UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: 2017

  • Jeremy Wright – 2017 Speech on International Justice Day

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jeremy Wright, the Attorney General, on International Justice Day on 17 July 2017.

    Good afternoon all. I want to begin by thanking those at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the British Institute for International and Comparative Law for putting today’s conference together. The breadth and depth of experience of those at this event will, I am sure, be invaluable in developing all of our thinking on these incredibly important issues.

    At the outset I want to emphasise that these are issues that I feel strongly about – in December last year I spoke at an event at the United Nations in support of the Foreign Office led campaign to bring Daesh to justice; the focus of that speech was the importance of gathering and preserving evidence to enhance global accountability and today I want to reinforce that message.

    The challenges posed by the conflict in Syria are issues that I encounter day-to-day in my role as Attorney General. As many of you will know, I am Chief Legal Adviser to the Government and in that capacity I attend Cabinet meetings and am a member of the National Security Council. But I also superintend the main prosecuting authorities – the Crown Prosecution Service and the Serious Fraud Office – and have certain quasi-judicial functions which I exercise in the public interest. One of those functions is to decide whether prosecutions for some offences, which include terrorism, genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, should go ahead.

    What this means is that I hold a unique position at the interface of law and politics. So, I know first-hand the challenges faced by the Government and those faced by our domestic prosecutors.

    So in the short time I have, I want to give you a practical view of some of the issues likely to arise when prosecuting crimes committed in conflict areas in our domestic courts. One of the key messages I want to get across is that our prosecutors have the skills and experience to prosecute these invariably very challenging cases and we will pursue them vigorously where there is sufficient evidence to do so.

    All allegations of terrorism, war crimes and crimes against humanity are dealt with by a team of specialist prosecutors in the Counter Terrorism Division of the Crown Prosecution Service and you will hear from Deb Walsh, who leads the CPS Counter Terrorism Unit, a little later. That team is supported by a network of liaison prosecutors who are stationed abroad to work with our international partners. The CPS have obtained more than 90 convictions from more than 60 cases arising from the conflict in Syria and Daesh activities in that region. Whilst the Counter Terrorism Division’s caseload continues to increase significantly, conviction rates have remained high – for 2016 the conviction rate for terrorism was 86%. Rightly, the CPS Counter Terrorism Division has an excellent reputation both at home and abroad.

    To highlight some of the issues under discussion today I am going to talk about two cases that the Division has dealt with.

    In 2014 a man named Imran Khawaja was arrested by the police on returning to the UK from Syria. Khawaja had joined Daesh and was ultimately convicted of various offences including preparing acts of terrorism, attending a place used for terrorist training and receiving weapons training. Part of the evidence against him was a video promoting Daesh that had been posted on social media in which he was shown holding up two severed human heads from a pile of others as he spoke to the camera.

    Khawaja was, unsurprisingly, considered a danger to the public and given an extended sentence. He was not, however, given a life sentence with the Judge commenting that he had taken into account the absence of evidence of [Khawaja] having actually taken part in the combat itself, as opposed to its assistance and glorification.

    And, of course, on the evidence available, the Judge was right to reach that conclusion. The evidence simply did not demonstrate whether and to what extent Khawaja may have been involved in the killing of the men whose heads were shown or, indeed, any other of the many atrocities we know to have taken place.

    This case really encapsulates some of the challenges faced by domestic investigators and prosecutors dealing with offending that has happened in an area of conflict. If evidence is not available from the country where the offence has taken place they can, and do, build a case on the evidence that is available which may be, for example, communications data or material that can be retrieved from electronic devices or social media. However, if there is no evidence from the place where the criminality has taken place, there is a real risk that the most serious offending, in particular conduct that amounts to offences such as torture, crimes against humanity or even genocide, could go unpunished.

    I should also add that investigations based largely on digital material present their own challenges. We have found that huge volumes of data are recovered during investigations and prosecutions. In a terrorism case, on average, 4 terabytes of data is extracted in each investigation with larger investigations typically recovering more than 20 terabytes. To put this in context, a single terabyte is equivalent to roughly a million books of 500 pages each . Identifying relevant and incriminating material from all that is a mammoth task and is made more complicated where foreign languages, code or encryption have been used. Of course these challenges are not exclusive to terrorism cases but they highlight how important it can be to have other sources of evidence available.

    A different case dealt with by the Counter Terrorism Division highlights how effective in country evidence can be in ensuring accountability for the most serious crimes, even some years after an offence has taken place. In 2007 a US armoured vehicle was on patrol in the area of North Western Baghdad when it set off an improvised explosive device, or IED. Tragically, the explosion killed one of the soldiers inside the vehicle, a Sergeant Johnson.

    Military personnel recovered that device and many others that were used against coalition forces. Forensic examination of the device and three other similar devices was able to demonstrate that a British citizen named Anis Sardar had been directly involved in the construction and/or deployment of these bombs with the intent required for an offence of murder. It is not possible to go into all the details of the evidence now in what was a complicated case, but key features of it related to fingerprint marks taken from the devices, evidence of similarities between them, the unusual nature of their construction, and, the fact they had been deployed in a small area of Iraq over a short time period. Sardar returned from Iraq in 2007 and was arrested in 2014 after it had been established that his fingerprints matched those on some of the IEDs. In May 2015 he was convicted after a trial of the murder of Sergeant Johnson and conspiracy to murder. Ultimately he received a life sentence with a minimum term of 35 years.

    In conclusion I want to reiterate that prosecutors in this country can and will bring domestic prosecutions for offences committed during conflict where the evidence is available and our domestic courts have jurisdiction to do so. These cases will often present significant and sometimes unique problems but we have the skills and experience to build the strongest case possible with the evidence available. But, the fundamental precursor to all this work is the availability of reliable evidence and so the key to ensuring that the perpetrators are held to account and that victims receive justice, is gathering and preserving the evidence left behind. This requires the closest possible cooperation with those on the ground, and it is a huge challenge, but to achieve all we can in the delivery of international criminal justice, it is a challenge we must overcome.

  • Theresa May – 2017 Speech at London Pride Reception

    Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May, the Prime Minister, at a Pride Reception on 19 July 2017.

    It is a very great pleasure to welcome you all to this reception today to celebrate the contribution that lesbian, gay, bi and trans people make to our country.

    We meet, of course, during Pride season – a joyful time when communities come together in a spirit of freedom, tolerance and equality.

    Pride in London a couple of weeks ago was a huge success and I’m sure that the first ever UK Pride, to be held in Hull, our Capital of Culture, this weekend will also be a huge success.

    I’m delighted that we have some of the team from both, and other Pride celebrations, here today.

    50th Anniversary

    And of course this year is a special year because fifty years ago this month, the passage of the Sexual Offences Act in England and Wales marked an important step towards legal equality for LGBT people in the UK.

    It was just one step, and it took many more years before it became widely accepted that a person’s sexual orientation and gender identity are things to respect and celebrate. The law in Scotland did not change until 1980 and Northern Ireland in 1982. And only this year did my colleague John Glen’s private member’s bill finally extend this to the merchant navy, closing a sad chapter in our legal history.

    This anniversary reminds us how far we have come, but also how long it has taken to get us here, and also how much more there still is to do. We should take this opportunity to remember the work of those who campaigned so long to deliver the change we have seen over the past fifty years. They braved abuse and ridicule, violence and legal persecution in their tireless quest for justice and human rights.

    They knew that what they stood for was right; they fought for it with courage and determination; and they made our country a better place as a result.

    Changing hearts and minds

    And like millions of other people in this country, I have changed my own mind on a number of the policy issues which I was confronted with when I first became an MP twenty years ago. If those votes were today, yes I would vote differently. And when I was a member of the shadow cabinet before the 2010 general election, I was proud to establish a Contract for Equalities which first committed my Party to taking forward equal marriage. I was proud to give it my full support in government as one of the sponsors of the bill which delivered it. I believe that equal marriage will be one of the proudest legacies of my Party’s time in office.

    Equal marriage in England and Wales was passed with cross-party support and it is a great thing for our country that there is now a broad political consensus in support of equality and human rights. The UK Parliament is now one of the most diverse in the world, with forty-five out gay, lesbian or bi MPs – six more than in the previous Parliament. 17 of those are Conservatives and I am proud to lead a Cabinet with two out members, and to have other gay and lesbian ministers serving in government.

    Now I know that my Party has a mixed record on LGBT issues and, like other parties, we have made mistakes in the past. But there are things we are proud of too. It was a Conservative MP, Humphry Berkeley, who first tried to change the law on homosexuality in the 1960s, before he lost his seat and a Labour MP, Leo Abse, took up the cause. It was a Conservative peer, Lord Arran, who took the Bill through the Lords. A future Conservative leader, Margaret Thatcher, was amongst the MPs who voted for it. A Conservative Health Secretary, Norman Fowler, put in place a world-leading response to the AIDS crisis in the 1980s – and I think that Norman is here with us this afternoon. John Major ended the ban on lesbian and gay people serving as diplomats. And of course David Cameron delivered same sex marriage.

    So I am proud that, just like the country as a whole, my Party has come a long way. Respect for the rights of LGBT people is now an indelible part of modern Conservatism and modern Conservative values – and that is how it will always remain.

    And I want to say something very directly. Because I know that there is concern about the agreement which we have made with the DUP. But this agreement does nothing to weaken the Conservative Party’s absolute commitment to LGBT equality and human rights.

    And let me be even clearer. When it comes to those rights across the United Kingdom, I want all British citizens to enjoy the fullest freedoms and protections. That includes equal marriage. Now with devolution in the UK, that is not a decision for the UK Government to make. But my position is very clear. I think that LGBT people in Northern Ireland should have the same rights as people across the rest of the UK.

    LGBT rights are human rights

    And our ambitions are not just restricted to this country: because LGBT rights are human rights – and as a UK Government, we will always stand up for them.

    In some Commonwealth countries discriminatory laws still exist – often directly based on the very laws which we repealed in this country fifty years ago. So Britain has a special responsibility to help change hearts and minds and we will ensure that these important issues are discussed at next year’s Commonwealth Heads of Government Conference, which we will be hosting here in the UK.

    In countries where human rights are abused and people face violence and persecution, the UK will continue to challenge, at the highest political levels, the governments concerned. That is the case with the sickening treatment which LGBT people are enduring in Chechnya today. It is a mark of shame for the Russian Federation, and we have made that clear to the Russian government.

    As we leave the EU, Britain will forge a new global role and we will use our position to provide even stronger global leadership on this issue in the years ahead.

    At home, we know that the battle has not yet been won. Everyone should be free to enjoy their lives free from harassment and discrimination, happy and proud of who they are. In particular, no child should ever be made to feel afraid or ashamed because of who they are. We need to do all we can to build a country which works for everyone, where people of all backgrounds are free to be themselves and fulfil their full potential.

    So we are supporting schools to tackle homophobic bullying. We have seen encouraging signs that it is in decline, but we must keep up the work to tackle it. Part of that is ensuring that there are strong and positive role models for young people and just earlier this afternoon, before I came down here to this reception, I was delighted to be able to bestow a Point of Light award on someone who has worked to ensure those role models are more visible.

    Rory Smith experienced homophobia in the classroom when he was growing up, and to help other people facing the same challenging experience, he returned to his old school as an adult to help speak out about his experiences as a gay teenager. He helped set up a charity, ‘Just Like Us’, which sends other positive LGBT role models into schools to share their experiences, challenge stereotypes and inspire young people to be themselves.

    But while homophobic bullying may be in decline, we know that transphobic bullying remains a very serious problem. Indeed when it comes to rights and protections for trans people, there is still a long way to go. That is why the government is reviewing the Gender Recognition Act and we hope to make an announcement very soon on the action we will take to reform it by making it less medical and less intrusive.

    Conclusion

    Fifty years on from the 1967 Act, we can look back on a great deal of progress made, but we do so in the sober realisation that there is a long way still to go. I say to the tireless campaigners here today, and to those who are not: your inspirational work has created a better future for LGBT people in Britain and around the world. I hope you all have a fantastic time here at this reception. Thank you to everybody for all that you do.

  • Boris Johnson – 2017 Speech at Lowy Institute

    Below is the text of the speech made by Boris Johnson, the Foreign Secretary, at the Lowy Institute in Sydney on 27 July 2017.

    Good evening. It is great to be here in this wonderful Town Hall, alongside my friend and colleague Julie Bishop, and with Stephen Lowy and Michael Fullilove.

    When I first came back to Britain after a year in Australia – at the age of 19 – it would be fair to say that I bore a pretty heavy imprint from my time in this country.

    My conversation was studded with words like “bonzer, mate” or “you little ripper”, and on the streets of London in broad daylight I insisted on wearing the same “Stubbies” daks – shorts of appalling brevity – that I had worn in the bush until my then girlfriend said that it was her or the stubbies daks.

    I am not sure how the contest was resolved. After years in the UK educational system my infatuation with Australian dress, manners, vocabulary and general cast of mind was so intense that I had become a kind of unconscious Les Patterson – a self-appointed and unwanted cultural ambassador.

    In so far as my friends were able to understand me, it helped that this was the time when Neighbours and Kylie Minogue were propelling Australian life onto our screens, and when young Australians were beginning to pop up across the planet in a phenomenon that was set to music in 1980 by the band Men At Work.

    You will recall that the peregrinations of the man from Down Under – how he met a man from Bombay with not much to say; how he met the man from Brussels 6 foot 4 inches and full of muscles, and he asked him do you speak a my language and he just smiled and gave him a vegemite sandwich – the point being that he was himself Australian.

    And from that lyric you deduce that second characteristic of the Australians – not only a fierce sense of identity and independence, but also a truly global country, engaged with the world in a way that is positive and fearless and upbeat.

    So keep those two features in your head – strong sense of national political and cultural identity, combined with a truly global outlook – as I ask you to conduct a thought experiment.

    I am told that Australia has just joined Eurovision. All I can say as a representative of a country that often seems to score nil points is – good luck with that. But protract that logic.

    Imagine that in 1972 Geoffrey Rippon and Ted Heath had been able by some miracle to persuade our friends in Paris that distance was no obstacle. Suppose that by her abundant self-evident influences from Britain, Greece, Italy and elsewhere it had been decided that Australia was really European; a great, glorious syncretic European country and therefore eligible for accession – and suppose the French had said oui, and Australia had been admitted to the Common Market. What would have happened?

    Who would have wanted Australia to join the Common Market by the way? Let’s have a little retrospective referendum here…

    Well, I think you could argue that there would have been advantages and disadvantages. Australia would certainly have continued to catapult huge quantities of butter and beef to Europe – more than ever, perhaps. But other things would not have been so easy.

    I mean no criticism of the model and methods chosen by our EU friends but you wouldn’t be running your own competition law or your public procurement programmes and you wouldn’t be able to tailor your green energy programmes to suit Australia’s needs.

    You would find yourselves regularly out-voted in the Council of Ministers on hours of work or the definition of chocolate. You would never have been able to come up with your own immigration policy – the fabled points-based system.

    And for the last 44 years you would have had to conform to the Common Agricultural Policy, and we must face the terrible probability that the EU’s ruthless quota and intervention policies – designed to protect existing Mediterranean producers – would have meant that Australia’s now legendary winemakers would never have got beyond the first tentative vintages because the whole lot would have been compulsorily boiled up and turned into bioethanol; and there would be nothing from the Hunter valley on our tables tonight.

    And above all an awful lot of your brightest diplomats would be spending their lives trying to stop things from happening, grappling in distant corridors with brilliant graduates of the Ecole Nationale d’Administration, instead of actually trying to get things done.

    And even if you think I am being paranoid – even if you think it might not have been as bad as all that – I think we can look at Australia today and after 26 years of continuous growth, and with per capita GDP 25 per cent higher than in the UK, I think we can say that it was not absolutely necessary for Australia to join the Common Market.

    Indeed, it is safe to say that it was not necessary for Australia to join any bloc or grouping organised on the integrationist principles of the EU.

    Australia is not required to send well remunerated parliamentarians to an APEC parliament; and there isn’t a single APEC court of justice or currency, called the abalone, or whatever.

    Australia hasn’t been required in the last few decades to sign up to a series of treaties designed to create a single political unit out of a patchwork of 27 countries; and no one claims that such a process is essential for Australia’s economic health and well-being, nor that this prevents Australia being a successful member of international economic organisations or a committed multilateral player.

    So when we look at the forward momentum of Australia in the last few decades you can perhaps see why we in Britain are inclined to take with a pinch of salt some of the very slight gloom and negativity that is emanating from some distinguished quarters about the decision of the British people to leave the European Union.

    And you can see why we might be moved to reject their notion that little old Britain is just too small, too feeble, too isolated, to cope on its own.

    They say the UK is like some poor wriggling crustacean about to be deprived of its shell. I say – don’t come the raw prawn with me.

    On the contrary, when we look at what Australia has achieved, we can see grounds for boundless excitement and optimism.

    It is true that we may not have all Australia’s sunshine and other natural advantages; but we are the fifth biggest economy on earth, rated number two or perhaps number one for soft power, a permanent member of the UN Security Council, the second biggest contributor to NATO, we have the greatest financial capital anywhere in the world, with the biggest creative, culture and media sector anywhere in our hemisphere.

    And we are like Australians in that our population is possessed of the most extraordinary wanderlust – one in ten of Britons now alive is estimated to be living outside Britain, a higher proportion than any other rich country.

    Not just diplomats and aid workers either – though we certainly make a huge contribution to international activity. If you look at the five worst current humanitarian disasters – in Syria, South Sudan, Somalia, Yemen and North East Nigeria – you will find that the three biggest donors are the US, the UK, and the EU; and that is before you even take account of the sixth or so of the EU aid budget we also pay.

    We are hugely proud of that record – but of course we are not just talking of public officials. We are talking about 6 million bankers and journalists and artists and lawyers and athletes and – I kid you not – a policeman from Uxbridge who tours the world testing water slides: 6 million Brits spread out across the world in a great bright throbbing web like a scene from Avatar.

    And we have the chance now as we leave the arrangements of the European Union to become even more global, and when I say more global I do not mean for a minute that we will become less European.

    The Channel is not about to get wider. Britain is not going to sprout funnels and steam across to the Mid Atlantic. We remain historically, culturally, intellectually, emotionally and architecturally European.

    Shakespeare is just as European as Michelangelo or Cervantes or Beethoven. Indeed, when you consider the range of his locations: Denmark, Austria, France, Greece, Italy, Cyprus, Croatia, Turkey, to say nothing of Lebanon, Syria and the New World – I think you could argue that he was more European in his interests than any other great artist.

    This European-ness is not just words: we show our commitment to Europe by our moral and military willingness to come to the defence of our friends, a commitment that we make unconditionally, irrespective of our EU negotiations.

    It is 100 years since British and Australian soldiers stood side by side in the Third Battle of Ypres, in what I still believe it is right to think of as a fight against tyranny.

    Today there are 800 British soldiers in Estonia, almost a quarter of the NATO mission in Eastern Europe, there to give reassurance in the face of any potential provocations from the east. We will continue to stick up for the rights of Ukrainians, threatened by Russian aggression and revanchism.

    We will work with our friends in the western Balkans, where there is currently a political and geo-strategic arm wrestle taking place; and we will continue to help them to achieve what they see as their Euro-Atlantic destiny.

    We will help our Italian partners as they face the challenge of migration from North Africa– cracking down on the vile people traffickers who put their victims to sea in leaky boats.

    We will continue to argue for balance and moderation in our European foreign policy; and yes we join our friends in deploring the actions of the Turkish authorities in arresting and imprisoning journalists and human rights activists, including Amnesty International campaigners. We call on Turkey to release them from pre-trial detention, ensure fair and speedy trials, and to find a new way forward.

    But we also believe that we must engage with Turkey, and that it would be a great mistake to demonise or to push that extraordinary country away from us. That is not the right way forward, either.

    And we believe that this European engagement – military, diplomatic, working together to defeat all those who would do us harm – is in our interests, in our partners’ interests – in our mutual interest.

    And that mutual interest is nowhere more blatant than in the negotiations on trade that are about to begin.

    I wore this morning a sweater derived from Spanish sheep, reared in New Zealand, whose wool was shorn and shipped to Italy where it was turned into cloth that was shipped to China – imagine that vast triangle – where it was stitched together and then back to New Zealand before being exported to Britain, France, all over the world. Think of that woolly jumper as it bounds over borders and barriers and customs posts with not a bleat of effort or exertion.

    That is how trade works today, with standards and supply chains that are increasingly global; and with the help of the excellent negotiators on both sides I have no doubt that we will get a great deal that preserves and even enhances the frictionless movement of goods that is in the interests of both sides of the Channel.

    And I am sure that we will get a solution that does nothing to undermine the interests of London’s financial sector, because the real rivals of the City are not in Paris or Frankfurt; they are in Hong Kong and New York and Singapore – and in the end I think everyone understands that London is an asset for the entire continent.

    And when we do that deal I believe we will create a solution that has been so long in the making – a strong EU, buttressed and supported by a strong UK, with each side trading freely with the other, and with the UK able to think about new opportunities in the rest of the world.

    There is nowhere more exciting to do that than here in the Indo-Pacific; here where there is a third of the global economy, around two-thirds of the global population – here where the growth is.

    And that is why we have decided once again that the UK must be more present, more active, more engaged in this region. and in each of the three countries I have visited in the last week – Japan, New Zealand, here in Australia – I have heard people ask for Britain to get more involved.

    And we will be here as a partner and friend; aiming at good relations with all the major countries of this region – not choosing between them. Our relationship with China, the engine of global growth, will be crucial now and in the future. As will our deep and long-standing partnerships with Japan and India. And of course those with you in Australia and our friends in New Zealand.

    But we need to do more. So I can say tonight that after leaving the EU, we will be seeking to strengthen our own national relationship with ASEAN as an institution.

    We want these partnerships because they are a big part of how we uphold the liberal international order, in Asia as elsewhere.

    That is why last week I stood shoulder to shoulder with my colleague Fumio Kishida, the Japanese foreign minister, in denouncing the nuclear adventurism of Kim Jong Un. A man who reportedly deals with his enemies by strapping them to the side of a mountain and shelling them with an anti-aircraft gun.

    That is why we stand up for the rights of the people of Hong Kong and for the ‘One country, two systems’ principle to be upheld – and I thank Julie Bishop for making that same point when she spoke a couple of nights ago.

    In the South China Sea, we urge all parties to respect freedom of navigation and international law, including the ruling of the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague.

    We are also ready once again to articulate our commitment to international order with money and a military presence.

    That is why we last year sent our Typhoons for the first time to train with Japan, South Korea, and Malaysia, as one of the few countries able to deploy air power 7,000 miles from our shores. That is why one of the first missions of our 2 vast new aircraft carriers will be to sail through the Straits of Malacca, the route that currently accommodates a quarter of global trade.

    And if you look at these vessels you will see that they are not only longer than the Palace of Westminster but more persuasive than most of the arguments you will hear in the House of Commons.

    Not because we have enemies in this region – on the contrary, as I have made clear, we are keen to intensify our friendships – but because we believe in upholding the rule of law.

    And that brings me to the final key point I want to make tonight. Winston Churchill identified what he saw as the special genius of the English-speaking peoples.

    For my part I think we must be careful to avoid any such conceit or complacency that English-speakers are especially blessed; but it is certainly true that there is a series of interconnected ideas that have been highly successful, and that I certainly believe in.

    They are democracy, the rule of law, habeas corpus, an independent judiciary, the absolute freedom to make fun of politicians, and above all the freedom to live your life as you please provided you do not harm the interests of others.

    It is because they know that they can fulfil themselves in that way that people of talent are drawn to such beautiful cities as London and Sydney – and it is that very freedom that makes these cities so prosperous and so innovative.

    And it is to defend and expand that ideal – of freedom under the law – that Britain and Australia work hand in hand; because we know that ideal is not really the property or copyright of the English-speaking peoples – but something that belongs or can belong to all humanity.

    Today with Julie Bishop and our defence colleagues we discussed every issue under the sun. I must tell you that in the course of those talks we have over the last 24 hours had an almost embarrassing failure to disagree.

    We are building greater global security together, and now we look forward to intensifying the trading and commercial relationships that greater security makes possible.

    We both have great Commonwealth events next year – a great London Summit and I am sure a fantastic Gold Coast Commonwealth Games – and we both believe in the Commonwealth’s capacity to strengthen common values among its members from here, across Asia, into the Pacific.

    After we leave the EU I am confident that Australia will be at, or near, the front of the queue for a new Free Trade Agreement with Britain; an agreement that could boost even further what we do together.

    After all we already do so much. I have just met British engineers rebuilding Sydney Opera house. And I know only too well the debt of my own city, London, to Frank Lowy – now Sir Frank – a man who kept investing even in the darkest days of the 2008 crash, and who kept building even when pretty well every other crane had been removed.

    We trade so much together – you sell us skateboards; we sell you boomerangs. We sell you marmite, you sell us vegemite – and I would not like to speculate on who does better on the deal.

    You send us Patricia Hewitt and Lynton Crosby. We send you Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott.

    Never in history has there been such a happy, swollen, distance-obliterating pipeline of people and ideas and goods and services, and as that flow increases in pace and volume let us remember that our success is made possible and guaranteed by the ideals we share. They are not unchallenged. They have their enemies and their detractors.

    But they have stood us in good stead and we can be absolutely confident that they will succeed triumphantly in the years ahead. Thank you very much.

  • Liam Fox – 2017 Speech on Brexit and Global Trade

    Below is the text of the speech made by Liam Fox, the Secretary of State for International Trade and the President of the Board of Trade, in Mexico City on 27 July 2017.

    Good morning.

    It is a pleasure to be here today in Mexico City, to speak to you about Britain’s new place in the world, and the growing importance of the relationship between the UK and Mexico.

    I would like to extend my thanks to HSBC for hosting such an excellent event, and giving me the opportunity to share the government’s vision of the UK’s commercial and economic future.

    It is fitting that we are hosted by HSBC, the largest UK investor in Mexico. Their presence here is not only an important part of the commercial ties that already connect our nations, but also indicative of the future direction of that relationship.

    Last night, I was fortunate enough to enjoy dinner with my colleague, Minister for the Economy Ildefonso Guajardo.

    We stressed the need to redouble our efforts to increase bilateral trade between the Mexico and the UK, especially given the wealth of opportunities that exist in both countries.

    Like me, Minister Guajardo sees the need to champion global free trade, and ensure that the larger economies of the world, such as the UK and Mexico, work together to reverse a rising tide of protectionism.

    Our agreement on these key issues is symbolic of the wider relationship between Mexico and the United Kingdom.

    Fundamentally, our two nations have a very similar global outlook. So much so, that we have hardly ever disagreed on the world stage.

    Time and again, at the UN, the G20, and the WTO, the UK and Mexico have shown a united front, working together to address global issues.

    This closeness has been underlined by the personal ties that continue to link our two countries, as increasing numbers of people move between Mexico and the UK to travel, work, and study.

    But there is more to do. The level of trade and commerce between two large economies can, and should, be far greater.

    At our meeting last night, Secretary Guajardo and I launched an informal Trade Dialogue, aiming at discussing how to ensure that the preferential arrangements that the UK currently enjoys with Mexico remain in place as we leave the EU.

    At the same time, we reiterated our support for an ambitious and speedy outcome to the modernisation of the EU-Mexico FTA.

    As I said last night, there are no conceivable circumstances in which the UK would not want to have a free trade agreement in place with Mexico.

    Going forward, our priority must be to ensure stability, continuity and transitional agreements that minimise disruption for businesses.

    In the same way, the UK wants the closest possible relationship with our European neighbours, with no interruption of our trading relationship.

    This will provide the most stable platform for those companies from other countries, such as Mexico, who use Britain as an access point to Europe.

    Outside the EU, it is Britain’s ambition to be a tireless advocate of global free trade, working with allies such as Mexico to ensure that the voice of commercial freedom is never drowned out by the increasing siren song of protectionism.

    I am here today in Mexico City not only to celebrate the existing relationship between our nations, but to look to the opportunities of the future.

    It is clear to any observer that Mexico’s star is in the ascendancy.

    Buoyed by a far-reaching package of economic reforms, including opening up the energy and telecoms sectors, and reforming the financial and education system, your economy has maintained steady growth throughout the global slowdown.

    British businesses believe in Mexico, and are matching that faith with investment. Petrofac and Premier Oil have long been involved in the energy sector.

    I was delighted to hear of the recent discovery of one billion plus barrels of light oil in the Zama-1 field, a resource which British companies will have a key role in extracting.

    Mexico City’s new international airport has been designed by Norman Foster, in a collaboration with distinguished Mexican architect Fernando Romero.

    Hamley’s, a British institution, has opened a store here, and, soon, state of the art British double-decker buses will be a regular sight on Reforma.

    To top it off, BP has recently become the first foreign oil company to open petrol stations in Mexico, and Shell will follow next month. The belief that UK businesses have in Mexico is palpable.

    The UK boasts more Mexican masters’ students studying in our universities than anywhere else in Europe. Last year, Mexican and British scientists became the first in the world to develop a vaccine against Chikungunya, a tropical disease spread by mosquitos.

    Already, our two countries enjoy a remarkably successful relationship.

    Earlier, I touched on our shared beliefs and global attitudes. I understand that Mexico has voted more times with the UK in the UN and multilateral institutions than with any other nation.

    This shows a remarkable, and important, convergence in opinion, especially for two countries situated over 5,000 miles from one another.

    This can, and will, be the foundation of a deeper trading relationship, as Britain looks to build new trading relationships with new friends around the world.

    I have spoken of how companies from across the United Kingdom are seizing the opportunities that Mexico has to offer.

    But trading relationships have to go both ways, and the UK promises huge prospects for Mexican firms.

    As the world’s fifth largest economy, there is a huge market for everything from oil and gas, tourism, manufactured goods and food and drink.

    The structure of our economy also has the potential to be hugely complementary to Mexico’s interests. Our world-leading expertise in industries such as transport, manufacturing, education, and healthcare allow UK companies to help their Mexican counterparts grow domestically.

    As the world’s leading financial services centre, London is well-placed to lend its expertise to Mexican industry, whether through financing, insurance or business services.

    And although there is currently only one Mexican company registered on the London Stock Exchange, we would encourage many more to follow.

    For example, we are world leaders in green finance, and UK firms have worked closely with Mexico to support the development of Mexico’s green bond market and clean energy certificates.

    Mexico is now the leader in Latin America at issuing green bonds, including a $2 billion bond, underwritten by HSBC, for the new Mexico City airport, a shining example of successful British/Mexican collaboration in design and innovation.

    The UK is home to a globally unique concentration of skills, knowledge, expertise and industries. We are constantly ranked among the best places on earth to start and grow a business, thanks in part to our progressive regulatory environment, robust legal system, and highly skilled workforce.

    These intrinsic strengths will always remain. Indeed, the UK attracted more foreign direct investment projects than ever before in the year 2016 to 2017, with more than 2,200 projects recorded.

    Already, companies from throughout Mexico are coming to take advantage of all the UK has to offer, including Cemex, Mexichem, Bimbo, Gruma, Kidzania, Monex and Jose Cuervo, to name a few.

    They are the pioneers of what will become an extremely fruitful relationship.

    They are also innovators and this is something else that unites us. I am delighted that Innovation is GREAT features today at the breakfast, as part of a year-long Innovation campaign at the embassy.

    And I understand that distinguished Mexican chef, Martha Ortiz, will be opening a new, top class Mexican restaurant in Central London in September.

    This will help promote appreciation of Mexico’s outstanding cuisine and hospitality, a little of which I have already experienced in my short visit.

    In the course of my meetings many have asked about the implications of Brexit for our bilateral relations. It is true that as we leave the EU we are opening a new chapter in our history.

    For the first time in more than four decades, the UK will enjoy a fully independent trade policy, free to build closer trading ties with countries around the world, with partners new and old.

    But let me make one thing clear. Any who are tempted to see our exit from the EU as evidence of Britain looking inwards should think again. We have chosen another path – to embrace the wider horizons of a truly global Britain.

    That means looking for new opportunities and it represents a willingness to invest the time and energy to make the necessary partnerships succeed over a long period.

    With increased bilateral trade, increased investment, and a strong strategic partnership, the UK-Mexico trading relationship is set to change radically. It can be a step change in our mutual commitment.

    Already, we are working together to support each other’s growth and development through exciting work streams and partnerships such as the Prosperity Fund and Senior Business Leaders Group, and I am delighted that several members of the group are represented here today.

    As we work together to promote the trade and investment opportunities that exist between our two countries, our relationship will go from strength to strength.

    And as Britain embraces the wider world, we will stand together with Mexico to defend free trade, and all the transformative prosperity that it can bring.

    After all, it is through our friends and allies that we achieve our ambitions.

    Thank you.

  • Michael Gove – 2017 Speech on a Green Brexit

    Below is the text of the speech made by Michael Gove, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, on 21 July 2017.

    Safeguarding our future

    It is a particular pleasure to be here today in WWF’s magnificent Living Planet Centre. It’s an inspirational example of how buildings can contribute to environmental sustainability. The WWF’s commitment to worldwide conservation, to robust research and to engaging people as well as policy makers in these critical issues has ensured it has provided a wonderful example of environmental leadership. I hope that we will continue to work closely together, and with other organisations represented here, as we forge our future approach to the environment.

    In 1970, the incoming Conservative Government of Edward Heath created this country’s first Department of the Environment. The new Department published a White Paper on our natural heritage in 1972 which was entitled ‘How Do you Want to Live?’ The Department, with perhaps more idealism, or less due diligence, than has subsequently been the case in Government communications strategy, commissioned Philip Larkin to write a poetic prologue.

    And his poem – subsequently titled ‘Going, Going’ – is a lament for the erosion and destruction of our natural environment under the pressures of corporate greed, devil take the hindmost individualism, and modernist brutalism.

    And That Will Be England Gone,

    The Shadows, The Meadows, The Lanes,

    The Guildhalls, The Carved Choirs.

    There’ll Be Books; It Will Linger On

    In Galleries; But All That Remains

    For Us Will Be Concrete And Tyres.

    Most Things Are Never Meant.

    This Won’t Be, Most Likely; But Greeds

    And Garbage Are Too Thick-Strewn

    To Be Swept Up Now, Or Invent

    Excuses That Make Them All Needs.

    I Just Think It Will Happen, Soon.

    Of course, Philip Larkin was never the most cheerful of voices in English literature but the warning note that he sounded in ‘Going, Going’ was profound – and prescient.

    In the 45 years since he wrote we have lost green space, cut down trees, sacrificed meadow and heath land, polluted our earth, air and water, we placed species in danger and we’ve run down the renewable resources – from fish to soil – on which our future depends. Farmland bird numbers have been cut in half, species have been devastated, bees and other pollinators threatened.

    And at the same time, across the globe, we’ve seen climate change threaten both fragile natural habitats and developing human societies, we’ve allowed extractive and exploitative political systems to lay waste to natural resources and we’ve placed species of plants and animals in new and mortal danger while gambling with the future health of the whole world.

    Now, I am an environmentalist first because I care about the fate of fellow animals, and I draw inspiration from nature and I believe that we need beauty in our lives as much as we need food and shelter. We can never be fully ourselves unless we recognise that we are shaped by forces, biological and evolutionary, that tie us to this earth that we share with others even as we dream of capturing the heavens.

    But I am also an environmentalist because of hard calculation as well as the promptings of the heart. We need to maintain and enhance the natural world around us, or find ourselves facing disaster.

    Unless we take the right environmental action we risk seeing more species die out, with potentially undreamt of consequences in terms of the health and balance of nature. We risk flood damage to the homes in which we live and devastation to the islands that others know as their only home. We will see the forward march of deserts compelling populations to be on the move and the growing shortage of water creating new conflicts and exacerbating old rivalries.

    Indeed, ultimately, the air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat and the energy which powers enterprise, are all threatened if we do not practice proper stewardship of the planet.

    If we consider the fate of past societies and civilisations, it has been, again and again, environmental factors that have brought about collapse or crisis. The Pulitzer Prize-winning academic Jared Diamond has, brilliantly, anatomised the forces which led to past civilisational destruction – deforestation and habitat destruction; soil problems such as erosion, salinization, and soil fertility losses; water management problems; overhunting; overfishing; and the effects of introduced species on native species.

    He has also outlined the contemporary environmental threats that we now face with irresistible clarity – climate change, the build-up of toxins in our soil, air and oceans and the spiralling level of resource consumption, waste generation and demand for energy which all threaten human progress in the future.

    Now, it is because environmental degradation is such a threat to future prosperity and security that I deeply regret President Trump’s approach towards the Paris Agreement on Climate Change. I sincerely hope the recent indications that the President may be minded to think again do signal a change of heart. International co-operation to deal with climate change is critical if we’re to safeguard our planet’s future and the world’s second biggest generator of carbon emissions cannot simply walk out of the room when the heat is on. It’s our planet too and America needs to know that we can only resolve this problem together.

    And it’s absolutely vital that we think ahead, coolly and rationally, to do what we can to both move towards greener energy generation and adapt to changing temperatures. The devastating impact climate change can have on societies has been brilliantly brought out in Geoffrey Parker’s history of the seventeenth century, ‘Global Crisis’. Parker charts the collapse of hemispherically-dominant regimes from China to Spain and the outbreak of devastating civil wars in the UK and across Europe all driven, or exacerbated, by the resource challenges generated by climate change. History teaches us that unless we prepare for these challenges we will be undone.

    Now, of course, there is a huge difference in the scale and duration of seventeenth century climate impacts and the current man-made crisis. And the technological breakthroughs that mankind has pioneered in recent years, the greater scientific knowledge that we now enjoy, the computational power of the machinery in our own hands, means that we live in a radically different world to our ancestors.

    But we live on the same planet. The only one we know which can sustain human life. And the history of humanity on this planet tells us that, again and again, societies and civilisations have been gripped by hubris, by the belief that this time is different. That the cycles of the past have been broken.

    And we have seen, recently and all too graphically, how hubris in the financial markets, the belief among some that they had become not just a global elite but masters of the universe, led to economic disaster.

    Science, technology, computational power are certainly critical to shaping our future, and as I shall go on to argue at greater length later in this speech, but if we imagine they can liberate us from the need to safeguard our environment, to protect the species we share this planet with, to protect and purify our air and our oceans, to keep our earth fertile and ensure that we can renew our natural resources, then we will have succumbed to the hubris which has wrought such devastation in the past, and which in the future may condemn us to much worse than economic hardship.

    So we should not aim simply to halt or slow the deterioration of our environment. We must raise our ambitions so we seek to restore nature and reverse decline. This government was elected on a pledge to be the first to leave the environment in a better state than we inherited it. While the need for action on the environment has rarely been greater there are also, at this moment, forces at work which make me optimistic about our capacity to rise to this challenge – and in particular optimistic about the role our country can play.

    The future can be better

    The first reason for optimism is the idealism and commitment of so many in our society, of all ages but especially among young people.

    Environmental organisations – from WWF to the RSPB, the Wildlife Trusts to Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth – enjoy memberships in the tens and hundreds of thousands, and also the support of millions more and a capacity to move hearts more powerful than any other set of institutions in our civil society.

    And their campaigning energy and idealism, while occasionally uncomfortable for those of us in power, who have to live in a world of compromise and deal-making, is vital to ensuring we continue to make progress in protecting and enhancing our environment.

    On everything from alerting us all to the danger posed by plastics in our oceans and nitrogen oxide in our air, to the threats posed to elephants by poaching and cod by over-fishing, it’s been environmental organisations which have driven Governments to make progress. They have demonstrated that we can, with sufficient will, halt and reverse those trends and forces degrading the natural world and we can, if we have that will, improve the environment we are handing on to the next generation.

    Which takes me to the challenge I – this Government – and our country – face at this time.

    The decision to leave the European Union has been interpreted in many ways, and I won’t revisit the debates now which led to that decision being made. Now that decision has been made, it creates new opportunities, and challenges, for the British Government. And nowhere more so than in the area of environmental policy.

    We now have an historic opportunity to review our policies on agriculture, on land use, on biodiversity, on woodlands, marine conservation, fisheries, pesticide licensing, chemical regulation, animal welfare, habitat management, waste, water purity, air quality and so much more.

    Leaving the European Union means leaving the Common Agricultural Policy, leaving the Common Fisheries Policy, and taking back control of environmental policy.

    And in this unfrozen moment new possibilities occur.

    Now, I can understand why, for some, this is a moment of profound concern.

    The European Union has, in a number of ways, been a force for good environmentally. Our beaches are cleaner, habitats are better protected and pesticides more effectively regulated as a consequence of agreements that we reached since we entered the EU. And I have no intention of weakening the environmental protections that we have put in place while in the European Union.

    But the EU has not always been a force for good environmentally. In this decade alone, the EU has ordered member states to vote against international action to protect polar bears and to abstain on measures to protect bluefin tuna. And as the UK Climate Change Act shows, this country is more than capable of bringing in our own strong legislation to protect the environment, independent of the EU.

    And it’s important that as we look at the history of EU policy, we recognise that environmental policy must also be insulated from capture by producer interests who put their selfish agenda ahead of the common good. And here the EU has been weak recently. The EU’s handling of diesel emissions, the way in which car manufacturers rigged testing procedures, and the consequent risk to public health which we have to deal with, do not reflect well on the European Union’s internal processes. The EU’s laboratory-based mechanisms for testing emissions have proven inadequate, and they have allowed manufacturers to game – or directly cheat – the system. Outside the European Union, we can do much better. And we will be saying more about this when our Air Quality Plan is published later this month.

    But the two areas where the EU has most clearly failed to achieve its stated environmental goals are the Common Agricultural Policy and the Common Fisheries Policy.

    Now both have been reformed during their lives, and improvements have been made, but they are still not properly designed to put the environment first.

    The Common Agricultural Policy rewards size of land-holding ahead of good environmental practice, and all too often puts resources in the hands of the already wealthy rather than into the common good of our shared natural environment. It also encourages patterns of land use which are wasteful of natural resources and often intrinsically poor value rather than encouraging imaginative and environmentally enriching alternatives.

    As the most recent report from Lord Deben’s excellent Committee on Climate Change and its equally excellent Adaptation Sub-Committee points out, current EU-inspired farming approaches are degrading our soil. In some areas a combination of heavy machinery, irrigation methods accelerating erosion and a determination to drive up yields has meant that soil has become less productive. It is not only less effective at sequestrating carbon it is, progressively, less fertile. The effect is most noticeable in what has been some of our most fertile growing soil, in the Fens, where a combination of the draining of the peat and the disappearance of hedges and trees over the years has led to a thinning of productive earth. According to the Committee’s report, Britain has lost 84% of fertile topsoil since 1850 and the erosion continues in some areas at between 1cm and 3cm a year.

    Now, whether environmental campaigner or farmer, we can all agree such a trajectory is, literally, unsustainable. Which is why we need to take the opportunity that being outside the Common Agricultural Policy will give us to use public money to reward environmentally-responsible land use.

    The future of farming support

    This Government has pledged that when we leave the EU we will match the £3 billion that farmers currently receive in support from the CAP until 2022. And I want to ensure that we go on generously supporting farmers for many more years to come. But that support can only be argued for against other competing public goods if the environmental benefits of that spending are clear.

    Of course there are many other – very good – reasons why we should provide support for agriculture.

    And the first is simple and straightforward. Farmers produce the high quality food which the rest of us enjoy so much. Without them, our lives would be poorer – and our stomachs emptier. And we are uniquely fortunate that British food enjoys a reputation for quality which has been built on high animal welfare standards, strong environmental protections and the dedication of farmers and growers to meeting ever more demanding consumer expectations. Our food culture in Britain has become much more diverse and discriminating in my lifetime, influenced by chefs and bloggers, campaigners and entrepreneurs. And I was delighted when I was Education Secretary to have been able to harness their enthusiasm to develop a School Food Plan designed to give the next generation a deeper appreciation of the importance of what we eat. And of course the biggest driver of higher standards and wider choice in food and drink has been the innovation and creativity of farmers and growers themselves. It is my job to support them to grow, produce and sell more.

    But farming is so much more than a business. 70% of our land is farmed – and the beautiful landscape that we enjoy in so many cases has not happened by accident but has been actively managed. The Lake District, which recently secured World Heritage Site status from UNESCO, is both a breath-taking natural landscape but also a home to upland farmers whose work keeps those lakes and hills as Wordsworth saw them, to the delight every year of millions of visitors.

    So support for farmers in areas like the Lake District, upland Wales or the Scottish borders is critical to keeping our countryside healthy. Indeed, whether it’s hill farmers or island crofters, or those running small family farms in England and Northern Ireland, there is a need to ensure that the human ecology of rural areas is protected.

    But while continued support is critically important, so is reform. And indeed I have been struck in the conversations I have had with organisations like the NFU, The Farmers Union of Wales and the Countryside Land Alliance that it is farmers themselves who most want the CAP to change. I have particularly appreciated the open, constructive and imaginative engagement shown by the NFU’s passionate and energetic President Meurig Raymond.

    And it’s the farmers he represents who have had to live within the CAP’s bureaucratic constraints. They have seen how it holds back productivity, impedes progressive environmental stewardship and works against their natural instincts. Farmers owe their living and devote their lives to the land. They are engaged, every day, in practical environmental work and they deserve our respect and support for their commitment to the countryside.

    And from all the conversations I have had so far I with farmers, land owners and managers I know that there is a growing appetite for a new system of agricultural support which respects their work and puts environmental protection and enhancement first. Our approach should therefore be, in Byron’s words, to love not man the less but nature more.

    That means support for woodland creation and tree planting as we seek to meet our aim of eleven million more trees. Because trees are not only a source of beauty and wonder, living evidence of our investment for future generations, they are also a carbon sink, a way to manage flood risk and a habitat for precious species.

    And we should also support those land owners and managers who cultivate and protect the range of habitats which will encourage biodiversity. Heathland and bog, meadow and marsh, estuaries and hedgerows alongside so many other landscapes need care and attention if they are to provide homes to the growing diversity of animal and plant life that we should wish to encourage. Now doing this well depends on developing the skills and farming practices of land owners and managers. And understanding how to create and protect habitats should be as much a part of good farming as understanding the latest crop and soil science.

    And alongside encouraging greater bio-diversity and the way in which farmers manage their land, I also want to see higher standards across the board of animal welfare. We need to take action to tackle the trade in illegal ivory, improve scrutiny of what happens in our abattoirs, move on circus animals and examine the future of live animal exports. Cruelty towards animals driven by man’s worst exploitative instincts needs to be met with the full force of the law.

    Science is our guide to the future

    Now I have been frank before when talking about animal welfare and my feelings for landscape, wildlife and natural beauty spring from sentiment. Growing up between the North Sea and the Cairngorms, spending weekends in the hills and weekdays with my head in Wordsworth and Hardy, Lewis Grassic Gibbon and Edward Thomas, I grew up with an emotional attachment to natural beauty which inevitably influences my feelings towards questions on everything from architecture to ivory.

    But while natural beauty moves us deep in our souls, environmental policy also needs to be rooted, always and everywhere, in science. There will, of course, always be a need to make judgements about the best method of achieving environmental goals, in ways which improve rather than upend people’s lives. But it is only by adherence to scientific method, through recognising the vital importance of testing and re-testing hypotheses in the face of new evidence and through scrupulous adherence to empirical reasoning, that we can be certain our policies are the best contemporary answer to the eternal questions of how we live well and honour the world we have inherited and must pass on enhanced to our children.

    And it is science that guides my approach to another issue where my emotions have been powerfully engaged – fishing.

    My father, grandfather and great grandfather all made their living from the sea. My great grandfather was a fisherman, my grandfather and father fish merchants. My father’s business closed in the nineteen-eighties when I was a schoolboy, one of many that closed after this country accepted EU control of our waters through the Common Fisheries Policy.

    The CFP has had a profound impact on the UK’s coastal communities. But its most profound impact has been on the sustainability of our fish stocks. Fisheries management should always be guided by science – by a hard-headed assessment of which species and stocks can be fished and which must be protected if their numbers are not to dip below sustainable levels. The tragic precedent of over-fishing off the Grand Banks, and indeed current overfishing practices off the coast of Africa, shows how easy it can be to destroy what should be a perpetually-renewable natural resource.

    The CFP has been reformed in recent years, not least thanks to the efforts of my friend and colleague Richard Benyon. The benefits of improved environmental stewardship have been seen in the resurgence of North Sea cod. But it is still the case that 40% of fish stocks in the Atlantic, North Sea and Baltic Sea are being fished at unsustainable levels. By leaving the CFP, taking back control of our territorial waters, granting access to other countries and allocating quotas all on the basis of what is scientifically sustainable, we can ensure that we set and follow the very highest standards in marine conservation.

    And that, in turn, should lead to the revival of our coastal communities. With UK control of waters in our exclusive economic zone we cannot just husband fish stocks more wisely – we can also ensure that we allow our fishing industry to grow sustainably in the future as well. Outside the EU, as an independent coastal state, we can be home to world class fishing fleets as well as proving ourselves environmental leaders.

    And it is not just through reform of fishing policy that we can ensure the marine environment is restored to health.

    Eight million tonnes of plastic are discarded into the world’s oceans each year, putting marine wildlife under serious threat.

    In October 2015, the government introduced the 5p carrier bag charge. Figures released today show that policy’s enormous success – 9 billion fewer carrier bags distributed since the charge was introduced, a fall of 83%. More than £95 million has also been raised from the charge, has been donated to environmental, educational and other good causes.

    But this work in order to protect our marine environment is not good enough. Last year the government launched a consultation on banning microbeads in personal care products, which have such a devastating effect on marine life. We are responding to that consultation today and we will introduce legislation to implement that ban later this year. But there is more we can do to protect our oceans, so we will explore new methods of reducing the amount of plastic – in particular plastic bottles – entering our seas. I want to improve incentives for reducing waste and litter, and review the penalties available to deal with polluters – all part of a renewed strategy on waste and resources that looks ahead to opportunities outside the EU.

    As custodians of the fifth largest marine estate in the world, we have a responsibility in the UK to protect these unique and fragile environments. So we will continue to fight to uphold the moratorium on commercial whaling. And by completing the Blue Belt of marine protected areas around the UK and working with our Overseas Territories we hope to create the world’s largest marine sanctuaries, we hope to deliver over 4 million square kilometres of protected maritime areas by 2020.

    Outside the European Union there is scope for Britain not just to set the very highest standards in marine conservation, but also to be a global leader in environmental policy across the board. Informed by rigorous scientific analysis, we can develop global gold standard policies on pesticides and chemicals, habitat management and biodiversity, animal welfare and biosecurity, soil protection and river management and indeed in many other areas. We can take smarter and more targeted approaches to the improvements that we want to see – for instance, we can incentive recycling according to the environmental impact and value of the material, rather than a crude weight-based target that currently focuses recycling on things that happen to be heavy.

    Shaping a greener future

    Now in the past, the United Kingdom played a leading role in establishing the world’s most successful environmental treaty – the Montreal Protocol which has protected the ozone layer by phasing out the chemicals that UK scientists had shown was destroying it.

    And the UK has been a global leader on efforts to promote biodiversity and tackle the illegal wildlife trade – an area where WWF has made such an enormous and beneficial impact. A series of international conferences have pushed the threats from poaching and illegal trade in endangered species up the global political agenda. We also in the UK fund globally respected schemes such as the Darwin Initiative, which protects biodiversity and endangered species in developing countries and helps them to meet their environmental commitments. This year I am delighted to be able to help celebrate Darwin’s 25 year anniversary. I am also pleased to announce today that the 24th round of the Darwin Initiative, the 6th round of Darwin Plus, and the 4th round of the Illegal Wildlife Trade Challenge Fund will all open for applications next week.

    And the UK has also helped establish the autonomous institutions – from the Royal Society to the National Trust, Kew to Cefas – which have provided global leadership and set the standard for scientific rigour in the application of all environmental policies. And I should say that as well as these organisations, we are fortunate to have in the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs a team of scientists, economists, policy specialists and analysts second to none. It’s a privilege to be working in a department where the quality of analysis and advice, as well as the commitment to rigorous science, is so impressive.

    So we are in a fortunate position. But as we prepare to leave the EU we must give thought to how we can create new institutions to demonstrate environmental leadership and even greater ambition. Not least because we have to ensure that the powerful are held to account and progress towards meeting our environmental goals is fairly measured.

    And I mention that because I know that inside the EU, the European Commission and the ECJ have provided enforcement mechanisms and understandably, some are asking what could or should replace them. My view is that we have an opportunity, outside the EU, to design potentially more effective, more rigorous and more responsive institutions, new means of holding individuals and organisations to account for environmental outcomes.

    And I bet that if we take these opportunities to create these new institutions, we cannot just help protect our precious environmental assets, we can also create an economic asset for the country. Just as Britain enjoys a massive competitive advantage in the provision of legal services because the world knows we have the best courts and judges, and so chooses to settle its disputes here, so if we establish ourselves as the home of the highest environmental standards, the most rigorous science and the most ambitious institutions then the world will look to us for environmental innovation and leadership.

    We already have much of the infrastructure in place in our universities and our learned institutions, in our NGOs and NDPBs. And we’re also, thanks to the leadership of other colleagues in government, developing expertise in new areas from Ultra-Low Emission Vehicles to waste management, supported by wise leadership from the ministerial team at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. In particular I am looking forward to the policies being planned by my friend Claire Perry for the Clean Growth Plan which is due to be launched in the autumn. These policies should reinforce our ambition to be the home of the most economically and environmentally ambitious policies in the areas of clean, green, technology, from energy generation to transport, the circular economy to house building.

    We are fortunate that in this country we do have innovative private sector players who can work with government and respond to smart, and ambitious, regulation and targets to help us meet new environmental demands while also generating growth. Claire and I hope to say more in the weeks and months to come about some of the ambitions we want the private sector to help us achieve real gains in the area of clean, green, growth.

    And it’s important that government and the private sector work together because scientific advances and technological breakthroughs are rarely the sole preserve of the state or the market. The huge commercial success of America’s Silicon Valley was built on Government investment. It was the state-run Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency and the federally-funded NASA which generated the initial breakthroughs on which subsequent commercial success was built. Similarly, the success of Israel’s amazingly creative tech sector has been built on that nation’s investment as it happens in defence technology. And the private sector innovation which has been generated by state investment in R&D in America and Israel could be matched by private sector innovation here built on public sector leadership and investment in rigorous environmental science.

    I hope we can say more in this area not just in the BEIS Clean Growth Plan but also in what will be its sister document – DEFRA’s 25-year Environment Plan. Now I know there has been understandable impatience that the Plan has been longer in gestation than a baby elephant. But I want to make sure our plan is as ambitious as possible. Critical to its success will be adopting as rigorous a methodology as possible to setting goals and reporting success or failure. Which is why I have written to Professor Dieter Helm, the Chair of the Natural Capital Committee, to ask his Committee to draw up advice on what our Plan should aim to achieve and how it should seek to do so.

    The Natural Capital Committee is another British institution which has shown global leadership in establishing new ways of valuing our environment. And it was of course the NCC which first made the case for a 25-year Environment Plan and I want to ensure that we use the insights of natural capital thinking and accounting to develop an approach which will help guide us in every area from reforming support for agriculture to considering how we reform planning policy. The Committee has agreed to provide its advice in September, laying the ground for subsequent publication of our Plan.

    And next year, I will also be publishing the second National Adaptation Programme, a comprehensive plan of action to improve our resilience to climate change – an area where Defra is the lead government department, a responsibility I take very seriously.

    I have set out what I believe is a deliberately ambitious agenda today because I believe the times demand it. Leaving the EU gives us a once in a lifetime opportunity to reform how we manage agriculture and fisheries, and therefore how we care for our land, our rivers and our seas/ And we can recast our ambition for our country’s environment, and the planet. In short, it means a Green Brexit. When we speak as a Government of Global Britain it is not just as a leader in security or an advocate for freer trade that we should conceive of our global role but also a champion of sustainable development, an advocate for global social justice, a leader in environmental science, a setter of gold standards in protecting and growing natural capital, an innovator in clean, green, growth and an upholder of the moral imperative to hand over our planet to the next generation in a better condition than we inherited it. That is my department’s driving ambition – and it should be central in the next five years to our national mission.

  • Boris Johnson – 2017 Press Conference in Tokyo

    Below is the text of the press conference held between Boris Johnson, the Foreign Secretary, and Fumio Kishida, the Japanese Foreign Secretary, in Tokyo in Japan on 21 July 2017.

    Thank you very much, Fumio.

    I’m actually absolutely delighted to be back here in Japan and thank you for the warm welcome that you have given us. I went for a run this morning, as I do when I’m in Tokyo, anticlockwise around the Imperial Palace and I want you know I was overtaken by absolutely everybody, of all ages. Well everybody was running much faster than me but my ego can survive this because yesterday I saw a robot, a Japanese robot, that could run faster than me and so I’m full of admiration, I know what an amazing place this is. What an amazing, inventive, dynamic economy Japan is.

    But what we’re trying to do here today, Fumio and I, is to build on that relationship and that partnership and I’ve no doubt at all that it is going to get stronger and stronger. I’ve seen some fantastic examples of UK exports to Japan. A Honda Civic, by the way made in Swindon that I drove yesterday. And Japanese investments in the U.K. contrary to some of the gloomy stuff that you might see in some of the media, Japanese investments in the U.K. are at record high since the Brexit vote last year and I have no doubt at all that we are going to build a fantastic relationship with our friends and partners in the EU. We’re leaving the EU but we’re not leaving Europe. And one that allows us to continue to build our commercial and economic relations with Japan.

    As you’ve mentioned Fumio, we share the same values and we share the same security threats, we face the same foes including from terrorism and indeed North Korea. And I want to stress that Britain stands shoulder to shoulder alongside Japan in our steadfast determination to stop North Korea’s persistent violations of United Nations resolutions. Two weeks ago we saw the test of an ICBM, unquestionably an ICBM, that landed in the Sea of Japan in what can only be called a reckless provocation. We all need to increase the pressure on Pyongyang through diplomacy and sanctions and that must include China using its influence to bring North Korea back to the negotiating table.

    The UK has been in the forefront of that effort whether it’s the United Nations Security Council, or with our friends and partners in Europe and again here today in Japan. The threats that confront us are global and so our cooperation between the UK and Japan is now truly global. Britain and Japan work hand in glove in the UN Security Council on issues ranging from Syria to South Sudan. In Africa we’re working together on de-mining projects in Angola and we jointly trained peacekeepers in Senegal. Last year, The Royal Air Force sent typhoon fighters to Japan where they became the first non US Air Force to exercise alongside their Japanese counterparts. And I’m delighted that Britain is going to be using our expertise in hosting London 2012 to help ensure Japan Tokyo 2020 Olympic and Paralympic Games are just as successful, as I’m sure indeed that they will be.

    Counterterrorism and cybersecurity, our particular focuses of our cooperation both between government and business and as an example of the growing UK Japan cyber cooperation, I welcome the signing yesterday of a strategic partnership between the UK company Darktrace, and NEC Networks and System Integration, Corporation.

    Fumio, thank you for welcoming us today and thank you for the friendship and the partnership between us. This is a unique relationship between the U.K. and Japan. We have no other relationship like this. This is a partnership between two democracies, and by the way two constitutional monarchies, two island nations that share a great deal. Not just our belief in free-trade, our belief in democracy, but of course our joint belief in the rules based international order which we uphold.

    Thank you very much everybody and thank you Fumio for welcoming us today.

  • Nicola Sturgeon – 2017 Speech on Scottish Independence and Brexit

    Below is the text of the speech made by Nicola Sturgeon, the Scottish First Minister, to the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh on 27 June 2017.

    Presiding Officer,

    Like other countries, Scotland faces big challenges.

    Some, like Brexit, are not of our choosing.

    But we must always remember that Scotland is one of the richest countries in the world, with resources and talent in abundance.

    Our task is to make the most of our great potential and build the kind of country we want to be – a fair, prosperous, open and tolerant country.

    In working towards that goal, it is my responsibility as First Minister to build as much unity and consensus as possible.

    That is why, after the election – which was, of course, won by the SNP in Scotland – I said I would reflect on the outcome and, in particular, on the issue of an independence referendum.

    I have done so carefully, taking time to listen to a broad spectrum of voices, both within and out with my own party.

    I want to set out today where those reflections have taken me.

    Before I do so, let me underline two enduring points.

    Firstly, it remains my view that at the end of the Brexit process, the people of Scotland should have a choice about our future direction as a country.

    Indeed, the implications of Brexit are so potentially far reaching that, as they become clearer, I think people may well demand that choice.

    We face a Brexit we did not vote for, and in a form more extreme than most would have imagined just a year ago.

    And now, the terms of that Brexit are being negotiated by a UK government with no clear mandate, precious little authority or credibility and no real idea, even within its own ranks, of what it is seeking to achieve.

    While we must hope for the best, the reality is that with the UK government’s current approach, even a so-called good deal will be on terms substantially inferior to our current EU membership.

    And, of course, there is a real risk that the UK will crash out of the EU with no deal or a very bad deal – with deep and long lasting consequences for jobs, trade, investment, living standards and the opportunities open to future generations.

    On top of all of that – as we saw so clearly in the deal struck with the DUP yesterday – we now have a UK government that talks about wanting to strengthen the bonds of the UK, but in reality is so desperate to cling on to power at any cost, that it is prepared to ride roughshod over the very principles of the entire devolution settlement.

    So if Scotland is not simply to be at the mercy of events, but instead in control of our own future, then the ability to choose a different direction must be available.

    Secondly, there is simply no doubt that the Scottish Government has a mandate within this term of parliament to offer the people of Scotland that choice.

    We have now won two elections with that explicit commitment in our manifesto – and the Scottish Parliament has also endorsed the position.

    By any normal standard of democracy that mandate is beyond question.

    Opposition parties – no matter how strongly they disagree with us on independence, as is their right – should stop trying to turn the basic rules of democracy on their head.

    Presiding Officer,

    The mandate we have is beyond doubt.

    But deciding exactly how to exercise it is a matter of judgment – and it is a judgment that must be made in the interests of the country as a whole.

    That is what I have been thinking carefully about.

    Before, during and since the election campaign, I have had hundreds of conversations with people in every part of Scotland about the issues of Brexit and a second independence referendum.

    There are, of course, some people who don’t want another referendum, ever, because they oppose independence in all circumstances.

    I respect that position. It is just as legitimate as the position of those who support independence in all circumstances and want another referendum tomorrow.

    But many people – probably the majority – fall into neither of these categories.

    Indeed, having spoken to many people who voted Yes in 2014 and to many others who did not but who would be open minded in future, what has struck me is the commonality of their views.

    They worry about the uncertainty of Brexit and the lack of any clarity about what it means.

    Some just want a break from the pressure of big political decisions.

    They agree that our future should not be imposed on us, but feel that it is too soon right now to make a firm decision about the precise timing of a referendum.

    They want greater clarity about Brexit to emerge first – and they want to be able to measure that up against clarity about the options Scotland would have for securing a different relationship with Europe.

    And, in the meantime, whatever their scepticism about the likely outcome of the negotiations, they want the Scottish Government to try as hard as we possibly can to secure Scotland’s position.

    Indeed, that view has even more force now that the General Election and the weakness of the UK government has re-opened the possibility, however narrow, of retaining membership of the single market.

    I intend to listen to those views.

    We remain committed – strongly – to the principle of giving Scotland a choice at the end of this process.

    But to reassure people that they will not be asked to make this choice now – or in the immediate future – but only at the end of the process when greater clarity has emerged, I am confirming today that the Scottish Government will reset the plan I set out on March 13th.

    We will not seek to introduce legislation for an independence referendum immediately.

    Instead, we will – in good faith – redouble our efforts and put our shoulder to the wheel in seeking to influence the Brexit talks in a way that protects Scotland’s interests.

    We will seek to build maximum support around the proposals set out in the paper that we published in December – Scotland’s Place in Europe – to keep us in the single market, with substantial new powers for this parliament, and do everything we can to influence the UK in that direction.

    And at the end of this period of negotiation with the EU – likely to be around next autumn – when the terms of Brexit will be clearer, we will come back to Parliament to set out our judgment on the way forward, including our view on the precise timescale of offering people a choice over the country’s future.

    In setting out this position today, I am also issuing a challenge to the other parties.

    The Scottish Government will stand the best chance of positively influencing the Brexit outcome if we are at the table – with the full backing of our national Parliament – arguing for the sensible option of staying in the single market.

    So join us now, with no equivocation – back the demands for the democratically elected Scottish Government to be at the table, able to influence the UK’s negotiating strategy, and for Scotland and the UK to stay in the single market.

    The second conclusion I have reached is this.

    Over the past few months, the focus on the when and how of a referendum has, perhaps inevitably, been at the expense of setting out the many reasons why Scotland should be independent.

    The fact is we are only talking of another referendum so soon after the last one because of Brexit. And it is certainly the case that independence may well be the only way to protect Scotland from the impact of Brexit.

    But the case for an independent Scotland is not just about Brexit – it goes far beyond that.

    Many of us believe that independence is the right and best answer to the many, complex challenges we face as a country – and also the best way to seize and fully realise our many opportunities as a country.

    So the challenge for all of us who do believe that Scotland should be independent is to get on with the hard work of making and winning that case – on all of its merits – and in a way that is relevant to the changes, challenges and opportunities we face now and in the years ahead,

    That is what my party will do.

    We won’t do it on our own – because the independence case is bigger than us too.

    My party will engage openly and inclusively with, and work as part of, the wider independence movement.

    And, together, we will build and win the case that governing ourselves is the best way to tackle the challenges we face as country – from building a better balanced and more sustainable economy, to growing our population, strengthening our democracy, and tackling deep seated problems of poverty and inequality.

    Presiding Officer,

    My last point, today, is this.

    The SNP government has been in office now for ten years.

    I am incredibly proud of our achievements – delivered in the face of unprecedented Westminster cuts.

    I am also clear about our priorities as we move forward – not just fighting Scotland’s corner in the Brexit talks, but also growing our economy and making sure that the public services we all rely on are there when we need them, from cradle to grave.

    That means improving education, equipping our NHS for the challenges of the future, lifting people out of poverty and building a social security system with dignity at its heart.

    But any government, after ten years, needs to take stock and refresh.

    So over this summer, as we prepare our next Programme for Government and our budget for the year ahead, that is exactly what we will do.

    We will set out afresh our vision for the country we lead, together with the creative, imaginative, bold and radical policies that, as far as possible within the current powers available to us, will help us realise that vision.

    We look forward to getting on with the job in the best interests of all the people of Scotland.

  • Darren Jones – 2017 Maiden Speech to the House of Commons

    Below is the text of the speech made by Darren Jones, the Labour MP for Bristol North West, in the House of Commons on 26 June 2017.

    Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me to give my maiden speech.

    Being elected as the Member of Parliament for my home constituency of Bristol North West is deeply humbling. It is humbling for me personally, as a working-class kid from a council estate in Lawrence Weston in my constituency. To be able to speak here on behalf of my friends, my family, my community and, indeed, my country is a great honour.

    Let me pay tribute to my predecessor, Charlotte Leslie. The Member of Parliament for seven years and a candidate for three further years, Charlotte’s decade of local leadership was held in warm regard by my constituents and by me. We thank Charlotte for her public service.

    From the earliest evidence of human habitation in these British Isles on the shores of the River Avon near Shirehampton to the eighth-century monastery of Westbury-on-Trym, granted by King Offa of Mercia, to the Roman settlements at Sea Mills and Lawrence Weston, and the Domesday reference to the parish of Henbury, and now, so I am told, to the first ever Darren elected to this House of Commons, Bristol North West is an historic and fascinating constituency.

    But the successes of my home and its people, from jobs at the port and advanced manufacturing, to research and development, to the professional services, rely on our trading relationship with the European Union. That is why my first priority during this Brexit Parliament is to fight for Britain’s membership of the European single market. Because in times of peace our first priority must be prosperity for all. That is why the politics of holding on to power for power’s sake, or political positioning to win internal ideological battles, must stop. We are all here to do what is right for the country. For if that is not the case, I do not know why we are here at all.

    So I stand here humbled by my election, with a sense of urgency to tackle a hard Brexit but also with a sense of sadness—sadness because the world feels more fragile than it has in the past, with Britain seen as weak and uncertain in high-risk times, and with fast-paced technological change, shifting geopolitical power, young people frustrated by the country, old people increasingly left alone and public services allowed to slowly die by a thousand cuts.

    Politics is hard work, but it is the only forum through which we can provide hope. Whether I am an MP for four months or four years, and whether my actions ​bring success or failure to my own political career, I will always put my constituents and my country first. In this mother of Parliaments, let us do all we can to show that a modern and just Britain can rise from the ashes of our current dismay. We are merely shepherds of the nation, standing on the shoulders of giants, tasked with leaving a country to our children that we can be proud of.

    This Brexit Parliament will define the future of our country. Let us not self-harm and cause pain, but let us instead unite and act with sense, as well as with patriotism in our hearts, for a national renewal after the dark years of austerity, for the birth of a new British chapter that works for the many, not just the few, and for a new dawn for a new Britain. It is for us now to seize that opportunity and to avoid the risks of failure, but we can do it only by working together in this Brexit Parliament—leavers and remainers—in the national interest.

  • Andrew Mowie – 2017 Maiden Speech to the House of Commons

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made in the House of Commons by Andrew Mowie, the Conservative MP for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, on 26 June 2017.

    Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes).

    It is an incredibly humbling experience to have been elected to this place. I hope that, however long or short my time here may be, I will be able to serve West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine with the same dedication and purpose as my predecessor, Stuart Donaldson, did for two years.

    I am fully aware that I walk in august footsteps: Sir Robert Smith held the seat for 18 years; George Kynoch sat here and represented the equivalent seat of Kincardine and Deeside for five years; and, of course, the still much respected and fondly remembered Sir Alick Buchanan-Smith held Kincardine and Deeside and, ​before that, Angus North and Mearns from 1964 until his death in 1991. That was 27 years, and I am only on day 18.

    Members will, I am sure, get fed up of my 12—yes, 12—Scottish Conservative colleagues insisting that their patch of God’s own country is the most beautiful in the entire UK. Although I do, of course, sympathise with them, it is quite clear that the most beautiful, unique, attractive and downright brilliant constituency in the entire country is West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine—from the Cairngorms National Park around Braemar, down through the Dee Valley and Royal Deeside, to Ballater, Aboyne and Banchory, skirting the edge of the granite city itself, taking in Blackburn, Westhill, the subsea capital of Europe, and down to the North sea cost at Portlethen and north Kincardine. There is also the picturesque, pastoral Donside, Corgarff, Strathdon, Alford and Kemnay. Stonehaven and the villages in Howe of the Mearns were made famous, of course, by Lewis Grassic Gibbon in what was the favourite novel of my grandfather, an English teacher, “Sunset Song”.

    In the old rhyme,

    “the twa peaks you can see frae the sea, Clachnaben and Benahie”,

    are both in West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, although I should admit to having to share the latter with my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Colin Clark).

    What other seat has such history? I could—but I will not, because time will not permit it—tell the gripping tale of how the Honours of Scotland were smuggled out of Dunnottar castle in a creel basket by a minister’s wife, to save them from the clutches of the marauding army of Oliver Cromwell; or of the romantic but ultimately doomed 1715 Jacobite rebellion, which began at Braemar with the raising of the standard of James VIII and III; or of Victoria, Albert, John Brown and how Deeside became Royal Deeside; or of the Monymusk reliquary, thought to be 1,300 years old and which held the bones of St Columba and was carried in front of the victorious Scottish army at Bannockburn. I could tell those tales, but I will not.

    It would, of course, be entirely remiss of me to speak today without mentioning how I, in West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, now have the immense honour of representing Balmoral castle. In fact, as Members from Scotland will be aware, the residence in the north-east of Scotland is now represented by a Conservative not only in this place, but in the Scottish Parliament by my friend and colleague Alexander Burnett. With Ruth Davidson herself representing Holyrood palace in Edinburgh, Her Majesty will, I am sure, be delighted to know that she now has three elected Conservative representatives on whom she can call. It is an honour to represent Balmoral, even when, if canvassing, it is an extremely long drive to walk up only to find that the resident is not on the electoral roll.

    I have 33 seconds left, so I will canter through the rest of my speech. Today we continue to debate the Queen’s Speech, specifically how it relates to Brexit and foreign affairs. The speech last week stated that a Bill would be introduced to repeal the European Communities Act 1972 and provide certainty for individuals and businesses.

    Last Thursday I attended the royal highland show in Ingliston. I met many farmers, including from West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine. In between lamenting how appallingly poor the Scottish National party has ​been at managing the common agricultural policy system north of the border, they wanted to make one thing abundantly clear. What farmers and all in the agriculture sector require—what they need now more than anything else—is certainty and stability in our country and our economy, and a clear way ahead so that they can plan and grow their businesses, not just for the next five years, but for the next 10, 15 and 20 years.

    What the farming sector and, indeed, this country do not need is further uncertainty in the shape of another referendum on Europe or another general election, and they certainly do not need another referendum on Scottish independence. Why not all come together, in the national interest of the United Kingdom, and support the Government this week? That is what my constituents need me to do, and that is what I will do.

  • Anna McMorrin – 2017 Maiden Speech to the House of Commons

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made by Anna McMorrin, the Labour MP for Cardiff North, in the House of Commons on 26 June 2017.

    I am grateful for the opportunity to make my maiden speech today.

    It is a privilege for me to follow Craig Williams as the Member for Cardiff North. I know how hard Craig worked to represent the constituency over the past two years.

    The recent election campaign was punctured by a number of tragic events, from Manchester to London. In Wales, there was another sad event, which brought together the nation. The loss of our former First Minister, Rhodri Morgan, was felt in homes across Wales. Some may remember his time here representing Cardiff West, as well as his wife, Julie Morgan, who represented Cardiff North, and who still represents the constituency in the National Assembly. Julie and Rhodri were a team for over half a century. Rhodri was always a close friend and wise counsel. He is much missed, and I am sure Members will join me in extending our love and sympathy to Julie and the family.

    The history of the modern Cardiff North is a history of how industry and people changed and revolutionised the city and the whole of south Wales. But it is industry that has defined the modern part of the capital that I represent. It was the wealth created by the traditional industries of south Wales that created the gothic splendour of Castell Coch, and it was this same industry that brought people to create Cardiff and that led to the growth of Whitchurch, Rhiwbina, Llanishen, Pontprennau, Heath and Llandaff North, to name only a few of its communities.

    That industry also created a cosmopolitan, multicultural city that is home to Cardiff’s first Welsh-medium secondary school—a school where my daughter learns through ​the medium of a language that is growing and that will be spoken by 1 million people in the coming decades.

    It is the people of Cardiff who voted to remain in the European Union. The vote in many parts of Wales was not a vote against Europe or the concept or the reality of the European Union; it was a vote against politics—against the reality of the decisions taken here. The cumulative impact of benefit cuts and reductions in public spending has hit the poorest hardest, so I intend to use my time here to speak up against a failed austerity where the richest people have forced the poorest people to pay the price. The UK Government seem to have abandoned austerity for Northern Ireland today: what about the rest of the UK? The UK is weaker and less united this evening than it was this morning. I also hope the UK Government understand that it is important that the whole of the UK is represented in these talks and negotiations. At present, the UK Government are in danger of losing the argument not only in Brussels but in Cardiff as well, with a disunited kingdom where jobs and livelihoods, workers’ rights and action on climate change are sacrificed in the pursuit of an impossible imperialist fantasy.

    During the business statement last week, Mr Deputy Speaker, you were kind enough to allow me to raise the issue of the loss of over 1,000 jobs in my constituency because of the closure of a Tesco customer care centre, and I am grateful. Since then, I have had the opportunity to spend time with and speak to many of the workers who have been told they have lost their jobs. They are devastated; many have two or three members of the same family working there. Over the weekend, one of them wrote to me. Her words speak for everyone affected there. “Please fight for us”, she said, continuing:

    “Each and every single one of those 1,100 people are heartbroken and terrified as we face uncertain futures for ourselves and our families. Anything you can do, anything at all—we all will be forever grateful”.

    Those are her words, not mine, and they are a challenge to us all. It is those people and their voices that are in my mind today and will be guiding me.

    My fear is that if this Government are allowed to drive through a Brexit where the jobs and livelihoods of the people we all represent are treated with disdain and indifference, then these will be the stories we hear every day, every week, and every month. I intend to use my time to stand up against failed austerity measures and for a more prosperous, fairer and more equal society. I look forward to working with my colleagues here. Thank you.