Tag: Jeremy Browne

  • Jeremy Browne – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Jeremy Browne – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jeremy Browne on 2014-04-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, how many children have been removed from their parents by social services in each of the last five years.

    Mr Edward Timpson

    The following table shows the number of children who were taken into care in each of the last five years. Children who were taken into care were children who started to be looked after under a care order, police protection, emergency protection order or child assessment order.

    Children who were taken into care during the years ending 31 March:

    Year

    2009

    2010

    2011

    2012

    2013

    Number of children taken into care

    8,180

    9,580

    9,560

    10,140

    11,100

    The information provided in the table is also published in table C2 of the statistical release, which is available online: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/children-looked-after-in-england-including-adoption

  • Jeremy Browne – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Jeremy Browne – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jeremy Browne on 2014-04-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what resource is available to parents who believe that Social Services departments are behaving unreasonably in pursuing their children’s safeguarding activities.

    Mr Edward Timpson

    Parents should, in the first instance, complain to the service provider or the local authority’s complaints officer if they are unhappy about the way a local authority has handled a specific case. They may find it helpful to contact the local authority to obtain details of the authority’s own complaints procedure. Details of how to complain about a local authority service can be found online at: https://www.gov.uk/understand-how-your-council-works/make-a-complaint

    Parents may wish to complain to the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) if they feel dissatisfied with the handling of their complaint under the local authority procedure. More information on making a complaint to the LGO is available at www.lgo.org.uk or by calling the LGO advice line on 0300 061 0614 or 0845 602 1983.

  • Jeremy Browne – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Jeremy Browne – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jeremy Browne on 2014-04-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what assessment he has made of the performance of the children and families department in Somerset County Council.

    Mr Edward Timpson

    Ofsted inspected Somerset County Council’s arrangements for the protection of children between 24 June 2013 and 3 July 2013 and published their findings on 5 August 2013. Ofsted judged the authority’s performance as ‘inadequate’.

    My officials met with representatives of Somerset County Council on 20 August 2013 to discuss the Ofsted judgement, the Department’s proposed course of action and the Council’s immediate plans for improvement.

    I wrote to the leader of Somerset County Council, John Osman, on 13 September 2013 to underline my concern at the Ofsted judgement of performance and set out my intention to issue the council with an Improvement Notice.

    I issued a 12-month Improvement Notice to Somerset County Council on 22 November 2013, requiring the council to institute an improvement board headed by an independent chair to drive improvement and hold partners to account. The improvement board has sat monthly since October 2013 and I am represented at each Board by my officials.

    I plan to visit Somerset County Council to assess improvements for myself. My officials will also undertake a review of progress in June 2014 and report findings to me. I will then assess progress against the Improvement Notice and Ofsted recommendations and decide whether to intervene further.

  • Jeremy Browne – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Jeremy Browne – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jeremy Browne on 2014-04-28.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, how many Crown Estate houses the Crown Estate plans to sell.

    Nicky Morgan

    The Crown Estate operates commercially at arm’s length from the Treasury. The Crown Estate makes commercial decisions in line with the Crown Estate Act 1961 and does not normally discuss them in detail with the Treasury.

  • Jeremy Browne – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Jeremy Browne – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jeremy Browne on 2014-04-28.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what discussions his Department has had with the Crown Estate on selling houses.

    Nicky Morgan

    The Crown Estate operates commercially at arm’s length from the Treasury. The Crown Estate makes commercial decisions in line with the Crown Estate Act 1961 and does not normally discuss them in detail with the Treasury.

  • Jeremy Browne – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Jeremy Browne – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jeremy Browne on 2014-04-28.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, how many houses the Crown Estate is proposing to sell in Taunton Deane.

    Nicky Morgan

    The Crown Estate operates commercially at arm’s length from the Treasury. The Crown Estate makes commercial decisions in line with the Crown Estate Act 1961 and does not normally discuss them in detail with the Treasury.

  • Jeremy Browne – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Jeremy Browne – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jeremy Browne on 2014-04-28.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, on what occasions he has met representatives of the Crown Estate since May 2010.

    Nicky Morgan

    Treasury Ministers meet the Crown Estate Board and staff several times a year.

  • Jeremy Browne – 2012 Speech on Business and Human Rights

    jeremybrowne

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jeremy Browne, the then Minister of State at the Foreign & Commonwealth Office, on 6 July 2012.

    Ladies and Gentlemen,

    Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today, and for such a generous breakfast!

    I am absolutely thrilled to be back in Hong Kong and, in particular, to be speaking again at an event organised by the British Chamber of Commerce.

    This is my third visit to Hong Kong as a Foreign Office Minister. It is no accident that I am such a regular visitor: today, Britain is looking East like never before. As I mentioned last time I was here, we are setting our country firmly on a path to far closer ties with countries across Asia over the next twenty years. We want Britain to be a leading partner with Asia in developing a prosperous future, in trade and commerce, in culture, education and development and in foreign policy and security.

    And we are serious about this, which is why we are adding sixty new jobs to our diplomatic network in China, and targeting a 40% increase in the number of Chinese speakers in the Foreign Office by 2015. I think there is a real opportunity this year, as we inherit the Olympic Baton, to drive forward the UK’s relationship with China. We look forward not only to welcoming Chinese athletes to the UK, but also Chinese businesses and spectators. We will also host a special event at the British Business Embassy during the London Games focused specifically on China – one of only two such events. China’s economic development will see more demand for the advanced services the UK is well-placed to provide. In return, there are significant opportunities for Chinese companies to invest in the UK.

    So China remains a top priority for Britain. And Hong Kong is a uniquely important partner for us – as a place where we enjoy such special connections, and such strong ties in business, education and culture. It is particularly exciting to be here during the first week of the new Administration under Chief Executive C Y Leung. The Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary have congratulated him on his appointment. And there is clearly lots we can work on together. I am looking forward to discussing this with the new Secretary for the Administration when I see her later today.

    When I was here last year, I spoke about Britain’s relationship with China and how Hong Kong fitted into this, particularly in terms of our business links.

    But I thought we could take a slightly different approach this time around. I want us to talk this morning about how my Government is aligning its commitments to business and human rights. So I hope over the next fifteen minutes or so to answer the following questions: do human rights matter to business?; and, if you agree with me that they do, what does that mean for businesses?

    Business and human rights

    There is, I will not deny, a lot of scepticism around the commitment of governments and businesses to human rights. I understand that scepticism. But I don’t buy it. Simply put, respecting human rights, and promoting respect for human rights, is a win-win-win. It’s good for people, it’s good for business, and it’s good for governments.

    Let me first consider the perspective of my own Government. Why have we put values like human rights at the heart of our foreign policy? There’s the obvious moral argument – that it is the Right Thing To Do. As the Foreign Secretary, William Hague, has said: “The belief in political and economic freedom, in human rights and in the rule of law, are part of our national DNA.”

    But it’s also in Britain’s national interest. In the long run, states that respect human rights are more stable, less prone to conflict. In the long run, states with transparency and the rule of law are likely to be more prosperous; to provide more innovative, entrepreneurial markets for us to operate in. So it helps our security, and our prosperity. Just take North and South Korea as an example: the North is a security threat to the region and offers few trade prospects; the South is stable, and an important global trading partner with states all around the globe, not least the UK. We would rather inhabit a world of South Koreas than North Koreas.

    This analogy works for business too. There is, first and foremost, a clear moral imperative that businesses feel as much as states do. But it is also a question of what is in your interests: in which world would you prefer to work? Surely it is easier and less risky for you to operate in countries with transparent regulation, freedom of expression, the rule of law and good governance.

    And it is precisely those qualities that make Hong Kong such a good place to do business. Stability and freedom increase the chances of dispute resolution and protection for capital and intellectual assets. They breed creative, free-thinking individuals that can grow businesses – the sort of people that many of you here today will work alongside, or strive to work alongside. It is in the interest of businesses to have more liberal markets in which to operate.

    That may seem to some of you to be a rather long-term argument. So let us consider too some of the more immediate benefits for companies that take human rights seriously.

    For one, consumers – your customers – increasingly expect it. I believe we are seeing a shift towards a more ethically aware and discerning consumer, a shift we have seen over the past two decades or so on environmental policy. And no-one knows better than you how important human rights issues are to the people of Hong Kong.

    This is one of the reasons why many companies in the clothing industry, for instance, have modified their supply chains to guard against the use of child labour. Reputational damage is a real risk in the modern market of ethically discerning consumers, and companies have been slammed in the past by allegations of complicity in human rights abuses (Nestle, Nike, Gap, Primark).

    Nor is it just consumers. Institutional investors such as pension funds and mutual wealth funds are increasingly taking companies’ ethical standards into account when making investment decisions. The same can be said of shareholders. Employees are more likely to be motivated to work for ethical companies. And by taking a human rights-conscious approach to business, you are reducing the risk of costly and damaging litigation.

    All of this is more relevant than ever. In a world of Facebooks, YouTubes and Googles – of social media and 24 hour news – companies are under the spotlight as never before. Just think of executive pay, which has been in the UK headlines – and which has led to the resignation of leaders of some of our biggest businesses, in the face of moral outcry over the size of salaries and bonuses.

    So it makes sense, then, for governments and businesses to work together not only to respect human rights and ethical ideals, but to also spread respect for human rights.

    And I think I can say with some confidence that, actually, business wants to do this. Today, there are countless examples of good practice across the business spectrum – half of the companies in the FTSE 100 already have human rights policies in place. And I know that your own Chamber is taking a growing interest in these issues.

    The Guiding Principles

    Indeed, it would surprise some if I were to tell them that businesses have been asking, like civil society, for guidance on where and how human rights fit in with the work they do.

    This is why the adoption of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights in June last year is so important. Some of you may have heard of these already – but for the benefit of those who haven’t, the Guiding Principles have created a new common standard for business activity.

    They help you to raise human rights standards in the countries you operate in – which benefits all of us. They provide guidance so you can demonstrate to consumers and investors that you are behaving in an ethical way. They remind you of your legal obligations as businesses, to help mitigate litigation and reputational risks. And by complying – and showing that you are complying – with recognised standards, they help you to attract and retain good staff, increase their motivation, and limit staff turnover and sickness absence.

    So this is not about clogging up or constraining businesses, which are central to our prosperity. It is about levelling the playing field for businesses; mitigating against companies undercutting others by using unethical practices. It is about helping businesses to be aware of their legal obligations; helping them to demonstrate their ethical standards, to their reputational benefit.

    What the UK is doing to help

    The Guiding Principles are here to stay. They will be widely accepted, implemented and maintained. With that in mind, we are about to introduce a Government strategy on business and human rights – in part to ensure that we can more effectively examine our own record. And through working with other like-minded countries, including our EU partners, we are pushing for the wider international community to do more. It is important that we encourage other states to do what we are doing. It is, after all, ultimately for states to protect the human rights of people within their territory. This is not just an initiative that puts the onus only on businesses.

    That being said, we are also doing what we can to support British companies like yours to ensure that you are aware of the Principles and understand what they mean for you.

    As a first step, we are ensuring that our staff across the globe – including Andrew’s team here at the Consulate-General in Hong Kong – will be able to provide you with the guidance you need. We are updating our Overseas Business Risk Service, the joint FCO-UK Trade and Investment website that some of you may already be familiar with. And we are improving the way we signpost businesses to other resources.

    I am confident that in taking these steps we will do our part – and help you do yours – to mainstream the Guiding Principles.

    So it’s clear, I think, that respect for human rights is as crucial in the business world as it is outside of it. I believe that we are seeing a new trend emerging globally, with greater expectations of businesses on human rights. It may seem a long way off in some parts of the world, including in China. But if we can work together – as governments, businesses and indeed civil society – we can create a better environment that benefits all of us.

    I have explained to you this morning why I think all of this is important, and what the British Government is doing about it. But now over to you: I’m interested in hearing your own views on the opportunities to take forward this agenda here in Hong Kong.

  • Jeremy Browne – 2013 Speech on Female Genital Mutilation

    jeremybrown

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jeremy Browne on 6th February 2013 on the subject of female genital mutilation.

    In my lifetime, the role of women and girls in British society has been transformed. There has been an emancipation revolution.

    Many of these changes have been legal. It seems remarkable today to reflect that, until 1975, women were not allowed to buy a house without financial guarantees being provided by a man, typically their father or husband.

    Other changes have been cultural. It is extraordinary, for example, that until 1972 a female diplomat in the foreign office was required to resign if she got married.

    As each of these barriers to female attainment has been removed, women have capitalised on the opportunities that equality has afforded them. In virtually every walk of life now it is wholly unremarkable to see women in positions of high responsibility.

    Indeed, in many informal respects, women have moved beyond parity and are succeeding in greater numbers than men. In a complete reversal from a generation ago, for example, girls now outperform boys at school.

    This is the emancipation revolution. After thousands of years of female disadvantage, this virtuous upheaval in our society has happened in just a few decades.

    It is exhilarating for all true liberals who believe, as I do, that every person should have the freedom to be who they are, and the opportunity to be everything they could be.

    That is the liberal society

    But it is not, if we are honest and blunt, the reality for every woman and girl in Britain. The emancipation revolution should apply universally. It should benefit everyone. But it does not.

    There are thousands – perhaps hundreds of thousands – of women and girls in Britain who do not enjoy the benefits of living in our liberal society.

    That is not because of some accident or oversight. It is much worse than that. It is because of a deliberate rejection of the emancipation revolution and the equal opportunities now afforded to women and girls.

    I am standing before you this evening to say, unequivocally, that this situation is wrong.

    It is unacceptable for the individual women and girls whose freedom and opportunities are stifled. And it is wrong for our society. There cannot be a pick-and-mix approach to living in a benign liberal country. The benefits must be universal, without exceptions or exemptions.

    I do not believe that cultural relativism provides an excuse to opt-out of our shared liberal social settlement. Everyone should enjoy the freedom to make their own choices, without the fear of social coercion.

    Let me spell out some examples of what I mean. Forced marriage has no place in our benign liberal society. The victims are overwhelmingly young women and girls. Like everyone else they should be free to marry who they wish. Or not to marry at all. That is their decision. And that is why we will be criminalising forced marriage.

    We should also make clear our collective repulsion about so called ‘honour crimes’. The victims are also nearly always vulnerable young women and girls. What possible honour can there be in murder, rape or kidnap? None, and it has no place in our society.

    And that takes me to the subject that brings us together this evening: female genital mutilation.

    Female genital mutilation is abhorrent

    Sewing up a young girls’ vagina or cutting a five year-old’s clitoris is just plain barbaric.

    Looked at in these simple, stark terms, I would hope and believe that when front-line professionals came across such a brutal process – particularly when such violence is practiced against children – they would do everything in their power to first and foremost protect the victim and then help bring the perpetrator to justice.

    And yet……

    According to a study based on census data, there are around 20,000 girls in Britain who are at risk of female genital mutilation. One hospital in North London alone has recorded 450 cases of female genital mutilation in the last three years. But despite female genital mutilation being illegal for 25 years, there has still not been a single prosecution.

    Something does not add up

    I can only conclude that there is nervousness amongst some professionals to confront the practice of female genital mutilation head on. That it is viewed as an exotic or unusual custom practiced by a culture they should not intrude upon. That there is a cultural relativism that leads them to excuse what is being done to other people’s daughters when they would never allow it to be done to their own.

    That those professionals are somehow not seeing female genital mutilation for what it really is. Because what it is, categorically and unequivocally, is child abuse.

    It can never be excused or ignored and it should be treated in the same way as any other form of child abuse.

    I want to urge anyone who has real concerns that a girl may be at risk of female genital mutilation to report it – just as they would report their concerns about a child at risk of any other form of child abuse. To do so is not cultural persecution; it is not racial or religious intolerance; it is about promoting child protection.

    That is my message to frontline professionals – in hospitals, in schools, in social services departments – report your concerns to the police. All the safeguarding guidelines and legal frameworks that exist to tackle child abuse apply to tackling female genital mutilation. The law is on your side.

    If we overcome misplaced cultural sensitivities; if guidelines are followed and if the law is enforced then we will finally see a prosecution of this heinous crime. A prosecution will send a vital and strong message to perpetrators that we will not tolerate this abuse, and if the law is ignored then there will be legal consequences.

    But enforcing the law is only one way of protecting the health and well being of future generations. Fundamentally we also need to change values and beliefs. We need to ceaselessly work to encourage everyone to appreciate and embrace the basic principle that women and girls have an equal stake in our society to men and boys.

    There is no opt-out clause when it comes to equality for women and girls in a liberal society. Customs and traditions can no longer be used as an excuse or a shield for people who are shunning the values that the rest of our society have embraced.

    The emancipation revolution is universal, and women and girls, regardless of their background or culture, are entitled to exactly the same protections, freedoms and privileges as their fathers and brothers.

  • Jeremy Browne – 2012 Speech in Hong Kong

    jeremybrown

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jeremy Browne in Hong Kong on 6th July 2012.

    Ladies and Gentlemen,

    Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today, and for such a generous breakfast!

    I am absolutely thrilled to be back in Hong Kong and, in particular, to be speaking again at an event organised by the British Chamber of Commerce.

    This is my third visit to Hong Kong as a Foreign Office Minister. It is no accident that I am such a regular visitor: today, Britain is looking East like never before. As I mentioned last time I was here, we are setting our country firmly on a path to far closer ties with countries across Asia over the next twenty years. We want Britain to be a leading partner with Asia in developing a prosperous future, in trade and commerce, in culture, education and development and in foreign policy and security.

    And we are serious about this, which is why we are adding sixty new jobs to our diplomatic network in China, and targeting a 40% increase in the number of Chinese speakers in the Foreign Office by 2015. I think there is a real opportunity this year, as we inherit the Olympic Baton, to drive forward the UK’s relationship with China. We look forward not only to welcoming Chinese athletes to the UK, but also Chinese businesses and spectators. We will also host a special event at the British Business Embassy during the London Games focused specifically on China – one of only two such events. China’s economic development will see more demand for the advanced services the UK is well-placed to provide. In return, there are significant opportunities for Chinese companies to invest in the UK.

    So China remains a top priority for Britain. And Hong Kong is a uniquely important partner for us – as a place where we enjoy such special connections, and such strong ties in business, education and culture. It is particularly exciting to be here during the first week of the new Administration under Chief Executive C Y Leung. The Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary have congratulated him on his appointment. And there is clearly lots we can work on together. I am looking forward to discussing this with the new Secretary for the Administration when I see her later today.

    When I was here last year, I spoke about Britain’s relationship with China and how Hong Kong fitted into this, particularly in terms of our business links.

    But I thought we could take a slightly different approach this time around. I want us to talk this morning about how my Government is aligning its commitments to business and human rights. So I hope over the next fifteen minutes or so to answer the following questions: do human rights matter to business?; and, if you agree with me that they do, what does that mean for businesses?

    Business and human rights

    There is, I will not deny, a lot of scepticism around the commitment of governments and businesses to human rights. I understand that scepticism. But I don’t buy it. Simply put, respecting human rights, and promoting respect for human rights, is a win-win-win. It’s good for people, it’s good for business, and it’s good for governments.

    Let me first consider the perspective of my own Government. Why have we put values like human rights at the heart of our foreign policy? There’s the obvious moral argument – that it is the Right Thing To Do. As the Foreign Secretary, William Hague, has said: “The belief in political and economic freedom, in human rights and in the rule of law, are part of our national DNA.”

    But it’s also in Britain’s national interest. In the long run, states that respect human rights are more stable, less prone to conflict. In the long run, states with transparency and the rule of law are likely to be more prosperous; to provide more innovative, entrepreneurial markets for us to operate in. So it helps our security, and our prosperity. Just take North and South Korea as an example: the North is a security threat to the region and offers few trade prospects; the South is stable, and an important global trading partner with states all around the globe, not least the UK. We would rather inhabit a world of South Koreas than North Koreas.

    This analogy works for business too. There is, first and foremost, a clear moral imperative that businesses feel as much as states do. But it is also a question of what is in your interests: in which world would you prefer to work? Surely it is easier and less risky for you to operate in countries with transparent regulation, freedom of expression, the rule of law and good governance.

    And it is precisely those qualities that make Hong Kong such a good place to do business. Stability and freedom increase the chances of dispute resolution and protection for capital and intellectual assets. They breed creative, free-thinking individuals that can grow businesses – the sort of people that many of you here today will work alongside, or strive to work alongside. It is in the interest of businesses to have more liberal markets in which to operate.

    That may seem to some of you to be a rather long-term argument. So let us consider too some of the more immediate benefits for companies that take human rights seriously.

    For one, consumers – your customers – increasingly expect it. I believe we are seeing a shift towards a more ethically aware and discerning consumer, a shift we have seen over the past two decades or so on environmental policy. And no-one knows better than you how important human rights issues are to the people of Hong Kong.

    This is one of the reasons why many companies in the clothing industry, for instance, have modified their supply chains to guard against the use of child labour. Reputational damage is a real risk in the modern market of ethically discerning consumers, and companies have been slammed in the past by allegations of complicity in human rights abuses (Nestle, Nike, Gap, Primark).

    Nor is it just consumers. Institutional investors such as pension funds and mutual wealth funds are increasingly taking companies’ ethical standards into account when making investment decisions. The same can be said of shareholders. Employees are more likely to be motivated to work for ethical companies. And by taking a human rights-conscious approach to business, you are reducing the risk of costly and damaging litigation.

    All of this is more relevant than ever. In a world of Facebooks, YouTubes and Googles – of social media and 24 hour news – companies are under the spotlight as never before. Just think of executive pay, which has been in the UK headlines – and which has led to the resignation of leaders of some of our biggest businesses, in the face of moral outcry over the size of salaries and bonuses.

    So it makes sense, then, for governments and businesses to work together not only to respect human rights and ethical ideals, but to also spread respect for human rights.

    And I think I can say with some confidence that, actually, business wants to do this. Today, there are countless examples of good practice across the business spectrum – half of the companies in the FTSE 100 already have human rights policies in place. And I know that your own Chamber is taking a growing interest in these issues.

    The Guiding Principles

    Indeed, it would surprise some if I were to tell them that businesses have been asking, like civil society, for guidance on where and how human rights fit in with the work they do.

    This is why the adoption of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights in June last year is so important. Some of you may have heard of these already – but for the benefit of those who haven’t, the Guiding Principles have created a new common standard for business activity.

    They help you to raise human rights standards in the countries you operate in – which benefits all of us. They provide guidance so you can demonstrate to consumers and investors that you are behaving in an ethical way. They remind you of your legal obligations as businesses, to help mitigate litigation and reputational risks. And by complying – and showing that you are complying – with recognised standards, they help you to attract and retain good staff, increase their motivation, and limit staff turnover and sickness absence.

    So this is not about clogging up or constraining businesses, which are central to our prosperity. It is about levelling the playing field for businesses; mitigating against companies undercutting others by using unethical practices. It is about helping businesses to be aware of their legal obligations; helping them to demonstrate their ethical standards, to their reputational benefit.

    What the UK is doing to help

    The Guiding Principles are here to stay. They will be widely accepted, implemented and maintained. With that in mind, we are about to introduce a Government strategy on business and human rights – in part to ensure that we can more effectively examine our own record. And through working with other like-minded countries, including our EU partners, we are pushing for the wider international community to do more. It is important that we encourage other states to do what we are doing. It is, after all, ultimately for states to protect the human rights of people within their territory. This is not just an initiative that puts the onus only on businesses.

    That being said, we are also doing what we can to support British companies like yours to ensure that you are aware of the Principles and understand what they mean for you.

    As a first step, we are ensuring that our staff across the globe – including Andrew’s team here at the Consulate-General in Hong Kong – will be able to provide you with the guidance you need. We are updating our Overseas Business Risk Service, the joint FCO-UK Trade and Investment website that some of you may already be familiar with. And we are improving the way we signpost businesses to other resources.

    I am confident that in taking these steps we will do our part – and help you do yours – to mainstream the Guiding Principles.

    So it’s clear, I think, that respect for human rights is as crucial in the business world as it is outside of it. I believe that we are seeing a new trend emerging globally, with greater expectations of businesses on human rights. It may seem a long way off in some parts of the world, including in China. But if we can work together – as governments, businesses and indeed civil society – we can create a better environment that benefits all of us.

    I have explained to you this morning why I think all of this is important, and what the British Government is doing about it. But now over to you: I’m interested in hearing your own views on the opportunities to take forward this agenda here in Hong Kong.