UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Richard Drax – 2017 Speech on the Future of the NHS

    Below is the text of the speech made by Richard Drax, the Conservative MP for South Dorset, in the House of Commons on 20 July 2017.

    Before I start my speech, may I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, the Speaker and all the office staff, the police and everyone else who takes care of us here? I wish them all a very happy summer recess, when they all go off on their holidays. We are extremely grateful for all that is done.

    First, I thank and praise all those who work in the NHS, especially those on the frontline. Secondly, it would be inappropriate of me not to pay tribute to our able and competent Front-Bench team, who face some extremely difficult challenges within the NHS. My speech today is in no way at all a criticism of the Government; it is purely based on my own observation and the observations of others, in part in Dorset but also from around the country. I hope Ministers will forgive and indulge me as I honour one of my election pledges and bring this matter to the Government’s attention.

    As I said, in essence I am responding to my own observations and to those of the many people I have spoken to, who work either in or around the NHS. I, we and they are proud of our NHS, and rightly so. As Nigel Lawson, the former Chancellor, so memorably said, “It’s the nearest thing we have to a national religion”.

    The NHS will be 70 years old next year; it is the world’s fifth largest employer, with 1.5 million employees; and it serves a population of the United Kingdom of more than 54 million people. The total budget for NHS England is a staggering £117 billion. The three founding principles of the NHS—that it is available to all, free at the point of delivery and based upon clinical need rather than the ability to pay—still stand. Last week, the US-based Commonwealth Fund health think-tank found the NHS to be the best, safest and most affordable healthcare system of the 11 countries it analysed, for the second time in a row. That is a record to be proud of.

    However, the NHS is, to some degree, a victim of its own success. That same study placed the UK second from bottom for clinical outcomes. So what to do? Politicians take a scalpel to the NHS at their peril. The consequence is that only sticking plaster is used to meet changing circumstances. Medical advances, longer life-spans and soaring healthcare costs have outpaced resources, and the situation can only get worse.

    A recent Public Accounts Committee report found that the financial performance of NHS bodies had deteriorated, with NHS trusts seeing their deficits almost treble to £2.6 billion in a single year, 2015-16. Plugging those deficits will not be easy. Addressing the shortage of nurses and GPs, coping with a strained adult social care system, responding to an overstretched A&E service and countering ambulance waiting times all require careful thought and perhaps further review.

    I am a former soldier and we used to say in the Army that time on reconnaissance is never wasted, so a visit to the frontline—in my speech—is instructive. A senior doctor on my Dorset patch despairs at the “army of office staff” who leave every evening on the dot of 5 pm, while work in the hospital, which he emphasises has ​always been a seven-day service, rolls on. He believes that administrative staff could be cut by about 25% without affecting patient care.

    That senior doctor says the so-called “bed bureaus” in most hospitals are a case in point. When a patient is admitted, doctors must book a bed through bed managers—there is one per shift, so three per day—who, in turn, inform the ward sisters, who were themselves once responsible for the beds on their wards. In fact, the bed managers are often very senior nurses who have been promoted out of their clinical roles into well-paid managerial jobs. Formerly, such senior nurses were an invaluable source of knowledge and training for junior nurses, but it now seems there is a risk that their hard-earned skills will be wasted in administrative roles.

    To be fair, the NHS says that managers have been cut by 18% since 2010. However, in the view of the senior doctor I am referring to, there is still ample opportunity better to share back-office functions across regions, especially in commissioning services, purchasing and postgraduate medical education for doctors. For those who are unaware, newly qualified doctors apply to a regional deanery for further training in foundation years 1, 2 and 3. That deanery remains responsible for their rotations until they choose their clinical specialty, three years after qualifying. Therefore, my doctor source asks, why are there education managers, deputy education managers and deputy assistant education managers in most hospitals he has worked in? In addition, he points out that nurses are efficiently certified and accredited by their own system, so they do not need in-house education managers, either.

    The pressure on social care has also had a significant impact on acute hospitals, says this doctor. Like hospital administrative staff, care home staff are available to assess prospective new residents only during office hours, leaving A&E departments—often with elderly patients who are not strictly emergencies—to languish until Monday morning. Occupational therapists are also unavailable until Monday morning, meaning patients cannot be sent home because their homes cannot be certified as safe. In addition, A&E departments are frequently overwhelmed by patients suffering from mental health issues.

    The under-16s pose a particular problem, certainly in Dorset, because the office hours of the children’s mental health assessment service are from 9 to 5, Monday to Friday. Most young patients present at night, when stress, depression or suicidal thoughts tend to rear their ugly heads. An A&E doctor is unable even to prescribe a sedative. Instead, dedicated nurses must be found to watch the young patient constantly until Monday morning, when a child psychiatrist can see them.

    In addition, the NHS internal market, which has been with us since John Major’s Government, has also had unintended consequences. Procuring goods and services across a region, rather than restricting individual commissions to each small trust, would save millions, says this doctor. So what can be done? Clearly, the current situation is unsustainable in the longer term. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field), if I may paraphrase him, has said that the NHS is so rapacious that it could probably never be satisfied. However, there must be another solution.

    Healthcare spending is protected relative to other public services, but increasing demand and costs surely demand we think a little more out of the box. As I have ​mentioned, hospital deficits reached £2.6 billion in 2015-16, negating the benefits of any funding increases. Projections from the Office for Budget Responsibility suggest that spending on healthcare could rise from 7.4% of GDP in 2015 to 8.8% in 2030-31, which is the equivalent of a real increase in spending of £100 billion.

    The Office for National Statistics predicts that the proportion of people aged 65 and over will increase from the current level of 18% to 26.1% in 2066, with over-85s tripling to 7.1% over the same period. A study by the King’s Fund found that financial pressures have affected access to services and quality of patient care, while the Care Quality Commission’s latest report concluded that the quality of care provided across England varies considerably.

    When compared with member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the UK spends less per capita than France, Germany, Sweden and the Netherlands. We also perform poorly on many acute care indicators, with worse outcomes for stroke victims, heart attacks, and cancer survival over five and 10 years. With more people, better and more expensive technology and greater expectations, the pressures will continue to grow.

    A significant new House of Lords report, “The Long-term Sustainability of the NHS and Adult Social Care”, describes a “culture of short-termism” across successive Governments. Interestingly, the report calls for a new political consensus on the future of the health and care system via

    “cross-party talks and a robust national conversation.”

    I do not entirely agree, but I will come on to that later.

    The report concludes:

    “Short-term funding fixes will not suffice. Neither will tinkering around the edges of service delivery.”

    It made three recommendations: that there should be radical service transformation, with more integrated health and care services in primary and community settings; that there should be long-term, stable, predictable and adequate funding for the NHS and adult social care; and that there should be immediate and sustained action on adult social care, with urgent funding to alleviate the crisis in NHS hospitals. It is not just the Lords who have an opinion; these are coming in thick and fast from across the political spectrum, including from the King’s Fund, the Barker commission, the Nuffield Trust, the Health Foundation, the Public Accounts Committee, the Care Quality Commission and a number of parliamentary Select Committees.

    To be fair, a good start has been made. The Health and Social Care Act 2012 abolished primary care trusts, to be replaced by 44 clinical commissioning groups, responsible for commissioning the majority of NHS services. Since 2015, those in turn have developed local sustainability and transformation plans, as part of the NHS five year forward view. The STPs are blueprints for better integration of GP, community health, mental health, cancer care and hospital services, focusing on more joined-up working with home care and care homes. The Government are to be congratulated on all of that. I am delighted and touched that this week Dorset’s STP has been awarded more than £100 million by the Government. Dorset is also one of eight areas nationally to announce an accountable care system, which will fast-track these improvements, especially taking the ​strain off A&E departments and making GP appointments easier to get. It will share in a £450 million pot. The STPs are, say NHS England,

    “a starting point for local conversations”.

    We all hope so. Dorset’s CCG is currently poring over responses to its public consultation which closed in February. Some of its proposals, including moving A&E services from Poole to Bournemouth, and losing community hospital beds on Portland and at Wareham, I find difficult to accept.

    Inevitably, some of the CCG’s remit must be to find savings. Various suggestions have been made in the past: the Carter review in 2016 found that £5 billion could be saved through shared procurement and back office support; the Naylor review in 2017 concluded that better management of the NHS estate could generate £5 billion and provide land for 26,000 new homes; and the Wachter review suggested that better IT systems would help. Whatever savings are made can then be reinvested in the NHS’s most precious asset of all, those on the frontline, where there are genuine concerns.

    A House of Lords report described the lack of an appropriately skilled, well trained and committed workforce as the

    “biggest internal threat to the sustainability of the NHS”.

    A shortfall of some 10,000 GPs across the UK is predicted by 2020. At the same time, hundreds of GP practices are in danger of closing because 75% of their doctors are aged over 55. Nurses are wooed now with flexible hours and school-friendly schedules, but the abolition of the nursing bursary earlier this year has seen the number of applicants applying to start nursing degrees this October fall by 23%. I know from my own research into ambulance waiting times that the ambulance trust covering my constituency is having trouble both recruiting and retaining staff.

    We all agree, in all parts of this House, that the NHS is a unique national treasure, to be protected, sustained and nurtured, but it cannot remain a sacred cow, untouchable at any cost. So why do we not hand this problem to an independent panel, totally divorced from politicians, and ask it to see how we can make better use of the £117 billion that we spend? From what I have heard and seen, I simply cannot believe there is not a better way of running our beloved NHS. The will from those in all parts of the House is there, so let’s be bold, take politics out of it, simplify the way the NHS is run and channel more resources to the frontline.

  • Wera Hobhouse – 2017 Speech on Grenfell Tower Fire

    Below is the text of the speech made by Wera Hobhouse, the Liberal Democrat MP for Bath, on 13 July 2017.

    One month on from this tragedy, there is no less pain for the victims and their families, no less fear, and no less anger over the failings of the political system.

    The disaster at Grenfell Tower has left a huge scar, not just in the local community of Kensington, but across Britain. It has moved people deeply, whether they have local connections or not, and that has been reflected in the generosity shown by public donations. It has also exposed deep divisions and inequalities in our society which we have ignored for far too long. This disaster should have been avoided. How is it possible that, in a very wealthy borough like Kensington and Chelsea, dozens of people can burn to death in their own homes?

    We now need to find out from the public inquiry exactly what happened and what mistakes were made, but reports that unsafe building materials were used, that the need to cut costs was put above tenants’ safety, and that concerns raised by the residents were repeatedly ignored paint a picture that goes much deeper than this disaster. It goes to the heart of our political system and its failures. Trust between our local communities and the political system has been seriously eroded, and must be restored.

    Trust is a very precious thing which takes a long time to build. It is an essential part of a healthy democracy and a functioning society. It is vital that, in the work to restore lives affected by the Grenfell Tower fire, everything possible is done to rebuild that trust, which means genuinely listening to victims’ families and the local community, involving residents in the decisions that affect their lives and their future, and taking all possible action to put things right. That action must include an urgent increase in social housing provision throughout our country. The Grenfell Tower disaster was the result of a long-term failure of successive Governments to invest in social housing, in terms of both the quality and the number of homes. Leaving house building to the private sector has utterly failed. It has led to a housing crisis that has driven vast inequality and pushed many families into poverty and homelessness, and until we take radical action that crisis will continue to spiral out of control.

    Furthermore, we need widespread reform of systems and structures. We need an immediate review of the building regulations to ensure that they are up to date and appropriate. We cannot wait for the results of the ​public inquiry. We cannot have a repeat of what happened after the Lakanal House fire, when a review of regulations was promised but never delivered. This time, lessons must be learned and implemented fast.

    Given that the fire started in a fridge, there must also be reform of electrical safety. My colleagues in both Houses have been fighting for a long time for the introduction of compulsory electrical safety checks in rented homes. So far the Government have seen that as an unnecessary regulation, but now it is surely inexcusable not to make a simple change that has the potential to save lives.

    All residents in Britain, whatever type of housing they live in, have the right to live in homes that are safe, warm, and set in well-run, safe, green and clean neighbourhoods. This disaster has exposed huge weaknesses in the housing provision of our country, and has undermined people’s trust. We all have a responsibility to rebuild trust between the public and their elected representatives, but the Government have the power to take radical steps to fix the system, and they must do that now.

  • Alec Douglas-Home – 1973 Speech on Icelandic Fisheries

    Below is the text of the speech made by Sir Alec Douglas-Home, the then Foreign Secretary, in the House of Commons on 21 May 1973.

    With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement.

    Since 5th September 1972 British trawlers fishing on the high seas have been systematically harassed by Icelandic coastguard vessels. During all that time, in order to assist negotiations British naval vessels have been kept outside the area.

    Lately, despite repeated warnings and although negotiations were in progress, the Icelandic Government continued and intensified their harassment and it became clear that they were making a determined effort to drive British vessels from the area by force. A critical situation was reached on 14th May, when there was an unsuccessful attempt to board a trawler and live ammunition was used by a coastguard vessel.

    After consultation with the industry the Government concluded that it was no longer possible for British vessels to fish in safety without protection. Naval vessels were therefore ordered into the area on 19th May. They will take only such defensive action as is necessary to protect British trawlers exercising their lawful rights to fish on the high seas.

    British naval vessels are, of course, fully entitled in international law to operate freely in this area of the high seas. They will, however, be withdrawn at any time if the Government of Iceland will cease harassment of British trawlers.

    It is still the Government’s desire to settle this dispute by negotiation. Pending such a settlement, we shall, however, authorise trawlers to catch up to the limit of 170,000 tons indicated by the International Court. We shall also pursue substantive proceedings before the court and shall continue to seek longer-term solutions in the Law of the Sea Conference.

  • Anthony Barber – 1973 Speech on Public Expenditure

    Below is the text of the speech made by Anthony Barber, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the House of Commons on 21 May 1973.

    With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement.

    A primary objective of this Government has always been to set our nation on a course of faster economic growth. In the 1972 Budget our aim was a rate of 5 per cent. That we achieved.

    Having lifted the economy on to this path of higher growth, the aim of this year’s Budget was to continue on that path over the next year or so. All the indicators confirm that the economy is continuing to expand at an annual rate of at least 5 per cent., as we intended. Production, industrial productivity and retail sales have all been rising well. Industrial investment is now beginning to forge ahead, and exports are growing strongly—indeed, more strongly than I expected. Unemployment has continued to fall. These are the welcome signs of success.

    Despite some of the problems associated with that success—pressure on the construction industry in some areas and a shortage of skilled labour in certain sectors of industry—we will still have for some time ahead the spare resources necessary to continue that faster rate of growth which is a primary objective of our economic strategy. Furthermore, the nation is firmly behind the Government’s counter-inflation policy, which is a key part of the strategy for expansion.

    But if we are to secure a lasting improvement in our economic performance, and so in our prosperity, we must at this stage look beyond the present financial year and take whatever action is necessary now to secure the opportunity for steady and sustained economic growth during the next financial year, 1974–75, and beyond.

    This sustained growth will depend crucially on the continued strong expansion of industrial investment and exports which we can now expect. It is therefore essential that we now seize this opportunity to get industrial investment and exports on to a higher level and a faster growth path. At the same time, we must allow for a reasonable rate of increase in personal consumption. Looking ahead beyond this financial year, in order to make sure that we have sufficient resources for these three vital elements of demand—industrial investment, exports and personal consumption—it is necessary to moderate the growth of the remaining principal element of demand—public expenditure.

    This was deliberately expanded at the end of 1971 as a temporary measure to reduce unemployment. Now, with unemployment falling at a good rate, and—what we have always wanted—with exports and industrial investment rising fast, is the time to look beyond this financial year. To permit the changes in the pattern of output required to meet these expanding demands, we must take decisions now to ensure that public expenditure, while continuing to grow to meet essential needs, does not pre-empt too much of the nation’s output and so jeopardise the continued expansion of the economy in 1974–75 and beyond.

    In my Budget Statement I announced that certain work on public expenditure had been put in hand last year. That work is now complete and my colleagues and I have decided on certain changes in public expenditure next year, 1974–75.

    We have throughout adopted a selective approach, and the result is that a net saving will be achieved without any reduction in the building programmes for hospitals; for schools, including nursery schools and the replacement of the older schools; without any reduction in the building programmes for colleges and universities; for old people’s homes, and other buildings for the local health and personal social services; and without any change in the rates of regional development grants.

    Expenditure programmes on all these items as well as, of course, social security will continue as planned. The changes include no increases in charges.

    Furthermore, because the changes are being announced well in advance, there should be no question of cancelling existing contracts.

    In deciding upon the geographical spread of savings in individual programmes, the Ministers responsible will take account of the varying circumstances, including the load on the construction industries, the level of unemployment and the particular needs of the various parts of the country.

    So that the specific changes can be strictly compared with the most recent Public Expenditure White Paper (Cmnd. 5178), they are expressed at 1972 survey prices.

    The savings are as follows:

    Roads:

    Deferments for the time being of new schemes and a reduction in maintenance affecting both central and local government. The roads necessary to support Scottish oil developments will not be affected. The saving will be £100 million.

    Miscellaneous Local Services:

    This will involve deferment of approvals. A substantial part of the saving will come in the non-key sector, where the selection will be made by the local authorities themselves. Here again the total saving will be £100 million.

    Local Authorities’ Current Expenditure:

    Out of a total estimated local authority current expenditure of nearly £5,000 million, there will be a saving of £80 million. The largest part of this—£50 million—is already included in the totals which I have mentioned, particularly road maintenance. The rate support grant negotiations this autumn will proceed on the basis that these economies are being made. It is important that the new local authorities as well as the existing ones should be given this early notice of the changes.

    Various Public Building Projects or Improvements:

    In this area also, the Government and the local authorities will both make contributions, amounting to £15 million in all.

    I should add here that there could be no question of incurring any expenditure on the proposed new parliamentary building during either this or the next financial year.

    The Civil Service:

    Figures are being published today—they may even have been published for all I know—which show that the total number of civil servants is now less than when we took office. By continuing to contain the growth of Civil Service manpower there will be a saving of £20 million on previous plans.

    Selective Government Assistance to Industries:

    As a result of the expansion of the economy, and the increasing ability of industry to finance its own requirements, the amounts which were at one stage envisaged are not now expected to be required in full, and there will be a saving of £35 million.

    Defence:

    We expect to maintain the defence budget in 1974–75 at broadly the same level as in the current financial year. A saving of £50 million will be found by economies and postponements of expenditure, including works projects. Our contribution to NATO will not be prejudiced.

    The Nationalised Industries:

    Those industries for which the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is responsible, a saving of £100 million; the Post Office, £30 million; the surface transport industries £10 million. Investment in the nationalised industries will still be on a rising trend and fully adequate to sustain a faster rate of national growth.

    Agriculture:

    As our agriculture becomes more integrated with the common agricultural policy, the need for Exchequer aid will become less and so there will be a reduction of £25 million in expenditure in 1974–75 on current production grants.

    Industrial Training:

    It is important not only that the momentum of this programme should be maintained but that it should be increased. A further £6 million will therefore be added to the existing programme. The plans for meeting expenditure by the industrial training boards out of Government funds instead of out of levies will be deferred for eight months. The increased programme and this deferment will result in a net saving of £20 million.

    I was asked particularly about housing. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has already announced a major switch of resources to housing. I can now inform the House that this priority for housing will involve additional expenditure in 1974–75 of £35 million—again, for convenience, expressed at 1972 prices. Taking this into account, and also the additional expenditure on industrial training to which I have referred, the total net saving in public expenditure for the next financial year, 1974–75, as a result of all these changes will be, at 1972 prices, some £500 million. These decisions will be reflected with estimating and other changes in the course of the year in the next annual White Paper.

    As shown in the last White Paper on public expenditure, we start with the advantage that we had already deliberately planned for the rate of increase to begin to slow down during this financial year, by the end of which the special counter-cyclical expenditure which we put in hand in 1971 will have largely run its course.

    I have explained why the various savings I have announced relate to the year 1974–75. I should also take this opportunity to give the House an assessment of how they will affect the present financial year, 1973–74.

    The changes which I have announced for 1974–75 will build up gradually and will result in a saving in public expenditure in this year approaching £100 million. This saving will be in addition to the reduced provision which I foreshadowed in my Budget Statement and which, on present estimates, now amounts to a net reduction of about £225 million. Public expenditure this year is therefore likely to be over £300 million less than the figure in the last White Paper (Cmnd. 5178).

    We have before us the greatest opportunity our country has had for very many years—an opportunity to achieve a faster and lasting improvement in our national prosperity. The changes which I have announced will ensure just that.

  • Alex Brazier – 2017 Speech on Financial Regulation

    Below is the PDF of the speech made by Alex Brazier, an Executive Director of the Bank of England, at the University of Liverpool on 24 July 2017.

    Text of Speech

  • Priti Patel – 2017 Speech at Family Planning Summit

    Below is the text of the speech made by Priti Patel, the Secretary of State for International Development, at the Family Planning Summit in London on 11 July 2017.

    Good morning ladies and gentlemen and friends. I’m really delighted to be here today and also to welcome you all. I know it’s a bit of a late welcome this morning. Because we have been taking the message externally.

    You heard from Melinda earlier on, she and I were doing some media this morning and really talking about the virtues of what we are doing and, of course, making the case.

    So I am just thrilled that you are all here – you heard me say a bit of this last night.

    But also I really want to give my thanks to Melinda, Natalia but all of you – all of you who’ve been such powerful and passionate advocates of this very, very essential issue.

    We are here because of the nature of the issue and the nature of the challenges that family planning brings to all countries around the world. But, also, because of the ability that it brings to save lives and change lives and, of course, because it’s so fundamental to development.

    Family planning enables women to take control of their futures, so that they can finish their educations. get better jobs, but also to plan for their families – rather than being trapped in that cycle of grinding poverty and deprivation.

    Which we have to keep on saying. And I was quite struck this morning when undertaking some media interviews just the fact that we have to state that, re-state that again and again. Because we all take it for granted. In the west we all take this for granted.

    So we have to be out there and really drive the case and be the advocates for this.

    But we also know that these women have fewer children, and later. And these children, of course, then grow up to be healthier, they have better outcomes in terms of their own life chances and opportunities.

    And that’s exactly what we need to keep on speaking about.

    And, of course, that has much more, in terms of positive outcomes, for local economies, countries to grow, the prosperity agenda.

    It’s exactly what we saw in Asia. The World Bank attributes one-third of economic growth in South Korea over a 40 year period to the demographic dividend, where family planning programmes have of course enabled the fertility rate to fall, alongside education programmes, awareness programmes but of course comprehensive economic plans and policies as well.

    And, frankly, we know that family planning, from a development perspective, is one of the smartest and savviest tools that we have out there. And it’s a clear investment any country can make when it comes to poverty reduction.

    Every pound spent on family planning can save governments over four pounds which can be spent on other public goods – on health, housing, sanitation and other public services.

    So, today, we are saying that family planning is not a nice-to-do, it isn’t an add-on if you are a politician, a minister anywhere around the world – it is crucially essential. Because we cannot beat poverty, we cannot tackle the scourge of poverty unless we get on top of this issue.

    And for the 214 million girls and women in the developing world right now who don’t want to get pregnant and aren’t using modern contraception – we need to give them hope, we need to give them the ability to change this, we need to give them the ability to change their circumstance and their outcomes.

    And of course that’s the purpose of why we are here, the urgency as to why we need to move fast.

    And right now 1.2 billion adolescents are at the start of their reproductive years –most of them don’t know about or aren’t even allowed to get access to contraception.

    And every year there are 6 million unintended pregnancies amongst adolescent girls in developing countries – and 2.5 million, as we know, tragically and completely unnecessarily as well, end up in backstreet abortions. So, together, pregnancy, childbirth, HIV are the leading killers of adolescent girls in Africa.

    And we can change that, we can absolutely be at the front of the queue in changing that.

    And the story of a typical girl in a poor community is that she has her first, often coerced, sexual experience at a very young age, very early teens, and of course that means her first child is going to arrive at a very early age as well. And that leads to that cycle of dropping out of school. And then of course it’s that cycle, that vicious cycle, where she then goes on to have more and more children – on average around 6 children in her lifetime.

    And, of course, if that young girl’s story doesn’t change, neither will that story about her own country…the prospects of her own community and her country.

    And it’s simple, if we can give girls and women the chance to own their bodies, they can own their future.

    And that’s why the United Kingdom feels so strongly about this. On working with many friends that I can see here, on working across the political but also public policy landscape as well.

    We know that we want to make this a stronger and firmer pillar when it comes to family planning and that comprehensive approach to sexual and reproductive health and rights for women and girls.

    We absolutely put this on the agenda five years ago, alongside both Bill and Melinda Gates, by hosting the inaugural Family Planning Summit here in London.

    And the progress that has been made has been immense, supported by the FP2020 partnership work.

    And, of course, within the UK as well, much of the work that we have focused on has been on helping nearly another 8.5 million additional women to take up modern contraception.

    So we are steadfast, absolutely steadfast, in our support, unwavering in our determination. And I think that’s how we all must be as well – not just as the advocates but absolutely calling others out that need to do more in this space as well.

    So it gives me tremendous pleasure to say today that the British Government will boost our support for family planning around the world by 25%.

    So we are going to increase our funding as well.

    And that 25% increase is an additional £45million a year. We are also extending the timeframe of our support by an additional two years – committing ourselves right up to 2022.

    Which means we’re going to spend £225million on family planning every single year over the next five years…cementing our place as the leading European donor to family planning.

    We’ve got to walk the talk – and that’s what this is absolutely about. Be the advocate and also call upon others to do more as well.

    But the fantastic thing about this support, we can talk about money but then we have to speak about people and what this means –

    We will be providing through that money contraceptive support for 20 million women and girls every year…and prevent 6 million unintended pregnancies…but also prevent the trauma of over 75,000 still births.

    So that is a very comprehensive package of measures.

    And what I would like today is for some of us just to hold some of those numbers, not just about the money, but the people who are associated…the 20 million women and girls, the 75,000 mothers that are involved in still births and the psychological traumas, the physical and health traumas as well.

    Because behind every one of those numbers is a story. And they are the women and girls that we are here to speak up for today.

    And of course this new support and the initiative, and the working together today, the partnership work in particular…is helping to bring together and knit together all of us – civil society organisations, our NGO partners, but also private sector and businesses, to tackle and unblock those supply chain issues and to reach women and girls in those rural communities through new technologies.

    And actually this is the exciting aspect of what we are doing. Yes we are providing a lifeline, yes we are helping so many more women and girls, but technology is a front-runner here as well.

    And we are absolutely at the front in terms of pioneering much of the research and development that’s taking place.

    And of course our partners here are rolling out the new injectable contraceptive, Sayana Press, at the newly agreed reduced price; and this is the first time in more than a decade that a new contraceptive method is being introduced – but importantly being globally scaled up. We are here really as the pioneers in new technology and new methods as well.

    And at the same time, supporting safe abortion and working to prevent the horrors of backstreet abortions that kill so many women and girls.

    Now this can never be done in isolation. And of course we have to link this and knit this together with the wider investment when it comes to education for girls, maternal health, women’s economic empowerment, preventing HIV/AIDS, ending violence against women and girls including FGM and child marriage.

    And we are the community in this room. Many of us have already been the champions and the advocates on this. And that gives us a great sense of pride and a great sense of purpose.

    And we demonstrate once again that our call to action means that we can carry on with the global commitment on family planning, the global commitment that we all have for women and girls.

    And we know that we can do more within the international community, as well, to bring others to the table.

    In developing countries – and I know that I interrupted the country programme session – that’s exactly where the change is going to start to happen.

    So we know we can’t sugar-coat some of the challenges that we are all here to address and deal with.

    We know that we can work with all our partners at a macro-level in the international community – but also within countries as well.

    Because we know that it’s not just about the money, it’s about the ways of working, we know that it’s about the technology. But, importantly, focusing on the efforts where we are falling short and looking through today in particular how we can pick up those challenges and step up to meet those challenges,

    Work with other donors obviously – because I know many others are going to make great contributions,

    But I think, importantly, being the change that we want to see and being the powerful voice in this space is effectively what this is about.

    So thank you very much, have a fantastic day, I look forward to talking to so many of you throughout the day as well.

    And I really just want to give a genuine and heartfelt thank you to everyone, not just for being here – but for being at the forefront of the change that we want to work together to achieve. Thank you.

  • Jeremy Wright – 2017 Speech on International Justice Day

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jeremy Wright, the Attorney General, on International Justice Day on 17 July 2017.

    Good afternoon all. I want to begin by thanking those at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the British Institute for International and Comparative Law for putting today’s conference together. The breadth and depth of experience of those at this event will, I am sure, be invaluable in developing all of our thinking on these incredibly important issues.

    At the outset I want to emphasise that these are issues that I feel strongly about – in December last year I spoke at an event at the United Nations in support of the Foreign Office led campaign to bring Daesh to justice; the focus of that speech was the importance of gathering and preserving evidence to enhance global accountability and today I want to reinforce that message.

    The challenges posed by the conflict in Syria are issues that I encounter day-to-day in my role as Attorney General. As many of you will know, I am Chief Legal Adviser to the Government and in that capacity I attend Cabinet meetings and am a member of the National Security Council. But I also superintend the main prosecuting authorities – the Crown Prosecution Service and the Serious Fraud Office – and have certain quasi-judicial functions which I exercise in the public interest. One of those functions is to decide whether prosecutions for some offences, which include terrorism, genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, should go ahead.

    What this means is that I hold a unique position at the interface of law and politics. So, I know first-hand the challenges faced by the Government and those faced by our domestic prosecutors.

    So in the short time I have, I want to give you a practical view of some of the issues likely to arise when prosecuting crimes committed in conflict areas in our domestic courts. One of the key messages I want to get across is that our prosecutors have the skills and experience to prosecute these invariably very challenging cases and we will pursue them vigorously where there is sufficient evidence to do so.

    All allegations of terrorism, war crimes and crimes against humanity are dealt with by a team of specialist prosecutors in the Counter Terrorism Division of the Crown Prosecution Service and you will hear from Deb Walsh, who leads the CPS Counter Terrorism Unit, a little later. That team is supported by a network of liaison prosecutors who are stationed abroad to work with our international partners. The CPS have obtained more than 90 convictions from more than 60 cases arising from the conflict in Syria and Daesh activities in that region. Whilst the Counter Terrorism Division’s caseload continues to increase significantly, conviction rates have remained high – for 2016 the conviction rate for terrorism was 86%. Rightly, the CPS Counter Terrorism Division has an excellent reputation both at home and abroad.

    To highlight some of the issues under discussion today I am going to talk about two cases that the Division has dealt with.

    In 2014 a man named Imran Khawaja was arrested by the police on returning to the UK from Syria. Khawaja had joined Daesh and was ultimately convicted of various offences including preparing acts of terrorism, attending a place used for terrorist training and receiving weapons training. Part of the evidence against him was a video promoting Daesh that had been posted on social media in which he was shown holding up two severed human heads from a pile of others as he spoke to the camera.

    Khawaja was, unsurprisingly, considered a danger to the public and given an extended sentence. He was not, however, given a life sentence with the Judge commenting that he had taken into account the absence of evidence of [Khawaja] having actually taken part in the combat itself, as opposed to its assistance and glorification.

    And, of course, on the evidence available, the Judge was right to reach that conclusion. The evidence simply did not demonstrate whether and to what extent Khawaja may have been involved in the killing of the men whose heads were shown or, indeed, any other of the many atrocities we know to have taken place.

    This case really encapsulates some of the challenges faced by domestic investigators and prosecutors dealing with offending that has happened in an area of conflict. If evidence is not available from the country where the offence has taken place they can, and do, build a case on the evidence that is available which may be, for example, communications data or material that can be retrieved from electronic devices or social media. However, if there is no evidence from the place where the criminality has taken place, there is a real risk that the most serious offending, in particular conduct that amounts to offences such as torture, crimes against humanity or even genocide, could go unpunished.

    I should also add that investigations based largely on digital material present their own challenges. We have found that huge volumes of data are recovered during investigations and prosecutions. In a terrorism case, on average, 4 terabytes of data is extracted in each investigation with larger investigations typically recovering more than 20 terabytes. To put this in context, a single terabyte is equivalent to roughly a million books of 500 pages each . Identifying relevant and incriminating material from all that is a mammoth task and is made more complicated where foreign languages, code or encryption have been used. Of course these challenges are not exclusive to terrorism cases but they highlight how important it can be to have other sources of evidence available.

    A different case dealt with by the Counter Terrorism Division highlights how effective in country evidence can be in ensuring accountability for the most serious crimes, even some years after an offence has taken place. In 2007 a US armoured vehicle was on patrol in the area of North Western Baghdad when it set off an improvised explosive device, or IED. Tragically, the explosion killed one of the soldiers inside the vehicle, a Sergeant Johnson.

    Military personnel recovered that device and many others that were used against coalition forces. Forensic examination of the device and three other similar devices was able to demonstrate that a British citizen named Anis Sardar had been directly involved in the construction and/or deployment of these bombs with the intent required for an offence of murder. It is not possible to go into all the details of the evidence now in what was a complicated case, but key features of it related to fingerprint marks taken from the devices, evidence of similarities between them, the unusual nature of their construction, and, the fact they had been deployed in a small area of Iraq over a short time period. Sardar returned from Iraq in 2007 and was arrested in 2014 after it had been established that his fingerprints matched those on some of the IEDs. In May 2015 he was convicted after a trial of the murder of Sergeant Johnson and conspiracy to murder. Ultimately he received a life sentence with a minimum term of 35 years.

    In conclusion I want to reiterate that prosecutors in this country can and will bring domestic prosecutions for offences committed during conflict where the evidence is available and our domestic courts have jurisdiction to do so. These cases will often present significant and sometimes unique problems but we have the skills and experience to build the strongest case possible with the evidence available. But, the fundamental precursor to all this work is the availability of reliable evidence and so the key to ensuring that the perpetrators are held to account and that victims receive justice, is gathering and preserving the evidence left behind. This requires the closest possible cooperation with those on the ground, and it is a huge challenge, but to achieve all we can in the delivery of international criminal justice, it is a challenge we must overcome.

  • Theresa May – 2017 Speech at London Pride Reception

    Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May, the Prime Minister, at a Pride Reception on 19 July 2017.

    It is a very great pleasure to welcome you all to this reception today to celebrate the contribution that lesbian, gay, bi and trans people make to our country.

    We meet, of course, during Pride season – a joyful time when communities come together in a spirit of freedom, tolerance and equality.

    Pride in London a couple of weeks ago was a huge success and I’m sure that the first ever UK Pride, to be held in Hull, our Capital of Culture, this weekend will also be a huge success.

    I’m delighted that we have some of the team from both, and other Pride celebrations, here today.

    50th Anniversary

    And of course this year is a special year because fifty years ago this month, the passage of the Sexual Offences Act in England and Wales marked an important step towards legal equality for LGBT people in the UK.

    It was just one step, and it took many more years before it became widely accepted that a person’s sexual orientation and gender identity are things to respect and celebrate. The law in Scotland did not change until 1980 and Northern Ireland in 1982. And only this year did my colleague John Glen’s private member’s bill finally extend this to the merchant navy, closing a sad chapter in our legal history.

    This anniversary reminds us how far we have come, but also how long it has taken to get us here, and also how much more there still is to do. We should take this opportunity to remember the work of those who campaigned so long to deliver the change we have seen over the past fifty years. They braved abuse and ridicule, violence and legal persecution in their tireless quest for justice and human rights.

    They knew that what they stood for was right; they fought for it with courage and determination; and they made our country a better place as a result.

    Changing hearts and minds

    And like millions of other people in this country, I have changed my own mind on a number of the policy issues which I was confronted with when I first became an MP twenty years ago. If those votes were today, yes I would vote differently. And when I was a member of the shadow cabinet before the 2010 general election, I was proud to establish a Contract for Equalities which first committed my Party to taking forward equal marriage. I was proud to give it my full support in government as one of the sponsors of the bill which delivered it. I believe that equal marriage will be one of the proudest legacies of my Party’s time in office.

    Equal marriage in England and Wales was passed with cross-party support and it is a great thing for our country that there is now a broad political consensus in support of equality and human rights. The UK Parliament is now one of the most diverse in the world, with forty-five out gay, lesbian or bi MPs – six more than in the previous Parliament. 17 of those are Conservatives and I am proud to lead a Cabinet with two out members, and to have other gay and lesbian ministers serving in government.

    Now I know that my Party has a mixed record on LGBT issues and, like other parties, we have made mistakes in the past. But there are things we are proud of too. It was a Conservative MP, Humphry Berkeley, who first tried to change the law on homosexuality in the 1960s, before he lost his seat and a Labour MP, Leo Abse, took up the cause. It was a Conservative peer, Lord Arran, who took the Bill through the Lords. A future Conservative leader, Margaret Thatcher, was amongst the MPs who voted for it. A Conservative Health Secretary, Norman Fowler, put in place a world-leading response to the AIDS crisis in the 1980s – and I think that Norman is here with us this afternoon. John Major ended the ban on lesbian and gay people serving as diplomats. And of course David Cameron delivered same sex marriage.

    So I am proud that, just like the country as a whole, my Party has come a long way. Respect for the rights of LGBT people is now an indelible part of modern Conservatism and modern Conservative values – and that is how it will always remain.

    And I want to say something very directly. Because I know that there is concern about the agreement which we have made with the DUP. But this agreement does nothing to weaken the Conservative Party’s absolute commitment to LGBT equality and human rights.

    And let me be even clearer. When it comes to those rights across the United Kingdom, I want all British citizens to enjoy the fullest freedoms and protections. That includes equal marriage. Now with devolution in the UK, that is not a decision for the UK Government to make. But my position is very clear. I think that LGBT people in Northern Ireland should have the same rights as people across the rest of the UK.

    LGBT rights are human rights

    And our ambitions are not just restricted to this country: because LGBT rights are human rights – and as a UK Government, we will always stand up for them.

    In some Commonwealth countries discriminatory laws still exist – often directly based on the very laws which we repealed in this country fifty years ago. So Britain has a special responsibility to help change hearts and minds and we will ensure that these important issues are discussed at next year’s Commonwealth Heads of Government Conference, which we will be hosting here in the UK.

    In countries where human rights are abused and people face violence and persecution, the UK will continue to challenge, at the highest political levels, the governments concerned. That is the case with the sickening treatment which LGBT people are enduring in Chechnya today. It is a mark of shame for the Russian Federation, and we have made that clear to the Russian government.

    As we leave the EU, Britain will forge a new global role and we will use our position to provide even stronger global leadership on this issue in the years ahead.

    At home, we know that the battle has not yet been won. Everyone should be free to enjoy their lives free from harassment and discrimination, happy and proud of who they are. In particular, no child should ever be made to feel afraid or ashamed because of who they are. We need to do all we can to build a country which works for everyone, where people of all backgrounds are free to be themselves and fulfil their full potential.

    So we are supporting schools to tackle homophobic bullying. We have seen encouraging signs that it is in decline, but we must keep up the work to tackle it. Part of that is ensuring that there are strong and positive role models for young people and just earlier this afternoon, before I came down here to this reception, I was delighted to be able to bestow a Point of Light award on someone who has worked to ensure those role models are more visible.

    Rory Smith experienced homophobia in the classroom when he was growing up, and to help other people facing the same challenging experience, he returned to his old school as an adult to help speak out about his experiences as a gay teenager. He helped set up a charity, ‘Just Like Us’, which sends other positive LGBT role models into schools to share their experiences, challenge stereotypes and inspire young people to be themselves.

    But while homophobic bullying may be in decline, we know that transphobic bullying remains a very serious problem. Indeed when it comes to rights and protections for trans people, there is still a long way to go. That is why the government is reviewing the Gender Recognition Act and we hope to make an announcement very soon on the action we will take to reform it by making it less medical and less intrusive.

    Conclusion

    Fifty years on from the 1967 Act, we can look back on a great deal of progress made, but we do so in the sober realisation that there is a long way still to go. I say to the tireless campaigners here today, and to those who are not: your inspirational work has created a better future for LGBT people in Britain and around the world. I hope you all have a fantastic time here at this reception. Thank you to everybody for all that you do.

  • Boris Johnson – 2017 Speech at Lowy Institute

    Below is the text of the speech made by Boris Johnson, the Foreign Secretary, at the Lowy Institute in Sydney on 27 July 2017.

    Good evening. It is great to be here in this wonderful Town Hall, alongside my friend and colleague Julie Bishop, and with Stephen Lowy and Michael Fullilove.

    When I first came back to Britain after a year in Australia – at the age of 19 – it would be fair to say that I bore a pretty heavy imprint from my time in this country.

    My conversation was studded with words like “bonzer, mate” or “you little ripper”, and on the streets of London in broad daylight I insisted on wearing the same “Stubbies” daks – shorts of appalling brevity – that I had worn in the bush until my then girlfriend said that it was her or the stubbies daks.

    I am not sure how the contest was resolved. After years in the UK educational system my infatuation with Australian dress, manners, vocabulary and general cast of mind was so intense that I had become a kind of unconscious Les Patterson – a self-appointed and unwanted cultural ambassador.

    In so far as my friends were able to understand me, it helped that this was the time when Neighbours and Kylie Minogue were propelling Australian life onto our screens, and when young Australians were beginning to pop up across the planet in a phenomenon that was set to music in 1980 by the band Men At Work.

    You will recall that the peregrinations of the man from Down Under – how he met a man from Bombay with not much to say; how he met the man from Brussels 6 foot 4 inches and full of muscles, and he asked him do you speak a my language and he just smiled and gave him a vegemite sandwich – the point being that he was himself Australian.

    And from that lyric you deduce that second characteristic of the Australians – not only a fierce sense of identity and independence, but also a truly global country, engaged with the world in a way that is positive and fearless and upbeat.

    So keep those two features in your head – strong sense of national political and cultural identity, combined with a truly global outlook – as I ask you to conduct a thought experiment.

    I am told that Australia has just joined Eurovision. All I can say as a representative of a country that often seems to score nil points is – good luck with that. But protract that logic.

    Imagine that in 1972 Geoffrey Rippon and Ted Heath had been able by some miracle to persuade our friends in Paris that distance was no obstacle. Suppose that by her abundant self-evident influences from Britain, Greece, Italy and elsewhere it had been decided that Australia was really European; a great, glorious syncretic European country and therefore eligible for accession – and suppose the French had said oui, and Australia had been admitted to the Common Market. What would have happened?

    Who would have wanted Australia to join the Common Market by the way? Let’s have a little retrospective referendum here…

    Well, I think you could argue that there would have been advantages and disadvantages. Australia would certainly have continued to catapult huge quantities of butter and beef to Europe – more than ever, perhaps. But other things would not have been so easy.

    I mean no criticism of the model and methods chosen by our EU friends but you wouldn’t be running your own competition law or your public procurement programmes and you wouldn’t be able to tailor your green energy programmes to suit Australia’s needs.

    You would find yourselves regularly out-voted in the Council of Ministers on hours of work or the definition of chocolate. You would never have been able to come up with your own immigration policy – the fabled points-based system.

    And for the last 44 years you would have had to conform to the Common Agricultural Policy, and we must face the terrible probability that the EU’s ruthless quota and intervention policies – designed to protect existing Mediterranean producers – would have meant that Australia’s now legendary winemakers would never have got beyond the first tentative vintages because the whole lot would have been compulsorily boiled up and turned into bioethanol; and there would be nothing from the Hunter valley on our tables tonight.

    And above all an awful lot of your brightest diplomats would be spending their lives trying to stop things from happening, grappling in distant corridors with brilliant graduates of the Ecole Nationale d’Administration, instead of actually trying to get things done.

    And even if you think I am being paranoid – even if you think it might not have been as bad as all that – I think we can look at Australia today and after 26 years of continuous growth, and with per capita GDP 25 per cent higher than in the UK, I think we can say that it was not absolutely necessary for Australia to join the Common Market.

    Indeed, it is safe to say that it was not necessary for Australia to join any bloc or grouping organised on the integrationist principles of the EU.

    Australia is not required to send well remunerated parliamentarians to an APEC parliament; and there isn’t a single APEC court of justice or currency, called the abalone, or whatever.

    Australia hasn’t been required in the last few decades to sign up to a series of treaties designed to create a single political unit out of a patchwork of 27 countries; and no one claims that such a process is essential for Australia’s economic health and well-being, nor that this prevents Australia being a successful member of international economic organisations or a committed multilateral player.

    So when we look at the forward momentum of Australia in the last few decades you can perhaps see why we in Britain are inclined to take with a pinch of salt some of the very slight gloom and negativity that is emanating from some distinguished quarters about the decision of the British people to leave the European Union.

    And you can see why we might be moved to reject their notion that little old Britain is just too small, too feeble, too isolated, to cope on its own.

    They say the UK is like some poor wriggling crustacean about to be deprived of its shell. I say – don’t come the raw prawn with me.

    On the contrary, when we look at what Australia has achieved, we can see grounds for boundless excitement and optimism.

    It is true that we may not have all Australia’s sunshine and other natural advantages; but we are the fifth biggest economy on earth, rated number two or perhaps number one for soft power, a permanent member of the UN Security Council, the second biggest contributor to NATO, we have the greatest financial capital anywhere in the world, with the biggest creative, culture and media sector anywhere in our hemisphere.

    And we are like Australians in that our population is possessed of the most extraordinary wanderlust – one in ten of Britons now alive is estimated to be living outside Britain, a higher proportion than any other rich country.

    Not just diplomats and aid workers either – though we certainly make a huge contribution to international activity. If you look at the five worst current humanitarian disasters – in Syria, South Sudan, Somalia, Yemen and North East Nigeria – you will find that the three biggest donors are the US, the UK, and the EU; and that is before you even take account of the sixth or so of the EU aid budget we also pay.

    We are hugely proud of that record – but of course we are not just talking of public officials. We are talking about 6 million bankers and journalists and artists and lawyers and athletes and – I kid you not – a policeman from Uxbridge who tours the world testing water slides: 6 million Brits spread out across the world in a great bright throbbing web like a scene from Avatar.

    And we have the chance now as we leave the arrangements of the European Union to become even more global, and when I say more global I do not mean for a minute that we will become less European.

    The Channel is not about to get wider. Britain is not going to sprout funnels and steam across to the Mid Atlantic. We remain historically, culturally, intellectually, emotionally and architecturally European.

    Shakespeare is just as European as Michelangelo or Cervantes or Beethoven. Indeed, when you consider the range of his locations: Denmark, Austria, France, Greece, Italy, Cyprus, Croatia, Turkey, to say nothing of Lebanon, Syria and the New World – I think you could argue that he was more European in his interests than any other great artist.

    This European-ness is not just words: we show our commitment to Europe by our moral and military willingness to come to the defence of our friends, a commitment that we make unconditionally, irrespective of our EU negotiations.

    It is 100 years since British and Australian soldiers stood side by side in the Third Battle of Ypres, in what I still believe it is right to think of as a fight against tyranny.

    Today there are 800 British soldiers in Estonia, almost a quarter of the NATO mission in Eastern Europe, there to give reassurance in the face of any potential provocations from the east. We will continue to stick up for the rights of Ukrainians, threatened by Russian aggression and revanchism.

    We will work with our friends in the western Balkans, where there is currently a political and geo-strategic arm wrestle taking place; and we will continue to help them to achieve what they see as their Euro-Atlantic destiny.

    We will help our Italian partners as they face the challenge of migration from North Africa– cracking down on the vile people traffickers who put their victims to sea in leaky boats.

    We will continue to argue for balance and moderation in our European foreign policy; and yes we join our friends in deploring the actions of the Turkish authorities in arresting and imprisoning journalists and human rights activists, including Amnesty International campaigners. We call on Turkey to release them from pre-trial detention, ensure fair and speedy trials, and to find a new way forward.

    But we also believe that we must engage with Turkey, and that it would be a great mistake to demonise or to push that extraordinary country away from us. That is not the right way forward, either.

    And we believe that this European engagement – military, diplomatic, working together to defeat all those who would do us harm – is in our interests, in our partners’ interests – in our mutual interest.

    And that mutual interest is nowhere more blatant than in the negotiations on trade that are about to begin.

    I wore this morning a sweater derived from Spanish sheep, reared in New Zealand, whose wool was shorn and shipped to Italy where it was turned into cloth that was shipped to China – imagine that vast triangle – where it was stitched together and then back to New Zealand before being exported to Britain, France, all over the world. Think of that woolly jumper as it bounds over borders and barriers and customs posts with not a bleat of effort or exertion.

    That is how trade works today, with standards and supply chains that are increasingly global; and with the help of the excellent negotiators on both sides I have no doubt that we will get a great deal that preserves and even enhances the frictionless movement of goods that is in the interests of both sides of the Channel.

    And I am sure that we will get a solution that does nothing to undermine the interests of London’s financial sector, because the real rivals of the City are not in Paris or Frankfurt; they are in Hong Kong and New York and Singapore – and in the end I think everyone understands that London is an asset for the entire continent.

    And when we do that deal I believe we will create a solution that has been so long in the making – a strong EU, buttressed and supported by a strong UK, with each side trading freely with the other, and with the UK able to think about new opportunities in the rest of the world.

    There is nowhere more exciting to do that than here in the Indo-Pacific; here where there is a third of the global economy, around two-thirds of the global population – here where the growth is.

    And that is why we have decided once again that the UK must be more present, more active, more engaged in this region. and in each of the three countries I have visited in the last week – Japan, New Zealand, here in Australia – I have heard people ask for Britain to get more involved.

    And we will be here as a partner and friend; aiming at good relations with all the major countries of this region – not choosing between them. Our relationship with China, the engine of global growth, will be crucial now and in the future. As will our deep and long-standing partnerships with Japan and India. And of course those with you in Australia and our friends in New Zealand.

    But we need to do more. So I can say tonight that after leaving the EU, we will be seeking to strengthen our own national relationship with ASEAN as an institution.

    We want these partnerships because they are a big part of how we uphold the liberal international order, in Asia as elsewhere.

    That is why last week I stood shoulder to shoulder with my colleague Fumio Kishida, the Japanese foreign minister, in denouncing the nuclear adventurism of Kim Jong Un. A man who reportedly deals with his enemies by strapping them to the side of a mountain and shelling them with an anti-aircraft gun.

    That is why we stand up for the rights of the people of Hong Kong and for the ‘One country, two systems’ principle to be upheld – and I thank Julie Bishop for making that same point when she spoke a couple of nights ago.

    In the South China Sea, we urge all parties to respect freedom of navigation and international law, including the ruling of the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague.

    We are also ready once again to articulate our commitment to international order with money and a military presence.

    That is why we last year sent our Typhoons for the first time to train with Japan, South Korea, and Malaysia, as one of the few countries able to deploy air power 7,000 miles from our shores. That is why one of the first missions of our 2 vast new aircraft carriers will be to sail through the Straits of Malacca, the route that currently accommodates a quarter of global trade.

    And if you look at these vessels you will see that they are not only longer than the Palace of Westminster but more persuasive than most of the arguments you will hear in the House of Commons.

    Not because we have enemies in this region – on the contrary, as I have made clear, we are keen to intensify our friendships – but because we believe in upholding the rule of law.

    And that brings me to the final key point I want to make tonight. Winston Churchill identified what he saw as the special genius of the English-speaking peoples.

    For my part I think we must be careful to avoid any such conceit or complacency that English-speakers are especially blessed; but it is certainly true that there is a series of interconnected ideas that have been highly successful, and that I certainly believe in.

    They are democracy, the rule of law, habeas corpus, an independent judiciary, the absolute freedom to make fun of politicians, and above all the freedom to live your life as you please provided you do not harm the interests of others.

    It is because they know that they can fulfil themselves in that way that people of talent are drawn to such beautiful cities as London and Sydney – and it is that very freedom that makes these cities so prosperous and so innovative.

    And it is to defend and expand that ideal – of freedom under the law – that Britain and Australia work hand in hand; because we know that ideal is not really the property or copyright of the English-speaking peoples – but something that belongs or can belong to all humanity.

    Today with Julie Bishop and our defence colleagues we discussed every issue under the sun. I must tell you that in the course of those talks we have over the last 24 hours had an almost embarrassing failure to disagree.

    We are building greater global security together, and now we look forward to intensifying the trading and commercial relationships that greater security makes possible.

    We both have great Commonwealth events next year – a great London Summit and I am sure a fantastic Gold Coast Commonwealth Games – and we both believe in the Commonwealth’s capacity to strengthen common values among its members from here, across Asia, into the Pacific.

    After we leave the EU I am confident that Australia will be at, or near, the front of the queue for a new Free Trade Agreement with Britain; an agreement that could boost even further what we do together.

    After all we already do so much. I have just met British engineers rebuilding Sydney Opera house. And I know only too well the debt of my own city, London, to Frank Lowy – now Sir Frank – a man who kept investing even in the darkest days of the 2008 crash, and who kept building even when pretty well every other crane had been removed.

    We trade so much together – you sell us skateboards; we sell you boomerangs. We sell you marmite, you sell us vegemite – and I would not like to speculate on who does better on the deal.

    You send us Patricia Hewitt and Lynton Crosby. We send you Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott.

    Never in history has there been such a happy, swollen, distance-obliterating pipeline of people and ideas and goods and services, and as that flow increases in pace and volume let us remember that our success is made possible and guaranteed by the ideals we share. They are not unchallenged. They have their enemies and their detractors.

    But they have stood us in good stead and we can be absolutely confident that they will succeed triumphantly in the years ahead. Thank you very much.

  • Liam Fox – 2017 Speech on Brexit and Global Trade

    Below is the text of the speech made by Liam Fox, the Secretary of State for International Trade and the President of the Board of Trade, in Mexico City on 27 July 2017.

    Good morning.

    It is a pleasure to be here today in Mexico City, to speak to you about Britain’s new place in the world, and the growing importance of the relationship between the UK and Mexico.

    I would like to extend my thanks to HSBC for hosting such an excellent event, and giving me the opportunity to share the government’s vision of the UK’s commercial and economic future.

    It is fitting that we are hosted by HSBC, the largest UK investor in Mexico. Their presence here is not only an important part of the commercial ties that already connect our nations, but also indicative of the future direction of that relationship.

    Last night, I was fortunate enough to enjoy dinner with my colleague, Minister for the Economy Ildefonso Guajardo.

    We stressed the need to redouble our efforts to increase bilateral trade between the Mexico and the UK, especially given the wealth of opportunities that exist in both countries.

    Like me, Minister Guajardo sees the need to champion global free trade, and ensure that the larger economies of the world, such as the UK and Mexico, work together to reverse a rising tide of protectionism.

    Our agreement on these key issues is symbolic of the wider relationship between Mexico and the United Kingdom.

    Fundamentally, our two nations have a very similar global outlook. So much so, that we have hardly ever disagreed on the world stage.

    Time and again, at the UN, the G20, and the WTO, the UK and Mexico have shown a united front, working together to address global issues.

    This closeness has been underlined by the personal ties that continue to link our two countries, as increasing numbers of people move between Mexico and the UK to travel, work, and study.

    But there is more to do. The level of trade and commerce between two large economies can, and should, be far greater.

    At our meeting last night, Secretary Guajardo and I launched an informal Trade Dialogue, aiming at discussing how to ensure that the preferential arrangements that the UK currently enjoys with Mexico remain in place as we leave the EU.

    At the same time, we reiterated our support for an ambitious and speedy outcome to the modernisation of the EU-Mexico FTA.

    As I said last night, there are no conceivable circumstances in which the UK would not want to have a free trade agreement in place with Mexico.

    Going forward, our priority must be to ensure stability, continuity and transitional agreements that minimise disruption for businesses.

    In the same way, the UK wants the closest possible relationship with our European neighbours, with no interruption of our trading relationship.

    This will provide the most stable platform for those companies from other countries, such as Mexico, who use Britain as an access point to Europe.

    Outside the EU, it is Britain’s ambition to be a tireless advocate of global free trade, working with allies such as Mexico to ensure that the voice of commercial freedom is never drowned out by the increasing siren song of protectionism.

    I am here today in Mexico City not only to celebrate the existing relationship between our nations, but to look to the opportunities of the future.

    It is clear to any observer that Mexico’s star is in the ascendancy.

    Buoyed by a far-reaching package of economic reforms, including opening up the energy and telecoms sectors, and reforming the financial and education system, your economy has maintained steady growth throughout the global slowdown.

    British businesses believe in Mexico, and are matching that faith with investment. Petrofac and Premier Oil have long been involved in the energy sector.

    I was delighted to hear of the recent discovery of one billion plus barrels of light oil in the Zama-1 field, a resource which British companies will have a key role in extracting.

    Mexico City’s new international airport has been designed by Norman Foster, in a collaboration with distinguished Mexican architect Fernando Romero.

    Hamley’s, a British institution, has opened a store here, and, soon, state of the art British double-decker buses will be a regular sight on Reforma.

    To top it off, BP has recently become the first foreign oil company to open petrol stations in Mexico, and Shell will follow next month. The belief that UK businesses have in Mexico is palpable.

    The UK boasts more Mexican masters’ students studying in our universities than anywhere else in Europe. Last year, Mexican and British scientists became the first in the world to develop a vaccine against Chikungunya, a tropical disease spread by mosquitos.

    Already, our two countries enjoy a remarkably successful relationship.

    Earlier, I touched on our shared beliefs and global attitudes. I understand that Mexico has voted more times with the UK in the UN and multilateral institutions than with any other nation.

    This shows a remarkable, and important, convergence in opinion, especially for two countries situated over 5,000 miles from one another.

    This can, and will, be the foundation of a deeper trading relationship, as Britain looks to build new trading relationships with new friends around the world.

    I have spoken of how companies from across the United Kingdom are seizing the opportunities that Mexico has to offer.

    But trading relationships have to go both ways, and the UK promises huge prospects for Mexican firms.

    As the world’s fifth largest economy, there is a huge market for everything from oil and gas, tourism, manufactured goods and food and drink.

    The structure of our economy also has the potential to be hugely complementary to Mexico’s interests. Our world-leading expertise in industries such as transport, manufacturing, education, and healthcare allow UK companies to help their Mexican counterparts grow domestically.

    As the world’s leading financial services centre, London is well-placed to lend its expertise to Mexican industry, whether through financing, insurance or business services.

    And although there is currently only one Mexican company registered on the London Stock Exchange, we would encourage many more to follow.

    For example, we are world leaders in green finance, and UK firms have worked closely with Mexico to support the development of Mexico’s green bond market and clean energy certificates.

    Mexico is now the leader in Latin America at issuing green bonds, including a $2 billion bond, underwritten by HSBC, for the new Mexico City airport, a shining example of successful British/Mexican collaboration in design and innovation.

    The UK is home to a globally unique concentration of skills, knowledge, expertise and industries. We are constantly ranked among the best places on earth to start and grow a business, thanks in part to our progressive regulatory environment, robust legal system, and highly skilled workforce.

    These intrinsic strengths will always remain. Indeed, the UK attracted more foreign direct investment projects than ever before in the year 2016 to 2017, with more than 2,200 projects recorded.

    Already, companies from throughout Mexico are coming to take advantage of all the UK has to offer, including Cemex, Mexichem, Bimbo, Gruma, Kidzania, Monex and Jose Cuervo, to name a few.

    They are the pioneers of what will become an extremely fruitful relationship.

    They are also innovators and this is something else that unites us. I am delighted that Innovation is GREAT features today at the breakfast, as part of a year-long Innovation campaign at the embassy.

    And I understand that distinguished Mexican chef, Martha Ortiz, will be opening a new, top class Mexican restaurant in Central London in September.

    This will help promote appreciation of Mexico’s outstanding cuisine and hospitality, a little of which I have already experienced in my short visit.

    In the course of my meetings many have asked about the implications of Brexit for our bilateral relations. It is true that as we leave the EU we are opening a new chapter in our history.

    For the first time in more than four decades, the UK will enjoy a fully independent trade policy, free to build closer trading ties with countries around the world, with partners new and old.

    But let me make one thing clear. Any who are tempted to see our exit from the EU as evidence of Britain looking inwards should think again. We have chosen another path – to embrace the wider horizons of a truly global Britain.

    That means looking for new opportunities and it represents a willingness to invest the time and energy to make the necessary partnerships succeed over a long period.

    With increased bilateral trade, increased investment, and a strong strategic partnership, the UK-Mexico trading relationship is set to change radically. It can be a step change in our mutual commitment.

    Already, we are working together to support each other’s growth and development through exciting work streams and partnerships such as the Prosperity Fund and Senior Business Leaders Group, and I am delighted that several members of the group are represented here today.

    As we work together to promote the trade and investment opportunities that exist between our two countries, our relationship will go from strength to strength.

    And as Britain embraces the wider world, we will stand together with Mexico to defend free trade, and all the transformative prosperity that it can bring.

    After all, it is through our friends and allies that we achieve our ambitions.

    Thank you.