UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Dominic Raab – 2019 Statement on Iran

    Below is the text of the speech made by Dominic Raab, the Foreign Secretary, in the House of Commons on 25 September 2019.

    With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on Iran.

    The United Kingdom has always been clear-sighted about our engagement with Iran. We want to see Iran come in from the cold, but that can happen only if Iran shows the respect required for the basic principles of the rules-based international system.

    Iran’s violations are not mere technical breaches of international rules; they are serious and systemic destabilising actions that undermine the international rule of law. Those actions must have consequences. Take first the recent attacks on the Aramco facilities in Saudi Arabia. On 14 September, 18 drones and seven cruise missiles hit an oil field and a processing facility.

    As the UK Government, we took our time to assess the facts carefully and independently. We are now confident that Iran was responsible. The evidence is clear and there is no plausible alternative explanation. This conduct amounts to an armed attack on Saudi Arabia, a violation of one of the basic principles of international law under the United Nations charter.

    The attacks caused serious damage in Saudi Arabia and affected 5% of the world’s oil supply. In those circumstances, the UK has sought, and will continue to seek, to de-escalate tensions. However, our response is also an acid test of our resolve. We have condemned the attacks in co-ordination not just with Saudi Arabia and the United States, but with our European partners. I draw the attention of the House to the E3 statement released yesterday after meetings in New York. We will now continue to work with the widest international support to determine the most effective response.

    At the same time, Iran’s attacks on the Aramco facilities are a reminder of the importance of ensuring that Iran never gains access to nuclear weapons. That is why the UK remains committed to the 2015 joint comprehensive plan of action, notwithstanding US withdrawal. Equally, we have always recognised that it is not a perfect deal. The JCPOA has its strengths, including its provisions granting the International Atomic Energy Agency unfettered access to Iran’s nuclear facilities, but it also has its limitations. Its provisions are time limited, with some expiring next year, and it was never designed to address our long-standing concern about Iran’s wider destabilising behaviour in the region.

    Since May, Iran has gradually reduced its compliance with key aspects of the JCPOA, putting the deal at risk. Before any wider progress is possible, Iran must reverse those steps and must come back into full compliance. At the same time, as both President Trump and President Macron have said, we can improve upon the JCPOA. Ultimately, we need a longer-term framework that provides greater certainty over Iran’s nuclear programme and, as the attacks on Aramco demonstrate, we must also bring Iran’s wider destabilising activities into scope. That includes putting an end to Iran’s violations of the freedom of navigation, which are disrupting shipping in the strait of Hormuz and undermining the international law of the sea.

    Alongside our partners—the US, Australia, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain—we remain committed to the International Maritime Security Construct to ensure freedom of navigation in the region. We also welcome the European-led initiatives to achieve the same goals. We want the widest international support to uphold the rules-based international order.

    We must also see an end to Iran’s interference in Yemen, which has stoked further conflict through support for the Houthi rebels and fuelled the greatest humanitarian crisis in the world today. A political solution is the only viable way to bring peace to that terrible conflict. Iran must start to play a constructive, instead of destructive, role in that conflict.

    Finally, when it comes to respecting international law, Iran’s dire human rights record continues to be a serious concern to the United Kingdom, especially its practice of arbitrary detention of dual nationals. Today a range of UK dual nationals are languishing in jail in Iran. They have typically been arrested on spurious charges, denied due process and subjected to mistreatment, contrary to the basic tenets of international human rights law. This practice causes great anguish and suffering not just to those detained but to their families.

    Iran’s behaviour is unlawful, cruel and totally unacceptable. I have raised all these cases, along with Iran’s wider conduct, with Foreign Minister Zarif, and the Prime Minister raised the cases with President Rouhani yesterday in New York. We will continue to press for their release.

    Iran’s record of respect for the basic rules of international law is woeful, and it is getting worse. Let us be clear about this and about the Iranian Government’s responsibility for the plight of their own people. It is a matter of political choice—their Government’s choice—yet, even now, we retain the hope that we can work with Iran and with our international partners to de-escalate tensions, to rebuild confidence and to establish a clear path for Iran towards international respectability.

    Iran is a proud nation with a rich history and remarkable economic potential. It is held back by a regime that fails to respect the fundamental tenets of the rules-based international system. Iran faces a choice: it can double down on its approach, in which case the international opposition to its behaviour will only intensify; or it can take immediate steps to de-escalate tensions and rebuild international confidence by respecting international law and reducing the range of threats it presents to its neighbours. That is the only path to stability and prosperity for Iran and the wider region, and I commend this statement to the House.

  • Keir Starmer – 2019 Speech on Operation Yellowhammer

    Below is the text of the speech made by Keir Starmer, the Shadow Secretary of State for Existing the European Union, in the House of Commons on 25 September 2019.

    I thank the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for an advance copy of his statement. Let us get to the detail and test what he says.

    First, the right hon. Gentleman says that the negotiations have seen significant movement over recent weeks. Will he confirm that three papers were submitted to the EU last week and one was submitted today, but they are what the EU called non-papers, because they are for discussion and do not commit the member state to the policy outlined in them, and at the moment they are being kept secret from the EU27? What is the thrust or gist of those papers? If we are to assess the likelihood of success in negotiations, we need to know.

    Secondly, may I challenge the right hon. Gentleman’s statement that many businesses are already well prepared for no deal? At 3 o’clock last Wednesday, I sat round a table with the leaders of pretty well all the business sectors, and the one message they wanted to get across was how concerned they were that businesses were not prepared for a no-deal Brexit. I do not believe those businesses are saying one thing to me and another thing to the Government. Will he therefore clarify what he meant?

    The statement significantly and studiously avoids giving any detail of the scenario that we are told the Government’s civil contingencies secretariat has drawn up. On 9 September, just before we were shut down, an order was made that all the documents prepared within Her Majesty’s Government since 23 July relating to Operation Yellowhammer and submitted to Cabinet or a Cabinet Committee should be laid before the House by 11 o’clock on 11 September. The Government are spending a lot of money telling businesses and the country to get ready, and they want to know what they are to get ready for. They need to know what could happen so that they can prepare. On 11 September, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster wrote to the Chair of the Brexit Select Committee,

    “I thought it would be helpful to publish the Operation Yellowhammer document based on assumptions drawn up by the last Government.”

    I have that document in my hand; it was the only document disclosed. He went on to say,

    It is…my intention…to publish revised assumptions in due course”.

    Nothing else has been produced.

    The document disclosed to the Chair of the Select Committee is dated 2 August. Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster explain how it is a document of the last Government, not this one? As he knows, it was leaked pretty well in full to The Sunday Times. Just so that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster does not try to avoid this by saying that he will not comment on leaked documents, I understand that it also went to the Welsh Government. In response to that leak, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said on the Marr show on 1 September that the document

    “predated the creation of this new government”

    and that its predictions were the “worst possible eventuality.” The impression he was trying to create was that it is an old document and a worst-case scenario. [Interruption.] Thank you—that is exactly the point I want to come on to: the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster went on to say that it is “constantly updated”. Given that the document is dated 2 August, was it produced for this Government, the last Government or both? If it was for the last Government, have this Government produced any documents of their own since 23 July relating to Operation Yellowhammer? It is no good saying, “We are going to produce them.” This Government have been in place for nine weeks, and there are only five weeks and two days to go until 31 October.

    If it is an old document and it was produced for the last Government, why did somebody change the title after the leak to The Sunday Times? It used to be branded the “base scenario”. Somebody got hold of an old, apparently irrelevant document and changed the title, so it is now called, “HMG Reasonable Worst Case Planning Assumptions”. Why was it changed if it is out of date and an old document? Who did it?

    Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster confirm that the rebranded document has 20 substantive paragraphs, each word for word the same as those in the document leaked to The Sunday Times? If it is constantly updated, where are the constant updates? This is the only document we have. Will he confirm that, according to this document, there will be “significant and prolonged disruption” at ports; that the “worst disruption” to the channel straits will last “up to 3 months”; and that there will be “significant queues in Kent” and delays of up to two and a half days at the border for HGVs attempting to use the channel route to France? If the answer is no, what is that based on if there is not another document in existence that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has not disclosed in accordance with the order of this House? The answer is either yes or no, based on a document that has not been disclosed.

    Paragraph 18 has not had the attention it should have had. It centres on the impact of no deal on Northern Ireland. I know that this is a matter that the House takes extremely seriously. It sets out the Government’s planned model. It states:

    “The agri-food sector will be the hardest hit… Disruption to key sectors and job losses are likely to result in protests and direct action with road blockages. Price and other differentials are likely to lead to the growth of the illegitimate economy.”

    It also mentions severe disruption at the border. The document itself concludes that the pressure will be such—[Interruption.] Northern Ireland happens to be extremely important to many people in this House.

    [Interruption.]

    We are here to scrutinise the Government; let us get on with it. This document indicates that the Government’s proposed model will come under such pressure that it is unlikely to survive for more than a few days or weeks. The Government’s preferred model for Northern Ireland is unlikely, according to their own assessment, to survive for more than a few days or weeks. A model that will not last more than a week is not a plan. There must be an update. Where is it?

    Has the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster received any representations from the energy sector about the impact on oil and gas supplies to the UK in the event of no deal?

    Anyone watching today’s proceedings and still thinking that somewhere lurks a clever and cunning plan to get through the chaos of the Government’s making needs to think again. The Government have lost six out of six votes in Parliament and the Prime Minister has lost his majority and his case in the Supreme Court. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said on the radio this morning that the Prime Minister is a born winner. I am glad that he has not lost his sense of humour. However, this is not a game, and for the Government to be five weeks away from leaving the EU without a plan is unforgiveable.

  • Michael Gove – 2019 Statement on Operation Yellowhammer

    Below is the text of the statement made by Michael Gove, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, in the House of Commons on 25 September 2019.

    With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on our preparations to leave the European Union and the steps that we are taking to be ready for every eventuality.

    Some 17.4 million people voted in the referendum in June 2016 to leave the European Union—more than have ever voted for any proposition in the history of our democracy—and this Government are committed to honouring that verdict. The Government are determined to secure a good deal with our EU partners. Negotiations have been led by the Prime Minister, the Brexit Secretary and the Foreign Secretary, and those negotiations have seen significant movement over recent weeks. Until recently, the EU has maintained that the withdrawal agreement was sacrosanct, but now it has acknowledged that it can be changed. Up until this point, the European Union has also said that the backstop was inviolable, but again, European leaders have said that they are not emotionally attached to the backstop and hat there are other ways of ensuring that we can safeguard the gains of the Good Friday/Belfast agreement and also ensure smooth trade flows across the island of Ireland.

    I want to commend the Prime Minister and his colleagues for the progress that has been made in those negotiations, and I hope that everyone in the House will agree that it is better for all of us if we can leave the EU with a withdrawal agreement in place, but Government need to be prepared for every eventuality. Since the PM took office, he has created a new Cabinet structure to ensure that, across Government, we take all the steps necessary to prepare for exit. A new Cabinet Committee—XO—has met 48 times and brought greater focus and urgency to our preparations. Our top economic priority is to ensure that we can maintain a smooth and efficient flow of goods and people from the UK into the EU and vice versa. We need to make sure that businesses are ready for changed circumstances and new customs requirements. There are, of course, some goods that require not just customs checks but other procedures—particularly food and products of animal origin—and we have been working with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the relevant sectors to ensure that those businesses are ready.

    We take very seriously our responsibility to ensure that the rights of millions of EU citizens in this country are protected, and we are working with our European partners to ensure that UK nationals in EU nations also have their rights safeguarded. The XO Committee has also taken steps to safeguard and enhance national security and the operation of our criminal justice system, to enhance the free flow of personal data across borders, to ensure that we can support the devolved Administrations in their work and, in particular, to support the Northern Ireland civil service in its vital work.

    With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to go into a little more detail about how we can facilitate the free flow of goods across borders, and it is in that context that I would like to explain the role of Project Yellowhammer in the Government’s planning. If the UK leaves the European Union without a withdrawal agreement, we will be a third country, subject to the EU’s common external tariff and trading on World Trade Organisation terms, and exports will be subject to new customs and sanitary and phytosanitary checks. These are unarguable facts, they pose specific challenges, and they constitute the base scenario with which we all have to work.

    The Government’s Civil Contingencies Secretariat has used these facts to develop a reasonable worst-case scenario of what might happen, including in cases where appropriate mitigations are not put in place and readiness measures are not implemented. That reasonable worst-case scenario and the steps required to mitigate it are the work undertaken under the name Operation Yellowhammer. As the National Audit Office reported in March, work on Operation Yellowhammer has been going on since June 2018. The NAO made it clear then that

    “Departments are working on the basis of a reasonable worst case scenario.”

    Many of the challenges that Operation Yellowhammer identifies relate specifically to flow at the border. It contains careful estimates of how flow might be affected through a range of factors, including if steps are not taken to help businesses to be ready. That is why this Government have taken significant steps to ensure that businesses are ready. Specifically, we know that in adjusting to this new situation, businesses require support to deal with those new customs procedures, and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has acted to support traders. Importers will have access to transitional simplified procedures, which ensure that businesses have time to adjust to new duties. Businesses exporting to the European Union will need a specific economic operator registration and identification number from HMRC, and HMRC has already allocated EORI numbers to 88,000 VAT-registered businesses that currently trade with the EU and not beyond it.

    We have introduced postponed accounting for import VAT and negotiated access to the common transit convention, so that both imported and exported goods can continue to flow across international borders without the payment of any duties until they reach their final destination. We have established new transit sites in Kent and Essex, to ensure that trucks can flow freely, carrying goods into France and beyond to the wider EU. We are also providing tailored information to hauliers and businesses through a range of sites across the country, to ensure the greatest level of readiness. We have funded business representative organisations to share information with enterprises large and small, and they are preparing for exit. We have also worked with the authorities in both Dover and Calais to smooth trade, and I want to take this opportunity to thank the French authorities for the work they have done to ensure the operation of a smart border at Calais, so that compliant consignments should experience no delay.

    The steps we have taken are designed to ensure that businesses are ready for exit without a deal on 31 October, but these steps will in any case be necessary for life outside the single market and the customs union when we secure a new free trade agreement with the EU. Thanks to work undertaken under the previous Government, and accelerated under this Administration, many businesses are already well prepared. For any business that is in any doubt about what is required, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is conducting roadshows and visiting businesses in their premises, and gov.uk/brexit provides all the information required.

    As I mentioned, there are specific additional requirements for those who are exporting food and products of animal origin, with sanitary and phytosanitary checks. Traders will require export health certificates for food and catch certificates for fish. Hundreds of vets have now been trained to issue those certificates and additional personnel certified to support them. Again, the French authorities have taken steps to ensure the smooth flow of critical produce. They have specifically created a new border inspection post at Boulogne-sur-Mer to ensure that fish and shellfish products can be caught in the UK today and be on sale in the European Union tomorrow.

    Of course, as well as making sure that commerce flows, we must safeguard the rights of individuals. That is why this Government have provided the most comprehensive and generous offer to EU citizens in this country, in order to guarantee their rights. It is already the case that under the EU settlement scheme, more than 1 million people have been granted status, and the Home Office is helping thousands of new applicants every day. If any Member of Parliament finds that any of their constituents are having difficulties with that process, I would welcome their getting in touch directly with me and the Home Secretary.

    In the same way, we have taken steps to secure the rights of UK nationals in the EU, including access to healthcare after exit, and we will continue to work with our partners in member states to provide further protection for UK nationals.

    It is important that UK citizens in those countries register with the appropriate authorities. On gov.uk/brexit details are outlined, member state by member state, to enable every citizen to have the rights they deserve.

    Also this month, the Government committed to increasing the UK state pension, which is paid to nearly half a million people living in the EU every year, for three years after a no-deal exit. Previously the commitment was solely for the financial year 2019-20. As well as making sure that UK nationals in the EU, and EU citizens in the UK, have their rights protected, we want to make sure that UK citizens can continue to travel in the EU without impediment. That is why UK nationals will have visa-free travel into the EU. We are also talking to member states to understand how people who provide professional services can continue to do so, member state by member state.

    On security, it is vital to ensure, as we leave the EU, that we have the right approach to safeguarding citizens. That is why we have been talking to the EU about making sure we continue to have access to law enforcement and national security instruments. It is also important to recognise that, as we leave the EU, new tools will be available to ensure that we can better deal with people trafficking, smuggling and other criminal activity.

    On the situation in Northern Ireland, the Government are absolutely committed to the Good Friday/Belfast agreement, absolutely determined to ensure there will be no infrastructure at the border, and absolutely determined to uphold the functioning of the all-Ireland economy. That is why we will have no checks at the border and no tariffs. We wait to see what Ireland and the EU Commission will decide, but we stand ready to work with them to help to safeguard commerce and rights across the island of Ireland.

    I do not shirk from the fact that leaving the EU without a deal provides economic challenges, but it is also provides economic opportunities. There is the opportunity to secure new trade deals and become a strong voice for free trade at the WTO; the opportunity to develop new technologies that will help feed the world and enhance the environment; the opportunity to overhaul Government procurement to better support growing British businesses; the opportunity to introduce a fairer, more efficient and more humane immigration system; the opportunity to deal more effectively with cross-border crime; the opportunity to invest more flexibly and generously to support overlooked communities; and the opportunity to strengthen our democratic institutions.

    The British people gave us a clear instruction to leave the EU. This House now has a clear choice. Do we honour that instruction, or do we continue to delay and seek to frustrate the British people’s vote? The Government are clear that we must honour that decision. I commend this statement to the House.

  • Grant Shapps – 2019 Statement on Thomas Cook

    Below is the text of the statement made by Grant Shapps, the Secretary of State for Transport, in the House of Commons on 25 September 2019.

    With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the steps that the Government have been taking to support those affected by the collapse of Thomas Cook, particularly for the 150,000 passengers left abroad without a flight back and the 9,000 people here who have lost their jobs in the UK.

    This is a very sad situation. All parties considered options to avoid the company’s being put into administration. Ultimately, however, Thomas Cook and its directors themselves took the decision to place the company into insolvency proceedings, and it ceased trading at 2 am on Monday 23 September. I recognise that this is a very distressing situation for all those involved. I assure Members of the House that the Government are committed to supporting those affected, including by providing repatriation flights free of charge for all those people.

    We have been contingency planning for some time to prepare for this scenario, under Operation Matterhorn. The Government and the Civil Aviation Authority have run similar operations in the past and have been working hard to minimise the disruption to passengers and to try to assist Thomas Cook’s staff. Even with our preparations, and previous experience with Monarch, the task before us represents the largest peacetime repatriation ever undertaken in the UK. Some disruption and delay is therefore inevitable, and we ask for understanding, particularly for Thomas Cook’s staff, many of whom are still working, alongside the Government, to try to help ensure the safe return of their customers.

    For example, the media reported on the situation in Cuba overnight. That aircraft has now left this morning, and all the passengers from Cuba who were scheduled to come home today are on that flight.

    Normally, the CAA’s responsibility for bringing back passengers would extend only to customers whose trips are covered by the ATOL scheme. However, there would have been insufficient capacity worldwide in the aviation market to allow people whose trips were not covered by the ATOL scheme to book tickets independently and bring themselves home. Some passengers would have had to wait for perhaps a week or longer, and others would have suffered financial and personal hardship as they waited for another flight. In my view, that would have created further economic problems, with people unable to return to work and unable to be reunited with their families. With tens of thousands of passengers abroad and with no easy means of returning to the UK, I instructed the CAA to ensure that all those currently abroad were able to return, ATOL or non-ATOL.

    Due to the size, complexity and geographical scope of the Thomas Cook business, it has not been possible to replicate the airline’s own flying programme and its schedule. In the case of the Monarch collapse back in 2017, the CAA was able to source enough aircraft of the right size and the right types to closely match the airline’s own aircraft. But Thomas Cook was a much bigger airline, and it also provided a global network of package holidays; as a result, this operation has been much more challenging. Some passengers will be travelling home on commercial flights, where other airlines have available seats. I know that the whole House would want to thank all the airlines and ground staff who have offered assistance to Thomas Cook passengers in this difficult situation.

    I would like to update the House with the latest information and give hon. Members a sense of the scale of the operation that has been going on. We have put arrangements in place to bring back 150,000 people, across 50 different countries. That requires over 1,000 flights by CAA-chartered aircraft over the next two-week period. Passengers will be able to complete their holidays, so that they should not be leaving early, and should return on the day that they were intending to.

    So far, in the first two days of the operation, we have brought home nearly 30,000 of the 150,000 passengers, on over 130 dedicated CAA flights. We hope to repatriate a further 16,500 passengers today, on about 70 flights. I checked before I came to the House, and the operation is proceeding according to these amended schedules.

    So far, 95% of people have been repatriated to their original point of departure. Again, we have not been able to bring everybody back to the airport from which they left, because of the difference in size and shape of available aircraft. In the first two days, we have therefore provided onward travel for 2,300 passengers, and have arranged an additional fight from Gatwick to Glasgow to relocate passengers who have flown back to the wrong airport because of that scheduling issue.

    The CAA has reached out to over 3,000 hotels, issuing letters of guarantee to ensure that British holidaymakers can remain in the hotels in which they are booked, and that has been followed up by calls and contact from FCO officials.

    Over 50 overseas airports are involved—around the Mediterranean, in north Africa and in north America—and 11 UK airports are engaged in this programme. There have been over 100,000 calls to our customer service centres, and on the first day alone there were over 2 million unique visitors to the CAA’s dedicated website—thomascook.caa.co.uk—with close to 7 million page views. In total, 10 Government Departments and agencies have been involved, including the Department for Transport, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Department for Work and Pensions, in London, and our extensive diplomatic and consular network in the affected countries.

    I have been hugely impressed, as the programme has been rolling out in the past couple of days. The response from everyone involved, including Thomas Cook passengers, has been generally positive, with many praising the CAA, local staff and government officials, even though there has been considerable disruption. For example, people have not been able to check in in advance, as they are used to doing these days, but have instead had to queue to check in for every single flight. That has caused some of the queues that we see on television. The programme has, though, been generally well organised and all those involved have been extremely professional.

    Despite these robust plans and their success so far, this is an incredibly distressing situation for all concerned. One of my top priorities remains helping those passengers abroad to get back to the UK and do so safely, but in addition to supporting passengers, we have been working across Government to ensure that the 9,000 former Thomas Cook employees in the UK and those overseas receive the support that they need. The decision by the Thomas Cook Group’s board has been deeply upsetting for employees, who are losing their jobs. DWP’s Jobcentre Plus rapid response service is in place, helping workers get back into employment. The Jobcentre Plus rapid response managers across the UK are ready to engage with the liquidators to start that vital work. Special arrangements are in place for UK employees who are owed redundancy pay and notice pay by their insolvent employer: the redundancy payments service in the Insolvency Service can pay statutory amounts owed to the former employees through the national insurance fund. I want to say more about that later, but I will do so in answer to questions.

    My colleague the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is establishing a cross-government taskforce to address the impact on employees and local communities. That will help to overcome barriers to attending training, securing a job or self-employment, such as by providing child care costs, tools, work clothes and travel costs.

    My colleagues and I have been in contact with those Members whose constituencies will have been hardest hit by these job losses, and have given assurances that we will work with the industry to offer what support we can. In fact, pretty much every hon. Member’s constituency is affected in some way, even if only through the number of people working in a single shop location.

    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has written to the Financial Reporting Council to ensure that it prioritises, as a matter of urgency, an investigation into both the causes of the company’s failure and the conduct of its directors and auditors.

    I am also aware of the duty that this Government have to the taxpayer, and while affected passengers have been told they will not have to pay to be flown back to the UK, we have entered into discussions with third parties with a view to recovering some of the costs of this large operation. Around 60% of passengers have ATOL protection, and the CAA’s air travel trust fund will contribute proportionately to the costs of the repatriation, as well as refunding ATOL future bookings. We will also look to recoup some of the costs from the relevant credit and debit card providers and travel insurers, and will look to recover costs from other travel providers through which passengers may have booked their Thomas Cook holiday. We are also in discussion with the Official Receiver to understand what costs can be recouped through the company’s assets.

    The final cost of the operation to repatriate Monarch passengers back in 2017 was about £50 million, including ATOL contributions. The repatriation effort for Thomas Cook is now known to be about twice the size and is more complicated, for reasons that I have explained.

    I have also seen it suggested in the press that the Government should have avoided the collapse with a bail-out of up to £250 million for the company and shareholders. Given the perilous state of the business, including the company’s own reported £1.5 billion half-year loss which was reported in May and followed by a further profit warning in November, this simply was not the case, with no guarantee that an injection would have secured the future of the company. Our concern was that if we put in £250 million, we would risk throwing away good money after bad and still having to pay the cost of this repatriation. It is quite clear that in the last several years the company ran into a number of problems by trying to expand itself through investing more in the high street rather than less, while the entire market was moving in the opposite direction.

    The loss of an iconic British brand with a 178-year history—one of the oldest travel companies in the world—is an extremely sad moment. However, this should not be seen as a reflection on the general health of the UK aviation industry, which continues to thrive. Passenger numbers are actually up, and people are traveling more. However, the truth is that the way people book their holidays has changed an enormous amount over the years, but it did not change as much within the company. None of this should distract us from the distress experienced by those businesses reliant on Thomas Cook, by passengers and by Thomas Cook employees who, as I have said, have worked above and beyond, particularly in recent days during this distressing situation.

    We have never had the collapse of an airline or a holiday company on this scale before, but we have responded swiftly and decisively. Right now, our efforts are rightly focused on getting those passengers home and looking after those employees who have lost their jobs, but we also need to understand whether any individuals have failed in their duties of stewardship within the company. Our efforts will then turn to working through the reforms necessary to ensure that passengers do not find themselves in this ridiculous situation again. We need to look at the options within ATOL, and also to ascertain whether it is possible for airlines to be wound down in a more orderly manner. They need to look after their customers, and we need to be able to ensure that their planes can keep flying so that we do not end up having to set up a shadow airline for no matter what period of time. This is where we will focus our efforts in the next couple of weeks, but in order to do this we will require primary legislation and, dare I say it, a new Session of Parliament.

    In what has been a challenging time, I want to put on record my appreciation for the work of all those involved in this effort, particularly Richard Moriarty, the chief executive officer of the CAA. He and his team, and my officials in the Department for Transport, have done an extraordinary job so far. I am also grateful for the support of others, including the Mayor of Manchester, who has acknowledged the Government’s repatriation effort and its work with all the agencies involved in helping to get people home. This has been an unprecedented response to an unprecedented situation, and I am grateful to all the parties who have stepped in to support these efforts. I commend this statement to the House.

  • Matt Warman – 2019 Statement on Hacker House

    Below is the text of the statement made by Matt Warman, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, in the House of Commons on 25 September 2019.

    I thank the hon. Lady for raising this question today. I am answering it because it is part of my portfolio.

    As hon. Members may know, the Department runs a programme known as the cyber-security immediate impact fund. It is one of a range of programmes designed to increase the number and diversity of people who pursue careers in the cyber-security profession. Through the fund, we want to support new, creative and innovative projects that are delivered by a range of organisations, including start-ups and small and medium-sized enterprises.

    We have supported a variety of initiatives, awarding grants of between £20,000 and £500,000 since March 2018. Hacker House is one of the businesses that was awarded a £100,000 grant in February 2019 as part of our second funding round. To date, it has been paid around £47,000 for work completed. The grant was awarded by officials from DCMS, the Department for Education, techUK and, indeed, people from the National Cyber Security Centre. If the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) wishes to impugn the motives of those officials, I invite her to think carefully before she does so.

    To date, we have awarded 11 companies grants to deliver 12 initiatives. More than 400 people have benefited from support through the fund. Our objective is that even more people will benefit as the businesses with which we partner further invest in a sector that I know the hon. Lady agrees is vital to the future of our security and our economy. That is part of our mission as a Department to identify untapped talent and help a broader range of individuals who have the capabilities and aptitude to develop their careers in cyber-security. I assure the House that all grants are awarded through an open, transparent and competitive process. Each grant is judged on specific assessment criteria and is approved by the panel I referred to earlier, with cross-departmental and industry representation. We are, of course, aware of the claims raised recently by The Sunday Times, and the Department is reviewing the decision that was taken, but we monitor all initiatives that have been awarded grant funding and we treat any allegations of impropriety with the utmost seriousness. As soon as I have any further information to share on this matter, I will, of course, update the House at the earliest possible opportunity.

  • Geoffrey Cox – 2019 Statement on Prorogation

    Below is the text of the statement made by Geoffrey Cox, the Attorney General, in the House of Commons on 25 September 2019.

    As the hon. and learned Lady knows, the Supreme Court gave judgement on this issue yesterday, and that judgement sets out the definitive and final legal position on the advice given to Her Majesty on the Prorogation of Parliament. The Government’s legal view during the case was set out and argued fully before the Supreme Court. The hearing was streamed live and the Government’s written case was, and is, available on the Supreme Court website.

    I took a close interest in the case—[Interruption]—and I oversaw the Government’s team of counsel. I have to say that if every time I lost a case I was called upon to resign, I would probably never have had a practice.

    The Government accept the judgement and accept that they lost the case. At all times, the Government acted in good faith and in the belief that their approach was both lawful and constitutional. These are complex matters, on which senior and distinguished lawyers will disagree. The divisional court, led by the Lord Chief Justice, as well as Lord Doherty in the outer house of Scotland, agreed with the Government’s position, but we were disappointed that, in the end, the Supreme Court took a different view. Of course, we respect its judgement.

    Given the Supreme Court’s judgement, in legal terms the matter is settled, and, as the hon. and learned Lady will know, I am bound by the long-standing convention that the views of the Law Officers are not disclosed outside the Government without their consent. However, I will consider over the coming days whether the public interest might require a greater disclosure of the advice given to the Government on the subject. I am unable to give an undertaking or a promise to the hon. and learned Lady at this point, but the matter is under consideration.

  • John Bercow – 2019 Statement on Prime Minister’s Unlawful Prorogation

    Below is the text of the statement made by John Bercow, the Speaker of the House of Commons, in the Commons on 25 September 2019.

    Colleagues, welcome back to our place of work.

    The UK Supreme Court ruled yesterday that

    “Parliament has not been prorogued”

    and that the Speaker of the House of Commons and the Lord Speaker

    “can take immediate steps to enable each House to meet as soon as possible”

    to decide upon a way forward.

    I will arrange for the citation for that judgement to be entered in the Journal of this House and accordingly direct that the item relating to the Prorogation of Parliament in the Journal of Monday 9 September is expunged and the House is instead recorded as adjourned at the close of the business. I instruct the Clerk to correct the Journal accordingly and to record the House to have adjourned at the close of business on Monday 9 September until today.

    Members should also be aware that Royal Assent to the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill, which formed part of the royal commission appointed under the quashed Order in Council, will need to be re-signified.

    I wish to record my thanks, and I hope colleagues across the House will join me in doing so, to the staff of the House, including the security, catering, Chamber business, parliamentary digital and in-house services teams, who have worked exceptionally hard over the past 24 hours to prepare for this resumption.

    You will know—but in the name of the public intelligibility of our proceedings, I think it worthwhile to note—that there is no ministerial Question Time today, including therefore no prime ministerial Question Time. The reason for that is very simple. As colleagues will be aware, there are notification requirements: questions ordinarily are tabled three sitting days before the exchanges take place, so there are no Prime Minister’s questions today. However, there is scope, as I indicated in public yesterday, for urgent questions, ministerial statements and other business.

  • Boris Johnson – 2019 Speech to UN General Assembly

    Below is the text of the speech made by Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister, to the UN General Assembly on 24 September 2019.

    Mr President, Your Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen, faithful late night audience. It is customary for the British Prime Minister to come to this United Nations and pledge to advance our values and defend our rules, the rules of a peaceful world.

    From protecting freedom of navigation in the Gulf to persevering in the vital task of achieving a two-state solution to the conflict in the Middle East and of course I am proud to do all of these things, but no-one can ignore a gathering force that is reshaping the future of every member of this Assembly. There has been nothing like it in history.

    When I think of the great scientific revolutions of the past – print, the steam engine, aviation, the atomic age – I think of new tools that we acquired but over which we – the human race – had the advantage. Which we controlled. That is not necessarily the case in the digital age. You may keep secrets from your friends, from your parents, your children, your doctor – even your personal trainer – but it takes real effort to conceal your thoughts from Google. And if that is true today, in future there may be nowhere to hide.

    Smart cities will pullulate with sensors, all joined together by the “internet of things”, bollards communing invisibly with lamp posts. So there is always a parking space for your electric car, so that no bin goes unemptied, no street unswept, and the urban environment is as antiseptic as a Zurich pharmacy. But this technology could also be used to keep every citizen under round-the-clock surveillance.

    A future Alexa will pretend to take orders. But this Alexa will be watching you, clucking her tongue and stamping her foot. In the future, voice connectivity will be in every room and almost every object: your mattress will monitor your nightmares; your fridge will beep for more cheese, your front door will sweep wide the moment you approach, like some silent butler; your smart meter will go hustling – if its accord – for the cheapest electricity. And every one of them minutely transcribing your every habit in tiny electronic shorthand, stored not in their chips or their innards – nowhere you can find it, but in some great cloud of data that lours ever more oppressively over the human race.

    A giant dark thundercloud waiting to burst and we have no control over how or when the precipitation will take place and every day that we tap on our phones or work on our ipads – as I see some of you doing now – we not only leave our indelible spoor in the ether but we are ourselves becoming a resource, click by click, tap by tap. Just as the carboniferous period created the indescribable wealth – leaf by decaying leaf – of hydrocarbons.

    Data is the crude oil of the modern economy and we are now in an environment where we don’t know who should own these new oil fields, we don’t always know who should have the rights or the title to these gushers of cash and we don’t know who decides how to use that data. Can these algorithms be trusted with our lives and hopes? Should the machines – and only the machines – decide whether or not we are eligible for a mortgage or insurance.

    Or what surgery or medicines we should receive? Are we doomed to a cold and heartless future in which computer says yes – or computer says no. With the grim finality of an emperor in the arena? How do you plead with an algorithm? How do you get it to see the extenuating circumstances. And how do we know that the machines have not been insidiously programmed to fool us or even to cheat us?

    We already use all kinds of messaging services that offer instant communication at minimal cost. The same programmes, platforms, could also be designed for real-time censorship of every conversation, with offending words automatically deleted, indeed in some countries this happens today.

    Digital authoritarianism is not, alas, the stuff of dystopian fantasy but of an emerging reality. The reason I am giving this speech today is that the UK is one of the world’s tech leaders – and I believe governments have been simply caught unawares by the unintended consequences of the internet. A scientific breakthrough more far-reaching in its everyday psychological impact than any other invention since Gutenberg

    And when you consider how long it took for books to come into widespread circulation. The arrival of the internet is far bigger than print. It is bigger than the atomic age – but it is like nuclear power in that it is capable of both good and harm – but of course it is not alone. As new technologies seem to race towards us from the far horizon. We strain our eyes as they come, to make out whether they are for good or bad – friends or foes?

    AI – what will it mean? Helpful robots washing and caring for an ageing population? Or pink eyed terminators sent back from the future to cull the human race? What will synthetic biology stand for – restoring our livers and our eyes with miracle regeneration of the tissues, like some fantastic hangover cure? Or will it bring terrifying limbless chickens to our tables. Will nanotechnology help us to beat disease, or will it leave tiny robots to replicate in the crevices of our cells?

    It is a trope as old as literature that any scientific advance is punished by the Gods. When Prometheus brought fire to mankind. In a tube of fennel, as you may remember, that Zeus punished him by chaining him to a tartarean crag while his liver was pecked out by an eagle. And every time his liver regrew the eagle came back and pecked it again and this went on for ever – a bit like the experience of Brexit in the UK, if some of our parliamentarians had their way.

    In fact it was standard poetic practice to curse the protos heuretes – the person responsible for any scientific or technical breakthrough If only they had never invented the ship, then Jason would never have sailed to Colchis and all sorts of disasters would never have happened and it is a deep human instinct to be wary of any kind of technical progress. In 1829 they thought the human frame would not withstand the speeds attained by Stephenson’s rocket and there are today people today who are actually still anti-science.

    A whole movement called the anti-Vaxxers, who refuse to acknowledge the evidence that vaccinations have eradicated smallpox. And who by their prejudices are actually endangering the very children they want to protect And I totally reject this anti-scientific pessimism. I am profoundly optimistic about the ability of new technology to serve as a liberator and remake the world wondrously and benignly, indeed in countless respects technology is already doing just that.

    Today, nanotechnology – as I mentioned earlier – is revolutionising medicine by designing robots a fraction of the size of a red blood cell, capable of swimming through our bodies, dispensing medicine and attacking malignant cells like some Star Wars armada. Neural interface technology is producing a new generation of cochlear implants, allowing the gift of hearing to people who would not otherwise be able to hear the voices of their children.

    A London technology company has worked out how to help the blind to navigate more freely with nothing more than an app on their smartphones –

    New technologies, produced in Britain, helping the deaf to hear and the blind to see. And we used to think that printing was something you did to run off a boarding card. Now a British company has used 3D printing to make an engine capable of blasting a rocket into space.

    In African countries, millions of people without bank accounts can now transfer money using a simple app; they can buy solar energy and leap in one transaction from no electricity to green power. And new advances are making renewable energy ever cheaper, aiding our common struggle against climate change. Our understanding of the natural world is being transformed by genome sequencing.

    The discovery of the very essence of life itself. The secret genetic code that animates the spirit of every living being. And allows medical breakthroughs the like of which we have never known. Treatments tailored to the precise genetic makeup of the individual. So far, we have discovered the secrets of less than 0.3 percent of complex life on the planet. Think what we will achieve when – and it is a matter of when – we understand 1 or 2 percent, let alone 5 or 10 percent.

    But how we design the emerging technologies behind these breakthroughs – and what values inform their design –will shape the future of humanity. That is my point to you tonight my friends, my Excellencies – at stake is whether we bequeath an Orwellian world, designed for censorship, repression and control, or a world of emancipation, debate and learning, where technology threatens famine and disease, but not our freedoms. Seven decades ago, this General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights with no dissenting voices, uniting humanity for the first and perhaps only time behind one set of principles.

    And our declaration – our joint declaration – upholds “freedom of opinion and expression”, the “privacy” of “home or correspondence,” and the right to “seek…and impart information and ideas”. Unless we ensure that new technology reflects this spirit, I fear that our declaration will mean nothing and no longer hold.

    So the mission of the United Kingdom and all who share our values must be to ensure that emerging technologies are designed from the outset for freedom, openness and pluralism, with the right safeguards in place to protect our peoples.

    Month by month, vital decisions are being taken in academic committees, company boardrooms and industry standards groups. They are writing the rulebooks of the future, making ethical judgements, choosing what will or will not be rendered possible. Together, we need to ensure that new advances reflect our values by design.

    There is excellent work being done in the EU, the Commonwealth, and of course the UN, which has a vital role in ensuring that no country is excluded from the wondrous benefits of this technology, and the industrial revolution it is bringing about. But we must be still more ambitious.

    We need to find the right balance between freedom and control; between innovation and regulation; between private enterprise and government oversight. We must insist that the ethical judgements inherent in the design of new technology are transparent to all. And we must make our voices heard more loudly in the standards bodies that write the rules.

    Above all, we need to agree a common set of global principles to shape the norms and standards that will guide the development of emerging technology.

    So – here’s the good news – I invite you next year to a summit in London, a wonderful city, where by the way it is not raining 94 per cent of the time, and where at one stage – when I was Mayor of London – we discovered that we had more Michelin starred restaurants even than Paris. The French somehow rapidly recovered – by a process that I wasn’t quite sure was entirely fair. But we still have by far, in the UK, by far the biggest tech sector – fintech, biotech, meditech, nanotech, green tech – every kind of tech – in London – the biggest tech sector anywhere in Europe, perhaps half a million people working in tech alone.

    I hope you will come there, where we will seek to assemble the broadest possible coalition to take forward this vital task

    Building on all that the UK can contribute to this mission as a global leader in ethical and responsible technology.

    If we master this challenge – and I have no doubt that we can – then we will not only safeguard our ideals, we will surmount the limits that once constrained humanity and conquer the perils that once ended so many lives.

    Together, we can vanquish killer diseases, eliminate famine, protect the environment and transform our cities.

    Success will depend, now as ever, on freedom, openness and pluralism,

    the formula that not only emancipates the human spirit, but releases the boundless ingenuity and inventiveness of mankind, and which, above all, the United Kingdom will strive to preserve and advance.

    Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen, thank you for your kind attention.

  • John Major – 2019 Statement on Supreme Court Ruling

    Below is the text of the statement made by Sir John Major on 24 September 2019.

    I am enormously grateful to my legal team, led by The Rt Hon The Lord Garnier QC, and Andrew Lidbetter (Herbert Smith Freehills LLP), on whose counsel and professionalism I have depended these past few weeks. I am also most grateful to the Supreme Court for their calm and detailed examination of this Appeal.

    I am delighted that the Court has ruled the Prime Minister’s lengthy and contentious prorogation of Parliament to be unlawful. This was a case that should never have had to be considered, and it gave me no pleasure to be pitted against a Government and Prime Minister of my own Party.

    Parliament must now be recalled immediately to recommence its work, and to receive the Prime Minister’s unreserved apology.

    I hope this ruling from the Supreme Court will deter any future Prime Minister from attempting to shut down Parliament, with the effect of stifling proper scrutiny and debate, when its sitting is so plainly in the national interest.

    No Prime Minister must ever treat the Monarch or Parliament in this way again.

  • Jeremy Corbyn – 2019 Speech to Labour Party Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jeremy Corbyn, the Leader of the Opposition, to the Labour Party conference on 24 September 2019.

    Conference, thank you. This is an extraordinary and precarious moment in our country’s history.

    The Prime Minister has been found to have acted illegally when he tried to shut down parliament. The highest court in the land has found that Boris Johnson broke the law when he tried to shut down democratic accountability at a crucial moment for our public life.

    The Prime Minister acted illegally when he tried to shut down opposition to his reckless and disastrous plan to crash out of the European Union without a deal. But he has failed. He will never shut down our democracy or silence the voices of the people.

    The democracy that Boris Johnson describes as a “rigmarole” will not be stifled and the people will have their say.

    Tomorrow parliament will return. The government will be held to account for what it has done. Boris Johnson has been found to have misled the country. This unelected Prime minister should now resign.

    That would make him the shortest serving British Prime Minister in history and rightly so. His is a born-to-rule government of the entitled who believe that the rules they set for everyone else don’t apply to them.

    That’s what today’s Supreme Court judgement spells out with brutal clarity. There was no reason – “let alone a good reason”, the judges concluded, for the Prime Minister to have shut down parliament. Conference, he thought he could do whatever he liked just as he always does. He thinks he’s above us all. He is part of an elite that disdains democracy. He is not fit to be prime minister. Let me quote the Supreme Court’s conclusion: “Unlawful, null and of no effect and should be quashed” – they’ve got the prime minister down to a tee.

    This crisis can only be settled with a general election. That election needs to take place as soon as this government’s threat of a disastrous No Deal is taken off the table. That condition is what MPs passed into law before Boris Johnson illegally closed down parliament

    It’s a protection that’s clearly essential. After what has taken place no one can trust this government and this Prime Minister not to use this crisis of their own making and drive our country over a No Deal cliff edge in five weeks’ time. The Prime Minister has no mandate for a No Deal crash-out which is opposed by a majority of the public. It would force up food prices cause shortages of medicines and threaten peace in Northern Ireland thus destroying the work of the Good Friday Agreement.

    The battle over No Deal isn’t a struggle between those who want to leave the EU and those who want to remain. It’s about a small rightwing group who are trying to hijack the referendum result to rip up our rights and protections to shift even more power and wealth to those at the top.

    Under the cover of No Deal they want to sell off what’s left of our public services strip away the regulations that keep us safe while slashing corporate taxes even further. That would mean a race to the bottom in standards and workers’ rights to create an offshore tax haven for the super-rich. And they want all of this locked in with a one-sided free trade deal that would put our country at the mercy of Donald Trump.

    That’s why a No Deal Brexit is really a Trump Deal Brexit. That would be the opposite of taking back control. It would be handing our country’s future to the US president and his America First policy. Of course Trump is delighted to have a compliant British prime minister in his back pocket. A Trump Deal Brexit would mean US corporations getting the green light for a comprehensive takeover of our public services

    I am not prepared to stand by while our NHS is sacrificed on the altar of US big business or any other country’s big business. And in the coming general election Labour will be the only major UK party ready to put our trust in the people to have the final say on Brexit.

    We need to get Brexit sorted and do it in a way that doesn’t leave our economy or our democracy broken. The Tories want to crash out without a deal and the Liberal Democrats want to cancel the country’s largest ever democratic vote with a parliamentary stitch-up.

    Labour will end the Brexit crisis by taking the decision back to the people with the choice of a credible leave deal alongside remain. That’s not complicated Labour is a democratic party that trusts the people. After three and a half years of Tory Brexit failure and division, the only way we can settle this issue and bring people back together is by taking the decision out of the hands of politicians and letting the people decide.

    So within three months of coming to power a Labour government will secure a sensible deal based on the terms we have long advocated and discussed with the EU trade unions and businesses: a new customs union a close single market relationship . and guarantees of rights and protections. And within six months of being elected we will put that deal to a public vote alongside remain. And as a Labour prime minister I pledge to carry out whatever the people decide.

    Only a vote for Labour will deliver a public vote on Brexit. Only a Labour government will put the power back into the hands of the people. We can bring our country and our people together. Let’s stop a No Deal Brexit and let the people decide.

    We must get Brexit settled not least because Brexit has dominated our politics for too long. The coming election will be a once-in-a-generation chance for real change. A chance to kick out Boris Johnson’s government of the privileged few and put wealth and power in the hands of the many.

    A chance to give our NHS, schools and police the money they need by asking those at the top to pay their fair share. A chance to take urgent action on the environment before it’s too late for our children. And a chance to end the Brexit crisis by letting the people .. not the politicians have the final say.

    In a shameless bid to turn reality on its head Boris Johnson’s born-to-rule Tories are now claiming to be the voice of the people. A political party that exists to protect the establishment is pretending to be anti-establishment. Johnson and his wealthy friends are not only on the side of the establishment they are the establishment. They will never be on the side of the people when supporting the people might hit them and their super-rich sponsors where it hurts – in their wallets and offshore bank accounts.

    Let me send this message to Boris Johnson: If you still lead your party into an election we know your campaign will be swimming in cash. But we’ve got something you haven’t. People in their hundreds of thousands rooted in all communities and all age groups across Britain and we’ll meet you head on with the biggest people-powered campaign this country has ever seen – and if we win, it will be the people who win.

    Labour stands for the real change Britain needs after years of Conservative cuts and failure. We will rebuild and transform our country so that no one is held back and no community left behind.

    We live in a country where top chief executives now pocket in just two-and-a-half days what the average worker earns in a whole year. Where Thomas Cook bosses were able to fill their pockets with unearned bonuses, while their workers face redundancy and 150,000 holidaymakers are stranded because of their failure.

    We’ve had the greatest slump in wages since the first steam trains were built. To share wealth, we need to share power. And that’s what we’ll do in government with bold, radical measures such as giving the workforce a 10 per cent stake in large companies, paying a dividend of up to £500 a year to every employee.

    We’ll bring about the biggest extension of rights for workers our country has ever seen. We’ll scrap zero-hours contracts; introduce a £10 living wage – including for young people from the age of 16; give all workers equal rights from their first day in the job; take action on the gender, disability and ethnicity pay gaps; and introduce flexible working time for workers experiencing the menopause.

    It’s Labour that will get more money into your pocket, rather than line the pockets of multi-millionaires. And we will give people a democratic voice at work, allowing them to secure better terms and pay for themselves.

    Within the first 100 days of our government we will scrap the Tory Trade Union Act. And by the way, Labour will never tell people they have to work until they’re 75. A Labour government will mean better wages, greater security, and more say. Putting power in the hands of the people. And we’ll bring rail, mail, water and the national grid into public ownership so the essential services that we all rely on are run by and for the public not for profit.

    Yesterday I met Luis Walker, a wonderful nine-year-old boy. Luis is living with cystic fibrosis. Every day he needs at least four hours of treatment and is often in hospital keeping him from school and his friends. Luis’ life could be very different with the aid of a medicine called Orkambi. But Luis is denied the medicine he needs because its manufacturer refuses to sell the drug to the NHS for an affordable price.

    Luis, and tens of thousands of others suffering from illnesses such as cystic fibrosis hepatitis C and breast cancer are being denied life-saving medicines by a system that puts profits for shareholders before people’s lives.

    Labour will tackle this. We will redesign the system to serve public health – not private wealth – using compulsory licensing to secure generic versions of patented medicines. We’ll tell the drugs companies that if they want public research funding then they’ll have to make their drugs affordable for all. And we will create a new publicly owned generic drugs manufacturer to supply cheaper medicines to our NHS saving our health service money and saving lives. We are the party that created the NHS. Only Labour can be trusted with its future.

    My parents’ generation fought hard to establish the principle of a universal health service owned and run by the public. They left it in our trust. It’s our duty to defend it. We will end the sell-offs and privatisation. Our NHS is not for sale not to Trump or anyone else.

    And Conference, we will make prescriptions free in England, as they have been in Wales since 2007 when charges were abolished by the Welsh Labour government.

    And we need to talk about social care as well. When older people, who have paid into the system all their lives need a little help we shouldn’t deny it to them. So we will introduce free personal care for those who need it as the first step in our plan for a National Care Service.

    Government should provide a platform that allows everyone to reach their full potential. That’s the principle behind the National Education Service that the next Labour government will create. Free education for everyone throughout life as a right not a privilege. No more university tuition fees. Free childcare and a new Sure Start programme. Free vocational and technical education. And free training for adults.

    And when it comes to paying for our public services Labour will raise tax but only for the top five per cent. The Tories will cut taxes for highest paid. Labour will make the big corporations pay the tax they owe. The Tories will give them tax breaks.

    How can it be right that the largest companies and wealthiest individuals are being given tax cuts while at the other end mums are dads are missing meals so they can feed their kids? Shouldn’t it be a source of shame that the United Nations – the United Nations – had to take our government to task this year over the shocking fact that 14 million people are living in poverty in the fifth richest country in the world? Let me quote directly from the UN report. It said:

    “Much of the glue that has held British society together since the Second World War has been deliberately removed and replaced with a harsh and uncaring ethos.”

    Doesn’t that sum up the Tories: a harsh and uncaring ethos?

    Labour will stand up for tenants, for underpaid workers, and for all those struggling to make ends meet. We’ll start the largest council house building programme in a generation. Because Labour puts people before privilege. We will end austerity and help rebuild your community. We’ll restore local pride, revive the high streets that are the centres of our communities and reverse the cuts that have caused violent crime to double.

    Labour will get our economy working in every town city and region with a record investment blitz, and we’ll boost the devolved budgets in Wales and Scotland. We’ll upgrade our transport energy and broadband infrastructure with 250 billion pounds of investment. And breathe new life into every community, with a further 250 billion of capital for businesses and co-ops. Investment on a scale our country has never known, bringing good new jobs and fresh growth to where you live.

    That’s the scale of Labour’s ambition.

    No more tinkering around the edges. Because these aren’t abstract numbers on a spreadsheet. They stand for an economic transformation that will change your daily life.

    Let me give you a concrete example of what it will mean. Labour will invest in Crossrail for the North to link our great Northern cities, from Liverpool to Hull and up to Newcastle in the North East. And we’ll restore the bus services that have been cut leaving people isolated from their communities.

    For decades we’ve been told the economy is beyond our control, an irresistible force that can lay waste to entire communities while we can only watch on, passive.

    But it’s not true.

    With a serious industrial strategy and a radical Labour government, the economy can be a tool in our hands rather than the master of our fate. And with a government that’s prepared to intervene we can prioritise the things that matter most.

    Which is precisely what our times demand, because nothing matters more than the climate emergency. That means taking on the big polluters and wealth hoarders who profit from the current system. Bringing our emissions down to net zero won’t happen by itself. It will only be possible with massive public investment in renewable energy and green technology.

    That’s not a burden. It’s an opportunity to kickstart a Green Industrial Revolution that will create hundreds of thousands of high-skill high-wage unionised jobs as we triple solar power, double onshore wind and bring about a seven-fold increase in offshore wind projects.

    And that’s why we announced today that the next Labour will build three new battery plants in South Wales, in Stoke-on-Trent and Swindon.

    The climate and environmental emergency we all face is an issue of global security. We’re seeing ice caps melting, coral reefs dissolving, wildfires in the Arctic Circle and Brazil’s far-right leader President Bolsonaro fiddles while the Amazon burns.

    Real security doesn’t come from belligerent posturing or reckless military interventions. It comes from international cooperation and diplomacy, and addressing the root causes of the threats we all face. Our foreign policy will be defined by our commitment to human rights and international justice, not enthusiasm for foreign wars that fuel – rather than combat – terrorism and insecurity

    So it really beggars belief that this week Boris Johnson is openly talking about sending troops to Saudi Arabia as part of the increasingly dangerous confrontation between Saudi Arabia and Iran, in an apparent bid to appease Donald Trump.

    Have we learned nothing?

    Time and again over the last two decades the British political and military establishment has made the wrong call on military intervention in the wider Middle East, spreading conflicts rather than settling them.

    We must not make those mistakes again. Under a Labour government Britain will be a force for peace and international justice.

    Dangerous and wrong-headed international interventions have also exacerbated community tensions at home. When Boris Johnson compared Muslim women to letterboxes or bank robbers, it wasn’t a flippant comment, it was calculated to play on people’s fears. Displays of racism, Islamophobia or antisemitism are not signs of strength, but of weakness.

    This Conservative government as well as the far-right has fuelled division in our society. They’ll blame people’s problems on the migrant worker trying to make a better life. They’ll blame it on the mum who’s struggling on Universal Credit. They’ll blame it on Muslims, on young people, on anyone but themselves and their backers, who benefit from a grossly unequal and rigged system.

    Labour will do the opposite, we will bring people together. A Labour government will transform our economy and communities. We stand not just for the 52 per cent or the 48 per cent but for the 99 per cent.

    The Labour government I lead will take on those who really run our country – the financial speculators, tax dodgers and big polluters – so the real wealth creators, the people of this country, can have the jobs, services and futures they deserve.

    When Labour wins, the nurse wins, the pensioner wins, the student wins, the office worker wins, the engineer wins. We all win.

    The politics we stand for is about giving people who don’t have a lot of money and don’t have friends in high places the chance to take control of their own lives. My job, as Leader, and our job as the Labour Party is to champion those people, to stand up for those communities and deliver the real change our country needs.

    And I want to take this opportunity to say thank you to every one of them as well as all the members of our party our elected representatives our trade unions for making our party such a strong and welcoming place in every community every workplace and every part of the country.

    I have what might be considered a different view of leadership from the one people are used to. I do believe leaders should have strong principles that people can trust. But leaders must also listen and trust others to play their part. Because there are leaders in every community driving change. Many of them would never dream of calling themselves leaders, but they are.

    I’m thinking of the mother who campaigns on behalf of the residents in her block to get the damp removed, and the fast food worker organising their colleagues to demand a living wage. It’s those leaders Labour is now working with and supporting. Because our philosophy is to trust the people and give them the power to make change in every community and workplace, not hand more power to politicians.

    And that’s why, if the British people elect a Labour government in the coming election I will be proud to be your Prime Minister. Because I will be a different kind of Prime Minister. Not there from a sense of born-to-rule entitlement. Certainly not there for some personal power trip. There because I want to put government on your side. To put power and wealth into your hands.There because I believe government should work for you.

    And together, we can go beyond defending the gains made by previous generations. It’s time we started building a country fit for the next generation. Where young people don’t fear the future but look forward with confidence and hope.

    The tide is turning. The years of retreat and defeat are coming to an end. Together, we’ll take on the privileged, and put the people in power. Thank you.