Tag: Speeches

  • Karen Bradley – 2016 Speech on Hate Crime

    karenbradley

    Below is the text of the speech made by Karen Bradley, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office, in the House of Commons on 29 June 2016.

    Hate crime of any kind, directed against any community, race or religion, has absolutely no place in our society. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told this House today, we are utterly committed to tackling hate crime, and we will provide extra funding in order to do so. We will also take steps to boost reporting of hate crime and to support victims, issue new Crown Prosecution Service guidance to prosecutors on racially aggravated crime, provide a new fund for protective security measures at potentially vulnerable institutions, and offer additional funding to community organisations so that they can tackle hate crime.

    The scenes and behaviour we have seen in recent days, including offensive graffiti and abuse hurled at people because they are members of ethnic minorities or because of their nationality, are despicable and shameful. We must stand together against such hate crime and ensure that it is stamped out. Over the past week, there has been a 57% increase in reporting to the police online reporting portal, True Vision, compared with this time last month, with 85 reports made between Thursday 23 June to Sunday 26 June compared with 54 reports in the corresponding four days four weeks ago. However, I would urge caution in drawing conclusions from these figures as a guide to the trend, as they are a small snapshot of reports rather than definitive statistics.

    Much of the reporting of these incidents has been through social media, including reports of xenophobic abuse of eastern Europeans in the UK, as well as attacks against members of the Muslim community. However, we have also seen messages of support and friendship on social media. I am sure the whole House will want to join me in commending those we have seen stand up for what is right and uphold the shared values that bring us together as a country, such as those who opposed the racist and hateful speech shown in the recent video taken on a tram in Manchester.

    These recent events are shocking, but sadly this is not a new phenomenon. Statistics from the Tell MAMA report, published today, show that in 2015 there was a 326% increase on 2014 figures in street-based anti-Muslim incidents reported directly to Tell MAMA, such as verbal abuse in the street and women’s veils being pulled away, with 437 such incidents reported.

    Worryingly, the report also finds that 45% of online hate crime perpetrators are supportive of the far right. In recent days, we have seen far-right groups engaged in organised marches and demonstrations, sowing divisions and fear in our communities. We have also seen far-right groups broadcasting extreme racist and anti-Semitic ideology online, along with despicable hate speech posted online following the shocking death of our colleague Jo Cox. Her appalling death just under two weeks ago shocked and sickened people not only in communities up and down this country, but in many other countries around the world. As we heard in the many moving tributes paid to her in this House, her loss is keenly felt, and we will always remember that a husband is now without his loving wife and two young children will grow up without a mother.

    The investigation of hate crimes is of course an operational matter for the police. I would urge anyone who has experienced hate crime to report it, whether directly to the police at a police station, by phoning the 101 hotline, or online through the True Vision website. In this country, we have some of the strongest legislation in the world to protect communities from hostility, violence, and bigotry. This includes specific offences for racially and religiously aggravated activity and offences of stirring up hatred on the grounds of race, religion, and sexual orientation. It is imperative that these laws are rigorously enforced.

    The national police lead for hate crime, Assistant Chief Constable Mark Hamilton, has issued a statement confirming that police forces are working closely with their communities to maintain unity and prevent any hate crime or abuse. Police forces will respond robustly to any incidents, and victims can be reassured that their concerns about hate crime will be taken seriously by the police and courts. Any decisions regarding resourcing of front-line policing are a matter for chief constables in conjunction with their police and crime commissioner.

    Since coming to office, the Government have worked with the police to improve our collective response to hate crime. The Home Secretary has asked the police to ensure that the recording of religious-based hate crime now includes the faith of the victim—a measure that came into effect this April. We have also established joint training between the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to improve the way the police identify and investigate hate crime. Alongside this training, the College of Policing, as the professional body for policing, has published national strategy and operational guidance in this area to ensure that policing deals with hate crime effectively.

    But we need to do more to understand the hate crime we are seeing and to tackle it. That is why we will be publishing a new hate crime action plan covering all forms of hate crime, including xenophobic attacks. We have developed the plan in partnership with communities and with Departments across Government. It will include measures to increase the reporting of hate incidents and crimes, including working with communities and police to develop third-party reporting centres. It will work to prevent hate crimes on transport, and to tackle attacks against Muslim women, which we recognise is an area of great concern to the community. The action plan will also provide stronger support for victims, helping to put a stop to this pernicious behaviour.

    We appreciate that places of worship are feeling particularly vulnerable at this time. That is why we have established funding for the security of places of worship, as announced by the Prime Minister last October. This will enable places of worship to bid for money to fund additional security measures such as CCTV cameras or fencing. We have also been working with communities to encourage them to come forward to report such crimes, and to give them the confidence that those crimes will be taken seriously by the police and courts. My noble Friends Lord Ahmad and Baroness Williams have today visited the Polish cultural centre in Hammersmith, which was a victim of disgusting graffiti, to express their support.

    We are working closely with organisations such as Tell MAMA and the Community Security Trust to monitor hate crime incidents and with the police national community tensions team to keep community tensions under review.

    The Government are clear that hate crime of any kind must be taken very seriously indeed. Our country is thriving, liberal and modern precisely because of the rich co-existence of people of different backgrounds, faiths and ethnicities, and we must treasure and strive to protect that rich co-existence. We must work together to protect that diversity, defeat hate crime and uphold the values that underpin the British way of life, and we must ensure that all those who seek to spread hatred and division in our communities are dealt with robustly by the police and the courts. I commend this statement to the House.

  • Michael Fallon – 2016 Speech at Defence Conference

    michaelfallon

    Below is the text of the speech made by Michael Fallon, the Secretary of State for Defence, at the RUSI Land Warfare Conference held in London on 29 June 2016.

    Just last week we marked Armed Forces Day

    …as literally thousands of people came together

    …from Cleethorpes… where I attended with the Prime Minister

    …to Caerphilly

    …and places in between

    …to applaud…as members of the public… the immense contribution of our Army.

    In a few days’ time

    …local communities up and down the land

    …will gather once more

    …this time not in celebration

    …but in commemoration

    …as we mark 100 years on

    …from that immense battle

    …fought in the trenches of the Somme.

    Today’s troops

    …are worlds apart from their WW1 counterparts

    …in terms of firepower, technology and protection

    …yet they do share the same commitment to service

    …the same passionate belief in the values of our nation

    …the values of justice and tolerance and freedom

    …that are worth fighting for now as they were worth fighting for then.

    Values under attack
    And they do have to be fought for now.

    100 years after the Somme, those values remain under attack.

    From Islamist extremists… who most recently wrought havoc in a concert hall in Paris and in a nightclub in Orlando.

    From aggressor states…like Russia… who continue to menace the Ukraine.

    From rogue nations like North Korea…who keep rattling their nuclear sabre.

    But just as our forefathers did 100 years ago, today we face those dangers head on.

    Last year we had almost 80,000 British soldiers deployed on more than 380 commitments in 69 different countries around the world.

    This year our troops have maintained that relentless pace.

    Today they are training tens of thousands of Iraqis and Kurds to counter Daesh.

    They are assisting Nigerian forces to take on Boko Haram.

    And they are providing essential support to our Ukrainian allies as they stand firm in defence of their nation’s territorial integrity.

    Our personnel…our service people… around the world are making a difference.

    And they deserve our heartfelt thanks.

    It is through their service that they remind us

    …that if we’re to continue protecting our own people

    …projecting our influence

    …promoting our national prosperity

    …then we have to have a strong Army out in front leading the way.

    Investing in a strong army

    Now not so very long ago, Malcolm, there were some who questioned this Government’s commitment to the Army.

    In fact, I now recall standing at this very lectern a year ago

    …fielding a barrage of questions

    …polite but firm

    …about forces being hollowed out

    …budgets being constrained

    …and continual retrenchment.

    Yet, barely a week after that conference…of course because of that Conference!…the Chancellor announced that we would not only meet our 2 per cent NATO target

    …but that our budget would grow for the first time this April in real terms and would go on growing for each of the next six years.

    And, as you have said, a few months after that the Strategic Defence and Security Review decided

    …to put us back on the map

    …by investing in stronger defence

    …in the shape of Joint Force 2025

    …an Air Group

    …a Maritime Taskforce

    …and a Land Force made up of 112,000 Regulars and Reserve

    …able to deploy more rapidly an expeditionary force of around 50,000

    …20,000 more on the equivalent review four or five years before

    And committed over the next five years to spend some 12bn on the Army’s equipment programme alone

    Some 28bn over the next 10 years up till 2025.

    That additional force will give us a war-fighting division

    …optimised for high intensity combat operations

    …including two new strike Brigades

    …able to deploy over long distances.

    It will give reconfigured infantry battalions

    …who will increasingly contribute to countering terrorism and building stability overseas.

    And it will give us firepower to match this additional manpower.

    …digitally-enhanced Ajax armoured vehicles

    …Mechanised Infantry Vehicles

    …Warrior Fighting vehicles

    …Challenger tanks

    …upgraded Apaches and Chinooks

    …and cutting edge Remotely Piloted Air Systems.

    And I can announce today that we’ve signed a £80m support contract with Thales

    …that will keep our Watchkeepers flying high for years to come

    …helping in the process to sustain 80 jobs and more in the supply chain. So we know now from the SDSR…what our future force… will look like.

    But the questions for today go much deeper. . And they return us, as you said Malcolm, to the theme of this conference, “adaptability”.

    How should the Army adapt to a much more complex age?

    How can we make sure, as you’ve already been discussing in earlier sessions, that the Army does have the ability to react to such a wide range of threats

    …whether simultaneously from the East or South

    …whether from conventional or from cyber warfare.

    In answering that question, I would like to set out my vision of Army 2025

    In my view, it should be a future force with three essential characteristics:

    1. INTEGRATION
    First, it should be an integrated Army.

    I don’t mean an Army structure that’s better integrated.

    I don’t mean an Army that’s better integrated with the Royal Navy and Royal Airforce – they’re already doing it.

    I mean an Army that is integrated with the “whole of Government”.

    Increasingly, the threats we face transcend departmental boundaries.

    Tomorrow’s Army is going to be working more closely than ever before with Intelligence Agencies, with the Police and Home Office to deter and respond to threats.

    It will joining up with key government departments to support national resilience contingency planning.

    It will be building stability overseas by improving our partners’ abilities to deal with terrorism, radicalisation and extremism.

    Now the Army, of course, always been more than just a blunt instrument.

    It’s always been an organisation with the skills, the intelligence and on-the-ground knowledge of how to make as well as how to break.

    And having fully absorbed CGS’s doctrine note on integrated action…that he released last year…I want to see Army 2025 fully utilise its in-depth expertise

    …not just in theatre but at the heart of our government

    …helping to shape and inform the decisions that are taken in government

    2. INFORMATION
    Secondly, I want to see Army 2025 dominate

    …not simply enter…the information space

    …in the way the Army currently masters the physical terrain.

    We can already see our adversaries waging war differently

    …using cyber to take down infrastructure

    …using social media to spread misinformation

    …using chat groups and rooms to radicalise followers.

    The Army of the future

    …will be plugged into the digital age.

    It will be able… in the words of those tech experts over at Silicon Valley

    … “to translate the virtual bits into physical atoms”

    …that emerge from multiple receptors

    …whether digital tanks…carriers…or the F35.

    And it will have the capability to deploy that real-time information

    …to disrupt and dismantle our adversaries’ capabilities

    …to help inform political decision making

    …and to deliver…above all…a faster truth to our public.

    So just as the pioneers of air support and tanks were to be found in the later stages of the battle of the Somme

    …so the pioneers of information warfare will now be found amongst our men and women of 77 Brigade and 1st Reconnaissance Brigade.

    They’re already learning ways to improve information…influence capabilities

    …counter hybrid warfare techniques

    …and improve battlefield intelligence.

    And along the way they are pioneering techniques that will undoubtedly be taken up throughout the rest of the Army.

    They’re discovering how to use more flexible terms-of-employment so we can do more to tap into the deeper wells of talent within our country.

    They’re breaking down barriers in the way we organise ourselves so that our intelligence analysts receive the information from unmanned aerial systems more swiftly.

    And they’re finding out how to give our deployed forces even greater access to the additional expertise and services that UK assets can provide worldwide.

    I believe that impact will in time be revolutionary.

    3. INTERNATIONAL-BY-DESIGN
    Third, Army 2025, as Malcolm reminded us, will be international-by-design.

    Thanks to the Army 2020 refine programme we will be a force to be reckoned with…with a full array of capabilities to operate alone if required.

    But we will also be in a much better position to work together with our global partners.

    And make no mistake…regardless of the result of the referendum… we will remain a major international power with global responsibilities.

    Leaving one particular union means we will have to work even harder with our commitment to others and to our key financial operations.

    We will continue to be leading members

    …of NATO …of the UN Security Council …of the Commonwealth …of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe …of the Northern Group of European nations …of the Five Power Defence Arrangements in the Far East …of the Five Eyes intelligence alliance

    And we will continue to be a country with strong and valued Defence relationships

    …with the United States

    …and with countries around the world.

    The result of the referendum does not change our global outlook.

    We will continue to fight terror with our partners

    …to support counter migration efforts

    …whether organised by NATO or the European Union…or the United Nations.

    We will continue to tackle counter-arms smuggling.

    We will continue to deepen and broaden those relationships we set out in the Strategic Defence and Security Review last year.

    That’s why Army 2025 is being configured to l operate predominantly in combined formations

    …as part of NATO’s VJTEF…which we lead next year

    …as part of our Joint Expeditionary Force of northern European nations.

    That combined formation in each case exemplifies the sort of relationship that international-design will forge and sustain.

    So Army 2025 will continue to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with our American allies …building on the strength of our existing partnership.

    …building on the regular joint exercises between our nations

    …and the recent agreement to integrate more effectively a UK division into a US corps.

    …and the fact we’re one of the few Armies in the world able to match the tempo of the US Higher Headquarters.

    And that’s why Army 2025 will also be there alongside our French colleagues.

    And this year we’re not just looking back

    …to the Anglo-French efforts on the Somme

    …but looking forward…with the successful testing of our Combined Joint Expeditionary Force.

    And beyond that, I want Army 2025 to be the partner of choice for smaller nations.

    …giving us greater options for a sharper and speedier response against our adversaries.

    That’s a network that is being strengthened and expanded all the time

    …through our Specialised Infantry Battalions

    …through our culturally-aware regional specialists

    …through our world renowned military courses

    …and the events we hold …such as the conference we’re in with you today

    Above all…through the routine engagements of our troops throughout the year… throughout the world.

    This year there have already been more than 100 such tasks ranging from Belize to Burkino Faso…from Ethiopia to Egypt…from Sierra Leone to Singapore.

    Just this week British troops deployed again on exercise in the Ukraine .

    Diversity
    So that’s my vision for Army 2025.

    And I need only add that this is a force whose diversity of allies

    …needs to be matched by the diversity of its own personnel.

    By 2020, as you know, we want 10 per cent of new soldiers to come from an ethnic minority background.

    We want more than 15 per cent to be women.

    And we want them…in both cases…not simply to make up numbers

    …not simply to meet a Government target

    …but to bring their skills and their talents to every part of the Army

    …and to every corner of the world in which our people serve.

    These are the people with the talent that takes them to the very top.

    And this will be a force

    …that represents the nation

    …that enjoys…as it did last week…the nation’s wholehearted support

    …and a force that is admired worldwide for the values that it embodies.

    Conclusion
    So let me conclude by saying…that is the Army 2025 that I want to see in the coming years.

    A stronger, forward leaning force, leading a more secure, more prosperous and more confident country into the future.

    And though we don’t know today…when and where the British Army will be deployed next… I do know that where it is deployed it will be used successfully.

    …not just because of the building blocks are already in place

    …not even just because we are now putting our money where our mouth is

    …but above all because of the iron will and determination

    …that once drove those heroes on the Somme

    …to preserve the freedoms we cherish against the forces of aggression and intolerance and injustice

    Because that determination and iron will

    …remains

    …after all these years

    …the driving force of our militarily today.

    Thank you.

  • Baroness Anelay – 2016 Speech on OPCAT Anniversary

    baronessanelay

    Below is the text of the speech made by Baroness Anelay at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in London on 29 June 2016.

    Thank you, Malcolm, for that introduction.

    Today is the tenth anniversary of the entry into force of the Optional Protocol to the United Nations Convention against Torture, or OPCAT as it is commonly known.

    First, I would like to assure you that our multilateral work – particularly through the UN – is more important than ever for the future of the UK in the world. Following the EU Referendum vote last week, we remain absolutely determined to strengthen the UK’s voice in the international system, including on the important human rights priority of torture prevention.

    As I travel in regions of the world where human rights are under very much threat, I often hear from leaders grappling with a problem of widespread torture within their security services, prisons and detention facilities. I hear a range of explanations and possible approaches to the problem:

    “There is no torture here – we’ve made it illegal”

    “If there is any torture, we’ll catch those responsible”

    “We are facing terrible threats – terrorism, child abduction”

    Whilst I sympathise with all those views, it is clear that whatever we are doing together to end torture is not yet working well enough. For 30 years now, the UN Convention against Torture has outlawed any use or tolerance of that practice, without exception, without possibility of derogation. Almost all countries in the world would say that they comply with this ban. So how is it that Amnesty International last year received reports of torture from 141 countries – three quarters of the United Nations’ membership? If we are all so clear that torture is abhorrent – a denial of the humanity of all involved – how does it come to take place almost everywhere?

    The answer to this conundrum can be found, I believe, in the words of Lord Acton, a reforming 19th Century member of the House of the Lords, who famously said that “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” It is sadly the case that whenever one man – and it invariably is a man – has power over another: the power of arbitrary detention, the power of enforced helplessness, the power to act with impunity – there will always be a tendency, a base temptation to exploit that power.

    Torture thrives on secrecy and deniability; on lack of oversight. It thrives when prisoners are held alone, incommunicado, denied visits or representation. It thrives when convictions can be based on a forced confession alone, without investigation of the injuries the accused has acquired in custody.

    This is where the OPCAT comes in. It is a truly modern, 21st century instrument, which goes beyond a simple declaration that torture is wrong. The OPCAT recognises that all detention systems can become places where torture happens: either by means of the festering development of a policy of abuse; or because individuals exploit their unchecked power of control over a helpless inmate. To eliminate that tendency requires oversight, vigilance and monitoring. A prison officer will not torture an inmate who is about to meet a prison visitor. An interrogator will not give way to excess if his actions are being monitored and overseen. A legal system where due process is respected will not tolerate duress.

    The OPCAT’s focus on prevention is, of course, what potential future victims of torture worldwide would wish for. For Leopoldo Garcia, a victim of torture in Chile in the 1970s, there can never be complete remedy, as his suffering will never end. Mr Garcia recently told the organisation Redress – which I’m glad to say is represented here today – that:

    “I’m alive, but it feels like a living death. Every time I comb my hair or shave, I see my scar and the fact that I have no teeth, and I think of Pinochet. My head hurts. I need a hearing aid to hear properly. I have trouble walking because they almost fractured my spine.”

    We should work to prevent torture to ensure the next generation does not suffer what Mr Garcia has been through.

    I am looking forward to hearing later from John Wadham on how the UK is working to implement the OPCAT in this country. I would like to make an open offer to friends here from the diplomatic corps. If you are interested by what you hear about the UK’s National Preventative Mechanism and would see value in a visit to your country or any type of information exchange, my officials in the Human Rights and Democracy Department, who are well represented in this room, would be very happy to set that up.

    I am also keen to hear from Suzanne Jabour about her work promoting implementation and ratification of the OPCAT. On the basis of the UK’s positive experience of OPCAT, I call on all states that have not yet ratified or established a National Preventative Mechanism to do so.

    To stimulate that process I have just approved a number of torture prevention projects to be funded by the Magna Carta Fund for Human Rights and Democracy. That fund is spending around one and a half million pounds this year on initiatives to improve human rights within criminal justice systems globally. As part of that effort, an ambitious set of projects, which will be delivered in more than 20 countries, will work specifically to prevent torture and to promote the OPCAT. I am pleased that implementers of these projects are here today and that the total value of torture prevention work will be £725,000 this year, with more to follow next year. This is part of our commitment to the global rules based system, within which torture is neither tacitly condoned nor ignored, but is identified, rooted out and prevented.

    Thank you all for coming to the Foreign and Commonwealth office today for this very important event. I look forward to hearing from John and Suzanne, and then to answering your questions. I can reassure you today of the UK’s commitment to being a strong voice in the UN, and to promoting ratification of OPCAT around the world.

  • Sajid Javid – 2016 Speech to Automotive Summit

    CBI Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Sajid Javid, the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills at the SMMT International Automotive Summit 2016 held in London on 29 June 2016.

    As the apocryphal Chinese curse says, “May you live in interesting times”.

    Well, it has certainly been an interesting seven days in Westminster.

    If nothing else, our nation’s political journalists are enjoying themselves tremendously!

    The past week has produced millions of words of comment, analysis and discussion.

    There’s been endless Parliamentary parlour games and Westminster whispers.

    But none of that should distract us from the very real, very serious issues at hand.

    Since Friday morning we’ve seen instability in the stock market.

    We’ve seen the pound drop to a 31-year low.

    We’ve heard talk of major employers making plans to move jobs out of the UK.

    There’s no question about it, this is a challenging time for British business.

    The nation and the economy are facing a situation is that completely without precedent.

    Literally nobody has been here before.

    There is no instruction manual.

    And I know it’s a situation the SMMT had hoped to avoid.

    Like me, three-quarters of your members wanted Britain to remain a member of the European Union.

    Just last week Mike called it “critical” for the future of British car-making.

    From multinationals to small specialist suppliers, the industry was unambiguous in its support for Remain.

    Now I’m not going to pretend the past couple of months never happened.

    I’m not about to start backtracking on some of the warnings that were made.

    I don’t doubt that there will be difficult times ahead for Britain, particularly for British employers.

    We’re entering a period of uncertainty and – let’s be completely honest – we don’t have a good idea how long it will last. But you can only play with the cards you’ve been dealt.

    The people of the United Kingdom have issued their orders.

    And as a Cabinet Minister it’s my job to put those orders into action.

    So I won’t be sitting around complaining, pointing fingers, or reflecting on what might have been.

    The UK will be leaving the European Union.

    I have to make sure that happens in a way that works for British business.

    A way that works for you.

    The easiest thing in the world would be to stand on the sidelines throwing rocks.

    But I’m not that kind of politician.

    And if there’s one thing I’ve learned in my time as Business Secretary, it’s that you’re not that kind of industry.

    You’re forward-thinking.

    You’re innovative.

    You don’t shirk from challenges, you rise to them.

    Those qualities helped you become one of Britain’s most successful manufacturing sectors.

    And those are the qualities that will help all of us to make it through the days to come.

    So where do we go from here?

    What happens next for Britain, for manufacturing, for the automotive industry?

    Well, this decision may make conditions more challenging.

    But it won’t make things impossible.

    It creates a number of large, complex issues to overcome.

    But we can overcome them.

    And yes, we are sailing into unchartered waters.

    But we are far from rudderless.

    Contrary to some of the more alarmist headlines, the business of government continues.

    Since Friday I’ve been in regular touch with heads of some of our biggest companies to reassure them and talk about next steps.

    Cabinet met on Monday and we agreed to set up a cross-government Europe taskforce.

    Yesterday I met with Britain’s business leaders, including Mike, to hear their views and set out our plans.

    Through all that, my message for British business has been clear and simple.

    Britain remains open for business.

    This is not time for hasty decisions or rushed judgements.

    The markets are volatile right now.

    But this volatility has not come as a surprise.

    All the experts predicted it.

    And the government, the Bank of England and the Financial Conduct Authority have spent the past few months putting in place robust plans to deal with it.

    The Treasury has been working with the major financial institutions to make sure they are able to deal with just this situation.

    Swap lines had been arranged in advance, so the Bank of England can lend in foreign currency if needed.

    The Bank of England stands ready to provide up to £250 billion to support banks and the smooth functioning of markets.

    And the Chancellor has been in contact with G7 and European finance ministers, with the IMF, and with central bank governors around the world.

    Most important of all, Britain’s economy is fundamentally strong.

    And for that, much of the credit must go to our Prime Minister.

    When David Cameron arrived in Downing Street in 2010 he inherited an economy that was on the brink.

    The deepest recession in living memory, spiralling debt, a deficit that was out of control.

    It speaks volumes about the Prime Minister that, just six years later, the economy is almost unrecognisable.

    We’ve gone from a record-breaking recession to record employment.

    During the last Parliament more jobs were created in Birmingham than in the whole of France.

    The country is home to more private sector businesses than at any point in history.

    The deficit is down from 11 per cent of national income to just three per cent.

    Even after this week’s shock, the UK is still one of the biggest economies in the world.

    And in a sky full of stars, your sector shines brighter than most.

    The past few years have been incredible for the UK’s automotive industry.

    A vehicle rolls off our production lines every 16 seconds, most destined for export.

    Last year we built more cars than at any point in the past decade.

    From the consumer forecourt to Formula One gird, the UK’s automotive expertise is clear to all.

    And from apprenticeships to the Automotive Council to the Advanced Propulsion Centre, automotive has been a model of co-operation between government and industry.

    The politicians and the engineers coming together to do what’s right for business.

    What’s right for jobs.

    What’s right for the people of Britain.

    That is how we achieved the level of success the sector is experiencing today – and that is going to continue no matter what.

    So although I’m here today to talk, I’m also keen to listen.

    What can we do for you right now and in the future?

    What do you need from the negotiations to come?

    What does Britain’s motor industry want our new relationship with Europe to look like?

    The decision the British people made last week will undoubtedly create many challenges.

    But it also gives us a unique opportunity.

    An opportunity to build from the ground up in a way that really works for Britain’s employers and employees.

    And I want you to be a part of that.

    I want to hear from you in the weeks and months ahead.

    You know your sector, your suppliers, your investors better than anyone.

    And remember this.

    We are still a member of the European Union.

    We are still inside the single market.

    None of that is going to change overnight.

    There’s a lot of negotiation to come, a lot of difficult decisions to make.

    But let me reassure each and every one of you that I will be fighting each and every day to secure a settlement that works for British business.

    We’ve all worked too hard to get our economy growing again.

    Top of my list will be securing the tariff-free access to markets that are so important to Britain’s automotive industry.

    I also want to make sure Britain continues to attract the best design and manufacturing talent from across Europe and around the world.

    And I want the UK to remain a leading destination for international investment in manufacturing.

    Because we cannot afford to turn our backs on the world.

    Last Thursday we saw a vote to have more control over immigration.

    Not a vote to put up the “closed” sign.

    It’s almost 175 years since a young German named William Siemens arrived in Britain to set up what would become one of the world’s biggest engineering firms.

    In a letter to his brother he wrote that “England is the place if anything is to be done.”

    Long before the EU, long before the Common Market, the world knew that Britain was the place to do business.

    That is not going to change.

    Britain is open for business, and Britain will remain open for business.

    Thank you.

  • David Cameron – 2016 Statement on EU Council Meeting

    davidcameron

    Below is the text of the statement made in the House of Commons by David Cameron, the Prime Minister, on 29 June 2016.

    With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on yesterday’s European Council.

    This was the first Council since Britain decided to leave the European Union. The decision was accepted and we began constructive discussions about how to ensure a strong relationship between Britain and the countries of the EU.

    But before the discussion on Britain, there were a number of other items on the agenda. Let me touch on them briefly.

    On migration, the Council noted the very significant reductions in illegal crossings from Turkey to Greece as a result of the agreement made with Turkey in March. But it expressed continued concern over the central Mediterranean route and a determination to do all we can to combat people smuggling via Libya.

    Britain continues to play a leading role in Operation Sophia with HMS Enterprise. And I can tell the House today that Royal Fleet Auxiliary Mounts Bay will also be deployed to stop the flow of weapons to terrorists, particularly Daesh, in Libya.

    On NATO, Secretary General Stoltenberg gave a presentation ahead of the Warsaw summit and the Council agreed the need for NATO and the EU to work together in a complementary way to strengthen our security.

    On completing the single market, there were important commitments on the digital single market, including that EU residents will be able to travel with the digital content they have purchased or subscribed to at home.

    And on the economic situation, the President of the European Central Bank (ECB) gave a presentation in the light of the outcome of our referendum.

    Private sector forecasts discussed at the Council included estimates of a reduction in eurozone growth potentially between 0.3% and 0.5% over the next 3 years. One of the main explanations for this is the predicted slowdown in the UK economy, given our trade with the euro area.

    President Draghi reassured the Council that the ECB has worked with the Bank of England for many months to prepare for uncertainty, and in the face of continued volatility our institutions will continue to monitor markets and act as necessary.

    Mr Speaker, returning to the main discussions around Britain leaving the EU, the tone of the meeting was one of sadness and regret. But there was an agreement that the decision of the British people should be respected.

    We had positive discussions about the relationship we want to see between Britain and our European partners, and the next steps on leaving the EU, including some of the issues that need to be worked through and the timing for triggering Article 50.

    Let me say a word about each.

    First, we were clear that while Britain is leaving the European Union, we are not turning our backs on Europe – and they are not turning their backs on us.

    Many of my counterparts talked warmly about the history and values that our countries share and the huge contribution that Britain has made to peace and progress in Europe.

    For example, the Estonian Prime Minister described how the Royal Navy helped to secure the independence of his country a century ago. The Czech Prime Minister paid tribute to Britain as home for Czechs fleeing persecution.

    Many of the countries of Eastern and Central Europe expressed the debt they feel to Britain for standing by them when they were suffering under communism and for supporting them as they joined the European Union.

    And President Hollande talked movingly about the visit that he and I will be making later this week to the battlefields of the Somme, where British and French soldiers fought and died together for the freedom of our continent, and the defence of the democracy and the values that we share.

    So the Council was clear that as we take forward this agenda of Britain leaving the European Union, we should rightly want to have the closest possible relationship that we can in the future.

    In my view this should include the strongest possible relationship in terms of trade, co-operation and of course security, something that only becomes more important in the light of the appalling terrorist attack in Turkey last night.

    Mr Speaker, as I said on Monday, as we work to implement the will of the British people, we also have a fundamental responsibility to bring our country together. We will not tolerate hate crime or any kind of attacks against people in our country because of their ethnic origin. And I reassured European leaders who were concerned about what they had heard was happening in Britain. We are a proud multi-faith, multi-ethnic society – and we will stay that way.

    Turning to the next steps on leaving the EU, first there was a lot of reassurance that until Britain leaves, we are a full member. That means we are entitled to all the benefits of membership and full participation until the point at which we leave.

    Second, we discussed some of the issues which will need to be worked through. I explained that in Britain there was great concern about the movement of people and the challenges of controlling immigration, as well as concerns about the issue of sovereignty.

    In turn, many of our European partners were clear that it is impossible to have all of the benefits of membership without some of the costs of membership. And that is something that the next Prime Minister and their Cabinet is going to have to work through very carefully.

    Third, on the timing for Article 50, contrary to some expectations, there wasn’t a great clamour for Britain to trigger this straight away. While there were 1 or 2 voices calling for this, the overwhelming view of my fellow-leaders was that we need to take some time to get this right.

    Of course, everyone wants to see a clear blueprint appear in terms of what Britain thinks is right for its future relationship with the EU. And as I explained in my statement on Monday, we are starting this work straightaway with the new unit in Whitehall, which will be led by a new Permanent Secretary Oliver Robbins.

    This unit will examine all the options and possibilities in a neutral way, setting out their costs and benefits so that the next Prime Minister and their Cabinet have all the information they need with which to determine exactly the right approach to take and the right outcome to negotiate.

    But the decisions that follow from this – including the triggering of Article 50 – are rightly for the next Prime Minister and the Council clearly understood and respected that.

    Mr Speaker, I don’t think it’s a secret that I have, at times, found discussions in Brussels frustrating. But despite that, I do believe we can be proud of what we have achieved.

    Whether it is putting a greater focus on jobs and growth, cutting the EU budget in real terms for the first time and reducing the burden of red tape on business, or building common positions on issues of national security, such as sanctions to stop Iran getting a nuclear weapon, standing up to Russian aggression in Ukraine and galvanising other European countries to help with the lead that Britain was taking in dealing with Ebola in Sierra Leone.

    In all these ways, and more, we have shown how much we have in common with our European partners, as neighbours and allies who share fundamental values, history and culture.

    It is a poignant reminder that while we will be leaving the European Union we must continue to work together, for the security and prosperity of our people for generations to come.

    And I commend this statement to the House.

  • Richard Fuller – 2016 Speech on Bedford Hospital

    Below is the text of the speech made by Richard Fuller, the Conservative MP for Bedford, in the House of Commons on 28 June 2016.

    It is a pleasure and an honour to have secured this debate to talk about the future of Bedford hospital and, in doing so, to praise the efforts and work of the clinicians, nurses, porters, cleaners, caterers and management at our hospital. It is also an opportunity for me to talk about some of the experiences that have affected the hospital over the six years I have been a Member of Parliament. In that time, the most significant impacts have come as a result of actions taken by those within the senior NHS structures.

    On the basis of my six years’ grassroots experience, I want to talk about the impacts of some of those processes on my local hospital. In doing so, I am joined in spirit by the Minister for Community and Social Care, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), who, because of his ministerial responsibilities, cannot speak today. As a Health Minister—although not the Minister responsible for hospitals—he is somewhat constrained in what he may say publicly, but he has provided tremendous support to me and the hospital as it has traversed difficult times in recent years, so I want to put on the record my thanks to him.

    Right at the start of my time as an MP, when we were considering the future of hospitals and possible reorganisations, my right hon. Friend, who has been a Member of Parliament, whether for Bedfordshire and for Bury, for 20 or 30 years—so he has a long perspective on this—made an observation to me that the Minister might want to reflect on. He said that in his time organisational fads had come and gone. At one time, the fad might be to centralise, but wait long enough and the fad will be to decentralise services, and that affects not just the health service but many other aspects of public service management.

    I want to talk about Bedford hospital and its performance. I am personally extremely grateful to the hospital. I was born there and went there when sick with pneumonia—and as the House can see, I made as full a recovery as I could have wished. I am grateful to the hospital for being there at important times in my life, and I know that many of my constituents feel likewise. It is not a big hospital in the grand scale of things, but neither is it a small hospital; it is one of those that many of our constituents would recognise as that local district general hospital that is such a feature of many towns across the United Kingdom.

    In my time as an MP, there has been one dramatic moment, where, because of poor guidance, the deanery removed junior paediatric doctors from the hospital. In the past when that happened, the deanery never put junior doctors back, but for the first time in its history it did, because it recognised the level of support and the need for paediatric services in Bedford. The turnaround was a signal achievement by the hospital and came within six months of its positive review by the Care Quality Commission.

    A few years later—in fact, earlier this year—the CQC came back to do its overall report for Bedford hospital. It provides a grid, Madam Deputy Speaker, and you may have seen them at your hospital area reviews, when lots of different services and functions are described and coloured yellow, green, red and blue. Blue is best, as of course it always is, and then we go down through green and yellow to red. Bedford hospital had no reds—not even one of 30 or 40 measurements taken by the CQC. Everything and every aspect of the organisation of our local hospital was working at a level that may have required some improvement, but that provided a level of care in which we in the Bedford community could have trust. Overall, the hospital achieved the same ranking as three quarters of our hospitals do—“requires improvement”—but Bedford hospital was right in the upper quartile of those quality ratings.

    The hospital has shown itself able to recover from its problems and it has demonstrated that it delivers good care outcomes. What it has also demonstrated is its ability to start to meet some of the financial challenges that many hospitals in the country have. Two years ago, the hospital had a very substantial deficit, and I shall come on later to a nearby hospital that had an even more significant one.

    In the financial year ending in April this year, Bedford hospital met its target of losing only £18 million and it is now on target to achieve its next benchmark of reducing the losses to £10 million. I would, of course, like the hospital to be in surplus, but the direction of travel and rate of progress being made are something from which we can take some comfort. I hope that the Minister will be able to talk about the experience of other hospitals across the country in reducing their deficits and say whether Bedford is moving at the right pace and in the right direction in comparison with many other hospitals.

    It is interesting to note that between 2013 and 2015-16 the number of A&E admissions in Bedford went up from 13,600 to 19,300—a very significant increase. As the Minister knows, it is often the case with hospitals that the more A&E admissions they have, the bigger the strain on their finances. The improvement in Bedford hospital’s finances is coming at a time when more and more A&E work is being carried out. Interestingly, the A&E performance of Bedford hospital last winter was in the top 10% of hospitals in the country as a whole.

    My final point of praise for Bedford hospital is about the level of connection and support it has in the community. We have a vibrant Friends of Bedford Hospital, as well as a strong charity that raises considerable sums—millions of pounds—for the hospital, including money to support the development of a cancer unit. This is not public money provided by the NHS, but money provided through the strength of charitable giving in Bedford, Kempston and across Bedfordshire by people who know and love their hospital. It is perhaps not unique in the country, but the level of charitable support in place for the hospital is certainly something of note.

    If the hospital had been left on its own and the doctors had been left to work out their clinical pathways and to meet the challenges of ever-increasing demands for better care quality as well as the financial challenges of achieving a surplus, I think it would have done very well indeed. There is no resistance to change. The other feature of my six years as an MP, as it affects our hospital, however, has been an ongoing, going-nowhere review that started off as a review of five hospitals back in 2011 and has now been reduced to a review of two hospitals—at Bedford and Milton Keynes.

    The five hospital review was rather ambitiously called “Healthier Together”, but after the Corby by-election, it got relabelled as “Healthier Together; Happier Apart” because of the strength of feeling of local people about the performance of the review of hospitals in Northamptonshire. The review of Bedford and Milton Keynes has gone on essentially for a significant number of years, but with very little progress indeed. This has come at a considerable cost. The costs of the “Healthier Together” five-hospital review were anticipated to be £2.2 million. The subsequent review, just between Bedford and Milton Keynes, cost £3.2 million in its first phase and is expected to cost a further £1.3 million this year. In the context of a hospital that is trying to reduce its costs —whether or not this money is funded out of the hospital, the CQC, Monitor or NHS England does not matter—these are considerable sums that have been spent on reviews that have not delivered.

    I want to talk about why they have not delivered. The first reason is that despite, perhaps, the best efforts of people on the ground, the original structuring of the Bedford and Milton Keynes review never had any public support. Many people in Bedford understand that their loved ones will go to other hospitals if they need extra care: if you get a heart attack in Bedford, you go straight past Bedford hospital to Papworth; if your child is very sick, they may go to Great Ormond street; if you are pregnant and have a very difficult pregnancy, you may well find that the last stage of your pregnancy and birth take place at Luton and Dunstable. But in very few regards do the people of Bedford look for their health care towards Milton Keynes.

    So the original structuring of this review failed to understand where public support might naturally come from, which is why in the general election—I know the Minister, my friend, is aware of this—I was strongly of the view that it made sense for people in Bedford and Bedford hospital to look for ties with Addenbrooke’s, a well-regarded hospital which many in Bedford understand. Many people think it delivers the quality of care they need at the high end and believe it would form the core of a much stronger and better and more appropriate alliance than a forced-together merger with Milton Keynes.

    That would not have been the only clinical partner, but it could have been the core partner if those in charge of the review had so permitted. I also think that not only did the review lack public support, but this pushing together of Bedford and Milton Keynes importantly also lacked clinician support—support from the doctors and the consultants, who are the ones we would look to to say, “What is the right way for us to achieve those higher quality standards in care?” Their eyes would also have looked elsewhere than this review of Bedford and Milton Keynes. These issues did not arise at the last minute. They arose and were known about for many, many years, and I want to talk in a little while about why on earth the review continued with that lack of support from both the public and clinicians in Bedford.

    It is fair to say that when the initial numbers came out and people looked at the financial models for these reviews, there was a series of errors, so much so that they had to go back and redo all their analysis, further undermining public confidence in this review. Some of the options presented were quite scary: “Should we close A&E in one hospital and move it to another?” or “Should we drop maternity services and paediatrics in one hospital?” These are scary options that those doing a full analysis will of course want to be able to model, but at the slightest change of certain assumptions, they would flip completely from saying, “Yes, we should keep maternity and paediatrics” to “No, we shouldn’t.” The sensitivities in some of these important decisions suggest too heavy a reliance on financial modelling, rather than on the instincts of the clinicians and the local public about how they feel care quality targets can be set. Yes, that will be within a financial envelope, but this over-reliance on financial modelling was another error in this review, and perhaps one that carries on into other reviews across the country.

    This review has been going on since June 2011, with all these weaknesses in terms of errors, sensitivities, lack of clinician support and lack of public support. One would have hoped the message would have got through, but unfortunately it did not. The review was essentially, as I have called it a number of times, a “zombie” review; no matter how much people would say, “This has no future prospects”, and however much it would be knocked back, the “zombie” review would rise up and continue to walk forward.

    The problem with that was that it created such an enormous amount of doubt and uncertainty. I think that our hospital in Bedford could do with a restructuring of its A&E department, so that patient flows work even better than they do now. Less stress would be placed on our doctors and nurses who work in A&E, because it would be easier to move patients through the hospital. Such an investment would be very worthwhile. It would not cost the Treasury a significant amount, and it would pay its way in a few years—not even a double figure. However, it cannot be considered while a question mark may still be hanging over our hospital’s future. I pay enormous tribute to its staff, who have held together strongly and with great spirit in the face of that doubt and uncertainty.

    That brings me to my more immediate reason for raising this issue with my hon. Friend the Minister. Let me begin by making a point about joint clinical commissioning groups. CCGs hold our budgets and, on our behalf, spend money on healthcare in our local communities, whether it is primary care or acute care. As we know, they must make certain decisions about where the money should go, but they are also empowered to make some structural decisions. A few years ago, we introduced a statutory instrument under which, instead of making decisions on their own and only for their areas, CCGs could create a framework that would allow them to make a decision together, rather than a decision having to be endorsed by the constituent CCGs one by one in the knowledge that it was right for their individual areas.

    Of course, that sets up the potential for mischief as well as the potential for good decision making. If a strong CCG feels that it can dominate a broader group, the interests of the minority can be pushed to one side. That is why I forced that decision on to the Floor of the House. In the last Parliament, I was the only MP on the Regulatory Reform Committee to vote against the creation of joint CCGs. I did so because I could see the potential for mischief. Although I would not say that the members of the Bedfordshire and Milton Keynes joint committee have been mischievous, I do think that the process casts further doubt on the wisdom of putting that system together.

    Two weeks ago, the final straw broke the camel’s back. The joint committee produced a report containing its recommendations, which was given full publicity. A very worrying headline was splashed across my local newspaper, saying that maternity services in Bedford were to close. When our local media—BBC Three Counties Radio, or another of our local papers—wanted to talk to those who had produced that very scary report, they were told, “We cannot talk to you, because of purdah.”

    What goes through the minds of people who are entrusted with our healthcare, and who think that it is OK to throw a report out into the public domain and then back away and say, “We cannot say anything about it”? What logic says that publishing a report is not a breaking of purdah, but talking about it is? It seems to me that those people did not know what they were doing. I am very grateful to Simon Stevens, the chief executive of NHS England, who wrote back to me on 27 June. Referring to those two points, he said:

    “With hindsight, the meeting should not have been scheduled during the purdah period and the report should not have been released.”

    For me, that is the final straw. I have experienced the final straw a number of times in this regard, but I do not think that the public can possibly have confidence in a group of people who will do something that is so scary and then run away—and when the head of NHS England describes it as a great and grievous error, it is time for the joint committee to be dropped. But no! This has not ended; it has paused. How long do we have to wait for this review to reach its bitter end and to be closed?

    I want to hear from the Minister today what the logic is behind continuing the Bedford and Milton Keynes healthcare review. It has no local support from the people or the local clinicians of Bedford. It has no respect for the public, given the way in which it puts out pronouncements and then runs away. It does not even fit with NHS national strategy. In those circumstances, a pause is not good enough. It is time this review was killed off—ended, kaput, no more! The people who go to our hospital want to know that they can look to and trust a single process in relation to the future of that hospital, and the people who work in that hospital want to have the confidence that they can control its future on behalf of their patients. The nonsense of the review carrying on is affecting my constituents and my local doctors. It is also disrupting the national strategy of the NHS.

    The Minister will be aware of the comprehensive programme reviewing the implementation of the NHS five year forward view. It is called the sustainability and transformation plan—the STP—and it is a pretty good plan. I read the “Five Year Forward View”—as I know you did, Madam Deputy Speaker—before the election. It was an important document that we should all read, and it was a good document because it pointed in the right direction in relation to the needs of an ageing population and the importance of integrating care in the community with our acute services. The plan is the sort of plan that people, politicians and clinicians can get behind. The direction of travel was made clear, and the STP is the implementation tool that is being used to achieve that across the country. It will not satisfy everyone—indeed, I am sure that it will come up with some challenging solutions—but it is consistent with the national strategy and I believe that it is the right approach to take nationally.

    In my own region, the STP involves not only Bedfordshire but Luton and Milton Keynes. Importantly for our area, it is being led by an extremely capable hospital chief executive, Pauline Philip. She is the chief executive of Luton and Dunstable University hospital. She will of course have to balance her interests as the head of a hospital that would naturally like to take more under its own control with the understanding that there is a responsibility to keep a sustainable acute services area and, most importantly, to gain the support of local authority areas.

    I am reflecting on why that other review is still paused, given its inadequacies and lack of fit, so here are some observations that I hope the Minister will respond to. In my experience, in discussions about this over the past six years, there has been too much bureaucratic infighting between Monitor and the NHS Trust Development Authority, which seemed to think, prior to its merging into NHS Improvement, that the hospitals in its arm of the health service were the ones to protect, regardless of the consequences for hospitals in the other arm. Milton Keynes hospital, the other hospital affected by this review, was frequently seen to be being indulged, while more severe restrictions were placed on Bedford hospital. For example, while Bedford hospital was achieving a reduction in its losses, Milton Keynes hospital was being indulged for increasing its losses. Where is the fairness in that?

    I also want to ask why the boundaries were selected in this way. It appears to me that the boundaries relating to Bedford and Milton Keynes were drawn in a way that was perhaps correct for locating the problem, but that they had no chance of being the right set of boundaries for finding the solution. That is fine. When we look at problems, we often set up boundaries to understand them. I understand that, but what I have observed as a Member of Parliament is intransigence in those who have been running this process to understand that although they may have the correct boundaries for the problem, they need to be creative beyond those boundaries to find a solution. Year after year, square pegs were shoved into round holes. It was not working, and yet there was an intransigence in those who managed the system just to keep on keeping on, wasting millions of pounds in the process and reducing not increasing public trust in the NHS.

    I would therefore ask Simon Stevens, who I think has the right strategy, what is going on in the mid-tier of NHS management. Who is in charge? It seems that there is one plan in the STP, which is Simon Steven’s plan, but somebody else must have a dog in the hunt as well, because that is the only explanation for why the Bedford and Milton Keynes review has not been killed but paused. It is time to hold to account those who started the review and who have kept it going at the cost of millions of pounds beyond the point of there being any confidence in it. I do not mean our local CCGs; I mean the mid-tier of NHS England. I want the Minister to say today that he will examine the matter and ask probing questions about how inertia in bureaucratic processes can go unchecked for so long, causing so much uncertainty, with so little logic. Even when it is apparent, as it is today, that it strikes against the structure of the national NHS strategy, implemented through STPs, it was paused, not cancelled.

    I have seen something in the past few weeks that does have congruence with the national strategy and does have the support of local people. It is a plan that was put together by Bedford Borough Council. The mayor and I disagree on many things, but he has done a first-class job together with councillors from all parties. I want to make particular mention of Councillor Louise Jackson, the Labour councillor for Harpur ward, and Councillor John Mingay, the Conservative councillor for Newnham. They put together a plan that drew in the resources of PwC, which had done a similar review of Tameside. They specified something that could happen and work for their hospital and their community, and then gave it to the STP and to the national process for evaluation. It is a plan that the people of Bedford can get behind. It is certainly a plan that carries my support and the support of all local politicians and the Minister for Community and Social Care, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt).

    The future of Bedford hospital is strong and positive. It wants to change and to meet the challenges set by NHS England. The most important thing that we have to look after as Members of Parliament is the health and wellbeing of our constituents. Our interests are in their wellbeing, not in any institution, and in patients’ futures. People must be able to expect the right level of quality services in A&E, paediatrics and maternity to be available in their local community in a town the size of Bedford, which is growing at a rate. The hospital has such deep connections with the community and such strong charitable support, and there has been such positive action even during this period of doubt and uncertainty. I hope that the Minister will reflect not only on the national impact, but on his ability to bring that period of doubt and uncertainty to an end.

  • David Cameron – 2016 Press Conference after EU Referendum Result

    davidcameron

    Below is the text of the press conference held by David Cameron, the Prime Minister, in Brussels on 28 June 2016.

    Good evening everyone. I’ve been coming to these European Councils for 6 years now, and barring an emergency council, of which there have been many in the last 6 years, this will be my last one. They can often be long and frustrating and difficult, but when I’ve attended these councils I’ve always remembered that this is an organisation and this is a formula that has brought together countries that not that many years ago were in conflict, and in spite of all the frustrations I’ve always found it very reassuring that we had found a way to talk and to work together and to resolve our differences in dialogue and in argument. And so as I leave the European Council, probably for the last time, I pay tribute to all of the presidents and prime ministers and everyone who works here who have made these meetings as successful as they have been.

    Tonight obviously was an important meeting. It’s the first time that the European Council have met since the British people voted to leave the European Union, and there was universal respect for this decision, and this decision will be carried through in Britain and it is understood that it will be carried through here in the European Union.

    But of course the tone of the meeting was one of sadness and regret. Our partners in the European Union are genuinely sad that we are planning to leave this organisation, and that was very much the tone of the discussions at the dinner tonight. But they were very constructive discussions, they were very positive, they were very calm, they were very understanding that Britain should seek and Europe should seek the closest possible relations as Britain leaves the EU. Close relations over trade, over cooperation, over security. While Britain is leaving the European Union, it will not, it should not, and in my view it won’t turn its back on Europe.

    In many ways, I wish the people at home had been able to hear some of the discussion we had at dinner tonight. The countries, our partners, our friends, our allies, talking about the values that we share, the history that we share and the things that Britain has brought to Europe. The Estonian Prime Minister talking about how the Royal Navy helped to secure the independence of his country a hundred years ago. The Czech Prime Minister talking about how Britain had been a home for Czechs fleeing persecution in their own country in 1948, in 1968. Those countries of Eastern and Central Europe that feel such a debt to Britain for standing by them when they were suffering under communism and for supporting them as they joined the European Union. The French President, talking about the visit that we will be making later this week to the battlefields of the Somme, where British and French soldiers fought and died together for the freedom of our continent and for democracy and the values that we share. As I say, it was – the Maltese Prime Minister, talking about the extraordinary history between our countries. The Irish Prime Minister pointing out that between the 11th century and for centuries to follow, England and Ireland had been in conflict, but recently – and he said now – our relationship has never been closer, and that what a good partner we had been to them, both inside the European Union and today.

    So, as I say, a positive, constructive, calm, purposeful meeting about how we should now take forward this agenda of Britain leaving the European Union but wanting to have, I think rightly, the closest possible relationship that we can in future. There was a lot of reassurance that until Britain leaves, Britain is a full paying member of this organisation and so is entitled to all of the benefits of membership and full participation until the point at which we leave.

    I think there were some very important messages tonight. Obviously messages that the economic problems and challenges that we face in Britain are also problems and challenges that are going to be faced in the rest of Europe. A very important message that, while we seek the best possible partnership that we can after leaving the European Union, it is impossible to have all of the benefits of membership without some of the costs of membership. That is something the next British government is going to have to think through very carefully.

    And also, while I think what you might have read and seen about a clamour for Britain to trigger Article 50 without delay, that was not the mood of the meeting, that was not what the clear majority of my colleagues and partners said. But of course everybody wants to see a clear model appear in terms of what Britain thinks is right for its future relationship with Europe. That is work that I can start as Prime Minister today with the new unit that we’re setting up in Whitehall. We can examine all the different options and possibilities in a neutral way, and look at the costs and the benefits, but it will be for the next British Prime Minister to determine – and the next British cabinet to determine – exactly the right approach to take and the right outcome to negotiate, and that decision to trigger Article 50 will be for the next British Prime Minister and the next cabinet, I would suspect, after they’ve made that decision about the outcome they want to pursue.

    As I said earlier today, when I look around that table, when I think of Europe, I think of our neighbours, I think of our allies, I think of our friends, I think of our partners, and we should be trying to find the closest relationship we can from outside the European Union to work with them over the things that are in our joint interest. Trade, our economies, making sure that we can have prosperity and success for our citizens, keeping our countries safe, keeping our people safe, and it’s particularly important to say that tonight again when there has been another hideous terrorist attack in Turkey. Working together in all the ways that I suggested. That is what I think we should be aiming for.

    As I said at the start of this statement, this is probably my last European Council after 6 years of coming here. As I said, obviously there have been frustrations and councils that have been more successful than others, but I would say we’ve made huge progress on driving jobs and growth, and that has benefited the United Kingdom, as we’ve created over 2 million jobs in the last 6 years. We have actually managed to reduce the quantity of red tape and bureaucracy that is coming out of Brussels. When it has come to the foreign policy of building common positions, whether that is putting sanctions against Iran to prevent it having a nuclear weapon, a strong approach against Russian aggression in Ukraine, or indeed galvanising other European countries to help with the lead that Britain was taking in dealing with Ebola in Sierra Leone, there have been many good things that we have been able to drive forward that have been good for Britain, good for Europe, and I would argue good for the wider world.

    But let me finish again where I began. Britain will be leaving European Union, but we will not be turning our backs on Europe. These are our friends, our allies and partners. I feel that very personally with the people I’ve been working with for the last 6 years, and I’m sure that my successor will want to have a strong relationship with the European Union and strong bilateral relations with all those prime ministers and presidents who sit around the table. We have a huge amount in common with each other in terms of the values, of democracy and freedom, and human rights, and wanting to see progress and sharing the challenges that we face as European nations.

    Thank you very much for coming.

    Question

    Prime Minister, you’ve given a very clear defence of your decision to call this referendum, but given what’s happened since to Europe, to your country, to your party and to your career, is there a small part of you that wishes you’d never done it?

    Prime Minister

    Well, obviously I wish I’d won the referendum. That goes without saying. But I came to believe, for very good reasons, that this issue of Britain’s relationship with Europe and our position in the European Union was something that we needed to try and settle. It has dogged our politics, and I think it was right to, with this question, instead of leaving it to Parliament, to raise it to the people themselves. Because of course, in the time I’ve been active in politics, we’ve had the Nice Treaty, the Lisbon Treaty, the Amsterdam Treaty and all the rest of it. And you cannot go on changing the arrangements under which the British people are governed without asking them about whether they approve of those arrangements.

    Now, I’m sorry we lost the referendum. I think we made a very strong case. But you have to accept the result of the British people, accept the verdict. I’m a democrat, and so of course I regret the outcome, but I don’t regret holding the referendum. I think it was the right thing to do. I’ve been immensely proud to be Prime Minister of our country for 6 years. It’s been a huge honour. But at the end of the day, you fight for what you believe in, and if you win, good; if you lose, then you have to accept the verdict. And the verdict I accept is not only that Britain has voted to leave the European Union, but it is right for a fresh leader to come along and take on that challenge of the next chapter in our country’s story, that someone new needs to come and take us to the next destination. What I think I can do is provide the stability we need right now, and start the work of setting out what the options are, so the new Prime Minister can come in and make those decisions.

    Question

    There are young people at home right now who are very worried about what you and your party have done to the country. There are parents who are worried about what you and your party have done to their jobs. There are employers who are worried about what you and your party have done to their businesses. What would you say to them?

    Prime Minister

    Well, I would say that we had a very full debate about Britain’s future in Europe – whether to stay or whether to leave. I threw everything into that debate, and made the arguments I think as clear as I possibly could. But I’m a democrat and we are a democratic country and the British people have decided the direction in which we should go, and I think we have to accept that and put it into place. As we do so, we should make sure that Britain remains as close as it can to the countries and partners in the European Union, and that we act to provide the economic stability that we need. But at the end of the day, you know, you cannot simply leave to Parliament decisions about the nature of the way in which we’re governed; those are ultimately, I think, decisions for the people, particularly when there’s been so much change. And I’ll make that point that when Parliament actually had the opportunity to vote on the referendum, it voted by a margin of 6 to 1 to hold that referendum, and I think that’s an important point to make too.

    Question

    Did you go into any detail with your European partners on perhaps why you lost the referendum, and did you have any advice for them on perhaps areas that played a huge part in the campaign, such as immigration, freedom of movement, for the deal which your successor will now have to do?

    Prime Minister

    Yes, I did talk about what I think happened in the referendum. I think people recognised the strength of the economic case for staying, but there was a very great concern about the movement of people and immigration, and I think that’s coupled with a concern about the issues of sovereignty and the ability to control these things. And I think, you know, we need to think about that, Europe needs to think about that, and I think that is going to be one of the major tasks for the next Prime Minister.

    I think obviously it is a difficult thing, because the European Union sees the single market as a single market of goods and services and capital. These things go together.

    Question

    Can you give us any more indication of the timing for triggering Article 50? You said that it should be after the Cabinet has decided what the options should be. Do you see any sort of backstop of when that ought to be?

    Prime Minister

    Well, that would be a matter for the new Prime Minister. It’s a sovereign decision for Britain. The sense I was getting from our partners and colleagues upstairs was there’s a lot of understanding – of course there are some people who say, “look, this should be triggered straight away, it’s the only way to leave the European Union.” You know, there are 1 or 2 people saying that, and I totally understand that.

    But I’d say the overwhelming view is we need to get this right. We shouldn’t take too much time. Triggering Article 50 will really work better if both sides know what they’re trying to achieve in the negotiation that’s about to begin. And I think there does need to be some intensive work by first of all the Civil Service and myself, and then by the new Prime Minister, whoever he or she is, to then decide on what the negotiating aims are for Britain, the type of model that we want to achieve, and then it’ll be a decision for the British Prime Minister to take. So I can’t put a time frame on that, but I think that is the right approach, I think that makes sense.

    Question

    A friend of yours I believe, an ally of yours, Mark Rutte, the Prime Minister of the Netherlands, had a very stark verdict. He said, “England has collapsed politically, monetarily, constitutionally and economically.” What do you say to that?

    And can I ask you on a much more personal basis, having followed you all the years you’ve been Prime Minister, I sense this is a sad night for you personally. Do you feel a sadness, a wistfulness, perhaps even an anger and regret that when you leave tonight, for the first time in our nation’s history, there will be an empty chair, Britain will not be represented at a major international summit?

    Prime Minister

    Well, first of all of course, there won’t be an empty chair until Britain leaves the European Union. We remain full members all the way up to the point at which Britain leaves.

    In terms of your first question, we are the fifth largest economy in the world; we have fundamentally strengthened our economy over the last 6 years. We are members of the UN Security Council; members of NATO, which will be meeting shortly; members of the G7, which has just met; members of the G20 that’ll be meeting in September; a leading member of the Commonwealth, and of course we will be hosting the Commonwealth Conference in 2018. Britain is still one of the best connected nations anywhere in the world.

    Now, what we have to do is to work out, now we’re leaving the European Union, how we maintain a strong relationship both with the European Union and with the countries that make it up. And that’s going to be a challenge, it’s not going to easy, but it is perfectly possible to do. We have to obey the will of the British people and get that right.

    So, I mean, as I said, of course it’s a sad night for me, because I didn’t want to be in this position; I wanted Britain to stay in a reformed European Union, and that hard-won negotiation, which took a lot of hard work, that now is not operative. So getting out of ever closer union, getting a deal to restrict welfare for people coming into the UK, cutting bureaucracy and all the rest of it – those things aren’t going to happen, which obviously again I’m personally sad about, because I think that was a far better outcome than the status quo, and better than leaving.

    At the end of the day, I’m a democrat. I fought very hard for what I believed in. I didn’t stand back and say, “Well, either outcome is interesting, one’s slightly better than the other.” I threw myself in, head, heart and soul, to keep Britain in the European Union, and I didn’t succeed. And in politics, you have to recognise that you fight, and when you win you carry out your programme, but when you lose, sometimes you have to say, “Right, I’ve lost that argument, I’ve lost that debate, it’s right to hand over to someone else who’ll take the country forward.”

    Now, of course I’m sad about that, but frankly I’m more concerned about Britain getting its relationship right with Europe. That is a far bigger thing than whether I’m Prime Minister for 6 years or 7 years or what have you. Actually getting that relationship right is far more important. And one of the things I said to my colleagues tonight is that obviously I won’t be the Prime Minister that’s going to complete this negotiation, but I’ll certainly do everything I can with the relationships I have – with prime ministers and presidents in Europe and with the European Council and Commission, everything I can to try and encourage a close relationship between Britain and the European Union and the countries of the European Union, and I will do everything I can back in Britain to make sure that we argue for that close relationship.

    Now, that will involve compromises. I don’t want to set out what I think those will be – that’s going to be a matter for the next Prime Minister – but I think that whether you are listening to young people, or businesses, or constituent parts of the United Kingdom, or our friends and allies around the world from Bangladesh to New Zealand, all of those countries will want to see Britain have a strong relationship with the European Union, and we need to make those arguments in our own domestic politics, as well as around the chancelleries of Europe, and that’s something that I will certainly do even after I have stopped being Prime Minister.

    Can I thank you all very much indeed for coming. Slightly better attended press conference than some of the ones I’ve done over the last 6 years, but you’re all very welcome. Thank you.

  • Harriett Baldwin – 2016 Speech on EU Referendum Result

    Harriett Baldwin
    Harriett Baldwin

    Below is the text of the speech made by Harriett Baldwin, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, at the BBA Retail Banking Conference on 29 June 2016.

    On Thursday, the people of the United Kingdom took the decision to vote to leave the European Union;

    It is not the decision I, or the government, wanted.

    It was a clear democratic decision on a higher turnout than in a general election.

    Because that decision has been taken,

    And now we must look forward.

    As anticipated, the markets have been volatile,

    But Britain’s financial services sector has been through trying times before.

    I saw these first-hand during my 22 years working in financial services,

    The crash of 1987, the ERM crisis, Long Term Capital Management’s collapse, the tech bubble and the banking crisis.

    Financial markets are capable of weathering challenges.

    They adapt quickly. They find new opportunities

    They price in and offer ways of managing risks like these.

    I think British banks are well placed to manage the uncertainty resulting from the last week’s vote.

    Since the financial crisis in 2008, both the government and the industry have been working hard to ensure that the UK has a safer and stronger banking sector.

    There have been fundamental reforms to our regulatory architecture to put the Bank of England back at the centre of the UK’s economic and financial systems,

    And compared to pre-crisis, there is significantly more capital in the system to guard against difficult times – UK banks have raised over £130 billion of capital, and now have more than £600 billion of high quality liquid assets.

    So our institutions have enough capital and liquidity to withstand a period of severe market volatility;

    The Bank of England’s most recent stress tests show this.

    In short, we are prepared.

    The government and financial regulators have spent the last few months putting in place robust contingency plans for the immediate aftermath in the event of a “leave” vote.

    We’ve worked systematically with each major financial institution to make sure they’re ready to deal with the consequences of this outcome.

    Swap lines were arranged in advance so that the Bank of England can lend in foreign currency if needed,

    And the Bank was ready to make an immediate statement the next morning.

    As you know, the Governor was clear that the Bank of England stands ready to provide £250 billion of funds, through its normal facilities, to continue to support banks and the smooth functioning of markets.

    The Chancellor has discussed our co-ordinated response with the Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors of the G7.

    And the Chancellor and the Governor have continued to be in regular contact on contingency plans to be used if needed.

    So not only is the industry prepared for this outcome, policy makers are ready to respond to it.

    Now I don’t need to tell you that the UK’s financial system is intricate and complex.

    But behind all the technical terminology and statistics is a critical social determinant – confidence.

    Confidence in our financial system and confidence in its institutions.

    We must not let that confidence be shaken.

    The UK is the most international, most experienced financial centre in the world.

    London consistently leads the rankings as the world’s global financial capital.

    It has the best business environment;

    The most impressive infrastructure;

    The best human capital;

    A very strong regulatory framework;

    And the top overall reputation.

    The UK also has natural strengths in financial services; a central time zone, the English language.

    And our country boasts an unrivalled pool of investors

    Not only in terms of size, but in quality and international experience,

    And this is supported by world leading legal and professional services.

    It is for these reasons that I am confident that we will adjust and overcome the challenges presented.

    The government is now focused on preparing for the negotiations with the EU.

    For my part, I want us to agree an economic relationship with the rest of Europe that provides for the best possible terms of trade in financial services.

    Only the UK can trigger Article 50, and as the Chancellor made clear on Monday, we should only do that when our new Prime Minister has spelled out a definite view about the new arrangement we are seeking with our European neighbours.

    In the meantime, and during the negotiations that will follow, there is no change to people’s rights to travel and work, and to the way our goods and services are traded, or to the way our economy and financial system is regulated.

    Let’s not forget that Britain is the strongest major advanced economy in the world.

    Growth has been robust, employment has reached record levels.

    The budget deficit has been brought down from 11% of national income, and was forecast to be below 3% this year.

    And today, I want to leave you with this message- the British economy is fundamentally strong, we are highly competitive and we are open for business.

  • Amber Rudd – 2016 Speech on the Referendum Result

    amberrudd

    Below is the text of the speech made by Amber Rudd, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, in London on 29 June 2016.

    The decision to leave the EU is of historic significance.

    To be clear, Britain will leave the EU.

    The decision of the British people was clear.

    The key challenge now, as the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have stressed, is to work towards a settlement that is in the best interests of Britain.

    As a Government, we are fully committed to delivering the best outcome for the British people – and that includes delivering the secure, affordable, clean energy our families and business need.

    That commitment has not changed.

    Because while the decision to leave the EU is undoubtedly significant, the challenges we face as a country remain the same.

    How do we protect the strong economy that we have built over the past 6 years?

    How do we ensure we build the infrastructure we need to underpin our strong economy?

    How do we ensure people have good jobs that pay them well?

    The challenges to our environment remain the same.

    How do we make sure people can have respite from the daily grind in safe, clean green spaces near their home?

    How do we ensure we protect our most precious species?

    How do we ensure our green and pleasant land is protected both to respect the efforts of generations past and as a responsibility to generations to come?

    In particular, I want to underline our commitment to the issue over which I have primary responsibility; climate change.

    Climate change has not been downgraded as a threat. It remains one of the most serious long-term risks to our economic and national security.

    I was lucky enough to lead the world-class team of British diplomats at last year’s Paris climate talks. Our efforts were central to delivering that historic deal.

    And the UK will not step back from that international leadership. We must not turn our back on Europe or the world.

    Our relationships with the United States, China, India, Japan and other European countries will stand us in strong stead as we deliver on the promises made in Paris. At the heart of that commitment is the Climate Change Act.

    Its success has inspired countries across the world, and its structure of 5-yearly cycles inspired a core part of the Paris deal.

    I know many of you are keenly awaiting the outcome of our deliberation on the 5th Carbon Budget. You can expect the Government’s decision tomorrow.

    It is an important building block of our economy’s future and you would expect us to take our time to ensure we got the decision right.

    And however we choose to leave the EU, let me be clear: we remain committed to dealing with climate change.

    The Act was not imposed on us by the EU.

    The Climate Change Act in 2008 underpins the remarkable investment we have seen in the low carbon economy since 2010.

    Investment in renewables has increased by 42% since 2010.

    In 2014, 30% of all of Europe’s renewable energy investment took place in the UK.

    Annual support for renewables is expected to double during this Parliament to more than £10 billion.

    Last year I set out a clear vision for the future of our energy system.

    We said that security of supply would be our first priority. Since then we have consulted on changes to the capacity market which has further secured our position.

    We are likely to see significant investment following the auction later this year.

    Beyond that, we will continue to invest in clean energy.

    We have agreed to support up to 4GW of offshore wind and other technologies for deployment in the 2020s – providing the costs come down.

    At the same time we made tough decisions on support for renewable energy, reflecting our core belief that technologies should be able to stand on their own two feet.

    We remain committed to new nuclear power in the UK – to provide clean, secure energy.

    Government has prepared the ground for a fleet of new nuclear stations. Three consortia have proposals to develop 18GW of new power stations at six new sites across the UK.

    These will support more than 30,000 jobs across the nuclear supply chain over the coming years.

    We have announced record investment in new heat networks, to enable new and innovative ways of heating our homes and businesses.

    And we made a commitment to closing unabated coal-fired power stations – a commitment that was praised by leaders across the world.

    All these commitments remain in place. They will help us rebuild our energy infrastructure.

    And I am certain that future investment in this sector will continue to flow to Britain’s strong economy.

    As the Chancellor made clear earlier this week, thanks to the reforms of this Government, the United Kingdom approaches the challenges of leaving the EU from a position of strength.

    Growth has been robust.

    The employment rate is at a record high.

    And the budget deficit has been brought down from 11% of national income, and was forecast to be below 3% this year.

    Britain remains one of the best places in the world to live and do business: the rule of law; low taxes; a talented, creative, determined workforce; a strong finance sector.

    We have to build on the strengths of our economy, not turn away from them. We have to enhance our scientific leadership including our co-operation with other countries.

    These factors – a clear energy policy framework and a strong, investment-friendly economy – combine to make the UK an ideal place to attract energy investment.

    Whatever settlement we decide on in the comings months, these fundamentals will remain.

    At the heart of the approach I set out last autumn is our commitment to innovation in energy – and I am delighted this topic is top of your agenda today.

    We do not yet have all the answers to addressing climate change.

    We must nurture new technologies and industries that will make our future energy system both cheap and clean.

    In energy, we are leading the way.

    Last autumn as part of the Paris talks, Britain committed to Mission Innovation – a global partnership to encourage greater support for innovation. It was complemented by the Breakthrough Energy Coalition: 29 wealthy investors pledging to invest in energy research and development.

    I met Bill Gates earlier this year to discuss this and we agreed the need for a transformation of our energy system.

    We also agreed that the transformation would only happen if we could find technologies which are reliable, clean and cheap.

    We are doing our part. That is why, as a Government, we have committed more than £500 million over this Spending Review to supporting new energy technologies.

    This means supporting entrepreneurs as they look to develop the innovations of the future – in storage, in energy efficiency, in renewables.

    As part of that programme, we will build on the UK’s expertise in nuclear innovation. At least half of our innovation spending will go towards nuclear research and development. This will support our centres of excellence in Cumbria, Manchester, Sheffield and Preston.

    Our nuclear programme will include a competition to develop a small modular nuclear reactor – potentially one of the most exciting innovations in the energy sector.

    Let’s be honest, as the Chancellor said we now face a period of uncertainty. The decision on Thursday raises a host of questions for the energy sector, of course it does.

    There have been significant advantages to us trading energy both within Europe and being an entry point into Europe from the rest of the world. Europe has led the world on acting to address climate change.

    The economic imperative that drove those relationships has not changed, an openness to trade remains central to who we are as a country.

    As the Prime Minister said, we will work towards the best deal possible for Britain.

    Securing our energy supply, keeping bills low and building a low carbon energy infrastructure: the challenges remain the same.

    Our commitment also remains the same.

    As investors and businesses, you can be confident we remain committed to building a secure, affordable low carbon infrastructure fit for the 21st Century.

  • Theresa Villiers – 2016 Speech on the Somme Centenary

    Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa Villiers, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, in Belfast on 29 June 2016.

    I am very grateful to you for coming here this morning and for providing me with an opportunity to reflect on events of 100 years ago.

    Before I do that, however, I thought it right to address the situation following the EU referendum.

    The people of the United Kingdom gave their verdict last Thursday and voted to leave the European Union.

    But I fully appreciate the need to bridge the divisions which emerged during the referendum in recognition of the many millions who voted remain, including a majority here in Northern Ireland.

    So I want to give these re-assurances.

    First, there will be a careful and detailed negotiation to determine how we implement the decision taken last Thursday.

    I and the whole government are determined to get the best deal for all parts of our United Kingdom.

    And I will do everything possible to ensure that Northern Ireland’s interests are protected.

    In the negotiations to come, the Prime Minister has promised that we will involve the Northern Ireland Executive as well as the other devolved administrations.

    We will also be engaging with the business and farming community in Northern Ireland on this important task on which we are embarking.

    And we are already working with the Irish Government. We both want to keep the open border for people and business.

    The UK has always been an open and outward looking country, a great global trading nation. And that is what we intend to remain.

    So we are committed to securing a long-term economic relationship with the rest of Europe that provides for the best possible terms of trade in goods and services.

    And we will look to put in place the strongest possible economic links with friends like the United States, and the Commonwealth, and other important partners like China.

    Opening up important new potential opportunities for Northern Ireland.

    There will inevitably be some adjustments and the Government is ready to take any appropriate action needed to deal with those.

    But as the Chancellor made clear in his statement on Monday, thanks to the difficult decisions we have made, the UK economy is fundamentally strong.

    We have robust growth, our deficit is down and employment is at record levels.

    So we should take confidence from the fact that the UK is ready to deal with whatever the future holds from a position of strength.

    Finally I would like to say this.

    This Government remains fully committed to the Belfast Agreement and its successors and to the institutions they establish.

    The Assembly, the North-South Ministerial Council and the British-Irish Council will all continue to reflect the unique political relationships throughout these islands.

    In fact as a result of the result last week, more decisions than ever before that affect Northern Ireland will be taken in Northern Ireland with your devolved institutions one of the main recipients of the powers to be brought back from Brussels.

    Following the result last week some have called for a border poll.

    The Belfast Agreement is very clear on this.

    I am obliged to call such a poll if at any point I believe there is a majority here for a united Ireland.

    I do not believe that to be the case.

    All tests of opinion point to continuing strong support for the current political settlement, including Northern Ireland’s position within the United Kingdom.

    So this Government will continue to provide stability and govern in the interests of the whole community.

    We remain determined to do the best for Northern Ireland and the UK as a whole.

    Although the referendum has dominated the news headlines since Thursday, this should not mean we overlook the importance of the centenary which takes place on Friday 1st July.

    On that day I will have the privilege of joining the Prime Minister, members of the Royal family, political colleagues and thousands of members of the public at services in France to mark the 100th anniversary of the first day of the Battle of the Somme.

    First of all, we will gather at Thiepval at the site of Lutyens’ magnificent Memorial to the Missing which bears the names of over 72,000 British and South African soldiers killed at the Somme but who have no marked grave.

    Then along with many of Northern Ireland’s elected leaders I will go on to the Ulster Tower, near to the site of the Schwaben Redoubt which was the object of the Ulster Division’s assault on that fateful July morning one hundred years ago.

    As many of you will know, the Ulster Tower is modelled on Helen’s Tower at Clandeboye where so many members of the 36th Ulster Division drilled before they set off for France.

    This will be my third visit to the Somme as Secretary of State and these annual ceremonies are without doubt one of the most poignant and moving events that I attend as part of my official duties.

    The Battle of the Somme began at 7.30am, on a sunny morning and was to last for 141 days.

    It has left an indelible mark on our nation’s history.

    It is deeply ingrained in the national consciousness of the whole United Kingdom, with barely a community, village, town or city untouched by the sheer horror what happened there.

    In total the British Army sustained some 57,000 casualties on the first day.

    Almost half the 120,000 men in the 143 battalions who went over the top were cut down by a lethal blizzard of machine gun, rifle and artillery.

    It is widely viewed as the darkest day in British military history.

    By the time the Battle ended on 18 November casualties had risen to 419,655 men.

    And the furthest the British and French forces advanced during those four months was 8 miles along a 20 mile front.

    No doubt the debate will continue to rage about the tactics that involved slaughter on an industrial scale, though as one distinguished historian put it recently:

    “If there was a way of fighting the First World War that did not involve trying to smash frontally through formidable enemy defences, neither side discovered it”.

    This centenary gives us a chance to reflect once again on whether anything was achieved. Though it can be argued that by relieving Verdun, the battle saved France from collapse, substantially weakened the German army, and prepared the way for the victory which occurred two years later.

    But what is not in doubt is the shattering scale of the sacrifice that took place to achieve this, with so many first-hand accounts recounting the pain, the suffering and the horror.

    So it is only right that this week we come together as a nation to remember those who fell.

    And of course the centenary has particular resonance for many in Northern Ireland because the deeds of the 36th Ulster Division on the first day of the Somme have passed into legend.

    After going over the top, the Ulster Division was one of the few that actually succeeded in meeting its objectives that day.

    By a combination of astute tactics and speed, not matched on other parts of the battlefield, they had entered the Schwaben Reboubt by 8am and taken over 400 German prisoners.

    But the inability of other Divisions to make similar advances left them cut off from reinforcements and massively exposed to a ferocious German counter-attack.

    The more the Ulstermen advanced, the more cut off they became, until eventually they were forced to retreat and abandon their gains.

    And their initial success came at a huge price, with the Division sustaining over 5,500 casualties.

    The heroism they displayed was remarkable.

    One war correspondent described their initial attack as:

    “one of the finest displays of human courage in the world”.

    While Captain Wilfred Spender of the Ulster Division’s HQ Staff famously said:

    “I am not an Ulsterman but yesterday, the 1st. July, as I followed their amazing attack, I felt that I would rather be an Ulsterman than anything else in the world.

    My pen cannot describe adequately the hundreds of heroic acts that I witnessed”.

    Of the nine Victoria Crosses awarded on the first day of the Somme, four went to Ulstermen.

    Theirs were stories of truly astounding levels of courage.

    And I was privileged to be present at Bushmills with Her Majesty the Queen yesterday when she unveiled a statue of one of them, Robert Quigg.

    Yet the history of Ireland and the Great War is not just about the 36th Division.

    We must also remember the incredible heroism of the 16th Irish Division.

    Mainly nationalists drawn from the pre-war Irish Volunteers, they sustained an agonising 4,300 casualties in successfully capturing Guillemont and Ginchy in September 1916.

    Just as in Great Britain, so across the island of Ireland there was virtually no corner left unaffected by the Battle of the Somme.

    In total it is estimated that well over 200,000 men from across the island served in the British Army during the course of the war.

    And it is worth remembering that nearly three quarters of them were volunteers, with conscription never extending to Ireland.

    Around 35,000 Irishmen, Protestants and Catholics, unionists and nationalists were killed in World War One.

    Their contribution and their sacrifice was immense and we should never forget it.

    Yet in the decades following partition, the Irish contribution to the Somme and to the First World War more generally often seemed largely hidden.

    And I believe that part of the reason for that lies in the consequences of another seminal event in Irish history that took place a matter of months before the Somme and which has also been extensively commemorated this year.

    I refer of course to the Easter Rising that began at the GPO in Dublin on 24 April 1916 and which by the time the surrender occurred five days later had resulted in nearly 500 deaths and 2,600 injured.

    While the Rising did not achieve its immediate objectives it is entirely understandable why so many see it today as leading directly to the birth of the Irish Free State and ultimately to the foundation of the Republic of Ireland.

    In the post-independence era, two conflicting narratives of the year 1916 began to take shape.

    For many unionists, the rising was an illegitimate insurrection by a small number of unrepresentative rebels, at a time when the war on the western front was going particularly badly.

    This was in stark contrast to the supreme sacrifice that Ulstermen made at the Somme fighting for King and country.

    In nationalist eyes the men and women of Easter 1916 gained a revered status, bordering on the mythological.

    A citizens’ army fighting for Irish freedom against the might of the greatest Empire the world had ever seen.

    And over time, those Irishmen who heeded the call by nationalist leader, John Redmond, to enlist in the British Army and who fought on the western front tended to be disregarded and overlooked.

    If anything, in the period after the Second World War and during the long years of the Troubles, these attitudes hardened.

    It is one of many examples of the power history has to sustain long held divisions and antagonisms on this island.

    In recent years, however, against a backdrop of the significant political progress here in Northern Ireland and the greatly strengthened relationship between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland a number of pre-conceptions and stereotypes have begun to break down.

    There is now a much greater focus on the complexities of Irish history during the turbulent decade from 1912 to 1922.

    So, for example, we learn of what motivated men like Emmet Dalton.

    He was an Irish Volunteer who joined the British Army in 1915, fought with distinction with the 16th Irish at Ginchy during the Somme, reached the rank of Major, and was awarded the Military Cross.   On demobilisation in 1919, he joined the IRA and became one of Michael Collins’ closest associates.

    Or there is Martin Doyle, of the Royal Munster Fusiliers.

    He was awarded the Victoria Cross in September 1918, joined the IRA in 1920, and later served with the pro-Treaty forces during the civil war.

    The role of women has been more clearly acknowledged, not just those who took part in and supported the Easter Rising, but also the 234,046 women who signed the Declaration supporting the 1912 Ulster Covenant opposing Irish Home Rule.

    And while it is the radicals who campaigned for votes for women who tend to be remembered today when we consider that decade of suffragette agitation. Perhaps those really responsible for the expansion of the franchise were the millions of women who took on roles and responsibilities on the home front in factories and farms and offices which had previously been the exclusive preserve of men.

    Ireland’s role in the Great War has been rediscovered and at long last it has been fully recognised.

    The changing view of our history was illustrated by a series of historic events in recent years.

    These include the unveiling of the island of Ireland Peace Tower at Messines by Her Majesty the Queen and the then President of Ireland, Mary McAleese on 11 November 1998.

    The visit of the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach to the Menin Gate and the Peace Park at Messines in 2013.

    And the resumption of the laying of a wreath by the Irish Ambassador, Dan Mulhall, at the cenotaph in Whitehall on Remembrance Sunday.

    In March 2014 along with Jimmy Deenihan, who was culture minister at the time, I helped lay the foundation stone for the Cross of Sacrifice at Glasnevin Cemetery in Dublin. And I was honoured to be present when this monument was later dedicated to the thousands of Irishmen who gave their lives in the two world wars.

    And in August 2014, the Irish President and Taoiseach and his ministers were right at the heart of commemorations to mark the outbreak of war.

    I strongly welcome the fact that the Irish Government has organised its own programme of commemoration of the Battle of the Somme, including an event at the Irish National War Memorial at Islandbridge next month.

    All of this is in tune with the approach with which the Irish Government marked the centenary of the Easter Rising earlier this year.

    It is widely accepted that tensions around the 50th anniversary in 1966 raised tensions within Northern Ireland and between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland and probably contributed to the outbreak of the Troubles shortly afterwards.

    By contrast the Irish Government’s commemorations on Easter Sunday showed it is possible to mark events which are still sensitive and contested a hundred years after they took place in ways which are both dignified and inclusive.

    I applaud them for that, and for events such as the service to remember those members of the British military who lost their lives during the rising.

    The same inclusive approach was demonstrated at the Rising to Reconciliation event I attended in Dublin’s Abbey Theatre in April thanks to the kind invitation of Minister Charlie Flanagan and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

    And at the Imagining Ireland concert at London’s Royal Festival Hall later the same month hosted by the Irish Embassy.

    Much of the credit for this changed tone is, of course, down to professional historians, uncovering new facts and providing fresh interpretations of past events.

    I’ve also been very impressed by the Creative Centenaries # Making History 1916 exhibition at the Ulster Museum and the Reflections on 1916 exhibition at Belfast City Hall.

    And by the work of the Community Relations Council and Heritage Lottery Fund to develop and embed the set of important principles which underpins all of this work in Northern Ireland.

    Talking to the people behind these initiatives, it is clear that every word has been scrutinised, every picture the subject of negotiation, every display carefully weighed up for accuracy.

    All with a view to ensuring that everyone can feel comfortable visiting the exhibition, whatever their background.

    Creative Centenaries, who I first met in April at the Nerve Centre in Londonderry, have also produced some excellent resources for schools.

    But as well as the historians, I believe the politicians too have played a part in changing the way we look at the events of 100 years ago.

    At the beginning of the so-called ‘decade of centenaries’ in 2012, the UK and Irish Governments both recognised the potential for sensitive events like the Ulster Covenant, the Easter Rising or the Somme to be hijacked by those seeking to use them to re-open old wounds and promote discord and division.

    After all that has been achieved both here in Northern Ireland, and in UK-Irish relations, we therefore determined to work closely together in an effort to prevent this.

    While it is never easy to view history with complete objectivity and impartiality, both administrations have been clear that we seek to put historical accuracy and mutual respect for different perspectives at the heart of our approach.

    To promote education and greater shared understanding without asking everybody to agree or abandon strongly held positions.

    And so far, while acknowledging that even more difficult anniversaries lie ahead, I think we have been successful.

    It is an approach that we will continue to pursue as we look ahead to the centenaries of other seminal events, the ‘coupon’ election of 1918 and its aftermath, and of course the Treaty and partition in 1921 and 22.

    We have seen all too well how history can divide.

    Our ambitious goal throughout this decade is seek to use history to unite.

    To build on the political progress that has been made here.

    To strengthen further the strong bilateral relationship that exists between the United Kingdom and Ireland, a relationship that will endure long beyond the UK’s exit from the EU.

    And to bolster the special ties that exist throughout these islands as we look forward to our next century of co-operation, partnership and friendship.