UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: 2019

  • Mark Field – 2019 Speech at RUSI

    Below is the text of the speech made by Mark Field, the Minister for Asia, on 25 February 2019.

    Good afternoon everyone. RUSI is best-known for bringing together the world’s top minds to find answers to the questions we are all asking. This event is a good example.

    In today’s increasingly fractious and unpredictable world, one of those questions is whether the existing system of global rules and norms, which governs everything from international law and regional security to trade, immigration and health, is fit for purpose.

    I look forward to reading about the conclusions reached here today. In the meantime, I should like to offer a British Government perspective.

    Many of you will be aware that the International Court of Justice has this afternoon released an Advisory Opinion in relation to the British Indian Ocean Territory. This not a judgment against the UK, but an Advisory Opinion for the UN General Assembly. Of course, we will look at the detail closely. But the defence facilities on the British Indian Ocean Territory help to keep people here in Britain and around the world safe.

    That is why we have maintained our sovereignty of the islands. We will continue to seek a bilateral solution to what is a bilateral dispute with Mauritius.

    We are in no doubt that the Rules-Based International System, as it is often cumbersomely referred to, has been a significant force for good, particularly since the tragedy of the twentieth century’s two World Wars.

    It has increased states’ ability to resolve their differences peacefully, and provided a framework for the greatest sustained rise in prosperity which mankind has ever enjoyed.

    But we recognise that the system is coming under pressure from a number of quarters.

    The first, and perhaps most immediately obvious challenge, comes when states deliberately breach their international obligations.

    Russia has committed some of the most egregious recent violations.

    Among other things, it has illegally annexed Crimea, used a chemical weapon to lethal effect in Salisbury, and continued to prop up a murderous Syrian regime, which has itself flouted international law by unleashing chemical weapons on its own citizens.

    The second challenge is less tangible but equally potent, and it comes from new technologies. These are posing challenges to the system in two quite different ways:

    First, new technologies are exposing gaps in the rules, such as on artificial intelligence, or challenging us to be clearer on how they apply, such as in space.

    Second, they are enabling states to do things that would be unacceptable with conventional methods. Cyber is a particularly good example.

    Malicious cyber activity has no respect for international boundaries and attacks are getting bigger, bolder and more serious all the time.

    The objectives seem to vary – from mindless vandalism to concerted attempts to undermine democracies or steal commercial information.

    For example, China has used cyber-attacks to acquire commercial secrets, in direct contravention of its bilateral and G20 commitments. We made public our concerns about this with a coalition of over a dozen countries.

    The UK continues to advocate for a free, open, peaceful and secure cyberspace.

    Last year, our Attorney General set out for the first time our views on how the world should approach cyberspace. It would be governed by the same international law, agreed norms and principles of responsible State behaviour that apply in the real world.

    This was incidentally a view that had already been endorsed by the UN General Assembly in 2015.

    Unfortunately, China and Russia continue to undermine this ambition, by pressing for greater international regulation in cyberspace, in particular by launching parallel initiatives that seek to bind and constrain people with new, unnecessary rules, as well as exporting their own ideologies and infrastructure which will constrain the freedom of users to enjoy the benefits provided by a free and open internet.

    So it is clear that challenges to the international system are arising both from states and from new technologies.

    In many states, including in the west, a third form of challenge to the international system has arisen through the election of governments that do not instinctively support it.

    As a result, we see greater suspicion of the multilateral system, or at the very least a questioning approach. Tackling this doubt, and making the case for effective multilateralism, is the responsibility of all those who believe in the opportunities that co-operation brings.

    The final source of pressure on the system that I want to highlight today is the shifting balance of global power. When the current system was established, largely in the wake of WW2, the world was a very different place. Since then there has been a steady eastwards shift of economic power.

    In the last forty years alone, China’s share of the global economy has grown from just 2% to 15%. By 2030, China is set to overtake the United States as the world’s biggest economy.

    By 2050, the economies of China and India could exceed those of the entire G7 – the so-called leading industrialised economies.

    Understandably, China and other rising powers wish to adapt the system so that it better suits their interests.

    So it is clear that, for a variety of reasons, the rules based system is at the very least being called into question, and at worst is under direct threat.

    At the same time, the scale and significance of the global challenges we face is greater than ever. Many of these challenges – from conflict to organised crime and from cyber-attacks to illegal migration – are not contained by borders and will not be solved unless the international community can work together.

    Nowhere is this cross-border challenge more important or obvious than climate change.

    Even within the next 30 years, rising seas could make some coastal areas uninhabitable. Many of our Commonwealth partners are already feeling the effects.

    We should be glad that no other country has followed the US in withdrawing from the Paris Agreement. But we still need urgently to raise our global ambition if we are to honour the spirit of our commitments and match the risk we all face.

    I think we should be in no doubt: now, more than ever, we need a global system of rules and cooperation that we can all buy in to.

    How should the UK respond?

    First, we need to defend the principle of multilateralism; the idea that international agreements, norms, and institutions are essential to tackling critical global problems.

    Our commitment to doing so is why – to give but one example – ships from the Royal Navy join those of many other nations to uphold the rules that allow maritime trade to flourish, most notably the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, whether through counter-piracy operations in the Gulf of Aden, or by reinforcing freedom of navigation in the South China Sea.

    However, I should not for a moment suggest that the international system in its current form is perfect. So, second, we need to reform some of the most important global institutions – the UN, WTO, NATO and global human rights and justice mechanisms – so that they remain relevant and retain global trust. If they are not delivering for ordinary people then they are fundamentally failing.

    In the UN Security Council, we shall continue to challenge our colleagues on the Council, and ourselves, to ensure that this vital body shows the leadership the world needs.

    In response to the shift in global power, we are listening carefully and have said clearly we are open to change. In that vein, we have already been outspoken in our support for India, Japan, Brazil and Germany taking a permanent seat on the Security Council, alongside permanent African membership.

    We have actively supported reform of the Bretton Woods institutions – WB, IMF – to reflect growth of the Chinese and Indian economies.

    In Geneva we remain committed to supporting the Human Rights Council, as the best tool the international community has to promote human rights and address impunity. We welcome the Council’s action on Burma, and Syria. But it could do more: collectively we must use the Council better to respond more firmly and more rapidly to serious and deteriorating situations, especially when there is risk of future conflict.

    In The Hague, the record of the International Criminal Court remains poor. We are working closely with our partners to find paths to reform.

    The United States, among other nations, has made clear that the WTO is not working. We believe that China, as the world’s largest goods trader, has an important role to play in the necessary debate on WTO reform, and we played an important role in increasing China’s voting weight in the World Bank last year.

    We share some American concerns over Chinese trade practice, but we believe any action to remedy this must be WTO compliant. We want the WTO to defend free trade and a level playing field as a route to economic growth for all.

    To conclude – the challenges to the international system are diverse, but the global threats we face are significant.

    The Rules-Based International System is still the best means we have to respond to these threats, but it needs to reform and adapt if it is to remain effective and relevant.

    We are determined to help shape this change and to stand up for shared interests and values.

    This means fighting to strengthen and defend the values that matter to us most: human rights, peaceful resolution of disputes and the rule of law.

    It means using all our influence as a permanent member of the Security Council, the G7 and the G20, a leading member of NATO and the Commonwealth, a major development and humanitarian donor, and a champion of human rights.

    It means working with like-minded international partners to ensure that the Rules-Based International System remains a force for good in the 21st Century and beyond.

    Ladies and gentlemen, that is what we are committed to do.

  • Victoria Atkins – 2019 Speech on Modern Slavery

    Below is the text of the speech made by Victoria Atkins, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Crime, Safeguarding and Vulnerability, Paris Supply Chains conference on 22 February 2019.

    Welcome everybody, I am absolutely delighted to be here and thank you so much to the Ambassador to the British Embassy for hosting today’s event and it is a very fitting time in terms of the UK and its battle against modern slavery and human trafficking to hold an event this month because this month marks a milestone in the UK’s fight against human trafficking.

    This month marks the 15th anniversary of the Morecambe Bay disaster.

    In one night, more than 20 people drowned when they were cut off by the tide, while picking cockles off the Lancashire coast in the North West of England .

    The workers were Chinese nationals, trafficked into the UK in shipping containers.

    By the time they realised that the sea water was rising, it was pitch black, and extremely cold. They could not speak English, and were unfamiliar with the area, or the tidal patterns on the treacherous mud flats.

    For each pound of cockles that they picked, they received less than 9 pence.

    The disaster was a wake up call to many that forced labour, human trafficking, and slavery are not evils of the past.

    They are with us today, and their victims are hidden in plain sight.

    In England, Morecambe Bay is known as a nature reserve and holiday resort.

    The fact 20 people could be trafficked there from the other side of the world and forced to work – with no one noticing until it was too late – brought home to us all the awful reality of slavery and human trafficking in the 21st Century.

    Globally an estimated 40.3 million people are victims of modern slavery and human trafficking, including some 16 million in forced labour in the private sector.

    Overall, labour generates $150 billion in illicit profits annually.

    No sector is immune. Workers in labour intensive industries like manufacturing, agriculture, construction and manufacturing are particularly vulnerable to abuse.

    And as we gather in Paris ahead of fashion week, we must remember that the textiles sector, with its complex global supply chains, is also a susceptible trade.

    The industry faces significant risks, but also with clear opportunities for innovation to improve the lives of workers.

    Since the collapse of the Rana Plaza building in Bangladesh in 2013, which killed over 1,000 workers, much of this work has accelerated, but there remains a tot to do.

    We know that women – who make up 75% of the workforce in fashion supply chains – are particularly at risk.

    That is why the UK is investing in programmes to improve protections for female textile workers.

    The Department for International Development’s Work in Freedom initiative has now reached half a million female textile workers in India and Jordan.

    Through our gender equality at the Workplace project we are partnering with brands including Marks & Spencer, SuperDry and Levis to promote worker’s rights and tackle forced labour and sexual violence in the Indian garment sector.

    This project has now benefitted more than 14,000 women.

    We should take a moment to recognise the good work fashion companies are doing as well.

    Many are already changing their purchasing practices to reduce pressures on their supply chain that can lead to exploitation.

    Companies like H&M have developed a Fair Wage strategy and commissioned the Ethical Trade Initiative to review their work and publish the findings.

    We’re also seeing new innovations that are helping to accelerate progress and I’m delighted that we have the Open Apparel Registry here today.

    Tools like their transparency map are crucial in enabling collaboration between different brands to identify risks in the supply chain.

    As Minister for Crime, Safeguarding and Vulnerability, I am proud that the UK is a world-leader in tackling modern slavery and human trafficking.

    In 2015, we introduced the Modern Slavery Act to tackle slavery, servitude, forced and compulsory labour, and human trafficking.

    The act gives law enforcement agencies the tools to deal with offenders and provides enhanced protection for victims.

    And, of particular relevance to this conference, the UK is the first country to require businesses to report on how they are preventing forced labour in their global supply chains.

    Under the landmark ‘transparency in supply chains’ provision in the Modern Slavery Act we have seen thousands of transparency statements published.

    And I am pleased to announce that today we have appointed Sara Thornton as the UK’s new Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, to lead our work and help the UK eradicate modern slavery and human trafficking.

    Ms Thornton is one of the most senior police officers in the country and brings her wealth of expertise, experience and independence in seeking justice for victims of crime.

    Effectively tackling forced labour requires leadership not just at home, but internationally as well.

    At the UN General assembly in September last year, the UK launched the ‘Principles to Combat Human Trafficking in Global Supply Chains’, with the U.S., Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

    These principles commit governments to implementing a range of measures that help address modern slavery and human trafficking in global supply chains.

    And, as we meet in Paris, I am proud that the French government stands alongside us in their determination to eliminate human trafficking and labour exploitation.

    Here, there is a legal requirement for companies to publish their mechanisms to identify, assess and mitigate exploitation risks.

    And, since legislation was introduced on both sides of the Channel, we have seen businesses:

    ensure transparency their supply chains
    start to map suppliers beyond tier one
    identify high-risk areas and introduce tailored steps to support the most vulnerable workers

    This is a significant achievement, and today’s panels will seek to build on this progress.

    Because, we want to see businesses make year-on-year progress. Whether they are already industry-leading in their approach, or mapping their supply chains for the first time.

    We also want to see more businesses supporting their suppliers to introduce key protections for workers, from the implementation of the Employer Pays Principle to tackle exploitative recruitment fees, to the global brands we have seen sign up to IndustriALL’s ACT initiative.

    Legislation, alongside growing consumer awareness, has transformed business culture.

    Across all industries, senior business leaders are engaging with the fight against forced labour for the first time.

    But we cannot be complacent.

    Businesses need to be more vigilant than ever to understand their risks, undertake targeted interventions and measure progress.

    They are not alone. The scale of the challenge means that it can only be tackled by government, business and civil society working together.

    In November, the Prime Minister announced a joint agreement with the fashion sector in the UK to work together to eradicate forced labour in their supply chains.

    And crucially, at last year’s G20 summit, she committed to publishing a statement on the steps the UK government is taking to eliminate exploitation in our own supply chains.

    Fundamentally, though, the reach of government extends only so far.

    It is up to individual businesses to take steps to eliminate forced labour in their own supply chain.

    There is a moral – and commercial – imperative to ensure that products are made by people living in freedom, working with dignity, and earning a fair wage

    Consumers care about how their products are made, and more so in the fashion industry than many others.

    There is a growing number of responsible investors who want to make sure the right protections are in place.

    By being here today you have shown that, like us, you want to improve your approach.

    I ask you all to take what you learn today and share it with your suppliers, your clients and your competitors.

    The British government will do everything in our power to eliminate the scourge of modern slavery and human trafficking.

    We remain resolute in our commitment to strengthen our response to this threat and improve protections for the most vulnerable workers across the globe.

    I welcome the determination and work of our friends and allies in Europe and across the world

    With our European friends, we are acting in defence of the values that we as nations hold dear.

    Nothing will change that.

    We will remain as committed to the eradication of modern slavery and human trafficking as we are today.

    Together, we can build a future where forced labour and exploitation are, truly, a thing of the past.

    Merci Beaucoup.

  • Theresa May – 2019 Statement in Sharm el-Sheikh

    Below is the text of the statement made by Theresa May, the Prime Minister, on 25 February 2019.

    I would like to begin by thanking President Sisi and the Egyptian people for their warm hospitality over the past two days, and for hosting the first ever meeting between the EU and the League of Arab States.

    We have come together to address the challenges we face head on, so that we can deliver prosperity and security for all of our countries.

    I have had constructive discussions with King Salman of Saudi Arabia, the Amir of Kuwait, Prime Minister Hariri of Lebanon and others, on issues such as migration, the crises in Yemen and Syria, instability in Libya, the evolving threat from Daesh, and the Middle East Peace Process. The fortunes of our regions have long been intertwined. A stable, peaceful Arab region matters to Europe, and the UK is fully committed to continue working on this with our allies both now and after we leave the EU.

    Of course, I’ve also had the opportunity to discuss Brexit while I’ve been here. I held good meetings with President Tusk, Prime Minister Conte, Chancellor Merkel, Prime Minister Rutte, President Juncker and the Taoiseach.

    There is still more work to do, and my team will be in Brussels tomorrow working on the legally binding assurances that the UK Parliament needs in relation to the backstop.

    But what I have sensed in all of my conversations with my fellow leaders both here in Sharm el-Sheikh and in recent days is a real determination to find a way through which allows the UK to leave the EU in a smooth and orderly way with a deal.

  • Siobhain McDonagh – 2019 Speech on St Helier and St George’s Hospitals

    Below is the text of the speech made by Siobhain McDonagh, the Labour MP for Mitcham and Morden, in the House of Commons on 19 February 2019.

    Let me start by putting on record my respect and admiration for every single doctor, nurse, clinician and staff member at both St Helier and St George’s hospitals for their outstanding service and dedication to the health and welfare of my constituents. These remarkable individuals go above and beyond, despite facing extraordinarily testing circumstances—nine years of austerity have left our treasured NHS desperately short of staff, services and supplies.

    For my constituents, however, the biggest threat to our local hospitals is far closer to home. It is in the wild west of south-west London’s NHS, which is once again pursuing desperate attempts to close all acute services, including the major A&E unit and the consultant-led maternity units at St Helier hospital. The impact that that would have on St George’s hospital, would, I believe, be devastating.

    This evening I want to outline the reality behind the latest threat to St Helier, branded “Improving Healthcare Together 2020-2030”. I want to challenge every foundation on which that programme has been built, and I want to appeal to the Minister to step in before we see the decomposition of health services that are vital to my constituents. However, I want to start with some history.

    For nearly two decades, the NHS in south-west London has pursued several irresponsible attempts to close the acute health services at St Helier hospital, on the border of my constituency, and move them to leafy, wealthy Belmont in Sutton. Under different titles and brands, and in the guise of countless NHS-funded marketing consultants, the proposal is on repeat, and an estimated £50 million has been wasted on almost identical consultations and programmes. Each one starts afresh, portraying to the public a neutral outlook when it is being decided where acute health services should be placed in south-west London.

    The Minister may remember that, back in 2015, secret proposals to close St Helier and build a new super-hospital in Sutton were overheard by a BBC reporter on a train, which brought those plans to an embarrassing end. Fast-forward to 2017 and the programme was repeated, this time entitled “Epsom and St Helier 2020-2030”, and once again professing to assess the pros and cons of where to base acute health services. The public support expressed by chief executive Daniel Elkeles, the man running the programme, for moving the services to Sutton somewhat clouded the neutrality of the process.

    Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)

    Does the hon. Lady not agree that the proposal that immediately preceded this was to close facilities at St Helier and move them to St George’s in Tooting, which was universally unpopular? The proposal that is now on the table, on which I certainly hope there will be a public consultation, refers to one of three sites, and includes a reference to locating a new facility at St Helier hospital.

    Siobhain McDonagh

    My recollection of that particular consultation was that that was really the scorched earth strategy of deciding that St Helier and Epsom were going to close and St George’s would take the strain. I ​thank God that that never happened, because we could be in an extraordinarily difficult position had it ever happened.

    I might sound cynical when I talk about the NHS and its bias against my constituency and against services being at St Helier Hospital, but I have been here several times before. A freedom of information request revealed that those running the programme only distributed consultation documents to targeted areas around their preferred site and to just a handful of roads in my constituency. But my constituents care passionately about their local health services and will not be ignored, and 6,000 local residents responded to the programme by calling for St Helier to retain all its services on its current site.

    Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

    I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. I sought her permission to intervene beforehand because I am always very interested in health issues, and I am here to support her as well. Centralising the health service means that the ill and the vulnerable and pregnant women are expected to travel for miles to get medical assistance. That is totally absurd. Surely the health of the patient must always be put first and foremost.

    Siobhain McDonagh

    I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but it is about not just distance travelled but who is travelling that distance: do they have access to a car, or do they have public transport? The NHS constitution requires that equalities legislation is taken into account, particularly looking at disadvantaged people who are in poor health and how they access services, because they access services differently.

    As I said, my constituents care passionately about local health services, and when they responded to the consultation 6,000 of them sent in cards explaining how they felt and saying that they wanted St Helier to retain all its services on its current site. Can you imagine the anger when I found out that their responses had been discounted by the programme? Why? Because they were not on the official documentation—the same documentation that had been disseminated in those targeted letterboxes far away from my constituency.

    To the public, the trust portrayed a neutral stance whereby a suitable site across south-west London would be selected for their acute services. To the stakeholders in Belmont, it confessed its desire to move the services to their wealthy area, and to mine, it pretended that the consultation would genuinely seek the views of the public. But as my mum always says, much gets more. I would like to put on record that while I fundamentally disagree with the desire to take services away from my constituents, I do recognise Mr Elkeles’ hard work and dedication in leading St Helier Hospital.

    We now fast-forward to the present day and the latest brand, “Improving Healthcare Together 2020-2030”, a programme built upon the unstable and unscrupulous foundation of its predecessors and that once again considers the pros and cons of moving St Helier Hospital’s acute services 7 miles west to Epsom or south to leafy Belmont in Sutton. The programme was launched last summer—they always choose the summer—undertaking an initial public engagement that is expected to transition to a public consultation this coming summer. But just 837 people responded to the public engagement, and ​that is including hundreds of NHS staff and 169 comments on Twitter or Facebook. That is an utterly abysmal response considering the £2.2 million of taxpayers’ money squandered on the programme already. Does the Minister agree that this is a complete misuse of taxpayer funds at a time when our NHS is under such overwhelming pressure?

    This is about more than just the future of St Helier Hospital. My constituents tell me that if St Helier Hospital were to lose its acute services, they would turn not to Epsom or Sutton but east to Croydon University Hospital or north to St George’s. That is a completely terrifying prospect. Before Christmas, my constituent, Marian, was left queueing outside St George’s Hospital with her left leg badly infected, because the A&E was full. And that was the calm before the storm, with St George’s A&E facing its busiest ever week just a fortnight ago. We all remember the winter crisis last year, but the first full week of February this year was 16% higher than last year’s equivalent, with a simply staggering 600-plus visits every single day. This is a hospital that already relies on St Helier as its safety valve. The maternity unit at St George’s had to close temporarily in 2014 and 2015, directing women who were already in labour to St Helier Hospital.

    That is why a letter sent in November from the chair of the St George’s trust to those running the programme is completely astonishing. In the letter, the chair expresses her concern that

    “there is no formal requirement to take account of the impact on other providers”

    when deciding where to relocate acute health services across south-west London. It is hard to put into words just how dangerous that disregard is. I should like to pause briefly to thank the chief executive of St George’s Hospital, Jacqueline Totterdell, for her hard work and tenacity in steering one of London’s largest hospitals at a time of such difficulty.

    St George’s is a hospital already under immense pressure. The plumbing, ventilation and drainage facilities are at breaking point, leading to a bid for £34 million of emergency capital from the Treasury. Does the Minister agree that a recent outflow of sewage in the hospital A&E is a clear sign that such emergency funding is justified and, more importantly, urgent? How busy does she think the same A&E would be if the local NHS were to get its way and move St Helier’s major A&E to wealthy, leafy Belmont? Will she step in today and require any proposal to reconfigure health services to wholeheartedly take into account the impact that such a decision would have on all other nearby health providers?

    Merton Council recognises the devastating impact that these proposals could have, and I would like to put on record my thanks to leader of Merton Council, Stephen Alambritis, the cabinet member for social care, Councillor Tobin Byers, and the director of community and housing, Ms Hannah Doody, for their unflinching support. It is so disappointing that those at Sutton Council can stand so idly by.

    By law, when deciding where acute services should be based across a catchment area of this size, it is fundamental that the level of deprivation and local health needs are accurately understood and thoroughly assessed. So I read from cover to cover the deprivation and equality analysis produced by a range of external consultancy ​services as part of their £1.5 million programme fee. At a time when the NHS is so strapped for cash, it is extraordinary that my local NHS seems to have carte blanche to employ so many consultants on such extraordinary rates. But even I was absolutely astounded by the monumental gaps in the analysis that these consultants have delivered.

    In the pieces of analysis on deprivation and equality, areas that rely on St Helier Hospital are either absent from the documents or actively described as falling outside the catchment area. Take Pollards Hill in my constituency, an area that would be considered deprived in comparison with much of Sutton or Epsom. Wide Way Medical Centre is the largest GP surgery there, and it directs 34% of its patients to St Helier Hospital, but Pollards Hill is deemed to be outside St Helier’s catchment area. Why does this matter? Because if areas that rely on St Helier Hospital are not even considered in the analysis, how can the potential impact of moving acute services from the hospital be adequately assessed? Pollard’s Hill is not alone. The report does not mention Lavender Fields despite almost a fifth of Colliers Wood surgery patients and Mitcham family practice patients being directed or referred to St Helier from the ward.

    I urgently brought the gaps in the analysis to the attention of those operating the programme and Jane Cummings, the NHS’s chief nursing officer. I was pleased that everyone agreed that such significant analysis shortfalls would be addressed and rectified.

    Paul Scully

    The hon. Lady is being generous in giving way. Does she agree that Colliers Wood is pretty much smack-bang next to St George’s and that the proposal on which last year’s public engagement was based was that 85% of current patients would still be treated in their current hospital, whether St Helier, the proposed Sutton site or Epsom?

    Siobhain McDonagh

    There is no reason why the hon. Gentleman should know this, so I am not trying to be tricky, but Colliers Wood surgery is the title of a split-site GP surgery. One site is on Lavender Avenue off Western Road—the hon. Gentleman probably knows Western Road from driving up and down it a lot—in the heart of one of the most deprived areas in my constituency, and many people there go to St Helier hospital. The idea that we could remove an A&E and a maternity unit and keep what is left is complete nonsense, because all the blood and testing facilities and all the talented doctors and nurses simply would not stay there. Chase Farm Hospital, which is in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Joan Ryan), is a wonderful example of such a situation, and Members may want to have a look at it.

    I pointed out that areas in my constituency and large surgeries had not been included in the analysis, and I was promised that they would be. However, months have passed, and the process has proceeded unscathed, with no indication of when such significant gaps will be remedied.

    The icing on the cake came in December when three behind-closed-doors workshops based on the deficient evidence were run by the programme. They were designed​ “to inform the Governing Bodies decision making process about how the community and professionals ranked each of the three potential sites for acute hospital services”.

    Let me be clear: hand-picked professionals and members of the public used incomplete evidence to rank Sutton as the preferred site for acute services. The Minister will not be surprised to hear that more participants in the workshops were from Sutton than from Merton or Epsom. How can a fair, balanced and rounded opinion be accrued from workshops based on flawed evidence and disputable criteria and with an unrepresentative group of people? For the findings to be used in any capacity in the decision-making process would be completely unacceptable.

    Of course, I understand that figures and analysis can always be skewed in one direction or another. Someone wanting to disguise the 76.5-year life expectancy of men in Mitcham West in my constituency could include the 84.4-year average in Wimbledon Park and classify the figures by the borough of Merton as a whole. They could count cancer rates, stroke rates, mortality rates by borough rather than by ward or lower super output area. They could ignore deprived parts of the catchment area and proceed full steam ahead with the programme.

    When will the gaps in the analysis be completed? When will taxpayers’ money stop being splurged on flawed and biased consultations? When will the madness end? Here is the reality: there are over twice as many people with bad or very bad health within a mile of St Helier than there are living within a mile of the Sutton site, and almost four times the number within a mile of Epsom. Around St Helier, the local population is significantly larger, with considerably more dependent children and more elderly people. Furthermore, the population local to St Helier is far more reliant on public transport, with residents statistically less likely to have access to a car.

    Despite all that, when I secured—I can hardly believe it myself—£267 million from the Department of Health and the Treasury under both the Labour Government and the coalition Government to rebuild St Helier Hospital, guess what happened? The local NHS sent the money back. Can the Minister confirm whether the hospital will again receive its funding this time round?

    It is time for some accountability and for the Government to step in before even more money is wasted and the future of both St Helier and St George’s is thrown into jeopardy. Leave these vital services where they are most needed: at St Helier Hospital, on its current site.

  • Luke Hall – 2019 Speech on Horse Tethering

    Below is the text of the speech made by Luke Hall, the Conservative MP for Thornbury and Yate, in the House of Commons on 20 February 2019.

    I am delighted to have secured this Adjournment debate on the practice of the long-term tethering of horses. Tethering is the practice of attaching horses to a stake in the ground using a collar, or sometimes just a piece of rope around the neck, that is then fastened to a chain. The animal that once defined our great nation is now being left at risk of neglect, cruelty and abuse because of loopholes in the very legislation that was written to protect them. This debate follows the Break the Chain campaign run by the excellent HorseWorld trust, a leading equine rescue charity in the south-west, just next door to my constituency. The Break the Chain campaign aims to amend the Animal Welfare Act 2006 to include restrictions on the tethering of horses.

    Traditionally, tethering has been used as a short-term method of keeping horses, but it has transformed into a method of retaining horses without having to purchase land, by using public or private grassland, often by the side of busy roads, for grazing. Because the tethered animal can be moved quickly, it is easy for people to tether a horse on land that does not belong to them and then move the animal before the authorities can identify the landowner or the owner of the animal. This results in it being virtually impossible to monitor the welfare of these animals, leaving around 3,500 horses in a state of potentially compromised welfare with little or no chance of intervention from charities.

    There are a number of reasons why there has been such a large public response to the public campaign. In my constituency and the constituencies that surround it in the west of England, there is a big problem with tethering. There have been incidents where horses tethered by the roadside have been visible from the council offices in Yate, but despite this being a clear breach of the Animal Welfare Act, it could not be acted upon because the law does not state explicitly that tethering is a welfare concern. Unfortunately, because these horses are not protected by law, most cases of tethered horses that HorseWorld gets called to do not end well. The horses are simply moved before the Control of Horses Act 2015 can take effect. One incident saw a tethered horse break free near a large shopping centre at Cribbs Causeway in south Gloucestershire, next to a major road. By the time the horse was rescued and able to be seen by a vet, the injuries that it had sustained, most likely from having been hit by a car, meant that it had to be put down.

    Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this important subject to the Adjournment debate tonight. The British Horse Society is on record as stating that although many horses will thrive on a diet consisting only of grass, it is vital that tethered horses are moved regularly to ensure a constant supply of fresh food, and that during the winter months or at any other time when grass is scarce, additional work and feeding needs to be carried out. Tethering is clearly not a long-term solution for any horse, and this has to be looked at. Does he agree that the change to the legislation that the Minister has a chance to bring in would be a way of addressing the issue?​

    Luke Hall

    It is a genuine pleasure be intervened on by the hon. Gentleman in an Adjournment debate, and he is absolutely right. I will come on to some examples of how long-term tethering has been detrimental and caused death to animals in a number of cases. The nature of tethering means that it does not require large amounts of land, so horses can end up tethered in inner-city locations. A pony in south Bristol spent years tied to a tree on a grass verge and was harassed by local children and frequently escaped on to roads. The reality is that that was not a one-off.

    Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)

    Do the majority of such incidents involve horses or ponies owned by Travellers who are just moving through?

    Luke Hall

    That can often be the case. If we are looking to change the legislation, we must ensure that we stamp out tethering and animal welfare abuses regardless of who owns the animal, but my hon. Friend is right to highlight that point.

    As I said, such incidents are a regular occurrence. In 2016, a pony was found tethered among fly-tipped rubbish. It was so badly tangled up in a discarded bicycle that it could not even stand. This pony, which had a life-threatening injury, was lost to the authorities after the owner simply moved it and tethered it in another location before they could arrive. Sadly, just before Christmas last year, a member of the public came across a pony that had been tethered in a wooded area. The tether had become tangled around the surrounding trees and, in a desperate effort to break free, the one-year-old pony had strangled himself and lay dead in the mud at the end of his tether. It is therefore clear that the practice desperately requires stricter regulation.

    HorseWorld, the charity that started the campaign, was spurred into action by the alarming case of a mare that gave birth to her foal while she was tethered. Unable to protect her foal from the other horses who roamed free in the same field, the mare became seriously distressed. Of course, protection of the young is one of our most basic instincts. Research into tethered horses in Wales, where tethering is rife, showed that 10% of tethered horses had young foals. Those are just a few examples of the horrors associated with long-term tethering but, because tethering is not restricted by law, people can tether horses unchecked beyond the reach of the law, resulting in tethered horses reaching despicable stages of neglect before they can be rescued.

    I want to touch on the current regulations and legislation surrounding equine welfare and explain why they are not protecting tethered horses in practice. The Minister may refer to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ code of practice, which acts as a guide to safely tethering horses, but the code is not being adhered to in reality, as demonstrated by an investigation conducted in south Wales in 2014 by the excellent University of Bristol’s veterinary school, which gave five main conclusions.

    First, the code of practice states that water should be made available on a regular basis in a spill-proof container, but the research concluded that up to 90% of animals were not given water regularly. Secondly, the code states that animals should, as a minimum, have shelter from the sun and wind and that the area should be well drained in the event of heavy rain, but the research tells us that no shelter was provided in over 80% of cases. ​Thirdly, animals should be given the freedom to exercise off the tether for a reasonable period at least once a day. In reality, however, less than 3% of horses spent more than five minutes a day off the tether, and no one would argue that five minutes is a reasonable amount of time. Fourthly, according to the code of practice, the tethering site should not contain anything that might injure the animal, but the reality is that sites contained potential hazards in 50% of cases. Fifthly, the code states that tethered horses require a high level of supervision, with inspections

    “no less frequently than every 6 hours”.

    However, it was found that only a third of horses were visited that regularly. While we have a code of practice, it is clearly not being adhered to, and the fact that an individual can move an animal before they ever reach the stage of being prosecuted renders the code of practice redundant.

    Bob Stewart

    If a horse is tethered and left, the area around the tether will soon have no grass and will become muddy if it is wet, hugely damaging the horse. That is one of the other problems of tethering.

    Luke Hall

    My hon. Friend is right about damage to the environment, and I urge colleagues to look at some of the photos of horses that have been treated so badly. I mentioned the pony in south Bristol that was tied to a tree, and the surrounding area was a small stretch of grass between a pavement and the road. Yes, there was huge damage to the local environment, but there was damage to the pony, too.

    The code of practice informs us that tethering is not a suitable long-term method of managing horses, as does the RSPCA, the British Horse Society, World Horse Welfare and Redwings, but absolutely nothing can be done legally to prevent someone from tethering a horse for its whole life.

    Further, long-term tethering directly infringes the five freedoms set out by the Animal Welfare Act 2006: the need for a suitable environment; the need for a suitable diet; the need to be able to exhibit normal behaviour patterns; the need to be housed with, or apart from, other animals; and the need to be protected from pain, suffering, injury and disease.

    A tethered horse is not free to express natural behaviours. A horse that is free to roam will, on average, walk or run 10.6 miles a day, and the reality is that a tethered horse can come nowhere near that. As my many colleagues who keep horses can attest to, horses are flight animals. A horse’s most basic instinct is to flee from danger, which tethering does not allow. Tethering restricts a horse’s most natural behaviour.

    Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)

    I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. A large number of my constituents who have seen horses tethered locally have contacted me to express their concern about these issues.

    Luke Hall

    I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. We are seeing horses being tethered all across the country, potentially leaving them open to neglect, cruelty and abuse, and potentially posing a danger to the people around them, too.​

    Tethering is not deemed enough of a breach of the Animal Welfare Act to allow horse charities to intervene. A tethered horse also does not have the freedom to interact with its own species, as the Act says it should. Leaving horses isolated has been shown to increase stress levels and stress-related hormones, which can cause them to display stereotypical behaviours that cause physical and psychological harm.

    Stereotypical behaviours are strongly linked to isolated horses; stabled horses tend to perform behaviours that engage with the stable around them, such as crib biting or weaving. Horses that are tethered long term have a total lack of environmental stimuli, so they are much more likely to develop stereotypical behaviours such as pacing or self-mutilation. This clearly raises questions about the clarity of the existing legislation and regulations on the grounds for removing a horse from a tether and on the capacity of law enforcers to act.

    Long-term tethering is in direct conflict with legislation, yet in many instances authorities have not felt that the Animal Welfare Act is strong enough grounds to rescue horses, despite the obvious suffering. It is therefore my belief, and the belief of the charity that initiated this campaign, that the Act needs to be amended to state explicitly what constitutes inappropriate tethering.

    One of the reasons why this is such an emotive subject is the location of tethered horses. As I said earlier, the main purpose of long-term tethering is free grazing, so horses end up on any strip of grass available, with the roadside, grass verges and even the middle of roundabouts, as we have seen in south Gloucestershire, being popular choices. It goes without saying that this is not remotely appropriate. Horses are easily spooked by traffic, and if the tether were to fail, there would be a loose horse on the road.

    Advances in equine and animal science mean that we are much more able to understand what constitutes poor welfare, but our laws have not caught up with that deeper understanding. When I met HorseWorld staff, who are so passionate about what they do, I was told about a pregnant mare that escaped her tether and got on to a busy A road, where she narrowly avoided being hit by a lorry. Police had to attend the scene to monitor the horse until HorseWorld could assemble a team at 3 am. If the tethering laws were stricter, the lives of the mare and her unborn foal would not have been risked, a lorry driver would not have had to make an emergency stop on a main road and numerous hours of police time would not have been wasted.

    That leads me on to my second point, which has been raised by other equine welfare charities in a number of reports: only appointed animal welfare officers or police constables have the authority to seize an animal. However, councils are in no way mandated to employ an animal welfare officer, so many choose not to do so. Our understanding is that as many as 40% of councils do not employ an animal welfare officer. In these areas, the police are the only organisation that has the power to rescue an animal from a situation where its welfare is compromised. I therefore ask the Minister to update us on what steps he is taking to gain a deeper understanding of the depth of the problem. The result of this situation is that police time is being spent attending horse rescues, which often just involves hours spent holding a horse at the side of the road when it had got on to the road. Only a police constable, once contacted, can authorise a ​charity to remove a horse. It is clear from written parliamentary questions I have tabled that the Government have no idea about the amount of police time that is spent dealing with these incidents. Clearly, police time can be better spent in the community. Having clarity over who should be dealing with equine welfare complaints will reduce the time that it takes to deal with them and will save the lives of animals. The councils that do employ animal welfare officers need to ensure that they are trained to handle horses. That could easily be achieved by collaborating with voluntary organisations.

    Let me now address what needs to change. In the past, DEFRA Ministers have said that the current legislation appropriately meets the needs of tethered horses. The 19,000 people who signed a petition to get the tethered horses rescued from Rovers Way in Cardiff would disagree. The 12,000 people who have emailed their MPs about getting tethering laws tightened would disagree. I also think that all the experts who have been in touch with me and the voluntary organisations calling for stricter laws on tethering would also disagree.

    There are therefore four changes that I would like to see incorporated into the 2006 Act to improve the lives of horses. The first is that there should be a 24-hour legal limit on how long horses can be tethered for. That is important, because DEFRA’s code of practice states that long-term tethering is inappropriate. That needs to be clarified, backed up and given status in law. The second is that there needs to be a complete ban on tethering horses on the roadside or in dangerous locations. The third is that if a tether is someone’s only method of keeping an animal, they should not be allowed to keep that animal. The fourth is to make it a mandatory duty for local councils to employ an animal welfare officer or to ensure that arrangements are in place with neighbouring authorities to ensure that those officers are in place.

    There is currently too much room for interpretation within the legislation. It needs to be clear-cut that long-term tethering infringes on equine welfare, leaving horses at risk of harm and suffering. We need to give the relevant authorities the means and confidence to rescue horses that desperately need protection. We need to step up and take action to protect these most majestic and iconic animals. Making these changes will protect thousands of horses across our country. Minister, please help us and break the chain.

  • John Bercow – 2019 Statement on PC Keith Palmer

    Below is the text of the statement made by John Bercow, the Speaker of the House of Commons, on 21 February 2019.

    I have a short statement to make about PC Keith Palmer, who tragically died on 22 March 2017. PC Palmer was nothing short of a hero, in the way in which he ran towards danger to ensure the safety of us all on that day. He paid the ultimate price for doing the job that he loved, and we owe him a profound debt of gratitude for his bravery. Yesterday afternoon, the Police Memorial Trust placed a permanent memorial to PC Palmer at Carriage Gates. Not only will it serve as a lasting tribute to his dedication and courage, but it will ensure that visitors to Parliament never forget his sacrifice and heroism.

  • David Mundell – 2019 Speech on Devolution

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Mundell, the Secretary of State for Scotland, on 21 February 2019.

    Ladies and gentlemen.

    On August 7, 1885, the Conservative Prime Minister Lord Salisbury wrote to the Duke of Richmond to offer him the newly-created post of Scottish Secretary.

    He said the work ‘is not heavy’ but warned that expectations were high.

    He went on to suggest ‘the effulgence of two dukedoms and the best salmon river in Scotland’ would go a long way to meeting those expectations.

    Thankfully, the qualifications for the job have changed since then.

    I can boast neither a splendid dukedom nor a salmon river.

    I can, however, attest that expectations remain high. So perhaps not everything has changed.

    This year marks 20 years since devolution and the establishment of the Scottish Parliament.

    I believe this is a good moment to take stock.

    It is a good moment to consider what Scotland’s expectations are today, from a system which gives us two parliaments and two governments.

    I don’t intend to provide a detailed chronology of devolution, and certainly not a history of the office of Secretary of State for Scotland.

    The key developments over the past 20 years are familiar to us.

    A referendum in 1997, the Act in 1998 and a parliament up and running barely six months later.

    A further Scotland Act in 2012 gave Holyrood the power to set a Scottish rate of income tax, replace Stamp Duty and borrow more money.

    And in 2016 an even more wide-ranging Scotland Act was passed, creating significant new income tax powers and transferring responsibility for a large swathe of welfare provision.

    So rather than dwell on the detail, I want to consider how devolution works, how it can be strengthened as we leave the EU, and how relations between our two governments must adapt and develop in future.

    But first, let me declare an interest.

    I am a passionate supporter of devolution. I was proud to be elected as an MSP in that first intake in May 1999.

    As an MP and, by then, a minister in the Scotland Office, I played my part in delivering the 2012 Act. As Secretary of State for Scotland, it was an immense privilege to take the 2016 Act through Parliament.

    Two decades on from the first Scotland Act, Holyrood has become one of the most powerful devolved parliaments in the world. Power and accountability are better balanced than ever before. And, to borrow a word bandied more frequently by my political opponents, devolution has a stronger mandate than ever before.

    The vote in 1997 was re-affirmed by our decision in 2014 to remain part of the UK. And in the 2017 general election there was overwhelming support for devolutionist parties:

    …Support for a strong Scottish Parliament within the UK.

    …Where the UK’s strengths – our internal market, our global reach – are Scotland’s strengths.

    …Where decisions affecting only Scotland are taken at Holyrood by MSPs…

    …But where decisions affecting the whole UK are taken at Westminster by MPs, including, of course, 59 MPs from Scotland.

    Devolution is about striking a balance and I believe the balance now achieved is a good one.

    Today, the fiercest debates at Holyrood are about tax decisions; about how to raise money as much as how to spend it. That accountability has to be a good thing.

    I do not support the Scottish Government’s decisions on income tax, making Scotland the most highly taxed part of the UK. I’m not impressed by the idea of taxing people £500 to park at work.

    But I support Holyrood’s power to make these choices, the accountability it brings and the debate it provokes.

    And as the Scottish Government begins to use new welfare powers in the years ahead I look forward to the debate at Holyrood focusing on the difficult decisions that will entail.

    That, then, is my starting point.

    Devolution has proved itself flexible and responsive – a ‘process not an event’ as Donald Dewar said back in 1999. After 20 years I believe the settlement is strong. And I believe the principles that lie behind it are more widely accepted than ever.

    I reject completely the argument put forward by opponents of devolution that it has been crushed by Brexit:

    …That the settlement has been undermined by the return of powers from Brussels.

    …Even, that Holyrood has been victim of a pernicious ‘power grab’.

    Let me tackle these myths head on.

    They rest on two misunderstandings – about the 1998 Scotland Act itself and about one of the early conventions that supports it, the Sewel Convention, which says the UK Parliament will not normally pass legislation in a devolved area without the consent of the Scottish Parliament.

    Firstly, it has been claimed that devolution is broken because the UK’s EU Withdrawal Act 2018 was passed despite legislative consent being withheld by the Scottish Parliament.

    It was claimed that the Sewel Convention was breached or, if it hadn’t been breached, it was not fit for purpose and must be changed.

    Lord Sewel himself answered the first point, judging clearly that the Convention was adhered to.

    And the Scottish Government’s own Brexit minister said “these are not normal times”.

    In fact, the Sewel Convention remains an essential element in the devolution settlement.

    The UK Government continues to seek legislative consent for Bills that interact with devolution.

    We work with the Scottish Government clause by clause in an effort to reach agreement.

    I was pleased the Scottish Government agreed to recommend consent for our Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill – legislation which will allow the UK Government to continue to fund healthcare for Scots who have retired to or are working in the EU.

    I hope consent for other Brexit-related Bills will also be forthcoming – despite the Scottish Government’s stated position to oppose them.

    As things stand, the EU Withdrawal Act is the only piece of legislation in 20 years to be passed at Westminster after consent was withheld at Holyrood.

    I believe that is a sign of Sewel’s success and not its failure.

    The second myth is that of the ‘power grab’.

    Now, to listen to the rhetoric coming from some of my political opponents, you could be forgiven for thinking that Holyrood is being stripped of a whole raft of powers it currently exercises.

    It is complete fantasy; an invented grievance.

    The reality is that more than 100 powers previously exercised in Brussels will transfer to Edinburgh.

    These will transfer directly to the Scottish Parliament on the day we leave the EU.

    Some powers will be exercised within new UK-wide frameworks, where the UK Government and devolved administrations agree to do so.

    They are in areas such as animal health and welfare, food labelling, and chemical and pesticide regulations. Areas where the UK Government and the devolved administrations have already agreed it makes sense to take a UK approach.

    Progress towards establishing these arrangements between the UK and Scottish Governments has been good, as our latest report to Parliament on the issue makes absolutely clear.

    To characterise this process as a ‘power grab’ is nonsense. Holyrood is losing none of its existing powers and is gaining significant new powers as a result of Brexit.

    What these myths amount to is an attempt to undermine devolution – to sweep away the ’98 settlement – by people who do not support devolution because they want independence. We should not be surprised by that.

    We should remain deeply suspicious when opponents of devolution try to present themselves as its champions and protectors.

    Now, to be clear, I’m not arguing devolution is perfect or that it should be frozen in time. Devolution’s adaptability is a strength and will remain so in future.

    The 2016 powers are already having a positive effect at Holyrood and Brexit will bring further responsibility.

    It will also raise fresh questions about intergovernmental relations – how our governments work together.

    As we leave the EU, I believe these questions – more so than powers – will become pressing.

    In the years ahead, our two governments – and the devolved administrations elsewhere in the UK – will need to work more closely than ever before.

    We will need to manage our new UK regulatory frameworks. We will need structures that work – that respect devolution and encourage collaboration.

    I’m pleased to say that work on this is underway.

    Last year a Joint Ministerial Committee, chaired by the Prime Minister and attended by the First Minister, agreed to commission a review of intergovernmental relations. I’m confident this work can point the way to improved joint working. Not least because we have a lot to build upon.

    Sometimes, Scottish Government ministers claim that relations between the UK and Scottish governments are at their lowest ebb. This is simply not true.

    (In my experience, they were at their rockiest in 2014, as the Scottish Government’s former Permanent Secretary, Sir Peter Housden, confirmed.)

    To date there have been 16 meetings of the JMC (EN), a ministerial forum specially created to shape our approach to leaving the EU, with meetings scheduled monthly. This is a crucial mechanism by which we engage with the DAs. The set of principles that will guide the development of UK frameworks were forged in the JMC (EN).

    Behind the scenes, officials from the two governments are working well together on Brexit-related legislation and Brexit preparations on a daily basis.

    Earlier this year, the Prime Minister took the decision to invite the First Ministers of Scotland and Wales to attend meetings of a key new cabinet sub-committee co-ordinating Brexit preparations.

    In addition, our review of intergovernmental relations will look at the principles which should underpin our working relationships; at the machinery of devolution – whether we need new forums or new JMC bodies; and at how we should resolve disputes in future.

    It is very much a live issue.

    I’m pleased that Westminster’s Scottish Affairs Committee at Westminster are conducting their own inquiry into intergovernmental relations:

    …even if, so far at least, it seems to have focused on calls for the role Secretary of State for Scotland to be abolished.

    As you can imagine, I am looking forward to presenting an alternative perspective when I give evidence in due course.

    I actually believe the Office of the Secretary of State for Scotland will become more, not less, important, as we enter the post-Brexit devolution world and a more complex era of intergovernmental relations.

    The role of promoting the work of the UK Government in Scotland, and giving voice to Scottish concerns around the Cabinet table, will be more critical than ever.

    The reasons for that are clear.

    Just as Holyrood will need to adapt to the wealth of new powers at its disposal, so the UK Government will have to consider its changing role in the new landscape:

    …The UK Government must and will remain prominent in Scotland.

    …The UK Government must and will remain central to Scotland’s story.

    We must continually re-affirm our support for devolution and demonstrate our contribution to the lives of those represented by our MPs.

    Failure to do so would be a failure to deliver on the result of two referendums – the 1997 vote in favour of a Scottish Parliament and 2014 decision to reject independence.

    When our opponents try to talk the UK down we should remind them of the things Scots value:

    …The pooling and sharing of resources which support our public services;

    …The finest armed forces in the world. Including a Royal Navy filling the Clyde’s order book until 2030.

    …Pensions they can rely upon.

    …A record on international aid that any country in the world should be proud of.

    The list goes on.

    But the UK Government can and should be doing even more.

    In an important speech in Glasgow, the Prime Minister called a halt to what she described as a process of ‘devolve and forget’.

    …The idea that because health, say, or education, or culture in Scotland are devolved to the Scottish Government, the UK Government no longer cares about them.

    The Prime Minister was very clear. As Prime Minister for the whole of the UK, she said the educational attainment of 10-year-olds in Dundee was as important to her as that of their peers in Doncaster.

    Predictably, this was deliberately misinterpreted in some quarters as another kind of power grab. It was nothing of sort. It was an appeal for more collaboration, for better joint working, for learning from each other. In other words, for more effective devolution.

    I believe she was right to assert the UK Government’s interest in all parts of people’s lives in Scotland.

    And I believe now is the time to build on that. We are already seeing this happen in the UK Government’s £1billion-plus Growth Deal programme in Scotland.

    UK investment is mostly spent in the reserved sphere, on things like research and development. But not exclusively so. Cultural projects, such as Edinburgh’s exciting new concert hall development or Stirling’s national tartan centre, will also benefit from UK Government investment.

    There are already examples of areas where devolved policy areas interact with reserved matters – in foreign trade, for example – where the Scottish Government’s agency Scottish Development International works alongside the UK Government’s Department for International Trade.

    Or, in overseas aid, where Scottish Government support for projects in Malawi augments the UK effort.

    Going forward, I want to see Scotland’s two governments working closely together for the benefit of people in Scotland.

    The UK Shared Prosperity Fund – which will fill the space left by EU structural funds post-Brexit – should provide an opportunity for both governments to collaborate on transformational projects across Scotland, from the Borders to the Highlands and Islands.

    Scotland would be ill-served if one government could not add to the work being done by another. The time is right for this. Scots expect their two governments to work together and politicians on all sides accept the need to work together.

    Twenty years on, devolution is indeed the settled will of the people of Scotland.

    The settlement has proved itself adaptable and is strong.

    Our system of two governments and two parliaments has held up to scrutiny – endorsed by one and then a second referendum.

    The people who claim Brexit has broken devolution are the people who WANT Brexit to break devolution;

    …Who see Brexit not in terms of securing the right deal for Scotland but as an opportunity to tear Scotland out of the UK.

    …A position, of course, that has been rejected by not one but two referendums.

    I do not believe Brexit will damage devolution.

    I want it to strengthen devolution, and I believe that can and will happen.

    Leaving the EU will bring new powers to Holyrood and new responsibilities to the Scottish Government.

    But the UK Government is also being challenged to adapt to the new, post-Brexit era of devolution.

    I’m confident we WILL meet the challenge;

    …That we WILL foster a relationship of mutual respect between Westminster and Holyrood.

    …That we WILL find ourselves using new ways to improve the daily lives of those we serve.

    We’ll do it because, like the majority of Scots, we believe in devolution. And we have a duty to deliver all that it offers for Scotland.

  • Oliver Dowden – 2019 Speech at CBI

    Below is the text of the speech made by Oliver Dowden, the Minister for Implementation, on 20 February 2019 at the CBI conference.

    Thank you for that kind welcome. It is a pleasure to be here at the CBI and to see so many familiar faces. I’ve certainly made it a priority to engage around this agenda and there is a lot of work we can do together, particularly around innovation and the transformation of public services, which is another interest of mine.

    This morning I am here to detail how this government is working alongside industry leaders like yourselves to ensure citizens are benefitting from the delivery of better, smarter and more efficient public services.

    Now, as you all know, the collapse of Carillion just over a year ago affected the public’s trust in government’s ability to deliver services. As a result, it is right that we reflected on whether our service delivery model was fit for the complexities of modern society.

    And over the last eight months the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office, David Lidington, and myself have announced reforms to ensure that the way we outsource services is fit for the future.

    This model rightly includes putting social values at the heart of what we do.

    And the public would expect nothing less.

    Since David last spoke on this issue in November 2018, the Government Commercial Function has worked jointly with industry and senior officials across government, as well as engaging with charities, social enterprises, unions and has finalised the review of our outsourcing processes.

    And crucially, this review has concluded that we are not seeking to abandon our approach to using the private sector to deliver services to government.

    Outsourcing, done well, I firmly believe, can deliver significant benefits.

    It provides greater opportunity, better value and more innovative public services.

    Economies of scale mean services can be provided more efficiently, at lower cost and can provide better value for the taxpayer.

    For example, pensions administration for nearly two million teachers has been outsourced since the 1990s – with administrative costs less than half those of other comparable schemes.

    So the evidence is out there in terms of individual outsourcing programmes but also in terms of the macro picture.

    Research commissioned by the previous government has shown that outsourcing delivers savings of some twenty to thirty per cent compared with bringing services in-house.

    Critics baulk at the idea of a government that reaches out beyond SW1 to harness the talent of firms up and down the country.

    But we are not so naive to think that government is best placed to deliver every public service, nor do we think that we alone have all the solutions to society’s complex challenges.

    While government has considerable resources at its disposal, it cannot do everything by itself. Different government projects require different skills and expertise.

    It is true that collectively we need to work together to make those changes, but we must be bringing in that wider range of skills and expertise.

    So we are making changes to enable our services to be delivered by private and social enterprises, small businesses, charities, mutuals and cooperatives. And as announced last June, the government is committed to putting social values at the heart of service delivery.

    We are also making changes to ensure that critical services continue in the event of a corporate failure – and the work we have done over the past year provides that resilience.

    We previously announced that in early 2019 we would be publishing guidance for officials that would help government to work smarter with industry, set up contracts for success and build a more diverse supplier base.

    As promised, today we have published the Financial Distress Guidance to provide staff with the information they needed in the event of a supplier failure.

    We have also published the Outsourcing Playbook, which we pledged back in June 2018 and which will apply to all government departments.

    You may already be aware of some of the Playbook’s contents that we announced in November. But today I want to detail a further seven new measures that have been developed.

    Taken together this means that from today, will be demanding more of government departments.

    We will expect them to conduct more robust financial assessments and monitoring of high value, complex, high-risk suppliers.

    New financial ratios will need to be considered when assessing the financial and economic standing of bidders during the procurement phase and through the life of a contract.

    All complex outsourcing projects also will be required to undergo a central Project Validation Review (PVR) before any public commitment is made.

    This step-change means that by undergoing an independent peer assessment ahead of the transition from policy to delivery, complex outsourcing projects will benefit from more cross-government expertise to help assure deliverability, affordability and value for money.

    Departments will also be expected to conduct a more thorough, evidence-based ‘Make or Buy’ assessment before services are outsourced.

    We will now expect a detailed analysis of the costs and benefits of each option supported by the possible consequences of outsourcing and a comprehensive evaluation of risks.

    And I am well aware that how government approaches risk allocation has caused some disquiet within the industry.

    I can today provide reassurance that the Playbook makes explicit that when designing contracts departments must seek to mitigate, reduce and then allocate risks to the party best able to manage it.

    A more considered approach to risk allocation makes government a smarter, more attractive client to do business with.

    At the end of the day, you all run businesses, and my colleagues and I are constantly working to balance the needs of everyone in society, from firm owners and investors to families struggling to make ends meet.

    So it is important that in this spirit the Playbook also outlines new guidance on the Pricing and Payment Mechanisms that complements the new balanced approach to risk allocation. It is designed to incentivise the behaviours and outcomes that government wants to achieve from its suppliers and contracts.

    The Playbook also specifies that Departments will now regularly Publish Commercial Pipelines looking at least 18 months ahead.

    This change will help us move forward by helping you gain a better understanding of the government’s demand for services and allow you to better respond to contract opportunities.

    Finally, the Playbook will re-emphasise the need for departments to engage early and thoroughly with the Market and will ask them to produce a market health and capability assessment.

    And these assessments will be kept under review throughout the life of a contract not filed away to gather dust in a digital desk drawer.

    Taken together the eleven key policies that underpin the Playbook are a significant change in the way government undertakes outsourcing decisions and will enable us to make smarter outsourcing decisions that will achieve better value for money.

    But to stress – the future of government outsourcing relies on a new model of reciprocity.

    We are changing to ensure we make smarter outsourcing decisions, but we also need industry to change too.

    In order to put the needs of service users at the heart of public service delivery I want to see suppliers and government working in partnership to ensure that contracts continue to meet the diverse needs of citizens.

    So today I am publishing a revision to the Supplier Code of Conduct which sets out the behaviours taxpayers expect of central government’s suppliers but also what suppliers should expect of government. The Code is designed to build trusting and transparent relationships between government and suppliers.

    The updated code highlights the importance of government departments creating the right conditions for innovation and the right conditions for building collaborative and constructive relationships.

    I want to highlight three key aspects:

    Firstly, the Code requires prime contractors to ensure that they do not pass on risk inappropriately to subcontractors, who are often small businesses unable to manage these risks.

    Secondly, we want to ensure that suppliers across the public sector supply chain are paid promptly – this is so important, particularly for small suppliers. I announced in November that we expect suppliers to pay subcontractors within 30 days on public sector contracts and comply with the standards set out in the Prompt Payment Code on all other contracts. Failure of companies to demonstrate their prompt payment to suppliers could result in them being prevented from winning government contracts.

    The government has a long-standing target of paying 80% of undisputed and valid invoices within five days, with the remainder paid within 30 days. And just last autumn, I announced our ambition to pay 90% of undisputed invoices within five days.

    Thirdly, because we know the importance of robust data from government during procurements we will ensure that we provide data that captures the full scope of the services being procured or build in added flexibility to allow for subsequent validation of data, particularly where new services are being provided.

    The Code is clear that we also expect incumbent suppliers to be forthcoming and prompt with information required for the re-tendering process.

    Finally, I would like to update you on the government’s Strategic Supplier Risk Management Policy. Experience from the past year has demonstrated to us that how we manage risk with suppliers to government needs to be reviewed. A fact also recommended by the Public Accounts Committee.

    Our previous high-risk designation process was designed to deal with poor performance but it proved less appropriate when managing the financial distress of firms who were delivering critical public services.

    So today, I would like to announce that we will be changing our approach.

    We will be introducing a Memorandum of Understanding between the Cabinet Office and Strategic Suppliers.

    This new approach will provide flexibility to government on how it manages risk across its supplier base through the improvement of current tools, and this will be in partnership with industry.

    Better risk management will increase accountability for our suppliers and enhance current departmental relationships.

    Government relies on its suppliers for the delivery of many important public services and while this is underpinned by a contractual relationship, these reliances need to be based on a relationship of trust between government, suppliers and the public.

    Healthy and competitive markets support our ability to achieve value for money for taxpayers and deliver sustainable economic growth.

    And the collaboration with the private sector will continue to live at the heart of how this government delivers public services and prosperity.

    In keeping with best practice in policy-making we will continue to review and refine our approach.

    From the new financial year we will begin an 18 month implementation phase to ensure these new reforms are embedded across government departments.

    I would like to thank you for your engagement and collaboration over the past year.

    Between us, we have collectively contributed over 1,400 hours of our time.

    And as we move into this next phase of work, we will continue to call on you both as partners and critical friends.

    Because only in continuing to work together, and changing “poor” practices of the past, will we be able to achieve our collective goal of delivering world-class public services for all of our citizens.

  • Matt Hancock – 2019 Speech on Carers

    Below is the text of the speech made by Matt Hancock, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, on 20 February 2019.

    I want to talk today about Lauren Phillips.

    Lauren wasn’t always going to be doctor.

    She was a talented violinist. She had been invited to join the Bristol Symphony Orchestra. She had huge talents and amazing opportunities. She had choices.

    She also had a powerful vocation. She came from an NHS family. Her father is a doctor. Her uncle and aunt are doctors. Her mother works for the NHS.

    Lauren’s father, Jonathan, said: “She chose medicine over music because she had a strong sense of social justice and felt she could help people and give something back to society.”

    So that vocation, plus her remarkable talents, led her to becoming a doctor at Southmead Hospital in Bristol, a hospital that I know well.

    But the job took its toll. The hours. The work-life balance. The pressures.

    It wore her down. Gradually, Lauren became more withdrawn, and then one day she didn’t turn up for work.

    Her car was found a 100 miles away on a beach in Devon. Her body has never been found.

    Lauren’s father said:

    During the short time she worked for it the NHS succeeded in sapping Lauren’s strength. Undermining her self-confidence. Attacking her professionalism. And devaluing her commitment.

    It was not there to give her the help and support she needed to stay alive.

    He’s right. And I want to apologise. As Secretary of State, and on behalf of the entire leadership of the NHS, I’m sorry.

    I want to say sorry to Lauren’s parents, and the families of every other member of the NHS family, who we didn’t do enough to help when they needed us most.

    We can never know all the reasons why someone decides to take their own life. But, hand on heart, it’s impossible to say we did enough to care for Lauren.

    Across the NHS, we don’t do enough to care for our carers. And for that I am sorry.

    Now, I don’t want anyone to point fingers and blame people.

    That’s not what Lauren’s father wants either. He knows first-hand the unique difficulties of being on the NHS frontline. But he also believes, as I believe, that “you can’t look after your patients, unless you look after your own wellbeing”.

    Instead, there is something else I want us to take from this tragedy. I want us to take resolve to make the changes needed so we can care for our carers, not just in pockets, but throughout the NHS.

    So I welcome today’s report from Health Education England. And I look forward to working with the NHS to put the recommendations into practice.

    There’s no silver bullet. But just because there’s no one solution, let’s not fall into thinking there’s no solution.

    There are 3 things in particular from the report I want to draw out.

    First, something that Lauren’s father said has really stuck in my head.

    Jonathan believes just being able to play the violin with an orchestra would have made an enormous difference to her mental and emotional wellbeing. But Lauren couldn’t commit to a few hours a week for rehearsals because she never knew what hours she was going to be working.

    I felt that was shocking, and desperately sad. Rota practices like these are antediluvian.

    I have doctors in my family who sometimes can’t make an incredibly important event, not because they’re unexpectedly stuck caring for a patient whose life is on the line – that happens and is an important part of the job – but because the ‘rota says no’.

    Now, we’ve changed the rules at a national level to allow for modern, smart rotas. Well-led trusts have embraced those changes, but they haven’t been rolled out everywhere. And that has got to change.

    Second, the report makes it clear that we need to place as much importance on the care of the carers as the patients.

    I firmly believe this is the right thing to do.

    Adam Kay recently said that working in the NHS: “You’re forced to build an emotional forcefield because no one is caring for the carers.”

    He’s right. I pay tribute to the work Adam has done to highlight some of these problems, using humour to make people listen. I was actually reading Adam’s book when I became Health Secretary, and it’s shaped how I think of things.

    But I didn’t reach the last chapter until after I was in this job. And the anguish and the pain in that last chapter hit me like a kick in the stomach.

    So thank you Adam. Keep fighting the good fight. Because no one should have to build an emotional forcefield around themselves. And no one can do their job properly if they do.

    And the third thing I want to draw out is that, to recruit and retain more staff, we need to change the culture of the NHS.

    Why is it that when 1.3 million people have devoted their lives to caring for others, the collective system is uncaring to some? We need to change a culture of carrying on regardless, not asking for help, not looking for signs of burn-out among our colleagues, thinking everything’s OK as long as someone turns up for work and does their job.

    That isn’t good enough.

    No one, no government, no party owns the NHS. We’re merely custodians, looking after it, to pass it on, fit for the future, to the next generation.

    I feel that duty every morning when I awake. Because I care. I care deeply about the NHS.

    It’s been there for me, and my children. It was there for my grandparents.

    Staff at Southmead Hospital, where Lauren worked, saved the life of my sister.

    The tragedy of what happened to Lauren has a personal poignancy for me, because Lauren could have been one of the A&E doctors when my sister was brought in with a serious head injury. And my whole family owe a huge debt of gratitude to Lauren’s colleagues.

    It horrifies me that those brave doctors and nurses, who face trauma every day, could be going through what Lauren went through.

    So, throughout the NHS we must act, and I promise you, I will do all I can to protect and pass on this great British institution to future generations in a better condition than I found it.

    And the only way we can do that is by caring better for our carers.

    By looking after the people who look after us.

    By making sure that when somebody needs help, there’s someone they can turn to, someone they can talk to.

    By valuing our NHS staff.

    By building a just, caring culture.

    Apologising when we get it wrong, and learning from our mistakes.

    Because the NHS isn’t run by people, the NHS is people.

    And I will do everything in my power to give you the support you deserve.

  • Jeremy Hunt – 2019 Speech in Berlin

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jeremy Hunt, the Foreign Secretary, in Berlin, Germany on 20 February 2019.

    Introduction

    I’m delighted to have this opportunity to speak here at the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung. There are moments in history that remind us that we are all part of something greater than ourselves.

    As I landed at Tegel Airport this morning, I thought of one such moment.

    Seventy years ago, the people of this city were engaged in a daily struggle to keep West Berlin alive through Stalin’s blockade.

    The skies above Berlin were filled with British and American aircraft laden with fuel, food and medicine, landing or taking off every 45 seconds, day and night.

    For 11 months, pilots who had previously dropped bombs on Berlin mounted the greatest humanitarian airlift in history, delivering 2.3 million tons of supplies.

    At first, Berlin did not have enough runways to receive the inflow.

    So the people of Berlin built Tegel Airport with their own hands, taking only 90 days to construct what was then the longest runway in Europe.

    Our countries were just a few years away from a devastating war.

    And yet we were united.

    United by shared values.

    And united in opposition to those who sought to destroy them.

    The people of Berlin overcame their ordeal, transforming this city into what President Kennedy later called a “defended island of freedom”.

    Then, thirty years ago this year, Berlin ceased to be an island when the Wall came down. As the crowds surged through Brandenburg Gate in 1989, Berlin and its people reminded us never to take liberty for granted.

    Those events show that some values transcend individuals, nations or groups of nations.

    And indeed transcend Brexit too – however absorbing or challenging that may seem.

    Alliance of Values

    For whatever treaties or organisations our two countries may join or leave, our friendship is based on something infinitely more important and durable.

    Britain and Germany cherish the same freedoms, defend the same values, respect the same fundamental laws and face the same dangers.

    We are bound together not simply by institutions, but by the beliefs that inspired the creation of those institutions: democracy, openness and equality before the law regardless of race, class, gender or sexuality.

    Karl Popper, the Austrian-born philosopher, defined the distinctive quality of an open society in these words:

    “We ought to be proud that we do not have one idea but many ideas, good ones and bad ones; that we do not have a single belief: not one religion but many, good ones and bad ones….It is not the unity of an idea but the diversity of our many ideas, of which the West may be proud: the pluralism of its ideas.”

    More than anything else, Britain and Germany believe in pluralism as the best way of releasing the nobility of the human spirit.

    There is nothing new about this.

    We shared these ideals in 1972 before Britain joined the European Economic Community.

    And we will continue to share them in 2019 when we leave the European Union.

    Because as I said in my response to the wonderful letter written to The Times last month by Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer, Prof. Dr Norbert Lammert and other distinguished Germans, Britain is not going anywhere.

    We are not relocating our island to the far side of the world.

    Our two countries may no longer be bound by the structures of the European Union, but we will remain part of a wider alliance, an alliance of values.

    Nations united not solely by institutions but by beliefs: in freedom, the rule of law and human rights.

    An alliance that doesn’t just believe in those ideals but is willing to defend them, as demonstrated by my predecessor, Ernest Bevin, when he helped to establish NATO.

    Success of the rules-based system

    He was part of the generation of humane and far-sighted leaders, including Konrad Adenauer, who built an assembly of rules and institutions – including the United Nations, the World Bank and what became the World Trade Organisation – to create an era defined not by bloodshed but by peace and prosperity. The goals of the world order that emerged after 1945 were summarised by the former Mayor of Berlin and Chancellor of Germany, Willy Brandt, who said:

    “I re-emphasise my faith in the universal principles of general international law….They found binding expression in the principles of the United Nations Charter: sovereignty, territorial integrity, non-violence, the right of self-determination.”

    By any objective measure, that international order has been remarkably successful.

    Despite the bloodshed in Syria and elsewhere, the number of conflict-related deaths as a proportion of the global population fell by an astonishing 80 percent between 1984 and 2016.

    Relative peace has allowed millions to raise themselves from destitution.

    When I was born, half of humanity lived in absolute poverty; today, it is less than 10%.

    Life expectancy has shot up and since 2000 alone 1.1 billion people have been connected to electricity for the first time.

    The rules-based system is not some cynical construct designed solely to protect the interests of the West. Nor will the biggest losers be in the West if it is allowed to crumble.

    So when people ask what will Britain’s role in the world be after Brexit, I say this:

    We will put to work the remarkable array of connections across the globe that history has given the United Kingdom.

    Whether through our European friends, our Atlantic allies or the Commonwealth family, we will seek to bind the democracies of the world together.

    Only if we are joined together by an invisible chain or thread of shared values will we be strong enough to withstand the challenges we face.

    And strong enough to uphold an international order that has served humanity so well.

    Threats to rules-based system

    Right now it would be an enormous mistake if Europe were to allow Brexit and other internal challenges to make us introspective.

    Because when we look inwards, our adversaries sense an opportunity.

    Russia has broken the prohibition on acquiring territory by force by redrawing a European frontier and annexing 10,000 square miles of Ukraine.

    Having taken Crimea, Russia then deployed troops and tanks in eastern Ukraine, igniting a conflict that has claimed nearly 11,000 lives and driven 2.3 million people from their homes.

    At the same time the global ban on the use of chemical weapons, dating back almost a century to 1925, has been violated time and again in Syria – and even on the soil of my own country.

    Meanwhile the onward march of democracy that followed the fall of the Berlin Wall has come to a halt and started to go into reverse.

    In the 2 decades after 1989, there were 29 new democracies. This century it has been different: last week Freedom House reported that 2018 was the 13th successive year of decline for political rights and civil liberties around the world.

    We must never assume that the arc of history will automatically bend towards democracy and liberalism.

    Wise decisions made by a generation of leaders in the last century shaped the world as we know it. The question is whether this generation of leaders will do the same?

    Anglo-German co-operation

    Hence the overriding importance of Britain and Germany working side-by-side.

    There is much to celebrate.

    Together we are preserving the Iran nuclear agreement, keeping Iran free of nuclear weapons and the world safer as a result;

    together we are resisting the evil of chemical weapons, from Salisbury to Syria, ensuring the price is always too high for countries to use these terrible weapons;

    together we are upholding the Paris Climate Change Treaty, ensuring future generations will not pay the price of our prosperity today;

    together we are working for lasting peace in the Western Balkans; indeed on my first day as Foreign Secretary I met Chancellor Merkel at a summit in London to discuss that very issue. Chancellor Merkel approached me and said, “Congratulations, if that’s the right word”.

    At the same time, our security services and police are cooperating silently and tirelessly to guard our citizens and our European friends from terrorism and organised crime.

    Our diplomats are training side-by-side; only last week, 76 British and German diplomats were attending joint classes in the Foreign Office in London.

    Our soldiers are serving together in Afghanistan, where yours are the second biggest contribution to the NATO mission.

    Our soldiers are also protecting NATO’s Eastern borders, where UK troops comprise the single largest component of the “enhanced forward presence” in Poland and the Baltic states.

    Some in Germany have seen our decision to leave the EU as a retreat: a retreat from the global stage and from common European security interests.

    Nothing could be further from the truth.

    Britain remains the only European nation to meet the UN and NATO targets of spending 0.7 percent of national income on aid, 2 percent of GDP on defence and 20 percent of our defence budget on capital.

    The Prime Minister has restated that Britain’s commitment to the defence of Europe is immovable and unconditional.

    And I’m delighted that Germany has been elected to serve on the Security Council; later today, Heiko Maas and I will discuss how our missions in New York can best cooperate on areas of common interest, including Libya and Darfur.

    The UK-EU partnership

    So at a time when the global balance of wealth and power is changing with remarkable speed – perhaps faster than ever before – we must not allow Brexit to be all-consuming.

    That means an orderly departure from the EU is of paramount importance.

    Of course when you leave a club you cannot enjoy all its benefits.

    And nor will we: after Brexit, the UK will no longer be part of the councils of the EU. We will no longer have a say or vote in European directives or laws.

    But nor – if we are to stand together against common threats – can Britain ever be just another “third country”.

    The future partnership that Britain seeks to build with the EU starts with the belief that our security is indivisible.

    The Political Declaration sets out a vision of the closest relationship in foreign policy the EU has ever had with another country, something that Chancellor Merkel herself has emphasised.

    It states that where and when our interests converge – as they often will – Britain and the EU will “combine efforts” to the “greatest effect, including in times of crisis”.

    We must also maintain the closest economic partnership, consistent with the spirit of the British referendum and the integrity of the single market.

    The flow of trade between Britain and the EU amounts to one of the biggest economic relationships in the world.

    In 2017, total trade between the UK and the other 27 members of the EU came to £615 billion [Euros 695 billion].

    This is a colossal figure, about 8% bigger than the EU’s trade with China and 12 percent higher than trade between China and the United States.

    Millions of jobs on both sides of the Channel depend on this flow of commerce so everyone has an interest in ensuring that it continues to flourish.

    There are those who say that strategic and security partnerships can continue unaffected by economic relationships. We must remember the lesson of history: trading relations have always been the first link between countries, and they act as the foundation of all other relations.

    So none of us should have any doubt that failing to secure a ratified Withdrawal Agreement between Britain and the EU would be deeply damaging, politically as well as economically.

    In the vital weeks ahead, standing back and hoping that Brexit solves itself will not be enough.

    The stakes are just too high: we must all do what we can to ensure such a deal is reached.

    Last Saturday, Chancellor Merkel delivered a powerful defence of what she called the “classic” world order.

    She urged all countries to “put yourself in the other’s shoes” and “see whether we can get win-win solutions together”.

    I would urge our European friends to approach this crucial stage of the Brexit negotiations in that spirit.

    Because in the future, we do not want historians to puzzle over our actions and ask themselves how it was that Europe failed to achieve an amicable change in its relationship with Britain – a friend and ally in every possible sense – and thereby inflicted grave and avoidable damage to our continent at exactly the moment when the world order was under threat from other directions.

    Now is the hour for the generous and far-sighted leadership of which Chancellor Merkel spoke.

    If we are to secure the future of a world order that has allowed our countries to enjoy the peace and prosperity that eluded our ancestors – if we are to avoid, in Chancellor Merkel’s phrase,falling “apart into pieces of a puzzle” – then achieving a smooth and orderly Brexit is profoundly necessary.

    Conclusion

    It would not be right to end this speech without an apposite quote from Konrad Adenauer, a towering figure in the history of the Federal Republic and the CDU, in whose honour this Foundation is named. He once said:

    “Wenn die anderen glauben, man ist am Ende, so muss man erst richtig anfangen.” (“when others think we’ve reached the end, that’s when we’ve got to really begin”).

    The UK’s departure from the EU is the end of one phase of our relationship. But it’s the beginning of another, and we are determined to remain the best of friends.

    So let me finish by returning to that letter written by Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer and other distinguished Germans to the Times.

    The signatories were generous to Britain.

    So let me say in response, Britain shares the same admiration and warmth for the people of Germany, for your moral courage, your tolerance and magnanimity, and for your towering achievement in building a nation that is, at once, a model democracy and the economic powerhouse of Europe.

    When 2.1 million Berliners were blockaded and besieged 70 years ago, they could not be sure they would withstand the ordeal and eventually triumph.

    They survived because of their courage and resilience, supported by the resolute action of friends who shared their ideals and were determined not to abandon this city.

    Those friends did not come to Berlin’s support because of treaties or formal unions.

    They acted because of something more powerful, though less tangible: the values that united them, just as values unite us today.

    Those values remain constant whatever else changes. Let us remember that as we do our duty in the critical few weeks ahead.