UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: 2016

  • David Cameron – 2016 Statement Following Cabinet Meeting on EU Council

    davidcameron

    Below is the text of the statement made by David Cameron, the Prime Minister, at Downing Street in London on 20 February 2016.

    Last night in Brussels I set out Britain’s new settlement with the European Union.

    This morning I have just chaired a meeting of the Cabinet in which I updated them on the special status we have secured for Britain.

    And the Cabinet agreed that the government’s position will be to recommend that Britain remains in a reformed European Union.

    Now I want to speak directly to the British people to explain why.

    We are approaching one of the biggest decisions this country will face in our lifetimes.

    Whether to remain in a reformed European Union – or to leave.

    This choice goes to the heart of the kind of country we want to be. And the future that we want for our children.

    This is about how we trade with neighbouring countries to create jobs, prosperity and financial security for our families.

    And it is about how we co-operate to keep our people safe and our country strong. I know there will be many passionate arguments over the months ahead.

    And individual Cabinet Ministers will have the freedom to campaign in a personal capacity as they wish.

    But my responsibility as Prime Minister is to speak plainly about what I believe is right for our country. I do not love Brussels. I love Britain.

    I am the first to say that there are still many ways in which Europe needs to improve – and that the task of reforming Europe does not end with yesterday’s agreement.

    And I will never say that our country couldn’t survive outside Europe.

    We are Great Britain – we can achieve great things.

    That is not the question in this referendum.

    The question is will we be safer, stronger and better off working together in a reformed Europe or out on our own. I believe we will be safer in a reformed Europe, because we can work with our European partners to fight cross border crime and terrorism.

    I believe Britain will be stronger in a reformed Europe because we can play a leading role in one of the world’s largest organisations from within, helping to make the big decisions on trade and security that determine our future.

    And I believe we will be better off in a reformed Europe because British businesses will have full access to the free trade single market, bringing jobs, investment and lower prices.

    Let me be clear. Leaving Europe would threaten our economic and our national security.

    Those who want to leave Europe cannot tell you if British businesses would be able to access Europe’s free trade single market or if working people’s jobs are safe or how much prices would rise.

    All they are offering is risk at a time of uncertainty – a leap in the dark.

    Our plan for Europe gives us the best of both worlds.

    It underlines our special status through which families across Britain get all the benefits of being in the EU, including more jobs, lower prices and greater security.

    But our special status also means we are out of the parts of Europe that don’t work for us.

    So we will never join the Euro, we will never be part of Eurozone bailouts, never be part of the passport-free no borders area, or a European Army or an EU super-state.

    Three years ago I committed to the British people that I would renegotiate our position in the European Union and hold an in-out referendum.

    Now I am delivering that commitment.

    You will decide.

    And whatever your decision, I will do my best to deliver it.

    On Monday I will commence the process set out under our Referendum Act.

    And I will go to parliament and propose that the British people decide our future in Europe through an in-out referendum on Thursday 23rd June.

    The choice is in your hands.

    But my recommendation is clear.

    I believe that Britain will be safer, stronger and better off in a reformed European Union.

  • David Cameron – 2016 Statement Following European Council

    davidcameron

    Below is the text of the statement made by David Cameron, the Prime Minister, following the meeting of the European Council to discuss giving the UK special status in the EU.

    Within the last hour I have negotiated a deal to give the UK special status in the European Union.

    I will fly back to London tonight and update the Cabinet at 10am tomorrow morning.

    This deal has delivered on the commitments I made at the beginning of this renegotiation process.

    Britain will be permanently out of ever closer union – never part of a European superstate.

    There will be tough new restrictions on access to our welfare system for EU migrants – no more something for nothing.

    Britain will never join the Euro. And we have secured vital protections for our economy and full say over the rules of the free trade single market while remaining outside of the Euro.

    I believe it is enough for me to recommend that the United Kingdom remain in the European Union – having the best of both worlds.

    We will be in the parts of Europe that work for us, influencing the decisions that affect us in the driving seat of the world’s biggest market and with the ability to take action to keep people safe.

    And we will be out of the parts of Europe that don’t work for us.

    Out of the open borders. Out of the bailouts. Out of the Euro. And out of all those schemes in which Britain wants no part.

    Let me set out the details of exactly what we have agreed and why.

    I began this negotiation to address the concerns of the British people.

    Today all 28 member states have signed up to concrete reforms in each of the 4 areas I set out.

    British jobs and British business all depend on being able to trade with Europe on a level playing field.

    Financial protection

    So our first aim in these negotiations was to get new protections for countries like ours which are in the single market but not in the euro.

    Let me take you through what we have secured.

    We have permanently protected the pound and our right to keep it. For the first time, the EU has explicitly acknowledged it has more than one currency.

    Responsibility for supervising the financial stability of the UK remains in the hands of the Bank of England, so we continue to keep our taxpayers and our savers safe.

    We have ensured that British taxpayers will never be made to bail out countries in the Eurozone.

    We have ensured that the UK’s economic interests are protected. We have made sure that the Eurozone cannot act as a bloc to undermine the integrity of the free trade single market.

    And we have guaranteed British business will never face any discrimination for being outside the Eurozone.

    For example, our financial services firms can never be forced to relocate inside the Eurozone if they want to trade in euros, just because they are based in the UK.

    And not only are these rules set out in a legally-binding agreement, we have also agreed that should the UK, or another non-Euro member state, fear these rules are being broken they can activate an emergency safeguard, unilaterally, to ensure they are enforced.

    Let me be clear, because there has been a big debate about this.

    Britain will have the power to pull this lever on our own.

    European competitiveness

    Our second aim in these negotiations was to make Europe more competitive, so we create jobs and make British families more financially secure.

    We have secured a declaration outlining a number of commitments in this area.

    For the first time, the European Union will now say competitiveness is – and I quote – “an essential objective of the union.”

    This is important because it goes to the very heart of what Europe should be about.

    It means Europe will complete the single market in services.

    This will make it easier for service-based companies including IT firms to trade in Europe.

    Nowhere will this be more of an opportunity than in the UK where thousands of service companies make up two thirds of our economy.

    It could add up to 2 per cent to our economy each year.

    That’s a real improvement.

    The European Union will also complete the single market in capital.

    This will mean UK start-ups will be able to access more sources of finance for their businesses and it will also present new opportunities for the UK financial services industry.

    Europe will now also complete the single market in energy.

    This will allow more suppliers into the UK energy market, lowering bills and increasing investment across the continent.

    That’s a real improvement too.

    In addition, we have secured commitments from Europe to complete trade and investment agreements with the fastest growing and most dynamic economies around the world including the USA, Japan and China as well as our Commonwealth allies India, New Zealand and Australia.

    These deals could add billions of pounds and thousands of jobs to our economy every year.

    And because I know one of the biggest frustrations with Europe, especially for small businesses, is the red tape and bureaucracy we have also got Europe to introduce targets to cut the total burden of EU regulation on business.

    That means that, from now on, the cost of EU red tape will be going down, not up.

    Migration

    Our third aim in these negotiations was to reduce the very high level of migration from within the EU by preventing the abuse of free movement and preventing our welfare system acting as a magnet for people to come to our country.

    In this respect, we have secured the following:

    New powers against criminals from other countries – including powers to stop them coming here in the first place, and powers to deport them if they are already here.

    Longer re-entry bans for fraudsters and people who collude in sham marriages.

    And an end to the ridiculous situation where EU nationals can avoid British immigration rules when bringing their families from outside the EU.

    We have also secured a breakthrough agreement for Britain to reduce the unnatural draw that our benefits system exerts across Europe.

    We have already made sure that EU migrants cannot claim the new unemployment benefit, Universal Credit, while looking for work.

    And those coming from the EU who haven’t found work within 6 months can now be required to leave.

    Today we have established a new emergency brake so that EU migrants will have to wait 4 years until they have full access to our benefits.

    This finally puts an end to the idea that people can come to our country and get something for nothing.

    The European Commission has said unambiguously that Britain already qualifies to use this mechanism.

    And it won’t be some short-term fix. Once activated this brake will be in place for a full 7 years.

    We have also agreed that EU migrants working in Britain can no longer send child benefit home at UK rates.

    The changes will apply first to new claimants.

    And, after intense negotiations, we have ensured that they also will apply to existing claimants, from the start of 2020.

    I came here to end the practice of sending child benefit overseas at UK rates.

    Both for current and future claimants.

    And I’ve got them both.

    Powers for UK Parliament

    Our fourth aim in these negotiations was to protect our country from further European political integration and increase powers for our national Parliament.

    Ever since we joined, Europe has been on the path to something called Ever Closer Union.

    It means a political union.

    We’ve never liked it. We’ve never wanted it.

    And today we have permanently carved Britain out of it, so that we can never be forced into political integration with the rest of Europe.

    The text of the legally binding agreement sets out in full the UK’s position.

    It says that the treaties will be changed to make clear – and I quote: “…the Treaty references to ever closer union do not apply to the United Kingdom.”

    Let me put this as simply as I can: Britain will never be part of a European superstate.

    We have also put power back in the hands of Westminster and other national parliaments.

    A new red card will mean that the UK Parliament can work with others to block unwanted legislation from Brussels.

    And at long last we have an agreement that, wherever possible, powers should be returned to member states and and we have a new mechanism to make this a reality.

    Every year the EU now has to go through the powers they exercise and work out which are no longer needed and should be returned to nation states.

    In recent years we have also seen attempts to bypass our opt-out on justice and home affairs by bringing forward legislation under a different label.

    For example, attempts to interfere with the way the UK authorities handle fraud but under the guise of legislation on the EU budget.

    With today’s new agreement we have made sure this can never happen again.

    Likewise, we have established once and for all in international law that Britain’s national security is the sole responsibility of the British Government – so, for instance, we will never be part of a European Army.

    These are significant reforms.

    Further reforms

    But I have always said that if we needed to go further to put Britain’s sovereignty beyond any doubt, then we would.

    So in addition to these changes, I will shortly be bringing forward further proposals that we can take as country, unilaterally, to strengthen the sovereignty of Britain’s great institutions.

    The reforms that we have secured today have been agreed by all 28 leaders.

    And I thank them for their patience, for their good will, for their assistance, for all the work that we’ve done, not just in the last 48 hours, but in all the months since the election last year.

    The changes will be legally binding in international law, and will be deposited at the UN.

    They cannot be unpicked without the unanimous agreement of every EU country – and that includes Britain.

    So when I said I wanted reforms that are legally binding and irreversible – that is what I’ve got.

    And the council was also clear that the treaties will be changed in 2 vital respects.

    To incorporate the new principles for managing the relationship between countries inside and outside the Eurozone and to carve the UK out of ever closer union.

    I believe the changes we have secured as a country fulfil the objectives I set out in our manifesto at the last election.

    And I think they do create a more flexible Europe more of a “live and let live” arrangement that recognises one size does not fit all.

    But of course, there is still more to do.

    I am the first to say that there are still many ways in which this organisation needs to improve.

    The task of reforming Europe does not end with today’s agreement.

    Far from it. This is a milestone on a journey, not the end point.

    And let’s be clear, there’s absolutely nothing in this agreement that stops further reform taking place.

    For as long as we stay in the European Union, Britain will be in there driving forward the single market bearing down on regulation, championing the cause of free trade and helping to ensure that the Europe remains open to the world and robust for instance in the face of Russian aggression.

    Referendum

    But with this new agreement I believe the time has come for me to fulfil the promise I made when I stood for a second term as Prime Minister.

    So tomorrow I will present this agreement to Cabinet.

    And on Monday I will make a statement to Parliament and commence the process set out under our EU Referendum Act, to hold a referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union.

    The British people must now decide whether to stay in this reformed European Union or to leave.

    This will be a once-in-a-generation moment to shape the destiny of our country.

    There will be many passionate arguments made over the months ahead.

    And this will not be a debate along party-political lines.

    There will be people in my party – and in other parties – arguing on both sides.

    And that is entirely right. This is an historic moment for Britain. And people must be free to reach their own conclusion.

    And in the end this will not be a decision for politicians.

    It will be a decision for the British people.

    And we will all need to look at the facts and to ask searching questions of what either choice would really mean.

    Simply being in Europe doesn’t solve our economic problems – far from it.

    I have always been clear about that – just as I have always opposed Britain joining the Euro.

    But turning our back on the EU is no solution at all.

    And we should be suspicious of those who claim that leaving Europe is an automatic fast-track to a land of milk and honey.

    We will all need to step back and consider carefully what is best for Britain, and best for our future.

    Whatever the British public decide I will make work to the best of my abilities.

    But let me tell you what I believe.

    I do not love Brussels. I love Britain.

    And my job – the job of the British Prime Minister – is doing all in my power to protect Britain’s interests.

    So when it comes to Europe, mine is a hard-headed assessment of what is in our national interest.

    We should never forget why this organisation came into being.

    Seventy years ago our countries were fighting each other. Today we are talking.

    And we should never take that cardinal achievement – peace and stability on the continent – for granted.

    Even today our world is an uncertain place with threats to our security and existence coming from multiple quarters. This is a time to stick together; a time for strength in numbers.

    Like many, I have had my doubts about the European Union as an organisation. I still do.

    But just because an organisation is frustrating it does not mean that you should necessarily walk out of it, and certainly not without thinking very carefully through the consequences.

    The question that matters for me as Prime Minister is what is best for my country.

    How, as a country, are we stronger, safer and better off?

    This is something I have given a huge amount of thought.

    Future of Britain’s relation with Europe

    And now we have this new agreement, I do believe the answers lie inside a reformed European Union.

    Let me explain why.

    First, Britain will be stronger remaining in a reformed Europe than we would be out on our own because we can play a leading role in one of the world’s largest organisations from within, helping us determine our future.

    Yes there are frustrations and no, we don’t always get our way.

    But time and again British leadership at the top table gets things done whether it’s imposing sanctions on Russia and Iran, or tackling people smuggling in the Mediterranean.

    Because the truth is this.

    Throughout our history, our strength as a nation has come from looking beyond our shores and reaching out to the world.

    And today the EU, like NATO and the UN, is a vital tool Britain can use to boost our nation’s power in the world and multiply our ability to advance Britain’s interests, to protect our people, sell our goods and services, generate jobs and a rising our people’s standard of living.

    Britain has always raised her eyes to the horizon and today we are energetically seeking new markets in India and China – from south-east Asia to Latin America – in the finest go-getting traditions of our nation.

    But that is not a substitute for doing the same right next door to us – on the continent of Europe.

    We can, and should, have the best of both worlds.

    That is one reason why our closest friends outside Europe – from Australia to New Zealand, the US to Canada – want us to stay in the EU. We should listen to them.

    People who want us to leave would take us out of this position of influence and they can’t tell you what that would mean for Britain’s ability to advance our interests.

    Second, I profoundly believe the British people will be safer remaining in a reformed Europe than we would be out on our own.

    Let me tell you why.

    We will always depend on NATO as the bedrock of our nation’s defence.

    But today we face a myriad of threats to our security, from terrorism to organised crime, from human trafficking to cyber attacks.

    We defeat these threats by working together, by the closest possible co-operation between countries, especially with our closest neighbours in Europe.

    Let me give you one example from the way we share information.

    When terrorists tried to bomb London for the second time in 2005 one of the culprits fled to mainland Europe.

    Because of the European Arrest Warrant we could bring him back in a few weeks.

    Previously that could have taken years.

    So when I say we are safer, I really mean it.

    By contrast, those who want to leave can’t tell you whether and how this co-operation would continue or how long it would take to attempt to replicate these arrangements with each European country one by one.

    Third, Britain will be better off remaining in a reformed Europe than we would be out on our own because British businesses will have full access to the free trade single market of 500 million people.

    This brings jobs, investment, lower prices and financial security to our country.

    Those who want to leave can’t tell you if we would still have access to this free trade single market, or on what terms.

    They can’t tell you how long it would take to get a new agreement with 27 countries.

    That could mean years of uncertainty for our economy – for our children’s future.

    And let’s be clear: if we were to leave, it’s not in Europe’s interests to give us all the benefits of membership without any of the responsibilities.

    Look at Norway and Switzerland.

    Neither have as much as access to the single market. And neither have any say over its rules.

    And yet they both still have to pay into the EU budget.

    And they both have to accept migration from within the EU.

    Of course, as I have said, the EU isn’t perfect.

    There is a need for further and continuing reform.

    But the UK is best placed to do that from the inside.

    Our plan for Europe gives us the best of both worlds.

    It underlines our special status through which we will be in the parts of Europe that work for us keeping full access to the EU’s free-trade ‘single market’, which makes us better off and the Europe-wide co-operation on crime and terrorism that makes us more secure.

    But we will be out of the parts of Europe that don’t work for us.

    We will never join the Euro.

    And we will never be part of Eurozone bailouts, the passport-free area, the European Army or an EU super-state.

    As I have said, I’m not saying that Britain couldn’t survive outside Europe.

    But after nearly 6 long years of difficult decisions and hard work by the British people, our economy has turned a corner.

    In an uncertain world, is this really the time to add a new huge risk to our national and economic security?

    I do not believe that is right for Britain.

    I believe we are stronger, safer and better off inside this reformed European Union.

    And that is why I will be campaigning with all my heart and soul to persuade the British people to remain in the reformed European Union that we have secured today.

  • Shailesh Vara – 2016 Statement on HM Courts and Tribunals Estate

    shailehsvara

    Below is the text of the speech made by Shailesh Vara, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Minister for the Courts and Legal Aid and Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, on 11 February 2016.

    The government is committed to modernising the way in which justice is accessed and delivered. We are investing over £700m over the next 4 years to update the court and tribunal estate, installing modern IT systems and making the justice system more efficient and effective for modern users.

    Working closely with the judiciary, we have begun installing Wi-Fi and digital systems in our criminal courts but much more needs to be done. We want to make the entire justice system more accessible to everyone – witnesses, victims, claimants, police and lawyers – by using modern technology including online plea, claims and evidence systems and video conferencing, reducing the need for people to travel to court.

    As part of this modernisation, the court and tribunal estate has to be updated. Many of the current 460 court buildings are underused: last year 48% of all courts and tribunals were empty for at least half their available hearing time. These buildings are expensive to maintain yet unsuitable for modern technology.

    Court closures are difficult decisions; local communities have strong allegiances to their local courts and I understand their concerns. But changes to the estate are vital if we are to modernise a system which everybody accepts is unwieldy, inefficient, slow, expensive to maintain and unduly bureaucratic.

    On 16 July 2015 I therefore announced a consultation on proposals to close 91 courts and tribunals in England and Wales. Over 2,100 separate responses were received, along with 13 petitions containing over 10,000 signatures. I am grateful to all who took the time to provide their views. It is clear from the responses that the service our courts and tribunals provide continues to be highly valued.

    Having considered carefully all responses to the consultation, we have decided to close 86 of the 91 courts and tribunals. 64 sites will close as proposed in the consultation. A further 22 closures will take place but with changes to the original proposals. These changes, many suggested by respondents, include the identification of suitable alternative venues, such as local civic buildings; or different venues in the HMCTS estate to those originally proposed. I am very grateful to all those who engaged with the consultation to help us to reach the best solutions.

    On average, the 86 courts we are closing are used for just over a third of their available hearing time. That is equivalent to less than 2 days a week. It will still be the case that after these closures, over 97% of citizens will be able to reach their required court within an hour by car. This represents a change of just 1 percentage points for both criminal and County Courts. The proportion able to reach a tribunal within an hour by car will remain unchanged at 83%.

    For each proposal in the consultation, we have considered access to justice; value for money; and efficiency. The consultation response, which is being published today, contains details of all the decisions and changes including an indicative timetable for closures, and will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  • Jeremy Hunt – 2016 Statement on Junior Doctors

    jeremyhunt

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jeremy Hunt, the Secretary of State for Health, in the House of Commons on 11 February 2016.

    Mr Speaker, nearly 3 years ago to the day the government first sat down with the British Medical Association (BMA) to negotiate on a new contract for junior doctors. Both sides agreed that the current arrangements, drawn up in 1999, were not fit for purpose and that the system of paying for unsocial hours in particular was unfair.

    Under the existing contract doctors can receive the same pay for working quite different amounts of unsocial hours; doctors not working nights can be paid the same as those who do; and if 1 doctor works just 1 hour over the maximum shift length it can trigger a 66% pay rise for all doctors on that rota.

    Despite the patent unfairness of the contract, progress in reforming it has been slow, with the BMA walking away from discussions without notice before the general election. Following the election, which the government won with a clear manifesto commitment to a 7-day NHS, the BMA Junior Doctors Committee refused point blank to discuss reforms, instead choosing to ballot for industrial action. Talks did finally start with the ACAS process in November but since then we have had 2 damaging strikes with around 6,000 operations cancelled.

    In January I asked Sir David Dalton, Chief Executive of Salford Royal, to lead the negotiating team. Under his outstanding leadership, for which the whole House will be immensely grateful, progress has been made on almost 100 different points of discussion, with agreement secured with the BMA on approximately 90% of them. Sadly, despite this progress and willingness from the government to be flexible on the issue of Saturday pay, Sir David wrote to me yesterday advising that a negotiated solution is not realistically possible.

    Along with other senior NHS leaders and supported by NHS Employers, NHS England, NHS Improvement, the NHS Confederation and NHS Providers, he has asked me to end the uncertainty for the service by proceeding with the introduction of a new contract that he and his colleagues consider both safer for patients and fair and reasonable for junior doctors. I have therefore today decided to do that.

    Tired doctors risk patient safety, so in the new contract the maximum number of hours that can be worked in 1 week will be reduced from 91 to 72; the maximum number of consecutive nights will be reduced from 7 to 4; the maximum number of consecutive long days will be reduced from 7 to 5; and no doctor will ever be rostered on consecutive weekends. Sir David Dalton believes these changes will bring substantial improvements both to patient safety and doctor wellbeing.

    We will also introduce a new Guardian role within every Trust, who will have the authority to impose fines for breaches to agreed working hours based on excess hours worked. These fines will be invested in educational resources and facilities for trainees.

    The new contract will give additional pay to those working Saturday evenings from 5pm, nights from 9pm to 7am, and all day on Sunday. Plain time hours will now be extended from 7am to 5pm on Saturdays. However, I said the government was willing to be flexible on Saturday premium pay and we have been: those working 1 in 4 or more Saturdays will receive a pay premium of 30%, that is higher on average than that available to nurses, midwives, paramedics and most other clinical staff. It is also a higher premium than that available to fire officers, police officers or those in many other walks of life.

    Nonetheless it does represent a reduction compared to current rates, necessary to ensure hospitals can afford additional weekend rostering. So because we do not want take home pay to go down for junior doctors, after updated modelling I can tell the House these changes will allow an increase in basic salary of not 11% as previously thought but 13.5%. Three-quarters of doctors will see a take home pay rise and no trainee working within contracted hours will have their pay cut.

    Mr Speaker, our strong preference was for a negotiated solution. Our door remained open for 3 years, and we demonstrated time and again our willingness to negotiate with the BMA on the concerns that they raised. However, the definition of a negotiation is a discussion where both sides demonstrate flexibility and compromise on their original objectives, and the BMA ultimately proved unwilling to do this.

    In such a situation any government must do what is right for both patients and doctors. We have now had 8 independent studies in the last 5 years identifying higher mortality rates at weekends as a key challenge to be addressed. Six of those say staffing levels are a factor that needs to be investigated. Professor Sir Bruce Keogh describes the status quo as ‘an avoidable weekend effect which if addressed could save lives’ and has set out the 10 clinical standards necessary to remedy this. Today we are taking one important step necessary to make this possible.

    While I understand that this process has generated considerable dismay among junior doctors, I believe that the new contract we are introducing – shaped by Sir David Dalton, and with over 90% of the measures agreed by the BMA through negotiation – is one that in time can command the confidence of both the workforce and their employers.

    I do believe, however, that the process of negotiation has uncovered some wider and more deep-seated issues relating to junior doctors’ morale, wellbeing and quality of life which need to be addressed.

    These issues include inflexibility around leave, lack of notice about placements that can be a long way away from home, separation from spouses and families, and sometimes inadequate support from employers, professional bodies and senior clinicians. I have therefore asked Professor Dame Sue Bailey, President of the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, alongside other senior clinicians to lead a review into measures outside the contract that can be taken to improve the morale of the junior doctor workforce. Further details of this review will be set out soon.

    Mr Speaker, no government or health secretary could responsibly ignore the evidence that hospital mortality rates are higher at the weekend, or the overwhelming consensus that the standard of weekend services is too low, with insufficient senior clinical decision-makers. The lessons of Mid Staffs, Morecambe Bay, and Basildon in the last decade is that patients suffer when governments drag their feet on high hospital mortality rates – and this government is determined our NHS should offer the safest, highest quality care in the world.

    We have committed an extra £10billion to the NHS this Parliament, but with that extra funding must come reform to deliver safer services across all 7 days. That is not just about changing doctors’ contracts: we will also need better weekend support services such as physiotherapy, pharmacy and diagnostic scans; better 7-day social care services to facilitate weekend discharging; and better primary care access to help tackle avoidable weekend admissions. Today we are taking a decisive step forward to help deliver our manifesto commitment, and I commend this statement to the House.

  • Baroness Verma – 2016 Speech on Education for Children with Disabilities in Kenya

    baronessverma

    Below is the text of the speech made by Baroness Verma, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for International Development, at 1 Parliament Street, Westminster, London on 9 February 2016.

    Thank you very much. It really gives me great pleasure to be here. I really want to start by thanking the All Party Parliamentary Group on Education for All. I also have to thank you, Mark [Mark Williams MP – Chair of the APPG for Global Education for All], for this really insightful introduction because it is really about going there [to Kenya] and having a look at what is working on the ground. It really gives us a sense of how what we are doing in the UK impacts positively the lives of people on the ground.

    I am also delighted to sit next to my colleagues from the House of Lords – Lord Low and other colleagues I have known for many years, so I am really pleased. And of course as I look across the room, I see many faces that are very familiar and I am pleased that civil society partners are always with us and working hard. These are the partnerships which do develop a real thinking and allow us to make sure that what we are delivering on the ground actually does work. And also, the challenges you rightly bring to us. We do need the challenges so that we can do much better in delivering the services from DFID.

    Last year was a really crucial year for everybody who is committed to disability inclusion. As you know, people with disabilities in the past have been unable to benefit from much of the programmes we had globally on tackling poverty. For all of us, seeing disability mentioned in the global development agenda for the first time was an extraordinary moment and no Global Goal, I am so glad, will be considered met unless it is achieved for everyone. And that should really mean everyone. This for me was a major step forward for insuring that those currently left behind, including people with disabilities, are equally benefiting from international development. I would like to use this opportunity to thank all of you in the room who have worked so hard in the last years to make this possible.

    At DFID we have pushed for disability to be at the heart of all our programmes and everyone who has worked with DFID has hopefully been a testimony to that. We have learned a lot since the launch of the first Disability Framework in 2014 and the revised Framework of 2015 confirms our vision that people with disabilities need to be put at the heart of our work, which includes our commitment to secure education for everyone.

    Education is one of the most crucial instruments a country can make in its people and the country’s future. It is a critical driver in reducing poverty and the importance of making education inclusive of children with disabilities cannot be overstated. It does not only play a central role in fostering development, but also breaks the stigma and discrimination and allows people with disabilities to gain agency over their own lives. Leaving no one behind is not only essential for sustainable development and eradicating poverty, but – and I hope we all agree – for the freedom, dignity, tolerance and respect that all human beings should see as a right. These are fundamental to our all humanity. That is why we are committed to ensuring that all children, including those with disabilities, are able to complete a full cycle of education.

    In the last three years, we have invested nearly £35 million in education in Kenya to improve early learning, enhance transparency and drive up enrolment and retention so that Kenya’s poorest and most marginalised children, including those with disabilities, are reached. In 2014 we made the commitment that all DFID-funded educational related construction is fully accessible. In Kenya, this meant that by August 15th, 24 new and renovated classrooms, 12 dormitories and 24 latrine blocks directly funded by DFID were fully accessible for people with disabilities.

    I think the basics of having latrines for children with disabilities can sometimes be overlooked. I recently visited another country where I saw latrines developed and when I asked, “What about for those children with disabilities?” they looked at me and said, “We don’t have any children with disability”. I think this is the stigma and taboo we really need to challenge hard. Our Girls Education Programme has undergone an analysis of how well our projects are targeting girls with disabilities. My Department has provided £7 million to fund disability-funded girls’ education programmes in Kenya, Uganda and Sierra Leone. In Kenya, our partner Leonard Cheshire Disability is working with policy makers, research institutions, teachers and community members to address the key barriers faced by disabled girls in accessing schools.

    On a global level, we are working closely with the Global Partnership for Education to ensure that their approach of children with disabilities is inclusive. Our influencing efforts made disability a priority for the June 2015 replenishment of the Global Partnership and it was a great success to see that twelve countries, including Kenya, pledged at this event that they would do more for children with disabilities.

    However, we do know that despite these successes, so much more has to be done. And reports like the one you are launching today are crucial reminders that there is still a very long way to go. The study confirms that too many children with disabilities are out of school – 1 out of 6 in Kenya. In light of this, I would like to thank the All Parliamentary Group for Education, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, the Global Campaign for Education UK, RESULTS UK and Leonard Cheshire Disability for supporting this very important report. One thing which has been clear is that none of this will be easy and it will require a concerted action by governments, citizens, civil society and by business. I am convinced that we are moving in the right direction with the work we have done so far. We at DFID are doing more than we have ever before on disability inclusion and together with the organisations in this room today and beyond, we can really do much to contribute to a better future for people with disabilities all over the world. That is a way of making sure that we speak to the pledges we made to leaving no one behind.

    Thank you very much.

  • Justine Greening – 2016 Speech on Social Mobility

    justinegreening

    Below is the text of the speech made by Justine Greening, the Secretary of State for International Development, in London on 16 February 2016.

    Introduction

    Good afternoon.

    It’s a real pleasure for me to have the opportunity to speak to you today under the auspices of the Centre for Social Justice.

    This is an organisation dedicated to putting social justice at the heart of British politics and policy.

    And it’s great to be speaking here at 2nd Chance, which does fantastic work giving unemployed young adults a future, by helping them move into sustained employment.

    Now you might be wondering why, as Secretary of State at the Department for International Development (DFID), I’m here today talking to you about social mobility.

    Well partly it’s because international development and social mobility are both issues very close to my heart.

    But it’s also because improving social mobility is a generational challenge.

    And tackling generational challenges is really what DFID has been all about:

    – Ending extreme poverty,

    – Ending Female Genital Mutilation,

    – Eradicating polio and malaria.

    If these are the generational challenges for our world, then I believe social mobility is the generational challenge for our country.

    DFID is all about creating a levelled-up world, and I think it can equally help point the way to how we can get a levelled-up Britain.

    I know from personal experience just how much social mobility matters. It has underpinned my personal and my political life.

    Today is a long way from the local comprehensive school I went to in Rotherham.

    And climbing the ladder has been exhilarating but at times a real challenge. It involved going to university – a step in the dark.

    When I asked my parents for advice on where to go, what to study, it was new to them too. As no one in my family had done it before.

    At the time, I remember that it felt like a risk, because I was putting off when I would start earning money in a job.

    I didn’t know what kind of job I was aiming for, so I wasn’t 100% sure what I should study.

    When I look back, my horizons were quite limited.

    I didn’t consider doing law as a degree, because I’d never met a lawyer.

    And instead, I chose to study something that had already had a big impact on my family.

    Economics. Which at the time was all around me in Rotherham and South Yorkshire.

    I grew up against the backdrop of the steel industry strikes and miners’ strike.

    In fact, my first ever economics lesson was the day my dad was made redundant from British Steel.

    That year he was unemployed was the toughest year of my childhood.

    But I knuckled down at school and college. And I got on with climbing my own ladder.

    As I got on through university and got on with my career, sometimes you had a feeling almost of ‘vertigo’, from gradually getting further and further away from where I started.

    Things didn’t always go well. I’ve had to be very resilient at times.

    And the bottom line is that my own experience of climbing the ladder is that it is often extremely hard.

    I’m not alone in my experience.

    The question I ask is: is it easier climbing the ladder now?

    Well, if you look across the piece, there is progress on social mobility. But it’s a mixed picture, depending on how you define progress.

    So in Britain over the past 50 years, as in other developed countries, we have seen so-called “absolute” social mobility take place. It’s a sort of “quantity” measure.

    This is, put simply: have there been more opportunities for people? The answer to that is yes. There have been more opportunities for more people.

    Fundamentally, the research by people like Goldthorpe suggests it’s been a story of economic restructuring, as jobs became less manual and more office-based, and economic growth.

    With more jobs, many young people have had the opportunity “headroom” to get on.

    It’s why keeping our economy on track, creating jobs with our long term economic plan, is so vital.

    But what if we look at social mobility in a more qualitative way?

    Relative social mobility is when we strip out what’s happened over time in the economy. Look at an underlying picture.

    And when you strip out those economic structural and cyclical effects, then, as in so many countries around the world, it’s a different picture.

    Because where you relatively start still over-whelmingly predicts where you relatively finish. Even today.

    So not accepting that lack of relative social mobility and then changing it, that is our generational challenge.

    And this government is rising to that challenge.

    UK social mobility: the goal

    On his first day back in Downing Street after the General Election, the Prime Minister set out how he wants to make Britain “a place where a good life is in reach for everyone who is willing to work and do the right thing.”

    And, we have already got on with delivering on that ambition:

    – More students from disadvantaged backgrounds in English universities

    – More apprenticeships

    – Lower youth unemployment

    – Lowest levels of young people not in education, training or employment since records began.

    As a nation our social mobility strategy has a lot of good elements already in place.

    And I want to set out what I believe lessons from DFID can contribute to get that structural shift our country needs in relative social mobility.

    And it’s worth briefly setting out the case of why we do need social mobility.

    In my department, we talk about development being not just the right thing to do, but the smart thing to do.

    I believe that dramatically improving social mobility is both the right thing to do and the smart thing to do for Britain.

    There is both a moral and an economic case for more social mobility in Britain.

    It’s better for individuals – as I know from my own experience. When people believe they can get higher, they aim higher. And when they aim higher, they’re likely to go further.

    It’s better for communities. When people believe we all have an equal shot, it makes for more cohesive, stable communities.

    It’s right for society. The wider the pool of people from which we draw our Parliament, our courts, our boardrooms, our newsrooms, the stronger the basis for trust in accountability, in how Britain runs day-to-day.

    But it’s more than that.

    Improved social mobility, making more of our country’s human capital, is one of the biggest structural levers we can pull in the UK economy.

    Work for the Sutton Trust has assessed that improved social mobility could boost our economy by up to £140bn a year by 2050, that’s an extra 4% of GDP.

    It means that only when people can reach their potential, will our economy reach its potential.

    Lessons from DFID

    So, to take a first lesson from our work on DFID.

    On improving prospects for girls in developing countries.

    That has taught us that alongside day to day work, there are “critical moments.”

    For example girls reaching adolescence may be under pressure to marry, have children and drop out, instead of staying in school.

    Yet if they stay in school they’ll marry later, have fewer, healthier children, and if they can work they’ll reinvest most of what they earn back into their family and community.

    So focusing on supporting these girls through those moments is especially important to their lives down the line.

    For young people in the UK those “critical moments” might be different, but recognising them and helping manage through them is vital.

    Another lesson comes from our projects tackling FGM. Getting that work done, and making that generational change on FGM, means taking a comprehensive, holistic, approach.

    One that works at a range of levels – all at the same time and for long enough, for change to take root from the top right the way through to the grass roots.

    If you look at the work we have done combating FGM, it has seen:

    – National Laws changed

    – National and local political leadership

    – Grass roots projects working with communities and individuals

    – Community leaders and religious leaders giving the same messages on ending FGM

    – Civil society voices backing up and amplifying the message, often doing the work on the ground.

    And all tailored at the local level for communities. Take Ethiopia, for example, where tackling FGM at the local level means dealing with challenges like the fact that over 80 different languages.

    So the lesson is the power of an approach that is comprehensive but locally tailored, and locally led.

    Another lesson I’d point to from FGM and across the board, that I can’t emphasise enough, is the huge role civil society plays in success, and the momentum that civil society brings.

    Make Poverty History was a hugely influential movement that had a big impact.

    And the ability of our NGOs to work collaboratively as one team has proved immensely powerful in generating political consensus.

    And in getting culture, tradition, attitudes changed on the ground.

    The fight against ebola is just one example. It was civil society work that helped people understand in communities how they could stay safe.

    And civil society advocacy has helped take what was wrongly a niche issue like FGM to being much more mainstream.

    Looking at all that, I don’t think we will have the sort of step-change on social mobility we need here in the UK, without that kind of coordinated advocacy and campaigning from civil society.

    You’ve got to be out there, beating the drum, holding all our feet to the fire as well as doing the amazing projects you do.

    Time and time again, our work in DFID tells us, it’s about finding momentum and keeping it, because otherwise the power of inertia and status quo drags you back.

    In international development we have International Women’s Day coming up on 8 March, we’ve just marked International Day of Zero Tolerance for FGM (6 February).

    What are the days and moments for social mobility we can come together on?

    Another lesson from DFID: meeting that challenge, sustaining that momentum, and staying the course, is about not chopping and changing our approach every few years.

    We’ve been working to eradicate polio for at least 25 years, and working towards a malaria-free world for at least 15 years.

    Generational challenges require generational policy.

    If we are to shift the dial on social mobility in Britain, we need a longer term approach. Not interventions that are changed with every incoming government.

    That means achieving a cross party consensus, built around an evidence-based strategy, working on the 80% we can agree on rather simply arguing about the 20% of this agenda we don’t agree.

    And here is another lesson from development work: the central role of evidence, of data and analysis in what we do.

    DFID works in complex places, in tough places, with a lot of risk, sometimes danger, and tracking effectiveness is critical.

    So in DFID we are data and measurement geeks – and proud of it. That approach to evidence is also key to social mobility strategy in the UK.

    It’s happening – take the Sutton Trust-run Education Endowment Foundation, take the work of the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission.

    But we need more. And what we’ve got needs pulling together and sharing much more systematically.

    The other side of the evidence coin is ‘scale’ and scaling up what works.

    At the end of January, the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission published its Social Mobility Index.

    Most strikingly, while we are in a city, London, that really topped the tables – this city is a social mobility hotspot – whilst other cities, including relatively affluent places like Oxford, Cambridge and Worcester, are social mobility coldspots.

    We need to dig into why we are finding such big differences on the ground, what has worked in London – can it work in other places? How might it need to be tailored?

    If every city could replicate London, that would be a prize worth having.

    Call to action

    For our part, this Government is stepping up to the challenge on social mobility.

    We have a Prime Minister who is leading from the front, who has put giving the opportunity for every child in Britain to go as far as their talents will take them at the heart of this government’s work over the next five years.

    In the last month alone the PM has announced the new campaign for mentors for children.

    We have BIS working with universities on going further to bring in those from disadvantaged and BME backgrounds, and the Cabinet Office setting out how we will tackle inequality in the public sector.

    We have our forthcoming Life Chances strategy.

    And so, step by step we are doing what we can in Government.

    But Westminster and Whitehall are only part of the solution on social mobility. This is so much more than just about government.

    All of us have a role to play. We can and should all ask ourselves, what more can we do?

    Employees – ask your boss what more your company can do.

    Employers, business need to see that apprenticeships is a start, but what else?

    Are they really getting beyond the usual recruits? Are you promoting outside of the usual networks?

    My then employer Smithkline put me through an MBA at the London business school. It’s not that normal though.

    How can Britain’s corporate world do a better job of more consistently pulling in and then pulling through talented young people who start as rough diamonds?

    Professions – there’s been lots of progress, but there’s much more work to do.

    My profession of accountancy has done lots but there’s much more work to do.

    Conclusion

    I started by talking about my own journey.

    But what galvanised me as a young person wasn’t being angry about a less than perfect start. I’m actually very proud to have been born and brought up in Rotherham.

    I remember how I felt. It was a mix of challenge, of excitement, of optimism, of aspiration, of being in an amazing country, with an amazing history, having a sense of wider world out there too, which I wanted to be part of.

    It was great parents, encouraging teachers, adamant swimming coaches, who taught me about single-minded persistence to reach your goals.

    And I believe that our young people will get themselves and our country a very long way.

    But we need to make that ladder of opportunity one that’s easier to climb now and in the future, than it was for those of us climbing it in the past.

    It’s about setting Britain fair to help our young people successfully navigate those critical moments, having them channel their energy into achieving goals rather than overcoming barriers.

    Improving social mobility is a lot more than individuals reaching their potential.

    It’s about our community, our society, our economy, our politics.

    A social contract between all of us with everyone else. To me it underpins everything. And it’s complex.

    That’s also why delivering a more socially mobile Britain is hard, because it’s about changing Britain’s DNA if we’re going to be successful.

    But we’re truly making a start now and we have a huge amount to be proud of.

    Britain is a recognised world-leader in international development.

    And I believe, in time, we can be a world leader on social mobility too.

  • Matt Hancock – 2016 Speech on Cyber Security

    Matt Hancock
    Matt Hancock

    Below is the text of the speech made by Matt Hancock, the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, in Israel on 16 February 2016.

    Thank you for being here today and for the warm welcome we have received.

    I’d like to begin by thanking Herzog, Fox and Neeman for hosting us today, and the Israeli National Cyber Bureau and UK Israel Tech Hub for organising the workshop.

    I am full of admiration for what can only be described as the modern transformation of Israel.

    David Ben Gurion wanted to see the Negev bloom. And the flourishing cyber ecosystem in Beer Sheva must be a fulfilment of his dreams.

    You have transformed an arid desert into a Silicon Valley and brought Israeli companies, academia, public authorities, venture capitalists, and multinationals together to produce a fertile breeding ground of ideas and enterprise.

    And it is not just Beer Sheva. Israel’s cyber ecosystem is thriving in Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Haifa, Nazareth and beyond.

    It is an amazing and brilliant fact that Israel has the highest density of cyber and digital start-ups per capita in the world. We are very jealous of this fact. So I thought I’d do something about it, and come and learn from this start-up nation; from the Israeli spirit of innovation and mission.

    I am delighted to lead a fantastic group of businesses representing the best of British industry and academia.

    I hope we find businesses on both sides with an opportunity to showcase their products, discover areas of mutual interest and identify opportunities for partnership. And I hope to see concrete outcomes flowing from the discussions. We want to boost our trade, encourage even more Israeli investment in the UK and oppose those calling for boycotts.

    The problem

    So what is the challenge we face? New technologies, including digital technologies, give the world and its citizens opportunities like never before. This connection has helped more people escape poverty around the world, at a pace never seen. Yet this new opportunity brings new threats.

    We are here today as cyber security is increasingly important. To our citizens, to our businesses, to our infrastructure, and to government itself. In the UK, our mission to create better digital public services for citizens is wholly dependent on the ability to protect our networks, our users and our data.

    As the minister responsible for both digital government and cyber security in the UK government, it is my duty to drive progress on both of these interdependent issues.

    Part of that means supporting the cyber security sector, helping companies innovate and learn from the best. And that is the theme of the workshop today. Part means better protection of government itself, and I’ll touch on that later.

    As you will know, this is increasingly difficult because the volume and complexity of cyber attacks is increasing, both in scale and complexity.

    Cybercrime, espionage, or attacks on critical infrastructure, from both state and non-state actors are increasing. The average cost of the most severe online security breaches for bigger companies now starts at almost £1.5 million. The number of significant attacks has doubled in the UK in the last year alone.

    What we are doing

    And cyber security is a shared responsibility. It requires the engagement of the whole of society. When it comes to protecting our critical national infrastructure, the importance of partnership between government and industry is particularly important.

    You lead the world in making this partnership effective, and I want to learn how. You lead in the world in bringing government expertise and private enterprise together and we want to know how. In the UK we are establishing a National Cyber Centre to provide business and the government with a single point of contact and source of advice on how to manage cyber security risk.

    The new Centre will make it easier for government and industry to share information on cyber threats to better protect the UK. And it will give us a new platform to handle incidents in real time, ensuring a faster and more effective response to major attacks. It will be critical in joining the secret and public-facing worlds together.

    In the first instance this is to protect UK Crucial National Infrastructure (CNI). In the UK, where much of our CNI is owned and operated by the private sector, companies are responsible for ensuring privately-operated CNI is cyber secure.

    New proposals

    We need to get the design right. And we want to do more. In November we announced that the UK government will invest £1.9 billion over the next 5 years in cyber security. This means we’re nearly doubling our current investment to make the UK one of the safest places to do business online.

    More widely, we are strengthening law enforcement capabilities to ensure that cyber criminals can’t escape justice.

    We are boosting skills, sponsoring students and rolling out a major programme for the talented teenagers, involving after-school sessions with expert mentors, challenging projects, and summer schools. A number of academic initiatives in the UK are based on Israeli models of identifying and nurturing young cyber talent.

    But cyber isn’t just about government alone.

    The UK’s cyber security sector already contributes over £17 billion to the economy. Our ambition is for the UK to develop an innovative and truly world-class cyber security sector that will protect our national security.

    We want to create a cyber ecosystem in which cyber start-ups proliferate, get the investment and support they need to win business around the world, to provide a pipeline of innovation that channels ideas between the private sector, government and academia.

    We will establish cyber innovation centres to support early-stage companies to commercialise their products. I look to the Israeli model as an exemplary precedent.

    And we are setting up a £165 million cyber and defence fund to invest in the next generation of cyber-security companies.

    To get this right, international collaboration is crucial.

    As a fellow member of the D5, which brings together the 5 leading digital governments in the world, we have been working closely with you to help reform government technology.

    British/Israeli collaboration in technology and innovation has facilitated a multitude of business partnerships in areas such as fintech, cleantech, digital health and more.

    I want to see this partnership strengthened. So I can announce today that we have launched a new academic engagement between the UK and Israel in the emerging area of cyber-physical security – an area vital to the safety and security of our economies and our infrastructure.

    Israeli experts will engage in joint research with UK academics in cyber-security. We will launch a competition to find the best ideas and people to work together to develop research focussed on what is another new frontier: protecting our cyber physical systems: like protecting industrial control systems, the internet of things and driverless cars.

    I can also announce that our leading cyber security bodies, CERT-UK and CERT-IL will strengthen their engagement and provide greater situational awareness through sharing incident information, malware analysis, methodologies, policies and best practice.

    It is my hope and intention that we can build on what we have done in the past by identifying and developing opportunities for collaboration amongst our two nations.

    For perhaps no two countries know more, in times both historic and present, of the need to fight for our security, to keep our people safe and free. While very real physical battles persist, the new frontier in that fight is the cyber war.

    Together, we must ensure that cyberspace is resilient to malicious attacks, and remains open and free for the innovation and progress that is the embodiment of the human spirit. Our task is no less than that.

    So, together, let us make it happen.

    Thank you very much.

  • Theresa May – 2016 Speech on Tackling Terrorism

    theresamay

    Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May, the Home Secretary, at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, in Washington DC on 16 February 2016.

    I am delighted to be able to be in Washington and speaking at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. For more than half a century this think tank has been at the forefront of international research and analysis, helping decision makers navigate our volatile and unstable world.

    In the five years since the start of the conflict in Syria, millions of people have lost their livelihoods, their loved ones, the country they call home. Syria’s neighbours have provided sanctuary to the vast majority of those who have fled the country. But when more than a million people, from Syria and elsewhere, sought to travel to Europe last year the debate changed.

    The problems of failed and fragile states, not just in Syria, but across the Middle East and Africa, are no longer confined to those regions. Not only has this created one of the greatest humanitarian challenges in decades, it has also sparked a political crisis within the European Union. It has forced countries to re-examine their approach to migration and border security. And it has made the threat from terrorism more complex than ever before.

    According to last year’s Fragile States Index a terrorist or insurgency campaign was being waged in nine out of the top ten failing states. These power vacuums provide a conducive environment for terrorists, organised criminals and insurgent groups. Groups that do not play by international norms or humanitarian laws.

    They are able to exploit the lack of effective governance in these countries, unchallenged by corrupt and weak law enforcement agencies. And they are able to manipulate populations resentful of widespread abuse of human rights, promising an alternative to the dysfunction and injustice they already suffer in their daily lives.

    Exacerbating this changing picture are the same technologies that we all use, exploited by terrorists and organised criminals. Today there is no need for face-to-face, or even direct contact: a cyber-criminal sitting in Moldova can attack the online bank account of a pensioner in Minneapolis, while a terrorist sympathiser in Raleigh, North Carolina can communicate with Daesh in Raqqa.

    In the UK, we’ve seen a 15-year-old boy, inspired by terrorists in Syria, jailed for encouraging violent extremists in Australia to commit a terrorist attack on Anzac Day.

    This then is the new reality: a web of global threats that feed off the instability of conflicts overseas, that exploit modern technology, and which – sadly – are all too often supported by misguided individuals at home.

    A constantly changing threat

    Last week a sickening video was released online by the terrorist group Daesh. That video featured a small child who in full view of an audience was seemingly made to kill others.

    You may not have heard about this video. Just as you may not have heard about similar videos with gruesome content often targeted at western leaders including our Prime Minister and your President. But there will be some people from across America who will have watched this video, and been captivated by the twisted message.

    Daesh is an organisation that revels in its own depravity. It has killed hostages in the most horrific way possible. It has murdered hundreds of thousands of men, women and children – the vast majority of them the same practicing Muslims it purports to represent.

    The threat from terrorism is not new. When I first sat down at my desk, as Home Secretary, nearly six years ago, the main threat was from Al Qaeda. Today, Al Qaeda’s senior leadership may have been weakened, but that threat has not gone away.

    Its affiliates in Yemen and in North West Africa remain a serious concern. Al Shabaab in Somalia recently claimed an attack on a plane flying out of Mogadishu airport, while Boko Haram in Nigeria continue to wage a brutal insurgency against the Government.

    But the hard truth is Daesh is operating in a way that we have never seen before. At the start of the conflict in Syria and Iraq, some likened this to the Spanish civil war, or fighters that went to Bosnia and Afghanistan. But the reality is we have never seen this number, demographic, or range of ages travelling to take part in a conflict. Nor have we seen this scale of territorial ambition before.

    From the UK we believe that around 800 people of interest to the security and intelligence agencies have gone to Syria and Iraq, including women and families. Independent organisations estimate that up to 11,000 foreign fighters have travelled to Syria from the Middle East. To this we can add the thousands from Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe, Russia and the former Soviet Union.

    In 2014, in its bid to establish a global Islamic Caliphate, Daesh in Syria and Iraq directed, inspired or enabled around 20 attacks in other countries worldwide. In 2015, there were almost 60 such attacks – from Paris to Sydney– as well as over 200 attacks carried out by Daesh branches including those in Libya and Egypt.

    There have been 16 attacks in Europe over the past two years, the majority inspired or directed by Daesh. A number of the terrorists that carried out the attacks in Paris last November received training in Syria. And in Sousse in Tunisia, a young man murdered 38 people at a beach resort, 30 of whom were British holidaymakers. It was an evil and senseless attack, and the largest loss of British life from a terrorist attack since the London bombings in 2005.

    The domestic response

    In the UK, over the past 18 months, the police and the security and intelligence agencies have disrupted seven terrorist plots to attack the UK – all either linked to or inspired by Daesh and its propaganda.

    The number of people arrested for terrorism-related offences has increased by over a third in the last year – a total of 315.

    And as the threat has continued to morph and adapt, the strength of our security at home has prompted terrorists to seek out new methodologies, new evasive methods and new spaces in which to carry out their crimes.

    And we must, in turn, adapt our response.

    In the UK, we recently announced that we will make new funding available to our security and intelligence agencies to provide for an additional 1,900 officers – at MI5, MI6 and GCHQ – to better respond to the threat we face from international terrorism, cyber-attacks and other global risks.

    To ensure they have the powers they need to do their jobs in a digital age, we are committed to introducing legislation that both protects the security of our nation and the public’s private lives.

    Our draft Investigatory Powers Bill brings together all of the powers already available to law enforcement and the security and intelligence agencies to obtain communications and data about communications; it introduces a double-lock on the way these powers are authorized – using Secretary of State approval, backed up by the decision of a judge; and it ensures these powers are fit for the digital age.

    The Government has now received three Parliamentary committee reports on the draft legislation. We are carefully considering their recommendations. However, I want to make one thing clear on a subject that resonates on both sides of the Atlantic.

    The British Government believes encryption plays a valuable role in today’s society. It helps keep people’s personal data and intellectual property safe from theft by cyber criminals. It helps our economy grow and prosper.

    But as President Obama has said, we cannot be in a situation where technology is also used by terrorists and criminals to escape justice. The government has a responsibility to protect national security and ensure public safety. Communications service providers have a responsibility to their customers to ensure their privacy. Together we can find a way that achieves both.

    But the Investigatory Powers Bill is not the only new legislation we have introduced to keep our citizens safe.

    We have introduced a power to temporarily seize passports of those suspected of travelling to engage in terrorism overseas. And we have extended our ability to refuse airlines the authority to carry people to the UK who pose a risk.

    This legislation is designed to underpin the delivery of CONTEST, our world leading counter-terrorism strategy. Pursuing terrorists, protecting people and infrastructure and preparing in case of an attack are three pillars of that strategy.

    But crucially, it contains a fourth pillar – aimed at preventing people from becoming radicalised in the first place. Because unless we address the circumstances in which radicalisation and terrorism thrives, we will always be fighting a rearguard action against it.

    To do this we work with sectors and institutions where people are at risk of radicalisation or where there are opportunities to intervene. We work in prisons, with educational institutions, in communities and online. We support community based initiatives up and down the country that aim to challenge terrorist propaganda and communicate an effective counter-narrative. We work with internet companies to remove terrorist propaganda online. And we have established a programme, Channel, designed to protect and divert vulnerable people who we know are at risk of becoming radicalised.

    This work can be controversial, but it’s too important to ignore – and it is vital not only for our national security, but in safeguarding vulnerable people from harm.

    Since Channel was rolled out nationally in April 2012, there have been more than 4,000 referrals to the programme. Of those referrals, hundreds have been provided support, by trained intervention providers, to help lead them away from radicalisation.

    However, we want to go further than preventing people from becoming terrorists and focus on a broader approach to counter-extremism – both violent and non-violent.

    Because where non-violent extremism goes unchallenged, the values that bind our society together fragment. Women’s rights are eroded, intolerance and bigotry become normalised, minorities are targeted and communities become separated from the mainstream. So while by no means all extremism leads to violence, it creates an environment in which those who seek to divide us can flourish.

    The fight at home and abroad

    As I have said, our approach needs to continually adapt. That is why the British Government is currently reviewing CONTEST – to ensure the highest priorities are given the right resources, that government departments and agencies have a unified approach, and that we ensure we are making an impact on our counter terrorism priorities overseas.

    Because this is a fight that cannot just be won at home.

    So we must go well beyond traditional counter-terrorism policy. We can no longer afford to see our counter terrorism work at home and our counter terrorism work overseas as two separate entities.

    In the UK we are forming a new joint unit for International Counter-Terrorism, which brings together existing expertise in the Home Office and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

    This new joint unit will drive our counter-terrorism agenda abroad, our work with partners such as the Five Eyes, as well as influencing and supporting our work with multilateral organisations such as the EU and the UN.

    Because it is no good arresting a person in your own country, if they cannot be brought to justice in theirs … it is no good ensuring world class aviation security at home, if people are not properly screened at airports abroad… and it is no good sharing intelligence with another country, if they cannot act on it effectively… and it is no good fighting terrorism in and from Syria, if we can’t help stabilise that country and its neighbours.

    What needs to change

    I am in Washington to attend the Five Country Ministerial with my counterparts in the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Together, we will expand upon the successful cooperation between our countries on issues of national security which we have built over the past decades.

    Faced with the growing threat I have described, we must act with more urgency and with greater joint resolve than we have before.

    We must be more open to sharing intelligence with our partners, and more proactive in offering our expertise to help others.

    We must counter the twisted narrative peddled by Daesh and show it for what it is – a perversion of Islam built on fear and lies. And we must organise our own efforts more effectively if we are to bring order to those failed states most beset by disorder and disarray.

    So at this week’s Five Country Ministerial I will be calling for action on three key fronts, action I believe to be essential if we are to defeat extremism and keep our people safe from terrorism.

    Building capacity where it is needed most

    We need to work with vulnerable states to improve their ability to respond to the threat from terrorism. This includes providing advice on crisis management to helping them combat the extremist narrative, from improving their investigative capacity to strengthening aviation security.

    For example, following the downing of the Russian Metrojet plane last year, we have been working with the Egyptians on improving security at the airport at Sharm Al Sheikh.

    In Pakistan and Nigeria, we have well-established programmes to strengthen investigatory and prosecutorial frameworks for dealing with terrorism, underpinned by clear human rights principles. That includes zero tolerance for torture and mistreatment. Not only because that reflects our principles, but because we must reduce opportunities for extremists to feed grievance narratives.

    We would like to do more in fragile states, and draw on the expertise of our partners. Because we need to be working together with these countries to prevent atrocities happening – not just reacting in response to them.

    Stopping the message of hate from spreading
    We also need to do more to stop the message of hate from spreading, and prevent people from becoming radicalised.

    I have already mentioned that in the UK we are working with civil society groups who seek to challenge extremist messages and provide credible alternatives.

    And I am pleased that last week the UN endorsed the UN Secretary General’s Preventing Violent Extremism Plan, encouraging a whole system approach to counter-terrorism. This is a welcome step and the UK stands ready to support other countries with this work.

    Together, with other European Union member states, we continue to build capabilities at the European Internet Referrals Unit at Europol to secure the removal of terrorist propaganda from the internet. The Unit has expanded its language capabilities which now includes Arabic, Russian, German, Dutch, and French. But we need other like-minded groups to come on board and reduce the scope for terrorist groups to spew their hate online.

    I would like to see the United States, Canada, New Zealand and Australia – Britain’s Five Eyes Partners – taking the same approach in working with communications service providers to tackle this propaganda. We need other like-minded groups to come on board from all corners of the world to reduce the scope for terrorist groups to spew their hate online and to undermine their twisted narratives.

    Working together, creating lasting impact

    Finally, and most importantly, we need to bring much greater order and joint resolve to the disparate work taking place internationally, and a comprehensive and coherent response to the common threat.

    It is great to see the potential of capacity building initiatives in many countries – whether that’s sharing intelligence between European agencies, training law enforcement in Tunisia, or counter violent extremism projects with civil society groups in Kenya. These measures can have real impact.

    But governments and organisations often undertake similar things in the same place with too little join up. Likeminded nations too often work in parallel rather than in partnership. And we need a much better understanding of what really works.

    Bodies such as the Global Counter Terrorism Forum and the Radicalisation Awareness Network regularly convene policymakers, practitioners and experts from governments, multilateral organizations and NGOs, to discuss their approaches and share best practice. But we must now focus on practical delivery and translate this expertise into action.

    There has been some useful progress in the past year.

    In December last year the UN held the first meeting of Security Council finance ministers in its 70-year history. Together with our allies we agreed on new measures to update the UN counter-terrorism sanctions regime to focus on Daesh in order to deny it the access to the resources they need and to identify and exploit the vulnerabilities in their financial network.

    In the EU, after many years of negotiations, we reached agreement on the sharing of passenger name records on flights to, from and within Europe, a crucial step in supporting our fight against terrorism. Further measures to raise the deactivation standards for firearms across Europe were agreed at the same meeting.

    But across the board there is scope for more action: better information sharing between countries, more active use of passenger data to identify persons of interest, more thorough exchange of terrorist finance information, as well as work to improve protective security and crisis response. For the EU to deliver on the security of its members, it must be a forum for taking action and garnering a collective response.

    And then, there is the opportunity we have together, as Five Eyes countries, to garner collective action. We enjoy the deepest, longest lasting security relationship in the world. The innovation of the Five Eyes Ministerial in 2013 provides us with a forum not just to share collective lessons on security and counter terrorism, but to take collective action.

    Conclusion

    So this evening I have spelt out three of the most important priorities in our efforts: building the capacity of those governments that need support to counter terrorism; preventing the pernicious spread of extremism and ensuring that we, collectively, match international cooperation with coordinated international action that has real, lasting impact on the ground.

    Because I am clear that defeating terrorism requires a global response, and we will not succeed by acting in isolation.

    This is the challenge of our generation. Extremism is spreading, threatening and taking lives, not just in our countries but in other lands. It thrives in the disorder created by fragile and failing states. It is contributing to, and in some cases exploiting, mass migration. It is turning the benefits of modern technology to its twisted ends.

    If we are to deal with this threat effectively, we can no longer look simply for domestic solutions. There must be international cooperation, a common approach, free flows of intelligence and information, and the closing of technological gaps which the extremists exploit.

    Together, we can defeat terrorism. We can stop the spread of extremism. We can save lives not only from terrible attacks, but from the damage and destruction which is wrought.

    It is a challenge for our generation, and it is a challenge that we must win.

    Thank you.

  • Hugo Swire – 2016 Speech in Wellington

    hugoswire

    Below is the text of the speech made by Hugo Swire, the Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, in Victoria University, Wellington, New Zealand on 19 February 2016.

    I am delighted to be here in New Zealand and I am particularly pleased to have this chance to talk to you today about the UK economy and the opportunities that exist for future collaboration between the UK and New Zealand.

    Before doing so, I would like to pay tribute to the success of the New Zealand economy. At a time when the rest of the world was beset by the Global Financial Crisis, we watched as the New Zealand economy flourished. We were impressed and jealous in equal measure!

    Five years ago, in 2011, the British economy was facing huge challenges.

    We were struggling to recover from the financial crash that threatened our economy, and the recession that followed on its heels.

    There was talk of a double dip recession.

    Our unemployment rate hit a peak of 8.5%. Real wages were falling.

    But under the leadership of David Cameron there was a clear long term economic plan for us to follow. We would tackle the crisis in our public finances.

    We would cut business taxes and boost enterprise.

    We would take the difficult long term steps to ensure a lasting private sector recovery rather than pump up the public sector balance sheet still further and risk catastrophe.

    Our British people and British business understood that there was no easy shortcut to the work Britain had to do. Everyone kept their nerve.

    And the results have been there for all to see.

    Britain has been one of the fastest growing advanced economies in the world these past few years.

    Unemployment has fallen to almost 5%.

    And now we’ve got the highest employment rate in our history.

    Real wages are growing.

    The deficit as a share of GDP is down to nearly a third of what it was.

    On the back of this, business investment is forecast to grow at 7.4% this year – the fastest growth since before the crisis.

    That shows the high level of confidence that exists in the UK economy.

    Now I know that that optimism is sometimes tempered, both here and in the UK, by concern about global economic trends – whether it be China’s slowdown, low dairy prices or falling oil prices.

    But my message today is one of confidence: we can meet these challenges and overcome them.

    There’s a lot of transition taking place – some that is difficult and turbulent, yes; but some that is fundamentally positive too.

    We know that China’s economy is in transition, with growth driven increasingly by consumption, services and domestic demand.

    We know that global oil markets are in transition, with new suppliers like Iran and new sources like shale.

    We know that interest rates in the US are in transition.

    And we know there are big forces at work as the demographics of many Western nations change, altering the balance between investment and savings.

    In New Zealand – of all places – I hesitate to use the shifting tectonic plates metaphor. But there is no doubt that huge changes are taking place in the global economy.

    And the question for all of us here is: do we just talk about this transition – or do we take the action, and show the political will, to adjust to it and make it as smooth as possible?

    We need to see every shoulder at the wheel. Every country acting as one in search of growth.

    We need China to keep reforming. To deliver on the ambition set out at the Fifth Plenum to allow markets to play a greater role.

    We need countries like Russia and Brazil to make greater efforts to diversify, away from state owned companies and to increase investment, particularly in infrastructure.

    We need a global commitment to tackle the corruption which stunts global growth. This is why the UK is hosting an Anti-Corruption Summit later this year. We aim to put fighting corruption at the heart of our international institutions. We want to make the rules and practices which govern global commerce even more resilient to threats from corruption.

    And in Europe, we don’t want yet another action plan for completing the single market, or yet more calls for free trade deals. We want to see those plans put into effect, which is why the UK has been the strongest and loudest advocate for the proposed EU-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement.

    As we face these challenges side by side, I am confident that New Zealand and the UK will remain close trading partners. The UK is New Zealand’s 6th largest trading partner. We are the 6th largest destination for New Zealand exports and the 7th largest source of imports for New Zealand in the year ending September 2015.

    Now is a great time to join us and invest in Britain. This is not yet more empty rhetoric. As a government we are investing in hard infrastructure

    In Victorian times we led the world in rail infrastructure.

    The first inter-city railway in the world was British, the fastest steam locomotive in history was British.

    But then we fell back. We are now addressing that, with innovative projects like Crossrail – a smart railway for 21st century London.

    We’re also backing the largest road investment programme since the 1970s, building new nuclear power and investing in renewable energy.

    We are committed to creating a competitive economy. We know that competition doesn’t always happen if you leave it to the market alone.

    That’s why in November we published a new plan to break up monopolies and back new entrants into certain sectors.

    We need action to let competition flourish, back the new company that doesn’t always have a seat at the top table and put the customers first.

    We are the top destination in Europe for Foreign Direct Investment and the leading FinTech hub in Europe.

    These are encouraging signs. Because a digital economy is a productive one

    And we will continue to build stronger and deeper links with the rest of the world.

    We don’t deliver sustained growth by becoming insular and isolated.

    We’ll protect ourselves by reaching out to the world and broadening our links.

    By looking to each and every trading opportunity. Particularly with close partners such as New Zealand.

    And let me just say a few more words about a trading relationship close to the hearts of both our countries – China.

    We want China to rebalance.

    As recent events have shown, China is bound to experience bumps along the road to a reformed economy. But we’re in it for the long haul.

    We are going to support China on its path to prosperity, along which it has already made such impressive strikes.

    Some say that stock market volatility in China means we are wrong to strengthen our economic ties.

    But those critics fail to look beyond that day’s headlines.

    China is an economic colossus, it is the second biggest economy on the planet. It’s a huge part of our world’s future.

    Any economy of that size you would want to trade with, whether it is growing at 7%, 6% or 5%.

    At a 7% growth rate, China will add an economy equivalent to the size of Germany’s to world output by the end of this decade.

    So we, the British government, are committed to strengthening our links across the world.

    A country can only thrive as an outward looking nation that wants to trade with the world if it has a pro-business government.

    Under David Cameron’s leadership, I am proud to be part of a government working to achieve that, and in doing so making Britain the best place for New Zealand companies to establish an international presence.

    For five years we’ve unashamedly backed business, large and small.

    We’ve reformed R&D tax relief – making it more generous.

    We’ve dealt with the punitive 50% income tax rate because it was destroying enterprise.

    But the biggest business tax reform introduced was made to corporation tax.

    In 2010 it stood at 28%, and Britain suffered as a result. In Budget after Budget we have cut the rate, from 28% to 20%. The lowest in the G20. Today, the United Kingdom is recognised as a low tax destination for business.

    Overall the business tax cuts we’ve announced since 2010 will be worth nearly £100 billion to business this decade.

    That is £100 billion of support for business. In return we expect businesses to pay their fair share of taxes.

    You won’t be surprised to discover that there aren’t many votes in cutting taxes for business.

    But supporting business in the UK is the right thing to do. Support of this magnitude encourages business to invest, to expand and to compete.

    It encourages businesses to build for the future.

    To innovate to solve problems, and to respond positively to open and fair competition.

    Never has Britain been more open for business, in every sense. The welcome mat is out for more New Zealand businesses, partners, investors and consumers to follow the lead of companies like Rex Bionics, Tri-Max and Orion Health. I look forward to welcoming you to the UK.

  • Michael Fallon – 2016 Speech on the Future of NATO

    michaelfallon

    Below is the text of the panel discussion with Michael Fallon, the Secretary of State for Defence, in Munich, Germany on 13 February 2016.

    How can conflicting threat assessments and divergent strategic priorities among NATO member states be reconciled in the run-up to the Warsaw Summit?

    This question is not new.

    Before Warsaw was a NATO capital it was the name of a pact the Soviets had made. And people who came to this very room had many different views about how to confront the threat that entailed.

    Today there’s a new urgency to our discussions.

    On our Eastern flank, we see Russia refusing to accept the territorial integrity and sovereignty of countries in our backyard and resorting to military intervention and subversion. To our South, Da’esh is delighting in terror and using social media to spread its vile message.

    And the migration crisis, fuelled in particular by the civil war in Syria, is challenging Europe’s commitment to free movement and testing our security services.

    So, I think these three factors now present Europe with its biggest security challenge in over a quarter of a century.

    Which problem do we prioritise?

    That’s the question we addressed in our Strategic Defence and Security Review. And our answer was simple, it was all of them.

    Where security is concerned, we can’t afford to make false choices.

    But in tackling these multiple threats, my view is that NATO has to change in three ways:

    PREPARED

    First, it has to meet threats from every direction.

    I know the very real concerns our Polish and Eastern allies have with Russian belligerence, just as our Southern allies are concerned about the chaos creeping close to their borders.

    So we need to create a 21st century doctrine of deterrence which fits for this more uncertain, and unpredictable age. Which doesn’t just strike the right balance between forward presence and the ability to reinforce. But enhancing our resilience to hybrid warfare, to deal with threats such as cyber that blur the line between military and civilian domains.

    Now when it’s in our interests, of course we have to pursue hard-headed engagement with Russia.

    But hard headed equally means being honest and clear about Russia’s behaviour.

    We called out Russia over its behaviour in Ukraine. Now in Syria we find Russian attacks not be targeted towards Daesh or Al Nusra, instead they appear to be deliberately bombing civilian areas.

    And I believe if that doesn’t stop, Russia should and will pay a price.Just as we now reject Russia as a proper partner in Europe, Russia now risks becoming a pariah in the Middle East.

    Now, properly calibrated, deterrence and engagement can be complementary not contradictory. But this is not a return to business as usual.

    FITTER

    Secondly, NATO must be fitter – able to react not just in weeks, or days but in hours.

    So we’re calling on all Allies to support the Secretary General’s Adaptation plan.

    Politically – to ensure the collective will to swiftly take decisions.

    Militarily – putting the onus on agile forces…like the Very High Readiness Joint Task Force, N.

    Institutionally – reducing the time to act and then re-allocate resources.

    WELL FUNDED

    Thirdly, NATO must be properly funded.

    We can’t deal with divergent threats with inadequate resources.

    We made a historic Investment Pledge at the Wales Summit.

    Since then, at least seven nations have agreed to increase their defence spending.

    We have committed to meeting the 2% of GDP target for the next five years.

    But we all want to see countries renewing that pledge and committing to halting or reversing defence cuts.

    CONCLUSION

    So my answer, as we take the road to Warsaw, is to deal with these threats, NATO needs to become fitter. That means quicker decision-making, more troops able to move faster, and above all increased spend on equipment those troops need.