UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: 2018

  • Theresa May – 2018 Speech on St. David’s Day

    Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May, the Prime Minister, at Downing Street in London on 1 March 2018.

    Good afternoon everyone and croeso i Stryd Downing.

    It’s a pleasure to have you all here to celebrate Wales’ national day alongside Welsh people from every walk of life and every part of the country.

    We have great figures from the worlds of business, culture and sport.

    And I’d like to echo the comments made by Alun about the great effort so many of you made to get here today, despite the weather.

    And I hope you’ve all had a chance to try out some of the wonderful Welsh produce on display.

    Today is a great showcase for a great part of the United Kingdom, a part of the world that is no longer Europe’s best-kept secret.

    Every year millions of people are seeing for themselves just how much Wales has to offer.

    That includes myself and my husband, who are regular visitors to Snowdonia, we love to go walking there.

    And while the world is coming to Wales, Wales is also reaching out to the world.

    Many of the companies represented here tonight are exporting across Europe and around the globe.

    But also in sport, the whole world saw the amazing medal-winning performance by Wrexham’s Laura Dais in the Winter Olympics.

    And next month well over a hundred Welsh men and women will be heading to Australia for the Commonwealth Games.

    They will include Anna Hursey, who is lighting up the world of table tennis despite being just 11 years old.

    Anna and her teammates will be proud to be competing under the red dragon – just as I’m proud to see it flying over Downing Street today.

    I’m proud because it is a reminder that Wales makes the UK the country it is.

    And we wouldn’t be the same without it.

    The nations of the UK each have their own unique characters, cultures and needs.

    But when we come together as one, we are all the better for it.

    As my colleague David Lidington said in Broughton earlier this week, when we are united at home we are stronger abroad.

    That’s why I’m working with Alun to help Wales be all it can be, to help Welsh businesses and people reach their full potential.

    And that does include abolishing the Severn Crossing Tolls, investing over £600 million in City Deals for Cardiff and Swansea and committing to a growth deal for the north.

    This is a government that is working hard for everyone in every part of Wales, from Haverfordwest to Holyhead.

    It’s an exciting time for Wales, there’s much to look forward to, many opportunities on the horizon.

    So, tomorrow let’s get out there and make sure the world knows all about Wales and what it has to offer.

    But tonight, let’s celebrate the very best of Welsh life – and of course the very best of Welsh food and drink!

    Enjoy the rest of the reception, and Dydd Gwyl Dewi hapus.

  • Alun Cairns – 2018 Speech on St. David’s Day

    Below is the text of the speech made by Alun Cairns, the Secretary of State for Wales, at Downing Street on 1 March 2018.

    Prime Minister, Ladies and Gentlemen,

    Today is an extremely important day. It is our opportunity to celebrate, underline and show our respect to the world’s greatest nation! We have our own language, history and culture.

    After all we have more castles per square mile than any other country.

    If you flattened our mountains, we’d be the bigger than England.

    And Welsh is one of the oldest living languages in Europe – and through your hospitality, Prime Minister, so many people, have travelled to celebrate St David’s Day here in No 10 – I don’t think these walls have heard so much Welsh spoken since Lloyd George lived here!

    There is little wonder that our exports are growing so sharply when you consider the quality of the produce we have on offer here today.

    And the Cor y Boro (Cor y Borough) choir from London and harpist Rhys Wardough from the Vale of Glamorgan are excellent examples of our fantastic cultural offering.

    I have the privilege of seeing the importance you place on every part of the UK, Prime Minister, but this reception again shows to the public the special emphasis and respect you show to all 4 nations of our precious Union.

    Over the last year, we’ve had had the joy of witnessing some of our best sporting and cultural offerings – from Opera to Football or rugby. – And I am sure you will agree that was a try in Twickenham two weeks ago!

    We’ve been moved by the heroic tales of Welshmen who fought for our freedom during the First World War commemorations.

    And only a few weeks ago, I had the privilege of being the first MP in history to make a speech in the Welsh Language in a House of Commons debate.

    And before we look to the future, we need remember our roots and heritage, it’s worth recalling St David saying, –Be Joyful. Keep your faith and your creed. Do the little things that you have seen me do’.

    And looking to the future – amongst a host of exciting policy commitments to Wales – to help grow our economy and improve the way we live our lives – The whole country was particularly delighted when you agreed that the Severn Toll barrier to enter Wales will be abolished by the time we meet next year.

    Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you the Prime Minister.

  • Michael Gove – 2018 Speech on the Water Industry

    Below is the text of the speech made by Michael Gove, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs at the Water UK City Conference held on 1 March 2018.

    The way we as a nation organise our water industry inspires strong feelings.

    Because water is our lifeblood – the single most critical resource for the wellbeing of nations and the planet.

    It has no substitute; we cannot replace it with anything else.

    Those charged with its collection, distribution and supply – all of you in this room – play an absolutely essential role in all our lives which has no analogue in any other industry.

    And that’s partly because you provide a monopoly service. The pipes which carry water into all our homes are the responsibility of your companies, which operate natural monopolies.

    That monopoly position means water companies, at their best, can play a very strongly positive role. From the moment rain falls from the sky to the point at which water flows through our taps, you can enhance our environment and improve customer service.

    But with monopoly power come special responsibilities – to ensure that your position is not abused, that the environment is not neglected and customers are not exploited.

    And, in return for operating a monopoly, with the guaranteed income that brings, water companies have to be transparent and accountable. You make your money from a captive market. So you need to show you’re playing fair. You may be private companies, but you have a responsibility to the public – who cannot take their custom elsewhere.

    This kind of business – a captive set of consumers, guaranteed income from hundreds of thousands, if not millions of customer accounts, and a certainty that your product will never go out of fashion – is a commercial dream.

    The late media tycoon Lord Thomson once said of ITV franchises, like Scottish Television, when they were effective advertising monopolies, that they were a licence to print money.

    Well whatever advantages an ITV franchise-holder once had in the 60s and 70s, they would have looked with envy at the commercial position of the owner of a water company.

    My priority, as we gear up for PR19, is to support Ofwat and the Environment Agency in ensuring that water companies are now working as diligently, on behalf of consumers and the natural world, as they are for their owners.

    It is undoubtedly the case that privatisation, the role of private companies, has brought significant benefits and improvements to the environment and consumer. But it’s crucial that we do not let progress stall.

    Maintaining a safe supply of drinking water is a capital intensive affair, involving heavily decentralised infrastructure and very significant sunk costs.

    Of-course, private companies have shown that since the 1980s we have tackled some of our problems.

    In the pre-privatisation days of the 1980s – as now – our decaying pipes, sewers and reservoirs needed serious money spent on them. And you spent it.

    Water mains were corroded and prone to leaking. In some places, drinking water quality was poor. Pressure was low and supplies were interrupted.

    Reform was required – and the government turned to you, the private sector for solutions.

    Since privatisation, around £140billion overall has been invested in infrastructure – Leakage levels are down by around a third and two thirds of our beaches are classed as excellent, up from one third pre-privatisation.

    Some companies deserve particular praise for their environmental leadership.

    The Environment Agency gave United Utilities and Wessex Water ‘industry leading’ ratings in their 2017 Environmental Performance Assessment.

    Yorkshire Water is planting millions of trees to help reduce the risk of flooding and control surges in the flow of water.

    Essex and Suffolk Water – part of Northumbria – has done a great job enlarging the Abberton Reservoir near Colchester.

    That has meant that customers are not only less likely to suffer drought, it has also provided a habitat for skylarks, goldeneye ducks, common terns and brown hares.

    Wessex has been innovative in its use of catchment-based market mechanisms to encourage farmers to reduce nitrate pollution.

    And Anglian Water last year issued the first ever public utility sector Green Bond – to meet the three-fold challenges of water scarcity, climate change and better environmental protection.

    So, private water companies have contributed to the public good – but public concern about the way the water industry operates is growing. And I understand why.

    Three billion litres of water still leak out every day – can the companies really claim they are doing enough to preserve this precious national resource? This figure has barely improved in the past four years.

    And while £140billion pounds have been pumped into the network to repair existing assets, there has been no investment in new nationally significant supply infrastructure, such as major reservoirs, since privatisation.

    And although bill reductions are welcome, customers deserve an even better deal in future.

    Overall, I believe that despite the undoubted gains in efficiency and investment since privatisation, the system is not working as well as it should.

    Far too often, there is evidence that water companies – your water companies – have not been acting sufficiently in the public interest.

    Some companies have been playing the system for the benefit of wealthy managers and owners, at the expense of consumers and the environment.

    Particularly in the last decade, some companies have not been as transparent as they should have been.

    They have shielded themselves from scrutiny, hidden behind complex financial structures, avoided paying taxes, have rewarded the already well-off, kept charges higher than they needed to be and allowed leaks, pollution and other failures to persist for far too long.

    And when there has been acknowledgement that change is required – following public pressure or actions by regulators – far too often there has been prevarication and procrastination, ducking and diving and dragging of feet.

    Change having been promised in many cases, hasn’t happened, or hasn’t happened quickly enough.

    Change has to come.

    Why?

    Because the consumer – and the environment – deserve better.

    As I mentioned earlier, water companies can be surer of the flow of income from householders into their coffers than householders can be sure of the leak-free flow of water into their homes.

    What this translates to is billions of pounds in profits and dividends for those who own these companies.

    In cash terms, over £18.1billion was paid out to shareholders of the nine large English regional water and sewerage companies between 2007 and 2016.

    Of course, generous dividends can be justified if they’ve been generated by the lean and efficient running of an operation – and have been paid out after appropriate capital investment.

    But the £18.1 billion paid out in dividends was actually almost all of the profit made by water companies after tax – the total profit was £18.8billion over the same period.

    95% of the profit went in dividends to shareholders.

    And who made those decisions? Well, of course, it’s the people in this room – chief executives and board members of the privatised water companies. And you must realise that in the public eye you are very handsomely remunerated.

    The chief executive of United Utilities is paid £2.8million per annum.

    Severn Trent’s chief executive takes home £2.42million.

    The chief executives at Anglian and Yorkshire get £1.2million a year.

    And the chief executive of Thames Water gets £960,000 a year – five times the Prime Minister’s salary.

    At least, one might hope, companies making such massive profits, paying out such big dividends and supporting such generous executive salaries, would be big contributors to the Exchequer through their tax bill.

    Well some are.

    And others not.

    Very much not.

    Last year Anglian, Southern and Thames paid no corporation tax.

    Indeed Thames has paid no corporation tax for a decade.

    Ten years of shareholders getting millions, the chief executive getting hundreds of thousands, and the public purse getting nothing.

    And water companies have been able to minimise their tax obligations, even as many have failed to minimise leaks and pollution, because some of their best brains appear to as be intent on financial engineering just as much as real engineering.

    Now I’m all for innovative and ingenious management – but not when it means maximum upside for shareholders of natural monopolies, and not enough sharing of the gains with customers.

    Four water companies – Thames, Southern, Anglian and Yorkshire – make particularly keen use of sophisticated financial engineering.

    They have set up multi-layered corporate structures of dizzying complexity involving multiple subsidiaries, some based offshore. The use of these offshore entities makes company affairs more opaque and their financial activities less transparent, and customers have an absolute right to question their use.

    As well as Thames, Southern and Yorkshire – have also set up offshore financial structures in the Cayman Islands.

    The stated reason was to enable smoother access to global bond markets. But the rules were changed, yet the offshore firms continued to exist. The companies concerned have maintained the structures that enable them, among other things, to avoid proper scrutiny.

    And scrutiny matters because these companies have used their complex structures to play the system, and – further – they have also used the way they manage debt to arrange matters in their favour.

    While an efficient capital structure for an asset-intensive business like water must always involve a significant amount of debt, these companies are carrying far more than others in the sector – and more than most companies outside the sector, would think wise.

    In setting bills, Ofwat asks customers to pay water companies an amount that lets them maintain a prudent balance sheet divided on a 60:40 basis between debt – which is cheaper for the companies to service – and equity.

    This 40 per cent is designed explicitly as a ‘buffer zone’ – to protect companies from financial shocks and to ensure they have enough money to innovate, and push ahead on service and performance. But there are owners of individual water companies who have decided to play the debt game differently.

    The banks and funds which own these companies have increased their debt levels to nearly 80% – or 83%, in the case of Thames.

    And because the debt levels are higher than those assumed by Ofwat – and the repayments are cheaper than they would be on equity returns, and are paid out before tax to boot – the companies have made supernormal gains.

    And low interest rates in recent years have boosted these still further.

    And some in the sector have further leveraged the equity by borrowing again at parent company level, thereby diluting the true ‘equity’ even more.

    So, the Thames buffer zone is down to just 17% and it has the highest gearing in the sector.

    Yorkshire’s gearing is 75%, while Southern and Anglian are at 78% and 79% respectively.

    Now this may be good news for the investors in these companies but it is less so for customers and for investment in the environment.

    Compared to the other water companies, whose gearing remains around 60%, these companies now have less capacity to cope with risks and shocks.

    And all the time this financial engineering is going on, it’s left to the tax-payer and bill payer to continue to bear a heavy burden.

    It’s not as though the customers of the privatised water companies have exactly had it easy over the years.

    Yes there have been recent price reductions. But between privatisation in 1989 and 2015, water bills rose by 40 per cent more than inflation.

    And it is still the case that operational performance remains concerning.

    The three billion litres lost to leaks every day is more than a fifth of the total supply. Action to prevent these leaks could help bring bills down, as well as benefit the environment and improve resilience.

    This is why I so enthusiastically endorse the view of Sir John Armitt, chair of the National Infrastructure Commission, that a twin-track approach to improving resilience against drought is necessary.

    Water companies need to be investing in new infrastructure, increasing water transfers and also working, critically, to bring down leakage.

    Barring United Utilities, each of the nine large water companies suffered more mains bursts last year than in the one before. People and the environment alike have suffered: ruptured pipes, rising floodwater, interrupted supplies, and homes and businesses losing out.

    In 2016-17, Thames Water suffered 265 bursts for every 1,000 km of mains pipe.

    And in recent months, as has been reported in the Evening Standard and elsewhere, there have been three major incidents in West London alone.

    Homes, shops, offices and restaurants have been inundated. Streets have been closed for weeks. One major route has been closed as a result of a Thames Water leak at the end of January, and it still isn’t open as we speak.

    The failure to deal effectively with that leak has caused traffic chaos, disrupted commerce, and infuriated residents and commuters alike.

    And of course this problem of leakage is not the only blot on the sector.

    On pollution, too, improvement has stalled. Every year water companies are responsible for around 60 serious incidents of pollution – that’s more than one a week – and notably the tally has barely changed in a decade.

    Thames Water was recently guilty of one of the most egregious lapses. The company was fined £20.3 million for having polluted the river Thames with nearly one and a half billion litres of raw sewage in 2013 and 2014.

    The penalty inflicted reflected the ‘death of wildlife and distress to the public’ at six sites in Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire. It was a record fine. But it was also just ten days’ worth of Thames’s operating profit.

    So what does the public see? An industry slow to stop leaks, slow to repair them, slow to stop pollution and slow to say sorry.

    Customers are justified in wondering why water companies have also proved slow to clean up their financial act.

    In recent months, under pressure from the regulator and consumer groups, water companies with offshore financial structures have agreed to close them in an effort to rebuild public trust.

    But the companies – people in this room – have said it will take up to two years to wind up the Cayman operations because it is claimed it will take that long to contact international bondholders who may have made their investments a decade ago.

    That sort of excuse-mongering just won’t wash, I’m afraid.

    The people in this room – the companies you run – must change. And you must show the public that at every stage you are putting the environment and your customers first.

    That’s why I support the critical work being done by Emma Howard Boyd and the Environment Agency to get water companies doing more to protect and enhance the environment, and make the nation more resilient to flood and drought.

    From a regulatory perspective, as you know, I have also asked Ofwat’s chairman, Jonson Cox, to have another look at strengthening governance, at helping to improve performance and making sure bill-payers are getting the best possible value for their money – a government manifesto priority.

    The reality is that privatised natural monopolies bring with them specific challenges and temptations that must be addressed by a strong and energetic regulator.

    Jonson and his team are, I know, committed to finding the right balance between returns to shareholders and costs to customers. Earlier today, he gave you a first steer about Ofwat’s plans to deal with many of the issues I have raised. I want you to know that I will give Jonson and his team whatever powers are necessary, and back them in any action they need to take, to get the water companies, all of them, to up their game and further lower consumer bills.

    As we move towards the third decade of a privatised water sector, I believe there is much more that should be done to get the balance right.

    Unless we see change, the pressure for renationalisation will only grow.

    Renationalisation has significant and growing public support. I believe that renationalisation would be a terrible backward step. It would cost the taxpayer, not save them money. It would reduce investment in the environment, not increase it. It would stifle innovation, not encourage it.

    I strongly believe that private markets are the optimum way to meet the ongoing needs of water customers and the environment when backed by strong regulation. And real behaviour change.

    Should companies continue to drag their feet, I have already said I am prepared to consider changes to the regulatory framework to ensure that consumers receive the service they deserve – and the natural world is better protected in line with our 25 Year Environment Plan.

    This government’s priorities are clear: securing long-term, resilient water and wastewater services, protecting customers from potentially unaffordable bills and also making sure that we have a cleaner, greener country for the next generation.

    That’s why I want to see businesses starting to invest now in order to meet the significant and complex challenges ahead.

    This country is blessed with regular rainfall and occasional snow fall. But the drier conditions last year proved we should not take this for granted.

    Climate change is causing more extreme weather. Extended periods of drought punctuated by intense rainfall will become the normal.

    A growing, wealthier and more urban population will require more water.

    Tackling all these challenges will require imagination, tenacity and creativity.

    The people in this room have all those qualities.

    Now is the time to deploy them more energetically than ever in the public interest. Or face the consequences.

    Thank you.

  • Sir John Major – 2018 Speech on Brexit

    Below is the text of the speech made by Sir John Major, the former Conservative Prime Minister from 1990 until 1997, at Somerset House in London on 28 February 2018.

    I would like to express my thanks to the Creative Industries Federation, Somerset House Trust, and Tech London Advocates for the opportunity to speak here today.

    Brexit matters to our creative industries. They express our culture and values – but give so much more.

    Nearly 10% of our national workforce is in creative industries. They are often the young – and overwhelmingly in small units up and down the UK.

    Job growth outpaces every other part of industry – especially in the Midlands and Yorkshire.

    Their exports total over £35 billion a year, but their added value to our country – both economically and socially – is incalculable … and far beyond cash.

    Our decision to leave the EU faces the creative industries with a variety of threats that could harm their future, both in financial and human terms.

    So I am delighted to be their guest here this afternoon – to talk of Brexit.

    ********

    For years, the European debate has been dominated by the fringes of opinion – by strong supporters of Europe or convinced opponents. But, as we approach Brexit, the voice of middle opinion mustn’t be overlooked.

    I am neither a Europhile nor a Eurosceptic. As Prime Minister, I said “No” to federal integration, “No” to the Euro Currency, and “No” to Schengen – which introduced free movement of people within the European Union but without proper control of external borders.

    But I am a realist. I believe that to risk losing our trade advantages with the colossal market on our doorstep is to inflict economic self-harm on the British people.

    Of course, the “will of the people” can’t be ignored, but Parliament has a duty also to consider the “wellbeing of the people”.

    No-one voted for higher prices and poorer public services, but that is what they may get. The emerging evidence suggests Brexit will hurt most those who have least. Neither Parliament nor Government wish to see that.

    The “will of the people” – so often summoned up when sound argument is absent – was supported by only 37% of the electorate. 63% voted either in favour of membership – or did not vote at all.

    There was a majority for Brexit, but there was no overwhelming mandate to ignore the reservations of 16 million voters, who believe it will be a harmful change of direction for our country.

    Brexit has been the most divisive issue of my lifetime. It has divided not only the four nations of our UK, but regions within them. It has divided political parties; political colleagues; families; friends – and the young from the old.

    We have to heal those divisions. They have been made worse by the character of the Brexit debate with its intolerance, its bullying, and its name-calling. I welcome rigorous debate – but there must be respect for differing views that are honestly held.

    In this debate there are no “remoaners”, no “mutineers”, no “enemies of the people” – just voices setting out what they believe is right for our country.

    In recent weeks, the idea has gained ground that Brexit won’t be too bad; that we will all get through it; that we’re doing better than expected – and all will be well.

    Of course we will get through it: life as we know it won’t come to an end. We are too resourceful and talented a nation for that. But our nation is owed a frank assessment of what leaving Europe may mean – for now and the future.

    I fear we will be weaker and less prosperous – as a country and as individuals. And – although it grieves me to admit it – our divorce from Europe will diminish our international stature. Indeed, it already has.

    For decades, we British have super-charged our influence around the world by our closeness to the US (which policy divisions are lessening); and our membership of the EU (which we are abandoning).

    As a result, we are already becoming a lesser actor. No-one – Leaver or Remainer – can welcome that.

    We are all urged to be “patriotic” and get behind Brexit. But it is precisely because I am patriotic that I oppose it.

    I want my Country to be influential, not isolated; committed, not cut-off; a leading participant, not a bystander.

    I want us to be richer, not poorer. Yet every serious international body, including the IMF, the OECD, the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the National Institute of Economic and Social Research – as well as Nobel prize-winners – forecast we will be poorer outside the EU.

    Such forecasts could be wrong, but to dismiss them out of hand is reckless.

    Our own Government has assessed our post-Brexit position upon three separate criteria: that we stay in the Single Market; or reach a trade deal with Europe; or fail to do so.

    Each option shows us to be worse off: and disastrously so with no trade deal at all. And the poorest regions will be hurt the most.

    If, as negotiations proceed, this analysis appears to be correct, that cannot be brushed aside. I know of no precedent for any Government enacting a policy that will make both our country and our people poorer. Once that is apparent, the Government must change course.

    Meanwhile, we are yet again told all will be well. Certainly, the recent fall in the value of Sterling has temporarily boosted our exports. The strength of the world economy may even increase our forecast growth this year.

    But this sweet spot is artificial. It won’t last. Prosperity isn’t built on devaluation of the currency. More exports on the back of other countries’ economic growth is not a secure position.

    The UK has been at the very top of European growth.

    We are now the laggard at the bottom. We have become the slowest of the world’s big economies, even before we surrender the familiar advantages of the Single Market.

    Our negotiations, so far, have not always been sure-footed. Some agreements have been reached but, in many areas, only because the UK has given ground.

    Our determination to negotiate the divorce bill and a new trade deal at the same time was going to be “the fight of the summer” – but instead became an immediate British retreat.

    There was to be a “points based” immigration system. There isn’t, and there won’t be.

    We were to become the “Singapore of the North”. No more: we have retreated from a policy of lower taxes and de-regulation.

    No transition period was going to be needed. But we have now asked for one – during which we will accept new EU rules, ECJ jurisdiction, and free movement of people.

    I don’t say this to be critical.

    I do so to illustrate that unrealistic aspirations are usually followed by retreat.

    That is a lesson for the negotiations to come.

    They will be the most difficult any Government has faced. Our aims have to be realistic. I am not sure they yet are.

    We simply cannot move forward with leaving the EU, the Single Market, the Customs Union and the ECJ, whilst at the same time expecting à la carte, beneficial-to-Britain, bespoke entrance to the European market. It is just not credible.

    A willingness to compromise is essential. If either side – the UK or the EU – is too inflexible, too unbending, too wedded to what they won’t do – then the negotiations will fail.

    The very essence of negotiation involves both “give” and “take”. But there are always “red lines” that neither side wishes to cross. In successful negotiations those “red lines” are traded for concessions.

    If our “red lines” are held to be inviolable, the likelihood of no deal – or a poor deal – increases. Every time we close off options prematurely, this encourages the EU to do the same – and that is not in our British interest.

    A good Brexit – for Britain – will protect our trade advantages, and enable us to:

    – continue to sell our goods and services without disruption;

    – import and export food without barriers and extra cost; staff our hospitals, universities and businesses with the skills we need – where we most need them;

    – be part of the cutting edge of European research, in which British brains and skills lead the way;

    – continue with the over 40 FTAs we have with countries only as a result of our membership of the EU.

    A bad Brexit – for Britain – will surrender these, and other, advantages.

    For the moment, our self-imposed “red lines” have boxed the Government into a corner.

    They are so tilted to ultra Brexit opinion, even the Cabinet cannot agree them – and a majority in both Houses of Parliament oppose them. If maintained in full, it will be impossible to reach a favourable trade outcome.

    Alarmed at the negotiations so far, the financial sector, businesses, and our academic institutions, are pleading for commonsense policy to serve the national interest and now – fearful they may not get it – are making their own preparations for the future.

    Japanese car-makers warn they could close operations in Britain unless we maintain free access to the EU. That would be heart-breaking for many people in Sunderland or Swindon or South Wales.

    This isn’t “Project Fear” revisited, it is “Project Know Your History”.

    Any doubters should consult the former employees of factories, now closed, in Bridgend, Port Talbot and Newport, where jobs were lost and families suffered.

    In 1991, employment by Japanese firms in Wales was about 17,000 people: today, it is 2,000. If free access to Europe is lost – that scale of impact, across the UK, could lose 125,000 Japanese jobs.

    Over many years, the Conservative Party has understood the concerns of business. Not over Brexit, it seems.

    Across the United Kingdom – businesses are expressing their wish to stay in the Single Market and Customs Union. But “No”, say the Government’s “red lines”.

    Businesses wish to have the freedom to employ foreign skills. “No”, say the Government’s “red lines”.

    Business and academia wish to welcome foreign students to our universities and – as they rise to influence in their own countries – we then have willing partners in politics and business for decades to come. “No”, say the Government’s “red lines”.

    This is not only grand folly. It’s also bad politics.

    The national interest must always be above the Party interest, but my Party should beware. It is only fear of Mr Corbyn and Mr McDonnell that prevents a haemorrhage of business support.

    Without the comprehensive trade deal the Prime Minister seeks, we risk economic divorce from the EU, and the chill embrace of a “hard” Brexit with WTO rules.

    Leading Brexit supporters believe there is nothing to fear from losing our special access to the Single Market.

    But that is profoundly wrong. Swapping the Single Market for WTO rules

    would mean our exports facing the EU external tariff, as well as hidden nontariff barriers that could be adjusted to our disadvantage at any time.

    A Minister has speculated we might face tariffs of 3%. Not so.

    It is more likely that we will face tariffs on cars (10%), food (14%), drinks (20%), and dairy products (36%). Even if a successful negotiation were to halve these tariffs, our exports would still be much more expensive to sell – and this would apply far beyond agriculture and the motor industry.

    And if, in retaliation, the UK were to impose tariffs on imports, this would result in higher prices for the British consumer.

    If we and the EU agreed to impose nil tariffs – as some have speculated – WTO rules mean we would both have to offer nil tariffs to all countries. That isn’t going to happen.

    This is all very complex. But it is crucial. And none of it has yet been properly explained to the British people.

    There have been attempts to reassure business by claiming that other nations trade with the EU on purely WTO terms. That statement is simply wrong.

    China, the US and Japan all have side agreements with Europe on standards, customs co-operation, mutual recognition and investment. These economic giants did so to protect their own trade even though none of them is exposed as we are – still half our entire exports go to Europe.

    Ultra Brexit opinion is impatient to be free of European relationships; to become – in their words – a “global player”, “sovereign”, “in control”. I believe they are deceiving themselves and, as a result, they are misleading the British people.

    Before the modern world took shape – their ambition would have been credible. But the world has changed, the global market has taken root, and – if we are to care for the people of our nation – philosophical fantasies must give way to national self-interest. We cannot prepare for tomorrow by living in the world of yesterday.

    I don’t doubt the convictions of those who long for the seductive ambition of British exceptionalism. But these sentiments are out-of-date and, in today’s world, wrong.

    It is not my purpose to stir controversy, but the truth must be spoken. The ultra Brexiteers have been mistaken – wrong – in nearly all they have said or promised to the British people.

    The promises of more hospitals, more schools, lower taxes, more money for transport were electioneering fantasy. The £350 million a week for the NHS was a ridiculous phantom: the reality is if our economy weakens – as is forecast – there will not only be less money for the NHS, but for all our public services.

    We were told that nobody was threatening our place in the Single Market. That tune has changed.

    We were told that a trade deal with the EU would be easy to get. Wrong again: it was never going to be easy, and we are still not sure what outcome will be achieved.

    We were told “Europe can whistle for their money” and we would not pay a penny in exit costs. Wrong again. Europe didn’t even have to purse her lips before we agreed to pay £40 billion to meet legitimate liabilities.

    I could go on. But suffice to say that every one of the Brexit promises is – to quote Henry Fielding – “a very wholesome and comfortable doctrine to which (there is) but one objection: namely, that it is not true.”.

    People should pause and reflect: if the Brexit leaders were wrong in what they said so enthusiastically before – are they not likely to be wrong in what they say now?

    The Prime Minister is seeking a “frictionless” border between Northern Ireland and the Republic. She is absolutely right to do so. This is a promise that must be honoured, and I wish her well. But, so far, this has not materialised – nor, I fear, will it – unless we stay in “a” or “the” Customs Union.

    Those of us who warned of the risks Brexit would bring to the still fragile Peace Process were told at the time that we “didn’t understand Irish politics”. But it seems we understood it better than our critics. We need a policy to protect the Good Friday Agreement – and we need one urgently. And it is our responsibility to find one – not the European Union.

    Although the referendum was advisory only, the result gave the Government the obligation to negotiate a Brexit. But not any Brexit; not at all costs; and certainly not on any terms. The true remit can only be to agree a Brexit that honours the promises made in the referendum.

    But, so far, the promises have not been met and, probably, cannot be met.

    Many electors know they were misled: many more are beginning to realise it.

    So, the electorate has every right to reconsider their decision.

    Meanwhile, our options become ever narrower.

    We have ruled out full membership. Ruled out the Single Market and Customs Union. Ruled out joining the European Economic Area. Dismissed talk of joining EFTA.

    A Norway deal won’t do. Nor will a Swiss deal. Nor a Ukraine deal; a Turkey deal; or a South Korea deal. No, to them all, say the Government’s “red lines”.

    So, little is left, except for “cherry picking” – which the EU rejects. Or a comprehensive deal – which will be very hard, if not impossible, to get. So compromise it must be – or no deal at all.

    It is now widely accepted that “no deal” would be the worst possible outcome. The compromise must, therefore, focus around our accepting Single Market rules (as Norway does) and paying for access.

    Or an enhanced “Canada deal” – and it would need to be enhanced a very great deal to be attractive. The Canada deal largely concerns goods – whereas the bulk of UK exports are services.

    But what we achieve to protect our interests may depend on what we concede: it is, as I say, “give” and “take”. If our “red lines” dissolve, our options enlarge.

    Our minimum objective must be that “deep, special and bespoke” trade deal the Prime Minister has talked about.

    So, some unpalatable decisions lie ahead – with the cast-iron certainty that the extreme and unbending Brexit lobby will cry “betrayal” at any compromise. But it is Parliament, not a small minority, that must decide our policy.

    I spoke earlier of the “divisiveness” of Brexit across our United Kingdom. But, in due time, the debate will end and – when it does – we need the highest possible level of public acceptance for the outcome. It is in no-one’s interest for the bitterness and division to linger on.

    I see only one way to achieve this.

    It is already agreed that Parliament must pass legislation giving effect to the deal. A “meaningful vote” has been promised. This must be a decisive vote, in which Parliament can accept or reject the final outcome; or send the negotiators back to seek improvements; or order a referendum.

    That is what Parliamentary sovereignty means.

    But, to minimise divisions in our country – and between and within the political parties – I believe the Government should take a brave and bold decision. They should invite Parliament to accept or reject the final outcome on a free vote.

    I know the instinct of every Government is to oppose “free votes”, but the Government should weigh the advantages of having one very carefully. It may be in their interest to do so.

    There are some very practical reasons in favour of it.

    Brexit is a unique decision. It will affect the lives of the British people for generations to come. If it flops – there will be the most terrible backlash.

    If it is whipped through Parliament, when the public are so divided, voters will know who to blame if they end up poorer and weaker. So, both democracy and prudence suggest a free vote.

    The deep divisions in our nation are more likely to be healed by a Brexit freely approved by Parliament, than a Brexit forced through Parliament at the behest of a minority of convinced opponents of Europe.

    A free vote would better reflect the reality that – for every 17 voters who opted for Brexit – 16 opted to remain in the EU.

    But, regardless of whether a free vote is offered, Parliamentarians must decide the issue on the basis of their own conscience. Upon whether, in mature judgement, they really do believe that the outcome of the negotiations is in the best interests of the people they serve.

    By 2021, after the likely two-year transition, it will be five years since the 2016 referendum. The electorate will have changed. Some voters will have left us. Many new voters will be enfranchised. Others may have changed their mind.

    No-one can truly know what “the will of the people” may then be. So, let Parliament decide. Or put the issue back to the people.

    And what is true for the House of Commons must apply to the House of Lords. Peers must ignore any noises off, and be guided by their intellect and their conscience.

    I have been a Conservative all my life.

    I don’t enjoy being out of step with many in my Party and take no pleasure in speaking out as I am today.

    But it’s as necessary to speak truth to the people, as to power.

    Leaving Europe is an issue so far-reaching, so permanent, so over-arching that it will have an impact on all our lives – most especially on the young and the future. With only 12 months to go, we need answers, not aspirations.

    This is far more than just a Party issue. It’s about the future of our United Kingdom, and everyone who lives in it.

    That is what matters. That is why I’m here today.

  • Liam Fox – 2018 Speech on the UK’s Trading Future

    Below is the text of the speech made by Liam Fox, the Secretary of State for International Trade, at Bloomberg in London on 27 February 2018.

    Thank you Constantin for the introduction. And thank you to Bloomberg for hosting us in these wonderful surroundings. It is a pleasure to be here today to talk about Britain’s trading future.

    The historic decision by the British people to leave the European Union has presented this country with a number of choices about its future global direction.

    It has generated a great deal of soul-searching and caused a number of important questions to be aired. Some of these relate specifically to the referendum decision itself, others are questions which needed to be addressed anyway but have been brought into sharper focus by that decision.

    Where do we see our place in the world? What sort of economy and what sort of country do we want to be?

    What should our influence be in global affairs and global trade?

    How will we generate the income we will need to ensure a prosperous and secure future for the generations that come after us?

    Since the referendum vote and the creation of the Department for International Trade, my ministerial team and I have undertaken over 150 overseas visits, to all parts of the globe, to old friends and new allies alike and to markets large and small.

    From across the world, the keenness to deepen trade and investment ties with this country and once again hear us champion the case for free trade, is palpable.

    And why should that surprise us?

    The United Kingdom is one of the world’s largest and most successful economies. We are at record levels of employment.

    Our success is underpinned by a legal system whose reputation is second to none.

    We have a skilled workforce and a low tax and a well-regulated economy.

    We are home to some of the world’s finest universities, our research and development capabilities are cutting-edge and our financial institutions world-leading.

    We are in the right time zone to trade with Asia in the morning and the United States in the afternoon, and, of course, we speak English, the language of global business.

    In 2017, we saw the highest level of foreign direct investment projects landing in the United Kingdom in our history – as the world’s leading companies offered a strong vote of confidence in the future of our economy.

    This was matched by an increase of some 11% in the value of our exports. In 2017, £617 billion of UK goods and services were sold overseas, narrowing our trade deficit by just under £7 billion.

    The second half of 2017 also saw strong growth in manufacturing output.

    Partly as a result of this improved export performance, order books for British manufacturers remained well above their long-term average. This is testament to the hard work and dedication from British businesses up and down the UK.

    We also saw a continued explosion of interest in British tech and innovation. In the last year we had more than 58,000 tech startups in our country and more venture capital in tech was invested in London than in Germany, France, Spain and Ireland combined.

    All of this adds up to an extremely positive picture, one which should give us confidence in dealing with the global challenges that lie ahead and the opportunities that we must seize.

    This confidence is key to being able to take advantage of a dramatically shifting picture around the world where previous assumptions are being challenged, where influence is moving and where huge new markets are blossoming.

    I often repeat the fact that the IMF estimates that, in the next 10 to 15 years, 90% of global economic growth will originate from outside the European Union.

    This is not to diminish the importance of Europe as an economic market and partner, but merely to point out the scale of the shift in global economic activity so that we are orientated towards the most income generating parts of the global economy.

    The thriving economies of south and east Asia and, increasingly, Africa, are, and will become, even more important as their newfound prosperity drives demand for the goods and services of the developed countries prepared to interact with their markets.

    By 2020 China’s middle class is expected to number 600 million, and by 2050 Africa, on its own, will represent 54% of world population increase. By 2030 China will have over 220 cities with a population greater than 1 million people. The whole of Europe will have 35. And on top of the vast Asia-Pacific growth it is predicted that there will be 1.1 billion middle class Africans by 2060.

    Such a shift, not just in global demographics, but in the rise of the collective wealth of developing countries, will determine where the golden opportunities of the future will be and where we must be too.

    Markets are already out there for the best that Britain has to offer. I see it on every overseas trade visit I make.

    For UK export goods from top-end fashion to high-quality cars to Scotch whisky to high-end manufacturing, the demand is growing.

    For professional services too, from accountancy to law or education or life sciences or financial services, these newly emergent middle classes will need more of the skills where we are already world class.

    It is here that we will find the United Kingdom’s unique comparative advantage.

    We must, as a country, set our sights on this future.

    We have to take a long-term view.

    And our future must be global.

    Because the pattern of our trade is changing.

    57% of Britain’s exports are now to outside the EU, compared with only 46% in 2006. What is more, while our EU exports are still dominated by goods, our non-EU exports are evenly split between goods and services.

    Our approach should not be premised on simply identifying how much of our current relationship we want to keep, but what we need to prosper in a rapidly changing global environment.

    We cannot let the practices and patterns of the past constrain the opportunities of the future.

    We require an economic outlook that allows us to take advantage of the substantial opportunities that Europe will continue to bring but without limiting our ability to adapt to a changing and growing world beyond the European continent.

    The UK is perfectly placed to partner with the economic powerhouses of the future, and they in turn are eager for the mutual prosperity that such a partnership would bring.

    To do this, we need the ability to exercise a fully independent trade policy. We have to maximise our overall trading opportunities for the UK and secure the prosperity of our people.

    Now, in the first speech I gave as Secretary of State for International trade, I set out Britain’s proud tradition of defending both the concept and the practice of free trade.

    Time and again, studies have found evidence of a strong positive correlation between economic openness and growth.

    During the 1990s, per capita income grew 3 times faster in the developing countries that lowered trade barriers than in those that did not. That effect is not confined to the developing world, either. The OECD Growth Project found that a 10 percentage increase in trade exposure was associated with a 4% rise in income per capita. In other words, free trade works.

    Globalisation has been of huge and sustainable benefit to the world economy, including through trade, specialisation and innovation.

    Increased competition, economies of scale and global value chains have all contributed to a productivity revolution, boosting the output of businesses across the globe.

    And when free trade agreements are reached, the positive effect on businesses, industries and economies can be remarkable.

    The EU/Korea free trade agreement, which came into effect in July 2011, is just one example. In the year before the deal was agreed, the UK beer and cider industry sold almost nothing to Korea; exports were under £2 million.

    By 2017, however, sales to South Korea have exploded to over £93 million.

    Free trade can be particularly important for developing countries, as they gain access to new cutting-edge technologies and millions more consumers of their goods.

    As the world’s emerging and developing economies have liberalised trade practices, prosperity has spread, bringing industry, jobs and wealth where once there was only deprivation.

    According to the World Bank, the 3 decades between 1981 and 2010 witnessed the single greatest decrease in material deprivation in human history. A billion people were taken out of abject poverty in one generation. That is why it is morally unthinkable to reject free and open trade.

    And it’s not just in markets overseas that the benefit from free trade, we also feel them here at home too.

    Although it might not always be noticed, the wider benefits of a liberal trade policy are shared by consumers and households across this country, by providing a wider choice of goods at a lower price.

    It provides supermarkets with the ability to sell us a full range of foods all year round. It enables electronic retailers to sell us increasingly sophisticated technology at lower prices – from TVs to computers to mobile phones. All this helps incomes go further.

    For example, in the decade to 2006, the real import price of clothing fell by 38%, a real help for families with children.

    But more than lower prices, open markets allow consumers the ability to choose where they source their goods to ensure sustainability and the propagation of our wider values, including our environmental agenda and maintaining the highest standards in the food we can buy.

    As with many freedoms, free and open trade can be taken for granted.

    But the reality is that these freedoms and the benefits that they bestow have been hard-won and have to be continually defended from the siren-call of protectionism and the anti-trade lobby.

    This is why our vision for a post-Brexit Britain is one of leadership.

    The UK is already a committed member of the World Trade Organization – a body which is the home of the international rules-based trading system that we support.

    Currently, our direction and action within the WTO is determined by our membership of the EU.

    But soon, the UK will regain the full authority of independent membership.

    We will establish our own trading schedules.

    We are taking the necessary steps so that, on leaving the EU, we will accede to the Agreement on Government procurement.

    And we will begin to exercise our independent voice.

    The UK stands ready to offer clear leadership, to be a staunch defender of trading rights and freedoms, not only at the WTO, but at other international bodies too.

    Moreover, we can help forge the way on the liberalisation of those areas of global trade where the WTO and other bodies have yet to extend their reach; services, digital trade and the knowledge economy.

    The digital economy is growing 32% faster than the wider economy and creating jobs three times more quickly. Digital trade is inherently transnational, and e-commerce offers previously unknown opportunities for SMEs and individuals, particularly women, to take part in the globalised economy.

    In many areas of this important agenda, the EU has not kept pace. There is a real opportunity for the UK to become a global leader in digital trade.

    If we are to lead, then we must ask ourselves what leadership looks like.

    As I alluded to earlier, part of the failure of current trading practices has been their rigidity.

    There is a tendency among some nations to cling to the ‘known’ trading mechanisms more suited to the structures of the past than the digital age of the future.

    Flexibility and agility, then, are the key to any future trade policy. The ability to react quickly to new developments, to explore new opportunities and to nurture fledgling industries will be the key to growth and prosperity in the coming years.

    That is why my department is pursuing a more flexible approach to our country’s trading future.

    There is a growing awareness that a full-blown, gold-plated free trade agreement may not be the only solution in a fast-changing global economy.

    Fortunately, there is a global ‘toolbox’ from which we can choose the most appropriate mechanisms for liberalising trade.

    These range from being key members of multilateral agreements, to mutual recognition agreements and the sort of outcome-based equivalence approach recently advanced by the governor of the Bank of England.

    We will consider multi-country alliances of the like-minded, right down to bilateral arrangements, using all the advantages available from our diplomatic network to the system of Prime Ministerial Trade Envoys.

    All these options are available but only to countries with independent trade policies.

    In the 20 months of DITs existence, this work has begun in earnest.

    We have opened 14 informal trade dialogues with 21 countries from the United States to Australia to the UAE.

    These will lay the groundwork for future FTAs, but will also work to identify those non-tariff barriers to trade that can be removed earlier.

    We have begun appointing a new network of Her Majesty’s Trade Commissioner’s based in market, able to maximise exports and investment, free from centralised Whitehall targets.

    With a presence in 108 countries and working across government, DIT is a fully integrated trade department bringing together investment, export promotion, export finance and trade policy.

    We are currently piloting a new Global Growth Service, increasing our support for those medium-sized businesses with international ambitions.

    And DIT also has an extensive range of resources available to SMEs and new exporters.

    For example, UK Export Finance has been recognised as one of the world’s most innovative and flexible Export Credit Agencies.

    Last year UKEF provided £3 billion in support, helping 221 UK companies sell to 63 countries around the world. 79% of these companies were SMEs.

    Our cutting-edge digital platform, great.gov.uk, was launched in November 2016, and has since been visited by over 2.8 million users. And we are reviewing our wider strategy on exports and investment, including undertaking an Exports Strategy review, working alongside the Industrial Strategy, to identify what more we can do to help exporters large and small across the whole of the UK to maximise their export potential.

    We are working hard to create the right framework for business, and especially our small and medium-sized businesses, to enable them to make the most of their innovation, ingenuity and expertise that are the cornerstone of our economy.

    But what does all this mean for our future relationship with the European Union and beyond?

    For those firms that trade with the European Union, keeping all of the EU’s regulations, the Customs Union, the Single Market and the external tariffs sounds like an easy option.

    But we cannot allow our future to be determined by our past. Instead, we should turn our sail and tack into the global trading winds of the future.

    We should fully exploit our own natural advantages to unlock the vital prosperity we need.

    We should be able to offer better preferential agreements and work more closely with a range of developing countries.

    And we should build a trade policy that works for the long-term interests of businesses, citizens, and future generations.

    Disadvantages of remaining in a customs union

    There has been much debate in recent days about the EU’s customs union.

    As we are leaving the European Union, necessarily, we cannot remain in the Customs Union which is open only to EU member states. The alternative has been proposed that we enter a new customs union with the European Union. But what would this mean?

    First of all, for goods, we would have to accept EU trade rules without any say in how they were made, handing Brussels considerable control of the UK’s external trade policy.

    Secondly, it would limit our ability to reach new trade agreements with the world’s fastest-growing economies. And thirdly, it would limit our ability to develop our trade and development policies that would offer new ways for the world’s poorest nations to trade their way out of poverty.

    And what would a customs union actually consist of? Which sectors would be covered? Would it be like Turkey which has a customs union but only for industrial goods and some agricultural products?

    Whatever it covered, should such a customs union be negotiated, we would be forced to allow goods from other countries into our market tariff-free, on terms set by Brussels, without any tariff-free access to the markets of other countries in return. And, if we were to disagree, Brussels could simply overrule us.

    Those on the political left who opposed TTIP the agreement between the European Union and the United States might want to consider that in a customs union, they would have to implement any elements of TTIP, whether they like them or not, in any sectors covered by a customs union.

    As rule takers, without any say in how the rules were made, we would be in a worse position than we are today. It would be a complete sell out of Britain’s national interests and a betrayal of the voters in the referendum.

    Then there is the issue of constraints on the ability to negotiate independent trade arrangements. A customs union would remove the bulk of incentives for other countries to enter into comprehensive free trade agreements with the UK if we were unable to alter the rules in whole sectors of our economy, as Turkey has now discovered.

    The inevitable price of trying to negotiate with one arm tied behind our back is that we would become less attractive to potential trade partners and forfeit many of the opportunities that would otherwise be available to us.

    And then there is a question of our ability to help developing countries in a way that we would like. Not only does the EU have a high average external tariff – 5.1% compared to the US 3.5% – but it continues to operate tariffs in a way that particularly disadvantage countries who want to add value to their primary commodities and move up value chains.

    As we leave the EU we are committed to maintaining preferential access for developing countries.

    Outside the Customs Union, we would have the freedom to expand access and tackle barriers to trade to enable poorer countries genuinely to trade their way out of poverty and become less dependent on our aid budgets. Many NGOs who look to Britain to take the lead in this area would find their aims frustrated by membership of a customs union.

    Remaining in a customs union of any type would only make sense if we were to abandon our global ambitions and limit our abilities to shape our trade policy to the changes in the global environment that I have outlined.

    Tomorrow’s choices would be constrained by today’s status quo. We would deny ourselves the opportunity to shape Britain’s place in the future world economy and our ability to influence the direction of that economy itself.

    Of course, the government’s aim is to ensure that UK companies, as well as those from abroad, retain the maximum freedom to trade with and operate within European markets.

    We want European businesses to do the same in the UK. That is why we want to develop customs arrangements which lead to trade being as frictionless as possible at our borders, in a tariff-free environment, with as few non-tariff barriers as possible.

    And on Northern Ireland, it is, of course, as precious a part of our United Kingdom as any other, so it’s vital that it has a full share in our future prosperity and our opportunities as a trading nation. The avoidance of a hard border in Northern Ireland is of crucial importance, as is the prevention of trade barriers between Northern Ireland and Great Britain.

    We believe that a comprehensive and liberal trading agreement with the EU is the best way to deal with the crucially important issue of avoiding that hard border.

    Britain has vigorously supported the trade agreements reached between the European Union and countries such as Canada and Japan. We have done so because we believe in the principle of free trade but also because we believe it is the best way to increase the prosperity of the people of Britain and the rest of Europe.

    We believe that the same principles should apply to the agreement between the UK and the EU itself as we move away from the political constraints of the union.

    We do so as one of the world’s largest economies with a strong alignment to the EU.

    We understand that outside the EU we will no longer have influence in the Council of Ministers, the Commission or the European Parliament, where EU rules will be made.

    But it would not be in the interests of the EU or the UK to introduce unnecessary restrictions on trade and investment across the European continent, and it would send a signal to global investors that Europe was less open for business than it is at present.

    We want an economically vibrant EU to be a major partner for the future in a deep and special partnership.

    Our negotiations must be focused on delivering a partnership that will support the prosperity, stability and security of UK and EU citizens.

    And it will need a bespoke relationship. We are not Canada or Norway or Switzerland.

    We are Britain, and what’s more we want to be a truly global Britain.

    A global Britain with ambitions to maximise our trade opportunities both inside and outside the EU.

    A global Britain that wants the freedom to work with global partners.

    And a global Britain which seeks to minimise any barriers to trade because it all comes down to flexibility and agility in what will be an increasingly competitive global economic environment.

    The UK must regain the ability to negotiate our own trade arrangements with our own partners.

    To surrender this would be to endanger not only our long-term prosperity and the innovation and dynamism that will ensure that Britain remains a leading economic power, but also our ability to influence this new trading landscape in a way that reflects UK values and interests.

    We have been given an historic opportunity to re-orientate our economy.

    We will have to ensure that we put the prosperity, stability and security of our people first, but we must also remember that history, experience and values are vital navigational tools and that confidence, optimism and vision will always deliver more than pessimism or self-doubt.

    The prize at stake is not simply the future prosperity of the United Kingdom but our ability to participate in and shape the world economy at one of the most exciting and important points in history.

    It is about moving away from the concepts that defined our activities in the 20th century to new ways of viewing the opportunities of the 21st.

    It is about breaking down barriers, opening up markets and providing opportunities so that the benefits of free trade can be enjoyed not only by the next generation in this country but so that some of the world’s poorest can share in the fruits of our prosperity.

    We are at a crossroads with a historic opportunity to help shape our global future for the better.

    We have a duty to grasp it.

  • Greg Clark – 2018 Speech on Energy Cap

    Below is the text of the speech made by Greg Clark, the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, in the House of Commons on 26 February 2018.

    We will today introduce the Domestic Gas & Electricity (Tariff Cap) Bill to this House.

    We are taking this action because the energy market is not working for all customers. The Competition and Markets Authority 2016 investigation into the energy market highlighted that domestic customers of the Big 6 energy companies pay on average £1.4 billion a year more than they would in a truly competitive market.

    We believe that competition is the best way to drive value and service for customers. Where this is not happening, the government has a duty to act by ensuring regulation is effective and companies have the right incentives to provide value.

    The energy market is not working for all consumers.

    There is in effect a two-tier market in operation whereby active customers save money by switching suppliers, but those who can’t or don’t switch remain on poor value tariffs. It is of particular concern that customers who don’t switch typically tend to be more vulnerable than those who are getting the best deals. The difference between the cheapest available tariff and the average Standard Variable Tariff of a Big 6 supplier is around £300.

    Earlier this month, one million more vulnerable consumers who receive the Warm Home Discount were protected from higher bills with the extension of Ofgem’s safeguard tariff cap. There are now 5 million households protected by this cap which was introduced in 2017.

    The Domestic Gas and Electricity (Tariff Cap) Bill will, subject to Parliamentary approval, put in place a requirement on the independent regulator, Ofgem, to cap domestic energy tariffs until at least 2020. Currently, some consumers are paying up to £300 more than they need to – this cap will help bring this overcharging under control. It will require Ofgem to set an absolute cap on standard variable and default tariffs, protecting the 11 million households in England, Wales and Scotland who currently buy their energy on this basis and who are not protected by existing price caps.

    The Bill is part of a package of measures being introduced by the government to increase competition in the retail energy market and lower prices for consumers. These include support for more and faster switching, initiatives to improve engagement and the rollout of smart meters. We believe all of these measures will help create the conditions for more effective competition.

    In setting the cap, Ofgem must protect existing and future domestic customers, but must do so in a way that creates incentives for suppliers to improve efficiency, sets the cap at a level that enables suppliers to compete effectively for supply contracts, maintains incentives for customers to switch and ensures that efficient suppliers are able to finance their businesses. The government intends Ofgem to be able to set the temporary price cap by the end of this year so that it is in place by next winter.

    The cap will apply until the end of 2020 when Ofgem will recommend to government whether it should be extended on an annual basis up to 2023.

    The introduction of the Domestic Gas and Electricity (Tariff Cap) Bill comes after the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Select Committee scrutinised the draft Bill as part of the government’s work to ensure the Bill would be effective and would meet its objectives. This pre-legislative scrutiny took written and oral evidence from a wide range of stakeholders. The Committee made a number of recommendations about the Bill, which the government has accepted in full, including the Committee’s recommendation that Ofgem reviews the level at which the cap is set at least every 6 months, and the recommendation to add in safeguards so that where consumers make an active choice to opt for green standard variable tariffs or default tariffs, Ofgem is able to protect these customers but not stifle investment in green energy. Ofgem will also be required to consult on a potential exemption for green tariffs.

    This Bill will give the regulator the powers to protect those consumers who are overpaying for energy, while ensuring that other initiatives such as switching, smart meter roll out and consumer education continue to contribute to a more competitive market.

  • Boris Johnson – 2018 Statement on Syria

    Below is the text of the speech made by Boris Johnson, the Foreign Secretary, in the House of Commons on 26 February 2018.

    Mr Speaker, I’m grateful to the Hon Member for Barrow and Furness for raising this vital issue. In 7 years of bloodshed, the war in Syria has claimed 400,000 lives and driven 11 million people from their homes, causing a humanitarian tragedy on a scale unknown anywhere else in the world.

    The House should never forget that the Asad regime – aided and abetted by Russia and Iran – has inflicted the overwhelming burden of that suffering. Asad’s forces are now bombarding the enclave of Eastern Ghouta, where 393,000 people are living under siege, enduring what has become a signature tactic of the regime, whereby civilians are starved and pounded into submission.

    With bitter irony, Russia and Iran declared Eastern Ghouta to be a ‘de-escalation area’ in May last year and promised to ensure the delivery of humanitarian aid.

    But the truth is that Asad’s regime has allowed only one United Nations convoy to enter Eastern Ghouta so far this year – and that carried supplies only for a fraction of the area’s people. Hundreds of civilians have been killed in Eastern Ghouta in the last week alone and the House will have noted the disturbing reports of the use of chlorine gas.

    I call for these reports to be fully investigated and for anyone held responsible for using chemical weapons in Syria to be held accountable.

    Over the weekend I discussed the situation with my Turkish counterpart Mevlut Cavusoglu, and Sa’ad Hariri, the Prime Minister of Lebanon. Earlier today, I spoke to Sigmar Gabriel, the German foreign minister, and I shall be speaking to other European counterparts and the UN Secretary General in the coming days.

    Britain has joined with our allies to mobilise the Security Council to demand a ceasefire across the whole of Syria and the immediate delivery of emergency aid to all in need.

    Last Saturday, after days of prevarication from Russia, the Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 2401, demanding that “all parties cease hostilities without delay” and allow the “safe, unimpeded and sustained delivery of humanitarian aid”, along with “medical evacuations of the critically sick and wounded”.

    The main armed groups in Eastern Ghouta have accepted the ceasefire, but as of today, the warplanes of the Asad regime are still reported to be striking targets in the enclave and the UN has been unable to deliver any aid. I will remind the House that hundreds of thousands of civilians are going hungry in Eastern Ghouta only a few miles from UN warehouses in Damascus that are laden with food. The Asad regime must allow the UN to deliver those supplies, in compliance with Resolution 2401, and we look forward to Russia and Iran to making sure this happens, in accordance with their own promises.

    I have invited the Russian Ambassador to come to the Foreign Office and give an account of his country’s plans to implement Resolution 2401. I have instructed the UK Mission at the UN to convene another meeting of the Security Council to discuss the Asad regime’s refusal to respect the will of the UN and implement the ceasefire without delay. Only a political settlement in Syria can ensure that the carnage is brought to an end and I believe that such a settlement is possible if the will exists.

    The UN Special Envoy, Staffan de Mistura, is ready to take forward the talks in Geneva and the opposition are ready to negotiate pragmatically and without preconditions. The international community has united behind the path to a solution laid out in UN Resolution 2254 and Russia has stated its wish to achieve a political solution under the auspices of the UN.

    Today, only the Asad regime stands in the way of progress. I urge Russia to use all its influence to bring the Asad regime to the negotiating table and take the steps towards peace that Syria’s people so desperately need.

  • Nadhim Zahawi – 2018 Speech at National Learning Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Nadhim Zahawi, the Minister for Children and Families, at the National Learning Conference on 27 February 2018.

    Good Morning. I’m delighted to see so many people have braved the arctic weather to be here today – thank you.

    I know you all have incredibly busy jobs and that it’s not easy to take time away, but I do believe that you will leave at the end of the day pleased that you did make the time. I hope you will leave enthused and with the ideas, connections and tools to continue that ever important quest of providing the best support to children and their families.

    I am delighted to have been appointed to my first ministerial role – and even more happy and elated for that role to be focusing on supporting our most vulnerable children and families. I genuinely think I have the best portfolio in the department, if not the best job in government!

    As you know, my background is in business and in particular in market research. But if setting up and running YouGov taught me anything, it’s that if you want to really understand an issue you need to get out there and talk to the people who live and breathe it every single day.

    So I wanted to get out and meet social workers and leaders across the country straight away – literally two days into the job I went to Hackney with our Chief Social Worker, Isabelle Trowler, to learn about how they turned that services around and to discuss our reform programme.

    I’ve since been to Doncaster and Wigan, and have met with our Partners in Practice. I am excited and looking forward to getting out more over the coming months.

    I can honestly say that the social workers I’ve spoken to are some of the most dedicated and inspiring people that I have had privileged pleasure to met in my life. As an MP, I would often get people in my surgery talking about their experiences with children’s social care, and it was often so overwhelming. By the end of a 15-20 minute appointment with a family, I would find it almost impossible to breathe, let alone think. You do this every day. So I have the upmost respect and admiration for our people who do this job day in and day out.

    I have been particularly struck by the commitment and passion of the social workers I’ve met doing the best they can for the children and families they are working with. That includes constantly looking for more effective ways of supporting children, building their understanding of what works and learning from the experience of their peers.

    I don’t think I need to tell you that social workers are central to solving the challenges we face in children’s social care, or that investing in them is absolutely key.

    But as leaders, you know as well as I do that enabling social workers to do the best for children is about more than training, or caseloads, or staff turnover.

    Not that those things aren’t important – they absolutely are important. But to achieve the scale of improvement that Eileen Munro identified we need, we must build a whole system that creates the space for excellent social work practice to flourish.

    That’s the ambition that we set out in ‘Putting Children First’ – taking action across the whole system to transform social work practice. An ambition that I’m determined to deliver on – building on the hard work of my predecessors and working with you as leaders across the country. And of course I have to pay tribute to Graham Archer and my team who I have to say, coming from the private sector, are phenomenal human beings.

    If we want dynamic social work where excellent practitioners can reach their potential then we have to build a permissive, creative and supportive environment in which social workers have the confidence and freedom to develop and test new ways of working.

    That is exactly what the Children’s Social Care Innovation Programme was set up to do – providing funding and support as well as the ‘licence’ to test different ways of working. And helping to build a system that is open to innovation and that learns from best practice as well as from when things go wrong.

    Through the Innovation Programme we have invested almost £200m in 95 projects. Some of these projects are rethinking the whole of a children’s social care system in a local authority. Others are redesigning support for young people around a single trusted person. And others still are adopting and adapting from elsewhere new ways of supporting foster parents.

    Many of those projects are already having a positive impact on systems, practice and, most importantly, on outcomes for children. You will have the opportunity to hear from many of those today.

    But to give just one example – the first ever project funded through the Innovation Programme was ‘Focus on Practice’ which aimed to completely redesign the Triborough’s entire children’s social care system so that professionals could spend more time with children and families, and so that practice was rooted in greater expertise and evidence. The project has already started to show positive results including Ofsted finding that Focus on Practice was making an effective contribution to practice. The independent evaluation found that, as well as reductions in placements costs, staff absence and use of agency staff had also reduced, indicating improved staff wellbeing.

    And Triborough has now set up the Centre for Systemic Social Work to share their learning and enable other authorities to embed systemic practice, improving services and outcomes for children.

    With the Innovation Programme we set out to support genuine innovation to catalyse a real step change in practice.

    And I’m delighted to announce today three new innovation projects supported by the Programme. We are investing up to £5m in Social Impact Bonds to support care leavers as they transition to adulthood and independent living in Sheffield, Bristol and in Lewisham. These Social Impact Bonds are a first for the Innovation Programme and a first for care leavers – testing new commissioning and funding models to support care leavers in to education, training and employment.

    I’m also pleased to announce that Spectra First will deliver the Care Leaver Covenant on behalf of the Department. The Care Leaver Covenant is a fantastic opportunity for organisations in civil society to sign up to helping care leavers get the practical support other young people get from their families when starting out in life and becoming more independent. That means helping them in a range of practical ways. It could be helping them access and benefit from education, employment and training opportunities, for instance by offering apprenticeships, making sure they’ve got a set of interview clothes so they feel confident when they walk through the door, or providing discounted and free offers such as gym membership that helps combat social isolation and loneliness. The Covenant is a way of making that happen and getting a wide range of organisations involved providing care leavers with the chances they need and deserve.

    We know the difference that local authorities at their best can make to the lives of care leavers and the work Mark Riddell did in Trafford before being appointed the Department’s national adviser for care leavers is testament to that. I know from my conversations with Mark that together we could do so much more to help care leavers raise and achieve their aspirations. So I very much look forward to seeing the exciting possibilities that I know all those Covenant pledges will bring.

    Now I don’t underestimate the impact that individual innovation projects have had on systems, practice and on outcomes for children.

    But the collective impact of the Innovation Programme is arguably even more important – the potential it has to build our understanding of what works in supporting vulnerable children and in driving improvement across the whole system.

    Robust, independent evaluation is critical to building the evidence base of what works. I hope you have seen the 57 individual project evaluations that we have published to date, as well as thematic reports, and an overarching evaluation report? Huge thanks to Professor Judy Sebba and her team at the Rees Centre at Oxford University for their work coordinating the evaluations.

    Understanding and learning from what works isn’t enough, though. It’s a bit of a cliché to say that we learn most from failing. But like most clichés, it is essentially true. Learning from when things go wrong is just as important – and we must make sure that the system as a whole learns from when things go wrong.

    That is why we are committed to strengthening arrangements for learning from the cases involving the serious harm of children to swiftly inform child safeguarding policy and practice at all levels.

    We are in the process of setting up a new independent Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel and hope to be able to announce the chair and members very soon.

    This first National Learning Conference is an important part of sharing the learning from the Innovation Programme. And I hope it won’t be the last opportunity to share learning nationally, both from the Innovation Programme and of course more broadly.

    I’m delighted that we are working with innovation experts from Nesta, SCIE [sky], and FutureGov, as well as expert researchers from Cardiff University to establish a new What Works Centre for Children’s Social Care.

    The What Works Centre’s focus is to improve outcomes for children and their families by developing a powerful evidence base, and supporting its translation into better practice on the ground. It aims to identify the most effective interventions and practice systems and support their implementation by practitioners and decision makers.

    It will join the world’s first network of What Works Centres, which support policy makers, practitioners and commissioners to make decisions based on strong evidence of what works.

    I’m really excited about the potential here to make a real difference to establishing a credible, trusted voice on what works in children’s social care that is integral to social work practice and development.

    The What Works Centre will only reach that potential though, if it is delivering what you as leaders and practitioners in children’s social care need in a way that is accessible and practical. And to do that they need to hear from you and to work with you.

    I know the What Works Centre team have spent much of the last few months talking to you to understand what you need and how they can work with you to fill the gaps that are there.

    I would encourage you to continue to talk to them, to challenge them, and to support them. They are here to work with you, to make your work easier and support you to do the best for the children you work with.

    That’s probably enough from me. Today is really about you going out and learning from the experts – each other. You are the experts. I look forward to meeting you and discussing ideas with you over the course of today and the coming months.

    Enjoy the rest of the day – thank you for being here and for the work you do for our children.

  • Penny Mordaunt – 2018 Speech at Bond Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Penny Mordaunt, the Secretary of State for International Development, on 26 February 2018.

    We’ve just 12 years left to fulfil our promise to the world’s poorest, and the commitment so central to the Global Goals – to Leave No One Behind.

    We set ourselves the task that by 2030 every child will have the chance of a decent education, but we are 85 years adrift on current projections – not set to achieve that until 2115.

    That is better though than our current assessment on when we will end malnutrition – we are looking at least a century before delivering that.

    And we’ll be well into two centuries hence before we do make extreme poverty history.

    You know that on current trajectories, achieving the Global Goals – which we talk about and show our commitment to in the pin badges we wear – is simply out of reach.

    We’ve known for some time we are failing.

    The facts speak for themselves – and the many we are letting down.

    If we want those facts to change we have to change what we do.

    To deliver on the promises we’ve made to the world’s poorest, business as usual isn’t going to cut it.

    And to understand how we need to change we need to understand why the world, and we as a sector, are falling short.

    Let us reflect for a moment on the issue currently dominating the headlines: sexual exploitation of the vulnerable, known by some, ignored by others.

    How did we get to this?

    How did those, there to protect, support and serve the most vulnerable people on earth, become complicit in their exploitation – by protecting the perpetrators, by failing to grip the problem or turning a blind eye?

    Because we failed to put the beneficiaries of aid first.

    How did we lose sight of that fundamental duty, for all the good people, many in this room today, and all the good works done? For be in no doubt that is what has happened.

    It may have started with an attitude born of fundraising pressures, fierce competition for bids or work, guarding an organisation’s reputation to maximise its reach and offer.

    That attitude found a justification, via the chaotic and complex situations we operate in, the belief that reporting wrongdoing would do more harm than good, that we’ve so many other things to worry about, or that peacekeeping troops are doing far worse.

    And then any nagging doubts that lingered, as predatory individuals moved to another organisation’s payroll, were banished, in order to avoid any criticism of the sector.

    Maybe that’s how it happened. Maybe.

    However it did, the result was the grotesque fact of aid workers sexually exploiting the most vulnerable people, and threatening whistle-blowers if they protested.

    In our respective walks of life – in aid and in politics – we have difficult choices to make, some of life and death: Who to help. Who to save. Who to rescue. How to do the most good. How to do the least harm.

    But on some issues there is no choice.

    You cannot help and support people, you cannot give them hope and a chance, you cannot promote human rights or the dignity of every human being – whilst paying them for sex, and whilst funding an industry that exploits them.

    So why do we find ourselves here?

    We find ourselves here for the same reasons we find ourselves so far from delivering the Global Goals.

    Because we’ve forgotten three things: The needs of those we are here to serve. The expectations of those who enable us to – the British people. And the values that make us who we are.

    To recover we must put the beneficiaries of aid first.

    We must live up to the values of our nation.

    And as a sector, as well as a “to do list” we also need to have a “to be list”.

    We cannot separate the aid this nation gives from the values this nation has. So, how will those principles and values help us deliver the goals?

    First, they will improve our performance.

    I’ve seen great things from organisations when they put aside concerns about information and knowledge sharing, Intellectual Property ownership – stop competing and start collaborating.

    In Somalia, by putting beneficiaries first, sharing data and working together, aid organisations have staved off famine.

    In Kenya, I’ve seen technological innovation IP shared to utterly transform options for communities to become more resilient.

    And I’ve seen so many nations, frustrated at a humanitarian system which if it worked better would give us a billion more to spend on helping people, start to come together to speed up the pace of reform.

    Second, it will enable others to help.

    I’ve seen entrepreneurs forfeiting profit and their own security to bring water, healthcare and childcare to their workforce.

    Major companies wanting to make this their mission.

    Small community organisations and businesses connecting with and supporting those in the developing world.

    And I’ve seen the courage and commitment of our armed forces opening up the space for us to operate in.

    We need the humility to recognise what others can bring will multiply our efforts. And we need to let many others help.

    Third, it is a necessary condition of the British public’s support – and their support is a necessary condition of our work.

    I’ve seen the poorest in our own nation giving generously to others less fortunate than themselves, time after time – whether it’s in DEC appeals, or in Oxfam’s shops.

    They’ve seen Ebola defeated, girls educated, hurricane victims rescued, polio near eradicated, and hope and help brought to Syria’s hell on earth, by individuals risking everything, everything, for the love of humanity.

    They continue to give, but I can tell you on many fronts they want us to raise our game: on what you do, on what I fund, and what together we can achieve.

    And finally, we must live our values because what you do, what Britain’s aid sector does, is more than satisfy the practical needs of life.

    In addition to food, water and shelter we bring the rule of law, security, justice.

    We bring protection for refugees and human rights.

    We bring freedom – of thought, of religion, of scrutiny, of the press.

    We bring empowerment – of women, of people with disabilities, of children.

    Without us bringing our values to work, we will fail in that work.

    So, let this moment not just be a wake-up call to improve safeguarding.

    Let it also be a wake-up call to all that we must be, if we are to deliver on our promise to the world’s poor.

    I will shortly bring forward a new development offer focussed on delivering the Global Goals.

    It will require others to help.

    It will require us to change where we work and who we work with, and greater cooperation between DFID and our armed forces.

    It will depend on the private sector.

    It will require more sharing of data and working together.

    It will compel us to leave no one behind.

    It will make UK aid work harder – delivering for the world’s poor, but also for the UK’s security and prosperity, upon which UK aid depends.

    It will require me to stop funding organisation that do not deliver our objectives, contribute to the Goals, or live up to our standards.

    It will have our national values and freedom at its heart.

    It will require leadership and courage to deliver.

    And it will put our beneficiaries first.

    They are the 10 million more children who will see their 5th birthday. The 81 million who will have enough food to develop normally. And the 400 million more able to read and write. If we do deliver the Global Goals by 2030.

    In my first week in this job I told you that I believe in aid.

    And I’ve not changed my mind.

    And I believe in you, in why you chose this career, in why you are here today.

    The organisations in this room do great work. I know that. I’ve seen it with my own eyes.

    All the vital work that Bond members, organisations of all sizes, from small to large, do each and every day. Passionate, committed, tireless individuals doing amazing work, in some of the most difficult circumstances imaginable.

    I believe in British compassion and charity. From the Magna Carta to universal suffrage, from William Wilberforce to Peter Benenson to Leonard Cheshire – as a nation we can and we have made the world a better place.

    Since the Oxfam scandal broke, you and UK aid have helped vaccinate around 1.5 million children from polio.

    That’s heroic.

    But if we have the courage and the will to change we can do more.

    And we must.

    We know what to do.

    We know what to be.

    So let’s get to it.

    Thank you.

  • David Lidington – 2018 Speech on Brexit

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Lidington, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office, in 26 February 2018.

    It is a pleasure to be with you all this afternoon in Broughton and I want to thank Airbus for their hospitality today.

    This company is a great success story for Wales, for the United Kingdom and for Europe: the biggest private sector employer here in Broughton, but with two-fifths of its workers commuting each day from homes in England and part of a European enterprise now operating in five continents and employing people from 130 different nationalities. Airbus is a vivid example from the business world of how diversity in unity can make for global success.

    Those same characteristics have defined the success of the United Kingdom.

    The different nations that make up our country have had a long, often uneasy history. The castles just a few miles down the road from here at Chirk, Holt and Caergwle remind us of ancient quarrels.

    But the shared experience and solidarity of our four nations at times of great success and grave danger alike have come to represent one of the most powerful and enduring symbols of freedom, liberty and democracy anywhere in the world and the proudest citizen of Aberdeen, Plymouth, Coleraine or Broughton can take huge pride in also being part of the United Kingdom – a union greater than the sum of its parts.

    And now, as we prepare to leave the European Union, preserving and strengthening that union of the United Kingdom matters more than ever.

    As we negotiate a new deep and special partnership with our friends and neighbours in Europe and forge a new role for the United Kingdom in the world, we must work for a future that fosters wealth-creation, opportunity and innovation in every part of the United Kingdom, and which strengthens the sense of security, belonging and solidarity in all communities, building a country that really does work for everyone.

    And we as a country are at a crossroads in our history.

    We face a choice: a choice that represents the difference between a prosperous, secure nation that is united at home and stronger abroad, and a poorer country that is divided at home and a weaker player on the global stage.

    Now let me be clear at the outset: this choice is not about whether we leave the European Union.

    As many of you here will know, I voted and campaigned hard to remain in the EU – as did many people in this country.

    But I recognise as indeed do our 27 partners that people in the UK took a democratic decision to leave the EU – and that is what we must now focus our energies on delivering, seeking to minimise the risks and to seize the opportunities.

    So the choice is therefore not whether we leave, but how we choose to do so.

    We could leave as a nation divided; a country split; an economy disjointed – struggling to forge a unified consensus on the way ahead.

    But there are opportunities too – opportunities we can seize if we come together, unite, and develop into that stronger, global Britain which we can be.

    There were many different reasons why people voted to leave the European Union in 2016.

    But reflecting on that campaign, I think that above all else, people throughout this country sought to regain a feeling of control, not just control over our laws, but over our lives too, and the people we elect into office.

    And when you talk to people on the doorstep, it’s clear that that vote expressed not just a rejection of membership of the European Union, but a demand to bring decision making and accountability closer to home, to restore a sense of belonging in communities, a feeling of connection between the elector and the elected.

    So yes, we have to ensure, as we are determined to do, that Brexit means more powers going to the devolved governments and not fewer.

    But I believe too that to renew that sense of connection between citizen and government, we need to press on too with our broader mission to devolve greater freedom, more power to act to cities, towns and counties in all parts of the United Kingdom. And I hope that the devolved governments will choose to take that approach too. After all, for someone in Broughton or Llandudno or Welshpool, Cardiff can seem as distant as London; from the perspective of Orkney, priorities may look very different from those of Central Scotland.

    Our aim should be nothing less than to see our entire country coming together and having their voices heard. It means people here in Wales, as well as in Scotland, Northern Ireland and England – and it means our villages, towns cities and communities throughout the United Kingdom all having a voice too.

    Our commitment to devolution

    At the heart of the Conservative political tradition is both patriotism, loyalty to the special, shared union of the United Kingdom, but also a commitment not just to individual rights but to the vital importance of family and community, of village, town and county in enabling individual men and women to find meaning, value and fulfilment in their lives.

    As Edmund Burke put it more than 200 years ago:

    To be attached to the subdivision, to love the little platoon we belong to in society, is the first principle (the germ as it were) of public affections. It is the first link by which we proceed to love of our country and of mankind”.

    I suspect that most of us here derive our sense of who we are from many different sources – from our family, from where we live, perhaps from a sports club, choral society or community group that we support, in many cases from our religious faith, and of course from our nation.

    And in the United Kingdom we know that there is no contradiction between being an ardent Welsh or Scottish patriot and being a committed supporter of the Union. If I needed any reminder of that truth, it was when the Secretary of State for Scotland was gloating to me about the rugby result on Saturday.

    Looking back to the last century, I think – being honest – that my party was too slow to recognise that the increasing calls for devolution and decentralisation represented a genuine shift in public mood.

    But I think if you look at our record in government in the last eight years demonstrates that we have got the message.

    The two Scotland Acts, in 2012 and 2016, have made Holyrood one of the most powerful parliaments of its kind in the world.

    City deals in Scotland – backed by more than £1 billion of UK Government spending – have now either been agreed or committed to for all of Scotland’s seven cities.

    The Wales Act is delivering a stronger, fairer, more accountable devolution settlement for Wales.

    City deals for Cardiff and Swansea and the future North Wales Growth Deal are supporting the industries and jobs of tomorrow.

    The passage of English Votes for English Laws at Westminster means that MPs representing English voters rightly have the final say on issues which matter directly to them and their constituents.

    We have created new combined authorities with elected mayors across England – putting power firmly in the hands of local people in the West Midlands, the West of England, Tees Valley, Cambridgeshire, Greater Manchester, Liverpool and Sheffield.

    And this government will continue to strive to restore devolution in Northern Ireland, and will remain fully committed to the Belfast Agreement. We will continue to govern in the interests of all parts of the community in Northern Ireland, and to uphold the totality of relationships embodied in that agreement, both East-West and North-South. And we shall stand by the commitments in the Joint Report between the UK and the European Union that was agreed in December last year.

    But while we can take pride in that record of decentralising power, we can and should go further to drive forward both the economic and the political regeneration of our country.

    So we are working with local authorities to help them co-ordinate their own economic plans with our UK-wide national industrial strategy – bringing together local businesses and leaders to deliver growth, enterprise and job creation in every part of our country.

    We are supporting combined authorities located around our English cities to adopt elected mayors, should they wish to do so.

    We will bring forward a Borderlands Growth Deal – including all councils on both the Scottish and English sides of the border – to help secure prosperity in southern Scotland.

    We will build on the future North Wales Growth Deal by also fostering opportunities between Welsh cities and the rest of the UK, for example by linking economic development opportunities in Cardiff, Newport and Bristol.

    And we have committed to looking at a city deal for Belfast.

    Our commitment to the union

    Now at the same time, we are unapologetically committed to the constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom.

    So, alongside those initiatives to bring more powers closer to the people, we are working to ensure that the institutions and the power of the United Kingdom are used in a way that benefits people in every part of our country.

    For a country that not only has a shared past, but continues today to draw strengths from all parts of the union.

    There are more than 31,000 UK civil servants are based here in Wales, including in our new UK Government Hub in Cardiff.

    Eight out of ten goods lorries leaving Wales go to the rest of the UK, highlighting the importance of our United Kingdom wide market.

    Bombardier’s factory in Belfast has a supply chain of 800 companies throughout the UK and Ireland, supporting thousands of high-skilled jobs.

    It is from the Department for International Development’s joint headquarters in East Kilbride, Scotland that the ‘United Kingdom’s international work to vaccinate children against killer diseases, to educate girls and to provide clean water and sanitation to people who desperately need it is being driven.

    And of course our base on the Clyde, home to thousands of shipbuilding jobs, is central to the UK’s defence capabilities.

    Put simply: we are all more prosperous and more secure when we all work together for our common good as one United Kingdom.

    Now leaving the EU presents many challenges for our centuries-old union story – and opportunities too.

    And some want to use it as an excuse to loosen these ties that bind us together – even sever them completely. Such an outcome would leave every one of our four nations both weaker and poorer.

    Why we need frameworks

    The task before us isn’t an easy one, it is complex.

    How do we allow greater control across England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland over the things that affect them separately – while preserving the things that affect us all collectively as we return powers from Brussels to the United Kingdom.

    How do we ensure that a new wave of devolution delivers for the people of Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland – but at the same time protects the essence of our union?

    For a start, we have all – the UK government and the devolved governments together – agreed that we will need to have frameworks that break down which powers should sit where once they have returned from Brussels.

    And that is a sensible and constructive approach – because these powers are not all the same.

    Some are very obviously for the devolved governments and parliaments to exercise, and don’t need any involvement on a UK-wide basis.

    For example, the devolved governments are best placed to manage the safety and quality of the water they drink, as well as looking after and caring for their natural environment.

    At the same time, there are other powers that are yes for the devolved governments to shape according to their own needs or ambitions and where they don’t need legislation to underpin how what they do relates to the other nations of the UK, but where it would still be in everybody’s interests to agree a looser form of cooperation – such as Memoranda of Understanding – between the devolved and UK governments.

    For instance, we will need to continue to work together on important domestic policy areas, for example by ensuring that a vital organ donated by someone in one part of the UK can be used to treat a patient in another part of the United Kingdom.

    Now those powers should rightly be devolved, not centralised – and that is the offer we have put forward on the table.

    But on the other hand, some powers are clearly related to the UK as a whole and will need to continue to apply in the same way across all four nations in order to protect consumers and businesses who buy and sell across the UK, in all parts of what we might call the United Kingdom’s common market. That market is one of the fundamental expressions of the constitutional integrity that underpins our existence as a union.

    The Government will protect that vital common market of the UK. And by retaining UK frameworks where necessary we will retain our ability not only to act in the national interest when we need to, but to do so with a unity of purpose that places the prosperity and security of all of our citizens, no matter where they’re from or where they were born, to the fore.

    For example, at present EU law means that our farmers and other food producers only need to comply with one set of package labelling and hygiene rules.

    Four different sets of rules in different parts of the UK would only make it more difficult and more expensive for a cheesemaker in Monmouthshire to sell to customers in Bristol or for a cattle farmer in Aberdeenshire to sell their beef in Berwick-upon-Tweed.

    Now these are everyday issues affecting how people live their life – they are issues that people in the UK expect us to get on and agree in the clear interests of families and businesses in every part of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland alike.

    So that is exactly what the UK government stands ready, waiting and willing to do.

    They are the steps that will ensure the United Kingdom’s market continues to work as it always has done:

    to ensure that the factory in Paisley can continue to sell freely to Preston;

    that the family firm in Swansea can continue to buy supplies from Swindon;

    and customers in Londonderry can still place their order in Leeds, without any extra red tape or expense.

    And I want to say one thing further. The Prime Minister has been clear throughout the negotiations with the European Union that we want to preserve the standards that protect employment and workers rights, to deliver consumer protection, and safeguard the environment.

    And that means keeping these high standards across the whole of the United Kingdom, and for our part as the United Kingdom government, we are committed to working in partnership with the devolved governments to ensure those standards are universal in all four parts of our country.

    Clause Eleven

    Now, it is fair to say that the road to agreeing how we go forward together has not always been a smooth and straight one.

    I, along with my predecessors in the Cabinet Office and the Secretaries of State for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, have engaged closely with the devolved governments in order to understand their concerns and to respond to them.

    Those concerns have been expressed clearly – and often forthrightly – throughout those conversations!

    But we have continued to talk – both at political and official level – and, even more importantly, we have continued to listen.

    The Prime Minister’s first visit after entering Downing Street was to Edinburgh.

    Two of my first phone calls upon moving across to the Cabinet Office last month were to the Deputy First Minister of Scotland and the First Minister of Wales.

    I met them both in person during my first weeks in this role, in Cardiff and in Edinburgh – to underline my personal commitment to engaging constructively and striking the agreement that is in all our interests.

    While they have always acknowledged that the Government has said we want to see many of the powers from Brussels go straight to the devolved governments, there has been a question throughout about what our starting point should be.

    Should those powers sit at a UK-wide level while we agree the future frameworks?

    Or should they sit at a devolved level while we then agree the future frameworks?

    The Government has listened to the different points of view – from the Scottish and Welsh Governments, from Welsh and Scottish colleagues in both Houses of Parliament at Westminster and to views expressed in the devolved parliaments.

    And just last week, we held constructive discussions in London where we put forward a considerable offer. A commitment that the vast majority of powers returning from Brussels will start off in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast – and not in Whitehall.

    And let me be in no doubt: this would mean a very big change to the EU Withdrawal Bill that is before Parliament and a significant step forward in these negotiations.

    It would put on the face of the Bill what we have always said was our intention: wide-ranging devolution not just away from Brussels, but from Westminster too.

    And if accepted, this offer puts beyond doubt our commitment to a smooth and orderly departure from the European Union, in a way that doesn’t just respect the devolution settlements, but strengthens and enhances them.

    So our proposal is to amend the Bill before Parliament to make clear that while frameworks are being agreed, the presumption would now be that powers returning from the EU should sit at a devolved level.

    Westminster would only be involved where, to protect the UK common market or to meet our international obligations, we needed a pause – I stress pause – to give the governments time to design and put in place a UK-wide framework.

    As I have said before, we expect to be able to secure agreement with the devolved governments about what frameworks should – or should not – apply to each power.

    And where powers do need to be returned to a UK-wide framework, we will maintain the ability for the UK Parliament to legislate to do so.

    Just as the current provisions within the EU Withdrawal Bill on releasing powers to devolved governments are intended to be by consensus and agreement with the devolved governments themselves, so we should expect this new, inverted power to operate in the same way – by consensus and by agreement.

    Nor would this proposed arrangement prevent the devolved governments from doing anything that is already within their competence.

    At the same time, our proposal offers an important protection too. It would ensure that, if there were not to be an agreement – and not having an agreement on a framework would put at risk the smooth and orderly exit that we all need – the UK Parliament could protect the essential interests of businesses and consumers in every part of the Kingdom.

    A deal is there to be done.

    So I am clear that it is in the interests of all parts of the United Kingdom to agree a way forward that:

    fully respects the devolved settlements.

    preserves the integrity of the United Kingdom market.

    and maintains the UK’s ability to secure an agreement with the European Union on our future partnership.

    Our new proposal is a reflection of the seriousness of our desire to strike agreements with the devolved governments.

    Our seriousness about delivering more powers to Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, while at the same time ensuring there are no new barriers for people across the nations of the United Kingdom.

    So families can continue to buy and sell freely, so businesses won’t face extra bureaucracy and higher costs, so people face minimal disruption to their everyday lives, and maximum certainty that things can carry on as normal, as we look ahead to the future.

    So I hope that the talks that are now continuing between the UK and devolved governments will lead in coming weeks to an agreement that can be taken forward in the EU Withdrawal Bill and which we can all welcome as being to our mutual benefit.

    Seizing the opportunities

    And so as we look to the future, this is the balance that, working together, we can strike a strong and fair devolution settlement for our devolved partners, with powers sitting at the most appropriate level and common UK frameworks where necessary, with our constitutional integrity intact.

    By making that kind of agreement, we can truly become that United Kingdom we need to be here at home – and that greater, stronger United Kingdom abroad.

    For that is the task we now face. Building a global Britain that is fit for the future, equipped not only to tackle head on future global challenges, but confidently seize the new opportunities available to us as well and so when we do speak and act on the world stage we do so with one authoritative voice, which reflects and represents the interests of all four nations. A country that has the strength and flexibility needed to survive, and indeed thrive on the international stage.

    And with our considerable existing strengths, I am confident this future can be a secure and prosperous one:

    We are the sixth largest economy in the world, a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, the biggest European defence spender in NATO, with significant military capabilities and a proven readiness to deploy them in defence of our interests. A key player in a highly developed set of security relationships such as Five Eyes.

    Our country has:

    One of the best diplomatic services in the world and one of it’s biggest aid and development programmes.

    We have world leading universities that attract the best talent from around the globe; more Nobel Laureates than any country bar the United States; a globally competitive economy, with some of the most exciting burgeoning industries such as digital and fintec; a language that is the language of the world, and, thanks to institutions like the BBC and the NHS, the greatest soft power of any nation on the planet.

    But just imagine if we spoke with four conflicting voices: each would be weaker, fainter and misheard as our global competitors shouted louder with a strong, single voice, and a divided country at home would be weaker, less secure, and less prosperous overseas.

    The unity that exists between our four nations gives us a scale of ambition none of the four of us could possess alone.

    We need to use our collective economic clout and the experience and reach of our diplomatic network in the United Kingdom to sell Scotch whisky and engineering expertise, Welsh cheeses and mini-computers, buses and linens from Northern Ireland right around the world.

    And maintaining the common market of the United Kingdom will give us the heft to lead the charge for common regulatory standards at a global level. Having the right framework in place at home means we can be at the forefront of developing the new regulatory environment we need for the exciting technologies of tomorrow.

    And what we want is innovators and producers right across Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland to be able to get ahead of the curve and edge ahead of their global competitors.

    And it’s also by sticking together that we’ll be able to provide global leadership, discharging our international obligations, standing up for human rights, democratic values and the rule of law and defending the rules-based international order that is so vital to our security and our prosperity together.

    Conclusion

    It would be easy to loosen the bonds that connect us.

    But with a strong, fair devolution settlement that ensures powers and decision-making are exerted as close to people as is practical, I believe a sense of trust can be restored between the people of the United Kingdom and those they choose to govern on their behalf.

    And with common frameworks in place that maintain the integrity of our union, we can ensure that we continue to speak with that powerful voice globally.

    Each of those two principles strengthens the other.

    So let us seize the moment and focus on that prize that is on offer:

    a union greater than the sum of its parts; a country that remains a strong, global leader; a United Kingdom at home, and an active, force for good in the world.

    Thank you very much indeed.