Tag: Speeches

  • Ken Clarke – 2018 Speech on Customs and Borders

    Below is the text of the speech made by Ken Clarke, the Conservative MP for Rushcliffe, in the House of Commons on 26 April 2018.

    May I begin by congratulating the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), the other Chairmen of the Select Committees and the Liaison Committee on obtaining this debate and on tabling the motion? It is remarkable how little attention Parliament has been allowed to pay to the momentous events that are taking place at the moment and that will certainly take place over the next few months, which have a profound importance for the future health of our economy and the standing of this country in the world.

    At the moment, Cabinet members are trying to agree among themselves their negotiating position, and those in the shadow Cabinet are trying to reach an agreement among themselves on their response. Meanwhile, events are moving on, and I think the House of Commons should have more opportunities to give its views, exercise influence and debate a substantive motion every now and again, not just a motion that has already been dismissed, in the curious way we do in this Parliament, as somehow not legally binding and therefore one that need not be regarded as important.

    I have often agreed with the right hon. Lady in the past, but I do not think I have ever heard her make a speech in which I agreed with just about every sentence she uttered. That will enable me to respond to your request, Mr Speaker, because she said it all with great eloquence and there is absolutely no point in my simply trying to repeat all of it or anything like all of it. The only thing I disagreed with is that she revised—no doubt for party reasons—the strange conspiracy theory that trade deals with America might involve privatising the NHS. I have no doubt that someone will try to explain the logic of that argument in the course of this debate. However, I totally agreed with everything else she said.

    That is rather surprising, because everything the right hon. Lady said was in line with what has always been the official, mainstream policy of the Conservative party throughout the first 50 years of my membership of it. Some of my colleagues seemed to have a strange conversion—like St Paul on the way to Damascus— about two years ago, but I am afraid that the light did not strike me.

    This debate bodes well for what needs to emerge. Many of us in this House have argued for some time for a cross-party convergence, in the national interest, so that this House can make sure that no damage is inflicted by the consequences of our leaving the European Union, or—to be more precise, I am afraid—so that we can limit that damage so far as possible.

    The underlying point is clear: the economy of this country and, to an extent, those of other European countries, will be damaged if a sudden decision is taken to erect new barriers at the border between the UK and our major trading partners.

    Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab) rose—

    Mr Clarke I will give way in just a second. There are no advantages in introducing tariffs to European trade, which I do not think anybody wants to do, or new customs procedures and processes, and there are no advantages in producing regulatory differences between our market and the European market. If people insist on having a new free trade agreement, it should include, and as far as possible replicate, the arrangements that the customs union and the single market give us now. If any hard-line Eurosceptic wishes to get up and say why it is positively in the British interest to have new customs procedures, and that we want more lorry parks at Dover and wish to delay the lorries carrying goods one way and the other, I would be interested to hear it. I shall turn in a moment to the main argument—indeed, as far as I am aware, it is the only argument—that most of them ever give for leaving the customs union. First, I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

    Chuka Umunna I am grateful to the Father of the House for giving way. He has served in this House for 48 years, if I am not mistaken, and served in a number of Governments. He will know that this Government have been advised by their own officials that leaving the single market and the customs union will make this country poorer. In all his time in this House, can he think of any Government who have knowingly taken a decision of this gravity that would make the country poorer? Can he think of any example in which any Government he has seen have done that?

    Mr Clarke Not deliberately—but accidentally, several times. [Laughter.] The hon. Gentleman makes reference to my great longevity, which is the one non-controversial feature of my presence in this House. Practically all my old friends from several Governments are now ennobled and in the House of Lords, where they are debating these very matters. Actually, all my colleagues who have served in Governments during my time—particularly under Margaret Thatcher and John Major—who are still with us and in the House of Lords are voting in line with this motion. They are of the same opinion, because is it is utterly unprecedented for us to get into a position of this kind.

    The only argument—certainly the only one the Prime Minister ever uses—for leaving the customs union is that we can have trade agreements with the rest of the world. We also refer to “a customs union”, for reasons that have been explained; it would be a replica of the present customs union. It is quite right to say that, in the customs union, we do not have total freedom to negotiate. We have a common tariff barrier around the customs union, and no member can punch holes through it and start letting in goods from various markets under different arrangements. Once anyone started to do that, it would be necessary to stop the goods seeping through. A great deal of work is being done at the moment, as I understand it from following the leaks in the newspapers and talking to my contacts among those involved, to try to find a way to achieve something similar that would be acceptable. We will have to see how that goes.

    It has already been said that, for over 40 years, Governments of both parties in this country who essentially believed in free trade, and who found that Britain gained ever more advantages from developing a free trade climate, have been extending free trade through our membership of the European Union. First, we had the common market—the customs union—and then we added the single market to it, removing all the regulatory barriers. Then we encouraged EU agreements with an ever-increasing number of countries, which reduced the barriers yet further in all those markets around the world. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) has said that this helped us to make progress in the rest of the world as well. Not only have we participated in that but, in my opinion, British Governments have been the most influential and leading advocates of that approach inside the European Union.

    It is not true to say that we have been an isolated, powerless member, ignored and penalised by the others. I believe that on issues of the economy, on liberal economic policy and on trading policy, the United Kingdom has been the leading influential member in Europe, and I think that was probably as true under the Blair Government as it was under the Thatcher and Major Governments. We were responsible for the single market. All the way up to the Cameron coalition Government, we were in the lead in Europe in pressing for the EU agreements to be extended to other countries.

    I do not remember even Eurosceptics bothering to raise much objection to that policy. Even during the referendum, I did not hear any Brexiteer, including the ones I debated with, saying that they wanted more protectionism or that they wanted to withdraw from all that. Dan Hannan is one of the most articulate advocates of the Eurosceptic cause, and I debated with him twice in town hall settings during the referendum. I always got the impression that he was in favour of the single market. Again it is important to stress that it is possible to leave the European Union and to stay in the single market and the customs union. There is no constitutional or legal barrier to that happening, and the Commission has made it plain that it could be on offer. However, if we are not going to do that—for reasons that I do not understand—we will have to replicate it pretty well.

    Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab) Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

    Mr Clarke I will give way, after which I will go back to the question of trade relations with non-EU countries.

    Peter Kyle On a recent visit to Norway with the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, we heard Norway’s lead negotiator with the EU explain that, being outside the customs union, Norway is in a permanent state of negotiation with the EU regarding trade and customs. He said that Norway would sometimes win a concession, only to lose it in a negotiation a couple of years later. Is not this precisely the status that businesses come to Britain to avoid?

    Mr Clarke I quite agree. The Norwegians have a second-best solution by a good long way. When I was Chancellor, we were engaged in negotiating with the Norwegian Government and with other would-be new members over full membership of the European Union, which on the whole the entire Norwegian political class, left and right, supported. The same thing happened here during the referendum, when every significant political party in this country was in favour of remaining, with the exception of UKIP and the Democratic Unionist party. The Norwegians came out with not a bad compromise, but it was far less satisfactory than the one we are starting from as we negotiate now.

    Anna Soubry Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

    Mr Clarke With great respect to my close ally and friend, I must make a little progress and finish making this point. I might already have had my 10 minutes.

    The theory is propounded to the British people that we somehow have nothing to do with these EU trading arrangements and that somehow, when trade deals are done, grey men in the European Commission secretly impose upon us all sorts of restrictive terms. Indeed, the right-wing press give the impression to all their readers that that is what we are facing now. They suggest that Jean-Claude Juncker and Michel Barnier are somehow plotting against us, that the whole thing is being done by unaccountable Eurocrats who are trying to take revenge on us, and that the trouble with our EU trade deals is that we have no say in them and they happen mechanically. That is complete rubbish, and it is rubbish that has been propounded for the last 30 or 40 years.

    The Commission does have some roles that our civil service does not have, but basically it can negotiate only if it has the approval of each and every member state’s Government. It negotiates only within a mandate that the states have agreed. In my own ministerial experience of EU trade and economic affairs, the bigger countries—particularly Britain—have a huge influence on what is being negotiated. In my last job in the Cameron Government, when I was in the Cabinet Office without portfolio, I was asked by David Cameron to lead for us on the EU-US Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership deal. I spent time in Brussels and Washington doing that. I cannot say that I played a key role, but the whole point was that the British were keen advocates of that, along with the Germans, the Italians and the French. We were all close to what was going on, and seeking to find out where things were going and whether we could push it. No deal has ever been done by the EU with any other country that anbody has ever objected to in the United Kingdom. For example, no British Government ever protested about the EU deal with South Korea, which is one of the better ones that we have achieved recently. No one ever told me they were against it.

    Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD) Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

    Mr Clarke I really should not, because the Speaker will get extremely annoyed. I must come to a quick conclusion and I wanted to touch on Ireland. I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman, but other people must get in.

    It is an utterly ludicrous idea that it would somehow be better if we do things on our own. The countries always cited are the United States, Australia and New Zealand, and they will do deals with us because they all want to sell us foodstuffs. There is not a great deal of trade that we can add between us and New Zealand and Australia, and the Americans are desperately keen to sell us their beef and their chicken. As someone has already said, all trade deals are not done by a sovereign country saying, “Of course we are not binding ourselves to do anything.” They involve the agreeing of market regulations and of the trading rules that will apply. We would not say, “It’s all going to be decided by the British courts.” There would be an international arbitration agreement to which businesses and countries could look to if one side started breaking its treaty obligations. The Americans will say, “Give up these European food safety and environmental regulations, and we will trade with you on ours.” If we let in chlorinated chicken, hormone-treated beef and genetically modified crops—personally I am not convinced that they are the health hazards that most people in the country seem to believe they are—that means new barriers with Europe, which will not let those products go straight through, and we will probably lose a large part of our biggest market, for food and agricultural products, which is in Europe.

    I have one final point to make on international trade and about where the debate is unrealistic. WTO rules have suddenly been elevated to some mystic world order that means that our new trade agreements will somehow be much better. I wish that were true. This country does abide by WTO rules, but they are nothing like as comprehensive as they ought to be because the Doha round failed. The Americans take no notice of the WTO. The Americans and the Chinese are about to start a trade war, and everything that they are doing is in total breach of WTO rules. We will not get a deal with Donald Trump subject to WTO rules. He will not even appoint judges to the WTO court, because otherwise it might do what it is usually its major duty, which is settling disputes between states.

    Going back what the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford said, we want trade with Europe that has no barriers between ourselves and Europe. It will require some ingenuity to find some basis on which we might still be able to do trade deals with other people, but the idea that some marvellous new global future with fantastic new trade deals is about to open up is hopeless. If someone can get the Americans to open up their public procurement to international competition and give up the “Buy America” policy or to open the regulatory barriers that they have put in the way of professional and financial services, they will be a miraculous negotiator, because we could get nowhere when Obama was in power. I do not think that the present Administration are offering us anything; they just want their beef to come here.

    Finally, on Ireland—I will be much shorter on this because it is a big question that has been touched on already—it is absolutely critical that we do not break the Good Friday agreement. It is quite obvious that most people on this side of the Irish sea had never thought about Ireland when we were debating during the referendum and when they were propounding their policies. The problem of the Good Friday agreement has been addressed by most Brexiteers by them saying, “Surely that’s all over now? Isn’t it a nuisance? What an irrelevance. Let us break it now, because it no longer matters. It is far more important that we get the kind of hard Brexit that we want.” That is very dangerous.

    The Good Friday agreement is one of the major achievements of the British Governments of my time. It was negotiated with the Americans, with the Government of the Republic of Ireland and with every section of opinion in Northern Ireland. It brought an end—almost; it is the end, I hope—to 200 years of the troubles in Ireland after they erupted into violence. When the troubles were under way in the ’70s and ’80s we lost more policemen and soldiers in Ulster than we did in Iraq and Afghanistan put together. The agreement was a splendid achievement for John Major and Tony Blair, so to say, “What an inconvenience. It is getting in the way of our leaving the customs union,” is very dangerous.

    I thought that the Government had accepted that. Indeed, I think they have done so formally on two occasions. First, we had the Prime Minister’s Florence speech, which addressed the matter. Talking about the discussions she had had with Europe about Northern Ireland, she said that

    “we have both stated explicitly that we will not accept any physical infrastructure at the border.”

    That was solemnly agreed. It was the agreed Cabinet policy. The Foreign Secretary made a strange speech before the Florence speech and a statement shortly afterwards that gave the impression that he was trying to undermine the speech, but I am sure he was not. That statement is already agreed Government policy.

    Secondly, we finally managed to make progress by finishing the withdrawal agreement, and we published the texts of what had been agreed. As people have said, there are all these other possible solutions involving using congestion charge cameras and things to avoid issues at the border, but I do not think that they will get very far. We have already committed ourselves to the following:

    “In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation”,

    which I think means pretty well full regulatory convergence. As someone has already said, the chief constable of Ulster has said that we cannot have infrastructure at a new hard border. It would outrage nationalist and republican opinion across the whole island and take us right back to all the problems we had. Symbolism is huge in the politics of Ireland and always has been, and it would be grossly irresponsible to put a hard border in the middle of the island of Ireland again. We have never been on such good terms with the Government of the Republic of Ireland since the Republic was founded.

    If we have those arrangements at the Irish border, the same arrangements will of course apply to Holyhead and to Dover. That is what I want to see. We want no new barriers and no customs processes. We want the necessary level of regulatory convergence. Obviously, the easy way to do that is to stay in the customs union and stay in the single market. If not, we will need what I think the Prime Minister described as a “customs procedure”, which will be something that looks remarkably like the single market and the customs union.

    The customs union is what today’s business is about, and it would do terrible damage to this country if, for strange ideological reasons in the confused aftermath of a misguided referendum, we were to take such a foolish step as not to replicate the customs union in any future arrangements.

  • Sajid Javid – 2018 Speech at the Design Quality Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Sajid Javid, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, on 26 April 2018.

    Winston Churchill famously said: “We shape our buildings; thereafter they shape us.”

    That’s certainly true for me.

    As you may know, I grew up above the family shop.

    I lived on a road that has been labelled by one newspaper as “Britain’s most dangerous street”.

    Those experiences taught me a lot.

    The value of family and hard work.

    How few things are more important than feeling safe in your own home and your your own neighbourhood.

    And – crucially – how to hold your own against 5 siblings.

    Now I know that I’m not alone.

    Our homes, for all of us, are the making of us.

    That is why today’s event is so important.

    And why I’m delighted that so many of you could be here today.

    And why I want to say a massive thank you for your interest and support.

    I can’t recall when a government last held a conference on design quality.

    It’s a measure of our commitment on this vital issue – as not just something that is nice to have.

    A bonus that if you are lucky enough to be able to afford it.

    But as something that’s fundamental to everyone’s quality of life – regardless of whether you’re buying or you’re renting a place, or whether you’re in the private sector or the social sector.

    It’s very fundamental to the way we feel when we get up in the morning and when we go to bed.

    To the opportunities that we have and the futures that we can imagine for ourselves.

    To people coming together to create, quite simply, great places to live.

    Which is why there’s absolutely no question of having to choose between quality and quantity when it comes to building the homes that our country so desperately needs.

    As you will have no doubt have heard many times today, the 2 – quality and quantity – go very much hand in hand.

    With communities that are much more likely to welcome new development, if it’s attractive, thoughtful and in keeping with the local area.

    But the gains are, of course, much bigger than just somewhere that looks good.

    It could be a quiet place to study that means you get a better chance at school.

    Parks and other outdoor spaces will be good for your health and your mental health.

    And public spaces that design in opportunities for people to come together across generations can end up designing out isolation and helping to build those strong communities.

    To achieve this, to really raise the bar on design quality, we need to see stronger collaboration right across the whole sector – which is what today’s event is all about.

    It sounds like you’ve had a busy and interesting day, with lots of great speakers lots sharing their ideas and expertise.

    And excellent examples, such as the University of North Cambridge development, that where they aren’t just aiming to meet short-term targets, but are very much taking that long-term view that we all want to see.

    Something that’s crucial for creating homes that are a much-loved part of the fabric of our local areas not just now, but, potentially, well into the next century and beyond.

    I’m also pleased to see that today’s conference has thrown up another positive variation of NIMBY – BIMBY or Beauty In My Backyard, from The Princes Foundation.

    I’m looking forward to that phrase catching on!

    The new technologies on display at the exhibition are also hugely impressive – as are the new technologies highlighted by the Farmer Review that address the need to build at pace and scale whilst still promoting quality and consumer choice.

    And it was especially inspiring to see that we focused on the views, talents and aspirations of young people.

    We’re remembering one of those young people this week – Stephen Lawrence.

    An aspiring architect, whose murder 25 years ago, is still hard to bear.

    The work of the Stephen Lawrence Trust – who we heard from today…

    …which gives young people the opportunities which he was denied, to pursue a career in architecture…

    ….is a fitting tribute to his memory.

    And I’m deeply grateful for all the efforts of everyone involved.

    Their work is a poignant reminder that, in shaping homes, we’re also shaping lives.

    And we owe it to this and the generations to come to leave a legacy of places that, whether you’re putting down roots or just passing through, lift the human spirit.

    Inspired by a strong vision of what we want for our villages, our towns and cities, what we want them to look like and feel like in the future.

    In doing so, we can draw on a rich history of British housing and urban design that is the envy of the world.

    The elegant terraces and town houses, squares and crescents of the Georgian period.

    Victorian terrace houses, avenues and parks.

    Edwardian mansion blocks and flats.

    The detached and semi-detached homes and garden suburbs of the 20th century.

    What will our legacy be like for the 21st century?

    What design approaches are we pioneering that will become the original features of the future?

    What new built environments are we developing that meet the challenges of our age?

    What trails are we blazing?

    Are we truly drawing on the talents of all our people – with their diverse backgrounds and their perspectives – as we build that modern, global Britain?

    This is what I want us to be thinking about and aiming for – with all of us doing our bit.

    For our part, in government, we’ve strengthened the expectations for design quality and community engagement in the planning system.

    This doesn’t, in any way, involve the government dictating what good design looks like, but it makes it clear that it must be rooted in and it must be backed by the local communities.

    Of course, local authorities, they too have a leading role to play in setting a vision for their areas and their plans.

    And it’s the job of developers and their designers to respond positively to these expectations; harnessing the talents of skilled professionals – urban designers, architects, engineers and landscape designers.

    The great projects we’ve heard about today show that we’re already achieving this in many places and creating beautiful, safe, healthy neighbourhoods that command local support.

    The challenge, now, is to deliver this consistently right across the country, so that high quality design is the norm rather than the exception.

    I’m confident – from the ambition and wealth of talent I see before me – that that prize is very much in our grasp.

    It only remains for me to thank you all, once again, for attending and contributing – particularly our speakers and sponsors at the event. Thank you all very much.

  • Liam Fox – 2018 Speech at CHOGM

    Below is the text of the speech made by Liam Fox, the Secretary of State for International Trade, at CHOGM on 16 April 2018.

    Good afternoon, and welcome to this ‘Investing in the UK’ event.

    It is a pleasure to have so many of you attending today.

    The Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting is, first and foremost, a forum of cooperation and a chance to strengthen our partnerships with friends and allies.

    This event is, then, a welcome opportunity for me to talk exclusively about the strengths of the United Kingdom!

    As Secretary of State for International Trade this is something that I’ve had the opportunity to practice all over the world, from Sydney to Vancouver, from Bangkok to Bogota – and everywhere in between.

    Fortunately, it’s a message that I’ll never get tired of delivering.

    For some less well-informed investors, the economy of the UK begins and ends in London.

    There is no denying that our capital is one of the great global cities.

    It is the world’s foremost financial centre – a hive of commercial activity unrivalled anywhere in Europe with an economy roughly the size of Sweden’s.

    Moreover, it is a city that continues to be at the cutting edge of new industries. Take, for example, technology.

    Last year, new tech companies were founded in London at the rate of one an hour.

    In that same period, more tech venture capital was invested in this city than in Germany, France, Spain, and Ireland combined.

    I could go on about the merits of London. But the department I lead has a remit covering the whole of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and is tasked with spreading the prosperity and opportunity of international trade across the whole country.

    Moreover, today’s event is designed to showcase the vast commercial prospects that exist both inside and outside our capital.

    Few people realise that almost 80% of the UK’s GDP is generated outside London.

    The UK remains the number one destination for inward investment in Europe, with an open, liberal economy, a flexible and dynamic labour market, business-friendly taxation and regulation and a strong, transparent rule of law.

    Fundamentally, the UK is a safe and stable economy in which to invest, with a proven track record of returns for our global partners.

    I’m delighted that we are joined today by a panel of six recent investors in the UK, hailing from across the Commonwealth, who will share their experience of doing business here.

    You will hear their stories of successful investments across the country, including:

    Seqirus from Australia, whose centre of excellence in Liverpool has created 100 new jobs in developing a new flu vaccine.

    South Africa’s Fair Tree Capital, whose hotel portfolio spans South West England and the Lake District.

    And Royal Enfield Motorcycles, whose new technology centre in Leicestershire involves significant UK-India cross collaboration on engineering and design.

    Added to this, I am delighted to announce that India’s Wadhawan Global Capital will invest £300 million into the UK over the next few years, supporting 1,000 jobs.

    This is just one of 55 potential deals that we have identified across 17 Commonwealth member states, collectively worth over £1.5 billion, and creating some 5,800 jobs.

    I very much look forward to learning what Wadhawan’s plans are during the fireside chat later in this session.

    Our panellists’ businesses are part of an extensive pattern of investment that exists between the UK and the Commonwealth.

    In the 2016/17 financial year, there were 384 new FDI projects in the UK from Commonwealth investors – 17% of the overall total.

    These created almost 10,000 new jobs across the country and safeguarded a similar number.

    The importance of our Commonwealth partners to the UK economy cannot be overstated.

    India is the fourth-largest source of UK FDI, just behind the United States and China.

    In turn, India comes just ahead of Australia and New Zealand, which together have overtaken Japan to land 127 new projects in the UK.

    It is no wonder that 2016/17 was the most successful year for FDI in this country’s history, given the strength of our regional diversity.

    By this I don’t mean the bewildering array of accents and cultures spread over this small island, but the regional expertise that exists to support certain industries.

    Wales, for example, has recently seen a £3 million investment from the Melbourne-based life science firm Medical Ethics.

    The company cited the UK’s proven capacity to provide the expertise required to commercialise their technology, including regulatory affairs, manufacturing and clinical studies.

    Tax subsidies and patent incentives were also a contributing factor, giving the UK a competitive edge when compared to other locations around the world.

    Meanwhile, South West England boasts strong links with the aerospace and nuclear industries, with the presence of Rolls Royce and Airbus, as well as the new reactor development at Hinkley Point, creating a highly skilled local workforce.

    The South East is home to globally renowned film studios at Pinewood and Leavesden, while Cambridge and East Anglia plays host to ‘Silicon Fen’, as well as Europe’s most important life science and research clusters.

    It also hosts Motorsport Valley – a globally leading cluster of high-performance technology, motorsport and advanced engineering companies that includes the majority of the world’s Formula 1 Teams.

    The area also contains Silverstone race circuit – familiar to many as the home of the British Grand Prix.

    Most importantly, the UK’s two flagship regional economic development programmes – the Midlands Engine and the Northern Powerhouse – are having a significant impact on Britain’s regional prosperity, creating a wave of new commercial opportunities.

    The Midlands is now home to the largest number of medical technology companies in the country, with eight world-class research universities combining their collective excellence to drive cutting edge innovation, research and skills development.

    And the Northern Powerhouse has brought together the great cities and towns of the North of England to form a global hub of advanced manufacturing and energy capability.

    We have the National Graphene Centre in Manchester.

    We have Sheffield’s Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre; the home of Boeing’s new high-tech component manufacturing facility – much praised when I visited Boeing’s Headquarters in Seattle last week.

    And we have the National Innovation Centre for Data, which opened in Newcastle last year.

    These regions were the cradle of the Industrial Revolution. Now, once again, they are world leaders in science, industry and technology.

    And let’s not forget Northern Ireland, with its burgeoning machinery and engineering sector.

    Or Scotland, which is leading the world in the uptake and development of renewable energy.

    With all of these, I hope I have given you a flavour of the vast opportunities that are available in this county and inspired you to look to London and beyond for your investment.

    My Department for International Trade is committed to ensuring that the UK continues to be a global leader in attracting foreign investment.

    Earlier this month we launched our new FDI strategy, designed to focus our efforts on maximising wealth creation across the whole UK, and to transform DIT from one of the most respected investment promotion organisations in the world, to the most sophisticated.

    Our three-part approach will make innovative use of data in measuring the economic impact of projects.

    It will identify those opportunities across the UK with the greatest potential for international investors.

    And it will target government support precisely where it will have the greatest positive impact on the economy.

    DIT, together with our overseas business partners, intends to fully realise the potential of every part of the United Kingdom, and build a more prosperous future for Britain, the Commonwealth, and the world.

    Now, I’m sure you’re all as eager as I am to hear from our panellists, but first, I have the great pleasure of introducing the Lord Mayor of London.

    For more than eight centuries, the Lord Mayor and the City of London Corporation have been London’s beating commercial heart.

    They have been instrumental in the City’s success and have forged its international reputation.

    This afternoon, we have the pleasure of his views and experience on the almost limitless investment opportunities that London has to offer.

    Lord Mayor – welcome.

  • Greg Hands – 2018 Speech on Trade and Tariffs

    Greg Hands

    Below is the text of the speech made by Greg Hands, the Minister of State for Trade Policy, on 25 April 2018.

    Trade policy is all about playing to your strengths – it’s called comparative advantage for a reason. So I think it’s particularly apt that we’re being hosted by a purveyor of one of our finest exports – legal services. Especially one based in Manchester.

    The work of the Department for International Trade

    As you’ve heard, I’m the Minister for Trade Policy.

    In crude terms, that makes me minister for trade agreements, as well as things like trade preferences for developing countries, agreeing WTO schedules, and establishing our own independent trade remedies regime, so we can protect industry against dumping and other unfair practices.

    Today I’ve been asked to talk about our priorities in some of those areas.

    But before I start I should emphasise that my department, the Department for International Trade, has a range of other priorities: things like encouraging small businesses to export, securing foreign direct investment from firms overseas, and providing export finance.

    People often assume that DIT is a purely Brexit department, but this kind of bread-and-butter work is equally important and has been going on since long before the referendum: UK Export Finance is actually the world’s oldest export credit agency.

    What Brexit has done is give this work renewed emphasis, which is why we now have a dedicated Department for International Trade, so that all trade-related work is done under one roof, and so trade has its own voice at the Cabinet table for the first time in over 30 years.

    To give one example: UK Export Finance can now give support in over 60 currencies. We’ll also be launching a new Exports Strategy in the coming months.

    A lot of that support is about helping us export more to the EU, and I’ve made numerous trips across Europe to promote UK exporters and the UK as an investment destination.

    Our negotiations with the EU

    I think that’s an important reminder that we shouldn’t see European trade purely through the prism of Brexit negotiations – trade isn’t all about trade agreements.

    Nonetheless, I will touch on those negotiations.

    As the Prime Minister has said, the government wants a deep, comprehensive and unique free trade agreement with the EU.

    We want that because we value EU trade.

    When I talk about the opportunities that lie outside the Customs Union, people often accuse me of ignoring the opportunity right on our doorstep. But I can assure you that the government is fully cognisant of that.

    The EU takes two fifths of our exports; they’re a developed market of half a billion people starting 20 miles from Dover.

    That will always be important – it’s simply that I don’t see this as an either/or choice.

    As a British MP, born in New York with a German wife, I’ve always seen the choice between Britishness, globalism and Europeanism as a false trichotomy, and so it is here.

    By leaving the Customs Union, we will have the ability to sign new trade agreements. But I believe we will also get a good deal with the EU.

    By the Commission’s own estimates, trade with the UK are worth over EUR 800 Billion to the EU27. On the day we leave, we will immediately become the EU’s second-largest trading partner, only slightly behind the US, and well ahead of third-placed China. It is strongly in the EU’s interests to sign a deal.

    Yes, in relative terms the trading relationship is worth even more to us than it is to them. But it’s not a zero-sum game.

    And in technical terms this is more straightforward than most trade agreements: this will be the only trade agreement in history where the 2 sides start from a position of already being aligned.

    Our priorities for non-EU trade

    So I think we will get a strong, mutually-beneficial trade agreement with the EU. But what of trade agreements outside the EU – what of our priorities and our progress there?

    We can split this out into our overall aims, how we’re achieving those aims, and how we’re prioritising them.

    Our overall aim is to ensure continuity and certainty for UK businesses, by transitioning the 40 or so trade agreements the EU has in place with third countries.

    We will also take advantage of the great opportunities outside the Customs Union – the IMF has predicted that 90% of global growth will be outside the EU in the coming years – by agreeing new trade deals.

    We’re already making strong progress towards achieving these aims. Last month’s draft text on the withdrawal agreement included the ability for the UK to negotiate and sign new trade agreements during the implementation period.

    And although we can’t do that yet – we’re bound by the EU’s principle of sincere cooperation – we’re laying the groundwork.

    We’re laying the groundwork domestically. I am currently taking the Trade Bill through Parliament, which will, amongst other things, give us the power in domestic law to transition the EU’s existing third-party trade agreements.

    And we’re laying the groundwork with our trading partners: we have set up trade working groups with 21 countries.

    As for prioritising trade agreements: as you would expect, this is a holistic process; we look at things like the ease of achieving a deal and the size and compatibility of the other country’s economy.

    But there’s no algorithm that will tell you what to do.

    Our world-leading services

    As you would expect, whoever we discuss trade with services are important.

    Services make up 44% of our exports. That’s equates to a higher-proportion of GDP than for any G7 country and makes us the world’s second-largest services exporter; second only to the US.

    And if anything that underestimates the importance of service exports: when you look at value-add – taking into account re-exports – services are worth around two-thirds.

    That’s led right here, by the financial, professional and business services of the City of London: a sector close to my heart, given the time I spent on trading floors here before I went into politics, and the number of my Chelsea and Fulham constituents who work here.

    Given our hosts, I specifically want to mention our ‘Legal Services are GREAT’ campaign, launched in October in Singapore.

    This is spreading the word worldwide about our legal system’s predictability, commercial adaptability and certainty; our judges’ integrity and experience; and the depth and breadth of expertise that has made to UK such an exceptional global legal hub.

    We want to protect our services trade as we leave the EU. But we also want to do much more. Trade in services has historically resisted liberalisation much more than trade in goods.

    The UK: a voice for free trade

    So trade policy post-Brexit will be about much more than individual trade deals. It will also be about Britain becoming a voice for free trade, at the World Trade Organization and other international fora.

    We are currently working to ensure we have our own WTO tariff schedules. We’re already a member in our own right, but we’re currently covered by the EU’s schedules, so we’ve taken the decision to replicate these for the time being, partly so business has maximum certainty.

    We’re already a World Trade Organization member in our own right. But not one with our own voice, as the EU speaks for all member states.

    The IMF estimated that we were the world’s fifth largest economy at the end of last year, and in today’s world, where there’s so many forces in favour of protectionism, it is to everyone’s benefit to have a nation of Britain’s stature making the case for free trade.

  • Theresa May – 2018 Speech at Unveiling of Millicent Fawcett Statue

    Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May, the Prime Minister, in Parliament Square, London, on 24 April 2018.

    Behind me, outside the Supreme Court, stands a statue of the Great Emancipator.

    To my right, we see the man who did more than any other to gain independence for India.

    Opposite Parliament, the man who saved Europe from the grip of fascism.

    They are all great men, important men, men who deserve their places in history and in this square.

    But I would not be standing here today as Prime Minister…

    No female MPs would have taken their seats in Parliament…

    None of us would have the rights we now enjoy, were it not for one truly great woman: Dame Millicent Garret Fawcett.

    The struggle to achieve votes for women was long and arduous. Dame Millicent was there from the beginning, and devoted her life to the cause.

    As a teenager, she collected names for the first pro-Suffrage petition even though she was too young to sign it herself.

    As a young woman she overcame a dislike of public speaking and took to the platform at the first women’s suffrage meeting to be held in London.

    For decade after decade, in the face of often fierce opposition, she travelled the country and the world, campaigning not just for the vote but on a whole range of issues.

    She was a tireless advocate for equal access to education, pressuring universities to admit women on equal terms and establishing her own Cambridge college.

    She fought for the rights of sex workers, convincing politicians to overturn the discriminatory Contagious Diseases Acts.

    She campaigned to protect children from exploitation and abuse, reported on the treatment of civilians in the Boer War…

    She was even responsible for Blake’s And Did Those Feet in Ancient Time being set to music by Sir Hubert Parry.

    History has many authors. In our own small way we each help to shape the world in which we live.

    But few of us can claim to have made an impact as significant and lasting as Dame Millicent, and it is right and proper that, today, she takes her place at the heart of our democracy.

    On behalf of the whole country, I would like to thank all those who have made this possible.

    Caroline, of course, who spearheaded the calls for a lasting memorial to Dame Millicent.

    Sculptor Gillian Wearing, who has created a beautiful and fitting tribute.

    Communities Secretary Sajid Javid, who has steered the project on behalf of the government from conception to completion.

    And everyone who supported the campaign for this statue over the past two years: from Lord Finkelstein, a vocal advocate from the beginning, to the tens of thousands of individuals who signed petitions, wrote letters and lent their backing in so many ways. And around this square, the Mayor and others who had their role in this statue. This statue is your statue.

    After Fawcett’s death in 1929, a tribute in one newspaper read that, “Whenever a new victory has been gained by women or some individual woman has found her way in at a new door, the minds of many have turned at once to Dame Millicent.”

    Almost 90 years later, it is all too easy to forget those who forged a path for generations of women to follow.

    To take for granted the progress that they achieved through years – decades – of bitter struggle.

    We do so at our peril.

    Because the fight for equality is far from won.

    And as long as that is the case, we will need brave women and men to stand up and speak out in the face of injustice and discrimination.

    Doing so will not always be easy.

    But courage calls to courage everywhere.

    And, for generations to come, this statue will serve not just as a reminder of Dame Millicent’s extraordinary life and legacy, but as inspiration to all of us who wish to follow in her footsteps.

  • Alan Duncan – 2018 Speech at Gallipoli Commemoration

    Below is the text of the speech made by Sir Alan Duncan, the Minister for Europe, on 24 April 2018.

    I stand before you as the son of a Royal Air Force officer who just saw the end of the Second World War and as the grandson of an army corporal from Scotland who fought in the First.

    Respect and admiration for those who have lived and died for their country rests deep in my soul. It is therefore a profound personal honour to be here today to represent the former Entente Powers as we remember the service, sacrifice and suffering of those on both sides of the seismic military encounter which took place here over a century ago.

    War exaggerates the natural qualities of its combatants: it turns the bad into monsters and the brave into heroes. And there were many heroes amongst the hundreds of thousands who died fighting on the beaches, in the gullies, and in the pine woods of this beautiful peninsula.

    For the school child of today, Gallipoli – like Passchendale – is the image they hold of what war was like a hundred years ago. May they also learn of the remarkable moments of decency within the many months of misery, such as when Turkish and Australian soldiers in May 1915 at Anzac Cove suspended hostilities in order to allow both sides, with dignity, to bury their dead.

    As a Turkish Captain said of it: ‘At this spectacle, even the most gentle must feel savage; and the most savage must weep.’

    Today we salute those from Turkey, from Australia, from New Zealand, from other Commonwealth countries, and from the Entente Powers, who died or were injured during the lengthy sufferings of the campaign.

    The pain and losses endured here were a source of grief, but also of pride and inspiration for the young and new nations that have since emerged from the sand, the mud and the ashes of the First World War.

    The good that has arisen out of the foulness of conflict teaches us that it is the duty of all of us here today to learn from the past and look to the future.

    That vision was no better expressed than by the words of Kamal Ataturk who called on all people to aim for ‘peace at home, and peace in the world.’

    It is a fitting legacy of what happened here at Çanakkale that, despite such ferocious battles, the historic bitter enmity that used to exist has so widely been replaced by binding friendships and steadfast alliances.

    It is a remarkable testament to the value of reconciliation that a century after Turkey and Great Britain were on opposite sides, we now stand shoulder to shoulder as NATO allies and trusted friends.

    Whereas my grandfather then could have found himself standing here looking at a Turkish soldier as an enemy, I can stand here now as a British minister looking at all of you as friends.

    Together, we all must honour those who fought in the past, and we must strive together for a better world in which there is less need to fight in the future.

    Let us be a common voice for adherence to the international rule of law, and to treaties and binding conventions. Where we see what is right, let us prove robust in defending it: where we see what is wrong, let us prove steadfast in correcting it.

    After the hideous experience of gas in the trenches a century ago all nations resolved to rid the world of chemical weapons. Let us, a hundred years on, renew and uphold that wisdom.

    I pay a heartfelt tribute to all the nations represented here today. May we all turn enmity into empathy; and wounds into bonds.

    May this ceremony mark remembrance and reconciliation, each to the full.

    May we all respectfully embrace the memory of the fallen, and the future of the living.

    On behalf of the Entente Powers I salute the memory of Gallipoli Çanakkale, and look to our future together.

  • Penny Mordaunt – 2018 Speech on the Future of Syria

    Below is the text of the speech made by Penny Mordaunt, the Secretary of State for International Development, on 25 April 2018.

    Thank you. And I would like to thank the European Union and the United Nations for hosting today’s conference and for being here at this crucial time for the Syrian people.

    This time last year my colleague, the Foreign Secretary, began his address by condemning a horrific chemical weapons attack on innocent civilians in Syria.

    Today, I must once again begin by condemning another barbaric chemical weapons attack on innocent civilians, including young children, in Douma.

    It is clear the Syrian Regime has the capability and the intent to use chemical weapons against own people.

    It is also clear the Syrian Regime and its backers, Russia and Iran, will attempt to block every diplomatic effort to hold the Regime accountable for these reprehensible and illegal tactics.

    That is why the United Kingdom, together with our US and French allies took co-ordinated, limited and targeted action against the Syrian Regime’s chemical weapons’ capabilities to alleviate humanitarian suffering.

    Britain is clear that we must defend the global rules based system that keeps all of us safe. And I welcome the broad support we have had from the international community and at today’s conference.

    Russia’s disregard for international norms and laws poses a grave threat to the global order we all rely on for our collective security.

    In wielding its UN veto twelve times on Syria, Russia has given a green flag to Assad to perpetrate human rights atrocities against his own people.

    This is a Regime that has deliberately bombed schools and hospitals.

    A Regime that has used nearly seventy thousand barrel bombs, many on civilian targets.

    This is a Regime that tries to starve its people into submission and targets aid workers and emergency responders racing to the scene to help.

    And let us not forget. This is a Regime that deploys rape as a weapon of war.

    Nearly eight out of ten people detained by the Regime have reported suffering sexual violence.

    We are here to address the urgent humanitarian needs in Syria and the wider region, but the only solution to end the suffering is a political settlement that brings peace.

    And that is why the UK will continue to support the UN-mediated process as the surest path to peace.

    We commend the opposition Syrian Negotiations Commission for signalling their readiness for peace and direct talks with the Regime – without pre-conditions.

    We call on Russia and Iran to use their influence to bring the Syrian Regime to the negotiating table.

    The longer the delay, the more people are going to die, and the more misery and destruction will be inflicted on Syria.

    Until that happens, we must keep pushing for greater humanitarian support to help civilians in Syria and Syrian refugees in the region.

    I am pleased to see our partners, in particular the US, Germany, France, Norway and the European Union, building on the commitments we made at the London Syria conference.

    And I must pay tribute to the sacrifice and contribution of our friends in Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey, as well as the heroic efforts of ordinary Syrians to save lives in the most horrific circumstances imaginable.

    As the trajectory of the Syrian war has worsened – our collective interests in a stable and prosperous region has increased. Jordan’s resilience and prosperity are critical to the long-run interests of the region.

    And that is why the UK will host an international conference with Jordan in London later this year: to showcase Jordan’s economic reform plans, its aspiration to build and enable a thriving private sector, and to mobilise support from international investors and donors.

    We have seen great generosity over the past seven years, but now is not the time to turn our backs. The humanitarian needs of the Syrian people are as grave now as they have ever been.

    The UK has already committed two point four six billion (pounds) to the Syria crisis.

    And today we will commit to spend four hundred and fifty million (pounds) in 2018 and three hundred million (pounds) in 2019. This will be in addition to our support for the second EU Facility for Refugees in Turkey.

    However, the UK has been clear that we will not provide reconstruction assistance until a credible transition is underway. To do otherwise would run the risk of bolstering the Regime and its barbarity.

    But today can’t only be about pledges of money, we must see concrete actions, which will lead to greater protection for civilians and aid workers.

    Because, as we speak, starving people are being denied aid by a Regime, which refuses to recognise international humanitarian law and because civilians, including aid workers and frontline responders, are under attack.

    Syria is now one of the most dangerous places on earth for aid workers and medical staff. Not only are their supplies and equipment blocked, but they face being targeted themselves in “double tap” bomb attacks by a Regime, which defies every rule of war.

    The Union of Medical Care and Relief Organisations reported that five hospitals were bombed, and put out of service, in the space of twenty-four hours in Eastern Ghouta in February.

    The victims were patients and medics.

    We must support these innocent victims.

    And that is why the British Government is demanding that all warring parties comply with the Geneva Conventions on the protected status of civilians and other non-combatants.

    We’re calling for an immediate ceasefire and immediate safe access so that brave aid workers and medical staff can do their jobs and help the most vulnerable and the most desperate without fear of attack.

    Let us protect the people of Syria, and the people there to help, as we work together to put Syria on a path towards peace.

  • Penny Mordaunt – 2018 Speech on Education in Syria

    Below is the text of the speech made by Penny Mordaunt, the Secretary of State for International Development, on 25 April 2018.

    Thank you all and‎ I’d like to start by thanking our friends in Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey.

    The progress we have made since the London Syria Conference in 2016 to ensure that every child in the region has access to quality education is a reason for hope even in the most trying of circumstances.

    More than a million displaced Syrian children now have received access to some form of education since the start of the conflict eight years ago.

    In Jordan, a hundred and sixty-five thousand Syrian children are now in education after the Jordanian Government overhauled national education policies.

    In Lebanon, the public education system has doubled in size since the start of conflict, and as a result more than three hundred and sixty-five thousand Syrian children are now receiving an education.

    And in Turkey. More than six hundred thousand Syrian children are now learning in schools.

    The education these children are receiving is helping us build the skills and knowledge needed to power the economies of tomorrow.

    However, there are nearly six hundred and ninety thousand children in the region without access to any education.

    And we need to work together to reach these children or we risk creating a ‘Lost Generation.’

    Young people without prospects and without hope. Young people who have a critical role to play in the recovery and rebuilding of the region when peace does eventually come.

    As we strive to find a political settlement to the conflict, we must also strive to equip young people with the education they need to find employment.

    Currently, the region has one of the highest rates of youth unemployment and lowest rates of female labour market participation.

    By helping host countries invest and improve their education systems we can help young men and women transform their economies and spur economic growth across the region.

    And this mean donors working with governments to make better use of education data to create better teaching programmes to drive up teaching standards.

    And donors making more multi-year pledges. With predictable financing we can create long-term, sustainable programmes that deliver results.

    But it’s not just more funding but smarter funding that we need.

    Funding has to be linked to results and reforms. It must be able to measure progress and see which programmes work and which programmes need to work harder.

    The UK will continue to provide long-term, multi-year support to the region to create the education and employment opportunities that will spur the recovery we all want to see.

    But as we do so, we must not forget those most at risk from being left behind.

    We must ensure that all our efforts to spur economic development also include refugees and the most vulnerable.

    That includes –

    Working and undocumented children.

    Girls.

    And children with disabilities.

    This July we will also co-host an international Disability Summit in London, which we hope Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey, will attend.

    At the summit we will set forth a set of concrete steps to ensure that people with disabilities are given the opportunities to fulfil their potential wherever they are in the world.

    Sadly, many Syrian children are living with injuries sustained in the conflict. And it would be an added penalty – and an injustice – if they are now denied the education opportunities we seek to provide other children.

    We must ensure that every child in the region has equal access to a quality education and the opportunity to fulfil their potential so we can create the economies of tomorrow, and a future of peace and prosperity.

    Thank you.

  • Marsha de Cordova – 2018 Speech on Fire Safety Remedial Work

    Below is the text of the speech made by Marsha de Cordova, the Labour MP for Battersea, in the House of Commons on 19 April 2018.

    I am pleased to have secured this important debate. The issue of liability for fire safety remedial work is of great concern to many Battersea residents, as it is to people in many parts of the country, and for good reason. The horror of the Grenfell fire made it clear, if greater clarity were needed, that there should be no complacency on fire safety.

    While we await the final publication of the Hackitt review, which is investigating the fire safety regulatory system and identifying who is responsible for failures and what system is needed, the interim report stated that the regulatory system, at present, is “not fit for purpose.” I fear that is the result of successive Governments not treating fire safety with the appropriate importance.

    Of the 158 social housing blocks with unsafe cladding, just seven have had the cladding fully replaced. One of the blocks waiting for work to begin is Castlemaine Tower in my Battersea constituency. Its residents have known for 10 months that their building, like Grenfell, has unsafe cladding. No data is available on the progress on privately owned blocks, and Wandsworth Council has not published the number of blocks that have the aluminium composite material cladding that has been deemed unsafe. Given the number of blocks in Battersea, it is imperative the council publish that information. I have requested the information from the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government.

    The Government must get their act together and ensure that fire safety work is carried out, but to do that they need to resolve, as a matter of urgency, questions on what work needs to be done, who needs to do it and who should pay for it. It is the Government’s responsibility to resolve those questions and, so long as they do not do so, the risk of another tragedy is prolonged.

    Here we arrive at the crucial question of leaseholder liability. I welcome members of the Sesame Apartments residents association to the Public Gallery. They have come to Westminster desperate to hear reassurance from the Government. They are leaseholders of an apartment block in Battersea that was completed just four years ago and that last year was found not to meet fire safety standards after a fire in the block damaged multiple apartments, revealing that compartmentalisation had failed.

    Worryingly, the fire occurred while a “stay put” policy was in place. Subsequent testing found that the cladding was defective and in need of replacement. In light of the fire safety failures, the “stay put” policy was changed to immediate evacuation, and a waking watch system was put in place as a temporary solution.

    As we know, such fire safety failures need proper rectification, and that work needs to be paid for. The waking watch and fire alarm system are anticipated to cost approximately £700,000, which is more than £8,500 per flat. Replacing the cladding is expected to cost around £2 million, which is £25,000 per flat. In total, the cost per flat is estimated at between £30,000 and £40,000.​

    After a tribunal ruled last month that leaseholders of Cityscape in Croydon would be held liable for replacing defective cladding, the residents of Sesame Apartments fear the entirety of those eye-watering costs will fall on their shoulders, which cannot be right. They cannot be held liable for these costs. These are hard-working people who scrimped and saved to buy their flats.

    Mr Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)

    I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. She mentions Cityscape in Croydon North where the leaseholders have a similar problem to the residents she represents. When the issue has previously been raised in the Chamber, the Government have pointed the finger and said that the insurers of the builders, freeholders and managing agents should be bearing the cost of removing and replacing that cladding, but no legal obligation has ever been found on any of them.

    The Government are leaving leaseholders hanging with unaffordable debt and living in homes that have become unsellable—homes that they fear are not safe to live in. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should act now to get the cladding removed from every building where it exists? They can sort out the legalities afterwards. The only body in a position to act now to keep people safe is the Government. Why do they keep refusing to do it?

    Marsha De Cordova

    I thank for my hon. Friend for making that valid point, which I will certainly be addressing. He is spot on in saying that the Government are the only people who can respond to this issue and deal with the problems that our leaseholders face.

    So many of these people are first-time buyers, and many are living in shared ownership properties. They do not have tens of thousands of pounds to pay for the work that needs to be done, and they have done nothing wrong. They bought their flats in good faith and they are in no way responsible for the fire safety failures. To date, the Government have seemingly agreed, saying that, morally, leaseholders should not be held liable for these costs. But my constituents need those words to be backed up by action. For as long as that does not happen, the leaseholders will be beset by fear. After all, how would we feel if we were told that our home did not meet fire safety standards, that we might be asked to pay £40,000 to rectify that and that our largest financial asset, our home, was now a huge liability? That is the situation that residents of Sesame Apartments find themselves in.

    I have heard from a teacher who lives in the block and who had hoped to move in order to start a family, but is now weighed down by this liability, unable to sell and trapped in her home. I have heard from a resident, who spoke to me about the heartbreak of the money they had saved for IVF—in vitro fertilisation—treatment now needing to be set aside for fire safety work. I have heard from another whose pride in getting a foot on the housing ladder was crushed when they were told that, just by owning 25% of a shared ownership property, they are now potentially liable for 100% of the costs. Every resident I have spoken to tells me of the stress and fear caused by this liability hanging over their head.

    The same is true of leaseholders across the country. Why are leaseholders being put through this ordeal? The Hackitt review is identifying who was responsible ​for fire safety failures, but this is causing anguish. The review might conclude that the Government are responsible, because fire safety regulations are not fit for purpose. It might conclude that the building inspection regime is responsible, because some local authorities have privatised inspections, leading to a serious decline in standards. Or it might conclude that developers are responsible, because they have been cutting costs to maximise their profits. It might conclude any of or indeed all those things, but what it will categorically not conclude is that leaseholders are responsible—of course it won’t.

    These are working people who have had no say over the regulations, or over the design or the building of the property, yet it seems that, legally, they are going to be held responsible for these life-shattering costs. As anyone would, they are attempting to contest that, but they tell me how powerless they feel in that process.

    We are talking about a small community of hard-working people, but they are confronted by a web of opaque freeholders, management companies, insurers and unresponsive developers, none of whom wants to take responsibility. The residents do not have armies of lawyers at their disposal. It is a David and Goliath situation, and the law is not working for these people. But it not just about that, as for the corporations involved their profit lines are at stake, whereas for the residents it is their homes and their lives. There is a real concern that if this is allowed to run its course and the Government do not intervene, the working people will be paying for failures that are not of their own making—that is unacceptable.

    The Government seem to recognise that, because they have already said on multiple occasions that they acknowledge that it is morally wrong for leaseholders to be held liable for these costs, but those must not be empty words. The Government have the power to intervene and make this right, and it is their responsibility to make this right. They need to do more than just encouraging freeholders not to pass on these costs. They need to do more than support the Leasehold Advisory Service. They need to step up to the plate and intervene on the behalf of leaseholders.

    There are actions that the Government could take. They could, and should, properly look to see whether the developers or the freeholders that profited from cost-cutting and lax regulations are liable for the costs, or they could cover the costs themselves, which is what the residents I have spoken to believe should happen.

    If the Government refuse to do that, the least they could do, as suggested by one of the Sesame Apartments residents, is provide loans to cover the costs, thereby allowing fire safety remedial work to begin immediately. The loans could be attached to the freehold and stretched over the 100-year duration of the leasehold, with repayment instalments reflecting that. That would ensure that if leaseholders were held liable, the additional yearly service charge would be close to negligible. It would achieve the key requirements of any intervention: first, it would allow remedial work to begin as soon as possible, thereby minimising the risk and fear of fire; and, secondly, it would allow leaseholders to get on with their lives and not be weighed down by an unaffordable debt. I urge the Government to take action to achieve those goals.

    I conclude with two straightforward questions for the Minister. First, it might become clear from the courts that leaseholders are legally liable for the costs. If that ​happened, does she think it would be acceptable? Put otherwise, does she think that residents should be held legally responsible for the costs of fire safety work, even though she knows that residents are in no way at fault?

    Secondly, if leaseholders are found to be liable, what do the Government propose to do for those leaseholders who cannot afford the remedial work? I am asking, in essence, whose side the Government are on—David’s or Goliath’s. I thank the Sesame Apartments residents for coming today. I know that they will be listening with interest to what the Minister has to say.

  • Theresa May – 2018 Speech at Commonwealth Press Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May, the Prime Minister, on 20 April 2018.

    This week we have demonstrated that the Commonwealth is united not only by a common history – but by a common future: a future in which we work together for the benefit of all our citizens and for the wider world.

    For when many of the greatest challenges we face are global in nature, the breadth of the Commonwealth – spanning six continents and a third of the world’s population – offers a unique perspective in helping to forge the global solutions we need.

    No other organisation has our geographical and cultural diversity, while giving all nations an equal role, an equal voice and an equal standing.

    And this week we have come together to reach a series of shared commitments that will help to build a more secure, more sustainable, more prosperous and fairer future for all.

    This is the first time that security has been a central theme of our leaders’ meeting. And we have shown our resolve to stand together in defence of the rules based international system, and in defiance of those who threaten us all by seeking to undermine it.

    Earlier this month the Assad regime violated international rules in the most egregious way by using chemical weapons in an indiscriminate and barbaric attack on its own people.

    And while of a much lower order of magnitude, the use of a nerve agent on the streets of Salisbury here in the United Kingdom last month, is part of a pattern of disregard for those same global norms that prohibit the use of chemical weapons.

    At this Summit, the Commonwealth has shown that it will play its part in a renewed international effort to uphold the global norms that say these abhorrent weapons should never, ever be used.

    The Communique we have agreed today expresses our unanimous opposition to the use of these weapons – and our commitment to strengthen the effective implementation of the Chemical Weapons Convention.

    We must also update our shared international norms so they can protect us from new and emerging threats online.

    So we have secured the world’s largest and most geographically diverse intergovernmental commitment on cyber-security co-operation.

    The Commonwealth Cyber Declaration will help protect our people and businesses from ever-more sophisticated digital threats – and counter those who would abuse the freedom of the internet to undermine our values, our security and even our democracies.

    When it comes to building a more sustainable future, there are few more authentic voices than the Commonwealth, with many island states severely affected by extreme weather events and the scourge of plastics polluting our oceans.

    Indeed, we are in London today because of the devastation wrought on Vanuatu by Cyclone Pam in 2015.

    So as a global leader in the fight against Climate Change, we are proud that every nation of the Commonwealth has now ratified the Paris Agreement.

    And every one of our nations is united behind its highest ambition of pursuing efforts to limit the increase in global average temperature to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.

    At this Summit we have taken specific action to protect our oceans with the first ever Commonwealth Blue Charter.

    The UK and Vanuatu are working together to launch the Commonwealth Clean Oceans Alliance to tackle the scourge of plastic pollution.

    And we are already seeing a series of commitments that can mark a breakthrough in the battle to save our oceans.

    For instance, Papua New Guinea has banned plastic bags…

    …Belize will ban plastic bags, forks and other single use items by 2019…

    …New Zealand has announced a ban on microbeads which will come into effect in June…

    …The Bahamas is planning to ban plastic bags this year…

    …and the UK has pledged to ban plastic straws, stirrers and plastic-stemmed cotton buds.

    This is only the beginning of what will be a defining agenda for the United Kingdom’s two-year Chair in Office – and I am pleased that Prime Minister Trudeau has indicated he will also make this a priority for the G7 in Canada this Summer.

    A more sustainable future also means stepping up the fight for better global health.

    With over 90 per cent of Commonwealth citizens living in malaria-affected countries, the Commonwealth has a particular duty to lead international efforts to tackle this deadly disease.

    So earlier this week I called on Commonwealth leaders to pledge to halve Malaria across the Commonwealth by 2023. And I am pleased that this has been agreed today.

    In building a more prosperous future, this is the first Commonwealth summit to make a unanimous statement on the need to fight protectionism.

    Our Declaration on the Commonwealth Connectivity Agenda for Trade and Investment will help to expand investment and boost intra-Commonwealth trade to a value of $2 trillion by 2030.

    And we will play a leading role in shaping the future of global trade policy, using our unique perspective to help ensure that free and fair trade truly works for everyone.

    This includes stepping up efforts to share the technical expertise to enable small and developing states to benefit from the growth of free and fair trade.

    It means addressing systemic barriers to women’s full and equal participation in the economy – including increasing opportunities for women to trade internationally and supporting the growth of more women-owned business.

    And it means investing in supporting our young people to gain new skills.

    And at this Summit we have pledged to ensure that all girls and boys across the Commonwealth will be able to access at least 12 years of quality education and learning by 2030.

    Finally, we have reaffirmed our commitment to a fairer future in which everyone is free to live their life and fulfil their potential.

    We agreed the critical importance of the full social, economic and political participation of all our citizens for democracy and sustainable development to thrive.

    I have been clear that nobody should face persecution or discrimination because of who they are or who they love. And the UK stands ready to support any Commonwealth member wanting to reform outdated legislation that permits discrimination, including against same-sex relations.

    We will continue to protect and advance our core values of democracy, good governance and human rights at the heart of fairer societies.

    And we welcomed the return of The Gambia to our family of nations.

    This week has also given me the opportunity to hold a series of important meetings with Commonwealth leaders.

    On Tuesday I met with the Caribbean leaders where I gave an absolute commitment that the UK government will do whatever it takes, including where appropriate payment of compensation, to resolve the anxieties and problems which some of the Windrush generation have suffered.

    These people are British. They are part of us. They helped to build Britain. And we are all the stronger for their contributions.

    This week began with the most inspiring gathering of young leaders from across our 53 nations.

    And it is with those young leaders where the future of our Commonwealth lies.

    So we were delighted to welcome the appointment of His Royal Highness Prince Harry as the Commonwealth Youth Ambassador.

    Looking to that future, we have also reached an important longer-term agreement about the role of Head of the Commonwealth.

    When Her Majesty the Queen assumed the throne the Commonwealth had just eight members.

    Today it has 53.

    We meet here today in no small measure because of the vision, duty and steadfast service of Her Majesty in nurturing the growth of this remarkable family of nations.

    And on behalf of all our citizens I want to express the depth of our gratitude for everything that Her Majesty has done – and will continue to do.

    Today we have agreed that the next Head of the Commonwealth shall be His Royal Highness Prince Charles, The Prince of Wales.

    His Royal Highness has been a proud supporter of the Commonwealth for more than four decades and has spoken passionately about the organisation’s unique diversity.

    And it is fitting that, one day, he will continue the work of his mother, Her Majesty The Queen.

    As we begin the UK’s two-year Chair in Office, I look forward to working with all our Commonwealth partners in fulfilling the commitments we have made and preparing for the next meeting which we have today agreed will be held in Rwanda in 2020.

    I began this week by saying that for the Commonwealth to endure, we must demonstrate our relevance and purpose anew.

    Today I believe we have done that.

    Our Blue Charter, our Cyber Declaration, our commitments to uphold the rules based international order, to fight protectionism, to defeat malaria, and to invest in education for all our young people…

    …in all these ways and more, the Commonwealth has found its voice.

    And we can look forward to a bright future with confidence.