UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Norman Lamb – 2018 Speech on the East of England Ambulance NHS Trust

    Below is the text of the speech made by Norman Lamb, the Liberal Democrat MP for North Norfolk, in the House of Commons on 2 February 2018.

    I want to start by making it clear that I recognise absolutely that there is intolerable pressure generally across the emergency care system, and there are serious issues that have to be addressed particularly around handover delays, and I include within that the sense that there is quite a variation from one hospital to another and we need to understand why it appears as though some hospitals are more successful than others in addressing this.

    I also want to make it clear that it is not my intention to focus on the adequacy of funding of the NHS in this debate; that is for another occasion. The question I want to address here is whether the East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust is doing all it can with the resources it has.

    I also want to place on record my understanding that we have incredibly committed clinical staff in this trust, and I want to express my gratitude to them; they are often working under intense strain, frequently dealing with extraordinarily distressing and sensitive personal situations, and they do so admirably. I should also express my gratitude to the Minister for meeting me this morning to hear more about my concerns, and for the seriousness with which he listened to them.

    My reason for calling this debate is that I met a senior employee of the trust, who is a whistleblower in effect, and who came to me with deep concerns about what is going on in his service. I found the testimony to be very credible and I took the concerns extremely seriously. I have seen a list of 40 cases of potential patient harm associated with delays in response times, including 19 cases where patients lost their lives.

    Fiona Onasanya (Peterborough) (Lab)

    Simon and Michelle came to see me about this very issue. Their 999 call was downgraded, and as an unintended consequence, they lost their baby girl, Darcey, in what appears to be one of a catalogue of failures in the interaction between the ambulance trust in the hospital.

    Norman Lamb

    I am grateful for that intervention, and the hon. Lady is doing exactly the right thing in pursuing that matter on behalf of her constituents. They deserve answers to the concerns that they have expressed over that tragic case.

    Beyond the list of 40 cases, I understand that a further 120 incidents of potential patient harm and a potential 81 patient deaths have been associated with delays over this period of time. One case, which is not on the list of 40 that I have seen, concerns a constituent who does not want her family’s name to be mentioned. She has written to me as follows:

    “My Mum had been ill from Boxing Day and finally on New Year’s Day she deteriorated to such a level that I had to call an ambulance. When I first logged the call they advised me that as she was still breathing we would have to wait an hour before a team could get to us. Mum’s health deteriorated further to a point that I had to place another call to the ambulance call centre as she had suffered a stroke and then a heart attack and had stopped ​breathing. My sister and I had to perform CPR whilst waiting for the crew. When they finally arrived, although they tried, they said that there was nothing they could do and she was pronounced dead.”

    I should say that my constituent commends the crews that attended for the work that they did.

    Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)

    I have great respect for the right hon. Gentleman for bringing this debate to the House today. Does he agree that this is due to a systemic crisis, rather than to individual failings? Since publicising this issue in the Chamber some weeks ago, I have been inundated by cases of people from across the country, not just the east of England, who have experienced similar failings in the ambulance service. We must make it clear that this is not just about blaming managers at the East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust; it is also about accepting that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Health bear responsibility for what is happening to ambulance services across the country.

    Norman Lamb

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Ultimately, the Government are responsible for keeping the people of this country safe, with emergency services that work effectively. That is ultimately what we are debating.

    This is not something that just happened over the Christmas and new year period. Just last Friday, the 91-year-old mother-in-law of some close friends of ours in south Norfolk fell on to a cold stone floor. They called 999 at 8:45 pm, but the ambulance did not arrive until 4 am. It left at 4.45 to go to the hospital, but she had to wait in the ambulance until 6 am. She then had to wait on a trolley for two more hours. That is intolerable; she is 91 years old. This could happen to a family member of any of us; we all have a stake in this. We have to recognise that it is intolerable. Another constituent has told me about his 92-year-old mother who broke her leg. She had a nine-hour wait, during which she developed hypothermia. Then a car arrived, rather than an ambulance, and she had to wait another 40 minutes for the ambulance. That is simply intolerable.

    I am told that, according to the assessment of many people internally, the service over that period was unsafe, and that no assurances have been given that the trust would be able to provide a safe service in the future, if there were to be a period of very cold weather or a flu epidemic, for example. That is a matter of serious concern to the people of the east of England. On several occasions during the period, there were more than 200 999 calls that could not be responded to at the moment they came in, because no crews or ambulances were available.

    The Care Quality Commission told me this morning:

    “This is a service that is in crisis”.

    It also said:

    “Patients are at risk”.

    However, the CQC appears to have confidence in the leadership of the trust. I fear that it is being complacent in its attitude, and that it is not taking seriously enough the number of patient harm incidents that I have referred to. I have deep concerns about whether any family member of mine, any constituent, or anyone else across the east of England who has to rely on the service will get a service that will protect and safeguard them in ​their hour of need. I am told response times in North Norfolk are dire—not just that the trust is not meeting the target but that the long tail beyond the target is deeply concerning. I do not have the assurance that we need.

    The concerns appear to have been recognised because a risk summit was convened. According to the official guidance, a risk summit is normally triggered

    “if there are significant and serious concerns that there are, or could be, quality failings in a provider or system.”

    The guidance further states that a risk summit should be called

    “only as a last resort”.

    Well, we clearly have a last resort here.

    My central plea to the Minister is that we need an independent governance review, and I would like a specific response to that because I genuinely believe it is needed, but I would like to raise the following specific concerns. I understand there was a £2.8 million underspend in the trust in month nine of the financial year. How can that be justified? Is the Minister satisfied with that?

    I am told that more than 100 staff have been recruited but are currently on a waiting list to start. Some have been on the list for more than a year. I am told there has been no recruitment in Norfolk, which is where response times are at their worst. Staff have left without being replaced.

    There was an independent assessment in August 2016, never published, by Operational Research in Health, which said that hundreds more staff are needed across the region to run a safe service. Why has that never been implemented? The only area where there has been recruitment of late, according to adverts online, is in Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire, the best-performing areas. The impression I am left with is that it is all about hitting the national target, rather than ensuring that all parts of the region are safe.

    Interestingly, the online job advert has just been changed to include other counties, but the public board papers say there are no vacancies in those other counties. At the same time, lots of additional management posts have been created. There is a new deputy director of human resources, an associate director of HR, a deputy director of strategy and sustainability and other deputy director posts.

    The trust has also doubled its spend on lease cars, which in November 2017 was up from just under £500,000 to nearly £1 million, with directors and deputy directors making no contribution. I am told that directors and deputy directors drive around in Jaguars, Range Rovers, Mercedes and Audi A5s. Is the Minister comfortable with that? The policy allows discretion by the director but, with a service that is under such strain, for me it is a question of judgment and culture in this organisation.

    I am told there was a very late sign-off of the plan for the Christmas and new year period following the letter from Professor Keith Willett, so the trust was not better prepared than ever, which is the Government’s mantra. Did meetings take place between the trust’s chief executive and the chief executives of hospitals where the delays were at their worst in the run-up to the Christmas and new year period? We have a right to know.

    The trust issued a statement that it had not been made aware of any patient safety issues internally, but that is not true. I have a copy of an email from a constituent to the chair of the trust on 9 January ​specifically referring to the fact that someone in the trust had come forward to raise patient safety concerns. Is that acceptable? It is a wholly misleading statement to the public. Does the Minister feel comfortable with that?

    Is it acceptable that neither the chief executive nor the chair of the trust has been prepared to be interviewed publicly since the new year? When there have been so many patient safety incidents, surely they should be being held to account for that service on television and radio.

    There has been a big issue about director presence over Christmas and new year, with claims and counter-claims having been made, and we need to get to the bottom of it. Will the Minister ensure that we are told who was actually on duty all the way through the Christmas and new year period? By that, I mean on duty and in the region—not at home in some foreign country—leading the service in this region. It was new year’s eve before REAP 4— Resource Escalation Action Plan 4—was declared. That is the highest level. Many people in the organisation felt it should have been happened before that, so that mutual assistance could have been secured from surrounding trusts. Why did that not happen?

    A report was commissioned last year from SSG Health—a “phase 2 report”—on how the trust can save money. It has never been published. I have tried to get hold of it under freedom of information but my request has been refused. Will the Minister ensure that it is now put into the public domain? Given the scale of the crisis, which the Care Quality Commission has acknowledged, we have a right to know what that report says and what is being done about it. It cost more than £500,000 for this report on how to save money. That shows the scale of the culture problems that we face.

    On late finishes, staff regularly work 14-hour to 15-hour shifts, but no data has been available from the trust to the staff side since February last year. In September, the trust removed the staff support desk, which was there to provide support to staff who were working very long shifts. No data has been made available by the trust to the staff side on “tail breaches”—these very long delays in getting to patients. The trust claims an exemption under FOI. That is symptomatic of a trust that fails to be open with staff representatives and with the public it is supposed to be serving. A constituent of mine who has worked for the trust has been declared “vexatious” for making FOI requests about patient safety issues, for goodness’ sake. How about that for the culture of this organisation! The matter is now with the Information Commissioner.

    I believe, and I think the Government believe, that trusts should be entirely open; there should be an open culture, encouraging staff to speak out about patient safety issues. Will the Minister send a clear message to end the embargo on FOI requests, so that we can find out what is going on in this trust, rather than have it being kept from the public gaze? This is an issue of the utmost concern to the people of the east of England. People in this region need reassurance that they will be cared for and that the response will be there when they need it. It is frightening for anyone, but particularly for older people, to wait interminably for an ambulance to ​arrive when a loved one is very ill and potentially dying. This is intolerable in a civilised society and ultimately it is the Government’s responsibility to ensure that there is a service there to serve the people of this country.

  • Theresa May – 2018 Speech in Shanghai

    Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May, the Prime Minister, in Shanghai, China on 2 February 2018.

    Thank you very much, Jack, and good morning everyone. And let me just say it’s a pleasure to see so many Chinese and British business leaders sitting side by side here today. I think It’s a very real expression of the golden era of relations between our countries.

    I’ve talked a lot with my Chinese counterparts about this growing partnership between our two countries, but it’s important to recognise that it isn’t just about governments. It’s about businesses. About people. About bringing the UK and China closer together so that we can all share in the benefits of growth.

    We meet today at a crucial time in the history and future of both our countries. Last year, at Davos, President Xi set out the case for globalisation and committed to a more open Chinese economy – a vision the UK is keen to help you bring to life.

    Meanwhile, the UK is preparing to leave the European Union. We’re seizing the opportunity to become an ever-more outward-looking Global Britain, deepening our trade relations with nations around the world – including China.

    Now this is my first time in Shanghai. On this side of the Huangpu, the eclectic old buildings speak to us of China’s history. On the opposite bank, the towering skyscrapers of Pudong say much about its future.

    More than that, the Bund itself is testament to the deep historical roots of the UK’s trading links with China. The very building we meet in today started life as the home of a British ship-builder, the historic lifeblood of global trade. The Custom House clock, the international symbol of Shanghai, was made in Shropshire; its bells were cast in Leicestershire.

    And just as the Bund says much about our trading past, the size of the audience today and the breadth of sectors represented, speaks volumes about the strength of our relationship in 2018.

    Trade between our nations is worth almost £60 billion and rising. Chinese investment is helping the UK develop infrastructure and create jobs. Nearly 50,000 British businesses import goods from China, while more than 10,000 sell their goods to customers here.

    And our businesses are already working closely with one another, real commercial partnerships that bring real benefits. Just look at Astra Zeneca and Alibaba, coming together to build a smart health system in Wuxi so chest patients get vital treatment more quickly.

    As I’ve travelled around China over the last few days, I’ve seen that we have the potential to do so much more together.

    In Wuhan, in Beijing and now here in Shanghai I’ve been struck by the level of enthusiasm for British brands, British culture, British goods and British services.

    And that’s why I am accompanied on this trip by a business delegation representing businesses of every size and shape, representing many different sectors and hailing from every corner of the UK.

    Some have long established contacts here in China.

    Others are visiting for the very first time.

    But all are completely committed to forging lasting relationships with businesses, investors and customers in your country.

    This week, they’ve been finalising deals in sectors as diverse as financial services, education, energy and healthcare. Aston Martin has announced that it will significantly increase its operations in China with a five-year export drive worth £600m, and will have more than 20 showrooms across China.

    And yesterday we unveiled a string of commercial deals in the cultural sector, increasing understanding and bringing our people closer together.

    And I was particularly pleased to see the Busy Bees nursery group taking its place in the delegation. Late last year I enjoyed a marvellous visit to a nursery in my own constituency. Now they’re bringing their 35 years of expertise to Shanghai, with plans for a 230-place international pre-school here.

    Now when people think of international trade I’m sure early-years childcare isn’t the first thing that springs to mind. But Busy Bees’ presence here shows just how diverse the British export offer is, just how much we have to offer in China.

    While the business leaders have been negotiating commercial deals, I have been meeting with President Xi and Premier Li and discussing with them the importance of removing barriers to trade between our nations.

    We’ve agreed on moves to bring more of the UK’s internationally renowned food and drink to China, to open up the market to some of Britain’s world-class financial services providers. And we have agreed a Trade and Investment Review, as a first step towards delivering ambitious future bilateral trade arrangements.

    On Wednesday, Premier Li and I attended the inaugural meeting of the UK/China CEO Council.

    Created with the full support of both governments, the council brings together 40 chief executives from some of Britain and China’s top businesses – many of them here today.

    It creates a forum in which ideas and insights can be shared. But it is also a platform from which views, problems and solutions can be communicated to the top levels of government, giving senior business leaders the chance to help shape the future of the UK’s trade and investment relationship with China.

    And it’s a future that excites me. Not just because of the possibilities for increased trade, impressive though they are. But also because of the possibilities for greater co-operation between our people.

    China and the UK both have proud histories of innovation stretching hundreds, even thousands of years. That spirit of invention is still very much alive today, and if we pool our talents further the results could be extraordinary.

    The fast-changing world we are in brings many opportunities for businesses in both our countries. And I support a partnership that allows us to exploit those opportunities, bringing together like-minded innovators and entrepreneurs to share knowledge, risk and investment.

    For example, as I said in Davos last week, we are establishing the UK as a world leader in Artificial Intelligence, building on the success of companies like Deepmind.

    I believe we have only just seen the beginning of what AI can achieve, something I discussed yesterday with President Xi. We agreed that prospects for collaboration in this area are ever-expanding.

    But that is not all. In November I launched the UK’s modern industrial strategy. We set an ambition for Britain to be the most innovative country in the world. And we are backing that up with £7bn of additional investment in research and development over the coming years.

    Then, in December we launched the UK-China Joint Strategy for Science, Technology and Innovation Co-operation. It brings together scientists and innovators to drive sustainable growth and tackle global challenges.

    The Strategy’s priority for 2018 is agri-tech, and that’s one reason why I was pleased to be able to visit the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences in Beijing yesterday, seeing some of this cooperation first hand.

    Next month, we’re organising the Great Festival of Innovation in Hong Kong and the Bay area. Over four days, the Festival will offer a series of thought-provoking and lively keynotes, masterclasses, showcases, installations and performances involving industry leaders, entrepreneurs, and artists.

    With visitors from the UK and right across Asia, the festival will allow entrepreneurs to build partnerships and share the innovations that will drive the future of free trade. I hope that many of you will be able to attend.

    One thing that I hope will come from the festival is a higher profile for female innovators. The UK and China together have the capacity to play a huge role in advocating for gender equality. But all too often those good intentions don’t lead to positive outcomes, and that’s something we should all be working to tackle.

    Last year, the UK government signed a memorandum of understanding with the All China Women’s Federation, setting out our mutual resolve to improve gender equality. And I know this subject is also close to Jack’s heart. In 2015, Alibaba ran a global conference on women and entrepreneurship. And the company itself has a much larger female workforce, and more women on its board,than most international tech companies.

    Around the world, young women benefit from seeing that. From seeing role models and trailblazers. Women who have succeeded in their field and shown that progress is possible. And that’s why I’m proud to have brought many inspirational women in my business delegation.

    Women like Nancy Rothwell, who spoke to you earlier and whose university, Manchester, has excellent links with Wuhan, the first stop on my visit, as well as across China. And women like Heba Bevan, founder and CEO of AI company UtterBerry.

    I’m nearing the end of what has been a fascinating and productive few days in China. I’ve seen our businesses making new alliances and forging new partnerships. I’ve seen our people learning about the world through education and about each other through culture.

    And I’ve seen that China and the UK are determined to build on our deep and mature ties to promote national and global prosperity throughout the 21st century.

    As President Xi, quoting Shakespeare, said to me yesterday, “What’s past is prologue.” And I wholeheartedly agree. The UK and China are opening a new chapter in our Golden Era.

    Thank you.

  • Boris Johnson – 2018 Speech on Ending the Ivory Trade

    Below is the text of the speech made by Boris Johnson, the Foreign Secretary, on 1 February 2018.

    Good afternoon everybody, good afternoon ladies and gentlemen.

    It’s one of my themes at the moment that we don’t do enough to celebrate good news and today particularly is a moment for celebration. Because China has struck a blow against elephant poachers by closing down its domestic ivory market, which is currently the largest in the world.

    And provided that ban is fully enforced, and provided the ivory trade isn’t allowed simply to relocate to Vietnam or Laos or Burma or indeed anywhere else – and I’m afraid there are warning signs that that is already happening – then China’s enlightened and far-sighted decision will give humanity a better chance of halting and eventually reversing the tragic decline of the African elephant.

    And this has really come in the nick of time. I first went to Africa 40 years ago as a child, and I remember seeing great herds in the Serengeti and the Maasai Mara and I was even trapped in a latrine I seem to remember for about an hour.

    Anyway, more than 2 thirds of those animals are now gone. Africa is down to 415,000, even at the most generous count, and in the last 12 years the pace of slaughter has accelerated. We have lost 110,000 since 2006, including half of all the elephants in East Africa; 2 thirds in Tanzania.

    It would be absolutely unconscionable to sit back and watch, as though we were powerless or indifferent to the disappearance of charismatic megafauna in Africa.

    If we do nothing, there really is a risk that our grandchildren will grow up in a world without wild elephants and if that calamity were to come about, they will look at these photographs of giant herds, and they will point accusing fingers at all of us and ask you and me – why we were so careless and neglectful as to let this happen. And why we failed to save the African elephant from extirpation?

    And it is a terrible fact that our planet is now enduring what may be the sixth mass extinction of species. Unlike previous extinctions – –homo sapiens were not around for the previous 5, so we can’t take the blame for those – but this particular one.

    In the last century, 500 species have vanished from the earth, and if nature was allowed to take its course – then the normal rate of extinctions over a hundred years would be only 2 species.

    So there is nothing inevitable, nothing biologically preprogrammed, about the tragedy taking place around us. On the contrary, we can protect our planet from being despoiled, and we can rescue wildlife from destruction. The only question is whether we have the collective will?

    And I believe that today is a manifestation of that will.

    I think it is great that the UK and China are united in our perspective on this policy – and by the way, I think we’re more forward looking and ambitious in our ban than the European Union itself, about which I make no complaint except they have a President called Tusk so you would have thought they would be sympathetic on this ban – the UK and China together are taking this forward.

    And we in London, in October, we will be co-hosting with Defra, with other departments, an international conference on combating illegal wildlife trade which threatens the survival of many, many endangered species; pangolins, rhinos, tigers, and many more.

    And whilst I’m on the subject of ivory, don’t forget, as we work to save the elephant, the threat then moves across to the hippo, and the narwhal, and other bearers of ivory in their jaws.

    And so I am very glad to say that earlier today also that the Hong Kong Legislative Council voted to end the Territory’s ivory trade by 2021, with no compensation for dealers.

    I think we should all be very encouraged from China’s decision not only because of the practical impact we hope it will have, but because it demonstrates the birth of a new global consensus – based on the collective will of the United Nations – that buying or selling ivory is no longer acceptable anywhere and human beings, wherever we may live, share the same obligation to do what we must to protect the magnificent animals that are humanity’s joint inheritance.

    Thank you.

  • Theresa May – 2018 Speech at Wuhan University

    Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May, the Prime Minister, at Wuhan University in China on 31 January 2018.

    Thank you very much everybody. And I’m very pleased to be able to be here today at Wuhan University on this, my first official financial visit to China. And as we build our golden era of UK-China relations, what we do between us as two peoples is so very important as a fundamental of that golden era. In fact, the first visit I made to a country outside the European Union when I became the British Prime Minister was to China. What I saw then was a very confident, a very forward-looking country, taking an increasing role on the world stage.

    What I have seen today from the young students that I have met is an example of that confidence, that forward looking, that desire to take their country forward. And I can say from the students and young people I’ve met today that China is in good hands for the future.

    Of course, later in my visit here in China, I will be meeting with President Xi and Premier Li, and discussing some of the mutual interests and challenges that we both share. One of them I will be looking at today here in Wuhan, which is how we develop a cleaner environment for the future. But as I said, what underpins our relations, and as we build our global strategic partnership, is the people-to-people links. And this Spirit of Youth festival is a very important example of that. And I would particularly like to thank Jiang Shuying for everything that she has been doing as the Spirit of Youth Ambassador, to encourage those links between young people in the United Kingdom and China.

    And today I’ve met Chinese students who’ve studied in the UK, UK students who are studying here in China. We have more than 150,000 Chinese students in UK universities, and we have, as part of the visit I’m making here to China, a UK-China agreement on sharing knowledge of early years education. We look at university; sharing of university knowledge and expertise, but actually it’s also good to share in the early years of education as well. We are seeing more Mandarin being taught in UK schools, and of course thousands of UK students here in Chinese universities.

    And today I’m pleased to announce that we are extending the Shanghai maths teacher exchange which has been, I believe, a very good example of our people-to-people links and one of mutual benefit to both our countries.

    So, by learning with each other and from each other we can continue to develop the bonds of friendship that we value, and the bonds of friendship on which our golden era and UK-China relations are built, bringing our people closer together not just now, but for years to come in the future. And I hope – I say to the young people here, you will be the future leaders of your country, and I hope that in future years you will continue to strengthen the ties between the United Kingdom and China.

  • Theresa May – 2018 Speech in Beijing

    Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May, the Prime Minister, in Beijing, China on 1 February 2018.

    Thank you, thank you very much, Ambassador. And I would like to echo your comments about how great it is to see so many people here, both of the business delegation that I have brought over with me, but also friends here in China, who are doing so much to help to build this golden era of UK-China relations and see the links between the two countries developing and being enhanced for the future.

    And as the Ambassador has said, those links are about trade and business, but they are also about culture, they’re about people-to-people links. And I think the more that we share through the creative and performing arts, the more that we share through creative industries, actually the more we understand each other’s countries, and that has benefits for trade and business as well.

    And we have seen the number of Chinese tourists visiting the United Kingdom increase substantially in the last year or so, and we also see, of course, numbers of UK visitors coming here to China. We want to see both of those increasing. And for the Chinese visitors coming to the United Kingdom, we’re launching Find Your Great Britain; come and find great food, great relaxation, great scenery, great cultural heritage. But this isn’t just one-way, because I’ve just been talking about the fact that the Serpentine is coming to Beijing, the V&A is coming to Shenzhen, and we’re seeing these opportunities for those cultural exchanges to take place, and those are very important for us.

    But it’s not just about that sort of culture either. We know that Doctor Who and Downton Abbey are great successes here in China. I have seen Downton Abbey and Doctor Who; I have not watched Octonauts, which is a UK children’s cartoon which is being enjoyed by millions of children here in China. And as a result of the trip that I’m on, we are seeing significant deals being struck on the media front as well, and that’s very good news too.

    So, thank you to all of you for coming here. I think what I have found here in China is a real enthusiasm for the links between the United Kingdom and China, a real enthusiasm for building on those links for the future, for recognising the opportunities that we share, for recognising the complementary skills that we have in so many areas and how those can be developed to the advantage of people in the UK and people here in China.

    So, yes, jobs will be created as a result of the deals that are being done. But also, there will be a greater understanding of each other’s countries and a greater understanding of the cultural heritage of both countries and of the culture of today. And that will bring people together, and that’s what this is about.

    Thank you.

  • Helen Whately – 2018 Speech on Lorry Parking

    Below is the text of the speech made by Helen Whately, the Conservative MP for Faversham and Mid Kent, in the House of Commons on 30 January 2018.

    A few weeks ago, in the early hours of the morning, a car carrying four men crashed into a parked lorry on the edge of the A2 just south of Faversham. Three of the men were killed; the other was seriously injured. We might never know exactly what happened, and I am absolutely not blaming the lorry driver, but that stretch of the A2 is a well-known spot for what we call lorry fly-parking. Fly-parking is when lorries park in lay-bys or on slip roads, hard shoulders, pavements or verges, often at the edge of busy roads such as the A2, the A20 and the A249 in my constituency. Sometimes they also park up quiet country lanes or in industrial estates and housing estates. In general, these are places where lorries should not be parked for more than the few minutes that might be needed for a delivery or an unexpected stop. Sometimes they park legally, and sometimes illegally. Sometimes they park perfectly safely, albeit inconveniently, but at other times, unfortunately, they park dangerously.

    This was not the first fatality in my constituency involving a parked lorry. A 74-year-old woman died after crashing into a lorry parked on the hard shoulder at junction 7 of the M20 a couple of years ago. Whatever the cause of the latest crash, this horrific accident should focus our minds on the problem, focus our attention on the need for more lorry parking spaces, and focus our energies on ending lorry fly-parking. Lorry fly-parking is dangerous. There is a danger to other motorists from lorries lined up, bumper to bumper, in lay-bys, sometimes jutting precariously out into the road. There is a danger to the police officers who risk their lives walking along the hard shoulder at night with hundreds of cars speeding by as they move alongside illegally parked trucks. There is also a danger to the lorry drivers themselves when they are in charge of a heavy goods vehicle but have not had a proper rest. A busy roadside with traffic thundering past is hardly a good place to get a proper night’s sleep.

    The haulage industry is, rightly, tightly regulated. Drivers must record their hours on a tachograph and take breaks every four and a half hours. When the time comes to stop, they have to stop, but the roadside is not only a bad place to sleep, but a pretty bad place to stop off in general for a driver, as it has no security, no facilities, no showers and not even toilets. That is hardly helpful for an industry that would like to attract more women. From the point of view of most of my constituents —those who are not lorry drivers—they see extra litter and pretty disgusting other stuff on the roadside, and anyone who needs to pull into a lay-by on a main road can forget it, because they are already full.

    Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

    I thank the hon. Lady for allowing me to intervene. Northern Ireland is heavily reliant on cargo being freighted by ship and then by lorry, so this issue concerns us greatly. We must ensure that there are safe and secure areas for lorry drivers to park, not only to enable them to stay within their hours under EU legislation, but to keep them and those who come into contact with them safe. Does she ​agree that we should look into providing parking facilities so that those living in residential areas do not have to listen to idling lorries and so that those who drive the lorries can be safe?

    Helen Whately

    I completely agree that this is about making things better for residents and ensuring that lorry drivers have the facilities that they need. I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for bringing a Northern Ireland perspective to the debate.

    Lorry parking is not a new problem, but it is growing worse and it is time to fix it. So what is the answer? Everyone we speak to, including the Road Haulage Association, the Freight Transport Association, Highways England, local councillors and our constituents, will give the same common-sense answer: we must build more lorry parks. That seems deceptively simple. We know that there is demand for more truck stops. For instance, Kent County Council’s surveys show that we have around 900 lorries a night parking inappropriately. Lorry parks in Kent are turning lorries away. Ashford lorry park turned away 252 trucks in a single night last year, so the demand is clearly there. Kent County Council has been taking action by identifying possible locations for new truck stops and talking to lorry park operators to gauge their interest. Indeed, the Ashford lorry park just yesterday submitted a planning application to expand from 390 to 600 places. Those extra places will be helpful, but the number still falls far short of the 900 extra places needed in Kent. As freight volumes continue to grow with the growing economy, one can predict that that shortfall will only increase.

    However, that prompts a question: given that commercial operators run service stations and lorry parks in the UK, why have more truck stops not stepped up to serve the demand? What can we do to ensure that the shortfall in parking places is met, and quickly? What conversations has the Minister had with lorry park operators about what is stopping them expanding? What investigations has he made to determine how we can encourage planning applications for truck stops that can make their way successfully and speedily through the planning system? I recognise that fast-forwarding planning for lorry parks is difficult, given the experience in Kent with the Operation Stack holding area, but when we get that vital lorry holding area, will the Government ensure that it can also be used for overnight lorry parking? I want lorry parking to be included in all major road improvements—specifically the lower Thames crossing—not just in Kent, but across the country.

    Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con)

    Just as in Faversham and Mid Kent, my constituency experiences a lot of lorry traffic and much of its economy is based on logistics. The Department for Transport focuses heavily on rail—often for good reason—but with the majority of haulage and freight travelling by road, does my hon. Friend agree that the Department needs to consider both rail and road provision? When looking at road provision, the Department needs to consider not just the infrastructure of the roads themselves, but lorry parking and good-quality facilities as a priority.

    Helen Whately

    I thank my hon. Friend for making the point that investing in road infrastructure, as we are doing in this country, goes hand in hand with planning for where lorries will park and the facilities that drivers ​will need. No major road investment should be planned without facilities for the motorists and lorry drivers who will use the roads.

    As we provide more parking places, we must ensure that drivers use them, and I welcome the signals the Government have been sending about effective enforcement. For example, they have supported the enforcement pilot that is currently under way in Ashford, where lorries are being clamped the first time they park illegally. The pilot has successfully reduced reoffending and the message is getting through, because only one lorry has been clamped twice and all fines have been paid. My hon. Friend the Minister has kindly contributed to that success by allowing the local authority to increase the fines that it can charge, meaning that the council is no longer left out of pocket when lorries are clamped, and I thank him for that. If the clamping pilot continues to get results, I hope that it can be rolled out across Kent and then throughout the country. Eventually, we should have a complete ban on lorries parking for long breaks outside truck stops. However, as drivers have told me many times, it is only reasonable to enforce a ban on lorry fly-parking if there are enough legitimate places for lorries to park.

    As I have said, Kent is disproportionately affected by lorry fly-parking because most of the UK’s road freight travels along the M20 and then across the channel or, alternatively, down the M2 and A2 and then down to the channel crossings in Kent. The Port of Dover handles 10,000 HGVs a day. Although we feel the problem so particularly in Kent, it is a national one, and I know from colleagues that there are lorries lining up on many trunk roads across the country. Perhaps at some point in the future we will have self-driving lorries, which I assume will not need to stop to sleep, but that is not going to happen for some years—probably some decades—so we must do something about the issue in the meantime. My hon. Friend the Minister gets that, as did his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), and I thank them for the hard work that they have put in so far.

    To conclude, may I just say to the Minister that if we are to achieve the vision of a dynamic country that is fit for the future, we need the right infrastructure to keep the economy moving? The current situation is unacceptable for lorry drivers, for other motorists, and for residents who live in the places that have become improvised truck stops. It is also dangerous. We need more lorry parks, better facilities for drivers and effective enforcement. In that way, we can end lorry fly-parking and make our roads safer.

  • Lord Ahmad – 2018 Speech on Intolerance

    Below is the text of the speech made by Lord Ahmad, the Minister of State for the Commonwealth and the UN at the Foreign & Commonwealth Office, in Italy on 30 January 2018.

    Introduction

    Your Eminence, Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon.

    May I start by saying it is an honour and a privilege to be here this afternoon and an honour to address you in this historic institution, one that boasts such distinguished alumni. For today’s students it must be an extraordinary feeling literally to follow in the footsteps of Catholic saints. But if I may, a moment of personal reflection. It is very special for me – as a man of faith, I am a Muslim, to stand here before you, in the heart of Rome, a stone’s throw from the Vatican, and speak to you of my faith.

    I cherish the freedom to practise my faith right here, just as all people of all faiths and none are free to do here in Rome and as they are free to do in my country the UK, without fear of discrimination or persecution.

    Freedom of religion or belief, including the freedom to change religion, is a fundamental human right and one that I believe passionately should be enjoyed by everyone, everywhere.

    The reason I believe it matters – why the British Government believes it matters and why our Prime Minister Mrs May believes it matters – is not just for its own sake, or even because we know that more than three quarters of the world are guided by their faith.

    It matters because where such freedoms are absent or indeed restricted, intolerance and mistrust flourishes, it splits communities down religious fault lines. Once communities are divided in this way, it does not take too much for tensions to spill over into violence.

    The connection between religious tolerance and stable societies is another reason why we think promoting freedom of religion or belief is so important. There is clear evidence to suggest that tolerant and inclusive societies are better equipped to resist extremism. And most importantly, by ensuring that everyone can contribute, it makes society as a whole better.

    Let me give you an example of what I mean.

    Just off the west coast of Scotland, not far from Glasgow, there is an island called Bute. It is just 15 miles long, 4 miles wide, and home to fewer than 7,000 people. Two years ago, the local council moved 24 Syrian refugee families to the island.

    Initially some locals were wary of these strangers. They knew nothing about them, except what they had heard on the news about the conflict in Syria, and yes some of them feared they could be traumatised or dangerous to the community. Yet this tiny community overcame their fears and opened their arms to embrace the newcomers.

    They learned Arabic and offered the new arrivals the use of their community hall, fitting prayer times around the art club and bingo. In return, they acquired a Syrian barber’s shop on the high street and they even got a taste for Syrian pastries. Today many of the new arrivals speak English, yes, with a Scottish accent…

    The UK – Strength in diversity

    The story of Bute could be the story of the UK in miniature. Over the centuries the UK has welcomed people from all over the world – I’m one of them, or my parents were: they moved to India, torn from Pakistan by dispute in the 50s and then to the UK where they first settled in Scotland too, just like those Syrian families.

    The landscape of my country the UK is no longer graced exclusively by spires and steeples, that we celebrate, but also by minarets and menorah, domes and temples.

    As you look over the tapestry that is modern Britain today, we have more than 1,700 mosques, 400 synagogues and 300 Gurdwaras, often standing side by side with churches and cathedrals.

    I am proud of our religious diversity, but it would be wrong to suggest that it is always easy to integrate religious minorities into a society where there is already a dominant religion. When we promote religious tolerance in other countries we know from experience how challenging it can be.

    Whether it is in a big multicultural city like London or a tiny community like that island community in Bute, it can require a shift in mind-set on the part of the majority – or in the case of the UK the Christian – population.

    When a temple is built on your street or a halal butcher opens in the market it forces you to accept that your religion is one of many, and not the only one. At times this can be difficult, and the battle of ideas is by no means won, even in the UK.

    Therefore it is important for governments and faith leaders to keep making the argument that we have nothing to fear from accepting other faiths into our society; that mutual respect is a sign of strength, not weakness; and that when faiths take the difficult step of defending each other’s rights, they are spreading the universal message of tolerance, respect, understanding and peace – the universal message of all religions.

    When people overcome their fears of other faiths, the whole of society benefits. And I am convinced that the mutual respect among our many different communities contributes directly to our strength as a nation. Of course we are not alone in this – many other countries strongly defend freedom of religion. In the Middle East, Lebanon stands as a model of peaceful coexistence of faiths.

    In Abu Dhabi, a third Christian cathedral – for the Greek Orthodox faith – has just opened; and a mosque beside the Catholic cathedral – which had carried the name of the Crown Prince – has just been re-named at the Crown Prince’s request the Mary, Mother of Jesus Mosque.

    Outside the Middle East, I also saw religious diversity flourishing in Ghana, with religious communities working together, when I visited last year.

    Violations of Freedom of Religion or Belief Worldwide

    Yet tragically, as we look around the world, millions of people face appalling persecution every day – why – because of their beliefs.

    Even right here in Europe, where we have some of the strongest equal rights protections in the world, tragically anti-Semitism and Islamophobia are on the rise and it is essential that they are dealt with robustly.

    Further afield, we have all been horrified by the barbarity of Daesh, including towards Christians, Yazidis and Mandeans in Iraq and Syria, and the despicable crimes of Boko Haram’s atrocities against Nigerian Christians.

    These acts by terrorist organisations are appalling – but it is not just non-state actors who are to blame.

    For too long far too many States have failed to prevent religious discrimination, or even to ensure the rights of citizens of all faiths – and none – are protected by the law.

    For example, in Egypt, Coptic Christians still do not enjoy equal citizenship rights. They continue to face social pressure that restricts their freedom to worship, build churches, and play a full role in national life.

    When legal protections are lacking, popular prejudices go unchecked, people suffer harassment, and that harassment can turn to persecution, exclusion, or even violence.

    In some cases States are going further than that and are themselves actively trampling on their citizens’ rights.

    As we look around the world today, this is the reality for Rohingya Muslims in Burma’s Rakhine state, Baha’is in Iran; and Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia.

    In China, where there are as many Christians as there are people in the UK, churches must be approved by the state or risk demolition. In Saudi Arabia, non-Muslim religions are banned and the death penalty is imposed for apostasy, while in Pakistan, blasphemy laws are used to intimidate atheists, Christians and other minorities, and the state turns a blind eye to attacks on Christian minorities or the Ahmadiyya Muslim community.

    All are being failed by the government, the State, very people whose responsibility it is to protect them.

    Rise of Christian Persecution

    I want to draw particular attention today to the issue of Christian persecution, which appears to be on the rise. The latest report by Aid to the Church in Need found that the plight of Christians had worsened in nearly all the countries that it had reviewed, including North Korea and Nigeria.

    These findings are supported by Open Doors, whose 2018 Watch List indicates that 1 in 12 Christians have experienced persecution. Last year around the world, more than 3,000 Christians were killed, and 15,000 Christian buildings were attacked.

    This is appalling, not just are these appalling statistics, but appalling full stop. Behind every statistic is a human tragedy. I welcome the work of the Catholic Church and civil society groups in trying to protect Christians around the world, and I commend the courage of the Papal Nuncio in Damascus who chose to remain in his post, despite challenging circumstances he remained in his post, during the conflict, at great personal risk, with great personal courage.

    UK Action

    Tackling discrimination and promoting tolerance around the world is a priority for the UK Government.

    Our Prime Minister Theresa May has spoken of the need to “stand up for the rights of people of all religions to practise their beliefs in peace and safety”.

    Our action takes a number of different forms. We lobby governments directly about specific cases, yes we urge them to protect the rights of their citizens and where appropriate we press them to change legislation that discriminates against minority groups, or to introduce safeguards to protect the misuse of certain laws.

    We also work with international partners through the UN and other bodies to promote religious freedom; to build consensus on the importance of the issue; and, just as importantly, to ensure that religious persecution in itself does not go unpunished.

    We have been at the forefront of a campaign to bring Daesh to accountability and justice, committing one million pounds to help establish a UN-led investigative team to support the collection of evidence.

    And we spend millions of pounds every year on grassroots projects around the world to counter hate speech, to promote tolerance and understanding of minorities and ultimately build mutual respect between communities.

    Importance of Mutual Understanding

    Building this mutual respect is essential. As His Holiness Pope Francis rightly says, people of different faiths – and none – must – I quote – “fully understand our respective convictions” if we are to succeed in breaking down the barriers between us.

    In the words of one of my personal heroes, Mahatma Mohandas Gandhi: “If we are to respect others’ religions as we would have them respect our own, a friendly study of the world’s religions is a sacred duty.”

    That is why we fully endorse the commitments made by both the Vatican and the Church of England to strengthen inter-religious dialogue.

    We in the UK Government are strengthening our own links with faith groups, it is essential: for example I have introduced, since my appointment last summer, regular faith roundtables to discuss the pressing foreign policy issues of our time and deepen our understanding of religious perspectives on them.

    Education is also vital if we are to eliminate intolerance and break down the barriers between communities for good. As Nelson Mandela said, no child is born hating his neighbour. Intolerance is something that is learned.

    We must educate our children to understand other religions, in the hope that the next generation will be wiser than those that have come before it.

    And schools can play this role, including faith schools. I myself am a product of a Church of England School, my mother insisted on it. She believed it was essential for learning about and respecting other beliefs – so I know this from experience. And I have made the same choice as a parent myself, my eldest daughter attends a Catholic school and my son a Catholic Jesuit school. It doesn’t dilute our faith, but rather makes us more rounded. The crucial thing is that schools teach inclusivity and mutual respect: that is the key to a tolerant and peaceful future.

    Community Action

    While all these government-led efforts are important, tackling intolerance is not just about Government action: there are things that individuals can do in their communities too.

    Religion itself can be part of the solution. As his Holiness Pope Francis said during his visit to Burma last year: “Religious differences need not be a source of division and distrust, but rather a force for unity, forgiveness, tolerance and wise nation-building.”

    This positive force can help to ensure that people of all faiths and none truly feel part of the wider community, their country and their nation.

    On Christmas Day last year, non-Christian restaurant owners across the UK opened their doors to feed the lonely and the homeless. Young people from the Muslim community in my own home town of Wimbledon, some of you may know it for other reasons, spent this New Year’s Day picking up litter. Earlier this month in North London the local Jewish community raised thousands of pounds for the family of a murdered Asian shopkeeper.

    Small acts of compassion like these demonstrate that we are all part of the same community. They dispel misconceptions and prejudice, and build lasting bonds and friendships.

    Conclusion

    In his New Year message, His Holiness the Pope reminded us that 2018 is the 70th anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That matters to all of us, it matters to me as Minister for Human Rights.

    Every act of intolerance, every attack by neighbour on neighbour, community on community and country on country is an attack on those rights and on society as a whole.

    Humanity cannot afford for this to continue. Too many people – man, woman, boy, girl, black, white – have suffered for too long.

    So I call on everyone gathered here today, let us all come together – diplomats and religious leaders; journalists and students; strangers and friends – and let us collectively make a pledge.

    A pledge to be intolerant of intolerance; to speak out against discrimination in all its forms; to fight impunity; and to hold States true to their international commitments.

    And let us collectively pledge today, not just tolerance, that is a basic instinct, but also to respect the beliefs of others; to tackle and debate those within our own communities who display intolerance and above all to see strength in our diversity, so that one day, people of all faiths and none may live side by side in peace. It is a hope, it is my prayer.

  • Greg Hands – 2018 Speech on Spain

    Below is the text of the speech made by Greg Hands, the Minister of State for Trade Policy, in Spain on 30 January 2018.

    Your Excellency Ambassador Bastarreche, Mr President San Basilio; distinguished and honourable friends; please allow me to thank the Spanish Chamber of Commerce for their kind invitation to attend this annual gala.

    It’s an honour and privilege to be here and to address you all.

    I was invited to give a speech on a topic of my choosing; which was fantastically exciting. But my office insisted that, given I am a Minister for International Trade and, given I would be speaking to such an esteemed audience, I should perhaps narrow my focus a little.

    So my speech on the Great Fire of London which started just a stone’s throw from here and ravaged the original version of this beautiful building, the Skinners Hall, will have to wait for another day…

    Nevertheless, the commercial relationship between the UK and Spain is something I am more than happy to discuss. And today is an opportune moment to do so.

    Today we can look back on a year when the historic visit of King Felipe and Queen Letizia demonstrated the strength of our longstanding bilateral relationship.

    Indeed, the UK and Spain share diplomatic ties going back 500 years, and commercial ties which go back even further. Even Shakespeare made reference to the joys of Spanish sherry and Canary wine. It is certainly a proud history on which to build.

    Even more tantalising than sherry or wine is the vitality of our trading relationship today, and the opportunities we can see for tomorrow.

    That is why as well as being able to celebrate the past, tonight is an opportunity to look to the future, and the chance we have not just to sustain, but strengthen our bonds of friendship.

    Spain is the UK’s seventh largest trading partner, with UK exports to Spain in 2016 amounting to an impressive £14.6 billion. Furthermore, figures show that UK exports of goods to Spain increased by more than 15% in the year to November 2017, compared to the same period a year ago.

    The statistics on our investment in one another’s economies are even more impressive.

    Spanish investment in the UK was £30.3 billion in 2016, with Spanish firms investing in our transport infrastructure, in clean energy, telecoms, automotive manufacturing and financial services. Spanish banks have the largest presence of all foreign banks in the UK, larger than Germany or the USA; indeed Santander alone employs around 20,000 people in Britain.

    Meanwhile, UK investment in Spain was £56 billion in 2016, 24% higher than in 2015. Globally renowned British brands are flourishing with the likes of Rolls Royce, GSK, Diageo, BUPA and BP, helping to generate many jobs in Spain.

    And yet, there is potential to do much more.

    When Prime Minister Rajoy visited the UK in December he wrote of his ambitions for our relationship, stating:

    The aim will be to build a strategic alliance to respond to the common challenges and goals of the 21st century. Britain can count on Spain’s loyal and sincere friendship. We want the best for the UK because it is simply another way of wishing the same for Spain.

    I believe that fulfilling that potential should be the ambition of all of us here this evening.

    This will not be without challenges. I appreciate that many of you will likely have concerns about the UK’s exit from the European Union and our future relationship with our European partners.

    But I can stress to you this evening, as I have done on many occasions, the UK’s vote to leave the EU was not a decision to turn our back on our friends in Europe, it was a vote to build a more global Britain alongside, and in partnership with, a strong Europe.

    The referendum was not driven by isolationism, nor is it an excuse for Britain to abdicate from its international responsibilities.

    We are not rejecting our European friends and allies or disowning any of the good that the European Union has done. Rather, we are looking to strengthen our ties with those nations, which will drive economic growth in the 21st Century.

    There can be no doubt that the UK and Spain are united in our ambition for a brighter, more prosperous world for both our peoples. Through our common outlook and shared values, we share a firm friendship that will only grow as we redefine our relationship with the European Union in the coming years.

    We will approach our future discussions with the EU with determination and creativity. We are working to secure the best and most ambitious agreement that will benefit us, but also, importantly, that will benefit our European partners.

    As the Prime Minister has said, to hope for anything but success for our neighbours would be truly perverse. It would be an inconceivable act of self-harm.

    And of course, we cannot overlook the continued importance of the UK to the European Union.

    Overnight, on 29th March 2019, the United Kingdom will immediately become the EU’s second-largest and most important external trading partner; a vast, £600 billion export market, rivalled only by the United States in the depth and breadth of our commercial connections to the continent.

    The EU is rightly seeking free trade agreements with the likes of the Mercosur nations, Australia and New Zealand (which we, like Spain, overwhelmingly support). But it would be absurd for the EU not to seek a comprehensive free trade agreement with almost its largest trading partner, only 30 kilometres from the coast of France – the United Kingdom.

    As we look to develop this new partnership, we start from the unique position of regulatory alignment, trust in one another’s institutions and a shared spirit of cooperation. We should, therefore, be optimistic, and ambitious, about what we can achieve.

    That is why the UK government is listening to business. We are keen to understand commercial concerns and make sure we address them where we can, giving them the certainty they need to invest and grow.

    For example just this week the Secretaries of State in HM Treasury, BEIS and DExEU issued a joint letter to businesses setting out our ambitions for an implementation period, to help businesses adapt and prepare for the UK’s exit from the EU.

    Equally, I am sure my Spanish counterparts and governments throughout the EU27 are keen to understand business concerns and how the EU’s future trading relationship with the UK will affect commercial interests.

    I would urge all businesses to use this opportunity to advocate an open, frictionless trading relationship; building on our firm partnership to prioritise investment, growth and job creation.

    We are setting out to build this new relationship at a time when we are facing the voices of economic nationalism and anti-globalisation. Growing protectionism in the world is of great concern to us all.

    Free trade has transformed the world for the better; opening up new markets, providing access to millions of potential new customers, and allowing businesses to benefit from the exchange of ideas, expertise, talent and technology, across borders.

    It is critical that the UK and Spain continue to collaborate as global advocates of free trade, for example in our shared support for the EU-Mercosur Free Trade Agreement.

    I sincerely hope that we continue to work together, to champion the cause of free trade, both while the UK remains a member of the EU and after our departure.

    I would like to close this evening, firstly, with a commitment.

    A commitment that this government will forge ahead, creating the conditions for your businesses to grow and succeed, confident that your investment is underpinned by sound institutions, the rule of law, proportionate regulation and open markets.

    And secondly, with an ask. An ask that you continue to innovate; to invest; to identify and capitalise on opportunities, and to create jobs and prosperity for all of our citizens.

    I look forward to working with you all, to build on the solid foundation of our unique and historic relationship and to realise our mutual aspirations for a more prosperous future in both of our great nations.

    Muchos gracias.

  • Theresa May – 2018 Speech in China

    Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May, the Prime Minister, in China on 31 January 2018.

    Thank you, Premier Li.

    I’m pleased to be here in Beijing today, on my first official Prime Ministerial visit to China.

    And although I may be visiting in winter I’ve had the warmest of welcomes for which I am grateful and I welcome the opportunity we’ve had today to discuss a wide range of topics in an open way, important issues which face us both and I look forward to continuing discussion over dinner tonight and with President Xi tomorrow.

    I am pleased that we have agreed to intensify the “Golden Era” of UK-China relations.

    The UK and China are both global powers with a global outlook. You made reference Premier Li to the UK leaving the EU as we do so we become ever-more outward-looking and as China continues to reform and open up, we are committed to deepening our strong and vital partnership and that relationship.

    Our relationship is broad and deep, and it delivers real benefits for both countries. We are working together to tackle global and regional security challenges such as North Korea, modern slavery, threats to aviation security; to build sustainable economies of the future and enhance our bilateral trade and investment relationship; and to develop our strong education and societal links.

    Allow me to say a few words of detail on each of these.

    Global Issues

    As fellow permanent members of the UN Security Council and the G20, we are committed to jointly addressing global challenges, indeed steel is one of those challenges that the G20 has discussed, and protecting and promoting the Rules-Based International System.

    We have discussed North Korea, agreeing that its pursuit of nuclear and ballistic missile programmes is illegal, reckless, and poses an unacceptable threat to international peace and security.

    We have agreed the full and effective implementation of UN Security Council sanctions is vital to persuade the North Korean regime to change course and abandon its illegal activity.

    And we have agreed today new measures on aviation security, designed to improve aviation security standards in both the UK and China by sharing more information and undertaking visits to share best practice and observe standards of implementation.

    We will also do more together to tackle the scourge of modern slavery. To disrupt and prosecute the organised crime groups responsible and to protect victims. And we will begin new joint work to tackle other forms of serious organised crime, including the illegal supply of synthetic drugs.

    Trade and Investment

    We’ve discussed how our economies have complementary strengths. Trade between our two countries is already at record levels, worth over £59 billion, UK exports to China have grown by over 60% since 2010. The UK is already one of the largest European recipients of Chinese Foreign Direct Investment. The UK is the world’s largest exporter of financial services and UK firms are leaders in China’s market.

    We are determined to deepen our trading relationship even further, and are ambitious for what our future trade relationship will be.

    We will work together to explore all options to deliver a high level of ambition for the future trading relationship and have today launched a joint trade and investment review to identify priorities for promoting growth in goods, services and investment. And as Premier Li has referred to, later today we have the inaugural meeting of the new UK-China CEO Council, which will bring together business leaders and Ministers to strengthen trade and economic cooperation.

    To pave the way for this ambitious future trading relationship, we have agreed new measures to improve market access in China and remove barriers to trade, includes an agreement make progress on lifting the BSE ban on British beef exports within the next 6 months and to an agreement to allow exports of a broader range of dairy products.

    We have also agreed to open up the Chinese market to our great UK financial services expertise to reach more Chinese consumers.

    And we’ll be pleased to welcome a significant number of major new commercial deals due to be agreed during this visit expected to total over £9 billion pounds, creating and securing jobs and prosperity both here and in the UK.

    We welcome the opportunities provided by the Belt and Road initiative to further prosperity and sustainable development across Asia and the wider world. And as with the Asian Infrastructure and Investment bank, the UK is a natural partner for the Belt and Road initiative with our unrivalled expertise. And as I’ve discussed with Premier Li, we’ve discussed how the UK and China can continue to work together to identify how best we can cooperate on the Belt and Road initiative across the region and ensure it meets international standards.

    We will work together to encourage free and fair trade, ensure a transparent, rules-based multilateral trading system, and build an open global economy that works for all. And as partners committed to global free trade, but as our companies innovate and create new products they are confident that their intellectual rights and property will be fully protected including against cyber threats.

    And as Premier Li mentioned and reminded us we’ve also discussed overcapacity in global market sectors such as steel and the need to see CG20 principles adhered to and further action taken to ensure unfair trading practices are tackled.

    People-to-people

    Our societies share broad and deep cultural ties. There are already strong links between the people of the UK and China, not just between our governments.

    Chinese students already constitute the largest single source of overseas students in the UK, with the UK welcoming 155,000 students currently in the UK, who make a valuable contribution to your society, worth as well as adding an estimated £5 billion annually. There are also now some 9,000 young British people studying and interning in China, with numbers up by 60% since 2013.

    And today we have agreed to go even further on our education partnership, including by extending the pioneering Shanghai Maths Teacher Exchange primary school programme for a further two years to 2020, and expanding the programme to secondary schools.

    We have also agreed to launch a new “Global Partners 2020” programme, to build better direct links and networks between our future leaders across government, business and academia.

    Conclusion

    The UK and China are global partners for the long-term.

    We are committed to building on our deep and mature ties to promote global peace and prosperity in the 21st century.

    So Premier Li, I look forward to continuing our discussions.

    Q+A:

    Question: What do you plan to do differently on Brexit and outside of Brexit? And on international threats, Trump called China a threat? Do you agree?

    PM: On the first point that you raised, in relation to what the government is doing on Brexit and on the domestic agenda. On Brexit we’re obviously working to that future trading relationship with the EU, we achieved sufficient progress in December and we’re now taking that next step to ensure we get the best Brexit deal for the UK and that means will be a deal that takes back control of money, laws and borders and also able to maintain a good trading relationship with the EU for the future, because that is good for both the UK and EU.

    On the domestic agenda if you look at what we’ve been doing over the recent weeks and months I think that there are very many people who want that they and their families can achieve the British dream, of ensuring that each generation has a better future than the last. For a lot of young people that’s about owning their own home, being able to get their foot on the housing ladder, we’ve cut stamp duty for 95% of first time buyers and I’m pleased to say that figures out only last week show that the highest number of first time buyers in the last year for a decade. We’ve also been ensuring that young people get start the best start in life with a good education, nearly 2 million more children in good and outstanding schools now. And we also want to ensure in the work we do that we continue to cut the deficit and develop a balanced approach to economy, we are seeing good jobs being created, unemployment is at its lowest level since the 1970s and yes we do need to do more, and we need to ensure that we are talking about what we’ve already achieved to those young people who worry they’ll get their own home, to parents concerned about the education their children will be getting and about the jobs for the future for their children. And that’s what we’ll be doing, and what we’re committed to delivering on that.

    And if you talk about the role of china, what we’ve been discussing here is the excellent relations we have with our golden era of UK – China relations. But how we can be working together not just to improve those links between us which will be of benefit in the UK and in China and in delivering and working together on those global issues such as N Korea and other issues like modern slavery which have an impact around the world.

    Question: I understand a series of corporate agreements have been signed, same time witnessing rising isolationism – what measures will china and the UK take to boost globalisation and free trade? And to the UK Prime Minister, Brexit is not just an issue for British but also for Chinese people – china the best partners for the UK after Brexit – how do you see prospects of relationship with China?

    PM: Thank you and the second question to me was about Brexit and the impact that this will have. As we leave the EU we will become a country that is able to operate an independent trade policy to sign free trade agreements around the rest of the world. And that is exactly what we will be looking to do. And it is in the best interests of the people in the UK but also those free trade agreements bring benefits to the countries with whom we sign them. Also, we will be a more outward looking country, to build a global Britain that is able to sign those free trade agreements that is able to continue to play its role on the world stage in the various multilateral organisations we’re part of, working alongside china and other members for example in the United Nations.

    But I think in terms of the future for the relationship between the UK and China after we leave the EU, today we’ve agreed a joint trade and investment review which I think is a good step towards looking towards what our future trade relationship can be when we have that freedom outside membership of the EU of being able to arrange those agreements by ourselves on a bilateral basis.

    And as Premier Li has said, there are many concrete examples already of how that trade relationship is developing between our countries. And I think the message of free trade and the importance of free trade is best seen by the examples of the actual trade we see which brings jobs and investment to China and the UK.

  • Chris Bryant – 2018 Speech on Bermuda

    Below is the text of the speech made by Chris Bryant, the Labour MP for the Rhondda, in the House of Commons on 29 January 2018.

    The relationship between the United Kingdom and the overseas territories is an important but complex one. In large measure, the overseas territories are independent of the UK. They make their own decisions and draw up their own laws, which are ruled on by their own courts, but that is not the end of the story. Their constitutions have been drawn up in consultation with Her Majesty’s Government, their Governors are appointed by Her Majesty’s Government, and their external affairs, defence, internal security and policing remain the responsibility of the Governor, acting on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government.

    The UK Government often step in, sometimes with financial and military support, as happened recently in the Caribbean following the terrible hurricane season. At other times, the UK Government take a different line on a matter of important policy, such as when I, as a Minister, had to suspend the Government in Turks and Caicos because of corruption, or when David Cameron pushed the overseas territories to implement public registers of preferential ownership so as to end some of the secrecy that attends the financial provisions in those territories, which have sometimes brought the British financial system into disrepute.

    That is as true for Bermuda as it is for any of the other overseas territories. I honestly have no desire to upset the delicate balance, but it is my firm belief that British citizens should enjoy the same freedoms in Bermuda as in England or Wales or, for that matter, Northern Ireland.

    Bermuda has made significant strides in recent years on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights. Immigration law has been changed to allow immigration rights for non-Bermudian same-sex partners of Bermudians. Gays and lesbians, either by themselves or as a couple, are now able to adopt, and its anti-discrimination legislation includes protection on the basis of sexual orientation.

    Another positive step came last year. On 5 May, the Supreme Court in Bermuda ruled in a case brought by Winston Godwin and his Canadian fiancé, Greg DeRoche, that

    “the Applicants were discriminated against on the basis of their sexual orientation…when the Registrar refused to process their Notice of Intended Marriage…The Applicants are entitled to an Order of Mandamus compelling the Registrar to act in accordance with the requirements of the Marriage Act; and…A Declaration that same-sex couples are entitled to be married under the Marriage Act”.

    It was clear that the then Bermudian Government were not very happy with the ruling. They had held a very poorly attended referendum on the matter the year before, on 23 June 2016—that was quite a day for referendums. It was a referendum that no lesbian or gay organisation or individual had ever called for, but which the Government insisted on. That referendum suggested, on a turnout of less than 50%, that Bermudians opposed both same-sex marriage and same-sex civil unions by roughly two to one, which was why Justice Charles-Etta Simmons made the following clear in her summation:

    “The politicians failed, the referendum failed, so I will step in and protect the rights of a minority”.​

    Many people in Bermuda, and in many other overseas territories and countries around the world, rejoiced at that moment.

    There were two sensible, non-confrontational courses that the Bermudian Government could have taken: abide by the ruling of the Court; or appeal to the Privy Council in this country—that is the standard process for appealing a decision. In fact, the Minister of Home Affairs announced on 9 May that the Government would not appeal, and on 31 May, the first same-sex marriage took place in Bermuda. There have now been eight such marriages in total and four further publications of banns of marriage.

    Then came a new Government, after an election, who decided to draft a law to abolish same-sex marriage and replace it with “domestic partnerships”, albeit allowing those same-sex marriages that had already been celebrated to stand, rather in a position of limbo. It is a deeply unpleasant and very cynical piece of legislation. It sounds quite nice on the face of it, as if it is just the same as civil partnerships in this country, but it is not. It seeks to keep marriage officers separate from domestic partnerships officers, as if to protect them from some kind of infection. It allows a domestic partnership to be voided on the sole grounds of “venereal disease”. It was introduced by a Government whose members have openly declared that they are opposed to civil unions of any kind whatsoever and pretended not even to know that same-sex couples have regularly been denied the right to make important medical decisions on behalf of their sick and dying partners in Bermuda.

    Section 53 of the law states:

    “Notwithstanding anything in the Human Rights Act 1981, any other provision of law or the judgment of the Supreme Court in Godwin and DeRoche v The Registrar General and others delivered on 5 May 2017, a marriage is void unless the parties are respectively male and female.”

    In all the history of legislation, I have never seen a measure that so clearly declares from the outset that it is inconsistent with all the other laws in the land, including the Human Rights Act, the constitution and the judgment of the Supreme Court. It is almost begging the Supreme Court to come to exactly the same decision as it did last year. Unfortunately, this Bill was agreed by both Houses in Bermuda on 8 December, but it cannot become law unless and until the UK-appointed Governor, John Rankin, signifies Royal Assent on behalf of the Government, which so far he has not done.

    I believe that the Governor is entirely within his rights to delay a final decision or, if he chooses, to refuse Royal Assent, as the Bermudian constitution states at section 35:

    “unless he has been authorised by a Secretary of State to assent thereto, the Governor shall reserve for the signification of Her Majesty’s pleasure any bill which appears to him, acting in his discretion—

    (a) to be inconsistent with any obligation of Her Majesty or of Her Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom towards any other state or power or any international organisation;

    (b) to be likely to prejudice the Royal prerogative;

    (c) to be in any way repugnant to or inconsistent with the provisions of this Constitution;

    (d) to affect any matter for which he is responsible under section 62 of this Constitution; or

    (e) to relate to currency or banking.”

    On the basis of least two of those limbs, the Governor has very good cause not to grant Royal Assent.​

    As section 12 of the constitution expressly guarantees freedom from discrimination and the Bermudian Human Rights Act 1981 also expressly prohibits discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation on at least seven different points, it is difficult to disagree with the Supreme Court, and therefore equally difficult to see how the Governor could agree Royal Assent. There are other reasons why the Governor should withhold assent. It would have been one thing if the Bermudian Government had introduced civil partnerships as a forward step when there was no such provision in law in Bermuda, but this is a retrograde step—it is taking a step backwards—that deliberately limits the rights currently enjoyed by many Bermudians.

    Incidentally, this is not just a matter of marriages contracted in Bermuda. The law also applies to Bermuda-registered ships, including many cruise liners that used to be registered out of the United Kingdom, so the service of marriage at sea that Cunard and P&O offer, such as on the Queen Mary 2, the Queen Victoria and the Queen Elizabeth—there is some irony in this—is currently available to same-sex couples. I understand that there was a great big party on one P&O liner when the Supreme Court decision was announced—considerable amounts of champagne were drunk—and there have since been three same-sex marriages on board P&O cruise liners. If the proposed law goes ahead, those marriages will cease. Cunard believes it is likely that Bermudian law will not permit a same-sex wedding ceremony on board its ships after the end of this month, adding:

    “We are very unhappy about this decision and we do not underestimate the disappointment this will cause those guests who have planned their weddings.”

    I am certain that those people will be taking new cases to the Supreme Court in Bermuda.

    I have received a great number of emails, tweets and messages about this issue. Some of them have been quite pleasant, but others have not. Some have told me in very robust terms to butt out, saying this should just be up to Bermuda, but I disagree. This matter impinges on how Britain is viewed around the world, and I take just as active an interest in the human rights of LGBT people in Moscow, Tehran and Beijing as I do in the human rights of those in Hamilton, because the thing is that human rights are, to use a Biblical phrase, a seamless garment. We cannot divide them up. As one Bermudian put it in an email to me,

    “all people have the right to be equal under the law and the right to exercise their full range of human rights, without exception. This is how I live my life and this is what I encourage others around me”

    to do.

    Black and white, man and woman, gay and straight, Russian, Iranian, American, Canadian and Bermudian—it is all exactly the same. We are all human beings and our human rights should not differ. To the person who told me not to interfere because we have not yet sorted out Northern Ireland, I should add that when the Labour Government legislated in favour of LGBT rights in England and Wales, we decided to advance that legislation in Northern Ireland as well, even when Northern Irish politicians objected. The Government here in Westminster need to look hard at the situation in Northern Ireland and implement equality. It is unfair that our Northern Irish brothers and sisters are unable to enjoy the same rights as everybody else.​

    Some people say, “You change hearts and minds first, and then you change the law.” I profoundly disagree with that. There is clear evidence that changing the law helps to change people’s hearts and minds. For two centuries and more, people—including people who considered themselves to be good upstanding Christians—considered slavery to be just part of the natural order. It was laid down and allowed. Indeed, many bishops had large plantations and many slaves. We now know that that was a cruel and despotic belief. Today, we find it unthinkable that people could conceive of slavery as acceptable.

    It is my profound belief that in 100 years’ time, people will wonder what on earth people were thinking when they condemned homosexuality as a sin, when they barred gay and lesbian couples from declaring their love for one another in marriage, and when they fought tooth and nail to say that marriage had to be exclusively between a man and a woman. Because, really, what harm does it do anyone else if two men are allowed to marry? Has the sky fallen in in Bermuda? Have straight husbands suddenly abandoned their wives, or have heterosexual wives run off with each other? Have straight marriages lost their sparkle? Of course they have not.

    If anything, straight couples should be rejoicing that so many people want to form long-lasting, stable relationships and to get married, because marriage is a thing of beauty. The public declaration of love between two people—from this day forward, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part—binds people and families together. It gives a safe home to thousands of children and to elderly parents as well. It enriches life and gives hope, and often it banishes the loneliness that for generations and generations gay men and lesbian women thought would be their lot.

    For many gay men and lesbian couples, same-sex marriage provides a public affirmation that chases away the ghosts of shame and self-loathing that so many grew up with thanks to the hateful judgmentalism of others. Why on earth would anyone want to deny that to anyone else? Why on earth would a Christian want to deny that to anyone else? Why on earth would we perpetuate the homophobia that has left youngsters emotionally bruised by hateful taunts in the playground, or physically battered almost to death outside gay bars because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time?

    Of course I would much prefer it if the Governor did not sign the Domestic Partnership Bill into law—if he did not grant assent. I hope he does not, and I hope that the Foreign Secretary does not instruct him to do so. If necessary, I hope he just lets it lie on the table until the Supreme Court has another go, as it almost certainly will. What would be even better, if I am honest, would be if the Bermudian Government thought again, respected all their fellow citizens, embraced the principle that the first rule of equality is to protect minorities, and withdrew the Domestic Partnership Bill. I say to the Minister for Home Affairs in Bermuda, the honourable Walton Brown, “If you withdraw the Bill, it will one day be the single action in your political career of which you will be most proud. One day it will be, and your children, grandchildren and great grandchildren will say, ‘That is what he did.’”

    To the Premier, the honourable David Burt, I would add, “You are a very clever man. You graduated cum laude from George Washington University and you led ​the Progressive Labour Party very successfully to power in the elections last year. You have said publicly that homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice, and that this is not really about your religious beliefs, and yet you hold that same-sex marriage is just not culturally acceptable. Those are your words.” I am sorry, but that is just cruel. If this is an innate part of some people’s personality—some would say that God created them that way—it is simply cruel to deny an opportunity that everybody else would want for themselves. It is not rational and it is not progressive—it is just naked prejudice.

    The Labour party of which I am a member has always supported LGBT rights, even in the dark days of the Victorians, the Edwardians and the Georgians, right up to legislating to get rid of the horrible legislation in the 1960s. I say to Bermuda and to the Premier of Bermuda, “I hope you change your mind.” I hope Bermuda changes its mind, and I hope the Government do not sign this legislation into law.