UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Tom Watson – 2017 Speech to Labour Party Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Tom Watson, the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, at the Labour Party conference held in Brighton on 26 September 2017.

    Conference, thank you for being here. Thanks for your enthusiasm, for your passion, for all your hard work on behalf of the Labour Party, on behalf of our country. I’m grateful to every one of you.

    Last week, the Prime Minister made yet another speech to reboot, yet again, her Brexit strategy. She chose to deliver this latest oration in the great city of Florence, though no-one seems to know why. For politicians, Florence, even more than the city of Dante, the Medicis and Michelangelo, is the city of Niccolo Machiavelli.

    I can only assume Michael Gove picked the venue. Michael Gove, who undermined his own Tory leadership bid last year, by admitting he doesn’t have the right skills to be Prime Minster. For once in his life, he was right. Trouble is, none of the rest of them do either.

    So now he’s back. Machiavelli’s famous advice was that it’s better to be feared than to be loved. This mantra runs as deep in the Tory Party as blue through a stick of Brighton rock. Fear is how they win. Fear is how they govern.

    It’s fear of strangers behind this Government’s callous treatment of EU citizens living here. It’s with the peddled fear of economic ruin that they justify their cruelty to our nurses and teachers, our armed forces and our police officers. It’s with fear that they hammer our poorest and most vulnerable, while turning a blind eye to their plutocrat friends.

    I’m going to be honest with you, Conference: fear is a powerful force. It won the Conservative Party elections in 2010 and in 2015. But this year, something magical happened. The spell has been broken. Jeremy told this country that we don’t need to be afraid. That another way is possible. That living in fear is not inevitable: we can choose to live in love and hope instead.

    And this country, our great country, began to throw off the shackles.

    Mrs May, the Tory Party was never loved. But you were happy to be feared. It worked for you. Well not any more. 15 months in, you still seem as dazed as on day one. Caught between your enemies and, even worse, your friends. Caught in the headlights. Living on Boris time.

    As Shadow Culture Secretary, I’ve got one of the best jobs there is. When I get invited to the theatre or to the cinema or, yes, to Glastonbury, I get to say I’m only there for work. And one of the most surreal moments of my political life happened to me late at night, in a field, surrounded by people much younger and far more stylish than me.

    I realised something as the crowd at Glastonbury’s silent disco began to sing:

    “Oh, Jeremy Corbyn….” And as they sang, I realised it’s actually better to be loved than to be feared. And Jeremy has shown us that it’s possible.

    Thank you Jeremy.

    There are some serious bits to my job, too, though. It’s not all music festivals and opening nights. Digital, culture, media and sport are key battlegrounds in our fight against fear and despair.

    And alongside me in those battles I have the best Shadow DCMS team you could want: Kevin Brennan, my deputy, Rosena Allin-Khan, Liam Byrne, Steve Reed, Ruth Smeeth and Wilf Stevenson.

    And we’ve recently lost Louise Haigh, the finest mind of her generation, who was rightly promoted to join Diane’s team in the shadow Home Office.

    And we have a leader in Jeremy who stamped his leadership on culture policy when the two of us launched our innovative culture manifesto in Hull – deservedly the UK City of Culture.

    What a great job they’ve done this year. An early priority for our DCMS team in Government will be to finally confront problem gambling. Of course, gambling isn’t risk free. Even bets you think are absolute certainties can end up costing you a lot. Just ask Theresa May.

    That was a joke, by the way, but it’s a serious problem. The damage to the families of gambling addicts can be terrible. Yet some gambling firms, driven by greed, are deliberately targeting our poorest communities. We now know that when vulnerable people try to opt out of online gambling, companies don’t always block their accounts as they should.

    Gambling companies are even harvesting data to deliberately target low-income gamblers and people who’ve given up.

    As Mike Dixon, boss of mental health charity Addaction says, “gambling addiction tears lives and families apart. It’s outrageous that an industry with a £13bn revenue contributes less than £10m to treatment”.

    Well Mike, I can tell you that a Labour Government will introduce a compulsory levy.

    Can you imagine the uproar if the drinks industry started targeting Alcoholics Anonymous by selling drink outside AA meetings? We wouldn’t tolerate that – and we shouldn’t tolerate the same kind of behavior by some bookmakers. And addicts must be given the help they need. Gambling addiction is an illness and it’s about time it was taken seriously.

    So I can announce today that, together with Jonathan Ashworth, our shadow Health Secretary, I’m launching a thorough review of gambling addiction in this country and current provision for treatment on the NHS. Jon Ashworth, by the way: what a sparkling star of Labour’s front bench. He’s going to be an outstanding Health Secretary in the next Labour Government.

    Our review will look at how best to fund NHS treatment and help free problem gamblers from the destructive cycle of addiction. My message to gambling firms today is clear: stop targeting vulnerable people. Start acting properly. And meet your obligation to help those whose lives have been blighted by addiction.

    You can do it now, because it’s the right thing to do. Or you can wait for the next Labour Government to do it for you.

    Oh and by the way, the same applies to the organisations that run football in this country. If you won’t ban football clubs from signing shirt sponsorship deals with betting companies – Labour will.

    Conference, as I said, I know how lucky I am. I love my job. Serving my constituents in West Bromwich, serving the Party, serving each of you as Deputy Leader. There’s no better job – perhaps that’s why so many people want to do it.

    But I know not everyone’s as lucky as me. More and more are being left behind by an economy that serves the few, not the many.

    And the world’s changing in ways we can’t continue to ignore: the labour market’s polarising. Today’s choice for too many young people is precarious employment or no employment, a zero hours contract or no contract, shabby, dangerous, soul-destroying work, or no work at all.

    Income inequality in Britain is amongst the highest in the developed world. Inequality between those with fulfilment and security in work, and those without it is growing too.

    This is a stain on our country. But the Tories just shrug their shoulders and say there’s no alternative.

    Just like they did on low pay, before our party introduced the minimum wage. Just like they did on maternity rights, before we secured them. Just like they did on healthcare, before we created the NHS to treat the many, not just the few.

    And the Tories are still doing it now. Transport for London has told Uber it has to follow the same rules as everyone else. Nothing more. That it can run its mini-cab service, as long as they respect our rules. Treat your customers with respect and keep them safe, like everyone else has to. And then you’ll be welcome to make money in London.

    Uber, you’re becoming the perfect picture of how the future gig economy must not look. You may think you’re immune because your friends in the Tory party run Britain and its newspapers. You know the Tories don’t care about level playing fields and orderly markets. They don’t care about consumer protection. They certainly don’t care about workers’ rights. But they don’t run London – and that’s where you make your money.

    And, mark my words, they won’t be running Britain for much longer. Conservatives don’t have the imagination to embrace change. They never have. Theresa May summed it up in her now infamous line from the election:

    “Nothing has changed.

    Nothing. Has. Changed.”

    So: no lessons learned. No message received. It’s the same old Tories. No end to austerity. No change for public servants who deserve a pay rise. No change for the millions who desperately need something different. The truth is, the Tories don’t really want to change things.

    But Labour does. And when Jeremy forms the next Government, Labour will. A time for change is upon us. The old fear is gone. We’re ready for bold, transformative reform, hungry for it.

    That’s what Labour’s campaign showed – as hundreds of thousands knocked on doors, went to rallies, got out the vote and delivered stunning Labour victories in Tory strongholds like Canterbury. Like Kensington.

    This year’s election showed that real change is possible. We can and we will form a radical Government which does things differently.

    We have the imagination; we have the drive; we have the momentum. The fight is so important. Not just because we need to undo the damage of all these years of Tory rule. But because fresh challenges lie ahead.

    On the horizon – in sight, in the next few years – automation and artificial intelligence threatening jobs and wages on a scale the world has never seen. Digital platforms making access to work much more direct and immediate. But the quality of that work, the safeguards, the wages, the pensions – too often these are cast aside, disguised as innovation.

    Whereas Labour believes that secure, high-quality work should be available to every adult who wants it. And in order to get it, in the digital age, the successful worker will need to be a creative worker. It’s the job of Government to make that happen. And that starts with education.

    In an age when every child has access to all the knowledge that has ever existed on a device that fits in the palm of their hand, just teaching them to memorise thousands of facts is missing the point. Michael Gove’s curriculum reforms were a useless return to the past – obsessed by what children can remember, instead of how they use the knowledge they have.

    We don’t yet know what the jobs of the future will be, so we’ve got to teach children not just what to learn but how to learn. And how to be. Self-awareness, emotional intelligence, social skills, creativity and collaborative learning. Transferable skills they can adapt as the new world swirls around them.

    Great schools are places of imagination, inspiration, love.They help our young people become great humans, constantly adjusting in a continually changing world. Such schools are as powerful as the creative imaginations they nurture. They’re fabulous places. And, let’s be clear, they do exist.

    But let’s be equally clear that they exist in spite of Michael Gove, Nicky Morgan and Justine Greening, and all the other names of Tory shame. If it was left up to them, our children would be totally ill equipped for the economy of now – let alone the economy of the future.

    Whereas Angela Rayner, our fantastic Shadow Education Secretary, will lead an education system that prepares our young people for a world we can’t yet see.

    Angie’s talked about how a Labour Government helped her grow from teenage mom into Shadow Minister. Our education system failed her at first, but when she’s running it, she won’t let it fail the next generation. We’re all so proud of her. So proud of what she’s going to do.

    The next Labour Government will educate and train a nation of workers that are the most creative and adaptive on the planet. We’ll give working people the tools to use technology to enhance their lives, rather than restricting them to a digital elite.

    The digital economy succeeds only when it gives each of us the means to realise our true potential. Which doesn’t stop in our schools. It must be threaded throughout our economy, throughout our lives.

    So let’s extend employment rights to all workers in the gig economy – the self-employed, agency workers and contractors as well as the traditionally employed. Let’s stop dancing on the head of a legalistic pin about when is a job not a job and when is self-employed not really self-employed. It’s a fake fight which big business always wins and Tory governments love to hide behind.

    So let’s put an end to all that and just give rights to people. Yes, in one of the richest countries in the world in the 21st century, let’s just make basic employment rights non-negotiable in all circumstances and give them to everybody.

    Anybody tells you it can’t be done, it’s because they don’t want to do it. They said it about the minimum wage. They said it about maternity rights. They said it about the NHS. Don’t let them frighten you out of the rights you deserve.

    We need to revolutionise our trade unions for the digital age, finding new ways to build solidarity and collectivism.

    And let’s not forget social enterprises: community-focused, people-oriented companies, that have thrived since the recession and will be vital to unlocking the future.

    At last year’s Conference, I announced an independent commission to look at the future of work. It will be reporting shortly, having done a tremendous job, and I’d like to thank the chair, Helen Mountfield, and all the Commissioners.

    This year, Conference, together, we rewrote the rules of politics. We overcame fear and we took the country with us. Using new digital platforms, instead of our biased media, we talked straight to the people and they heard our message.

    In contrast, last September Theresa May had a secret meeting with Rupert Murdoch in New York. Nine months later, at the election, Murdoch’s papers did their best to start a Tory landslide. They threw the kitchen sink at Jeremy. But this time the dirty tricks didn’t work. This time it was not the Sun wot won it.

    And let me tell you, Conference: it never will be the Sun wot won it again.

    Winding up my speech last year, I predicted an early election. In which, I also said, we’re going to give the Tories the surprise of their lives. Well conference, we did it.

    Jeremy, you did it. So this year I’m going to go out on another limb.

    Yes, there’s hard work to do and no, we mustn’t be complacent, but Jeremy Corbyn has broken the spell of fear the Tories sought to cast on this country. He has helped us all to remember that politics should be about inspiring hope, not peddling despair. He has shown us again what a real alternative to Toryism looks like and what it can achieve.

    And because of that, I tell you, Conference, Jeremy Corbyn will be our next Prime Minister.

    And in ten or twelve years’ time, this Conference will be celebrating the achievements of two transformative terms of Labour government:

    Abolishing tuition fees and reintroducing the education maintenance allowance;

    Taking back our utilities into social ownership;

    Re-nationalising our railways;

    A £10/hour real living wage, and rising;

    Hundreds of thousands of new council houses;

    Waiting lists down by at least a million and A&E waiting times back to 4 hours;

    No more Tory hospital closures;

    Freezing the state pension age;

    Free school meals for all primary school children and smaller class sizes;

    Banning zero hours contracts and giving all workers full and equal rights from day one.

    That’s what a Labour Government looks like. That’s what we do. That’s who we are.

    Politics now is a fight between those who want to be feared and those who’re not frightened to love. Britain’s run out of patience with the tin-pot Machiavellis. Boris Johnson, Michael Gove, Liam Fox and the rest of you: your time is up.

    This country is ready for change. Ready to throw off the shackles, to turn back the tide; ready to do the right thing and to do the thing right. In place of fear, love.

    Conference, Britain is ready for Labour.

    Love wins and so will we.

    Thank you.

  • Sadiq Khan – 2017 Speech to Labour Party Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Sadiq Khan, the Labour Mayor of London, at the Labour Party Conference held in Brighton on 25 September 2017.

    Conference, it’s great to be back in Labour Brighton. And it’s great to see our Labour Party so fired up under Jeremy Corbyn. Labour confounded all expectations at the general election this year.

    Let’s be clear, Theresa May called this snap election to try and wipe us out. And boy did she fail.

    It was inspiring to see millions of people vote for the first time – especially so many young people. And it was inspiring to see so many people who used to vote for our Party return home to Labour.

    We made huge progress in the general election and the credit for that goes to one person – the leader of our party – Jeremy Corbyn.

    He mobilised our movement. He motivated our activists and reached voters we hadn’t reached before. Thanks to the hard work of Labour members and trade unionists, London elected four fantastic new Labour MPs.

    We now have a Labour Member of Parliament representing Battersea, Enfield Southgate,Croydon Central, and, yes, Labour Kensington. Let’s hear it for our Labour gains in London. Our new MPs: Marsha de Cordova; Bambos Charalambous; Sarah Jones and Emma Dent Coad.

    And by the way – hasn’t Emma been an amazing advocate for the neglected residents affected by the terrible Grenfell fire?

    As a united Labour family we’re on the march. This year’s election came during an unbelievably difficult time for London, our capital,the city I love so much. It’s been one of the darkest times in London’s recent history. We’ve been through too much suffering, too much horror, and too much loss. The terrorist attack on Westminster – the heart of our democracy. The attack on innocent people, enjoying a night out in London Bridge and Borough Market. The horrific fire at Grenfell Tower. The attack on innocent people near Finsbury Park Mosque during Ramadan. And the attack at Parsons Green station on Londoners, as they travelled into work and school.

    Nobody expects such tragedy. And no one should tolerate it. We prepare and practice for the worst, but we hope and pray it will never happen. Keeping Londoners safe is my top priority. And in all honesty, it’s hard – by far the hardest part of my job. It really does keep me awake at night.

    Fearing the call in the early hours that came too often this summer, to say the worst had happened. More innocent Londoners, who have experienced unimaginable horrors to help and console. More funerals to attend of those who have been killed. And always, always more to do to keep Londoners safe.

    But Conference – there are some people who spend their entire lives trying to stop these terrible events and who lead our response when they happen. Whose job it is to put themselves in harm’s way, every day, to try to keep the rest of us safe. And who do it with dedication, professionalism and heroism.

    Conference, please stand and join me to show your appreciation to our amazing emergency services. Thanks to our police officers, community support officers and staff. Thanks to our firefighters and control room operators. Thanks to our frontline NHS staff, and all who support them – our paramedics, nurses, doctors and health workers. And thanks to our transport staff who are so often on the front line.

    On behalf of all Londoners – and the entire Labour Party – thank you for everything you do. You truly are heroes.

    In the darkness of this year the bravery of our emergency services has been a beacon of hope. We have witnessed incredible courage and self-sacrifice. Like PC Keith Palmer, who was tragically killed in the line of duty while protecting Parliament. Although he was unarmed, he didn’t hesitate before confronting the attacker. Rarely has a St George’s medal for bravery been so deserved. And our thoughts and prayers will always remain with his family and friends.

    Or take Colleen Anderson, a junior doctor at St Thomas’ Hospital. When she saw the attack from the hospital window, she rushed across the river to treat people lying injured in the road.

    Or Wayne Marques, the British Transport Police officer who, single-handedly, took on three armed attackers at London Bridge. Despite suffering terrible wounds, he fought them off until help arrived.

    Or the hundreds of firefighters, who went far above the call of duty to save lives during the fire at Grenfell Tower. Who took extraordinary risks with their own safety.

    And I want to say a special thank you to Dany Cotton – our London Fire Commissioner. Dany led the rescue operation at Grenfell Tower – going into the building and taking those risks alongside our firefighters. I want to thank Dany also for the honesty with which she talked about those awful scenes – and for being so open about receiving counselling after the fire. She’s encouraged many of our emergency responders and ordinary Londoners to do the same.

    And we should thank the brave Transport for London staff, who calmly helped during the attack at Parsons Green station – evacuating the train and leading people to safety – regardless of the risk to themselves.

    There’s no doubt that we face a growing threat. Experts say that the number of terrorist attacks this year is not a spike, but a long-term shift.

    And crime is on the rise again. The types of crime we see are more complicated and harder to tackle. Violent crime is rising even faster – with too many killed or maimed as a result of knife crime or acid attacks. And ever more young people are being groomed and radicalised by evil extremists – whether here or abroad.

    But Conference it doesn’t have to be this way. This all feels very familiar. A weak and divided Tory Government, refusing to face up to the challenges ahead. Bickering and infighting over Europe, putting our jobs and economy at risk. Chronic underinvestment in public services causing a crisis in our schools and hospitals. And crime on the rise.

    But Conference, this isn’t the 1990s. This is now. It’s like Back to the Future, but it isn’t funny. Tory cuts to our emergency services have made it harder to keep us safe. A billion pounds cut from the Met Police – a billion pounds less for London’s policing budget.

    The result? Fewer police officers on our streets. Police stations closed. And neighbourhood policing under attack. Even police counter-terrorism funding has been cut in real terms. The same goes for our fire service. Fewer fire engines. Fewer fire stations. And fewer fire fighters.

    The same story is true in our National Health Service, our councils, our transport network and in every one of our public services.

    Conference – we simply can’t go on like this. The brave men and women of our emergency services can’t do their job when the Tories are cutting their funding every year.

    It must stop. The Government must give our emergency services the real-terms increase in funding that they desperately need – and right now.

    You know, the Tories used to describe themselves as the party of law and order. Well that sounds like a bad joke today. And frankly, as a former Home Secretary, Theresa May should be utterly ashamed of her record.

    Labour is the only Party with a plan to tackle rising crime. Labour is the only Party standing behind the men and women of our emergency services. And Labour is the only Party already making a real difference in towns and cities across the UK.

    A Labour Government will finally put an end to years of Tory cuts to our emergency services. And a Labour Government, led by Jeremy Corbyn, will finally give our emergency services the proper pay rise they so desperately deserve. Not the insulting offer made by the Tories.

    It’s Labour – in London, Manchester, Liverpool and Wales – that has a real plan to tackle violent crime – like gun crime, knife crime and acid attacks. It’s Labour that’s finally making social integration and community cohesion a priority so we can put a stop to the grooming and radicalisation of our young people.

    It’s Labour that’s finally made hate crime and violence against women and girls a top priority for the police. And it’s Labour that’s restoring community trust in our police, and making our emergency services more reflective of the communities they serve.

    You know it made me so proud to be the Labour Mayor when Cressida Dick was appointed as the first woman Met Commissioner in 188 years. And when Dany Cotton was appointed as the first woman Fire Commissioner in the brigade’s history.

    And you know what? They were both appointed on merit as the best people for the job.

    Conference, despite the challenges we’ve faced over the past year – I’m optimistic, positive and hopeful about our future. I’m so proud to call myself British and to call myself a Londoner. I’m confident that both London and the UK have bright futures ahead. That we can become a more prosperous, safe and equal country.

    And, Conference, I’m optimistic about Labour’s future too. Optimistic that we’ll build on the success of Labour in power in London, Manchester, Liverpool and Wales. That we’ll make more progress in the local elections next year.That we’ll make a huge difference to the lives of millions. That we can build a fairer Britain. A more prosperous Britain. A safer Britain.

    And that Labour under Jeremy Corbyn will win the next general election.

    Thank you.

  • Rebecca Long-Bailey – 2017 Speech to Labour Party Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Rebecca Long-Bailey, the Shadow Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, at the Labour Party Conference in Brighton on 25 September 2017.

    Conference, when I was little, my dad would tell me stories of his job in Salford, unloading oil tankers. How we were known as “the workshop of the world”. Life was good for us back then. My dad’s work was unskilled, but it paid well. My parents even managed to get a mortgage for their own little house.

    And from poverty-plagued childhoods, which made the film Angela’s Ashes look like an advert for a luxury minibreak, they felt proud of their achievement! And that was true of so many working class people right across Britain, for the first time in history they were truly being offered the chance to aspire!

    But under Thatcher industries such as my father’s were put into what is so callously called ‘managed decline’. It meant factories shutting their doors, firms moving abroad or simply closing down, lower wages for those who could still find work, and cuts to benefits for those who couldn’t.

    We now have the most regionally imbalanced economy in Europe. 40% of our economic output comes from London and the South East alone. And despite the pretence that we have ‘full employment’, we know the figures hide a worrying truth:

    an insecure, low paid and ‘casualised’ workforce.

    When the Prime Minister called the general election in spring, we were 20 points behind in the polls. The seven weeks that followed saw the biggest narrowing of the polls in British electoral history.

    There were many things that contributed to that turnaround. The passion, integrity and strength of our leader, Jeremy Corbyn. The hard work of the Shadow Cabinet, not least my brilliant team Chi Onwurah, Alan Whitehead, Barry Gardiner, Bill Esterson, Jack Dromey, Gill Furniss and Dan Carden. The hard-work and dedication of every single person in this hall and in our movement.

    But there were other key factors at play. A country fed up with the dogmas of political and economic neglect that, for so many, had only meant so much hardship. And a Manifesto that showed them that it didn’t have to be this way. When we promised an industrial strategy to end the economy’s reliance on the City of London. To properly fund our public services by making the top 5% pay their fair share. And to invest in our energy, transport and digital infrastructure to make it fit for the 21st Century

    When we promised to take the radical action needed to tackle climate change,

    and ensure that 60% of our energy comes from low carbon or renewable sources by 2030. To support projects like Swansea tidal lagoon and Moorside nuclear plant.

    When we promised to introduce a £10 living wage. And to level the playing field between small and big business. We offered a vision of hope. And we offered transformation! Because we know what lies ahead.

    Conference, we are standing on the precipice of the fourth industrial revolution,

    a pace of technological and digital change so immense it will leave you feeling dizzy.

    It will transform industry, it will transform our economy. And it has the potential to transform the quality of life of every single person in Britain.

    But it will only do this if a Labour Government is holding the reins.

    Now I know it’s hard to believe but I was 38 the other day. Just 20 years ago, on my 18th birthday, you had to dial up the internet, you checked your lottery numbers on teletext, my first mobile only received ten text messages, and you taped things off the telly with a cassette, which if, like in our house, you were at the cutting edge of 1990’S interior design, you kept them in those plastic boxes designed to look like books.

    But people in their teens today have no idea what most of those things are.

    And the pace of change we have seen in the last 20 years will pale in comparison to the next 20. Over the last few centuries, we have gradually learnt how to transfer more and more human skills to machines. With current technological breakthroughs, we are, for the first time, designing machines that do cognitive and non-routine work.

    Machines that think!

    But, with some estimates suggesting that half of all jobs could be lost to automation,

    and that few businesses are ready to harness change, it also brings the threat of rising poverty and inequality. There is no doubt about what the digital age will look like under the Tories: monopoly profits for the few, and increased exploitation for the many.

    Only Labour will ensure that workers and businesses are equipped to enjoy the prosperity this changing economy can bring.

    We’ll restore the rights of workers – rolling out sectoral collective bargaining and guaranteeing unions access to the workplace – to ensure that new technology is not just an excuse for disgraced old employment practices. Because there is nothing cutting edge about hire-and-fire, casual contracts.

    We’ll create the conditions for business to make those really ‘transformative’ discoveries which can change all our lives for the better, with an industrial agenda that is so transformational, it will eclipse the new deal set out by Franklin D Roosevelt in the history books.

    We’ll bring investment in research and development in line with other major economies and create national missions to deal with the big issues of our time

    And our National Education Service will allow every single person in this country to obtain the skills they need to thrive in a modern economy and ensure real diversity in our workplaces.

    But it’s not enough for Britain to innovate. We’ll put Britain at the forefront of industrial manufacturing, so that the ideas conceived in Britain are manufactured and delivered here in Britain. ‘Made in Britain’ will not just be an idealistic vision of times gone by, it will be a source of national pride for future generations.

    And finally, we’ll ensure that workers themselves can have a stake in our industrial journey alongside business.

    Imagine if the technology which allows us to hail a taxi or order a takeaway via an app was shared by those who rely on it for work. They would have the power to agree their own terms and conditions and rates of pay, with the profits shared among them or re-invested for the future.

    That’s why we are today launching a Report on Alternative Models of Ownership.

    To start asking fundamental questions about how we achieve real diversity of business in the digital age, and how to ensure that it’s enormous potential benefits serve the many, not the few.

    Now conference, the fourth industrial revolution is here! A time of profound economic and technological change. The Tories have had their chance. We’ve seen how they deal with industrial and technological change. And they have failed.

    We either seize the possibilities it can bring us, technological advancement,

    living standards and leisure time, that even Harold Wilson in the white heat of technology couldn’t have dreamed of! Or we let the Tories consign our heritage as a proud industrial nation to the dustbin of history.

    As Klaus Schwab the Founder and Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum once said:

    “There has never been a time of greater promise, or greater peril.”

    But we are ready! Together we will harness the fruits of the extraordinary changes that are coming. A society with more potential than any before, but built for the many, not the few. Conference, this is our time now!

  • Lord Cashman – 2017 Speech on UK and EU Relations

    Below is the text of the speech made by Lord Cashman in the House of Lords on 12 September 2017.

    My Lords, not for the first time am I delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Framlingham, and give a completely different perspective. As someone who voted to remain in the EU, I assure him that I will certainly not finally bow on what I believe was a wrong decision that does not serve the future of this country.​

    In recent weeks, there has been much speculation about a Brexit transition agreement. Sadly, the position papers—or “shifting position” papers, as I call them—have not helped matters. There is now greater uncertainty, not less. Where there should be clarity on the Government’s position and intention, there is only confusion—especially within the negotiating chamber in Brussels. I have to admit that there seems to be confusion too within my own party on where we want to be post Brexit, but I look forward to a speedy resolution.

    I voted to remain. I oppose Brexit, as is my democratic right, and believe that we must maintain membership of the single market and the customs union at the very least, even if it is along the Norwegian model. Anything else would be national suicide as we throw away the rights fought for by previous generations, such as my father and grandfather, who fought in two world wars for a united Europe—for a Britain in solidarity with Europe, not isolated and aside from Europe. We would be throwing away, too, the rights of younger generations and generations yet to come.

    There are over 3 million EU citizens in this country who face a starkly uncertain future. Everything is no longer certain: their homes; the education of their children; learning and life choices for their families; their employment and retirement prospects; indeed, their very right to reside in a country that they have lived and worked in and where they have played by the rules. Instead of offering those people certainty, the Government use them as cheap bargaining chips in shoddy negotiations. It is entirely unacceptable.

    We cannot even negotiate to offer certainty to British citizens living and working in the EU 27. The emails and messages I have received are truly heartrending: people who have married other EU nationals and raised their families in a country where they thought they were welcome and wanted, only to find that they are now feared by some, resented by others and misrepresented elsewhere. In that regard, elements of the British press have played a despicable and reprehensible part.

    Let me come to some facts about where we are from two surveys. London First and the Lloyds Banking Group have worked together on a UK-wide survey of over 1,000 businesses, both large and small. They found that over half of businesses have faced a negative impact from Brexit. They have been forced to put investment and recruitment decisions on hold and to revise their supply chains. They are seeing reduced demand for products and services. Some 40% of UK businesses believe a transitional agreement will have a positive impact, enabling them to unblock investment or recruitment decisions. Those businesses that see a transition agreement as having a positive impact want to see an agreement that covers all the elements of the existing EU relationships, including freedom of goods, services, capital, talent—yes, that means people—a common set of tariffs and EU legal arrangements. For those businesses, continued access to the people they need is their number one concern; they call for the Government to give a unilateral, unconditional guarantee to the EU citizens already living and working in the UK, and to set out plans for a fair and managed approach to future immigration policy—a call I am sure every decent person would endorse.​
    In another survey, Focus on Labour Exploitation—FLEX—and the Labour Exploitation Advisory Group explore how migrant worker vulnerability to exploitation has been affected by the UK referendum. Sadly, they highlight uncertainties creating conditions for vulnerability. There is a rise in hate crime and hostility post referendum that contributes to a general sense of being unwelcome and makes migrant workers feel like second-class citizens in the UK.

    These are the human consequences of Brexit. We must keep these people and their families and their deep and all-consuming concerns at the forefront of our minds in all our deliberations and negotiations. In the Brexit negotiations, now more than ever before, we need leadership allied with courage, imagination, flair and daring. Sadly, as I look out across the Brexit horizon, I see none.

  • Lord Hannay – 2017 Speech on UK and EU Relations

    Below is the text of the speech made by Lord Hannay of Chiswick in the House of Lords on 12 September 2017.

    My Lords, reading the 12 papers—I am afraid I have managed only to get to 12 because the Minister added one that arrived at lunchtime today—has struck me as a pretty depressing experience, even if one does not throw in for good measure the leaked paper on immigration policy which we are told is not government policy, or at least not yet. It is depressing because there are so many words yet so little substance, so few clear indications of what sort of outcome the Government are hoping to achieve in the Brexit negotiations—and that when a quarter of time for their completion has already been frittered away.

    It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Government are still playing hide-and- seek with Parliament. That is bad enough when it is Parliament which is meant to be taking back control from Brussels over these matters, but what is worse is that the Government seem to be playing hide-and-seek with our negotiating partners, too. No doubt there is an element of the tactical in the complaints from Brussels of a lack of clarity in the Government’s negotiating position, but these papers demonstrate pretty graphically that those complaints are not simply tactical. That is serious indeed, because successful negotiation requires each side to have some clarity about what the other is seeking to achieve.

    Many of the papers are just “cut and paste” jobs; for example, the paper on The Exchange and Protection of Personal Data. Often, it is simple common sense, as in this case it is, to conclude that it is essential to avoid the fragmentation of a currently frictionless entity, the exchange of data right across Europe, but the paper is remarkably coy about the fact that to achieve that objective on a lasting basis, we will need to mirror here any future changes in the EU’s data protection regime and any rulings on it by the European Court of Justice. That data protection iceberg conceals a mass of other EU regulatory functions, some 35 at the last count, on which the Government have not yet revealed their hand.

    Other papers were obscure to the point incomprehensibility. I instance the paper on Enforcement and Dispute Resolution. It is fairly clear that the Government have at last realised that the line that the Prime Minister drew at last October’s party conference on the outright rejection of any jurisdiction of the ​European Court of Justice is simply unnegotiable. So they are moving crab-wise away from it, inventing a new description, “direct” jurisdiction, and juxtaposing it with “indirect” jurisdiction. We are now told that direct jurisdiction remains taboo, but indirect, by admission, is not. How is that to be done? Just producing an academic list of the options, which is what the Government’s paper does, is not a negotiating strategy. If, as I would suspect, something along the lines of the EFTA court is required, why not simply say so?

    Then there are the papers such as the one on Northern Ireland and that on customs arrangements, which suddenly surface completely unprepared and out of the blue new and untried solutions—what the Secretary of State for DExEU called blue-sky thinking—but without a trace of any detail or any evidence-based underpinning. Indeed, the new customs arrangements are described in the paper as “unprecedented” and “challenging to implement”—words that could have come from a script for “Yes Minister”.

    The paper on co-operation on science and innovation is welcome if belated, but it conceals that this chapter of EU budget expenditure—one of the most rapidly growing chapters of that budget and set to continue to be so—is one from which we have derived huge net benefits. That is surely unlikely to survive any new arrangement when we are outside. The paper glosses over rather unconvincingly the fact that we will no longer have a full say on the EU scientific and research programmes, which will be decided by the 27 without our participation.

    Is this all unduly critical of the Government’s approach? I do not think so. The Brexit negotiations are not going particularly well and there is little or nothing in these papers that we are debating today which will help them to do any better. Nor, I fear, is the Government’s relationship with this House over Brexit going particularly well. Last week, the Government’s response to your Lordships’ report on the Irish dimension arrived one hour before the debate began and seven months after it should have been available. Today, the Government produced a new paper in the series that we are debating which was available only an hour or two before the debate began. That, frankly, is no way to run a railroad, let alone a Parliament.

  • Baroness Stedman-Scott – 2017 Speech on the English Baccalaureate

    Below is the text of the speech made by Baroness Stedman-Scott in the House of Lords on 14 September 2017.

    My Lords, I begin this debate by declaring my relevant interests: I am a governor of Bexhill Academy and chair of the Suffolk Youth Pledge. I am grateful for the opportunity to have this important debate and I look forward to all ​noble Lords’ contributions and thank them for the time that they have invested in preparing to take part. I also thank the many organisations that have sent briefings, which show that they really understand the challenges faced by our education establishments, employers and young people.

    Today we will debate the impact of the English Baccalaureate on the take-up of creative and technical subjects and the case for broadening the curriculum to create a coherent and unified 14 to 19 phase. Looking back on previous Questions and debates on this subject, I am mindful that we would do well not to repeat much of those previous contributions. I think, however, that this hope might be too ambitious—so no promises, but let us try. I also hope that we can debate this today in the spirit of how we help, and what is best for, our young people who are either entering, or are already in our education system, to ensure that we are preparing them for a future in which they can compete with the knowledge, skills and confidence to succeed and be full of hope and aspiration. Let us make the facts speak for themselves.

    I think it might be helpful for me to outline why I wanted to hold this debate. The economy needs businesses at this time—they are a main contributor to achieving a good economy and, in order to do so, they need people in their workforce who are well educated, both academically and technically, and are motivated and highly skilled. Building such a workforce starts at the earliest point of a young person’s education. Not all pupils—and I count myself here—thrive and succeed in a purely academic environment. Many are suited to one that is more technical and practical. For young people in this category, it can be apparent at a very early stage that it would be helpful for them to start their journey on that route sooner rather than later. Our education system does a good job for the majority but, for those who are not suited to a purely academic future, it sometimes does not do all that it could. Let me say now that I am not knocking the EBacc, but asking for it to be able to accommodate more GCSEs that employers in the creative industries need for their workforce and that, for those who need it, the journey will start sooner rather than later.

    Originally it was the Government’s plan for 75% of young people to study the EBacc by 2022, rising to 90% in 2025. I understand that the Department for Education has now confirmed that:

    “In the light of the consultation responses, we have also decided that it is not appropriate to expect the same rates of EBacc entry from UTCs, studio schools and further education colleges with key stage 4 provision as in mainstream schools. The pupil cohorts in these education settings will therefore not be included in the calculation of the 75% ambition for 2022, or the 90% ambition for 2025”.

    I thank the Government and congratulate them on taking account of this issue raised in the consultation and on their decision. I also take this opportunity to thank the Minister and his colleagues for all their efforts to ensure that we have a system that is fit for purpose. On the face of it, I think the decision means that UTCs, studio schools and further education colleges are now exempt from this performance measure. It would be helpful if the Minister could confirm that ​I have understood this correctly and that performance at these establishments will be reported on the basis that they are exempt, because, if not, they will appear to be failing when they are not.

    I used to be a patron of a studio school that tragically closed. There were many reasons for that, not just one. However, if the change in reporting to which I have previously referred had been in place, the school’s success would have been more appreciated. In fact, for every year that the school operated as a studio school, every single one of its graduates went on to higher education at the establishment of their choice: none went into clearing. In 2016, the studio school was the 15th in the country for pupil progress from 16 to 19, and in 2017, every student got A* or distinction in theatre arts. As I understand it, it was the best in the county.

    Studio schools were established to be industry-facing schools and align their curriculum with the needs of the current and future labour markets. The creative industries have long been recognised as a sector which can provide rewarding careers for young people, and many studio schools have focused on these industries. Subjects taught at these schools have been carefully selected with significant input from the creative industries, both nationally and locally. If I have understood the position correctly, there has been no demand from employers to teach the EBacc. Indeed, often there is resistance rather than demand. However, I acknowledge that many students studying EBacc at A-level have found that that opens up a wider range of opportunities as regards their choice of university.

    I know that all noble Lords are distressed, as I am, that our noble friend Lady Fookes has been very unwell for such a long time. In fact, at one point I thought that we were going to lose her, but noble Lords would expect her to fight back and that is exactly what she is doing. I know that she is on the mend because she sent me a message this morning to tell me that she was very sorry she could not be present for this debate but that, if she could have been here, she would have said the following: “The point I would make is that discovering and encouraging artistic talent in unlikely places is extremely difficult and does not lend itself to the methods used for measuring intellectual ability. It’s like chasing a will o’ the wisp”. I am sure that we wish my noble friend a continued recovery.

    Across the country, the engineering, manufacturing and creative sectors are critical to the success of our economy. Combined, they are worth more than £500 billion—29% of the overall economy. The challenges facing our economy need no repeating in this debate. We know that we need to develop our home-grown talent to ensure that we produce a highly motivated and skilled workforce. We need to build on the progress made on the skills agenda and we need to make sure that the EBacc reflects the needs of the industry and fulfils the aspirations and abilities of young people so that they can play their part in this critically important workforce.

    I am very sad to say that between 2010 and 2017, total entries for GCSE creative subjects have fallen by 28%. I do not want to be too dramatic but I shall provide some context for that. It equates to about ​181,000 GCSE entries. The most dramatic drop is in design and technology, which shows a drop in take-up of some 116,000 entries, equating to 43%.

    It is argued that the EBacc is just a core and that pupils are able to study creative and technical GCSEs in addition. For most young people who study nine to 10 GCSEs, this may well be true. However, the lowest quartile of attainers take an average of six to seven GCSEs each, ironically making the narrow academic EBacc the whole diet for those young people, who are more at risk of disengagement but may be wholly suited to a career in the creative industries if they follow the right route.

    While 40% of young people across the country are now entered for the EBacc range of subjects, just 26% pass it—I understand that is increasing—so we run the risk of creating a generation of young people who either have a narrow range of academic skills or will feel that they have already failed at the age of 16. We cannot have that and we must avoid it.

    I looked at what other people have said, as that is important. As the Social Mobility Commission has recognised, the EBacc is a recipe for some young people’s disengagement. In my time at Tomorrow’s People, I saw the impact this had on the lives of young people. There is a solution worthy of our consideration. I would like us to broaden the EBacc to include a creative and a technical subject to give every young person a truly broad, relevant and balanced curriculum.

    In preparing for this debate, I looked at what works well in other countries. There is evidence from Germany that a more academic curriculum resulted in an increase in disengagement with school and attendance drop-off. This led me to look at what was happening around the world. I thank the Edge Foundation for giving me some very good information. In a passage from one of its papers headed, “Learning from world leaders”, we read:

    “England is one of a handful of countries where 16 is the strict dividing line between lower and upper secondary education. Elsewhere in Europe, choices are usually made earlier”.

    One example of this is Austria. The facilities in Austria for young people to enter an engineering career cover the following: classroom tuition, practical experience in workshops, a range of equipment for manufacturing and measuring metal and plastic components, IT and computer-aided design. This has contributed to Austria having one of the lowest youth unemployment rates in the EU. In countries where a high proportion of students choose a technical and vocational path, there are often lower rates of youth unemployment and vice versa.

    Our Government’s technical education reforms are to be welcomed and built on, but, in summary, the impact of the EBacc could be seen as not meeting the needs of employers in a market with great economic growth and potential; not preparing some young people to meet their aspirations and potential in a predominantly academic system; a significant reduction in GCSE take-up, which has a negative impact on employers having the highly motivated and skilled workforce they need; and not starting early enough for many young people, thus making them follow a route which, for them, is not fit for purpose.​
    There is much to be proud of with the EBacc. Let us build on what we have to ensure that we give up the best to get the better and have a system that includes high-quality employer engagement and careers advice and provides a broad and balanced curriculum which suits all young people. It needs to culminate in a coherent and wide-ranging true baccalaureate and be judged on the strength of young people’s successful destinations into apprenticeships, university and work.

    A cross-party group from this House meets informally to discuss this issue. Would the Minister like to join us for one of those meetings? I do not say that because we want to put on a performance, bang the table or jump up and down; we are way past that sort of thing. However, I think that we would all find the Minister’s comments helpful and would hope that they would move us forward. I beg to move.

  • Justine Greening – 2017 Statement on National Funding Formula for Schools

    Below is the text of the statement made by Justine Greening, the Secretary of State for Education, in the House of Commons on 14 September 2017.

    In my statement to the House on 17 July, I set out my Department’s plans to increase spending on schools by £1.3 billion over the next two years, on top of our existing plans. I said that that would mean that we could press ahead with introducing a national funding formula for schools and high needs from April 2018 that would provide a per-pupil cash increase in respect of every school and every local area, and would also maintain the overall budget in real terms, per pupil. I promised to return to the House in September to set out the Government’s final decisions on introducing fairer funding in full, and today I am doing just that.

    This is an historic reform. It means that, for the first time, the resources that the Government are investing in our schools will be distributed according to a formula based on the individual needs and characteristics of every school in the country. Not only will the national funding formula direct resources where they are most needed, helping to ensure that all children can receive the high quality education that they deserve, wherever they live; it will also provide that money through a transparent formula, which will mean greater predictability. By clearly setting out the sums that we are directing to different aspects of the formula—to the basic amount per pupil, or to children with additional needs—it allows for properly informed debate on this vital topic, something that the existing opaque system has held back.

    The need for reform has been widely recognised across the House and beyond. The National Association of Head Teachers has said:

    “A revised funding formula for schools is essential”.

    The Association of School and College Leaders believes:

    “The way in which funding has been distributed to schools has been flawed for many years… Reform of the school funding system is vital”.

    The case is so strong because there is manifest unfairness when Coventry receives £510 more per pupil than Plymouth despite their having equal proportions of pupils eligible for free school meals, and Nottingham attracts £555 more than Halton, near Liverpool in Cheshire. Addressing those simple but damaging inequalities will represent the biggest improvement in the school funding system for decades. It is a step that previous Governments have failed to take for far too long.

    It has been vital for us to take account of a broad range of views when making such a significant reform. Our wide-ranging consultations, both in 2016 and earlier this year, allowed us to hear from more than 26,000 individual respondents and representative organisations. I am grateful to everyone who took the time to share their views and respond to the consultations, including many Members on both sides of the House. We have considered all those responses carefully.

    As I said to the House in July, I am putting an additional £1.3 billion into core funding for schools and high needs, so that the overall budget will now rise by about £2.6 billion in total, from almost £41 billion in 2017-18 to about £42.4 billion in 2018-19 and £43.5 billion in 2019-20. Building on this firm foundation, I can today set out the final funding formulae we will introduce, which, over the next two years will mean we will deliver ​on our manifesto pledge to make school funding fairer and ensure that we deliver higher funding as well in respect of every area and school.

    Building on our consultation proposals, as I set out in the House prior to the summer recess, I am increasing the basic amount of funding that every pupil will attract. We recognise the challenges of the very lowest funded schools so will introduce a minimum per pupil funding level. Under the national funding formula, in 2019-20 all secondary schools will attract at least £4,800 per pupil. Today I can announce that all primary schools will attract at least £3,500 per pupil through the formula in 2019-20. And the formula will provide these levels of funding quickly: secondary schools will attract at least £4,600, and primary schools £3,300, in 2018-19, and then the full amounts the following year.

    I will also provide a cash increase in respect of every school. Final decisions on local distribution will be taken by local authorities, but under the national funding formula every school will attract at least 0.5% more per pupil in 2018-19, and 1% more in 2019-20, compared with its baseline. Many schools will, of course, attract significantly larger increases under the formula: up to 3% per pupil in 2018-19, and a further 3% per pupil in 2019-20. And the minimum per pupil funding level will not be subject to this gains cap, delivering particularly fast gains in respect of the very lowest funded schools.

    Our consultation confirmed the importance of funding for additional needs—deprivation and low prior attainment. We know that these factors are our best way to identify the children who are most likely to fall behind, and to remain behind, their peers, and it is only right that we provide the greatest resources to the schools that face the greatest challenges. As I said in July, we will protect the funding the formula will direct towards additional needs at the level proposed in our consultation, and I can therefore confirm today that total spending on additional needs will be £5.9 billion.

    As we proposed in December, we will distribute that funding more fairly, and in line with the best available evidence. We will use a broad measure of deprivation to include all those who are likely to need extra help, and we will increase the proportion of additional needs spending allocated on the basis of low prior attainment, to give additional support to those who might not be economically deprived but still need help to catch up.

    I can also confirm today that, as we proposed in December, the national funding formula will allocate a lump sum of £110,000 for every school. For the smallest, most remote schools, we will distribute a further £26 million in dedicated sparsity funding. Only 47% of eligible schools received sparsity funding in 2017-18 because some local authorities chose not to use this factor. Our national funding formula will recognise all eligible schools.

    Our formula will rightly result in a significant boost directed towards the schools that are currently least well funded. Secondary schools, which would have been the lowest funded under our December proposals, will now gain on average 4.7%. Rural schools will gain on average 3.9%, with those schools in the most remote locations gaining 5%. Those schools with high numbers of pupils starting with low attainment will gain on average 3.8%.​

    As I set out in my statement in July, to provide stability for schools through the transition to the national funding formula, each local authority will continue to set a local formula which will determine individual schools’ budgets in their areas in 2018-19 and 2019-20, in consultation with local schools. This mean that the school-level allocations from Government I am publishing today, alongside this announcement, are notional allocations which we will use to set the total funding available for schools in each area. As I set out in the House, schools’ final actual funding allocations for 2018-19 and 2019-20 will be based on that local formula agreed in their area by the local authority, and schools will receive that allocation ahead of the new financial year, as normal. I will put copies of both documents in the House of Commons Library, and the Lords.

    Our objective to provide the best education for every child places a particular focus on the support we offer to the children who face the greatest barriers to success, and on the high-needs budget that provides that support. The case for reform of high-needs funding is every bit as strong as the case for school funding reform, and therefore the move to a national funding formula is every bit as important. We set out full proposals for the introduction of a high-needs national funding formula last December, alongside our schools formula, and I am today confirming that we will proceed with those proposals.

    Thanks to the additional £1.3 billion investment I announced in July, I can increase funding for high needs so that I will also be able to raise the funding floor to provide a minimum increase of 0.5% per head in 2018-19 and 1% per head in 2019-20 for every local authority. Underfunded local authorities will receive up to 3% per head gains a year for the next two years, to help them catch up. That is a more generous protection than we proposed in December, to help every single local authority maintain and improve the support it offers to some of our most vulnerable children. It means that local authorities will see a 4.6% increase on average in their high-needs budgets.

    The additional £1.3 billion we are investing in schools and high needs means that all local authorities will receive an increase in 2018-19 over the amount they plan to spend in 2017-18. Local authorities will take the final decisions on distributing funding to schools within local areas, but the formula will provide for all schools to see an increase in funding compared with their baseline.

    In conclusion, the new national funding formulae will redress historical inequities in funding that have existed for far too long, while also maintaining stability so that schools and local areas are not disadvantaged in the process. After too many years in which the funding system has placed our schools on an unfair playing field, we are finally making the decisive and historic move towards fair funding.

    The national funding formulae for schools and high needs and the increased investment we are making in schools will help us continue to improve standards and create a world-class education system. No one in this House should accept the system as it has been; it has perpetuated inequality and that is unacceptable. I am proud that it is a Conservative Government who are now putting that right. On this firm foundation, we will all—Government and schools, teachers and parents—be ​able to build a system that finally allows every child to achieve their potential, no matter what their background, or where they are growing up.

  • Alistair Burt – 2017 Speech to UN Security Council on Daesh

    Below is the text of the speech made by Alistair Burt to the UN Security Council on 22 September 2017.

    Thank you, Mr President. I wanted to begin by thanking Prime Minister Abadi for his statement, and his courage. We know that Iraq and its forces have borne the brunt of the fight against Daesh.

    I also want to thank him and his officials for the work they have done with the UK to make this resolution a reality. Mr President, your excellencies I’m delighted to have cast the United Kingdom’s vote in favour of this Resolution and I’m grateful to Council members for their unanimous support for this UK-drafted text.

    One year after we gathered on the margins of the last UN General Assembly and promised to do all we could to bring Daesh to justice, this Resolution is a vital step towards achieving that profoundly necessary goal.

    And as we vote in this chamber, we think of the people who have suffered so grievously at the hands of Daesh – of the innocents whose homelands were overrun, millions who were forced to flee, suffering inflicted on those who stayed, many of whom were massacred or enslaved, civilians who died in terrorist attacks in Europe and around the world, and of the great cities that were occupied and pillaged and subjected to rule by terror.

    There can never be adequate recompense for those who were forced to endure the wanton brutality of Daesh, and the dead will not be brought back, but this Resolution means that the international community is united in our belief that there should, at least, be accountability for those who perpetrated such wicked acts.

    The United Nations will now help to gather and preserve evidence of Daesh’s crimes in Iraq. I can announce that Britain will provide £1 million to establish the UN investigative team that will lead these efforts – and I would respectfully encourage other countries to contribute.

    Bringing Daesh to justice is only possible because Iraq’s courageous armed forces have liberated one city after another, including Mosul, advancing with the support of many nations, including my own, who have sent their warplanes into action against the terrorists, breaking Daesh’s grip on about three quarters of the Iraqi territory they once occupied.

    Wherever Daesh have been driven back in Iraq, the painstaking process of gathering evidence of their crimes can now proceed under the auspices of the UN.

    As the United Kingdom Commissioner for the International Commission of Missing Persons, set up after the conflict in former Yugoslavia, it is my hope that some of this evidence will help Iraqi families find out the fate and, even the remains, of their loved ones. Especially in the terrible mass graves which dot the lands which Daesh occupied.

    Britain has worked closely with the government of Iraq to bring forward this resolution. And we will continue work alongside the government of Iraq and our partners to implement this Resolution, ensuring that the UN does everything possible to support domestic and international efforts to hold Daesh to account.

    And by striving for justice, we shall also be seeking to heal the sectarian divides that Daesh has exploited and inflamed.

    The defeat of Daesh as a territorial entity is now within sight, but their downfall will not in itself create peace and stability. Lasting peace will only be secured once we’ve helped Iraq to overcome sectarian division and achieve the national unity that its people deserve.

    And justice is an essential requirement for reaching that goal, for it’s justice that leads to reconciliation. And reconciliation is the only way to protect a society, any society, against extremists who would sow hatred and division.

    This is why we must help Iraq strengthen its justice system, to ensure all those who commit atrocities in the conflict are brought to justice. In the meantime, we know that bringing Daesh to justice will take time, demanding patience and resolve from us all.

    But we owe it to those who have suffered to press ahead, however long the road might be, remembering that many offenders have been prosecuted years after they committed their crimes, as those in Srebrenica will remember.

    I will close by reminding the Council of an old phrase: “The millstones of justice turn exceeding slow, but they grind exceeding fine.” Those millstones have begun moving today.

    I want to thank my friend the Foreign Minister and the Government of Iraq for our work together in making this resolution a reality. Let us make the consequences of the resolution a reality and bring some justice to those who have suffered for too long.

    Thank you, Mr. President.

  • Andrew Jones – 2017 Speech at North East Economic Forum

    Below is the text of the speech made by Andrew Jones, the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, at the North East Economic Forum on 22 September 2017.

    Introduction

    Good morning everyone. It’s great to be here in Gateshead today.

    This was an area I used to come to regularly when I was growing up.

    I’m not actually from the North East – I’m a Yorkshireman born and bred – to the point where I even spent part of my career working for Yorkshire Tea!

    But we used to head up the A1 to play the local rugby teams here.

    And what’s been fascinating to see is just how much this whole region has changed over the decades.

    Now when you head up the A1, you’re welcomed by that great show of Northern pride – the magnificent Angel of the North.

    You see the world’s first ever tilting bridge crossing the Tyne to join two vibrant, modern cities.

    You see the curved glass of the fantastic Sage Gateshead drawing visitors from across the world.

    And you come to the Baltic centre as we have today – and you don’t find an old flour mill, you find a contemporary arts value of international renown.

    It’s certainly changed a fair bit over the years.

    Former glories

    These are all visible signs of what’s been happening in this area – and I think in cities across the North the confidence and self-belief has returned, and is growing.

    I don’t want to focus too much on the glories of the past.

    But the fact is that there was a time when our Northern cities didn’t just lead the UK forward – they led the world. When George Stephenson built the first ever public steam railway to take coal between Stockton and Darlington.

    When Charles Parsons was developing the steam turbine in Newcastle which revolutionised transport and energy.

    When Harry Brearly found a way to make stainless steel – or rustless steel as it was called initially – down in Sheffield.

    Restoration

    I’m admittedly biased as a Northerner myself.

    But the way I see it, our Northern cities used to be the drivers of this country’s economic, scientific, and social progress in the 19th century.

    That’s something that fell away badly in the 20th century as these once powerful cities were allowed to fall into decline.

    And now what we want for the 21st century is to recover that ground and see their resurgence.

    That’s what we’re talking about in government, when we talk about our Northern Powerhouse.

    It’s not a short term project with budgets attached on skills or transport.

    It’s an idea, an ambition and a promise.

    It is a long term government commitment that we will restore our Northern cities to their former place at the vanguard of the UK’s economy.

    Recommitment

    Earlier this month, my colleague at the Treasury, Philip Hammond spoke for the whole of government when he made it clear that the Northern Powerhouse isn’t some flash in the pan government project.

    It’s an economic imperative that is, will remain, and must be at the very top of our agenda.

    And it’s not just about cities like Manchester, Sheffield and Leeds.

    It’s the North as a whole – it’s Newcastle, it’s Sunderland, it’s Gateshead, it’s Hull.

    It’s every Northern town and city that has unlocked, untapped potential.

    Both to offer a better life for the people who live there – with great jobs, great transport, great attractions adding to all the natural appeal these areas already have in spades.

    But as well as improving the quality of lives here, it’s also about fulfilling the potential of the North East – and North West and Yorkshire and the Humber too – to really power our national economy forwards as was once the case.

    To drive our scientific advances.

    To make our cultural mark on the world stage.

    Lots to offer

    Now in many ways, we can see these things happening already.

    The Great Exhibition of the North that will be held here next year is all about showcasing our world-class art, culture and innovation – both past and present. I understand Stephenson’s Rocket built in Newcastle is going to be on display.

    There also remains a powerful tradition of manufacturing here in the North East – particularly in terms of chemicals, metals and transport equipment.

    Particularly of course in cars. The automotive industry is very important in the UK and is a real speciality of this region.

    Sunderland’s Nissan plant alone produced almost 30% of all UK-built cars last year, and builds more cars than Italy.

    And this is a region with a global reputation for life sciences too. Newcastle’s Centre for Life is at the helm of that – not only bringing talented researchers together, but also inspiring our next generation of young scientists with their exhibitions and events.

    So I was pleased to see it get a funding boost just this month of £2.6 million from the Business Department and Wellcome.

    Beyond its manufacturing and scientific prowess, this a great place to invest. Last year, foreign investment in the North East created more jobs relative to the working age population than any other region outside London.

    And we saw a faster increase in the number of businesses operating in the North East than anywhere else in the country.

    Since 2010, nowhere in the country has seen bigger productivity gains than we’ve seen here in the North East. Unemployment has fallen most here.

    And pay has risen most – an average of 11.5% higher than 2010.

    The issues

    But in celebrating what this region has to offer, and has achieved, I won’t gloss over the issues.

    It’s the problems that this government is working on.

    For example, I just mentioned pay rising here – but we also have to remember that earnings here are still a fair way under the UK average.

    That’s to be expected when hand-in-hand with that, we have 27% per cent of the population aged 16 and over with no formal qualifications, the second highest rate for any English region.

    And despite having some of the best universities in the country, the North East itself has far fewer graduates than the UK average – with just over 31% compared to 38%.

    Productivity is another case in point.

    Good gains have been made here, but there remains a prominent productivity gap – 12% compared to the UK average and 33% behind London.

    Some good things, but some real challenges.

    So what can be done to start to turn these things around?

    In short, we need two things.

    A North that’s ambitious and empowered to lead the way.

    And a government that’s prepared to back it all the way.

    Devolution

    Now on the former, we’ve been undertaking the biggest transfer of power away from Westminster to English regions in living memory.

    Only a few months ago, six mayors were elected in England – three of which were in the North – Ben in Tees Valley, Andy in Manchester and Steve in Liverpool.

    I was saddened to learn last year that the North East would not be electing a mayor, but I understand and respect local leaders’ decisions in this area.

    However, government was clear at the time that we would continue to work with those authorities committed to devolution and we’re having constructive discussions with the North of Tyne authorities on a potential deal and conversations all over the country on what can be done.

    Each of the new Mayors has unprecedented powers and funding for local priorities such as transport, planning and skills.

    These will make a real difference tackling issues locally and for helping to address the productivity challenge our economy faces.

    I’m looking forward to working with these great regional ambassadors and seeing what we can achieve together.

    Government backing

    1. Connectivity

    But it’s not just about what local leaders and businesses can do.

    Because as I said, the second thing that’s needed is a government that is active in backing you.

    A clear example of that is when it comes to improving connectivity.

    I could be biased. I spent several years as a transport minister. But connectivity matters.

    That’s both about ease of movement between places – which doesn’t just make people’s lives easier, it helps businesses win investment and save money too.

    But it’s also about digital connectivity too – and it’s really important that in this new era of information, the North East, and North more generally, is well connected.

    I know from first-hand how much that matters for businesses and families – there are still villages and homes in my own constituency in Yorkshire that can’t get mobile reception let alone high-speed broadband.

    So that requires serious investment from the government and that’s what we’ve been focused on.

    This year, for example, I launched a Digital Infrastructure Investment Fund to improve the UK’s internet connections.

    And we’ve already started to deliver full fibre in the North East through the Superfast Programme – with potential for much more through our £200 million Local Full Fibre Networks programme.

    And on transport links, there’s a huge amount going on. Over 20 schemes in the North East will receive investment from the £380m allocated to the region from the Local Growth Fund.

    Just today, the first phase of upgrading the A1 between Leeming and Barton is opening – with the full road due for completion this winter. When fully complete this will create a motorway standard route between London and Newcastle for the first time.

    But effective transport means a lot more than just creating motorways. We are investing in our major ‘A’ roads too, such as the improvements to the A19 at Testos and Downhill Lane in South Tyneside, and between Norton and Wynyard in Stockton-on-Tees. We are also making further improvements to the A1 at Newcastle and south of Gateshead – all of these will help to speed up so many daily journeys.

    And we are investing in local roads too. We’ve provided £21 million towards the Morpeth Northern Bypass, the last section of the A1 to South East Northumberland link road. This will relieve congestion to Morpeth, and improve links to development sites in the area. We are not buying tarmac and bridges just because we like them. We are buying opportuniry and access across these areas.

    There’s also the Great North Rail project – in the next five years, well over £1 billion will be spent operating, renewing, enhancing and maintaining the rail infrastructure across the North of England.

    This will dramatically improve journeys for passengers across the North. There will be more and faster services across the region, including between Newcastle, Manchester and Liverpool.

    By 2020 all the trains will be brand new or completely refurbished, and all the Pacer trains will be gone.

    And train manufacturing has also returned to the North East. There are now over 1,000 staff and apprentices at the Hitachi site in Newton Aycliffe, producing state-of-the-art modern intercity trains. The first of these trains will be in use on the Great Western line from this Autumn.

    I first came to visit this site when it was a green field.

    2. Industry support

    Beyond connectivity, it’s about supporting our industries as the future marches on.

    We’re working on a modern industrial strategy to do just that.

    But meanwhile, we’re making good progress in key areas for the region.

    As I’ve already said, life sciences is real strength in the North East.

    And we’re working with the leading immunologist and geneticist, Sir John Bell on how we support the life sciences sector. The industry-led Life Sciences Industrial Strategy was published at the end of August. We are now working with Sir John and others in the sector to agree an ambitious Sector Deal – with offers and asks on each side of the table.

    We’ve also made a substantial real terms increase in government investment in Research and Development – an extra £2 billion a year by the end of this Parliament. This will include funds targeted at cutting edge healthcare and medicines.

    And here in the North East, we’ve allocated £8.6 million from the Local Growth Fund to the Life Sciences Incubation hub. This hub, the product of a collaboration between Newcastle University and Newcastle City Council, will take forward the LEP’s ambition to develop a life sciences super cluster for the North East – with significant new facilities for research, and space for science-based businesses.

    And we are investing now in our manufacturing capacity Nearby, Redcar is home to the headquarters of the £100 million Centre for Process Innovation, part of our High Value Manufacturing Catapult network.

    We’re investing half a billion in advanced propulsion technology.

    And just nearby – in fact, I’m going to go and take a look this afternoon – there’s the International Advanced Manufacturing Park – where £75m of publicly funded infrastructure will support a predicted £400 million of private sector investment, and the creation of over 5,000 jobs across the advanced manufacturing and automotive sectors.

    The point that I’m trying to make is that government is serious about investment in our scientific and industrial development, which is so central to this region’s economy.

    3. Skills

    And the third and final factor I’ll mention today, is what we’re doing on skills.

    Because let me take you back to that stat I gave you earlier.

    27% per cent of over-16s in the North East having no formal qualifications.

    Which means lower wages, and less opportunity and freedom to live the lives people want.

    So it really matters that we make a big difference here – not only for people on an individual level, but for our businesses which rely on their talents to succeed.

    I think this is an issue for the UK as a whole but particularly where we are.

    So we’ve got a lot of work going on here.

    We’re completely reforming technical education for a start – we need to see bright people coming through who can work in the advanced industrial roles the 21st century needs.

    We’re really pushing apprenticeships – again to give people the skills businesses need, and we’ve done a lot of work with employers to make them really useful, stretching training opportunities.

    I hope that the many fantastic businesses in the North East that already take on apprentices – from Hodgson Sayers in the construction and manufacturing sector to Sage Gateshead in the creative – will lead really lead the way as business and Government works together to deliver 3 million apprenticeship starts in England by 2020.

    Conclusion

    So there is a lot of action happening to lay the foundations for that Northern resurgence.

    The Northern Powerhouse is about cultural aspiration but the policies around devolution and transport and skills will help.

    And the thing to stress is that this isn’t a one-sided venture.

    This isn’t a bunch of politicians in Westminster laying down the law.

    And I don’t think it would be.

    This is a team effort.

    This is about government, business, and local authorities across the North all working together.

    And the message I want to end with here in Gateshead is this:

    It will take hard work.

    It will take investment.

    It will take ambition.

    It will take partnership and collaboration.

    But the North East can once again be the engine of the UK’s economic, scientific and cultural progress.

    Let’s not lose any opportunity to see that happen.

  • Theresa May – 2017 Florence Speech on Brexit

    Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May, the Prime Minister, on 22 September 2017 in Florence, Italy.

    It’s good to be here in this great city of Florence today at a critical time in the evolution of the relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union.

    It was here, more than anywhere else, that the Renaissance began – a period of history that inspired centuries of creativity and critical thought across our continent and which in many ways defined what it meant to be European.

    A period of history whose example shaped the modern world. A period of history that teaches us that when we come together in a spirit of ambition and innovation, we have it within ourselves to do great things.

    That shows us that if we open our minds to new thinking and new possibilities, we can forge a better, brighter future for all our peoples.

    And that is what I want to focus on today. For we are moving through a new and critical period in the history of the United Kingdom’s relationship with the European Union.

    The British people have decided to leave the EU; and to be a global, free-trading nation, able to chart our own way in the world.

    For many, this is an exciting time, full of promise; for others it is a worrying one.

    I look ahead with optimism, believing that if we use this moment to change not just our relationship with Europe, but also the way we do things at home, this will be a defining moment in the history of our nation.

    And it is an exciting time for many in Europe too. The European Union is beginning a new chapter in the story of its development. Just last week, President Juncker set out his ambitions for the future of the European Union.

    There is a vibrant debate going on about the shape of the EU’s institutions and the direction of the Union in the years ahead. We don’t want to stand in the way of that.

    Indeed, we want to be your strongest friend and partner as the EU, and the UK thrive side by side.

    Shared challenges

    And that partnership is important. For as we look ahead, we see shared challenges and opportunities in common.

    Here in Italy today, our two countries are working together to tackle some of the greatest challenges of our time; challenges where all too often geography has put Italy on the frontline.

    As I speak, Britain’s Royal Navy, National Crime Agency and Border Force are working alongside their Italian partners to save lives in the Mediterranean and crack down on the evil traffickers who are exploiting desperate men, women and children who seek a better life.

    Our two countries are also working together in the fight against terrorism – from our positions at the forefront of the international coalition against Daesh to our work to disrupt the networks terrorist groups use to finance their operations and recruit to their ranks.

    And earlier this week, I was delighted that Prime Minister Gentiloni was able to join President Macron and myself in convening the first ever UN summit of government and industry to move further and faster in preventing terrorist use of the Internet.

    Mass migration and terrorism are but two examples of the challenges to our shared European interests and values that we can only solve in partnership.

    The weakening growth of global trade; the loss of popular support for the forces of liberalism and free trade that is driving moves towards protectionism; the threat of climate change depleting and degrading the planet we leave for future generations; and most recently, the outrageous proliferation of nuclear weapons by North Korea with a threat to use them.

    Here on our own continent, we see territorial aggression to the east; and from the South threats from instability and civil war; terrorism, crime and other challenges which respect no borders.

    The only way for us to respond to this vast array of challenges is for likeminded nations and peoples to come together and defend the international order that we have worked so hard to create – and the values of liberty, democracy, human rights and the rule of law by which we stand.

    Britain has always – and will always – stand with its friends and allies in defence of these values.

    Our decision to leave the European Union is in no way a repudiation of this longstanding commitment. We may be leaving the European Union, but we are not leaving Europe.

    Our resolve to draw on the full weight of our military, intelligence, diplomatic and development resources to lead international action, with our partners, on the issues that affect the security and prosperity of our peoples is unchanged.

    Our commitment to the defence – and indeed the advance – of our shared values is undimmed.

    Our determination to defend the stability, security and prosperity of our European neighbours and friends remains steadfast.

    The decision of the British people

    And we will do all this as a sovereign nation in which the British people are in control.

    Their decision to leave the institution of the European Union was an expression of that desire – a statement about how they want their democracy to work.

    They want more direct control of decisions that affect their daily lives; and that means those decisions being made in Britain by people directly accountable to them.

    The strength of feeling that the British people have about this need for control and the direct accountability of their politicians is one reason why, throughout its membership, the United Kingdom has never totally felt at home being in the European Union.

    And perhaps because of our history and geography, the European Union never felt to us like an integral part of our national story in the way it does to so many elsewhere in Europe.

    It is a matter of choices. The profound pooling of sovereignty that is a crucial feature of the European Union permits unprecedentedly deep cooperation, which brings benefits.

    But it also means that when countries are in the minority they must sometimes accept decisions they do not want, even affecting domestic matters with no market implications beyond their borders. And when such decisions are taken, they can be very hard to change.

    So the British electorate made a choice. They chose the power of domestic democratic control over pooling that control, strengthening the role of the UK Parliament and the devolved Scottish Parliament, Welsh and Northern Ireland Assemblies in deciding our laws.

    That is our choice. It does not mean we are no longer a proud member of the family of European nations. And it does not mean we are turning our back on Europe; or worse that we do not wish the EU to succeed. The success of the EU is profoundly in our national interest and that of the wider world.

    But having made this choice, the question now is whether we – the leaders of Britain, and of the EU’s Member States and institutions – can demonstrate that creativity, that innovation, that ambition that we need to shape a new partnership to the benefit of all our people.

    I believe we must. And I believe we can.

    For while the UK’s departure from the EU is inevitably a difficult process, it is in all of our interests for our negotiations to succeed. If we were to fail, or be divided, the only beneficiaries would be those who reject our values and oppose our interests.

    So I believe we share a profound sense of responsibility to make this change work smoothly and sensibly, not just for people today but for the next generation who will inherit the world we leave them.

    The eyes of the world are on us, but if we can be imaginative and creative about the way we establish this new relationship, if we can proceed on the basis of trust in each other, I believe we can be optimistic about the future we can build for the United Kingdom and for the European Union.

    Negotiations

    In my speech at Lancaster House earlier this year, I set out the UK’s negotiating objectives.

    Those still stand today. Since that speech and the triggering of Article 50 in March, the UK has published 14 papers to address the current issues in the talks and set out the building blocks of the relationship we would like to see with the EU, both as we leave, and into the future.

    We have now conducted three rounds of negotiations. And while, at times, these negotiations have been tough, it is clear that, thanks to the professionalism and diligence of David Davis and Michel Barnier, we have made concrete progress on many important issues.

    For example, we have recognised from the outset there are unique issues to consider when it comes to Northern Ireland.

    The UK government, the Irish government and the EU as a whole have been clear that through the process of our withdrawal we will protect progress made in Northern Ireland over recent years – and the lives and livelihoods that depend on this progress.

    As part of this, we and the EU have committed to protecting the Belfast Agreement and the Common Travel Area and, looking ahead, we have both stated explicitly that we will not accept any physical infrastructure at the border.

    We owe it to the people of Northern Ireland – and indeed to everyone on the island of Ireland – to see through these commitments.

    We have also made significant progress on how we look after European nationals living in the UK and British nationals living in the 27 Member States of the EU.

    I know this whole process has been a cause of great worry and anxiety for them and their loved ones.

    But I want to repeat to the 600,000 Italians in the UK – and indeed to all EU citizens who have made their lives in our country – that we want you to stay; we value you; and we thank you for your contribution to our national life – and it has been, and remains, one of my first goals in this negotiation to ensure that you can carry on living your lives as before.

    I am clear that the guarantee I am giving on your rights is real. And I doubt anyone with real experience of the UK would doubt the independence of our courts or of the rigour with which they will uphold people’s legal rights.

    But I know there are concerns that over time the rights of EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens overseas will diverge. I want to incorporate our agreement fully into UK law and make sure the UK courts can refer directly to it.

    Where there is uncertainty around underlying EU law, I want the UK courts to be able to take into account the judgments of the European Court of Justice with a view to ensuring consistent interpretation. On this basis, I hope our teams can reach firm agreement quickly.

    Shared future

    At the moment, the negotiations are focused on the arrangements for the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. But we need to move on to talk about our future relationship.

    Of course, we recognise that we can’t leave the EU and have everything stay the same. Life for us will be different.

    But what we do want – and what we hope that you, our European friends, want too – is to stay as partners who carry on working together for our mutual benefit.

    In short, we want to work hand in hand with the European Union, rather than as part of the European Union.

    That is why in my speech at Lancaster House I said that the United Kingdom would seek to secure a new, deep and special partnership with the European Union.

    And this should span both a new economic relationship and a new relationship on security.

    So let me set out what each of these relationships could look like – before turning to the question of how we get there.

    Economic partnership

    Let me start with the economic partnership.

    The United Kingdom is leaving the European Union. We will no longer be members of its single market or its customs union. For we understand that the single market’s four freedoms are indivisible for our European friends.

    We recognise that the single market is built on a balance of rights and obligations. And we do not pretend that you can have all the benefits of membership of the single market without its obligations.

    So our task is to find a new framework that allows for a close economic partnership but holds those rights and obligations in a new and different balance.

    But as we work out together how to do so, we do not start with a blank sheet of paper, like other external partners negotiating a free trade deal from scratch have done.

    In fact, we start from an unprecedented position. For we have the same rules and regulations as the EU – and our EU Withdrawal Bill will ensure they are carried over into our domestic law at the moment we leave the EU.

    So the question for us now in building a new economic partnership is not how we bring our rules and regulations closer together, but what we do when one of us wants to make changes.

    One way of approaching this question is to put forward a stark and unimaginative choice between two models: either something based on European Economic Area membership; or a traditional Free Trade Agreement, such as that the EU has recently negotiated with Canada.

    I don’t believe either of these options would be best for the UK or best for the European Union.

    European Economic Area membership would mean the UK having to adopt at home – automatically and in their entirety – new EU rules. Rules over which, in future, we will have little influence and no vote.

    Such a loss of democratic control could not work for the British people. I fear it would inevitably lead to friction and then a damaging re-opening of the nature of our relationship in the near future: the very last thing that anyone on either side of the Channel wants.

    As for a Canadian style free trade agreement, we should recognise that this is the most advanced free trade agreement the EU has yet concluded and a breakthrough in trade between Canada and the EU.

    But compared with what exists between Britain and the EU today, it would nevertheless represent such a restriction on our mutual market access that it would benefit neither of our economies.

    Not only that, it would start from the false premise that there is no pre-existing regulatory relationship between us. And precedent suggests that it could take years to negotiate.

    We can do so much better than this.

    As I said at Lancaster House, let us not seek merely to adopt a model already enjoyed by other countries. Instead let us be creative as well as practical in designing an ambitious economic partnership which respects the freedoms and principles of the EU, and the wishes of the British people.

    I believe there are good reasons for this level of optimism and ambition.

    First of all, the UK is the EU’s largest trading partner, one of the largest economies in the world, and a market of considerable importance for many businesses and jobs across the continent. And the EU is our largest trading partner, so it is in all our interests to find a creative solution.

    The European Union has shown in the past that creative arrangements can be agreed in other areas. For example, it has developed a diverse array of arrangements with neighbouring countries outside the EU, both in economic relations and in justice and home affairs.

    Furthermore, we share the same set of fundamental beliefs; a belief in free trade, rigorous and fair competition, strong consumer rights, and that trying to beat other countries’ industries by unfairly subsidising one’s own is a serious mistake.

    So there is no need to impose tariffs where we have none now, and I don’t think anyone sensible is contemplating this.

    And as we have set out in a future partnership paper, when it comes to trade in goods, we will do everything we can to avoid friction at the border. But of course the regulatory issues are crucial.

    We share a commitment to high regulatory standards.

    People in Britain do not want shoddy goods, shoddy services, a poor environment or exploitative working practices and I can never imagine them thinking those things to be acceptable.

    The government I lead is committed not only to protecting high standards, but strengthening them.

    So I am optimistic about what we can achieve by finding a creative solution to a new economic relationship that can support prosperity for all our peoples.

    Now in any trading relationship, both sides have to agree on a set of rules which govern how each side behaves.

    So we will need to discuss with our European partners new ways of managing our interdependence and our differences, in the context of our shared values.

    There will be areas of policy and regulation which are outside the scope of our trade and economic relations where this should be straightforward.

    There will be areas which do affect our economic relations where we and our European friends may have different goals; or where we share the same goals but want to achieve them through different means.

    And there will be areas where we want to achieve the same goals in the same ways, because it makes sense for our economies.

    And because rights and obligations must be held in balance, the decisions we both take will have consequences for the UK’s access to European markets and vice versa.

    To make this partnership work, because disagreements inevitably arise, we will need a strong and appropriate dispute resolution mechanism.

    It is, of course, vital that any agreement reached – its specific terms and the principles on which it is based – are interpreted in the same way by the European Union and the United Kingdom and we want to discuss how we do that.

    This could not mean the European Court of Justice – or indeed UK courts – being the arbiter of disputes about the implementation of the agreement between the UK and the EU however.

    It wouldn’t be right for one party’s court to have jurisdiction over the other. But I am confident we can find an appropriate mechanism for resolving disputes.

    So this new economic partnership, would be comprehensive and ambitious. It would be underpinned by high standards, and a practical approach to regulation that enables us to continue to work together in bringing shared prosperity to our peoples for generations to come.

    Security relationship

    Let me turn to the new security relationship that we want to see.

    To keep our people safe and to secure our values and interests, I believe it is essential that, although the UK is leaving the EU, the quality of our cooperation on security is maintained.

    We believe we should be as open-minded as possible about how we continue to work together on what can be life and death matters.

    Our security co-operation is not just vital because our people face the same threats, but also because we share a deep, historic belief in the same values – the values of peace, democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

    Of course, there is no pre-existing model for co-operation between the EU and external partners which replicates the full scale and depth of the collaboration that currently exists between the EU and the UK on security, law enforcement and criminal justice.

    But as the threats we face evolve faster than ever, I believe it is vital that we work together to design new, dynamic arrangements that go beyond the existing arrangements that the EU has in this area – and draw on the legal models the EU has previously used to structure co-operation with external partners in other fields such as trade.

    So we are proposing a bold new strategic agreement that provides a comprehensive framework for future security, law enforcement and criminal justice co-operation: a treaty between the UK and the EU.

    This would complement the extensive and mature bi-lateral relationships that we already have with European friends to promote our common security.

    Our ambition would be to build a model that is underpinned by our shared principles, including high standards of data protection and human rights.

    It would be kept sufficiently versatile and dynamic to respond to the ever-evolving threats that we face. And it would create an ongoing dialogue in which law enforcement and criminal justice priorities can be shared and – where appropriate – tackled jointly.

    We are also proposing a far reaching partnership on how we protect Europe together from the threats we face in the world today; how we work together to promote our shared values and interests abroad; whether security, spreading the rule of law, dealing with emerging threats, handling the migration crisis or helping countries out of poverty.

    The United Kingdom has outstanding capabilities. We have the biggest defence budget in Europe, and one of the largest development budgets in the world. We have a far-reaching diplomatic network, and world class security, intelligence and law enforcement services.

    So what we are offering will be unprecedented in its breadth, taking in cooperation on diplomacy, defence and security, and development.

    And it will be unprecedented in its depth, in terms of the degree of engagement that we would aim to deliver.

    It is our ambition to work as closely as possible together with the EU, protecting our people, promoting our values and ensuring the future security of our continent.

    The United Kingdom is unconditionally committed to maintaining Europe’s security. And the UK will continue to offer aid and assistance to EU member states that are the victims of armed aggression, terrorism and natural or manmade disasters.

    Taken as a whole, this bold new security partnership will not only reflect our history and the practical benefits of co-operation in tackling shared threats, but also demonstrate the UK’s genuine commitment to promoting our shared values across the world and to maintaining a secure and prosperous Europe.

    Implementation

    That is the partnership I want Britain and the European Union to have in the future.

    None of its goals should be controversial. Everything I have said is about creating a long-term relationship through which the nations of the European Union and the United Kingdom can work together for the mutual benefit of all our people.

    If we adopt this vision of a deep and special partnership, the question is then how we get there: how we build a bridge from where we are now to where we want to be.

    The United Kingdom will cease to be a member of the European Union on 29th March 2019.

    We will no longer sit at the European Council table or in the Council of Ministers, and we will no longer have Members of the European Parliament.

    Our relations with countries outside the EU can be developed in new ways, including through our own trade negotiations, because we will no longer be an EU country, and we will no longer directly benefit from the EU’s future trade negotiations.

    But the fact is that, at that point, neither the UK – nor the EU and its Members States – will be in a position to implement smoothly many of the detailed arrangements that will underpin this new relationship we seek.

    Neither is the European Union legally able to conclude an agreement with the UK as an external partner while it is itself still part of the European Union.

    And such an agreement on the future partnership will require the appropriate legal ratification, which would take time.

    It is also the case that people and businesses – both in the UK and in the EU – would benefit from a period to adjust to the new arrangements in a smooth and orderly way.

    As I said in my speech at Lancaster House a period of implementation would be in our mutual interest. That is why I am proposing that there should be such a period after the UK leaves the EU.

    Clearly people, businesses and public services should only have to plan for one set of changes in the relationship between the UK and the EU.

    So during the implementation period access to one another’s markets should continue on current terms and Britain also should continue to take part in existing security measures. And I know businesses, in particular, would welcome the certainty this would provide.

    The framework for this strictly time-limited period, which can be agreed under Article 50, would be the existing structure of EU rules and regulations.

    How long the period is should be determined simply by how long it will take to prepare and implement the new processes and new systems that will underpin that future partnership.

    For example, it will take time to put in place the new immigration system required to re-take control of the UK’s borders.

    So during the implementation period, people will continue to be able to come and live and work in the UK; but there will be a registration system – an essential preparation for the new regime.

    As of today, these considerations point to an implementation period of around two years.

    But because I don’t believe that either the EU or the British people will want the UK to stay longer in the existing structures than is necessary, we could also agree to bring forward aspects of that future framework such as new dispute resolution mechanisms more quickly if this can be done smoothly.

    It is clear that what would be most helpful to people and businesses on both sides, who want this process to be smooth and orderly, is for us to agree the detailed arrangements for this implementation period as early as possible. Although we recognise that the EU institutions will need to adopt a formal position.

    And at the heart of these arrangements, there should be a clear double lock: a guarantee that there will be a period of implementation giving businesses and people alike the certainty that they will be able to prepare for the change; and a guarantee that this implementation period will be time-limited, giving everyone the certainty that this will not go on for ever.

    These arrangements will create valuable certainty.

    But in this context I am conscious that our departure causes another type of uncertainty for the remaining member states and their taxpayers over the EU budget.

    Some of the claims made on this issue are exaggerated and unhelpful and we can only resolve this as part of the settlement of all the issues I have been talking about today.

    Still I do not want our partners to fear that they will need to pay more or receive less over the remainder of the current budget plan as a result of our decision to leave. The UK will honour commitments we have made during the period of our membership.

    And as we move forwards, we will also want to continue working together in ways that promote the long-term economic development of our continent.

    This includes continuing to take part in those specific policies and programmes which are greatly to the UK and the EU’s joint advantage, such as those that promote science, education and culture – and those that promote our mutual security.

    And as I set out in my speech at Lancaster House, in doing so, we would want to make an ongoing contribution to cover our fair share of the costs involved.

    Conclusion

    When I gave my speech at the beginning of this year I spoke not just about the preparations we were making for a successful negotiation but also about our preparations for our life outside the European Union – with or without what I hope will be a successful deal.

    And the necessary work continues on all these fronts so that we are able to meet any eventual outcome.

    But as we meet here today, in this city of creativity and rebirth, let us open our minds to the possible.

    To a new era of cooperation and partnership between the United Kingdom and the European Union. And to a stronger, fairer, more prosperous future for us all.

    For that is the prize if we get this negotiation right.

    A sovereign United Kingdom and a confident European Union, both free to chart their own course.

    A new partnership of values and interests.

    A new alliance that can stand strongly together in the world.

    That is the goal towards which we must work in the months ahead as the relationship between Britain and Europe evolves.

    However it does so, I am clear that Britain’s future is bright.

    Our fundamentals are strong: a legal system respected around the world; a keen openness to foreign investment; an enthusiasm for innovation; an ease of doing business; some of the best universities and researchers you can find anywhere; an exceptional national talent for creativity and an indomitable spirit.

    It is our fundamental strengths that really determine a country’s success and that is why Britain’s economy will always be strong.

    There are other reasons why our future should give us confidence. We will always be a champion of economic openness; we will always be a country whose pitch to the world is high standards at home.

    When we differ from the EU in our regulatory choices, it won’t be to try and attain an unfair competitive advantage, it will be because we want rules that are right for Britain’s particular situation.

    The best way for us both to succeed is to fulfil the potential of the partnership I have set out today.

    For we should be in no doubt, that if our collective endeavours in these negotiations were to prove insufficient to reach an agreement, it would be a failure in the eyes of history and a damaging blow to the future of our continent.

    Indeed, I believe the difference between where we would all be if we fail – and where we could be if we can achieve the kind of new partnership I have set out today – to be so great that it is beholden on all of us involved to demonstrate the leadership and flexibility needed to ensure that we succeed.

    Yes, the negotiations to get there will be difficult. But if we approach them in the right way – respectful of the challenges for both sides and pragmatic about resolving them – we can find a way forward that makes a success of this for all of our peoples.

    I recognise that this is not something that you – our European partners – wanted to do. It is a distraction from what you want to get on with. But we have to get this right.

    And we both want to get this done as swiftly as possible.

    So it is up to leaders to set the tone.

    And the tone I want to set is one of partnership and friendship.

    A tone of trust, the cornerstone of any relationship.

    For if we get the spirit of this negotiation right; if we get the spirit of this partnership right, then at the end of this process we will find that we are able to resolve the issues where we disagree respectfully and quickly.

    And if we can do that, then when this chapter of our European history is written, it will be remembered not for the differences we faced but for the vision we showed; not for the challenges we endured but for the creativity we used to overcome them; not for a relationship that ended but a new partnership that began.

    A partnership of interests, a partnership of values; a partnership of ambition for a shared future: the UK and the EU side by side delivering prosperity and opportunity for all our people.

    This is the future within our grasp – so, together, let us seize it.