UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: 2017

  • Lord Hannay – 2017 Speech on UK and EU Relations

    Below is the text of the speech made by Lord Hannay of Chiswick in the House of Lords on 12 September 2017.

    My Lords, reading the 12 papers—I am afraid I have managed only to get to 12 because the Minister added one that arrived at lunchtime today—has struck me as a pretty depressing experience, even if one does not throw in for good measure the leaked paper on immigration policy which we are told is not government policy, or at least not yet. It is depressing because there are so many words yet so little substance, so few clear indications of what sort of outcome the Government are hoping to achieve in the Brexit negotiations—and that when a quarter of time for their completion has already been frittered away.

    It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Government are still playing hide-and- seek with Parliament. That is bad enough when it is Parliament which is meant to be taking back control from Brussels over these matters, but what is worse is that the Government seem to be playing hide-and-seek with our negotiating partners, too. No doubt there is an element of the tactical in the complaints from Brussels of a lack of clarity in the Government’s negotiating position, but these papers demonstrate pretty graphically that those complaints are not simply tactical. That is serious indeed, because successful negotiation requires each side to have some clarity about what the other is seeking to achieve.

    Many of the papers are just “cut and paste” jobs; for example, the paper on The Exchange and Protection of Personal Data. Often, it is simple common sense, as in this case it is, to conclude that it is essential to avoid the fragmentation of a currently frictionless entity, the exchange of data right across Europe, but the paper is remarkably coy about the fact that to achieve that objective on a lasting basis, we will need to mirror here any future changes in the EU’s data protection regime and any rulings on it by the European Court of Justice. That data protection iceberg conceals a mass of other EU regulatory functions, some 35 at the last count, on which the Government have not yet revealed their hand.

    Other papers were obscure to the point incomprehensibility. I instance the paper on Enforcement and Dispute Resolution. It is fairly clear that the Government have at last realised that the line that the Prime Minister drew at last October’s party conference on the outright rejection of any jurisdiction of the ​European Court of Justice is simply unnegotiable. So they are moving crab-wise away from it, inventing a new description, “direct” jurisdiction, and juxtaposing it with “indirect” jurisdiction. We are now told that direct jurisdiction remains taboo, but indirect, by admission, is not. How is that to be done? Just producing an academic list of the options, which is what the Government’s paper does, is not a negotiating strategy. If, as I would suspect, something along the lines of the EFTA court is required, why not simply say so?

    Then there are the papers such as the one on Northern Ireland and that on customs arrangements, which suddenly surface completely unprepared and out of the blue new and untried solutions—what the Secretary of State for DExEU called blue-sky thinking—but without a trace of any detail or any evidence-based underpinning. Indeed, the new customs arrangements are described in the paper as “unprecedented” and “challenging to implement”—words that could have come from a script for “Yes Minister”.

    The paper on co-operation on science and innovation is welcome if belated, but it conceals that this chapter of EU budget expenditure—one of the most rapidly growing chapters of that budget and set to continue to be so—is one from which we have derived huge net benefits. That is surely unlikely to survive any new arrangement when we are outside. The paper glosses over rather unconvincingly the fact that we will no longer have a full say on the EU scientific and research programmes, which will be decided by the 27 without our participation.

    Is this all unduly critical of the Government’s approach? I do not think so. The Brexit negotiations are not going particularly well and there is little or nothing in these papers that we are debating today which will help them to do any better. Nor, I fear, is the Government’s relationship with this House over Brexit going particularly well. Last week, the Government’s response to your Lordships’ report on the Irish dimension arrived one hour before the debate began and seven months after it should have been available. Today, the Government produced a new paper in the series that we are debating which was available only an hour or two before the debate began. That, frankly, is no way to run a railroad, let alone a Parliament.

  • Baroness Stedman-Scott – 2017 Speech on the English Baccalaureate

    Below is the text of the speech made by Baroness Stedman-Scott in the House of Lords on 14 September 2017.

    My Lords, I begin this debate by declaring my relevant interests: I am a governor of Bexhill Academy and chair of the Suffolk Youth Pledge. I am grateful for the opportunity to have this important debate and I look forward to all ​noble Lords’ contributions and thank them for the time that they have invested in preparing to take part. I also thank the many organisations that have sent briefings, which show that they really understand the challenges faced by our education establishments, employers and young people.

    Today we will debate the impact of the English Baccalaureate on the take-up of creative and technical subjects and the case for broadening the curriculum to create a coherent and unified 14 to 19 phase. Looking back on previous Questions and debates on this subject, I am mindful that we would do well not to repeat much of those previous contributions. I think, however, that this hope might be too ambitious—so no promises, but let us try. I also hope that we can debate this today in the spirit of how we help, and what is best for, our young people who are either entering, or are already in our education system, to ensure that we are preparing them for a future in which they can compete with the knowledge, skills and confidence to succeed and be full of hope and aspiration. Let us make the facts speak for themselves.

    I think it might be helpful for me to outline why I wanted to hold this debate. The economy needs businesses at this time—they are a main contributor to achieving a good economy and, in order to do so, they need people in their workforce who are well educated, both academically and technically, and are motivated and highly skilled. Building such a workforce starts at the earliest point of a young person’s education. Not all pupils—and I count myself here—thrive and succeed in a purely academic environment. Many are suited to one that is more technical and practical. For young people in this category, it can be apparent at a very early stage that it would be helpful for them to start their journey on that route sooner rather than later. Our education system does a good job for the majority but, for those who are not suited to a purely academic future, it sometimes does not do all that it could. Let me say now that I am not knocking the EBacc, but asking for it to be able to accommodate more GCSEs that employers in the creative industries need for their workforce and that, for those who need it, the journey will start sooner rather than later.

    Originally it was the Government’s plan for 75% of young people to study the EBacc by 2022, rising to 90% in 2025. I understand that the Department for Education has now confirmed that:

    “In the light of the consultation responses, we have also decided that it is not appropriate to expect the same rates of EBacc entry from UTCs, studio schools and further education colleges with key stage 4 provision as in mainstream schools. The pupil cohorts in these education settings will therefore not be included in the calculation of the 75% ambition for 2022, or the 90% ambition for 2025”.

    I thank the Government and congratulate them on taking account of this issue raised in the consultation and on their decision. I also take this opportunity to thank the Minister and his colleagues for all their efforts to ensure that we have a system that is fit for purpose. On the face of it, I think the decision means that UTCs, studio schools and further education colleges are now exempt from this performance measure. It would be helpful if the Minister could confirm that ​I have understood this correctly and that performance at these establishments will be reported on the basis that they are exempt, because, if not, they will appear to be failing when they are not.

    I used to be a patron of a studio school that tragically closed. There were many reasons for that, not just one. However, if the change in reporting to which I have previously referred had been in place, the school’s success would have been more appreciated. In fact, for every year that the school operated as a studio school, every single one of its graduates went on to higher education at the establishment of their choice: none went into clearing. In 2016, the studio school was the 15th in the country for pupil progress from 16 to 19, and in 2017, every student got A* or distinction in theatre arts. As I understand it, it was the best in the county.

    Studio schools were established to be industry-facing schools and align their curriculum with the needs of the current and future labour markets. The creative industries have long been recognised as a sector which can provide rewarding careers for young people, and many studio schools have focused on these industries. Subjects taught at these schools have been carefully selected with significant input from the creative industries, both nationally and locally. If I have understood the position correctly, there has been no demand from employers to teach the EBacc. Indeed, often there is resistance rather than demand. However, I acknowledge that many students studying EBacc at A-level have found that that opens up a wider range of opportunities as regards their choice of university.

    I know that all noble Lords are distressed, as I am, that our noble friend Lady Fookes has been very unwell for such a long time. In fact, at one point I thought that we were going to lose her, but noble Lords would expect her to fight back and that is exactly what she is doing. I know that she is on the mend because she sent me a message this morning to tell me that she was very sorry she could not be present for this debate but that, if she could have been here, she would have said the following: “The point I would make is that discovering and encouraging artistic talent in unlikely places is extremely difficult and does not lend itself to the methods used for measuring intellectual ability. It’s like chasing a will o’ the wisp”. I am sure that we wish my noble friend a continued recovery.

    Across the country, the engineering, manufacturing and creative sectors are critical to the success of our economy. Combined, they are worth more than £500 billion—29% of the overall economy. The challenges facing our economy need no repeating in this debate. We know that we need to develop our home-grown talent to ensure that we produce a highly motivated and skilled workforce. We need to build on the progress made on the skills agenda and we need to make sure that the EBacc reflects the needs of the industry and fulfils the aspirations and abilities of young people so that they can play their part in this critically important workforce.

    I am very sad to say that between 2010 and 2017, total entries for GCSE creative subjects have fallen by 28%. I do not want to be too dramatic but I shall provide some context for that. It equates to about ​181,000 GCSE entries. The most dramatic drop is in design and technology, which shows a drop in take-up of some 116,000 entries, equating to 43%.

    It is argued that the EBacc is just a core and that pupils are able to study creative and technical GCSEs in addition. For most young people who study nine to 10 GCSEs, this may well be true. However, the lowest quartile of attainers take an average of six to seven GCSEs each, ironically making the narrow academic EBacc the whole diet for those young people, who are more at risk of disengagement but may be wholly suited to a career in the creative industries if they follow the right route.

    While 40% of young people across the country are now entered for the EBacc range of subjects, just 26% pass it—I understand that is increasing—so we run the risk of creating a generation of young people who either have a narrow range of academic skills or will feel that they have already failed at the age of 16. We cannot have that and we must avoid it.

    I looked at what other people have said, as that is important. As the Social Mobility Commission has recognised, the EBacc is a recipe for some young people’s disengagement. In my time at Tomorrow’s People, I saw the impact this had on the lives of young people. There is a solution worthy of our consideration. I would like us to broaden the EBacc to include a creative and a technical subject to give every young person a truly broad, relevant and balanced curriculum.

    In preparing for this debate, I looked at what works well in other countries. There is evidence from Germany that a more academic curriculum resulted in an increase in disengagement with school and attendance drop-off. This led me to look at what was happening around the world. I thank the Edge Foundation for giving me some very good information. In a passage from one of its papers headed, “Learning from world leaders”, we read:

    “England is one of a handful of countries where 16 is the strict dividing line between lower and upper secondary education. Elsewhere in Europe, choices are usually made earlier”.

    One example of this is Austria. The facilities in Austria for young people to enter an engineering career cover the following: classroom tuition, practical experience in workshops, a range of equipment for manufacturing and measuring metal and plastic components, IT and computer-aided design. This has contributed to Austria having one of the lowest youth unemployment rates in the EU. In countries where a high proportion of students choose a technical and vocational path, there are often lower rates of youth unemployment and vice versa.

    Our Government’s technical education reforms are to be welcomed and built on, but, in summary, the impact of the EBacc could be seen as not meeting the needs of employers in a market with great economic growth and potential; not preparing some young people to meet their aspirations and potential in a predominantly academic system; a significant reduction in GCSE take-up, which has a negative impact on employers having the highly motivated and skilled workforce they need; and not starting early enough for many young people, thus making them follow a route which, for them, is not fit for purpose.​
    There is much to be proud of with the EBacc. Let us build on what we have to ensure that we give up the best to get the better and have a system that includes high-quality employer engagement and careers advice and provides a broad and balanced curriculum which suits all young people. It needs to culminate in a coherent and wide-ranging true baccalaureate and be judged on the strength of young people’s successful destinations into apprenticeships, university and work.

    A cross-party group from this House meets informally to discuss this issue. Would the Minister like to join us for one of those meetings? I do not say that because we want to put on a performance, bang the table or jump up and down; we are way past that sort of thing. However, I think that we would all find the Minister’s comments helpful and would hope that they would move us forward. I beg to move.

  • Justine Greening – 2017 Statement on National Funding Formula for Schools

    Below is the text of the statement made by Justine Greening, the Secretary of State for Education, in the House of Commons on 14 September 2017.

    In my statement to the House on 17 July, I set out my Department’s plans to increase spending on schools by £1.3 billion over the next two years, on top of our existing plans. I said that that would mean that we could press ahead with introducing a national funding formula for schools and high needs from April 2018 that would provide a per-pupil cash increase in respect of every school and every local area, and would also maintain the overall budget in real terms, per pupil. I promised to return to the House in September to set out the Government’s final decisions on introducing fairer funding in full, and today I am doing just that.

    This is an historic reform. It means that, for the first time, the resources that the Government are investing in our schools will be distributed according to a formula based on the individual needs and characteristics of every school in the country. Not only will the national funding formula direct resources where they are most needed, helping to ensure that all children can receive the high quality education that they deserve, wherever they live; it will also provide that money through a transparent formula, which will mean greater predictability. By clearly setting out the sums that we are directing to different aspects of the formula—to the basic amount per pupil, or to children with additional needs—it allows for properly informed debate on this vital topic, something that the existing opaque system has held back.

    The need for reform has been widely recognised across the House and beyond. The National Association of Head Teachers has said:

    “A revised funding formula for schools is essential”.

    The Association of School and College Leaders believes:

    “The way in which funding has been distributed to schools has been flawed for many years… Reform of the school funding system is vital”.

    The case is so strong because there is manifest unfairness when Coventry receives £510 more per pupil than Plymouth despite their having equal proportions of pupils eligible for free school meals, and Nottingham attracts £555 more than Halton, near Liverpool in Cheshire. Addressing those simple but damaging inequalities will represent the biggest improvement in the school funding system for decades. It is a step that previous Governments have failed to take for far too long.

    It has been vital for us to take account of a broad range of views when making such a significant reform. Our wide-ranging consultations, both in 2016 and earlier this year, allowed us to hear from more than 26,000 individual respondents and representative organisations. I am grateful to everyone who took the time to share their views and respond to the consultations, including many Members on both sides of the House. We have considered all those responses carefully.

    As I said to the House in July, I am putting an additional £1.3 billion into core funding for schools and high needs, so that the overall budget will now rise by about £2.6 billion in total, from almost £41 billion in 2017-18 to about £42.4 billion in 2018-19 and £43.5 billion in 2019-20. Building on this firm foundation, I can today set out the final funding formulae we will introduce, which, over the next two years will mean we will deliver ​on our manifesto pledge to make school funding fairer and ensure that we deliver higher funding as well in respect of every area and school.

    Building on our consultation proposals, as I set out in the House prior to the summer recess, I am increasing the basic amount of funding that every pupil will attract. We recognise the challenges of the very lowest funded schools so will introduce a minimum per pupil funding level. Under the national funding formula, in 2019-20 all secondary schools will attract at least £4,800 per pupil. Today I can announce that all primary schools will attract at least £3,500 per pupil through the formula in 2019-20. And the formula will provide these levels of funding quickly: secondary schools will attract at least £4,600, and primary schools £3,300, in 2018-19, and then the full amounts the following year.

    I will also provide a cash increase in respect of every school. Final decisions on local distribution will be taken by local authorities, but under the national funding formula every school will attract at least 0.5% more per pupil in 2018-19, and 1% more in 2019-20, compared with its baseline. Many schools will, of course, attract significantly larger increases under the formula: up to 3% per pupil in 2018-19, and a further 3% per pupil in 2019-20. And the minimum per pupil funding level will not be subject to this gains cap, delivering particularly fast gains in respect of the very lowest funded schools.

    Our consultation confirmed the importance of funding for additional needs—deprivation and low prior attainment. We know that these factors are our best way to identify the children who are most likely to fall behind, and to remain behind, their peers, and it is only right that we provide the greatest resources to the schools that face the greatest challenges. As I said in July, we will protect the funding the formula will direct towards additional needs at the level proposed in our consultation, and I can therefore confirm today that total spending on additional needs will be £5.9 billion.

    As we proposed in December, we will distribute that funding more fairly, and in line with the best available evidence. We will use a broad measure of deprivation to include all those who are likely to need extra help, and we will increase the proportion of additional needs spending allocated on the basis of low prior attainment, to give additional support to those who might not be economically deprived but still need help to catch up.

    I can also confirm today that, as we proposed in December, the national funding formula will allocate a lump sum of £110,000 for every school. For the smallest, most remote schools, we will distribute a further £26 million in dedicated sparsity funding. Only 47% of eligible schools received sparsity funding in 2017-18 because some local authorities chose not to use this factor. Our national funding formula will recognise all eligible schools.

    Our formula will rightly result in a significant boost directed towards the schools that are currently least well funded. Secondary schools, which would have been the lowest funded under our December proposals, will now gain on average 4.7%. Rural schools will gain on average 3.9%, with those schools in the most remote locations gaining 5%. Those schools with high numbers of pupils starting with low attainment will gain on average 3.8%.​

    As I set out in my statement in July, to provide stability for schools through the transition to the national funding formula, each local authority will continue to set a local formula which will determine individual schools’ budgets in their areas in 2018-19 and 2019-20, in consultation with local schools. This mean that the school-level allocations from Government I am publishing today, alongside this announcement, are notional allocations which we will use to set the total funding available for schools in each area. As I set out in the House, schools’ final actual funding allocations for 2018-19 and 2019-20 will be based on that local formula agreed in their area by the local authority, and schools will receive that allocation ahead of the new financial year, as normal. I will put copies of both documents in the House of Commons Library, and the Lords.

    Our objective to provide the best education for every child places a particular focus on the support we offer to the children who face the greatest barriers to success, and on the high-needs budget that provides that support. The case for reform of high-needs funding is every bit as strong as the case for school funding reform, and therefore the move to a national funding formula is every bit as important. We set out full proposals for the introduction of a high-needs national funding formula last December, alongside our schools formula, and I am today confirming that we will proceed with those proposals.

    Thanks to the additional £1.3 billion investment I announced in July, I can increase funding for high needs so that I will also be able to raise the funding floor to provide a minimum increase of 0.5% per head in 2018-19 and 1% per head in 2019-20 for every local authority. Underfunded local authorities will receive up to 3% per head gains a year for the next two years, to help them catch up. That is a more generous protection than we proposed in December, to help every single local authority maintain and improve the support it offers to some of our most vulnerable children. It means that local authorities will see a 4.6% increase on average in their high-needs budgets.

    The additional £1.3 billion we are investing in schools and high needs means that all local authorities will receive an increase in 2018-19 over the amount they plan to spend in 2017-18. Local authorities will take the final decisions on distributing funding to schools within local areas, but the formula will provide for all schools to see an increase in funding compared with their baseline.

    In conclusion, the new national funding formulae will redress historical inequities in funding that have existed for far too long, while also maintaining stability so that schools and local areas are not disadvantaged in the process. After too many years in which the funding system has placed our schools on an unfair playing field, we are finally making the decisive and historic move towards fair funding.

    The national funding formulae for schools and high needs and the increased investment we are making in schools will help us continue to improve standards and create a world-class education system. No one in this House should accept the system as it has been; it has perpetuated inequality and that is unacceptable. I am proud that it is a Conservative Government who are now putting that right. On this firm foundation, we will all—Government and schools, teachers and parents—be ​able to build a system that finally allows every child to achieve their potential, no matter what their background, or where they are growing up.

  • Alistair Burt – 2017 Speech to UN Security Council on Daesh

    Below is the text of the speech made by Alistair Burt to the UN Security Council on 22 September 2017.

    Thank you, Mr President. I wanted to begin by thanking Prime Minister Abadi for his statement, and his courage. We know that Iraq and its forces have borne the brunt of the fight against Daesh.

    I also want to thank him and his officials for the work they have done with the UK to make this resolution a reality. Mr President, your excellencies I’m delighted to have cast the United Kingdom’s vote in favour of this Resolution and I’m grateful to Council members for their unanimous support for this UK-drafted text.

    One year after we gathered on the margins of the last UN General Assembly and promised to do all we could to bring Daesh to justice, this Resolution is a vital step towards achieving that profoundly necessary goal.

    And as we vote in this chamber, we think of the people who have suffered so grievously at the hands of Daesh – of the innocents whose homelands were overrun, millions who were forced to flee, suffering inflicted on those who stayed, many of whom were massacred or enslaved, civilians who died in terrorist attacks in Europe and around the world, and of the great cities that were occupied and pillaged and subjected to rule by terror.

    There can never be adequate recompense for those who were forced to endure the wanton brutality of Daesh, and the dead will not be brought back, but this Resolution means that the international community is united in our belief that there should, at least, be accountability for those who perpetrated such wicked acts.

    The United Nations will now help to gather and preserve evidence of Daesh’s crimes in Iraq. I can announce that Britain will provide £1 million to establish the UN investigative team that will lead these efforts – and I would respectfully encourage other countries to contribute.

    Bringing Daesh to justice is only possible because Iraq’s courageous armed forces have liberated one city after another, including Mosul, advancing with the support of many nations, including my own, who have sent their warplanes into action against the terrorists, breaking Daesh’s grip on about three quarters of the Iraqi territory they once occupied.

    Wherever Daesh have been driven back in Iraq, the painstaking process of gathering evidence of their crimes can now proceed under the auspices of the UN.

    As the United Kingdom Commissioner for the International Commission of Missing Persons, set up after the conflict in former Yugoslavia, it is my hope that some of this evidence will help Iraqi families find out the fate and, even the remains, of their loved ones. Especially in the terrible mass graves which dot the lands which Daesh occupied.

    Britain has worked closely with the government of Iraq to bring forward this resolution. And we will continue work alongside the government of Iraq and our partners to implement this Resolution, ensuring that the UN does everything possible to support domestic and international efforts to hold Daesh to account.

    And by striving for justice, we shall also be seeking to heal the sectarian divides that Daesh has exploited and inflamed.

    The defeat of Daesh as a territorial entity is now within sight, but their downfall will not in itself create peace and stability. Lasting peace will only be secured once we’ve helped Iraq to overcome sectarian division and achieve the national unity that its people deserve.

    And justice is an essential requirement for reaching that goal, for it’s justice that leads to reconciliation. And reconciliation is the only way to protect a society, any society, against extremists who would sow hatred and division.

    This is why we must help Iraq strengthen its justice system, to ensure all those who commit atrocities in the conflict are brought to justice. In the meantime, we know that bringing Daesh to justice will take time, demanding patience and resolve from us all.

    But we owe it to those who have suffered to press ahead, however long the road might be, remembering that many offenders have been prosecuted years after they committed their crimes, as those in Srebrenica will remember.

    I will close by reminding the Council of an old phrase: “The millstones of justice turn exceeding slow, but they grind exceeding fine.” Those millstones have begun moving today.

    I want to thank my friend the Foreign Minister and the Government of Iraq for our work together in making this resolution a reality. Let us make the consequences of the resolution a reality and bring some justice to those who have suffered for too long.

    Thank you, Mr. President.

  • Andrew Jones – 2017 Speech at North East Economic Forum

    Below is the text of the speech made by Andrew Jones, the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, at the North East Economic Forum on 22 September 2017.

    Introduction

    Good morning everyone. It’s great to be here in Gateshead today.

    This was an area I used to come to regularly when I was growing up.

    I’m not actually from the North East – I’m a Yorkshireman born and bred – to the point where I even spent part of my career working for Yorkshire Tea!

    But we used to head up the A1 to play the local rugby teams here.

    And what’s been fascinating to see is just how much this whole region has changed over the decades.

    Now when you head up the A1, you’re welcomed by that great show of Northern pride – the magnificent Angel of the North.

    You see the world’s first ever tilting bridge crossing the Tyne to join two vibrant, modern cities.

    You see the curved glass of the fantastic Sage Gateshead drawing visitors from across the world.

    And you come to the Baltic centre as we have today – and you don’t find an old flour mill, you find a contemporary arts value of international renown.

    It’s certainly changed a fair bit over the years.

    Former glories

    These are all visible signs of what’s been happening in this area – and I think in cities across the North the confidence and self-belief has returned, and is growing.

    I don’t want to focus too much on the glories of the past.

    But the fact is that there was a time when our Northern cities didn’t just lead the UK forward – they led the world. When George Stephenson built the first ever public steam railway to take coal between Stockton and Darlington.

    When Charles Parsons was developing the steam turbine in Newcastle which revolutionised transport and energy.

    When Harry Brearly found a way to make stainless steel – or rustless steel as it was called initially – down in Sheffield.

    Restoration

    I’m admittedly biased as a Northerner myself.

    But the way I see it, our Northern cities used to be the drivers of this country’s economic, scientific, and social progress in the 19th century.

    That’s something that fell away badly in the 20th century as these once powerful cities were allowed to fall into decline.

    And now what we want for the 21st century is to recover that ground and see their resurgence.

    That’s what we’re talking about in government, when we talk about our Northern Powerhouse.

    It’s not a short term project with budgets attached on skills or transport.

    It’s an idea, an ambition and a promise.

    It is a long term government commitment that we will restore our Northern cities to their former place at the vanguard of the UK’s economy.

    Recommitment

    Earlier this month, my colleague at the Treasury, Philip Hammond spoke for the whole of government when he made it clear that the Northern Powerhouse isn’t some flash in the pan government project.

    It’s an economic imperative that is, will remain, and must be at the very top of our agenda.

    And it’s not just about cities like Manchester, Sheffield and Leeds.

    It’s the North as a whole – it’s Newcastle, it’s Sunderland, it’s Gateshead, it’s Hull.

    It’s every Northern town and city that has unlocked, untapped potential.

    Both to offer a better life for the people who live there – with great jobs, great transport, great attractions adding to all the natural appeal these areas already have in spades.

    But as well as improving the quality of lives here, it’s also about fulfilling the potential of the North East – and North West and Yorkshire and the Humber too – to really power our national economy forwards as was once the case.

    To drive our scientific advances.

    To make our cultural mark on the world stage.

    Lots to offer

    Now in many ways, we can see these things happening already.

    The Great Exhibition of the North that will be held here next year is all about showcasing our world-class art, culture and innovation – both past and present. I understand Stephenson’s Rocket built in Newcastle is going to be on display.

    There also remains a powerful tradition of manufacturing here in the North East – particularly in terms of chemicals, metals and transport equipment.

    Particularly of course in cars. The automotive industry is very important in the UK and is a real speciality of this region.

    Sunderland’s Nissan plant alone produced almost 30% of all UK-built cars last year, and builds more cars than Italy.

    And this is a region with a global reputation for life sciences too. Newcastle’s Centre for Life is at the helm of that – not only bringing talented researchers together, but also inspiring our next generation of young scientists with their exhibitions and events.

    So I was pleased to see it get a funding boost just this month of £2.6 million from the Business Department and Wellcome.

    Beyond its manufacturing and scientific prowess, this a great place to invest. Last year, foreign investment in the North East created more jobs relative to the working age population than any other region outside London.

    And we saw a faster increase in the number of businesses operating in the North East than anywhere else in the country.

    Since 2010, nowhere in the country has seen bigger productivity gains than we’ve seen here in the North East. Unemployment has fallen most here.

    And pay has risen most – an average of 11.5% higher than 2010.

    The issues

    But in celebrating what this region has to offer, and has achieved, I won’t gloss over the issues.

    It’s the problems that this government is working on.

    For example, I just mentioned pay rising here – but we also have to remember that earnings here are still a fair way under the UK average.

    That’s to be expected when hand-in-hand with that, we have 27% per cent of the population aged 16 and over with no formal qualifications, the second highest rate for any English region.

    And despite having some of the best universities in the country, the North East itself has far fewer graduates than the UK average – with just over 31% compared to 38%.

    Productivity is another case in point.

    Good gains have been made here, but there remains a prominent productivity gap – 12% compared to the UK average and 33% behind London.

    Some good things, but some real challenges.

    So what can be done to start to turn these things around?

    In short, we need two things.

    A North that’s ambitious and empowered to lead the way.

    And a government that’s prepared to back it all the way.

    Devolution

    Now on the former, we’ve been undertaking the biggest transfer of power away from Westminster to English regions in living memory.

    Only a few months ago, six mayors were elected in England – three of which were in the North – Ben in Tees Valley, Andy in Manchester and Steve in Liverpool.

    I was saddened to learn last year that the North East would not be electing a mayor, but I understand and respect local leaders’ decisions in this area.

    However, government was clear at the time that we would continue to work with those authorities committed to devolution and we’re having constructive discussions with the North of Tyne authorities on a potential deal and conversations all over the country on what can be done.

    Each of the new Mayors has unprecedented powers and funding for local priorities such as transport, planning and skills.

    These will make a real difference tackling issues locally and for helping to address the productivity challenge our economy faces.

    I’m looking forward to working with these great regional ambassadors and seeing what we can achieve together.

    Government backing

    1. Connectivity

    But it’s not just about what local leaders and businesses can do.

    Because as I said, the second thing that’s needed is a government that is active in backing you.

    A clear example of that is when it comes to improving connectivity.

    I could be biased. I spent several years as a transport minister. But connectivity matters.

    That’s both about ease of movement between places – which doesn’t just make people’s lives easier, it helps businesses win investment and save money too.

    But it’s also about digital connectivity too – and it’s really important that in this new era of information, the North East, and North more generally, is well connected.

    I know from first-hand how much that matters for businesses and families – there are still villages and homes in my own constituency in Yorkshire that can’t get mobile reception let alone high-speed broadband.

    So that requires serious investment from the government and that’s what we’ve been focused on.

    This year, for example, I launched a Digital Infrastructure Investment Fund to improve the UK’s internet connections.

    And we’ve already started to deliver full fibre in the North East through the Superfast Programme – with potential for much more through our £200 million Local Full Fibre Networks programme.

    And on transport links, there’s a huge amount going on. Over 20 schemes in the North East will receive investment from the £380m allocated to the region from the Local Growth Fund.

    Just today, the first phase of upgrading the A1 between Leeming and Barton is opening – with the full road due for completion this winter. When fully complete this will create a motorway standard route between London and Newcastle for the first time.

    But effective transport means a lot more than just creating motorways. We are investing in our major ‘A’ roads too, such as the improvements to the A19 at Testos and Downhill Lane in South Tyneside, and between Norton and Wynyard in Stockton-on-Tees. We are also making further improvements to the A1 at Newcastle and south of Gateshead – all of these will help to speed up so many daily journeys.

    And we are investing in local roads too. We’ve provided £21 million towards the Morpeth Northern Bypass, the last section of the A1 to South East Northumberland link road. This will relieve congestion to Morpeth, and improve links to development sites in the area. We are not buying tarmac and bridges just because we like them. We are buying opportuniry and access across these areas.

    There’s also the Great North Rail project – in the next five years, well over £1 billion will be spent operating, renewing, enhancing and maintaining the rail infrastructure across the North of England.

    This will dramatically improve journeys for passengers across the North. There will be more and faster services across the region, including between Newcastle, Manchester and Liverpool.

    By 2020 all the trains will be brand new or completely refurbished, and all the Pacer trains will be gone.

    And train manufacturing has also returned to the North East. There are now over 1,000 staff and apprentices at the Hitachi site in Newton Aycliffe, producing state-of-the-art modern intercity trains. The first of these trains will be in use on the Great Western line from this Autumn.

    I first came to visit this site when it was a green field.

    2. Industry support

    Beyond connectivity, it’s about supporting our industries as the future marches on.

    We’re working on a modern industrial strategy to do just that.

    But meanwhile, we’re making good progress in key areas for the region.

    As I’ve already said, life sciences is real strength in the North East.

    And we’re working with the leading immunologist and geneticist, Sir John Bell on how we support the life sciences sector. The industry-led Life Sciences Industrial Strategy was published at the end of August. We are now working with Sir John and others in the sector to agree an ambitious Sector Deal – with offers and asks on each side of the table.

    We’ve also made a substantial real terms increase in government investment in Research and Development – an extra £2 billion a year by the end of this Parliament. This will include funds targeted at cutting edge healthcare and medicines.

    And here in the North East, we’ve allocated £8.6 million from the Local Growth Fund to the Life Sciences Incubation hub. This hub, the product of a collaboration between Newcastle University and Newcastle City Council, will take forward the LEP’s ambition to develop a life sciences super cluster for the North East – with significant new facilities for research, and space for science-based businesses.

    And we are investing now in our manufacturing capacity Nearby, Redcar is home to the headquarters of the £100 million Centre for Process Innovation, part of our High Value Manufacturing Catapult network.

    We’re investing half a billion in advanced propulsion technology.

    And just nearby – in fact, I’m going to go and take a look this afternoon – there’s the International Advanced Manufacturing Park – where £75m of publicly funded infrastructure will support a predicted £400 million of private sector investment, and the creation of over 5,000 jobs across the advanced manufacturing and automotive sectors.

    The point that I’m trying to make is that government is serious about investment in our scientific and industrial development, which is so central to this region’s economy.

    3. Skills

    And the third and final factor I’ll mention today, is what we’re doing on skills.

    Because let me take you back to that stat I gave you earlier.

    27% per cent of over-16s in the North East having no formal qualifications.

    Which means lower wages, and less opportunity and freedom to live the lives people want.

    So it really matters that we make a big difference here – not only for people on an individual level, but for our businesses which rely on their talents to succeed.

    I think this is an issue for the UK as a whole but particularly where we are.

    So we’ve got a lot of work going on here.

    We’re completely reforming technical education for a start – we need to see bright people coming through who can work in the advanced industrial roles the 21st century needs.

    We’re really pushing apprenticeships – again to give people the skills businesses need, and we’ve done a lot of work with employers to make them really useful, stretching training opportunities.

    I hope that the many fantastic businesses in the North East that already take on apprentices – from Hodgson Sayers in the construction and manufacturing sector to Sage Gateshead in the creative – will lead really lead the way as business and Government works together to deliver 3 million apprenticeship starts in England by 2020.

    Conclusion

    So there is a lot of action happening to lay the foundations for that Northern resurgence.

    The Northern Powerhouse is about cultural aspiration but the policies around devolution and transport and skills will help.

    And the thing to stress is that this isn’t a one-sided venture.

    This isn’t a bunch of politicians in Westminster laying down the law.

    And I don’t think it would be.

    This is a team effort.

    This is about government, business, and local authorities across the North all working together.

    And the message I want to end with here in Gateshead is this:

    It will take hard work.

    It will take investment.

    It will take ambition.

    It will take partnership and collaboration.

    But the North East can once again be the engine of the UK’s economic, scientific and cultural progress.

    Let’s not lose any opportunity to see that happen.

  • Theresa May – 2017 Florence Speech on Brexit

    Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May, the Prime Minister, on 22 September 2017 in Florence, Italy.

    It’s good to be here in this great city of Florence today at a critical time in the evolution of the relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union.

    It was here, more than anywhere else, that the Renaissance began – a period of history that inspired centuries of creativity and critical thought across our continent and which in many ways defined what it meant to be European.

    A period of history whose example shaped the modern world. A period of history that teaches us that when we come together in a spirit of ambition and innovation, we have it within ourselves to do great things.

    That shows us that if we open our minds to new thinking and new possibilities, we can forge a better, brighter future for all our peoples.

    And that is what I want to focus on today. For we are moving through a new and critical period in the history of the United Kingdom’s relationship with the European Union.

    The British people have decided to leave the EU; and to be a global, free-trading nation, able to chart our own way in the world.

    For many, this is an exciting time, full of promise; for others it is a worrying one.

    I look ahead with optimism, believing that if we use this moment to change not just our relationship with Europe, but also the way we do things at home, this will be a defining moment in the history of our nation.

    And it is an exciting time for many in Europe too. The European Union is beginning a new chapter in the story of its development. Just last week, President Juncker set out his ambitions for the future of the European Union.

    There is a vibrant debate going on about the shape of the EU’s institutions and the direction of the Union in the years ahead. We don’t want to stand in the way of that.

    Indeed, we want to be your strongest friend and partner as the EU, and the UK thrive side by side.

    Shared challenges

    And that partnership is important. For as we look ahead, we see shared challenges and opportunities in common.

    Here in Italy today, our two countries are working together to tackle some of the greatest challenges of our time; challenges where all too often geography has put Italy on the frontline.

    As I speak, Britain’s Royal Navy, National Crime Agency and Border Force are working alongside their Italian partners to save lives in the Mediterranean and crack down on the evil traffickers who are exploiting desperate men, women and children who seek a better life.

    Our two countries are also working together in the fight against terrorism – from our positions at the forefront of the international coalition against Daesh to our work to disrupt the networks terrorist groups use to finance their operations and recruit to their ranks.

    And earlier this week, I was delighted that Prime Minister Gentiloni was able to join President Macron and myself in convening the first ever UN summit of government and industry to move further and faster in preventing terrorist use of the Internet.

    Mass migration and terrorism are but two examples of the challenges to our shared European interests and values that we can only solve in partnership.

    The weakening growth of global trade; the loss of popular support for the forces of liberalism and free trade that is driving moves towards protectionism; the threat of climate change depleting and degrading the planet we leave for future generations; and most recently, the outrageous proliferation of nuclear weapons by North Korea with a threat to use them.

    Here on our own continent, we see territorial aggression to the east; and from the South threats from instability and civil war; terrorism, crime and other challenges which respect no borders.

    The only way for us to respond to this vast array of challenges is for likeminded nations and peoples to come together and defend the international order that we have worked so hard to create – and the values of liberty, democracy, human rights and the rule of law by which we stand.

    Britain has always – and will always – stand with its friends and allies in defence of these values.

    Our decision to leave the European Union is in no way a repudiation of this longstanding commitment. We may be leaving the European Union, but we are not leaving Europe.

    Our resolve to draw on the full weight of our military, intelligence, diplomatic and development resources to lead international action, with our partners, on the issues that affect the security and prosperity of our peoples is unchanged.

    Our commitment to the defence – and indeed the advance – of our shared values is undimmed.

    Our determination to defend the stability, security and prosperity of our European neighbours and friends remains steadfast.

    The decision of the British people

    And we will do all this as a sovereign nation in which the British people are in control.

    Their decision to leave the institution of the European Union was an expression of that desire – a statement about how they want their democracy to work.

    They want more direct control of decisions that affect their daily lives; and that means those decisions being made in Britain by people directly accountable to them.

    The strength of feeling that the British people have about this need for control and the direct accountability of their politicians is one reason why, throughout its membership, the United Kingdom has never totally felt at home being in the European Union.

    And perhaps because of our history and geography, the European Union never felt to us like an integral part of our national story in the way it does to so many elsewhere in Europe.

    It is a matter of choices. The profound pooling of sovereignty that is a crucial feature of the European Union permits unprecedentedly deep cooperation, which brings benefits.

    But it also means that when countries are in the minority they must sometimes accept decisions they do not want, even affecting domestic matters with no market implications beyond their borders. And when such decisions are taken, they can be very hard to change.

    So the British electorate made a choice. They chose the power of domestic democratic control over pooling that control, strengthening the role of the UK Parliament and the devolved Scottish Parliament, Welsh and Northern Ireland Assemblies in deciding our laws.

    That is our choice. It does not mean we are no longer a proud member of the family of European nations. And it does not mean we are turning our back on Europe; or worse that we do not wish the EU to succeed. The success of the EU is profoundly in our national interest and that of the wider world.

    But having made this choice, the question now is whether we – the leaders of Britain, and of the EU’s Member States and institutions – can demonstrate that creativity, that innovation, that ambition that we need to shape a new partnership to the benefit of all our people.

    I believe we must. And I believe we can.

    For while the UK’s departure from the EU is inevitably a difficult process, it is in all of our interests for our negotiations to succeed. If we were to fail, or be divided, the only beneficiaries would be those who reject our values and oppose our interests.

    So I believe we share a profound sense of responsibility to make this change work smoothly and sensibly, not just for people today but for the next generation who will inherit the world we leave them.

    The eyes of the world are on us, but if we can be imaginative and creative about the way we establish this new relationship, if we can proceed on the basis of trust in each other, I believe we can be optimistic about the future we can build for the United Kingdom and for the European Union.

    Negotiations

    In my speech at Lancaster House earlier this year, I set out the UK’s negotiating objectives.

    Those still stand today. Since that speech and the triggering of Article 50 in March, the UK has published 14 papers to address the current issues in the talks and set out the building blocks of the relationship we would like to see with the EU, both as we leave, and into the future.

    We have now conducted three rounds of negotiations. And while, at times, these negotiations have been tough, it is clear that, thanks to the professionalism and diligence of David Davis and Michel Barnier, we have made concrete progress on many important issues.

    For example, we have recognised from the outset there are unique issues to consider when it comes to Northern Ireland.

    The UK government, the Irish government and the EU as a whole have been clear that through the process of our withdrawal we will protect progress made in Northern Ireland over recent years – and the lives and livelihoods that depend on this progress.

    As part of this, we and the EU have committed to protecting the Belfast Agreement and the Common Travel Area and, looking ahead, we have both stated explicitly that we will not accept any physical infrastructure at the border.

    We owe it to the people of Northern Ireland – and indeed to everyone on the island of Ireland – to see through these commitments.

    We have also made significant progress on how we look after European nationals living in the UK and British nationals living in the 27 Member States of the EU.

    I know this whole process has been a cause of great worry and anxiety for them and their loved ones.

    But I want to repeat to the 600,000 Italians in the UK – and indeed to all EU citizens who have made their lives in our country – that we want you to stay; we value you; and we thank you for your contribution to our national life – and it has been, and remains, one of my first goals in this negotiation to ensure that you can carry on living your lives as before.

    I am clear that the guarantee I am giving on your rights is real. And I doubt anyone with real experience of the UK would doubt the independence of our courts or of the rigour with which they will uphold people’s legal rights.

    But I know there are concerns that over time the rights of EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens overseas will diverge. I want to incorporate our agreement fully into UK law and make sure the UK courts can refer directly to it.

    Where there is uncertainty around underlying EU law, I want the UK courts to be able to take into account the judgments of the European Court of Justice with a view to ensuring consistent interpretation. On this basis, I hope our teams can reach firm agreement quickly.

    Shared future

    At the moment, the negotiations are focused on the arrangements for the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. But we need to move on to talk about our future relationship.

    Of course, we recognise that we can’t leave the EU and have everything stay the same. Life for us will be different.

    But what we do want – and what we hope that you, our European friends, want too – is to stay as partners who carry on working together for our mutual benefit.

    In short, we want to work hand in hand with the European Union, rather than as part of the European Union.

    That is why in my speech at Lancaster House I said that the United Kingdom would seek to secure a new, deep and special partnership with the European Union.

    And this should span both a new economic relationship and a new relationship on security.

    So let me set out what each of these relationships could look like – before turning to the question of how we get there.

    Economic partnership

    Let me start with the economic partnership.

    The United Kingdom is leaving the European Union. We will no longer be members of its single market or its customs union. For we understand that the single market’s four freedoms are indivisible for our European friends.

    We recognise that the single market is built on a balance of rights and obligations. And we do not pretend that you can have all the benefits of membership of the single market without its obligations.

    So our task is to find a new framework that allows for a close economic partnership but holds those rights and obligations in a new and different balance.

    But as we work out together how to do so, we do not start with a blank sheet of paper, like other external partners negotiating a free trade deal from scratch have done.

    In fact, we start from an unprecedented position. For we have the same rules and regulations as the EU – and our EU Withdrawal Bill will ensure they are carried over into our domestic law at the moment we leave the EU.

    So the question for us now in building a new economic partnership is not how we bring our rules and regulations closer together, but what we do when one of us wants to make changes.

    One way of approaching this question is to put forward a stark and unimaginative choice between two models: either something based on European Economic Area membership; or a traditional Free Trade Agreement, such as that the EU has recently negotiated with Canada.

    I don’t believe either of these options would be best for the UK or best for the European Union.

    European Economic Area membership would mean the UK having to adopt at home – automatically and in their entirety – new EU rules. Rules over which, in future, we will have little influence and no vote.

    Such a loss of democratic control could not work for the British people. I fear it would inevitably lead to friction and then a damaging re-opening of the nature of our relationship in the near future: the very last thing that anyone on either side of the Channel wants.

    As for a Canadian style free trade agreement, we should recognise that this is the most advanced free trade agreement the EU has yet concluded and a breakthrough in trade between Canada and the EU.

    But compared with what exists between Britain and the EU today, it would nevertheless represent such a restriction on our mutual market access that it would benefit neither of our economies.

    Not only that, it would start from the false premise that there is no pre-existing regulatory relationship between us. And precedent suggests that it could take years to negotiate.

    We can do so much better than this.

    As I said at Lancaster House, let us not seek merely to adopt a model already enjoyed by other countries. Instead let us be creative as well as practical in designing an ambitious economic partnership which respects the freedoms and principles of the EU, and the wishes of the British people.

    I believe there are good reasons for this level of optimism and ambition.

    First of all, the UK is the EU’s largest trading partner, one of the largest economies in the world, and a market of considerable importance for many businesses and jobs across the continent. And the EU is our largest trading partner, so it is in all our interests to find a creative solution.

    The European Union has shown in the past that creative arrangements can be agreed in other areas. For example, it has developed a diverse array of arrangements with neighbouring countries outside the EU, both in economic relations and in justice and home affairs.

    Furthermore, we share the same set of fundamental beliefs; a belief in free trade, rigorous and fair competition, strong consumer rights, and that trying to beat other countries’ industries by unfairly subsidising one’s own is a serious mistake.

    So there is no need to impose tariffs where we have none now, and I don’t think anyone sensible is contemplating this.

    And as we have set out in a future partnership paper, when it comes to trade in goods, we will do everything we can to avoid friction at the border. But of course the regulatory issues are crucial.

    We share a commitment to high regulatory standards.

    People in Britain do not want shoddy goods, shoddy services, a poor environment or exploitative working practices and I can never imagine them thinking those things to be acceptable.

    The government I lead is committed not only to protecting high standards, but strengthening them.

    So I am optimistic about what we can achieve by finding a creative solution to a new economic relationship that can support prosperity for all our peoples.

    Now in any trading relationship, both sides have to agree on a set of rules which govern how each side behaves.

    So we will need to discuss with our European partners new ways of managing our interdependence and our differences, in the context of our shared values.

    There will be areas of policy and regulation which are outside the scope of our trade and economic relations where this should be straightforward.

    There will be areas which do affect our economic relations where we and our European friends may have different goals; or where we share the same goals but want to achieve them through different means.

    And there will be areas where we want to achieve the same goals in the same ways, because it makes sense for our economies.

    And because rights and obligations must be held in balance, the decisions we both take will have consequences for the UK’s access to European markets and vice versa.

    To make this partnership work, because disagreements inevitably arise, we will need a strong and appropriate dispute resolution mechanism.

    It is, of course, vital that any agreement reached – its specific terms and the principles on which it is based – are interpreted in the same way by the European Union and the United Kingdom and we want to discuss how we do that.

    This could not mean the European Court of Justice – or indeed UK courts – being the arbiter of disputes about the implementation of the agreement between the UK and the EU however.

    It wouldn’t be right for one party’s court to have jurisdiction over the other. But I am confident we can find an appropriate mechanism for resolving disputes.

    So this new economic partnership, would be comprehensive and ambitious. It would be underpinned by high standards, and a practical approach to regulation that enables us to continue to work together in bringing shared prosperity to our peoples for generations to come.

    Security relationship

    Let me turn to the new security relationship that we want to see.

    To keep our people safe and to secure our values and interests, I believe it is essential that, although the UK is leaving the EU, the quality of our cooperation on security is maintained.

    We believe we should be as open-minded as possible about how we continue to work together on what can be life and death matters.

    Our security co-operation is not just vital because our people face the same threats, but also because we share a deep, historic belief in the same values – the values of peace, democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

    Of course, there is no pre-existing model for co-operation between the EU and external partners which replicates the full scale and depth of the collaboration that currently exists between the EU and the UK on security, law enforcement and criminal justice.

    But as the threats we face evolve faster than ever, I believe it is vital that we work together to design new, dynamic arrangements that go beyond the existing arrangements that the EU has in this area – and draw on the legal models the EU has previously used to structure co-operation with external partners in other fields such as trade.

    So we are proposing a bold new strategic agreement that provides a comprehensive framework for future security, law enforcement and criminal justice co-operation: a treaty between the UK and the EU.

    This would complement the extensive and mature bi-lateral relationships that we already have with European friends to promote our common security.

    Our ambition would be to build a model that is underpinned by our shared principles, including high standards of data protection and human rights.

    It would be kept sufficiently versatile and dynamic to respond to the ever-evolving threats that we face. And it would create an ongoing dialogue in which law enforcement and criminal justice priorities can be shared and – where appropriate – tackled jointly.

    We are also proposing a far reaching partnership on how we protect Europe together from the threats we face in the world today; how we work together to promote our shared values and interests abroad; whether security, spreading the rule of law, dealing with emerging threats, handling the migration crisis or helping countries out of poverty.

    The United Kingdom has outstanding capabilities. We have the biggest defence budget in Europe, and one of the largest development budgets in the world. We have a far-reaching diplomatic network, and world class security, intelligence and law enforcement services.

    So what we are offering will be unprecedented in its breadth, taking in cooperation on diplomacy, defence and security, and development.

    And it will be unprecedented in its depth, in terms of the degree of engagement that we would aim to deliver.

    It is our ambition to work as closely as possible together with the EU, protecting our people, promoting our values and ensuring the future security of our continent.

    The United Kingdom is unconditionally committed to maintaining Europe’s security. And the UK will continue to offer aid and assistance to EU member states that are the victims of armed aggression, terrorism and natural or manmade disasters.

    Taken as a whole, this bold new security partnership will not only reflect our history and the practical benefits of co-operation in tackling shared threats, but also demonstrate the UK’s genuine commitment to promoting our shared values across the world and to maintaining a secure and prosperous Europe.

    Implementation

    That is the partnership I want Britain and the European Union to have in the future.

    None of its goals should be controversial. Everything I have said is about creating a long-term relationship through which the nations of the European Union and the United Kingdom can work together for the mutual benefit of all our people.

    If we adopt this vision of a deep and special partnership, the question is then how we get there: how we build a bridge from where we are now to where we want to be.

    The United Kingdom will cease to be a member of the European Union on 29th March 2019.

    We will no longer sit at the European Council table or in the Council of Ministers, and we will no longer have Members of the European Parliament.

    Our relations with countries outside the EU can be developed in new ways, including through our own trade negotiations, because we will no longer be an EU country, and we will no longer directly benefit from the EU’s future trade negotiations.

    But the fact is that, at that point, neither the UK – nor the EU and its Members States – will be in a position to implement smoothly many of the detailed arrangements that will underpin this new relationship we seek.

    Neither is the European Union legally able to conclude an agreement with the UK as an external partner while it is itself still part of the European Union.

    And such an agreement on the future partnership will require the appropriate legal ratification, which would take time.

    It is also the case that people and businesses – both in the UK and in the EU – would benefit from a period to adjust to the new arrangements in a smooth and orderly way.

    As I said in my speech at Lancaster House a period of implementation would be in our mutual interest. That is why I am proposing that there should be such a period after the UK leaves the EU.

    Clearly people, businesses and public services should only have to plan for one set of changes in the relationship between the UK and the EU.

    So during the implementation period access to one another’s markets should continue on current terms and Britain also should continue to take part in existing security measures. And I know businesses, in particular, would welcome the certainty this would provide.

    The framework for this strictly time-limited period, which can be agreed under Article 50, would be the existing structure of EU rules and regulations.

    How long the period is should be determined simply by how long it will take to prepare and implement the new processes and new systems that will underpin that future partnership.

    For example, it will take time to put in place the new immigration system required to re-take control of the UK’s borders.

    So during the implementation period, people will continue to be able to come and live and work in the UK; but there will be a registration system – an essential preparation for the new regime.

    As of today, these considerations point to an implementation period of around two years.

    But because I don’t believe that either the EU or the British people will want the UK to stay longer in the existing structures than is necessary, we could also agree to bring forward aspects of that future framework such as new dispute resolution mechanisms more quickly if this can be done smoothly.

    It is clear that what would be most helpful to people and businesses on both sides, who want this process to be smooth and orderly, is for us to agree the detailed arrangements for this implementation period as early as possible. Although we recognise that the EU institutions will need to adopt a formal position.

    And at the heart of these arrangements, there should be a clear double lock: a guarantee that there will be a period of implementation giving businesses and people alike the certainty that they will be able to prepare for the change; and a guarantee that this implementation period will be time-limited, giving everyone the certainty that this will not go on for ever.

    These arrangements will create valuable certainty.

    But in this context I am conscious that our departure causes another type of uncertainty for the remaining member states and their taxpayers over the EU budget.

    Some of the claims made on this issue are exaggerated and unhelpful and we can only resolve this as part of the settlement of all the issues I have been talking about today.

    Still I do not want our partners to fear that they will need to pay more or receive less over the remainder of the current budget plan as a result of our decision to leave. The UK will honour commitments we have made during the period of our membership.

    And as we move forwards, we will also want to continue working together in ways that promote the long-term economic development of our continent.

    This includes continuing to take part in those specific policies and programmes which are greatly to the UK and the EU’s joint advantage, such as those that promote science, education and culture – and those that promote our mutual security.

    And as I set out in my speech at Lancaster House, in doing so, we would want to make an ongoing contribution to cover our fair share of the costs involved.

    Conclusion

    When I gave my speech at the beginning of this year I spoke not just about the preparations we were making for a successful negotiation but also about our preparations for our life outside the European Union – with or without what I hope will be a successful deal.

    And the necessary work continues on all these fronts so that we are able to meet any eventual outcome.

    But as we meet here today, in this city of creativity and rebirth, let us open our minds to the possible.

    To a new era of cooperation and partnership between the United Kingdom and the European Union. And to a stronger, fairer, more prosperous future for us all.

    For that is the prize if we get this negotiation right.

    A sovereign United Kingdom and a confident European Union, both free to chart their own course.

    A new partnership of values and interests.

    A new alliance that can stand strongly together in the world.

    That is the goal towards which we must work in the months ahead as the relationship between Britain and Europe evolves.

    However it does so, I am clear that Britain’s future is bright.

    Our fundamentals are strong: a legal system respected around the world; a keen openness to foreign investment; an enthusiasm for innovation; an ease of doing business; some of the best universities and researchers you can find anywhere; an exceptional national talent for creativity and an indomitable spirit.

    It is our fundamental strengths that really determine a country’s success and that is why Britain’s economy will always be strong.

    There are other reasons why our future should give us confidence. We will always be a champion of economic openness; we will always be a country whose pitch to the world is high standards at home.

    When we differ from the EU in our regulatory choices, it won’t be to try and attain an unfair competitive advantage, it will be because we want rules that are right for Britain’s particular situation.

    The best way for us both to succeed is to fulfil the potential of the partnership I have set out today.

    For we should be in no doubt, that if our collective endeavours in these negotiations were to prove insufficient to reach an agreement, it would be a failure in the eyes of history and a damaging blow to the future of our continent.

    Indeed, I believe the difference between where we would all be if we fail – and where we could be if we can achieve the kind of new partnership I have set out today – to be so great that it is beholden on all of us involved to demonstrate the leadership and flexibility needed to ensure that we succeed.

    Yes, the negotiations to get there will be difficult. But if we approach them in the right way – respectful of the challenges for both sides and pragmatic about resolving them – we can find a way forward that makes a success of this for all of our peoples.

    I recognise that this is not something that you – our European partners – wanted to do. It is a distraction from what you want to get on with. But we have to get this right.

    And we both want to get this done as swiftly as possible.

    So it is up to leaders to set the tone.

    And the tone I want to set is one of partnership and friendship.

    A tone of trust, the cornerstone of any relationship.

    For if we get the spirit of this negotiation right; if we get the spirit of this partnership right, then at the end of this process we will find that we are able to resolve the issues where we disagree respectfully and quickly.

    And if we can do that, then when this chapter of our European history is written, it will be remembered not for the differences we faced but for the vision we showed; not for the challenges we endured but for the creativity we used to overcome them; not for a relationship that ended but a new partnership that began.

    A partnership of interests, a partnership of values; a partnership of ambition for a shared future: the UK and the EU side by side delivering prosperity and opportunity for all our people.

    This is the future within our grasp – so, together, let us seize it.

  • Tim Farron – 2017 Speech to Liberal Democrat Party Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Tim Farron, the former leader of the Liberal Democrats, at the party’s conference in Bournemouth on 18 September 2017.

    I was at Euston the other day and a lady came up to me, half my size but still somehow able to look down her nose at me.

    She said ‘well, I’m not surprised you stepped down! Never trust a man who wears Doctor Marten shoes!’

    If only we’d known. I’d have worn the boots instead, cherry red with yellow laces up to my knees. And that would be the only thing I’d change.

    I’m not giving up, so this won’t be a giving up speech. And I’m not retiring, I mean I turned down celebrity Dancing on Ice! Because Lembit Opik is a friend. Not a blueprint.

    Look, I’m not going to give you a long list of advice – I’m not Paddy.

    Just one bit of advice really, it’s this:

    If you have joined this party as a fast track to a career in politics, then your careers officer wants sacking.

    This is not the place if you want an easy life. It is the place to be if you want to make a difference.

    31 years ago I joined the Liberals.

    Like the rest of you I chose the tough route in politics, I chose that tough route knowingly.

    Any old mediocrity can join Labour or the Tories, hold office, be someone for a bit, but do exactly the same as any other careerist would have done.

    But I also know you can only make a difference if you are brave enough to be different.

    When I first got elected, getting lost on the parliamentary estate was pretty much a daily event. Its like going to big school for the first time. One night Greg Mulholland and I were trying to find our way out of parliament, and we got lost, its just possible that we might have had a pint.

    Anyway, we wandered into the house of lords lobby by mistake and Greg whispered to me ‘I think we’re in the wrong place’ to which the policeman on the door responded ‘not in the wrong place sirs, just 30 years too early.

    Which tells you something about how folks see the comfortable trajectory of the career politician.

    Anyhow, about a week later I decided to join year 6 of Dean Gibson Primary School from Kendal on their tour around parliament. Everything I know about what’s where in parliament I got from that guided tour.

    As the tour progressed we ended up again in the House of Lords lobby, and I got distracted by Geoffrey Howe moving rather slowly out of the chamber and into the lobby.

    I don’t mind telling you, I was rather star struck, I mean he was chancellor of the exchequer when I was at school!

    One of the kids saw who I was looking at, and she said ‘who is he?’ and I said ‘that’s Geoffrey Howe, he brought down Margaret Thatcher’ and she said, ‘who’s Margaret Thatcher?’

    Which goes to show that, you know, there is some justice.

    Margaret Thatcher love her or not, was a great leader, immensely significant, and, apparently… forgettable.

    Those whose driving motivation is a glittering career, the fulfilment of personal ambition, are not only vain, their efforts are in vain.

    Careerism is futile. But changing people’s lives isn’t. So winning elections isn’t.

    These last two years, we have begun to win again.

    And we have a great, new leader in Vince.

    He is exactly what we need, just when we need it – and I still aim to encourage, inspire and support you as we seek to win, in councils and in parliaments, in your community, and across our country.

    To me, the Tories aren’t the enemy, Labour aren’t the enemy, defeat is the enemy.

    Because defeat robs us of the ability to make people’s lives better.

    The Women’s Hour survey last week showed that the South Lakes is the best place in the north for women to live… and it was pretty clear why, because of housing, affordable housing.

    And that’s down to us. Having built something like a thousand social rented properties, the liberal democrats have halved the housing waiting list.

    It wasn’t rocket science: you have a vision, a plan to make people’s lives better, you inspire your volunteers you inspire the voters, you win, you change people’s lives.

    I joined this party because I agreed with it. I stayed in this party because I fell in love with it. Because this is the party that is in no one’s pocket. This is the party that lets you think for yourself.

    This is the party that treats people like people, not pawns in an ideological game. This is the party riddled with compassion, and we are terminally infected with optimism. And guided by rational thought, by a refreshing wisdom in the face of extremism and dogma.

    Given that we are now led by the wisest person on the planet, it’s probably a good time for me to tell you that it is this party’s wisdom that I love the most. Wisdom is not always popular, but wisdom is what any country needs, especially this country and especially now.

    You can win elections and win power by being crafty and clever. But you only do any good by being wise.

    But choosing wisdom over populism can leave you pretty lonely. Just look at our record of being right, but standing alone. We spoke out about climate change decades before anyone else. And we were right.

    We spoke out about the impending banking collapse before anyone else. And we were right.

    We called for Britain to join Europe from the start. And we were right.

    We opposed the illegal Iraq war. And we were right. We called for Britain to take our fair share of refugees. We were right. We are right.

    And we said that leaving the EU is the biggest mistake we have made in a hundred years and that we should resist it. And we are right.

    But I am fed of being right and getting beat.

    And when I took on the leadership of this party, we had been beaten beyond our worst nightmares.

    It had been an honour to see Nick Clegg and our team in government put liberalism into practice for 5 years in coalition, but in July 2015 the question was not whether we would return to government it was whether we would survive at all.

    Our challenge wasn’t ‘trust’ or defending our record in government, it was far bigger and more basic than that.

    Our challenge was basic relevance.

    We simply didn’t matter.

    And because of the disaster of 2015, I was the first and hopefully last lib dem leader to fight a general election when we weren’t even the third party.

    90% of our MPs defeated, 50% of our councillors defeated, 50% of our members departed. Ejected as the 3rd party.
    Dismissed as irrelevant.

    The day I took over as leader one journalist predicted confidently that ‘the party that began with Gladstone will now end with Farron’.

    So that was cheerful.

    Well, not cheerful, but utterly motivating to me. I saw those assumptions that we were dead and buried and I resolved that we were going to survive and we were going to grow and we were going to matter and we were going to win again.

    The Liberal movement that gave us the welfare state, the old age pension, freedom of religion, the health service, LGBT equality, council housing.

    The Liberal movement of Gladstone, Lloyd George, Shirley Williams, Jo Grimond, Nancy Sear, Charles Kennedy – the movement I joined as a 16 year old, was not going to die on my watch.

    And so 2 years ago, in this very hall, I set you a challenge and you rose to that challenge, you picked a ward and you won it, we had the first local election gains for our party in 8 years, we grew our membership, we took risks, we made ourselves matter.

    We saved the Liberal Democrats and I am proud of every single one of you.

    In the early hours of the 24th June 2016 I took our biggest risk. A considered risk.

    You see, unlike David Cameron, I had made a plan as to what we would do if the EU referendum was lost.

    It was a simple plan, and it was to stick to our principles.

    It was to defiantly say that the Britain we love is a Britain that loves the world.

    That the Britain we love is open, tolerant, united, it is not insular, suspicious and divided.

    That to be a patriot is to do what is best for your country what is best for your children’s future.

    I respect the majority, because I am a democrat.

    But I resist Brexit and I want the people to have the chance to change and rescue their future, because I am a patriot.

    June 24th 2016 was a long day, but it was a day we turned a corner, with a conviction and clarity that meant for the first time in ages we actually seemed to matter.

    It was an especially long day if you worked in the Lib Dem membership department.

    When I arrived at HQ that morning everyone’s eyes were fixed on a TV screen, not BBC, ITV, Sky, no, the screen that displays the party’s current membership figures.

    That number was rising at the rate of a new member every single second, and it went on, and on and on and we grew and grew and grew.

    We made a risky call that morning, but since then our membership has doubled to 100,000, the highest it has ever been in the history of our party.

    We had the best run in council by-elections for more than a generation, we had Witney and then we had Richmond Park.

    We experienced something we had hardly experienced for years: winning, and the joy and energy and momentum that comes from winning, which leads to more winning!

    And for all the challenges of the June election, for the first time in four general elections, our party came back with an increase in MPs and our most diverse parliamentary party ever.

    I said during the campaign that my motivation for fighting the madness of Brexit was that I wanted to look my children straight in the eye in the years to come and say that I did everything, everything to prevent this disaster.

    And that is still my motivation.

    It is not too late. The Britain we love can still be saved. Do not give up.

    We will be mocked, we will be vilified, we will be snarled at as enemies of the people, remoaners, losers and it will feel easier to walk away, to keep your head down, to change the subject.

    Believe me, since the referendum there were times when I was tempted to do that.

    But I remembered Charles Kennedy.

    I remembered Charles Kennedy stood in the Commons speaking wisdom and reason as Tories and Labour ganged up to take us into that illegal war in Iraq, I remember Charles being screamed at for being a traitor, and hounded for daring to stand up to Bush and Blair.

    And I remember public opinion against us at first. I remember Charles determination to keep going all the same, he was right, he knew it and he wasn’t going to let it go.

    And as the months went by and our cause was proven right and just, the mood changed and Britain agreed that Charles Kennedy was right.

    We need to follow Charles example today.

    We are right, we will be proven right, we must not give up.

    But lets not fixate on the disaster that is Brexit, let us build the positive case for a Europe that is Britain’s home.

    Back in 1977, at the height of the Cold War, Jimmy Carter sent a recorded message up into space on board the voyager spacecraft.

    He said we are trying to survive our time so that we may live into yours.

    Well, Voyager has now left the solar system and so far we have survived.

    When he recorded those words the nuclear arms race was at its most terrifying. Six countries who are now members of the European Union had nuclear weapons on their soil, pointed at us. But today, instead of plotting one another’s annihilation we are friends who trade and share a destiny…or at least we did.

    The European Union is flawed, imperfect, in need of reform…for sure… but in its sinews and veins, in its very existence, it remains beyond compare the world’s most successful peace process.

    That is why I will not let it go, get over it, suck it up.

    Patriots are never populists. Because patriots tell their country the truth, it is a treacherous act to tell lies to your country, Boris ….. or to be a coward, acquiescing while lies gain a foothold, Jeremy.

    So we must tell the truth. Britain’s exit from the European Union will make, is making, my country poorer, my country less safe, my country less powerful… and it is damaging the future for our children.

    Of course there is one promise that Brexit will fulfil. It will reduce immigration, without changing a single law. Because if you turn Britain into a poorer, meaner, insular place, no one in their right mind will choose to come here.

    So the Tories are breaking Britain to repel the immigrants. And they do it with Labour’s shameful connivance. What a disgrace!

    You want to know why we need Liberals?

    That is why we need Liberals.

    You can be a Corbyn or a May and change your mind on Europe to suit the weather.

    Too afraid of the people to ever deserve to lead them.

    Leadership requires courage…not cowardice.

    We stand between two parties led by cowards.

    We stand between two parties leading Britain to disaster.

    And people know it.

    They vote for one because they’re terrified of the other.

    We must give people hope to vote for not fear to vote against.

    Britain deserves something better. Liberal Democrats are that something better.

    Theresa May. With whom in the early 1990s I once shared a ballot paper, and a hairstyle, Rick Astley’s hairstyle to be precise. We wore it well.

    Let me say this about Theresa May. When she and I fought North West Durham in 1992, she did actually turn up to the debates!

    It didn’t do her any good mind, not that it did me any good either – But today she embodies perfectly the bankruptcy of the Tory party.

    People act surprised that her manifesto was a vacuous disaster.

    Why the surprise?

    Why would the Tories bother with a serious manifesto – the only conviction they have is that people like them should run the country.

    Holding office is more important than wielding power. Policies are mere details, why would you bother with those?

    Theresa May, is still in number 10 because the Tories think that however dreadful she is, everyone else is worse.

    And you can see their point.

    You see, once upon a time, Michel Barnier would have croissants and coffee for breakfast, now he has David Davis.

    Every flipping day.

    Its embarrassing because my kids future depends on this circus, in which our representatives are the clowns and the rest of Europe is the audience, not sure whether to laugh at us, shout at us, or increasingly to just to walk away and spend their time on something less boring.

    Because this is what this Conservative government is really doing.

    Its making Britain weaker, smaller and less important.

    Its making Britain smaller overseas, and its making Britain smaller at home.

    Diminishing our schools as this summer, most head teachers had to lay off staff because of budget cuts.

    Letting our NHS shrink, demoralising clinicians, betraying patients.

    Pushing those who were just about managing into poverty and family crisis.

    After the dementia tax disaster, going from a bad plan to no plan for the future of social care.

    Turning its back on affordable and social housing.

    Cutting rail investment.

    Downgrading the green energy revolution that Nick and Ed delivered in government.

    Brexit was never just about being out of Europe, it was always part of a wider plan: to shrink the state, cut the green crap, small government, weak citizens, everyone for themselves, a small Britain, a weak.

    Britain, a mean Britain.

    But that is not our Britain.

    And this menace to our future is multiplied because the official opposition is a joke.

    The party of Atlee, Gaitskell, Wilson, Callaghan, Blair and Brown… is now run by the kind of people who used to try to sell me newspapers outside my students union. A party which now has more in common with Class War than they do with the Fabian Society.

    But Labour’s election result in June was better than expected.

    Labour MPs won who had expected to lose. And so we have the born again Corbynistas.

    Those who fought to get rid of him then, but who are happy to support him now.

    I say this to the majority in Labour who are social democrats.

    You may have saved your seats, but you have lost your party.

    I’d argue that Labour’s most effective leader was actually Neil Kinnock. Blair would never have won without him.

    Kinnock took a party in the grip of the extreme left, and he transformed it -he made it a social democratic party not a hard left socialist party.

    Hard left socialism is an assault on our economy, an assault on our internationalism, an assault on our liberty. If you are social democrat in labour today, you know that.

    and if you’re breathing a sigh of relief that you held on in June, you need to have a good long look at yourself.

    You do not belong now to the party that you joined. You know that Labours leadership would keep us apart from Europe, trash our economy and lead us to the worst austerity in living memory.

    And you know that the people who would suffer the most wouldn’t be the rich it would be the poorest.

    It would be those who most rely on strong public services, health, social care, schools, welfare, pensions.

    Those who would suffer from extreme socialism would be the many and not the few.

    But for the thousands of labour members across the country who know this, its too late to do a Kinnock now.

    You have lost your party for at least a generation.

    Your party has left you, so its time for you to leave it.

    Because it is now clear if there is to be a realignment of progressive forces then it can only be around this party.

    Liberal Democrats, we should embrace that role, seize this moment, lead that movement.

    So our job is to do good, not to attempt to leave vain personal legacies.

    Careerism is futile. But there is nothing wrong with ambition, so long as your ambition is to do the right thing.

    For me, I joined the party at 16, I’ve been a student activist, union President, councillor, parliamentary candidate in a winnable seat…that I lost, and then won, so then an MP, shadow cabinet, party president, party leader.

    I guess if I had personal ambition, then I’ve done everything I realistically could have done.

    So now is the time to do what I love to do.

    And with a bit more time on my hands, I have done a bit more running, seen a lot more of my kids… and I co-authored a book with JK Rowling.

    Well, sort of.. we both wrote chapters in the RAM album book which came out a fortnight ago.

    She wrote about the Violent Femmes and I, as you know, wrote about NWA’s straight outta Compton having now established myself as the party’s leading authority on gansta rap.

    Which is a niche position.

    As, some would say, is our position on Brexit.

    Indeed despite all the challenges we have faced it is true to say that we’ve 99 problems but the niche ain’t one.

    But doing what I love, means being here.

    I love being a campaigning MP, and I love being part of the lib dem family I have belonged to for 31 years.

    So if its alright with you, then I’m here for at least the next 31 years too. Which would put me in my 70s… which is of course the perfect age to run to be party leader.

    We’ve got a brilliant leader in Vince. A uniquely impressive leadership team in Vince and Jo. I’m very very proud to fight under their banner. Just as you have fought under mine, and for which I am so grateful.

    And so I want to focus my final words on the most important people in our party. You.

    This week, you are here, giving up your time and money.

    All year, your work in your communities, fighting elections, running the local party, building our campaigning infrastructure on the ground is what really saved this party.

    Half of you joined in the last 2 years, but you are the movement that forces this party through its dark times and which has now filled it with its greatest ever purpose and mission.

    You make sacrifices for our cause, you are selfless in your commitment, you are all that stood between this party and oblivion and I salute you all.

    And now I rejoin your ranks, proud to march alongside you.

    Because activist I was since the day I joined, activist I was as leader, activist I remain until the day I die.

    On the desperate plight of refugees,; on the dishonesty and calamity of Brexit; on the tragedy of homelessness; the horror of climate change; the chaos in care.

    You are the people who will not walk on by, because you cannot walk on by.

    That is why you are different and that is why I love you

    And that is why our ambition matters.

    Britain needs the Liberal Democrats, sanity in economics, compassion for all, a plan for the long term, an exit from Brexit… what’s not to like?

    And there’s no one else in our market.

    Of course celebrate our survival, but if we love our country then our ambition cannot now just be to survive, it must be to grab this moment, take that space and fill it with all that we have.

    When I needed you, you were always there.

    But your country needs you now.

    It needs you to win, it needs you to grow, it needs you to get behind our outstanding leader and it needs you to believe that you belong to the only movement that can rescue our country and the generations to come from the disaster it now faces.

    That is the ambition we all share, that is the ambition that burns within when personal ambition fades, that is the ambition that gives clarity to our mission, purpose to our campaigns, a reason to fight.

    We have made our party matter, now we must make our party win.

  • Theresa May – 2017 Speech to UN General Assembly

    Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May, the Prime Minister, to the UN General Assembly in New York on 20 September 2017.

    Mr President, Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by expressing my sincere condolences to the government and people of Mexico following the devastating earthquake. I also want to reiterate my sympathies to those affected by the recent hurricanes in the Caribbean. Our thoughts are with them all at this time.

    As we meet at this General Assembly we face challenges that go right to the heart of who we are as nations. Challenges that test our values, our vision and our resolve to defend the rules and standards that underpin the security and prosperity of our fellow citizens. As I argued in my speech here last year, many of these challenges do not recognise or respect geographical boundaries. I think of course of the terrorism that has struck so many of our countries including my own 5 times this year. And fuelling that terrorist threat the increasing numbers being drawn to extremist ideologies not only in places riven by conflict and instability, but many online in their homes thousands of miles away from those conflicts. I think of the climate change which is depleting and degrading the planet we leave to our children.

    And I think of the vast challenges that come from the mass displacement of people. Many are refugees fleeing conflict and persecution. Others, economic migrants, prepared to risk everything on perilous sea crossings in the desperate search for a better life for themselves and their children. Through this migration we also see the challenges of economic inequality between countries and within them. This inequality, together with weaknesses in the global trading system, threatens to undermine support for the forces of liberalism and free trade that have done so much to propel global growth. And it is pushing some countries towards protectionism in the belief that this best defends the interests of their own people.

    And as the global system struggles to adapt we are confronted by states deliberately flouting for their own gain the rules and standards that have secured our collective prosperity and security. The unforgiveable use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime against its own people and perhaps foremost in our minds today the outrageous proliferation of nuclear weapons by North Korea and a threat to use them.

    I believe that the only way for us to respond to this vast array of challenges is to come together and defend the international order that we have worked so hard to create and the values by which we stand. For it is the fundamental values that we share, values of fairness, justice and human rights, that have created the common cause between nations to act together in our shared interest and form the multilateral system. And it is this rules-based system which we have developed, including the institutions, the international frameworks of free and fair trade, agreements such as the Paris Climate Accord and laws and conventions like the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which enables the global cooperation through which we can protect those values.

    Indeed, the defining purpose of the UN Charter is to maintain international peace and security, to develop friendly relations among nations, to achieve international cooperation in solving problems of an economic, social, cultural or humanitarian character; and to be a centre for harmonising the actions of nations in the attainment of those common ends. And I do not see these as vaunted ideals to be held for their own sake. These values and the rules they imbue are central to our national interest, to our security and prosperity. And the international system with the UN at its heart is the amplifying force that enables countries to cooperate and live up to the standards in word, spirit and deed, to our collective and individual benefit.

    If this system we have created is found no longer to be capable of meeting the challenges of our time then there will be a crisis of faith in multilateralism and global cooperation that will damage the interests of all our peoples. So those of us who hold true to our shared values, who hold true to that desire to defend the rules and high standards that have shaped and protected the world we live in, need to strive harder than ever to show that institutions like this United Nations can work for the countries that form them and for the people who we represent.

    This means reforming our United Nations and the wider international system so it can prove its worth in helping us to meet the challenges of the 21st Century. And it means ensuring that those who flout the rules and spirit of our international system are held to account, that nations honour their responsibilities and play their part in upholding and renewing a rules-based international order that can deliver prosperity and security for us all.

    Reform

    First, we must ensure that our multilateral institutions can deliver the aspirations on which they were founded. Think of UNHCR looking after those who’ve been driven out of their homes. The OPCW striving for a world free of chemical weapons. UNICEF helping children in danger. These are all vital missions where the UN surely has a unique role to play. And that is why the UK has over 70 years been such a pioneering supporter of these organisations and more.

    But we should also acknowledge that throughout its history the UN has suffered from a seemingly unbridgeable gap between the nobility of its purposes and the effectiveness of its delivery. When the need for multilateral action has never been greater the shortcomings of the UN and its institutions risk undermining the confidence of states as members and donors. Even more importantly they risk the confidence and faith of those who rely upon the blue helmets, who rely upon that sign I stand in front of today coming to their aid in the darkest of hours.

    So we must begin by supporting the ambitious reform agenda that Secretary-General Guterres is now leading to create a more agile, transparent and joined-up organisation. Much of this work will be practical and unglamorous. It will require the UN to deliver better cooperation on the ground between agencies, remove competition for funding and improve gender equality. But it will also require real leadership to confront damaging issues that have beset the UN. So I welcome the Secretary-General’s new circle of leadership on preventing sexual exploitation and abuse in UN operations and I’m pleased to be part of this initiative.

    We, the nations of the UN, need to give the Secretary-General our backing for these reforms and as an outward-looking global Britain and the second biggest funder of the UN the UK will remain committed to spending 0.7% of GNI on development and humanitarian support. We will use our military to support peacekeeping and our diplomats will continue to work to tackle conflict and support peace building. In turn the UN and its agencies must win our trust in proving to us and to the people we represent that they can deliver. And that is why we will remain generous in our funding but set aside 30% to be paid only to those parts of the UN that achieve sufficient results.

    But this is about more than technical reforms, important as they are. It is also about reforms that enable the United Nations to truly respond to the global challenges of the 21st century. At last year’s General Assembly we undertook to do far more to resolve the challenges of refugee and migration flows. We agreed to develop global compacts to address the causes and the consequences of the mass movements of people we see today. This was an important step to elevate significantly our global response and enable us collectively to tackle this challenge of our times.

    So in the year ahead as well as agreeing the principles of these compacts we must ensure they can be applied in practice. We must do more to identify, protect and support refugees and those hosting them near conflicts. And on migration our starting point must be that it can benefit both countries and migrants themselves but only when it is safe, orderly, well-managed and legal. If we do not manage this effectively, we will fail both our own citizens and those taking these dangerous journeys. And we will push more people into the curse of modern slavery and the hands of the human traffickers and organised criminal groups that drive this inhuman industry.

    But the steps we are agreeing through these compacts alone will not be enough. For if people cannot find jobs, opportunity and hope for themselves and their families where they live they will continue to look elsewhere. And so as the United Nations and as members, we must work harder to combine the efforts of our development programmes with the private sector and the international financial institutions. To support the creation of jobs and livelihoods that will address not just the consequences, but the causes of this great challenge of our time. For the truth is that despite our best efforts, we are not succeeding. We must do more.

    The same is true with terrorism, where again the challenges we face today are vastly different from those of previous eras. When terrorists struck London and Manchester this year, the world saw our cities come together in defiance. Our parliament carries on. Ariana Grande came back to Manchester and sang again. London Bridge is bustling with people. Our communities came together at the Finsbury Park mosque in North London. And Londoners got back on the Tube. The terrorists did not win, for we will never let anyone destroy our way of life.

    But defiance alone is not enough. As leaders, we have all visited too many hospitals, and seen too many innocent people murdered in our countries. In the last decade, hundreds of thousands have been killed by terrorists across the world. This is a truly global tragedy that is increasingly touching the lives of us all. This year is the tenth anniversary of the death of the woman who introduced me to my husband, and who was known well to many of us in this United Nations. Benazir Bhutto was brutally murdered by people who actively rejected the values that all of us here in this United Nations stand for. In a country that has suffered more than most at the hands of terrorists. Murdered for standing up for democracy, murdered for espousing tolerance, and murdered for being a woman.

    When I think of the hundreds of thousands of victims of terrorism in countries across the world, I think of their friends, their families, their communities, devastated by this evil, and I say enough is enough. So of course, we must continue to take the fight to these terrorist groups on the battlefield. And the UK will remain at the forefront of this effort, while also helping to build the capabilities of our alliances and our partners to better take on this challenge. And we must also step up our efforts as never before to tackle the terrorist use of the internet. For as the threat from terrorists evolves, so must our cooperation. And that is why today, for the first time in the UN, governments and industry through the Global Internet Forum for Counterterrorism will be coming together to do just that.

    The tech companies have made significant progress on this issue, but we need to go further and faster to reduce the time it takes to reduce terrorist content online, and to increase significantly their efforts to stop it being uploaded in the first place. This is a major step in reclaiming the internet from those who would use it to do us harm. But ultimately, it is not just the terrorists themselves who we need to defeat, it is the extremist ideologies that fuel them. It is the ideologies that preach hatred, so division and undermine our common humanity. We must be far more robust in identifying these ideologies and defeating them across all parts of our societies.

    As I said in the aftermath of the attack on London Bridge this summer, we have to face the fact that this will require some difficult conversations. We all need to come together, to take on this extremism that lives among us, and to nurture the common values that must ultimately win out. These are the values of this United Nations. And yet, despite our best efforts, we as nations and as a United Nations have not found the ways or the means to truly take on this threat. And that is why today, as I talk about UN reform, I ask the Secretary General to make this fight against terrorists and the ideologies that drive them a core part of his agenda, at the heart of our development, peace building, and conflict prevention work. And to give this effort the prominence it surely requires. I’m calling on the Secretary General to make this a theme of next year’s General Assembly and use this to harness the efforts of governments, the private sector, and civil society so that we can truly strike the generational blow against this vile evil in our world.

    And as we do so, we must clearly strike the balance between protecting our people and protecting their freedoms. And we must always guard against those who would use the fight against terrorism as a cover for oppression and the violation of human rights. So as we look at the situation in Northern Burma, I call on the Burmese authorities to put an end to the violence, allow humanitarian access, and fully implement Annan Commission recommendations.

    Responsibilities

    And so by reforming our multinational institutions, we can strengthen their ability to deliver for the people we serve, protect the vulnerable and fight injustice. We can enable multilateralism to multiply the effect of our individual commitments through its convening power and spending power. Through the economies of scale it can bring, the standards it can set, the moral leadership it can harness, and the legitimacy it can confer. But multilateralism can only reflect the values that individual states project, and can only multiply the commitments that they are prepared to make. It is strong nations that form strong institutions, and which provide the basis of the international partnerships and cooperation that brings stability to our world.

    And so it falls to us all to decide whether we will honour the responsibilities that we have to one another. I’ve talked about the role of the UN in stepping up on counterterrorism. But this is an area that we as states have critical responsibilities, which the UN cannot itself address alone, for it is inescapable that the terrorism conflict and the instability that we see across the world is in many cases driven by the actions of states acting through proxies.

    So when countries back groups like Hezbollah to increase instability and conflict across the Middle East, support so-called separatists in Ukraine to create instability on Europe’s eastern borders, or give tacit support to criminal groups launching cyber-attacks against our countries and institutions, they call into question the very rules and international systems that protect us. And that is why, both globally, but also in our own continent of Europe, the UK will remain steadfast in our commitment and responsibility to ensure the security and stability of our friends and allies as we have done for generations.

    And just as it the responsibility of nations not to seek to advance their interests through terrorist or proxy groups, so it is also the responsibility of each of is to act together in the face of the most egregious violations of our common rules and standards. Clearly responsibility for the chaos and tragedy that we see in Syria lies firmly at the door of Asaad. He and his backers have continually frustrated the efforts of the UN to act as the broker of peace through the Geneva Process. As responsible states, we must not abandon our support for the UN’s attempts to secure peace and stability in Syria. And indeed, we must continue to call on all those with influence on the regime to bring them to the table.

    But in recent weeks, the UN has also confirmed what we all new, namely that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons on its own people. In the face of that, we have a responsibility to stand up, to hold the Syrian regime to account. This responsibility sits with us all, but a particular special responsibility lies on the shoulders of the permanent members of the security council. And as one of these five members, the United Kingdom takes our special responsibility seriously.

    So I am proud that we have used the full weight of our diplomacy to ensure that we have not had to exercise our veto in a generation. Seeking to foster international cooperation, not frustrated. But others have not done so. One country in particular has used its veto as many times in the last five years as in the whole of the second half of the Cold War. And in so doing, they have prevented action against a despicable regime that has murdered its own people with chemical weapons. As a result, in Syria, the United Nations has been blocked. This has undermined the values that we hold dear, and the international rules based system that is the basis of security and prosperity around the world.

    Now we face an even more immediate, global danger in the activities of Kim Jong Un and his regime in DPRK. Time after time he’s shown contempt for the international community of law-abiding states. Contempt for his neighbours and contempt for the institutions and rules that have preserved peace and security. On this challenge, the UN in recent weeks has shown it can step up to the task. With last Monday’s security council resolution creating the biggest sanctions package of the 21st Century. We have seen regional and global powers coming together and as in its founding charter putting aside limited self-interests to show leadership on behalf of the wider world. But despite these efforts, DPRK continues to defy and provoke the international community and threaten its neighbours. And unless all security council members continue to live up to the special responsibilities that are placed upon us, and in seeking to resolve this crisis, be prepared to take on necessary measures to tackle this threat, we will not be able to bring stability to the Korean Peninsula.

    So as the world looks on, I am calling for further steps and for nations with this special responsibility to work together and exert the pressure we know is necessary to force Kim Jong Un to change his ways. Let us not fail this time. Let our message to North Korea be clear. Our determination to uphold these rules is stronger by far than their determination to undermine them.

    Mr. President, throughout the history of this United Nations, countries have shown time and time again that by being true to our values, rules, and standards, it is possible to come together and to deliver in ways that have the most extraordinary impact on the lives of the people we serve. I believe we can do so again. We must do so again, and we will do so again. Thank you.

  • James Brokenshire – 2017 Speech at Top 100 Companies

    Below is the text of the speech made by James Brokenshire, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, on 14 September 2017.

    Thank you David [Elliott, Ulster Business Editor], and thank you for the kind invitation to speak here today. It is a great honour to be here and to join you in celebrating the very best of NI business.

    I would like to thank A&L Goodbody, Ulster Business Magazine and Lanyon Communications for hosting and organising this fine event.

    Events like these are a welcome reminder of the economic progress we have seen in Northern Ireland since the Belfast Agreement nearly two decades ago.

    Some often query whether, when politics comes to the fore, business takes a back seat as a result.

    But the transformation of Northern Ireland in the past two decades shows why it is imperative to keep both at the heart of the work we do.

    To see the change, from a place which had struggled to attract investment and jobs against a backdrop of terrorism and instability, to one of the most popular locations in the UK outside of London for foreign direct investment, shows exactly why we see a stronger economy as a key priority for Northern Ireland.

    And as Mark Thompson mentioned in his remarks, 2016 was a hugely successful year for the Top 100 – with record sales and a 16% increase in profits from world-beating businesses making strides at home and globally. I can only congratulate you all for that achievement.

    The fundamentals of the UK economy as a whole are strong. We have grown continuously for more than four years, reduced the deficit and delivered a record number of jobs.

    We are proud of this record but not complacent. We must restore productivity growth to deliver higher wages and living standards for people across the country. That is why we are committed to investing in infrastructure, technology and skills to deliver the best possible base for strong future growth.

    This strength includes continued growth in Northern Ireland, which has secured 34 new Foreign Direct Investment projects in the last year alone, creating more than 1,600 new jobs. We now have more than 800 international companies located in the region and employing in excess of 75,000 people.

    And overall the picture is one of solid growth, increasing output, falling unemployment, and job creation.

    Indeed we saw yesterday that unemployment is now at 5.3%, the lowest since the great crash in 2008, while more than 10,000 jobs were created over the course of the year. And the last quarter saw the sharpest rise in business activity in 2017 so far.

    It is wonderful to be able to celebrate such success – to recognise the strength and resilience of the economy in Northern Ireland. But building upon that success must be the priority for the year ahead. And as we look to do so, it is important that we acknowledge the key issues that we must face.

    EU Exit

    The first is EU Exit.

    We might be leaving the EU but we are not turning our backs on our friends and partners in Europe.

    As a Government our goal is to secure a deal that works for the whole of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, as we leave the European Union.

    This was reiterated in the Government’s Position Paper on Northern Ireland and Ireland, setting out in more detail how we might achieve our objectives.

    This Position Paper expanded on the Government’s proposals for a future customs relationship with Europe. We proposed two options: a highly streamlined model and a new customs partnership. In our Northern Ireland/Ireland Paper we have set out the additional facilitations that the Government see as necessary to protect the open border and ensure as frictionless a movement of goods as possible.

    Specifically, the Government has proposed that small and medium sized businesses should be exempt from all customs processes entirely. This imaginative and flexible solution to the free movement of goods would see some 80% of all Northern Ireland businesses free from any interaction with customs processes.

    And for those businesses not falling into that category, the Government wants highly streamlined and flexible administrative arrangements to ensure no physical checks are required on goods crossing the land border.

    Our second proposal is a new customs partnership with the EU, aligning our approach to the customs border in a way that removes the need for a UK-EU customs border.

    One potential approach would involve the UK mirroring the EU’s requirements for imports from the rest of the world where their final destination is the EU.

    These are bold and imaginative proposals to the issue of free flow of goods across the border with Ireland. And we would encourage everyone to get behind that debate as we look to develop the next stage of detail and an implementation plan.

    But of course the open border is about more than goods, it is also fundamentally about people and communities. The Government is absolutely committed to ensuring the border remains open to allow for the normal everyday interactions between people on either side.

    For its part, the UK wants to continue to protect the CTA and associated reciprocal bilateral arrangements. This means protecting the ability to move freely within the UK and between the UK and Ireland with no practical change from now, recognising the special importance of this to people in their daily lives, and the underpinning it provides for the Northern Ireland political process.

    We also recognise that investors, businesses and citizens in both the UK and the EU, and beyond, need to be able to plan ahead. In order to avoid any cliff-edge as we move from our current relationship to our future partnership, people and businesses would benefit from an interim period, for the implementation of the arrangements, which allowed for a smooth and orderly transition.

    The Government believes it would help both sides to minimise unnecessary disruption and provide certainty for businesses and individuals if we agree this principle early in the process.

    The Government is keen to explore with the EU a model for an interim period which would ensure that businesses and people in the UK and the EU only have to adjust once to a new customs relationship.

    So the UK Government has been clear that we will respect and recognise the unique circumstances of Northern Ireland and its relationship with Ireland as we leave the European Union.

    We must avoid a return to a hard border, and trade and everyday movements across the land border must be protected as part of the UK-EU deal.

    The Government will take account of these unique circumstances and the priority attached by all parts of the community in Northern Ireland to avoid a hard border and protect cross-border trade and cooperation.

    Lack of an Executive

    But the most immediate challenge is the lack of an Executive, and the imperative – for growth, prosperity and for the people of Northern Ireland – to see power-sharing return.

    For nine months government has effectively been in the hands of civil servants, rather than politicians who are rightly accountable to the public for the decisions they make. This has meant there has been no political direction to tackle the fundamental challenges facing Northern Ireland – including the reform and transformation of critical public services.

    So our overriding priority for the UK Government in Northern Ireland remains the restoration of devolved power-sharing government in Stormont. We believe in devolution. It is right that decisions over local services – like health, education, transport and economic development – are taken by local politicians in locally accountable political institutions.

    This is why I am working intensively with the Northern Ireland parties and, in accordance with the well-established three-stranded approach, the Irish Government, to secure the reestablishment of inclusive, stable, devolved government in the interests of the entire community in Northern Ireland.

    I have been clear with the parties that they must come together and reach agreement in the short window of time that remains.

    If this does not happen within a short number of weeks, we risk greater political decision-making from Westminster – starting with provision for a 2017-18 Budget this autumn.

    This is not what anyone wants and would profoundly be a step back not a step forwards. But in the continuing absence of devolution the UK Government retains ultimate responsibility for good governance and political stability in Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom – and we will not shirk from the necessary measures to deliver that.

    If things don’t change we are on a glide path to greater and greater UK government intervention.

    But I believe we can change course. This can be achieved with political leadership and with support of the people of Northern Ireland – including communities and businesses.

    I ask everyone here tonight to do all you can to help secure what Northern Ireland wants and needs.

    There is so much at stake. Risks, yes. But also so many opportunities, because I firmly believe in the huge unlocked potential there is right across Northern Ireland.

    Opportunities to leverage the UK-wide Industrial Strategy to deliver stronger growth, and capitalise on new Sector Deals to support the industries of the future – like biotech and life sciences – where the UK, and Northern Ireland in particular, has the potential to lead the world.

    To take forward with this Government a comprehensive and ambitious set of City Deals for Northern Ireland to prosper, and to put innovation at the heart of Northern Ireland’s growth.

    To be at the heart of a stronger, fairer and more prosperous United Kingdom, and one that is more outward looking than ever before as we make trade deals around the world – with NI business able to realise their ambitions and make their mark on the world stage.

    And to make use of the considerable freedoms available, getting the devolution of corporation tax back on track to enable Northern Ireland to cut its rates to attract investment and jobs.

    In all of these ways – and more – I see a bright economic future for Northern Ireland.

    And that is a future that the UK Government will support – through all the ways above, as well as through the range of funding streams there will be available, whether our £4.7bn Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund, our £23bn National Productivity Investment Fund, and far more besides.

    And that is what a restored Executive can do for Northern Ireland. It can promote an enterprise-driven economy, somewhere where young entrepreneurs want to invest and the younger generation see opportunities to forge their careers in Northern Ireland – a place where innovation, skills, opportunity and prosperity are at the forefront of the way ahead.

    With a stable, power-sharing government in place, business can rely on the backdrop of stability that removes barriers to finance, to investment, and which boosts confidence to create jobs and opportunities.

    And that is exactly why it must remain our absolute priority in the critical weeks ahead.

    Impact on business/private sector

    All the while, I want to reassure you that the UK Government will always uphold its responsibilities to the people and businesses of Northern Ireland.

    I will continue to keep communications open with businesses right across Northern Ireland. Some of you may be aware of the work of my Business Advisory Group, but more broadly too, my door will always be open to hearing more from the business community.

    For no matter what, I will remain a strong advocate for Northern Ireland and NI business within the Government and beyond.

    Including on the Government’s ongoing work to support Bombardier in the ongoing trade case brought by Boeing.

    Let me be very clear: it is a top priority for this Government to safeguard Bombardier’s operations and its highly skilled workers in Belfast.

    This is obviously a commercial matter, but Ministers across Government have engaged swiftly and extensively with Boeing, as well as the US and Canadian governments on this case.

    We want to encourage Boeing to drop what we see as an unjustified case, and to get round the table and seek negotiated settlement with Bombardier. And we would encourage all those with an interest, whether of a political view or none, to join us in pushing for the same outcome.

    Working to restore devolved government

    So as we approach our dinner, I want to finish by being clear of what we want to see in the weeks to come in the best interests of Northern Ireland.

    Over the last few weeks, the DUP and Sinn Fein have been holding meetings together and this intensive dialogue is continuing.

    These discussions have been constructive and I am hopeful that further progress will be made as they continue. The issues remain relatively small in number and are clearly defined. But difference remains.

    We have also been bringing together the other parties eligible to join an Executive and have had positive engagement with them in line with our commitment to an inclusive process.

    But ultimately we cannot force an agreement.

    That has to come from the parties themselves.

    And we – all of us in this room – want to see those parties come together to…

    …make the important decisions facing Northern Ireland’s public services…

    …to contribute to the important discussions about how the UK will leave the European Union alongside the devolved governments in Scotland and Wales…

    …and to support continued economic growth in Northern Ireland: investing in infrastructure, taking its own decisions on corporation tax, and taking other actions to support businesses large and small…

    To do this it’s vital that they continue to work together to find a solution to their differences.

    And it is my belief that they are committed to doing so… in the interests of everyone in Northern Ireland.

    I have very much welcomed the growing voice of businesses, trade unions, the voluntary sector and others in stressing the need for the return of devolved government – as we have seen for example in the media profiles by business leaders from across different sectors this week.

    And tonight, I would encourage all of you here to continue to make it clear to the political parties just how important the restoration of devolved government is for business, for ordinary people and for Northern Ireland as a whole.

    We all want to see the parties come together and form an Executive. They need to hear from you just how important it is for to you to see them working together for the good of Northern Ireland.

    And deliver the bright positive future for NI we know we can achieve together.

  • Chris Skidmore – 2017 Speech on National Democracy Week

    Below is the text of the speech made by Chris Skidmore, the Parliamentary Secretary at the Cabinet Office, on 15 September 2017.

    Thank you all for coming today.

    This year marks the tenth anniversary of the establishment of the International Day of Democracy by the United Nations General Assembly.

    In November 2007, the Assembly resolved that the 15th of September should be marked as an International Day of Democracy, with all member states invited to commemorate the day in an appropriate manner that contributes to raising public awareness of democracy.

    I thought it would be fitting for us to meet here today, not only to share with each other what progress has been made over the past year in promoting democratic engagement and participation across the United Kingdom, but to recognise that the promotion of the importance of democracy cannot be achieved by government alone.

    Indeed, the resolution passed by the United Nations General Assembly in November 2007, noted that there was a ‘central role’ for the ‘active involvement of civil society organisations’ in celebrating and promoting democracy, equality and freedom.

    I recognise too the crucial role that you and your organisations here today play in creating what should be termed as our Democratic Society.

    Which is why I have invited Women’s Aid and Mencap to share their experience of working with Government to ensure all voices can be heard. I am very pleased that Sian Hawkins from Women’s Aid and Matthew Harrison and Ismail Kaji from Mencap are able to join us today to discuss the progress we have made on the anonymous registration process and the steps we are taking to improve accessibility for people with disabilities.

    Speakers:

    Women’s Aid – anonymous registration
    Mencap – call for evidence on accessibility to elections

    Thank you both, your work is not only valued— it is vitally important that we should continue to work together in partnership, as we continue our pursuit of increased democratic participation. We all know that this work cannot stand still.

    It does not begin or end in the run up to and at the end of an electoral cycle. It must be sustained and be seen to be sustainable, if we are to ensure that as a society, our democratic processes are to be safeguarded and confidence in our democracy renewed.

    Since I was appointed the Minister for the Constitution over a year ago, I have had the opportunity of not only meeting many of you personally, either at the many ministerial roundtables that I have held in the Cabinet Office, or on my Every Voice Matters tour that has taken me across every region and devolved nation; I have also had the privilege of working with you in our common and shared goal.

    That endeavour, simply expressed, has been to ensure that, regardless of background, gender, disability or race, we all want the maximum number of citizens who are eligible to vote, to register to do so and to have their say at the ballot box.

    And I have been grateful to charities and civil society organisations such as Bite the Ballot, Patchwork Foundation, the Citizenship Foundation, Voices 4 Change here today – to name but a few, who have not only given their time and effort to attend the several roundtable discussions that I have held in the Cabinet Office, helping to shape our plans for what more can be done to improve and increase democratic engagement, but have also worked hard to demonstrate what can be done, and what new approaches can be taken, to reach out to those groups in society who are under-registered, and do not participate in our elections.

    All of you have done so much to give a voice to the voiceless; your passion and energy for what you do and have achieved has been clearly evident to me, and I hope that we continue to work together in our shared activity of ensuring that we have a democracy that works for everyone.

    Next year, we will celebrate the centenary of women getting the right to vote, with the passing of the Representation of the People Act on 6 February 1918.

    Not an equal right to vote— importantly, that would only come ten years later, when in July 1928, the Equal Franchise Act was passed. Even so, this milestone in our democratic history increased the proportion of adults qualified to vote from 28% to 78% and opened the door to the modern democratic age.

    Whilst we can talk of our democratic system being one of the oldest in the world, revere our institution of Parliament and traditions of freedom enshrined in documents such as Magna Carta, the fact that we will be celebrating the fact that the equal franchise was created only 90 years ago, highlights that our modern democracy is in fact a very new one.

    The Government has already confirmed that it intends to mark the Suffrage Centenary with the significant investment of £5 million, announced by the Chancellor at the last budget. Cabinet Office are proud to be collaborating with the Government Equalities Office who are leading on this work, and I know that further announcements will be made in due course on how the government intends to both commemorate and celebrate the achievement of women getting the right to vote.

    It is an achievement we must never forget, for their struggle against the burning injustice of their situation demonstrates how fortunate we are in a modern democracy to live with the democratic freedoms that are ours today. Many in the world still do not, and it is right that the International Day of Democracy today gives all democracies in the world the opportunity to reflect upon the importance of our values, often taken for granted.

    For myself, the legacy of the past, of the achievements of those women who fought tirelessly for the vote and to have their say, must also be reflected in our commitment to the future.

    A commitment to future generations, to ensure that the importance of the vote and each individual voice is never eroded; a commitment to those vulnerable groups and people who find that there are still barriers that prevent them from participating in our democracy; and a commitment to ensuring that as a democratic society, though we recognise our differences are part of a healthy democracy, that should not prevent us from coming together to promote a democracy where every voice matters.

    That is why I am delighted that you have been able to join me as I announce today that next year, in the 90th anniversary year of the establishment of the Equal Franchise, the Government intends to establish a new National Democracy Week.

    I aim to establish this as an annual event of national significance, with the inaugural week taking place from 2-6 July 2018, in commemoration of the passing of the 1928 Equal Franchise Act on 2 July. In its first year National Democracy Week will complement the Suffrage Centenary Programme, expanding on the themes of inclusion and representation that underpinned women’s struggle for their right to vote.

    My ambition is for National Democracy Week to increase the number of people who understand and take part in our democratic process. This includes those who feel excluded from the democratic debate, face barriers to participation and are less likely to be registered to vote.

    Many of our partners have told us a focused week of activity is needed to help amplify their messages and build on the momentum of democratic participation in our most recent electoral events.

    There will be many opportunities for organisations from all sectors to take part and I am confident that the creativity, enthusiasm and experience of our partners will be vital in helping achieve our shared objective of a democracy that works for everyone. That is why I believe that stakeholders should have a key role in National Democracy Week and we will announce in due course our plans for formal involvement.

    In the meantime I welcome your ideas for making National Democracy Week 2018 a success and look forward to discussing these with you. We can make a start today: please take a moment if you can to share your first thoughts using the board behind you.

    As we plan ahead, I hope to obtain cross party support for National Democracy Week. I have spoken with the shadow spokesperson on voter engagement, who is happy to support the event in principle, while I am also delighted that the Speaker for the House of Commons has also given his backing. I hope that all MPs, indeed all elected representatives, regardless of their political party, will feel able to get involved in National Democracy Week, and I will be actively encouraging them to do so.

    It is vital that we recognise that when it comes to or democracy and increasing democratic participation, while we as politicians and political parties may disagree on details of policy, we do, in the words of Jo Cox, have more in common than that which divides us. It is in the spirit of those words that I hope everyone who is part of our Democratic Society, regardless of their political allegiance, will embrace National Democracy Week.

    Thank you.