UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • James Brokenshire – 2017 Statement on Northern Ireland

    Below is the text of the speech made by James Brokenshire, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, in the House of Commons on 3 July 2017.

    With permission I would like to make a statement about the political situation in Northern Ireland.

    As the House will recall following the resignation of Martin McGuinness, the then deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland in January, an election took place to the Northern Ireland Assembly on 2 March.

    Despite intensive discussions in the three weeks following the election the Northern Ireland parties were unable to reach agreement on the formation of a new Executive.

    In order to facilitate further discussions between the parties, Parliament passed legislation immediately prior to dissolution extending the period in which an Executive could be formed until 29 June.

    Last Thursday, 29 June, I made a statement in Belfast setting out that, while differences remained between the parties, progress had been made and that it was still possible for resolution to be achieved.

    I urged the parties to continue focusing their efforts on this, with the full support of the UK Government and, as appropriate, the Irish Government.

    In that regard I want to recognise the contribution of the Irish Foreign Minister, Simon Coveney, and his predecessor, Charlie Flanagan.

    In the past few days, since the passing of the deadline, further progress has continued to be made, including on the most challenging issues such as language, culture and identity.

    Gaps remain between the parties, but these are few in number and on a defined group of issues.

    The Government remains committed to working with the parties, and the Irish Government, to find a way to close these gaps quickly in order to reach an agreement which will pave the way for the restoration of devolved government.

    The Prime Minister has been actively involved following on from her meetings with each of the parties … including speaking to Arlene Foster and Michelle O’Neill on Friday night.

    I continue to believe that a deal remains achievable.

    And if agreement is reached, I will bring forward legislation to enable an Executive to be formed possibly as early as this week.

    But time is short.

    It has been six months since a full Executive was in place to represent the people of Northern Ireland.

    In that time it has been civil servants, not politicians, who have made decisions on spending.

    Without political direction, it has not been possible for strategic decisions to be made about priorities in areas like education and health.

    This has created pressures which need to be addressed.

    And it has led to understandable concern and uncertainty among businesses and those relying on public services alike.

    This hiatus cannot simply continue for much longer.

    There is no doubt that the best outcome is for a new Executive to make those strategic decisions in the interests of all parts of the community in Northern Ireland.

    It should be for a new Executive to make swift decisions on its Budget to make use of the considerable spending power available to it.

    While engagement between the parties continues, and there is a prospect of an agreement this week, it is right that those discussions remain our focus.

    At the same time we will not forget our ultimate responsibility as a Government to uphold political stability and good governance in Northern Ireland.

    In April, I made a Written Ministerial Statement that sought to provide clarity for those civil servants charged with allocating cash in Northern Ireland, to assist them in the discharge of their responsibilities.

    But there remains resource available, including £42m from the Spring Budget and any further budget transfers as may be agreed, which are as yet unallocated.

    If we do not see resolution in the coming days, we would need to reflect carefully upon whether further clarity would be required for NI Permanent Secretaries around those resources.

    In that situation, we would also need to reflect carefully on how we might allocate the funding made available to address immediate health and education pressures as set out in Monday’s statement on UK Government financial support for Northern Ireland, recognising Northern Ireland’s particular circumstances.

    And, if no agreement is reached, legislation in Westminster may then be required to give authority for the expenditure of Northern Ireland departments through an Appropriations Bill.

    From my conversations with the Head of the Northern Ireland Civil Service, we have not quite reached that critical point yet.

    But that point is coming and the lack of a formal Budget is not something that can be sustained indefinitely.

    Similarly, decisions on capital expenditure and infrastructure and public service reforms in key sectors such as the health service cannot be deferred for much longer.

    One area on which there is much consensus, however, is on the need for greater transparency around political donations.

    In line with the commitment set out in the Conservative Party’s Northern Ireland manifesto at the General Election I can confirm that I intend to bring forward legislation that will provide for the publication of all donations and loans received by Northern Ireland parties on or after 1 July 2017.

    Mr Speaker,

    All of this reinforces further the importance of the parties coming together and reaching an agreement.

    And it sets out, too, some of the hard choices that we face if uncertainty persists.

    I am also conscious that, with the deadline now passed, I am under a duty to set a date for a new election. I will continue to keep that duty under review.

    But it seems unlikely that would that of itself resolve the current political impasse or the ultimate need for political decision-making, however we proceed.

    As the Government for the whole United Kingdom, we will always govern in the interests of all those within the United Kingdom.

    And so if resolution were to prove intractable, and an Executive could not be restored, then we would of course be ready to do what is needed to provide that political decision-making in the best interests of Northern Ireland.

    But I am clear that the return of inclusive, devolved government by a power-sharing Executive is what would be best for Northern Ireland.

    And that will remain our overriding focus in the crucial days ahead.

    The UK Government will continue govern in the interests of everyone in Northern Ireland by providing political stability and keeping an open and sustained dialogue with the parties and with the Irish Government, in accordance with the well-established three-stranded approach.

    I stand ready to do what is necessary to facilitate the quick formation of an Executive once an agreement is reached.

    And I commend this statement to the House.

  • Justine Greening – 2017 Statement on School Funding

    Below is the text of the speech made by Justine Greening, the Secretary of State for Education, in the House of Commons on 17 July 2017.

    This Government believes that all children should have an education that unlocks their potential and allows them to go as far as their talent and hard work will take them. That is key to improving social mobility.

    We have made significant progress. Nine out of 10 schools are now good or outstanding, the attainment gap is beginning to close and we have launched 12 opportunity areas to drive improvement in parts of the country that we know can do better. But all this has been against a backdrop of unfair funding. We know that the current funding system is unfair, opaque and out of date and this means that, although we hold schools against the same accountability structure wherever they are, we fund them at very different levels. In addition, resources are not reaching the schools that need them most.

    School funding is at a record high because of the choices we have made to protect and increase school funding even as we faced difficult decisions elsewhere to restore our country’s finances, but we recognise that at the election people were concerned about the overall level of funding for schools as well as its distribution. As the Prime Minister has said, we are determined to listen. That is why I am today confirming our plans to get on with introducing a national funding formula in 2018-19. I can announce that will now be supported by significant extra investment into the core schools budget over the next two years.

    The additional funding I am setting out today, together with the introduction of a national funding formula, will provide schools with the investment they need to offer a world-class education to every child. There will therefore be £1.3 billion for schools and high needs across 2018-19 and 2019-20 in addition to the schools budget set at spending review 2015. This funding is across the next two years as we transition to the national funding formula. Spending plans for the years beyond 2019-20 will be set out in a future spending review.

    As a result of this investment, core funding for schools and high needs will rise from almost £41 billion in 2017-18 to £42.4 billion in 2018-19. In 2019-20 it will rise again to £43.5 billion. This represents £1.3 billion in additional investment: £416 million more than was set aside at the last spending review for the core school budget in 2018-19, and £884 million more in 2019-20. It will mean that the total schools budget will increase by £2.6 billion between this year and 2019-20, and per pupil funding will now be maintained in real terms for the remaining two years of the Spending Review period to 2019-20.

    For this Government, social mobility and education are a priority. The introduction of the national funding formula — from which previous Governments shied — backed by the additional investment in schools we are confirming today, will be the biggest improvement to the school funding system in well over a decade.

    I said when I launched the consultation last December that I was keen to hear as many views as possible on this vital reform. I’m grateful for the engagement on the issue of fairer funding and the national funding formula. We received more than 25,000 responses to our consultation, including from members from across the House. We have listened carefully to the feedback we have received and we will respond to the consultation in full in September, but I can today tell the House that the additional investment we are able to make in our schools will allow us to do several things, including:

    Increasing the basic amount that every pupil will attract in 2018-19 and 2019-20;

    For the next two years, this investment will provide for up to 3% gains a year per pupil for underfunded schools, and a 0.5% a year per pupil cash increase for every school;

    We will also continue to protect funding for pupils with additional needs, as we proposed in December.

    Given this additional investment, we are able to increase the percentage allocated to pupil led factors, something I know honourable members were keen to happen. This formula settlement to 2019-20 will provide at least £4,800 per pupil for every secondary school, which I know Members in a number of areas will particularly welcome.

    The national funding formula will therefore deliver higher per pupil funding in respect of every school, and in every local area. These changes, building on the proposals that we set out in December, will provide a firm foundation as we make historic reforms to the funding system, balancing fairness and stability for schools. It remains our intention that a school’s budget should be set on the basis of a single, national formula, but a longer transition makes sense to provide stability for schools. In 2018-19 and 2019-20, the national funding formula will set indicative budgets for each school, and the total schools funding received by each local authority will be allocated according to our national fair funding formula and transparently for the first time.

    Local authorities will continue to set a local formula to distribute that funding, and to determine individual schools’ budgets in 2018 19 and 2019-20, in consultation with schools in the area. I will shortly publish the operational guide to allow them to begin that process. To support local authorities planning, I am also confirming now that in 2018 19, all local authorities will receive some increase to the amount they plan to spend on schools and high needs in 2017-18. We will confirm gains for local authorities, based on the final formula, in September.

    The guide will set out some important areas that are fundamental to supporting a fairer distribution through the national funding formula. For example, we will ring-fence the vast majority of funding provided for primary and secondary schools although local authorities, in agreement with their local schools forum, will be able to move some limited amounts of funding to other areas, such as special schools, where this better matches local need.

    As well as this additional investment through the national funding formula, I am confirming our commitment to doubling the physical education and sports premium for primary schools. All primary schools will receive an increase in their PE and sports premium funding in the next academic year.

    The £1.3 billion additional investment in core schools funding which I am announcing today will be funded in full from efficiencies and savings I have identified from within my Department’s existing budget, rather than higher taxes or more debt. This of course requires difficult decisions, but it is right to prioritise core schools funding, even as we continue the vital task of repairing the public finances. I am maximising the proportion of my Department’s budget which is allocated directly to frontline headteachers – who can then use their professional expertise to ensure that money is spent where it will have the greatest possible impact. I have challenged my civil servants to find efficiencies, just as schools are having to.

    I want to set out briefly the savings and efficiencies that I intend to secure:

    Efficiencies and savings across our capital budget can release £420 million. The majority of this will be from healthy pupils capital funding – from which we will make savings of £315 million. This reflects reductions in forecast revenue from the soft drinks industry levy. I will be able to channel the planned budget, which remains in place, to frontline schools, while meeting our commitment that every pound of England’s share of spending from the levy will continue to be invested in improving child health, including £100 million in 2018-19 for healthy pupils capital.

    We remain committed to an ambitious free schools programme that delivers choice, innovation and higher standards for parents. In delivering the programme, and the plans for a further 140 free schools announced at the last Budget, we will work more efficiently to release savings of £280 million up to 2019-20. This will include delivering 30 of the 140 schools through the local authority route, rather than the free schools route.

    Across the DfE resource budget – which is over £60 billion per year – I will also reprioritise £250 million in 2018-19 and £350 million in 2019-20 to fund the increase in core schools budget spending I am announcing today. I plan to redirect £200 million from the Department’s central programmes towards frontline funding for schools. Although these projects are useful, I believe strongly that this funding is most and more valuable in the hands of head teachers.

    Finally, alongside this extra investment in our core schools budget, it is vital that school leaders strive to maximise the efficient use of their resources, to achieve the best outcomes for all their pupils and best promote social mobility. We already provide schools with support to do this, but we will now go further to ensure that support is effectively used by schools.

    We will continue our commitment to securing substantial efficiency gains over the coming years. Good value National Deals, that procure better value goods and services on areas all schools spend money on and purchase goods in can save significant amounts. They are available under the deals based on our existing work such as on insurance or energy. Schools can save an average of 10% on their energy bills if they use a national deal. We will expect schools to be clear if they do not make use of these deals and consequently have higher costs.

    Across school spending as a whole, we will improve the transparency and usability of data, so that parents and governors can more easily see the way funding is being spent and understand not just educational standards in schools, but financial effectiveness too. We have just launched a new online efficiency bench-marking service which will enable schools to analyse their own performance much more effectively.

    We recognise that many schools have worked hard up to this point to manage cost base pressures on their budgets, and we will take action this year to provide targeted support to those schools where financial health is at risk, deploying efficiency experts to give direct support to these schools.

    The significant investment we are making in schools and the reforms we are introducing underpin our ambition for a world-class education system. Together, they will give schools a firm foundation that will enable them to continue to raise standards, promote social mobility, and give every child the best possible education and the best opportunities for the future.

  • 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.