And I’m proud to say that Britain will contribute over £500 million between now and 2020 – doubling our annual investment in family planning.

This alone will help 24 million women and girls preventing an unintended pregnancy every 10 seconds and saving a woman’s life every two hours.

Of course there are some who will oppose this.

There are those who will say we can’t afford to spend money on aid at a time like this.

And there are those who might accept the case for aid, but who object to supporting family planning and the empowerment of women because they think it’s not our place to tell people what to do, or interfere in other cultures.

I think it’s vital that we confront these arguments head on.

Let me do so.

First, it is morally right to honour our promises to the poorest in the world.

Every 6 minutes a woman who did not want to become pregnant will die in pregnancy or childbirth. Every 6 minutes.

So how many minutes do we wait?

I say we don’t wait at all.

But there’s not just a strong moral argument for keeping our aid commitment, there’s a second, more practical argument too.

If we really care about our own national interest about jobs, growth and security we shouldn’t break off our links with the countries that can hold some of the keys to that future.

For if we invest in empowering women in Africa as the key to driving trade and economic growth it’s not just Africa that will grow but Britain too.

And that’s why I will always defend our spending on aid.

As for those who say we shouldn’t interfere let me be absolutely clear.

We’re not talking about some kind of Western imposed population control, forced abortion or sterilisation.

What we’re saying today is quite the opposite.

We’re not telling anyone what to do.

We’re giving women and girls the power to decide for themselves.

Yes family sizes need to come down but they come down not because we say they should but because the women who have children want them to.

And to those who try to say it is wrong to interfere by giving a woman that power to decide I say they are the ones who are interfering, not me.

I’m not dictating who runs her country.

I’m not saying how many children she should have.

What jobs she can do.

How she can dress.

When she can speak.

It’s those who are imposing their values on women who are doing the interfering.

I say that every woman should be able to decide her own future.

And yes I say we should stand up against those who want to decide it for her.

Because there are no valid excuses for the denial of basic rights and freedoms for women around the world.

So what we are talking about today is the beginning of a much wider battle that will define our century.

A fight for female empowerment and equality that can not be won by having special separate discussions on women every now and then but requires instead that women are at the table in every discussion on every issue.

In Britain, we are scaling up and re-prioritising resources for women and girls in all of DFID’s 28 country programmes.

We have made a commitment to help 6.5 million of the poorest girls in the world to go to school.

We are standing up for women’s rights against horrific sexual crimes, including through the campaign to prevent sexual violence in conflict which William Hague launched in May with Angelina Jolie.

We are determined to end the barbaric practice of female genital cutting making it illegal in Britain leading the way in countries like Somalia where it affects a staggering 98 per cent of women and supporting the brave leadership of the first ladies of Burkina Faso and Niger who are here today.

And I will personally ensure that the fight for the empowerment of women is at the heart of the international process I am co-chairing to renew the Millennium Development Goals.

Because we know today just how important that empowerment is for women, for the well-being of their families and the future growth and prosperity of the whole world.

Just before I came onto this stage today I met Aslefe.

Aslefe is an inspiring young woman from Ethiopia.

She told me she is the captain of her village football team. She uses football matches to distribute materials, contraceptives and HIV prevention methods.

She wants every woman and girl to have access to family planning and wants improved health systems in Ethiopia so girls her age no longer have to suffer.

She has hope in her eyes.

She has ambition in her voice.

She gives you that sense that she believes things really can change.
Today we are investing in that hope for Aslefe and for girls like her all over the world.

Their future will determine our future.

And we will help them fight for it.

Today and every day until that battle is won.

Thank you.

January 23, 2016
Edward Davey – 2012 Speech on Climate Action

Below is the text of the speech made by Ed Davey, the then Secretary of State for Energy, at Chatham House in London on 11 July 2012.

Thanks very much Bernice, and thanks to Chatham House for hosting this event.

There are few think tanks that are global in both outlook and recognition. This is one of them. So I’m very pleased to be here to talk about a subject of global importance.

When I first got interested in the green agenda – as an idealistic student – climate change was just crossing over into the public consciousness.

For people concerned about the environment, climate change seemed to wrap up all of our worries – pollution, resource scarcity, sustainability – yet add another layer of complexity.

Thinking about local impacts wasn’t enough. Global climate change raised global questions – like justice and equity, diplomacy and development.

And so the path to getting international agreements on climate change has been a long one.

Agreeing responsibility for action on emissions is hard enough. And in a global economy built on fossil fuels, it can seem an impossible ask. For twenty years, the world has been working on the answer.

Today, we are closer than ever. Countries have agreed that in 2015 we will aim to sign a global deal to limit emissions and curb climate change. This commitment is the primary achievement of the Durban meeting last year, which Christiana Figueres described as the ‘most encompassing and furthest reaching conference in the history of the climate change negotiations’.

In a little over three years, we must set in train a change to the whole structure of the world economy; breaking the bond between carbon and growth. Building the systems to support low-carbon economies in the most advanced countries, and low-emissions development in poorer countries.

History

Today, I want to talk about how we can do that. I will make three points:

Firstly, that the economic case for climate action is clear – and pressing. Green growth is real, and is already making a compelling contribution to our economy.

Second, that political leadership in Europe can unlock more green growth – and drive global ambition to tackle climate change.

And third, that multilateralism works. That at the UN climate negotiations in Doha and beyond, we can plot out the path towards a safer future.

I’m under no illusions: it will not be easy. But we have the technology to live sustainably; every year, renewable energy use rises. And we have the economic incentive.

The problem is political. And it is complicated by the fact that we are living in a distracted world.

Distractions

Because although evidence of climate change grows stronger by the day, the pressures on the world economy are equally unrelenting.

The financial crisis that began in 2008 has not yet run its course. The global recovery is still fragile; what happens in the eurozone could shatter it again.

Economic problems have driven political change: in Europe alone, nine governments have fallen since the crisis struck. People are losing faith in our ability to work together to solve the big problems.

This really matters for climate change, because unless we can show that multilateralism works, we cannot get the global agreement that we so badly need.

It matters because when householders – and businesses – are concentrating on cutting costs, we have to remind them why going low-carbon is a priority now.

And it matters because with financial instability pushing up the cost of capital, investors need certainty to invest in clean energy.

So how can we focus minds on a problem that for many seems far-off – and far away?

Economics

I believe we have to start with the economic case for action on climate change. Right now, everyone is focused on stability and growth. So my first point is this: the green economy can be good for both.

I’m hardly the first person to say that – a fair few politicians got there first.

But businesses are saying it too. Take the Director General of the CBI – John Cridland. Just last week, he said, green and growth are inextricably linked.

Reducing our reliance on fossil fuels can help insulate businesses and consumers from volatile fossil fuel prices. Research shows climate change policies could halve the effect of global fossil fuel price spikes on the UK economy by 2050.

And energy efficiency is unambiguously good for growth. If the EU can hit its 2020 energy efficiency target, it could save 34 billion euros – and add 400,000 jobs. UK businesses alone could save up to £4 billion a year by using energy more efficiently.

But the real engine of sustainable growth is green business. Over a third of the UK’s economic growth in 2011/12 is likely to have come from green business, which accounts for 8% of UK GDP.

The UK’s green economy grew by £5.4 billion last year – that’s 4.7% growth, even as the rest of the economy was struggling. It created more than 25,000 jobs last year, and now employs nearly one million people.

Globally, the clean energy market is increasingly competitive and fizzing with opportunities. Not just for our companies, who are competing in a £3.3 trillion global market, growing at 3.7% per year, but for our economies, too.

The UK is 6th in the world in the low-carbon sector, with an industry worth £122 billion. I want us to secure a greater share of this vibrant and growing sector. Not because I’m a hair-shirted hippy, or bound by ideology; but because I believe in following the evidence.

Green business generated a trade surplus for the UK of £5 billion last year; if we play it right, it could halve our trade deficit before the next election.

Too often, we are told that those who go low-carbon first will sacrifice their competitiveness.

This is misleading and dangerous.

The real danger is not going green, but being outpaced by our competitors.

Around the world, the countries who are most competitive are the ones who are investing the most in low-carbon.

Korea, spending 2% of GDP on green growth. Germany, whose development bank is leveraging 100 billion euros for renewable energy.

China, putting green industries at the heart of its 12th five year plan. Investing more than anyone else in renewables, developing pilot emissions trading schemes in seven provinces – including Beijing and Shanghai.

And India, which taxes coal and uses the proceeds to fund renewable energy; which has incentives for wind and solar power, and far-reaching energy efficiency plans.

Investment in low-carbon – and policies to support it – reach right across the globe.

And at last month’s summit, all the G20 countries recognised the important of putting green growth at the heart of their structural reform policies. By this time next year, there will be 33 countries with national emissions trading schemes. More than half the world’s countries have renewable energy targets.

This ambition is not just matched by businesses: it is surpassed. When it comes to pursuing sustainable growth, businesses are way ahead of governments. They are looking to Ministers in Governments across the world to give them the certainty they need to invest in a clean energy future: to provide clear and predictable policies that can unlock investment at scale.

So we cannot be drawn into some false choice between economy and environment. Instead, we must make the clear-eyed – the hard-nosed case for green growth.

Time horizons

And that means making a better argument about time horizons. For if I’ve learnt anything in the last few months about energy and climate change policy, it’s that time horizons have to be long – decades not days. Yet in a distracted world, it is easy to focus on the urgent at the expense of the important. But action on climate change is about both. We cannot let the search for short term solutions threatens our long-term goals. An economic recovery that exposes us to greater climate risk is by definition unsustainable.

Partly this is about looking to a different horizon: making sure that our efforts to build a more sustainable economy, in the UK and in Europe, lead to a financial sector, for example, that looks beyond the next quarter and invests in long-term growth.

Partly this is about doing everything we can to ensure the government takes the right decisions for the long term, too. This desire – to do what’s right for the future, not just the near-term – is one of the principles on which the coalition government was founded.

And from the Green Investment Bank to the Fourth Carbon Budget, I think we’re doing just that.

But it’s also about understanding where responsibility really lies. When people talk about climate change, there’s a tendency to talk about children and our grandchildren. About how future generations will feel the worst impacts of a changing climate.
That’s understandable: I think most people view the future differently when they have children. You can’t help but think about the kind of world you want them to grow up in. And the kind of complicated feedbacks in the global climate can take time to reveal themselves.

But there’s a risk that by locating the problem far away in the future, we forget that it is this generation who must act to solve it. It is those in power now who must find the political will – and show the political leadership – that will deliver results.

EU30

I believe Europe has a chance to show that leadership.

At a time when Europe is asking itself searching questions – when the European project itself seems to be on trial, shaken by problems in monetary union – it is worth reminding ourselves of the leading role this continent has played in the global climate fight.
Europe has already cut emissions by around 17% on 1990 levels – outstripping its Kyoto Protocol obligations. We have just agreed an energy efficiency directive which could deliver savings equivalent to a 25% cut. And for all its shortcomings, we have the largest emissions trading system in the world.

For all its problems, the EU is the world’s largest integrated economy. And when it comes to climate change, this union has served us well: Europe negotiates as a bloc at the UN, one with more authority than we could muster individually.

By working together, we have been able to achieve so much more than we could alone. A gathering of individual agents, each fighting for different national priorities, could not have secured the Kyoto Protocol, or its extension.

We should draw strength from this legacy. Rather than letting ambition slip, we should pay tribute to our past achievements by raising our sights still higher.

Europe must do more to complete the single energy market. More on interconnection. More on a continental-scale supergrid. More on energy efficiency standards. More on renewable energy deployment. More on climate finance.

And – crucially – I believe we must do more on greenhouse gas emissions. So my second point today is this: a more ambitious EU carbon target is in everyone’s interests – and I as Secretary of State am working hard to secure that.

The arguments for moving to a 30% cut in emissions by 2020 are well-rehearsed.

It is the most cost-effective way of cutting carbon. It will help us secure the investment in clean energy we need to stay competitive. It will help grow our low-carbon industries, ensuring Europe’s competitiveness. It will limit our exposure to volatile fossil fuel prices.

And – critically – it shows the world what Europe stands for.
I believe that moving to 30% is the clearest statement of ambition and leadership that we can make. It is a key coalition government commitment, and I am doing everything I can to deliver it.

My strategy is to approach this from both the top down and the bottom up. Not just trying to secure Council conclusions on the 2050 low carbon roadmap or a 30% target, but also delivering the measures that will help to move us towards 30%.

Leadership in Europe is about building coalitions and working to deliver compromise deals.

Take the Energy Efficiency Directive, which the UK played a pivotal role in securing.

It is not as ambitious as we would have liked. But it was the very best outcome we could secure, given the negative voices in the Council, and it will help us to go beyond 20%.

The UK is also leading calls for the Commission to present strong and ambitious proposals to strengthen the EU Emissions Trading Scheme.

I’m working closely with the Deputy Prime Minister, NGOs and business leaders to build a coalition for change.

And my German counterpart and I are working particularly hard to find a way to help bring Poland into that coalition.

Their support mustn’t be at any price, but looking a little further ahead, it’s better if Europe moves together. In the next few years we need to start discussing 2030 emissions targets, and longer term reform of the ETS. If Poland remain where they are it will be a struggle.

They’ve set out their concerns to us; now we need to work together find ways to address them. That’s why I am meeting the Polish Minister in London. And actually, the message for Poland is the same as for the rest of the EU: 30% is doable, it’s desirable; so let’s find a way to make it work for everyone.

Moving to 30% will be an act of climate statesmanship, one that speaks to Europe’s reason for being: collective action for the betterment of our citizens.

And – by ensuring we enter the negotiating room from a position of strength, commitment and leadership – it can help secure a better future for all the world’s citizens, too.

UNFCCC

And European leadership can help deliver on my third priority tonight – preparing properly for this year’s climate change talks in Doha at the end of the year.

For the next objective in the UN climate negotiations must be to take forward the important achievements made in Durban last year – and to prevent the attempts to block further progress we are already seeing.

Doha is unlikely to be an epoch-making event – but it needs to be a significant step in taking the Durbna platform forward. Some are calling it an ‘implementation’ meeting. It certainly is that.

But we can also agree some major steps, if we fully lay the groundwork.

It should be the meeting that produces a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol.

It should be the meeting that sets us on the way to the new legally binding Protocol. That makes the negotiation process clearer, showing us not just the destination – but the route to a global deal.

It should be the meeting where more countries make 2020 pledges under the Copenhagen

Accord, to keep real momentum and progress. More national policies and actions to support carbon cuts.

It should be the meeting where we make further progress on climate finance. And it could be the meeting where we see big pushes on key technologies, such as carbon capture and storage and renewables.

Given the world is simply not making fast enough progress to keep us below the 2 degree limit, we need to use every occasion like Doha to push further. Whatever the political and economic challenges countries face.

Outside

And we should work hard outside the negotiating room too.

Yes, getting the global architecture right matters. Without it, we cannot get a meaningful and cost-effective agreement, and we cannot be certain that emissions will fall. We need the multilateral, rules-based and top-down approach to deliver – with everyone making commitments. That is why a comprehensive, legally binding global deal is such a cornerstone of our climate policy.

But we need to do more to get things going on the ground. Bottom up, not just top down.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind: negotiating summitry must not get in the way of actually doing things that close the gap between our climate goals and our actual emissions.

Action to reduce deforestation, for example. With funds pledged and ready, we need more action to save the forests and our plant’s own ecosystem’s ability to absorb carbon.

Action to encouraging more countries to make emissions pledges, and action to encourage those who have made pledges actually to deliver on them;

Action to bring powerful greenhouse gases like hydrofluorocarbons into the Montreal Protocol;

And one area I want the UK to lead even more is on taking positive steps on climate finance. Many developing countries are committing serious resources to climate change; and we are supporting them both because it is right, and because it is in our interest to do so.

We are on track to meet our Fast Start Finance pledge, with more than £1 billion spent or committed. We’re working to leverage private finance through our Capital Markets Climate Initiative. And we’ve set up the £2.9 billion International Climate Fund to help developing countries tackle climate change and reduce poverty.

We want to focus our climate finance where it will get results. So the Fund will make at least 15 million poor people more resilient to the impacts of climate change and natural disasters in Bangladesh by 2014, protect 39 million hectares of forests, and help over 2 million poor people access clean energy.

So our commitment should be clear: we will meet our fair share of the $100bn of public and private international finance per year the world has pledged to provide from 2020.

So we must not see a gap in financing after the Fast Start period ends: I want to encourage other countries to pledge funding beyond 2012.

Action on finance, forests and HFCs; these are some of the things we must now focus on if we are to come close to closing the emissions gap. And there is no reason why we should not do them in parallel with negotiations on a climate treaty.

So my final message today is this: I believe that top-down and bottom-up approaches are not mutually exclusive, but mutually reinforcing. They are different halves of one whole: action to cut emissions and protect the planet.

Conclusion

On Sunday I’m travelling to Berlin to meet 45 of my counterparts to discuss how we prepare for Doha and how we raise our ambition levels. The case I will put there is the same I have put to you here today.

Research published this week shows that recent climate change made the 2011 Texas heat wave twenty times more likely than 50 years ago. Here in the UK, extreme flooding – like we saw in 2000 – is twice as likely thanks to man-made climate change. Extreme weather events caused by climate change are not a distant worry: they are already happening.

The call to arms on climate change is growing ever louder. But it risks being lost in the noise of the world’s business as usual concerns.

But it must be heard. At my first international meeting on climate change three months ago, I was struck by an impassioned speech by a Minister from a small Pacific Island – when he argued that some countries’ right to develop were in conflict with his people’s right to survive.

That’s our challenge.

So we must reject those who argue that action on climate change and economic growth are incompatible. Those who claim that the EU is ineffective. Those who pretend that multilateralism cannot deliver.

And I’m determined that my Department and our Coalition Government is front and centre in those arguments. Thank you.

January 23, 2016