Tag: 2021

Tobias Ellwood – 2021 Speech on Lords Amendment 2B of the Armed Forces Bill

The speech made by Tobias Ellwood, the Conservative MP for Bournemouth East, in the House of Commons on 13 December 2021.

I am pleased to speak in this important debate. The Armed Forces Act 2006, which the Minister mentioned, needs to be upgraded, so the Bill needs to pass in this House. It was introduced in January and here we are, almost at Christmas. I will stand corrected—perhaps he can clarify—but if we do not pass it, the armed forces are not beholden to Parliament. Given the experience of Parliament and Government in recent weeks, it would be unwise to have an untethered armed forces at this juncture.

Bills often ping-pong backwards and forwards between here and the other place, but we should bear in mind who it was in the other place that actually scrutinised this Bill. They are senior figures in the justice system, but they are also ex-senior military, who understand the very issue in detail. This has not been thrown back to us just to test the will of this House; it has been thrown back, now for a second time, because there is something serious going on here. I think the Government now find themselves in isolation, and on their own compared with all the charity groups, the Opposition and indeed—dare I say it—the Defence Committee. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton), who has taken through, over the last 18 months, the women in the armed forces inquiry, which reported only last week. The Minister has very kindly responded to that—not least here in this House, but also in a Westminster Hall debate—but we know all the arguments and what is on either side of this.

The Minister mentioned salami slicing, saying that if we were to go down the road of allowing the civilian courts to deal with murder, manslaughter, domestic violence, child abuse, rape and sexual assault, it would somehow dilute our ability to hold the armed forces to account. By their very nature, our armed forces are expeditionary in what they do, but he knows perfectly well that the yellow card, and indeed the rules of engagement, work extremely well overseas. This is to do with what happens here in the UK, and there is a disjunction between those who actually go through the civilian courts and those who go through the military courts. I am afraid that there is an absence of military experience in dealing with such difficult cases, which is why we are seeing such a disconnect between the conviction rates for civilians and those for the military.

I look to the Minister and say thank you for moving this far, but time is running out and we need to get this Bill through. I do hope that he will hear the concerns not just of this House and of the Committee, but of Justice Lyons. He did a service justice review for the armed forces when I was in the Veterans Minister’s shoes. When I was sitting on the Front Bench as Minister for the Armed Forces, I asked Justice Lyons to consider where this should go and what was his conclusion. His recommendation was exactly what we are calling for today. So I ask the Minister to recognise the wealth of encouragement, and also to recognise that this is nothing to do with salami slicing. This is to do with services for our armed forces personnel, and that is what we are calling for today.

December 14, 2021
Stephen Kinnock – 2021 Speech on Lords Amendment 2B of the Armed Forces Bill

The speech made by Stephen Kinnock, the Shadow Defence Secretary, in the House of Commons on 13 December 2021.

In February, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), the shadow Defence Secretary, set out the Labour party’s core principles for our defence and national security, which are based not on party politics but on Britain’s strategic national interest. They are: an unshakeable commitment to NATO; non-negotiable support for our nuclear deterrent; a resolute commitment to international law, universal human rights and the multilateral treaties and organisations that uphold them; and a determination to see British investment directed first to British industry not just because of how we think about defence and national security but because we seek to build a more resilient economy and a country that can stand more firmly on its own two feet. At the heart of those four principles lies a commitment to our armed forces personnel: the men and women who are the lifeblood of our defence and national security; those who serve to protect us.

The Conservative Government have been complacent when it comes to our armed forces and our national security more widely. Just as threats against the UK are increasing, the Prime Minister decided to break an election promise and cut the size of the Army by 10,000. Under the Government and this Prime Minister, our country is becoming less safe and our brave service personnel increasingly undervalued and under-rewarded.

I was only recently appointed to the shadow Defence team, but standing at the Dispatch Box to highlight the weaknesses that sit at the heart of the Bill is already starting to feel like groundhog day. The Bill is a missed opportunity. It was a one-in-a-Parliament opportunity to ensure that our world-class armed forces are supported by world-class legislation, but glaring gaps at its heart mean that it will fall short and fail to live up to its full potential. If the Government had chosen to support the Lords amendments, we would have been guaranteed a more robust approach to dealing with serious crimes committed by service personnel, and we would have had clear accountability and transparency about the role of central Government in delivering the armed forces covenant.

Labour supports the Bill, but we have consistently pressed the Government to ensure that its content matches the ambition. As I set out last week in this Chamber, the Bill is a missed opportunity to deliver on the laudable promises made in the armed forces covenant for all personnel and veterans, and their families. To that end, we have worked closely with hon. Members in this place, noble Lords in the other place and service charities to amend the Bill in the interests of our service personnel.

John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)

Can the hon. Member help the House by explaining what he thinks the Government might be able to do but could not if the Bill had the protections that he wanted over central Government action?

Stephen Kinnock

As I will address a little later in my remarks, the huge disconnect here is between the level of accountability that local government will be held to compared with that for central Government. So we end up in an absurd situation where a school governor has a greater level of accountability for the covenant than the Defence Secretary. I am not sure what the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) thinks about that, but it appears to be a bizarre state of affairs.

I pay particular tribute to Lords Mackay, Thomas and Craig for their efforts in working with us in our attempts to improve this legislation. Mr Deputy Speaker, you will know that the Labour party has been pushing the argument strongly that the most serious crimes, including murder, manslaughter, domestic violence, child abuse, rape and sexual assault with penetration, should be tried in the civilian courts when committed in the UK. The case for that is overwhelming, because the investigation and prosecution of those crimes within the service justice system simply does not work.

The latest Ministry of Defence figures show that between 2015 and 2020 the conviction rate for rape cases tried under court martial was just 9%, whereas the latest data suggest that the conviction rate was 59% for cases that reached civilian courts, with considerably more cases being tried each year. Moreover, more than three in four of the victims were women, and seven in 10 held the rank of private. By rejecting Lords amendment 1B in lieu, the Government are not only letting down women in the lower ranks, but undermining their own policy of seeking to recruit more women to the armed forces. The Army has committed itself to a 30% target by 2030 for female recruits, but has not yet produced a clear plan of how that will be achieved. The Government therefore need to think carefully about the message they are sending by resisting this amendment, because until there is fairness, transparency and justice in these cases, the actions of a minority will continue to tarnish the reputation of our world-class armed forces and will continue to have a chilling effect on female recruitment.

We do, however, welcome the fact that the Minister has today acknowledged the need to publish data on all the offences listed in this amendment—murder, manslaughter, domestic abuse, child abuse, rape and sexual assault with penetration; for that data to include under-18s for the first time; and for that data to cover both investigations and prosecutions at all stages of the service justice system, including reports of incidents, how many are referred from service police to service prosecution authority, how many the service prosecution are able to prosecute, how many go to court martial and how many convictions there are. But I must tell the Minister that Labour remains committed to moving these serious offences into civilian courts, and we will continue to push the Government on this issue.

This matter is not closed; our concerns have not been allayed. There remain many unanswered questions, so I ask the Minister: what will the Government do if conviction rates for one or more of those serious crimes is concerningly low? Will the Government reconsider this approach? Why will they not commit to a performance review, based on this data? We view this issue as unfinished business, and we know where the weight of opinion lies in this House. As the Conservative hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) clearly stated last week in this Chamber:

“Conviction rates for rape are lower in military courts than they are in civilian courts. That is a fact…The MOD accepts that the contested conviction rate at court martial is significantly lower than it is in the Crown court.”—[Official Report, 6 December 2021; Vol. 705, c. 104.]

We therefore hope that Ministers will reflect again on the recommendations from the Government-commissioned Lyons review, as well as the proposals made by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton) in her Select Committee on Defence Sub-Committee report, “Protecting Those Who Protect Us”. We must improve conviction rates, and moving these offences into civilian courts offers us the best chance of doing so.

Perhaps the most unfathomable aspect of this Bill is the Government’s decision to offload responsibility for the armed forces away from central Government and on to overstretched local authorities—it is utterly illogical and indefensible. The Bill piles new and often vague statutory responsibilities to deliver the covenant on a wide range of public bodies, so it is impossible to understand why on earth those responsibilities should not apply to central Government. We are faced with a farcical situation whereby the chair of school governors has a statutory responsibility to have “due regard” to the armed forces covenant, but Government Departments, including the Ministry of Defence, do not.

As the Royal British Legion has pointed out, many of the policy areas in which members of the armed forces community experience difficulty are the responsibility of national Government based on national guidance. Organisations such as Help for Heroes, Cobseo and other service charities, alongside Members from both sides of this House and in the other place, have lined up to criticise Ministers for shirking their responsibilities.

The Bill was an opportunity for the Government to lead by example and to demonstrate that credible leadership depends on accountability and on practising what they preach, but they appear to be intent on palming off all the responsibility to local government. Social care, pensions, employment and immigration are on the long list of areas not covered by the legislation, and the exclusion of the Ministry of Defence from the responsible public bodies means that the Bill offers little to actively serving personnel. The Government are already hitting many servicemen and women with a real-terms pay cut this year.

As I said at the Dispatch Box last week, we are left with a Bill that will not deliver practical action for the squaddie in dilapidated living accommodation who is without basics such as heating and hot water; the veteran struggling with their mental health and waiting times for treatment that are more than twice as long as Government targets suggest they should be; or the dispersed service family who struggle with the cost of childcare and getting into work. Central Government must be held to the same measurable, enforceable national standards that local authorities and agencies are held to. Only then can we truly end the postcode lottery on the armed forces covenant.

The Government’s concession of a review of the operation of the duty and whether central Government should be added is welcome, but ultimately, it is a recognition that the Bill is drafted too narrowly. How will parliamentarians be involved in the review? I recognise that the Minister mentioned that, but we need a clear assurance about it. Knowing the strength of feeling on the issue, I encourage him to ensure that parliamentarians from both Houses and the Chairs of relevant Select Committees are involved in and can give evidence to the review. We will keep a close eye on the review process, but we still believe that the due regard principle should be broadened to cover all areas of potential disadvantage for servicepeople.

The Opposition have been clear throughout the process that the Bill must become statute, not least because we must provide our armed forces with the solid and stable legal basis that they require to be able to operate. Although we welcome the concessions that the Minister has promised today, we remain profoundly disappointed that the Government have continued to resist the Lords amendments, thereby running the clock down. Let me be clear that it is unfinished business.

The Minister knows full well that there is deep unhappiness about the way that the Government have handled the process and profound concern about the way in which the weaknesses in the Bill will ultimately lead to it failing to serve the best interests of our services personnel. I therefore assure the House that Labour, as the party of the armed forces, will robustly hold the Government to account. I put the Minister on notice that he has not heard the last from us on these matters.

December 14, 2021
Leo Docherty – 2021 Statement on Lords Amendment 2B of the Armed Forces Bill

The statement made by Leo Docherty, the Minister for Defence, in the House of Commons on 13 December 2021.

The House knows that this Bill is vital: it renews the Armed Forces Act 2006, so that the armed forces can continue to operate and enforce a system of discipline, and it also fulfils our commitment to further enshrine the armed forces covenant into law.

On Lords amendment 1B, we have been listening to hon. Members here and in the other place. The Government recognise the fact that all Members of this House want to do the best for our armed forces and to ensure that criminal wrongdoing is robustly addressed for the sake of our forces and for the victims of crime. We are particularly mindful about the prominence that statistics have recently played in this debate. The Government have always welcomed scrutiny of our own performance and the role that parliamentarians have in performing that scrutiny. We should ensure that the statistics that we use are clear, transparent and cover the most serious offending that Parliament is concerned about. I am happy to confirm that we will therefore commit to an expansion and an improvement of our existing annual statistical update on sexual offending in the armed forces to include other serious offences.

Our bulletin in spring 2022, in addition to reporting on rape statistics, will now include granular data on cases of murder and manslaughter, and, for sexual offending, those cases involving personnel serving in the armed forces who are under 18 at the time of the offence. Furthermore, from January 2022, we will start to record separately information about domestic violence and child sexual abuse in the service justice system, so that those, too, can be reported on in our spring 2023 bulletin.

These bulletins will include information relating to police investigations, as well as court martial proceedings, meaning that all data related to the categories of serious offences referred to in the amendment of Lord Thomas of Gresford will be included. This will include: the number of reported incidents; how many cases are referred from the service police to the service prosecution authority; how many cases the service prosecution authority are able to prosecute; how many cases go to court martial; and how many cases result in a guilty verdict. We believe that this will increase the transparency of, and the confidence in, the service justice system, and we welcome this scrutiny. Greater reporting will demonstrate the good work that we are doing through this Bill, not least the establishment of the defence serious crime unit, and it is right that data is available to hold Government to account.

Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)

I have been listening very carefully to what my hon. Friend has to say. He has talked about the need for transparency, and, clearly, that is demonstrable and welcome. On the reports to which he now refers, he obviously hopes that they will make his case for him as they are published. If they do not, what happens then, other than just becoming tomes to gather dust in his or his successor’s office or in the Secretary of State’s office? In practical terms, what will be done to change the policies?

Leo Docherty

I reassure my hon. Friend that we will keep this under review. We are prepared to be judged by our performance.

Simon Hoare

I tell my children that I keep a lot of things under review, knowing full well that I will never acquiesce in what they are asking for—I hope they are not listening this evening. I know that my hon. Friend understands that this is a serious point for many of us. Keeping something under review, to ask us now to support the Government’s line, is laudable, but we need a bit more flesh on the bones as to what happens if the data in this report does not land where he and I—let us be frank—would hope that it would. One can keep something under review, but if there is no promise to come back with changes to the legislation, that is a pie-crust promise.

Leo Docherty

I expect the data to justify our confidence in the service justice system. My hon. Friend knows that the Government believe very strongly that the SJS needs to retain the full complement of capability because our armed forces are expeditionary by design and our justice system also needs to be expeditionary. He may not mean it sincerely when he deals with the children, but he will see that in my remarks this evening we certainly are sincere in our position.

Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)

My hon. Friend makes the point that we are expeditionary by design. I understand that, but I do not see how that links to the issue addressed by Lords amendment 1B, which is essentially that, where the offence is committed in the United Kingdom, unless there is a compelling reason to the contrary, which might involve an expeditionary issue, there should logically be a presumption that the starting point is dealing with it in the civilian system. What contradiction is there between the expeditionary nature of our armed forces—under certain circumstances, but not all—and a rebuttable presumption that the civilian system should hear offences committed in the United Kingdom?

Leo Docherty

My hon. Friend makes the case for flexibility, and I am pleased to confirm that we retain that flexibility through the protocol we have legislated for. The bottom line is that the civilian prosecutor will always have the final say, and it is principally for that reason that I urge hon. Members to reject Lords amendment 1B.

Sir Robert Neill

I understand what the Minister says about the civilian prosecutor’s ultimately having the final say, but an issue was raised last time about the role of the Attorney General, and whether there was a dangerous jurisdictional aspect in the Attorney’s consent being involved. The amendment removes that stumbling block. With that removed, and given what the Minister has said about flexibility, what now is the objection to the amendment in lieu, as opposed to the original Lords amendment?

Leo Docherty

The objection principally is about our need for an expeditionary system that should not be salami sliced. If we start to take components out of our service justice system, it would undermine the confidence that those serving should have. That is an additional reason for us to reject the amendment this evening.

Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)

The Minister is discussing an incredibly important issue, but in terms of “doing the right thing for the armed forces”, does he share my belief that it is also important that the Ministry of Defence resolve with the Home Office the outstanding question of the free visa applications for servicemen and women who are of non-UK nationality? Does he share my belief that the current proposal of 12 years’ service before such a free visa is available is too long a period for those involved, for us and for the wider public?

Leo Docherty

I am very pleased that my hon. Friend has raised such an important question. We are hugely grateful for the amazing contribution that our foreign and Commonwealth servicepeople make. I cannot pre-empt the Government announcement on the results of the consultation, but return of service is an important principle and I think it will be at the heart of the Government’s policy when it is announced in due course.

Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)

Will my hon. Friend allow me?

Leo Docherty

I would be delighted.

Dr Lewis

I am glad to be such a cause of pleasure to my hon. and gallant Friend. I am not a lawyer, so this might be entirely irrelevant, but I do not think so: before he leaves this first amendment, could he say whether those serious cases of murder abroad, such as has been reported in relation to an incident in Kenya some years ago—I appreciate that that case may still be live—are affected by this tussle between the upper House and this House on the question of whether such matters should be considered by court martial or civilian court? In other words, where there is a failure of the local police in another country, is it the Government’s case that the court martial system or the civilian legal system is better able to deal with it?

Leo Docherty

I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s contribution; that is a very good case in point, and points to circumstances—although the numbers may be very small—in which the British military has to deploy to ungoverned spaces, let us say. Of course, that is not the case with regard to Kenya, but there are definitely advantages to the expeditionary capability of our service justice system.

I move now to Lords amendment 2B, which would require a report to be laid within six months of this Bill’s receiving Royal Assent, setting out the implications of not applying the new covenant duty to central Government. The Government have already committed to reviewing the operation of the covenant duty to inform us on whether other policy areas or functions could be usefully included. Having listened carefully to the issues that have been so vigorously raised, and recognising the strength of feeling across both Houses, I can now commit to going further.

Indeed, we are going further than Lords amendment 2B in the scope of the review we have in mind. We will review the operation of the new duty across the UK and will consider whether it would be beneficial to add to its scope. That will include specific consideration of whether central Government and any of their functions could usefully be added. The Government will report on the review as part of the covenant annual report in 2023, 18 months after the new duty is expected to come into effect. That timescale is more realistic than the six-month timeline from Royal Assent suggested by their lordships, which in our judgment is too short a period for any meaningful review to take place.

Given that we expect to see the new duty standing up in law by the middle of 2022 at the earliest, we also need to allow for an implementation period to give local authorities time to adjust to their new responsibilities. We therefore believe that to conduct and publish a review at the 18-month point of the new duty having been in operation is most appropriate. However, given the level of interest in the new duty, we will provide an interim update in the covenant annual report in December 2022, some six months after the duty is expected to come into effect. At that point, we will be able to say more about the scope and methodology for conducting the review, and MPs will have the opportunity to assess and comment in the 2022 covenant report debate.

The Government are committed to ensuring that parliamentarians from both Houses can contribute and give their views as part of the review process. I put on record my thanks and appreciation for the contributions of Lord Mackay of Clashfern and Lord Craig of Radley. They, like us, want to see good law put in place to support our armed forces. In the light of the commitment that I have given, I urge the House to support the Government in resisting Lords amendment 2B.

December 14, 2021
Kit Malthouse – 2021 Statement on Stephen Port Inquest

The statement made by Kit Malthouse, the Minister for Crime and Policing, in the House of Commons on 13 December 2021.

I am sure the thoughts of the whole House are with the families and friends of Anthony Walgate, Gabriel Kovari, Daniel Whitworth, and Jack Taylor. The stories we have all read, of their lives and terrible deaths, have moved and horrified the country.

The Government and the people we serve expect the highest standards from the police as they carry out their vital work protecting the public and investigating serious crimes. The conclusions of the inquest have shown that those standards were not met, and that investigative failures probably contributed to the deaths of three of the young men. The Metropolitan police has accepted as much. There are now serious questions for it to answer. It is profoundly important that the force takes responsibility for past failings and makes sure they are not repeated.

The primarily accountability body for the Met is the Mayor of London and the London Assembly, but the Metropolitan Police Service has assured us it is putting in place significant improvements, including: more and better trained investigators; new structures so that intelligence teams, specialists and officers on the ground can work more closely to identify and link crimes much earlier; and work to develop a greater understanding of the drug GHB and its use as a weapon in sexual assaults. It is also essential that the police build trust with all London’s communities and that includes LGBT+ community. I know that the Commissioner and her team are committed to doing so, at a time when the trust the public have in them has been seriously shaken by recent events.

It is, of course, right that the police handling of cases such as these is subject to independent scrutiny. Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services has been asked by the deputy Mayor of London and the commissioner to conduct an inspection into the standard of the Metropolitan Police Service’s investigations, and the Independent Office for Police Conduct is now assessing whether to reopen, either in full or in part, the investigation into the way that the Metropolitan Police Service handled the inquiries into the deaths of these young men.

The police perform an enormously important function in our society. It is a job that, on the whole, they do with skill, courage and professionalism. Only last Thursday, I attended the police bravery awards and heard stories of selfless heroism, but when things go wrong, it is profoundly important that lessons are learned and applied. We will continue to hold the Metropolitan police service and the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime to account in making sure that the failures highlighted by these truly awful cases are addressed.

December 14, 2021
Sajid Javid – 2021 Comments on Need for Volunteers to Help with Vaccination Drive

The comments made by Sajid Javid, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, on 14 December 2021.

To help us turbocharge our COVID-19 booster programme we need people across the country to join our national mission to get boosted now.

We are so grateful to the volunteer vaccinators from organisations such as St John Ambulance and Royal Voluntary Service who have made an enormous contribution by administering millions of vaccinations since the start of this year.

December 14, 2021
Boris Johnson – 2021 Comments on Need for Volunteers to Help with Vaccination Drive

The comments made by Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister, on 14 December 2021.

As part of our Get Boosted Now vaccination drive we need to increase our jabbing capacity to unprecedented levels.

But to achieve something on this scale, we need your help. So today I’m issuing a call for volunteers to join our national mission to get jabs in arms.

We need tens of thousands of people to help out – everyone from trained vaccinators to stewards.

Many thousands have already given their time – but we need you to come forward again, to work alongside our brilliant GPs, doctors, nurses and pharmacists, to deliver jabs and save lives.

So please come forward if you can.

December 14, 2021
Lucy Powell – 2021 Comments on the Online Harms Bill

The comments made by Lucy Powell, the Shadow Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Secretary, on 13 December 2021.

The Joint Committee’s report is welcome and will help improve how the internet is governed.

Social media companies have for too long gotten away with facilitating harmful content online. Current regulation is from the analogue age and lags far, far behind the digital age in which most of us all now live.

The Prime Minister’s failure to bring forward the Online Harms Bill by Christmas is yet another broken promise. The Government must now urgently act to strengthen its proposals and bring them to Parliament to prevent more and more people becoming victims online.

December 14, 2021
Steve Reed – 2021 Comments on Human Rights Laws

The comments made by Steve Reed, the Shadow Justice Secretary, on 14 December 2021.

Our criminal justice system is in crisis with record backlogs in the Crown courts, huge delays in prosecuting criminals, and shamefully low conviction rates for rape and sexual offences. But Dominic Raab is ignoring all that so he can tinker with human rights laws as a distraction from the avalanche of corruption that has overwhelmed this out-of-touch Conservative Government.

Ministers should be focussing on sorting out the failures in our courts, prisons, and probation services that are stoking, rather than stopping, crime. Senior figures from GCHQ, MI5 and MI6 have already warned that the Government’s politicised changes to human rights law could make the UK less safe by making it more difficult to fight terrorism.

Labour will oppose the Human Rights Act being ripped to shreds by a Conservative Government planning to endanger the public by changing the rules to protect themselves.

December 14, 2021
Rishi Sunak – 2021 Comments on the G7

The comments made by Rishi Sunak, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on 13 December 2021.

Thank you to my G7 colleagues for their tireless work this year – together we covered a huge amount in the most difficult of circumstances, including striking an historic agreement on global tax reform to create a fairer tax system fit for the 21st century.

I look forward to the German presidency and working together to address challenges we face next year.

December 13, 2021
Anne-Marie Trevelyan – 2021 Speech at Asia House

The speech made by Anne-Marie Trevelyan, the Secretary of State for International Trade, at Asia House on 13 December 2021.

Thank you very much indeed Michael. It’s a real pleasure to be able to speak to you all today, sadly not in person, technology being what we are able to use in order to ensure we keep ourselves and our families safe as we can, because of course the pandemic has shown us some of the challenges it brings but also the importance of diverse, resilient, global trade networks.

Supply chains were created in the Age of Exploration, an important part of our island story and our proud maritime traditions.

The voyages of one of the earliest explorers of the Asia-Pacific from our islands, the famous merchant Ralph Fitch, gets a mention in Shakespeare’s Macbeth.

And of course in 1786, one of Britain’s greatest sailors, the Royal Navy’s Captain James Cook, mapped the Pacific Ocean, yielding vital new trade routes and safe harbours for international shipping.

Captain Cook’s goat became the first farm animal to circumnavigate the globe – twice, in fact.

But Cook himself came to a sticky end while trying to kidnap the King of Hawaii – a story in itself – but his goat managed to retire back to Britain – and indeed on a government pension.

I am hopeful that those perilous endeavours are unlikely to be repeated, as I’m sure the Treasury hopes too!

It is perhaps though to that buccaneering spirit and entrepreneurism of explorers like Ralph Fitch and Captain Cook that we now look as an independent, sovereign, free trading nation once again, realising untapped trading opportunities with fast growing economies and partners around the world.

As we made clear in our Integrated Review published last year – the largest such review of the government’s vision for Britain’s future since the Cold War – we know that the Indo Pacific region is absolutely vital to that future.

It’s home to some to some of the world’s fastest growing economies, and it’s critical to Global Britain’s strategic, economic, and security interests.

The centre of economic gravity is moving East.

By 2030, ASEAN’s digital economy alone is projected to hit a colossal $1 trillion. And 65 percent of the world’s middle-class consumers are expected to be in Asia. This will drive global demand for precisely the type of high-quality goods and services in which the UK excels.

So, as we emerge from the economic shock of the pandemic, we are seizing this pivotal moment with both hands.

Next year will be a five-star year for the UK’s trade agenda, as we look to begin formal negotiations on deals with Canada, with Mexico, the Gulf Cooperation Council and India. In particular of course, a big focus will be our plans to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, the CPTPP, a huge free trade area with a combined GDP of £8.4 trillion, including the Pacific region’s most dynamic economies.

And early next year I hope to visit several CPTPP members, including Japan and Singapore, to take those discussions forward.

Our ambition is to reach bilateral and multilateral deals with countries whose trade was worth more than £140 billion last year.

This is a really ambitious goal that will put Global Britain in pole position to pursue new opportunities, one which the Prime Minister and I are excited and determined about. We know that a revolution in e-commerce also means that transfers of services are becoming ever more important components of the international trading system. An engineer’s report, a 3D printer design, or advance in machine learning can be just as valuable as the contents of a cargo container.

In this new era of digital trade, the potential for UK firms in the advanced, tech savvy and rapidly expanding markets in Asia is truly extraordinary. So, leveraging the UK’s unique strengths as the world’s second largest services exporter – and fifth biggest exporter of digital tech services – we have a unique opportunity to get ahead of the curve.

That’s why as Michael mentioned on Thursday, I was delighted to reach an Agreement in Principle on a digital trade agreement with Singapore – a gateway to the wider Indo-Pacific region.

The world’s most comprehensive, and indeed the first of its kind.

Reflecting the G7 Digital Trade Principles which we brokered under the UK presidency in October, this DEA overhauls outdated trade rules, secures open digital markets through better cross-border data flows, and champions digital trading systems.

It reforms the slashing of red tape and makes trade cheaper, faster, and indeed more secure. A great example of what two outward looking, free trading nations can accomplish together, which we intend to build on in the Indo-Pacific region and beyond. We have already become a Dialogue Partner of ASEAN, and we have secured FTAs in the region including Japan, Korea, and Vietnam.

We have reached Agreements in Principle with Australia and New Zealand, deals that are going to create new opportunities for exporters, and better choice and value for consumers.

So now, in close collaboration with brilliant British businesses, we are opening up access to markets across Asia.

Led by Her Majesty’s fantastic Trade Commissioners: Simon Penney in the Middle East; John Edwards in China; Natalie Black in Asia, and Alan Gemmell in South Asia. From UK cosmetics being able to sell to the fast-growing markets of Indonesia and China, British poultry being served on Japanese tables thanks to our ground-breaking FTA, to British apples being exported to India for the first time.

We are also identifying new opportunities through Trade Dialogues, and taking our relationships further with Enhanced Trade Partnerships.

These are perhaps less likely to hit the headlines than FTAs, but they have the potential to make a real difference to British business.

Take India, for example – already the UK’s 15th largest trading partner.

The trade partnership the Prime Minister announced in May has the ambition to double our bilateral trade by 2030 – already £24 billion before the pandemic struck. An FTA could strengthen this further by unlocking opportunities in areas where UK firms are second to none.

And circumstances permitting, I hope to commence talks on such an agreement during a visit to India early next year.

Our ambitions in the Indo-Pacific go far beyond the economic, of course. The region is also critical to our security and global ambition to support open societies.

So, as we look to seize the moment of opportunity to reshape our relationships on the world stage as Global Britain, it is to our like-minded friends and allies in the Asia Pacific that we look.

And using our influence to shape international trade to reflect our core values, including freedom, fairness, sovereignty, the rule of law, and good environmentalist policies. The UK believes in open markets and fair competition where all countries are treated fairly in the global system and businesses can compete based on merit.

And in growing, dynamic democracies throughout Asia, we see like-minded countries who share that outlook.

OECD analysis has estimated that substantial liberalisation of market access barriers by the G20 countries alone could boost UK exports by around £75 billion a year.

A truly colossal sum that would mean growth, jobs and prosperity right across the UK. So, together, the UK intends to work with our Asian friends and partners to ensure nations play by the rules, to tackle the increasing, systematic use of market distorting practices, such as harmful industrial subsidies, unfair practices by state-owned enterprises and forced technology transfer.

We want to help create modern, fit-for-purpose WTO rules accounting for the seismic shifts in the global economy which have occurred in the more than 25 years since the Uruguay round.

We must ensure that the economic constraints of Covid do not become the chains than manacle the global trading system to a new and devastating round of protectionism, but rather a springboard towards a liberal, outward looking, free trading future. As an independent, free trading nation, the United Kingdom has a once-in-a-lifetime chance to grasp new opportunities – with the dynamic economies of South and South East Asia foremost amongst these.

By remove unnecessary barriers to free and fair trade, and ensuring that we are not strategically dependent on fair-weather friends.

Working with strategic partners across Asia and beyond to make the global trading system fit for the 21st century, we will strengthen our trading relationships and build better, greener and more resilient global supply chains.

This will help unleash Britain’s potential to power our economic recovery, making our businesses more dynamic, and levelling up our country as we build back better from Covid-19.

2022 is Global Britain’s five-star moment to write a new chapter in our illustrious history, pioneering the future of international trade. And I intend to seize it.

Thank you.

December 13, 2021